RSS/XML |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
… the answer must be more gun control laws!
Only in Britain would you find this line of reasoning:
We have, post-Dunblane, what are said to be the toughest gun control laws in the world. They have actually proved strikingly ineffectual.
Gun crime has doubled since they were introduced. Young hoodlums are able to acquire handguns - either replica weapons that have been converted, or imports from eastern Europe - with ease. With no dedicated frontier police, our borders remain hopelessly porous. The only people currently incommoded by the firearms laws are legitimate holders of shotgun licences, who are subjected to the most onerous police checks.
So what to do? The usually sensible Telegraph says the solution is to enable even more draconian police powers and stiffen sentences for gun offenses.
The truth is that the laws relating to possession of guns are nowhere near tough enough. …
In particular, the ludicrous inhibitions placed on the police when it comes to exercising powers of stop and search have to be lifted. So must the post-Macpherson burden of political correctness, which makes any police officer think twice before challenging a young black man on the street. There is a wider failure here.
NB: in Great Britain merely possessing a gun, other than a registered shotgun, is illegal. I didn’t say “carrying,” but possessing. As in your house, locked inside a safe. Rusted beyond use. Lacking ammunition. It’s still illegal and a British subject will go to prison for that.
The Dunblane reference, btw, is to a “multiple murder-suicide which occurred at the primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. It remains the deadliest attack on children in United Kingdom history. Sixteen children and one adult were killed, in addition to the attacker;” more at Wikipedia.
Crime in Britain has become so severe that in 2003 even the BBC explained, “Why Britain needs more guns.”
“You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.
Of the 13 percent of occupied-home burglaries in the US, most stem from the burglars’ mistaken belief that the home is empty. In Britain, they don’t care because it is actually illegal for residents to defend themselves with force against an intruder. Remember Tony Martin? He was convicted of murder and sent to prison because he shot and killed a home intruder after suffering numerous home invasions in which he had been attacked and injured. The result? Mark Steyn, as always, nails it:
These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn’t been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.” There speaks the modern British crime victim.
The British used to be a free people, but no longer.
Comments policy
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jan | Mar » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | |||
16 queries. 0.413 seconds
February 17th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I wish that it was only in Britain that you find such reasoning, but I must unfortunately disagree. The United States isn’t too far behind Britain in yielding its freedoms to tyranny.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:25 am
FYI:
http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2007/02/america-and-gun-violence.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/26cvg5
http://301url.com/Gun_Violence
Can it be disputed?
Any thoughts/opinions on this would be most appreciated.
Thanks.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
What the London story shows is that there is truly something wrong with our “western civilisation” when serious crime is committed by 14 and 15 y-o’s. It is not just the shooting. It is the “reason” behind the shooting as well; the protection of a drug patch, the settlement of family arguments, the ending of a long-standing resentments.
It goes further in fact. It is a very similar picture to that presented in the analysis and navel gazing that took place after the “Al Qaeda” London Transport bombings. Remember? “How could these kids from good families…?” What protection is a gun in your belt when the guy standing beside you in the train has a bomb on his back?
It is the same as the father who carved his three kids up this weekend with a knife at their home in Naenae - there is as much “sense” in that action as there was in London. Do you suggest that the kids - eldest was 4, youngest 7 weeks - should have been carrying for self-protection?
Or equally, what chance would a young guy of 24 riding his BMX motorbike have against a guy with a Glock who steps out of the bush and shoots him dead without warning?
Perhaps someone there on the pro-gun side can tell me - what proportion of murders in the US are by people known to the victim? How many of murders are people killed by a family member?
Truly humanity has died, to be replaced by a new species - perhaps Homo Occisor.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:31 am
What the London story shows is that there is truly something wrong with our “western civilisation” when serious crime is committed by 14 and 15 y-o’s.
Who commits crimes in other civilizations, octagenarians with machine guns strapped to their walkers? I am sure you think this is a very insightful comments, but the reality is that very few people enter a life of violent crime in their 30’s or 40’s, it is almost always the young.
What protection is a gun in your belt when the guy standing beside you in the train has a bomb on his back?
If you are willing to use the gun, it can be a great protection, but the fact that a possessing a firearm will not be effective in 100% of the cases is really not a good argument for banning them. We wouldn’t apply that logic to the use of penicillin or other anti-biotics. They are not always effective and can be lethal to a patient allergies to them.
February 25th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
An interesting debate followed here. Sorry to see it has gone, Donald, in your “tidying up of side-bar problems”.
C’est la vie!
March 12th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I think a good comparison study between England (with strict gun laws (e.g. no handguns allowed) and Switzerland (600,000 issued machine guns to civilians) is illustrative.
England has a lot of violent crime and Switzerland has nearly none at all.
I know there are other causes, but it’s not illogical to believe that the gun laws play at least a contributing role in this…
April 18th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
[…] ery 100,000 people. Well, I’ve long covered the rocketing gun-crime rate in the UK, most lately in February. Since the enactment in 1996 of some o […]