omon

my reaction exactly, was it organic??

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

Stan

yeah but still!

Supreme Court to rule on gun ownership rights - CNN.com

I wonder

__________________
Loving good discussion since 1983

gunnut

Wonder about what?

The Supreme Court will look at if a local ordinance that bans ownership of handguns is constitutional or not.

The Supreme Court will also look at laws that bans people from congregating together. Local governments use those laws to bust gangs. However it is in conflict with the 1st Amendment of the constitution, which clearly states people have to right to gather peacefully.

Perhaps we should ban people from gathering to enhance our security.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

RadioPatrol

Oh Yeah right like gun crime went down in the UK after the sweeping ban ........

Tin Man

I actually agree. Criminals don`t give a sh@t about Gun laws.

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

scullycasey

To argue that, because 70% of the homicides in the US were committed with a firearm, guns should be severely controlled or banned is like saying that, because 75% of the alcohol-related deaths in the US were committed with an automobile, automobiles should be severely controlled or banned. The problem is not the guns, but rather, the social and psychological causes leading to the violence in the first place. The right of English and, after 1707, British subjects to keep and bear arms under Common Law was described in Blackstone's Commentaries:

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
-Blackstone"s Commentaries on English Law, 1765

This concept, and even (cf. the wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution) the verbiage were adopted by the framers of the US Constitution, all of whom had been former British subjects, and most of whom were very conversant with English Common Law. It is sadly ironic that the citizens of the country which enunciated the notions of personal freedom and liberty enshrined in the US Bill of Rights have now opted for the path of control by central authority "for their own protection".

I believe that most US citizens are all in favor of curtailing gun possession by violent criminals. However, given the existence of said violent criminals, I believe that many, if not most, US citizens would feel rather uncomfortable if their government deprived them of their most efficacious and cost-effective means of countering an aggressor. Although none of us likes to contemplate the unthinkable, it is important remember that the main thrust of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution (like the English Common Law from which it sprang) is to ensure a well-armed citizenry as the best defense against state tyranny.

It is interesting to trace the long evolution of England's gun control legislation. Nearly every significant new restriction was a panicked response to a perceived "emergency". A few pertinent examples:

The 1920 Gun Control Act was enacted in haste, in response to a perceived imminent threat of a Russian-style Communist revolution. In fact, the labor unrest was a continuation of events which had been going on before the First World War.

On Sept. 13, 1966, Home Secretary Roy Jenkins announced that he was drawing up plans to end unrestricted ownership of shotguns in the UK, a mere 8 weeks after having publicly stated that he had no intention of imposing controls on shotguns. Why the complete reversal in such a short time? On August 12, 1966 three London policemen were shot dead by a group of petty criminals they had decided to stop and question. Capital punishment had been abolished in England, and this episode engendered a public outcry for its reinstatement. Jenkins was a leading opponent of capital punishment. He used the shotgun controls to deflect public attention from the capital punishment issue, even though the three policemen had been shot with handguns.

1987 - bans on all self-loading rifles except .22 caliber rimfires, and broadening of the restrictions on shotguns were an immediate legislative response to the Hungerford Massacre of August 19, 1987.

October, 1996: All handguns, except .22 rimfire, are banned, in immediate response to the tragedy at Dunblane (a deranged man armed with a 9mm semiautomatic pistol killed 16 schoolchildren of kindergarten age).

Some of the previous contributors to this thread, most notably Stan, have drawn unfavorable (or should I have said "unfavourable") comparisons between homicides involving firearms in the UK and the US. As a medical researcher, I find such comparisons strained, because their are so many differences (independent variables) between the two societies. A much fairer comparison would be to examine the effect of gun control legislation on crime involving firearms in the UK. Here is one factoid for your consideration: in 1954, there were just 4 robberies in England in which a firearm was used. During the year ending April, 2004, there were over 4000 (4117 to be exact). But, that comparison is just like the politician's favorite trick (or should I say, 'favourite') of picking out the years that will be most compelling for his or her case. Perhaps a historical tabulation of homicides and robberies in England and Wales including break-outs for firearms, shotguns and sawed-off shotguns, would be more enlightening. Here are the figures, taken from the Home Office Report of Crime in England and Wales for the relevant years. Remember that major gun control legislation was enacted in 1987, and the handgun ban in 1996.


Year----Total---------Total +---Shotgun-----Sawn-off----Pistol
-------Homicide------Firearms----------------Shotgun
1980---621------------24---------11------------1---------8
1981---556------------34---------21------------0---------11
1982---618------------46---------28------------7---------9
1983---552------------42---------27------------5---------8
1984---619------------67---------34------------7---------21
1985---625------------45---------22------------7---------8
1986---660------------51---------31------------6---------10
1987---686------------77---------33------------10--------10
1988---645------------36---------19------------8---------7
1989---622------------45---------19------------7---------13
1990---661------------60---------25------------8---------22
1991---725------------55---------25------------7---------19
1992---681------------56---------20------------5---------28
1993---675------------74---------29------------10--------35
1994---727------------66---------22------------14--------25
1995---753------------70---------18------------10--------39
1996---679------------49---------19------------8---------30
1997---753------------59---------12------------4---------39
1998*--731------------49---------4-------------7---------32
1999---761------------62----------6------------13--------42
2000---850------------73---------12----------- 2----------47
2001---858------------97---------20------------1---------59
2002---1045-----------81---------20------------3---------40
2003---858------------68---------7-------------4---------35



Year----Total-------Firearms+---Shotgun---Sawn-off---Pistol
--------Robbery-----Robbery---------------Shotgun
1980---15,006------1149---------127--------181-------529
1981---20,282------1893---------262--------292------1001
1982---22,837------2560---------364--------372------1440
1983---22,119------1957---------269--------342------1011
1984---24,890------2098---------216--------378------1106
1985---27,463------2539---------282--------399------1221
1986---30,020------2651---------256--------471------1196
1987---32,633------2831---------280--------450------1374
1988---31,437------2688---------241--------451------1321
1989---33,163------3390---------280--------524------1772
1990---36,195------3939---------280--------448------2233
1991---45,323------5296---------381--------650------2988
1992---52,894------5827---------406--------602------3544
1993---57,845------5918---------437--------593------3605
1994---60,007------4104---------274--------373------2390
1995---68,074------3963---------235--------281------2478
1996---74,035------3617---------224--------232------2316
1997---63,072------3029---------121--------178------1854
1998*--66,172------2973---------138--------193------1814
1999---84,277------3922---------138--------217------2561
2000---95,154------4081--------- 98---------199------2700
2001---121375------5323---------143--------201------3841
2002---108045------4776---------101--------174------3332
2003---101195------4117--------- 98---------148------2799

The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population, and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99. Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.

I note a small trough in robberies with use of pistols following the handgun ban, with a rapid return to pre-ban levels. Otherwise, these data do not make a strong case for the efficacy of gun control legislation for preventing violent criminals from using firearms.

I am not suggesting to our British friends that they abandon their gun control laws. I think it quaint that in London, the Bobbies feel safe carrying only their truncheons (Oh, wait a minute, that's changed too! In spite of the handgun ban...Hmmm).
I do think that it is unfortunate that the British Olympic Rifle team has to go to Ireland and the Isle of Man to practice their skills. Fortunately, the British government has announced a special dispensation allowing the shooting events of the 2012 summer Olympics to take place on English soil. Now, we can all breathe just a little bit easier.

Gun control is not the answer to criminals using guns. Addressing the root causes of crime, and, when necessary, greasing the perps, is a better, though not perfect answer. Absent universal lobotomy or the Second Coming, crime is going to exist. I, for one, would not like to see the United States emulate the British practice of reacting to every horrific highly-publicized episode of mass mayhem by further curtailing their citizens' rights to own and use firearms. This sort of policy holds the entire law-abiding populace hostage to every nutcase with an AK-47 and a bad attitude. Indeed, one can make a reasonable case for more widespread possession of firearms by the general public, particularly in potentially high-risk locales. If the profs at Virginia Tech had owned sidearms and known how to use them, Seung-Hui Cho would probably not have been able to waste 33 innocent fellow students and faculty members. This example is not meant to be facetious. I believe that law-abiding citizens who carry and respect firearms are like white cells circulating in the blood: instantly available to do battle against forces inimical to the body politic. In Texas, we like to say that a well-armed society is a polite society.

Every year, several thousand Japanese civilians pay thousands of dollars to travel to Hawaii for the privilege of firing off a few .22 LR rounds. It is called "gun tourism". To our British friends, I extend the invitation to come over here, go to one of our ranges and fire off a few rounds. I think that you will find it very therapeutic.

To those who rail against the anti-gun Democrats, I applaud your sentiments, but I must say that it broke my heart when the Governator himself, a Republican, confiscated the Californians .50 BMGs. Since no crime has ever been committed in California using a .50 cal weapon, I have no doubt that this policy will be highly effective in achieving its intended goal....

Proyas

You should do some research on assault weapons. Putting aside the fact that only a minuscule fraction of gun crimes are committed with these guns, people still seem to hold the idea that, without access to assault weapons, criminals would be relegated to weaker firearms like handguns that would be less lethal. I believe this is largely a misnomer that deserves empirical study.

For example, here's a classic case: Person X shoots and kills Persons A and B with a civilian AK-47. After it hits the news, everyone starts screaming about how, if only Person X hadn't had access to the AK (i.e.--if they had been illegal), Persons A and B would still be alive.

But upon closer investigation, this is revealed to have been a fallacious assumption. Persons A and B were both shot at close range, and only 8 shots were fired. Person X still could have killed the other two with the same ease using a pistol or a shotgun, so making assault weapons illegal would not have helped in this case. I think a study of assault weapon murders would reveal that most of the acts could still have been performed with different types of guns. You should check it out. There aren't many of such crimes, so you could do the research easily.

Herodotus

Stan seems to be woefully ignorant of US poltical development, and our constitution. Our right to own guns is not tied to homicide rates or gun violence. It is unfortuante that guns are used in this way, but it is a necessary evil that most Americans will put up with in order to continue to be free.

You see Stan, if you still populate these boards and deem to look at this post, America developed completely different from Europe or much of the rest of the world. One word: feudalism. Feudalism prevaded everyday life in Europe for centuries, even merry ole England from whence common law is derived.

That feudalism (also it abounded in one form or another in Asia, and colonized South America) meant that land was not your own, it was always owned by someone else (The King, the Queen, etc.). In America, though some colonies were founded under royal charter, the land was not owned by the monarchy or the royalty. There was plenty of land to be had, and how did these freemen landholders defend their land against collectivism in any form--they armed themselves with weapons. And this is done still to this day just in case, just in case, an authoritarian-like say our own government, or the monarch of the mother country- wants to lay any kind of claim to those lands rightly held by freemen.

Antiquated ideas? Well one would think that the monarchy and its extensive landholdings in merry ole England would be antiquated. Tell you what, when the United Kingdom abolishes the monarchy, or even produces a written constitution, maybe we colonialists will think about turning in our guns. On second thought maybe we will keep our guns, and our land, and our free market, and ignore the complaints of collectivists beyond our borders.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Dreadnought

No worries "Grandfather" clause.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Herodotus

Well, you can try me. But I am not being critical of your policies, I am just explaining to you why Americans want to keep their guns. If the UK wants to ban all guns, or keep CC cameras over every square inch of London watching every person's moves, that's great. I'm not a citizen so I really don't care.

Well feudalism here: Sark ends 450 years of feudalism | UK | Reuters
was ended a few months ago. Feudalism prevaded througout Europe's and yes even the UK's political and cultural identity for many centuries after it "ended". Even today there are echos of it in Europe. Why did communism develop so easily in Russia, and Eastern Europe? Why is socialism so prevalent in Europe, but not so in the US?

Yes actually they do. Government does not have the indivduals best interest at heart; only the majority, or a minority that has power disporportional to its size. Therefore it will tryannize some people. Right now, our form of government is working, with little tryanny, and mechanisms to guard againt it, but it is working with an armed citizenry.

It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely it is that government will tryannize, it only has to remain a possibilty. If it is possible, we stay armed, until such time as government is no longer needed. When government is no longer needed, guns are no longer needed, since as Madison said "If men were angels there would be no need for government".

So I am assuming then you as a citizen of UK can have free access to these lands? If so great. I have free access to most US government lands; national parks, national forests, military bases. Still I would like more land privatized by the government, all of it actually.

.

I've heard of it, no need to be patronizing. Interesting though, you name a fedual document as the basis of the English Constitution-sort of proves my point about feudalism, having a heavy influence on the UK.

Cookie Absent

Cookie Absent


Hey Edison jumped on it, and America capitalized on the whole moving picture wave. I guess that's why they are called Hollywood films and not Yorkshire films.

Anyway collectivist was in response to him stating he was a socialist, or perhaps it was the Australian fellow. It doesn't matter, if someone takes guns, or advocates taking guns, in the name of some "greater good" it makes them more of a collectivist than an indivdualist.

glyn

Thank you, professor for that illuminating insight into your reasoning. Time to return to your gated community and avoid all the nastiness that abounds outside.

GAU-8

"See you at Area 51 then."

Good Point Glyn,

When I was stationed at Nellis AFB, those Use Of Deadly Force Authorized signs used to give me the willies.
We must have some pretty neat toys out there.
I always thought it was funny that you needed the installation commander's permission to gain access.
--Would that be the commander of the nonexistent installation?

Elbmek

not a chance, they should all be banned.

__________________
Never lie, then you have nothing to try and remember.

Officer of Engineers

No technical way to distinguish an assault rifle with any other semi-automatic rifle.

__________________
Chimo