To clarify my earlier post - I incorrectly read Chronos’s’s post about “immediate danger” being the default for an intruder. Apologies.
Technically speaking, someone really ought to point out that in Martin’s case, the shotgun was illegally held (his had been confiscated some time prior to the shooting) and that he’d booby-trapped his house, including disabling the lights and removing slats from the stairs.
Not a perfect test case to demonstrate the legality of honest self-defence in the UK…
Something many posters seem to be ignoring is the possibility that guns are a deterrent to violence rather than an incitement. I don’t know about you, but even if I were a violent guy I’d be a lot less likely to start an argument with someone who has a weapon than with someone I know is unarmed.
Criminals are not necessarily stupid. They want the highest gain with the lowest risk. Even if they are armed, they do not want to put themselves in any more danger than they have to to accomplish their goals.
I have a friend who was living in Arizona when that state made it significantly easier to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Unconcealed carry was actually legal without a permit prior to that change. The rates of violent crime have decreased almost every year since 1994 when the concealed carry permits were first issued even though the population of the state has increased greatly in that same time period. Most people in Arizona think this is probably due to the fact that it’s a really bad idea to hold up a store when several people in the store might be carrying guns too. You don’t have to worry about just the clerk, but the granny in the back of the store who might have a big scary gun in her duffle-bag of a purse. Murder rates didn’t go up significantly, rapes dropped, even aggravated assaults went down. And this is in absolute numbers, not per capita.
A fallacy I’ve seen a couple of times in this thread is that only criminals face violence from criminals. In illegal trade, yes, most of the violence is directed toward competitors, but these people don’t live exclusively in their own little enclave. I spent part of my childhood living in a medium sized city in California that at that time had one of the highest crime rates, per capita, in the United States, most of it due to gang activity. There was an average of about 300-350 murders a year for a city of 170,000 people; higher per-capita rates than Compton. My neighborhood was middle- to upper-class and we were far away from the gang neighborhoods but we still had lots of problems with violence.
For example, I witnessed a knife attack at the local mall when some unlucky white middle-class guy did something to piss off one of the latino gang members who was out shopping with his buddies. I had a fight in high school with an older, bigger guy who had his gang buddies backing him up. I never have figured out exactly why he chose me to pick on.
Guns are not the only dangers. I know someone who was beaten so badly by a group who kicked him while he was down that he still has some physical problems. Maybe he wouldn’t be partially crippled if we’d banned the wearing of hard shoes <sarcasm>. A friend who worked for an ambulance company said he’s seen more people die on the way to the hospital from knife wounds than gunshot wounds, but that’s just his personal recollection. Gun violence is a subset of overall violence. Many people look at the gun death rates --some of which are inflated due to the inclusion of suicides and accidents in the statistics-- and conclude that guns are the problem.
Guns are dangerous, but in my opinion you have to look at all violent crimes to see what’s really going on. Often, when guns are made less available, the homicide rates don’t drop very much. People still kill each other, but they aren’t using guns to do it. It must be so comforting to be killed by some other means instead of being shot. Why don’t we ban all sharp knives, baseball bats, and rope too? Thousands of people are killed by bludgeoning, stabbing, and strangulation. Think of all the lives we could save.
I’d rather have a small overall chance of getting shot than a decent chance of getting glassed at the local pub or beaten by a bunch of guys who are fans of a different football team.
Japan often gets dragged into discussions about gun control. I’ll tell you what, I live in Japan. One of the reasons they’re extremely polite is due to a long, long history of getting your head cut off or being told to cut your belly open if you were rude to the wrong person. This is not just my WAG, some of my Japanese friends agreed with this idea when I expressed it. It’s still a pretty peaceful country because getting along got ingrained in the culture.
Because the ruling class went around armed all the time and the lower classes never had any weapons, on pain of instant death if discovered, everyone was extremely polite. Even the perpetually armed ruling class developed social structures and practices that helped them manage things before they got to the stage of violence or even argument because it’s a really bad idea to have a fight with someone who carries a three-foot razor-sharp blade and knows how to use it. You might be big tough guy with a sword, but he might be slightly better. Risking your life was in most cases not worth finding out who was the bigger tough guy. The politeness was due to, not in spite of, the presence of weapons.
The effect of this kind of social control is felt to this day. It makes Japanese notoriously polite and non-violent in their interactions. In most cases.
The first month I was here, some guy walked into an elementary school and attacked children and teachers with a kitchen knife. He killed seven kids, a teacher, and wounded around another ten to fifteen people. In my prefecture, a middle school boy was beaten to death by his “friends” who were part of the same karate club. In Osaka two elementary school boys killed a younger one, cut his head off, and left it on the front steps of the school. Japan --while it has for all intents and purposes zero gun crime, due to extremely draconian gun laws, and has a very, very low overall homicide rate when compared to other industrialized nations-- can compete with the best of them in the bizarre and nasty violence game.
Their annual per capita adult suicide rate is usually double (or more) that of other nations too, which suggests that violence is more often turned inward than expressed in killing others. They do it in public too. I was in a subway station when someone deliberately walked off the platform into an oncoming train. The event was reported in the newspaper as “a delay.” That cast some new light on the “incidents” and “delays” connected with trains that I’d read about before.
The overall violence rate in Great Britain and the social factors surrounding violence need to be considered along with the laws they have regarding firearms. The relationship between violence and guns not a simple cause and effect relationship. Cecil’s inclusion of the overall rate of violent crime in the UK was related to the question of whether guns are a factor in violence. The answer to that question is a lot more complicated than many would like to think.
You overlook the cause of much of the small-scale crime in the UK - drugs. A crack or heroin addict doesn’t think that logically.
So are you attributing the change in crime rates in AZ to the concealed carry law, or not? And I’d like to see an independent examination of this (such as social changes over that time, crime rates in neighbouring states etc)
Mainly where this has been mentioned it’s been specifically about gun crime in Britain. And in that case, it’s true that most victims of gun crime are themselves involved in crime and are known to the attacker.
Sleel writes:
> The rates of violent crime have decreased almost every year since 1994 when
> the concealed carry permits were first issued even though the population of the
> state has increased greatly in that same time period.
Do you understand what the term “rate of crime” means? It’s the number of crimes in a given category per the number of people living in the area surveyed. One common way of expressing it is in the number of crimes committed per 100,000 people in that area. The fact that the population has gone up has no effect on the rate of crime if nothing else has changed.
True, but perhaps he brings that up to show that even with increasing population density and urbanization (which often has a impact on increasing crime rates, as well as the absolute numbers) the rates still declined. In fact, he did go on to say that “And this is in absolute numbers, not per capita.” with respect to specific crimes…
A crack or heroin addict who is so desperate that he or she is willing to commit a crime has to think pretty darn clearly since his or her next fix depends on success in committing that crime. To an addict, nothing demands full attention and focus like needing drugs. I think you’re using a stereotype that is not really based on reality. I’ve known a few speed addicts and they may be paranoid, prone to occasional hallucinations, and freaked out, but if they need more speed they will have laser concentration and exhibit incredible creativity in solving that extremely vital problem.
The crime rates in Arizona were to show that more guns do not necessarily equal more crime. I picked that state simply because of having some personal connection with it; it’s not the state that makes the strongest case. My ambivalence in taking a strong stand pro or con on the basis of statistics stems from the impossibility of controlling for all the possible factors. There is no way to show with absolute certainty that the availability of concealed carry permits actually had an curbing effect on crime, but common sense shows that with over 10 years of following this policy with no real negative effects from it, there’s also no way that the anti-gun sentiment that more guns cause more deaths is true either.
There are, I believe, several other states in recent years that have followed shall-issue approach to weapons carry permits. To my knowledge none of them have had any problems and most of them have experienced some kind of positive effect. That means that the phenomenon is not limited to Arizona, which means that it might have some kind of universal validity. This is not a burning issue for me, so I haven’t done any real research recently. A quick search found this article that discusses shall-issue permits in detail and includes links and resources for further reading if you’re interested.
I don’t argue that most people who have close encounters with guns are probably criminals. Criminals almost always have more violent encounters than law-abiding citizens. I was responding to the attitude that some people had that it was only crackheads and junkies who had problems due to criminal behavior. Disarming your population doesn’t protect them from criminals, it just assures that only criminals will have the upper hand in an encounter.
On the other hand, if it is true that only junkies and dealers are killing each other, what’s your problem with it? Criminals who are demonized by society and dismissed as being subhuman and worthless are eliminating themselves: problem solved, from society’s point of view.
If you have really tough laws concerning weapon possession and criminals really believe that they need the weapon to protect their person or their interests, committing a serious crime that carries about the same penalty as simply having a gun is just going to be a matter of overcoming social conditioning. For instance, if a murder charge carries an average penalty of 5-10 years in prison, and possession of a firearm carries a mandatory 5 year sentence, in effect you’ve made the punishment for murder almost the equal of simply having firearm.
In some cases that might actually influence a criminal to kill a witness who could testify as to the fact that he or she has a weapon. Playing the odds, a murder charge with no witness is probably easier to beat than a firearm possession charge with a witness. If you’re a criminal, it’s pretty much a no-brainer as to which course to choose. Either way, you’re going to have to ditch the weapon but if you kill the witness at least the bugger won’t be on the stand testifying against you.
Una Persson: Yes, thank you, that was exactly my point. Arizona’s population has increased by over 1 million people from the mid 1990’s and yet the absolute number of violent crimes in almost every category has fallen. Per-capita counts would show a significant drop but having even a small decrease in absolute numbers with that much of an increase in population is pretty dramatic.
[QUOTE=Sleel]
Disarming your population doesn’t protect them from criminals, it just assures that only criminals will have the upper hand in an encounter.
[QUOTE]
That may or may not be true. However, in the case of the UK, the population is disarmed (it has never really truely been (fire)armed).
Given that, and given that the vast majority of gun crime in this country is criminal on criminal, that old gem does not apply over here.
Speed is very different from crack and heroin. And I’m not relying on stereotypes, but widely-available statistics, and first-hand anecdotal evidence from police officers and from community workers.
It’s important to note that the 1994 assault weapons ban (the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) was not actually very effective in removing actual guns from the streets. In fact, it was not even in the scope of the ban to remove weapons, merely to restrict their introduction. The ban targeted several specific brands and types of weapons by name (some of which were quickly renamed or reclassed by their manufacturers to circumvent the restriction), and also the presence of certain characteristics in a weapon. Basically, a rifle was deemed to be an illegal assault rifle if it had a detachable magazine and two or more of the following: a pistol grip; a folding/telescoping stock; a bayonet lug; a flash suppressor or flash suppressor threading; a grenade launcher (no joke; referring to a rifle grenade or necessary mounts).
Of course, any weapon manufactured prior to the ban was still legal to own and maintain. My pre-1994 AR-15 was perfectly legal the whole time, but had I wanted to purchase another semi-auto rifle during that period, I would have been restricted to something with a fixed stock, a muzzle brake instead of a flash hider, and no bayonet mount. Basically, then, you could still obtain magazine-operated semi-automatic rifles from 1994-2004. For more information and some examples of legal and illegal post-ban weapons, take a gander at this site: http://www.ont.com/users/kolya
With regard to the guns<->violence issue, I would certainly agree that there are far too many gun-related deaths in this country. However, I do not think the solution is to remove guns - it is my belief that more emphasis on responsible gun ownership combined with effort targeted at eliminating some of the root causes, like gang activity and drugs, will help curb some of the problems while allowing people to secure their own defense. After all, what threat is posed by a responsible, law-abiding gun owner? The problem with crime is, as usual, the criminals.
Of course, there are some valid arguments against private assault rifle ownership, namely their complete insuitability for home defense. If I was (heaven forbid!) involved in a life-threatening encounter with an intruder in my home, the very last weapon I’d pick up would be an assault rifle; with .223 or similarly powered ammunition, target penetration and collateral damage become a very real possibility. In fact, if I could see that the intruder was unarmed, or only armed with, say, a short knife, I might very well take my chances with a baseball bat first. There’s not much need for high-power, high-capacity weapons when protecting yourself or your family from the neighborhood burglar. After all (I heard someone say this once, but I don’t remember who), when was the last time you saw a headline like “Brave father of two slays 50 intruders with semi-automatic rifle”? 
This argument can be countered by arguing that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms is encoded in the constitution for reasons of protecting the revolutionary right, not only for ensuring effective home defense; i.e., the people should stand a fighting chance against their government if things ever get so bad as to necessitate a popular revolution. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation, but there are a lot of people who do (some of whom are sadly less, well, sane than others, but still…)
Fun fact: If you are a male citizen of the United States between the ages 17 and 45, you are legally a member of the U.S. unorganized militia. (USC Title 10 Chapter 13 Section 311)
Regards,
Your friendly gun-toting Liberal
Actually speed works on the same parts of the brain that cocaine does. It uses a different mechanism but it has almost exactly the same effects. Heroin of course is a completely different drug, similar to neither cocaine nor speed. Lumping crack and heroin together is not particularly logical if you are trying to assert that there is a difference between drugs.
How does small scale crime fit into your ideas about weapons? Usually shoplifters do not need to use guns. Drug dealing probably involves weapons, but I doubt the crime you chose to focus on has much to do with gun violence.
Bromley: I am well aware that firearms have been traditionally unavailable in Britain. However, it’s obvious that criminals do have them and it seems that normal people are worried about that. Like I said before, if the violence is criminal on criminal, what seems to be the problem? If criminals are using guns to commit crimes against non-criminals, then the bad guys will absolutely always win in a violent encounter. Whether citizens are allowed to have weapons or not has little bearing on the truth of that statement.
That was precisely my point! Trying to argue for or against Britain’s approach to guns on the basis of everyday crime rates is silly.
I have no idea what you think you are discussing, but it’s only vaguely related to the original topic. You act like you’re proving a point but you’re arguing on a tangent. We were addressing violent crime, not shoplifting, not theft, not the types of crime you seem to be thinking of. Your mention of small-scale crime is, as I said before, not relevant.
But most of what is classed as violent crime is ‘small-scale’ - a fight in a pub, a teenager threatening someone with a penknife, domestic violence, and so on. (Not to say that any of those aren’t important.)
My point was that in the small proportion of (both violent and non-violent) crimes where acessibility to firearms can have any effect are very much separate from laws ‘removing guns from the streets’ - there simply are not many guns on the streets to start with. And these criminals have never bothered with owning guns legally, so they’re hardly worried about a handgun ban.
- you can be given life imprisonment without access to family or legal advice, provided a politician says you’re a terrorist?
[/QUOTE]
Not (yet) in the US. Try the UK, where, as determined by a royal commission, you can be a suspected IRA terrorist, convicted with fabricated evidence, and held up to twenty years before the truth comes out. Then, the investigation into police and prosecutorial misconduct is terminated as predjudicial to the interests of the government.
I think the focus shouldn’t be on checking for correlations between gun laws and crime, but rather guns and homocides. I mean with other crimes at least you survive it, and there’s sometimes insurance for it (in the case of robberies). Laws about whether or not police have guns are a separate issue to whether citizens should have handguns.
In the letter the Cecil, the guy’s final question was:
“Is England indeed becoming a haven for burglars while aged pensioners cower in their cottages?”
Well people can buy insurance against burglars… rather than rely on their own ability to detect burglars and scare them away (or do a citizen’s arrest). Police would usually catch up with bulglars. I think the risks of letting people have stockpiles of guns (including small concealable guns) outweighs the benefits in how they might reduce burglaries.
The person writing the letter said how a home owner killed one burglar and wounded another - and all they did was steal from his house. It didn’t seem like he was defending his own life. You shouldn’t be able to kill people for crimes that aren’t that major. I think he should have gotten insurance and got the police in and they could have dusted the place for fingerprints and maybe use a second-hand hidden camera for a while. Of course that takes some time and effort compared to just confronting the burglars with a loaded gun… but it is a more civilized approach to crimes.
Related news: the BBC reports that police shot dead a dangerous fugitive today (or maybe yesterday, I’m not sure).