Are you crazy ? If the jeweler had been armed, somebody could have bee hurt ! Instead, only a phone got damaged. Clearly, the current status quo is so much better....

If the armed robber thought there was a possibility that his victim might have a gun, he might be less tempted to use it. Also, just because no one was injured doesn't mean that this crime wasn't an attempt to kill with malice aforethought.

Also, an armed population is less likely to be killed indiscriminantly by armed police in the tube- or maybe not.

Install a death sentence for those possessing illegal firearms. Pull a gun, confirmed death on being arrested. Tends to make gun-happy robbers a lot more sober about firearms.

Upside-Decreases gun crime. Downside-Increases state power.

If they want to ban guns, then at least they could be reasonably consistent and serious about it. And for god's sake, at least the crime rate should decrease!

TWG

How long before LG start using this photo in their advertisements? :)

That depends on whether the phone is still working, Quentin.

Almost on topic... Some time ago I was reading some research on guns in culture and the researcher fretted that 'apples for apples' comparisons of the US and the UK were very difficult because of a difference in the way 'murders' are recorded. IIRC he said that in the UK they are not statistically 'murders' until someone is convicted. In the US, I think it's at the coroner's finding that this statistic is determined.

A conviction standard seems absurdly improbable to me. Not only would it make the information almost useless, it would give law enforcement an incentive to reduce 'murders' by not solving crimes.

Does anyone out there know if there is any truth to this?

I do recall seeing stats for Tazmania that lumped murder and self defense together in one catagory called 'killed by another'! Basically the preparer of the stats saw no need to differentiate.

V good, Colin!

Midwesterner,

I don't think that murder stats for the UK are simply based on convictions. At the coroner's inquest there is a verdict of "unlawful killing" and it would be easy to use that as the basis for the statistics. Somebody with a point to prove might decide to rely on murder convictions only but there is no particular need to do so.

There has been a particular problem with the stats in recent years because of the case of Dr Harold Shipman who killed 200 or 300 patients. IIRC in recent years there have been around 800 murders per year in the UK so the sheer volume of Shipman's murders mess up the statistics. These deaths were initially ruled as being due to "natural causes" and only later was it realised that they were murders. Stats that I have seen differ in how they treat these murders and in which year the deaths are counted.

My general conclusion about the difference in criminal cultures is that the US has a generally lower level of crime (especially burglary) probably because of the fear that criminals have that their victimes may be armed. The flip side of this is a higher level of murders. This may be because the ready availability of weapons means that drunken confrontations outside bars or in domestic situations, which in the UK might result in a fist or knife fight end up being solved with more lethal weapons. I understand that in Switzerland is similar to the US in that most houses have weapons (due to military service) which keeps down petty crime but leads to a higher fatality rate in everyday arguments.

Aren't all these calls for guns an example of what I think is called the "Fallacy of Composition"? Go to a football match and stand on a box. Result: a better view. But when everyone stands on a box nothing changes.

OK, legalise guns for all. Then we probably start what amounts to an arms race. When does all this stop? When we are all armed with RPG's? Will we be any safer and will there be less crime?

The jeweller chases his robber and it is assumed that if the jeweller had a gun he could stop the robber. But what if everyone on the street has a gun. Mayhem.

This can't be! I thought private ownership of handguns is illegal in the UK.

Handgun ownership is also illegal in New York City, and there are never any murders nor armed robberies there.

John. Grow up. When householders and store owners have guns, even people with the IQ of a slug can figure out that committing a crime will force them to die without interviews in a cell with a public assistance attorney. They may even die before they can utter the words, "I want an attorney."

You may not understand, but you have to be licensed to own/carry a gun in the US states where gun ownership is normal. That way, if you happen to shoot an intruder in your home, or your neighbour's home, they can check that your licence is up to date.

What is it about low crime rates in citizen gun-owning states that is so complicated for socialists to understand? Actually, they understand only too well; but they want to spread confusion.

Verity: I believe you are half-right.

First: I agree. John's a whining baby. You are 100% correct there.

Second: You are a little off on US gun rules.

Gun *ownership* in the US is substantially less regulated than *carry*.
AFAIK, only 2 states require a gun-owner's ID card for simple ownership of all firearms. Even then, there is no one-to-one registry of gun to owner (or at least, there shouldn't be by federal law).

The majority of states require a concealed-carry card to allow one to carry CONCEALED on your person.

With very few exceptions, nothing prevents (or records) a person from storing a firearm in the home or business, for use in self-defense. (There is on the other hand, a mandatory national registry of people banned from weapons possession.)

Even the most stringent of anti-gun states have generous provisions allowing business-owners to possess weapons on-premises for personal defense (not to prevent theft).

The jeweller chases his robber and it is assumed that if the jeweller had a gun he could stop the robber. But what if everyone on the street has a gun. Mayhem.

What do you mean by 'mayhem', kemosabe? Are you talking about a situation where everybody starts firing their guns in the air and shouting their heads off when they see a fleeing robber? Or are you talking about where that robber finds his escape route blocked by numerous gun-carrying decent folk, and gets down on his knees to avoid being shot? Is that mayhem, in your eyes?

Stop and ask yourself, which of those scenarios is actually more likely to happen? How are people most likely to behave?

"If the jeweller had been armed, or if he only might have been, the robber would have known it, and this event would probably not have happened."

Um, right. Hence the way there's hardly any armed robbery in gun owning countries. I guess that's why Iraq is such a safe place! Since every household has an ak47, no-one dares rob anyone.

Truly, the greatest argument in favour of legalising firearms in this country is to make the pro gun lobby finally shut up. Unfortunately, they appear to then simply transfer their arguments to carry laws, and then to assault rifles, and God knows what.

When we finally legalise open carry of assault rifles, the pro-gun lobby will finally be happy - but probably only because they'll be having so much fun riding round in technicals enforcing politeness and respect among the 'empowered' citizenry.

*Day dreams about transporting the pro-gun lobby to Somalia to see how they get on*

J,

Up yours with your pathetic straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.

The fact is that, in a Britain where no law abiding person can own a pistol for sport or self-defence, a criminal had no trouble acquiring a pistol, and had no qualms about shooting a peaceful citizen whose property he wanted to steal. But for a mobile phone, that citizen would now be dead or seriously hurt.

One day lame brained cranks such as your good self will get it into their flickering brain cell that when you pass a law to disarm people, you only disarm the honest people. The legal situation we have in this country gives the criminal carte blanche, secure in the knowledge that whilst he can be armed if he so wishes, his victim will not be.

If this concept is really too difficult for you to assimilate, why not go down to Brighton and sing kum-by-ah with King Tony. Whilst you're there, try not to notice the fact that he has plenty of armed guards, because his life is more valuable that yours. If you are happy with that, you deserve the Dear Leader.

I just love these witty ad hominem replies. Oppose gun ownership and you apparently are a socialist or a whining baby! I'm not sure if I have the IQ of a slug, Verity, but you probably do. Any armed robber, with the IQ of a slug, knowing his victim will be armed and try and kill him, will try and kill first.
The question is are citizens safer in countries where there is strict gun control? Simply abusing people who query gunn ownership does not answer that question. Being a socialist or whining baby has nothing to do with it.

J - We're not talking about Iraq or Somalia. We are talking about the civilised West with a well organised code of law that is adhered to. Your dragging in Iraq and Somalia to prove your point illuminates the poverty of your argument. Armed robbery in states - not countries; America is not a gun-owning country. Is J a pseudonym for Matt Frei? - where gun ownership is common is fairly rare. It's drunks/druggies knocking over a convenience store at 3 a.m. or it's a big armed heist. In the main.

J says: "When we finally legalise open carry of assault rifles, the pro-gun lobby will finally be happy." That is a ridiculous statement. Do you think we're so easily pleased? We won't "finally be happy" until every baby is armed.

Being a socialist or whining baby has nothing to do with it.

It seems to where you're concerned chum.

John, J, et al

I checked into the stats quite thoroughly a few weeks back. There is a direct inverse correlation between degree of gun regulation and citizen safety.

In all the data I looked at, the only exception to this was in Tasmania. After the enactment of stricker gun control, their overall suicide rate dropped slightly. Of course it should be remembered that this was accompanied within 2 years by one of the worst mass shootings in history. Research done at the U of Chicago demonstrates conclusively that this is not a coincidence.

Every where, at all times, the ratio of law abiding gun owners to unlawful gun owners is the absolute determinator of public safety. I've yet to see any exceptions anywhere.

TheWobblyGuy said:

"Install a death sentence for those possessing illegal firearms."

Lawful armed citizens are a death sentence for those using firearms illegally. Let's not punish mere posession.

The phone looks like it was hit by a .22 cal round - probably not even .22 LR. In the US, magazine capacity restrictions eliminate this kind of luck because when most people are restricted to 10 rounds, they wisely make sure those 10 rounds are as large and powerful as possible.

Ever see a photo of a LG phone hit by a .45 CAL Federal Hydra-Shock? Of course not, there's nothing left.

Clearly it is time to petition that nice mr blair to extend the handgun ban. It should be made double-illegal to own a pistol. If that doesn't stop gun crime, make it triple-illegal!
That should do it.

That impact looks like one caused by a .177 pellet -- ie. as fired from an airgun -- so the phone really saved the man from a little pain, not much more.

Not that it makes any difference.

What's interesting to me is that all the Doomsday theories about having an armed populace (gunfights in the streets, innocent bystanders mowed down by random bullets, millions of children dying from gunshots after playing with Daddy's loaded gun, etc) have been proven to be nonsensical in the face of actual data.

In fact, not one state in the U.S. has experienced anything remotely close to the worst-case scenarios such as painted by people like Mr. K above.

What has happened, indisputably, is that people have defended themselves against predators with great success -- far more people have had their lives saved by having guns than taken by them -- but none of this seems to get through to the Perpetually Fearful.

I don't have a problem with people who don't want to own a gun.

I do have a problem with people who don't want to own a gun, and don't want anyone else to own one, either.

"If only all guns would just disappear" is an unrealistic point of view -- "if only lions would just stop killing antelope" is an apt analogy -- and making public policy based on such a flight of fantasy is just plain foolish.

Well said, Mr du Toit!

far more people have had their lives saved by having guns than taken by them??????

Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

Statistically it is more dangerous to have a swimming pool at home than a gun; more children drown than get themselves shot.

Widespread gun ownership reduces the occurence of stranger on stranger crime; robbers are less likely to rob when their victim may be armed.

Widespread gun ownership does have an effect on the outcomes of more mundane confrontations. Friends falling out, road-rage incidents, workplace arguments are more likely to result in deaths if there are guns around. Gun ownership categorically does not make people more violent or more confrontational. The rate at which people completely lose control of their tempers and become violent is probably constant. Prevalence of weapons simply increases the frequency of fatal outcomes.

Shem,

Your point isn't a point unless you can make the contrast with how many people have had their lives saved by guns.

Crime in the US feels and is lower then in the UK. Gun ownership plays a big part in that. The "cost" of this is that more people get killed in silly arguments. The big picture is that for each additional murder (or rather serious assault that turns into a murder because the perpetrator used a gun rather than a fist) there are many thousand fewer rapes, assaults, robberies, burglaries etc.. I accept that trade off and chose my friends and acquantainces wisely and am very careful about getting into silly arguments like this.

A better case for guns saving lives is in more generally hostile situations; where one group tries to oppress another. I don't think that it is too much of an exageration to say that the Bosnian muslims escaped genocide in the 1990s because they were armed. So there's a couple hundred thousand lives saved....

In the US, there are armed security guards. So obviously no armed robbers. The police are armed (heavily) so obviously no armed crime.

What about the little old lady living on her own? what use is her handbag pistol gonna be against 2 armed thugs?

What about the little old lady living on her own? what use is her handbag pistol gonna be against 2 armed thugs?

It'll enable her to defend herself you pissant. In the UK she dies, in the US she might not. Let's run this past you again: when you pass civilian disarmament laws, you only disarm the law abiding people who obey the law. You do not disarm criminals. The criminals thus know that they can safely prey upon unarmed and defenceless people. Who are the most vulnerable? The old and the weak. Got it? Understand? No, I don't suppose you do.

Dick Cheyne, you'd be surprised at the number of little old ladies in Texas who pack heat and who can shoot straight.

shem - your figures don't mean anything because "gun-related deaths" include people killed legitimately. And as Robert Alderson rightly points out, these figures would have to be offset by how many people have had their lives saved by guns. How many of those deaths you cite, in the US in particular, were householders shooting intruders? So they would count as legitimate deaths, and would also have to be balanced by the householder and his family's lives having been saved by this shooting.

So your figures are meaningless.

As always , I find the gun debate completely hysterical in the UK, usually conducted by people on the left with very little knowledge of firearms. Maybe they are still stuck in the 60-70's timeloop when their masters in KGB wanted to disarm British population so the eventual occupation by Heroic People's Liberation Army would go smoother....is that right, Comrade?

Statistics about country comparisons cut no ice here because you're comparing completely different law enforcement , culture, etc etc. And the arguement of saving lives is rubbish - cars kill way more people than any other type of tool or machine, but you don't see Neuerarbeitspartei banning them - yet.

Best indication is to look of tried and tested evidence in the UK: after the Dunblane fiasco all handguns minus .22s got banned and when Noo Lapour came into power even they went. Couple of years after that, blank firers got banned. Fat lot of good did that too, since gun crime has roughly doubled in UK after the ban.

Your point isn't a point unless you can make the contrast with how many people have had their lives saved by guns.

I don't think that's entirely fair.

If, going by the numbers quoted, the US has 14.24 per 100,000 gun-related deaths whilst England has 0.41, and if we take the number of lives saved by guns as being significant (otherwise your contention is pointless), then the US must be a hideously violent place. I mean, if numerous lives are saved but the gun death rate is still 30 times that in the UK, then something must be seriously screwed up in the US, to the extent that the rational mind would be forced to ask whether the life saving effect of gun ownership was not being swamped by the life ending effect of the same.

EG

If, going by the numbers quoted, the US has 14.24 per 100,000 gun-related deaths whilst England has 0.41, and if we take the number of lives saved by guns as being significant (otherwise your contention is pointless), then the US must be a hideously violent place.

Euan- there's an inconvenient fact that the anti-gunnies don't mention about 'gun-related deaths' in the US.

Over half of them are suicides.

If you want to have a discussion about this issue that gets anywhere, you need to be explicit that what is under discussion is 'murder by firearm', not 'gun-related deaths', otherwise the ill-informed start muddying the waters with data that is not relevant.

Over half of them are suicides.

OK, so if guns save lives but the gun related death rate in the US is still 15 times higher than in England...

EG

....?

Your post seems to be lacking a point.

John K - no need to be hysterical, just because yr pt is so poor.
How many little old ladies in the UK have been shot recently? None. Yet according to you it's not safe here.
No-one's ever shot at me & I don't have a gun, boo-hoo.
So lots of lives have been saved in the US by guns, with its murder rate 4 times ours. OK, so how many? The US has a vast bureaucracy collecting all sorts of stats.

Your post seems to be lacking a point.

OK, to put it really simply and join the two posts:

If the per capita gun death rate in the US is 15 times higher than in the UK, after allowing for suicide, then even if one effect of gun ownership is to save lives surely it is the case that the NET effect is to result in increased deaths?

Even assuming gun deaths in the UK have doubled since the ban, we still have the US with a gun death rate 7 times higher than England. Surely this casts some doubt on the argument that, overall, gun ownership saves lives?

If the difference is cultural such that a comparison of these rates is meaningless, then equally it must be the case that any extrapolation from US crime rates to how England would be if guns were permitted is also meaningless. Either way, if these per capita gun death rate numbers are true - and also considering the fact that the US has a per capita murder rate 4 times the UK - any argument for gun onwership in the UK based on American experience is either invalid due to cultural differences or fails because the overall effect would be an increased death rate.

I don't personally object to anyone owning a gun for sporting or self-defence purposes, but the arguments put forward which attempt to prove some tangible benefit for gun ownership simply don't seem to hold any water.

From what's been said, possibly the most one can conclude is that general gun ownership may reduce the incidence of property crime, but at the expense of an increased rate of gun related death. Perhaps some see this as a price worth paying, but I'm not so sure.

EG

Dick (and how aptly named you are):

I could waste my life trying to reason with krill, but I don't choose to. Go away and be a good little troll elsewhere.

You asked about a hypothetical little old lady. You got your answer. In England the situation is if a real life middle aged lady takes an air pistol with her for self-defence whilst dealing with a pair of teenage yobs, she gets prison and they get off.

Now be off with you before your dad finds you using the computer.

My point all along has been the the presence of guns does not chance the frequency with which interactions between humans turn hostile. It simply makes those hostile interactions more deadly. At the same time the widespread presence of guns reduces the general rate of crimes less serious than murder.

America may very well be a society which has a frequency of hostile interactions. The likely biggest reason for that is the ridiculous and strictly enforced laws on narcotics.

If the per capita gun death rate in the US is 15 times higher than in the UK, after allowing for suicide, then even if one effect of gun ownership is to save lives surely it is the case that the NET effect is to result in increased deaths?

I'm not someone who assumes reducing net deaths is automatically a good thing. I am taking the fairly straightforward position that if someone breaks into my house, the pistol in my nightstand is going to do me more good than a policeman who may not show up for ten minutes (or more), therefore legal handguns are a good thing for me.

You are welcome to disagree where your life is concerned- it's your life.

Even assuming gun deaths in the UK have doubled since the ban, we still have the US with a gun death rate 7 times higher than England. Surely this casts some doubt on the argument that, overall, gun ownership saves lives?

Who's lives are being saved? The point of banning firearms should not be to make a burglar's job safer.

However, the US homicide rate in 2001 was 7.1 per 100k- all homicides, not just firearms, and yes, that includes the WTC attacks. If you would prefer to exclude that, the 2000 rate was 6.1.

source:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm

Would you happen to have the comparable statistic for the UK handy?

If the difference is cultural such that a comparison of these rates is meaningless, then equally it must be the case that any extrapolation from US crime rates to how England would be if guns were permitted is also meaningless. Either way, if these per capita gun death rate numbers are true - and also considering the fact that the US has a per capita murder rate 4 times the UK - any argument for gun onwership in the UK based on American experience is either invalid due to cultural differences or fails because the overall effect would be an increased death rate.

The assumption most of those making the 'firearms reduce crime' argument- which I am not making- is that criminals are looking for easy pickings, and that firearms possessed by the prospective victim change the risk calculus so that burglary/mugging/rape/etc is a higher-risk activity, which may reduce the appeal of that crime. I consider this unproven, as people carrying concealed weapons are too rare for this to be much of a factor outside of the home, and the main effect inside the home is that burglars in the US generally make sure the house is empty before breaking in.

However, something that needs to be considered is that the US statistics are badly skewed by one particular demographic.

http://www.guncite.com/CDCStats/us9794_Ofarm.htm

Take a look at all races / both sexes. Then scroll down to Black / Males and compare the numbers.

I don't personally object to anyone owning a gun for sporting or self-defence purposes, but the arguments put forward which attempt to prove some tangible benefit for gun ownership simply don't seem to hold any water.

I haven't seen much in the way of proving anything in this thread, just a lot of assertions with rather little backing them up.

But if you want an argument about tangible benefits of firearm ownership, consider how long it takes to reach into your nightstand, compared to how long it takes a policeman to get to your front door after you've called for one.

From what's been said, possibly the most one can conclude is that general gun ownership may reduce the incidence of property crime, but at the expense of an increased rate of gun related death. Perhaps some see this as a price worth paying, but I'm not so sure.

[shrug]

Again, it depends on who is dying, and why. While I do think it is tragic when domestic violence escalates to murder- which I admit is more likely when there is a firearm in the household- I don't mind at all when a burglar, mugger or rapist is shot dead.

ps: One thing I do not understand is why you keep specifying 'gun-related'. Murder is murder, a firearm is but one of many ways to commit the act. Pointing out that firearms deaths are more common in a nation where ~40% of the households have a firearm is as much of a non-sequitir as pointing out that drowning is more common in communities near bodies of water.

" I don't mind at all when a burglar, mugger or rapist is shot dead." Me either. I find it quite refreshing.

If Dick Cheyne, above, really is a kid, as John K thinks, that is very worrying. Boys should want guns. This is a horrifying illustration of the malign power of The Mighty Socialist State. I have said for some time that since Za-NuLabour got in, Britain has become feminised.

Head girl is Tony Blair, a twizzly little girlyman if ever there was one.

Also, you have to worry about people who don't have household pets.

Oh, the duelling statistics...

The simple facts are these:

1.) Oour murder rate in the U.S. is at its most appalling in inner-city ghettoes, where rival gangs battle for "turf" and drug dealers fight over "sales territory". These have the effect of grossly distorting the national numbers. It should also be noted that these areas are located in cities (Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. etc) which have gun laws more approximating those of Britain.

2.) By even the most conservative estimates, guns save more lives each year than take them, by a factor of about a hundred to one.

3.) We live in a society where gun ownership is a Constitutionally-protected right. In other words, we are a free society. Freedom tends to beget abuse, because that's the way of the world. But we'd rather live in a state of imperfect freedom than in one of social control.

4.) [and the most important one:] We are a nation of immigrants. Diverse societies tend to have a greater degree of criminality than homogenous ones. It's an established historical fact that the higher the immigration ratio, the higher the crime (Irish gangs in New York in the 1850s, Italian gangs ditto in the 1920s, Mexican gangs in L.A. today).

So there's no point in comparing the U.S. to, say, Japan or Switzerland when it comes to this kind of statistic, because it's not a valid comparison.

Britain and the rest of Europe are only now beginning to discover what we have known for decades: as your non-native population grows, your crime rates will increase.

At least we (ordinarly U.S. citizens) have the means to defend ourselves should the need arise -- and I should point out that our homicide statistics each year also include a satisfyingly-high number of dangerous scumbags shot by would-be victims.

Oh, and our violent crime rates continue to drop (-1.7%), and murder by an even greater number (-3.6%).

Coincidentally (or not, really) we have more people in prison than ever before, because our prison sentences are, finally, getting back to realistic harshness.

Brits may want to copy this policy (armed citizenry plus meaningful prison terms equals safer citizenry), but I'm not holding my breath.

Legalise guns!
Legalise drugs!

therefore legal handguns are a good thing for me

This is a point of view, but is it not just saying that you don't care if other people die as long as you're ok?

Would you happen to have the comparable statistic for the UK handy?

To save you the effort of Googling, the England and Wales figures for 2004/5 can be found here. Follow the links and you'll find all manner of useful data. For America data, I generally refer to the FBI uniform crime reporting program, which you can find here.

This was looked into before (probably numerous times) on Samizdata. The upshot is that the US murder rate per capita is four times that of the UK.

Kim points out above that this is concentrated in a few squalid areas which distort the national figures. I can only say this is far from compelling, because exactly the same thing happens in the UK - murder and violent crime is far higher in inner city areas of places like London, Birmingham and Glasgow than in the majority of the country. If the US number can be derated using this excuse, so can the UK one, and we are still left with the inconvenient fact that the US murder rate is very much higher than the UK one, whichever way you measure it. How is this to be explained?

One thing I do not understand is why you keep specifying 'gun-related'

Because the statistics cited by others above refer to "gun related" deaths, fairly obviously.

EG

This is a point of view, but is it not just saying that you don't care if other people die as long as you're ok?

Is not denying people the means to use guns in self-defence, which some promise will have the knock-on benefit of reducing the risk of death by firearm, just saying that you don't care if other people die as long as you're OK, with regards to not having to worry baout being shot?

Please don't assume that I am asserting this is your position. But, if you believe that pro-gunners need to be tarred with this brush, then you must admit that it also applies to those pushing for gun control - or are they saints, above this kind of criticism?

worry baout being shot = worry about being shot. It's always too early in the morning....

Is not denying people the means to use guns in self-defence [snip] just saying that you don't care if other people die as long as you're OK, with regards to not having to worry baout being shot?

It's surely more a case of them saying "I don't want people to get shot, and if that means you get shot then too bad."

Please don't assume that I am asserting this is your position

I would be absolutely delighted if the Happy Rampager has become the Happy Guy Who Responds To What People Write And Not What He Would Like Them To Have Written...

if you believe that pro-gunners need to be tarred with this brush

I don't, but I do believe that those presenting disingenuous and flawed arguments which focus on one small aspect at the expense of the bigger picture deserve to be tarred with the brush of being called idiots. Whichever side of whatever argument they are on.

those pushing for gun control - or are they saints, above this kind of criticism?

Hardly. In many cases both sides are equally at fault.

A rational case for gun control is this: efficient and effective law enforcement coupled with a swift and equitable administration of criminal justice is a better alternative to having an armed populace, since it will keep crime as low or lower by ensuring the capture and punishment of offenders and the prevention of crime before it happens and at the same time will avoid unnecessary accidental deaths. That's fine, but it only works if you actually have the law enforcement and criminal justice system necessary. The basis for the argument is that armed citizens were a suitable system of crime control before the age of comprehensive and efficient public law enforcement, but are now unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.

Now, a rational crime-based argument for gun ownership, as a counter to the above, is this: the police and criminal justice system is inadequate to the task of controlling, punishing and deterring crime, and therefore the auxiliary measure of permitting the people to be armed for defence of self and property is justifiably necessary. This argument is plainly based on the premise that the system of police and justice either doesn't exist or has broken down.

The essential bargain in the UK was the first argument - the police and courts systems work and therefore there is no need for an armed populace. This was probably valid up until the 1980s or so, and the extremely low rate of gun ownership would appear to support the contention, but I don't think it could really be argued any more. I think there is some justification, therefore, for permitting gun ownership in the UK purely on the basis of crime control.

That doesn't touch the liberty argument for guns. People should be free to own guns, but he right to own a gun ends at the point when gun ownership endangers more lives than it protects. Figures are bandied about "demonstrating" that guns save more people than they kill. There has been NO study actually showing this which is not either misleading, disingenuous, fraudulent or a mixture thereof. It's all very well to say guns save 100 times more people than they kill - prove it. The figures quoted above tend to suggest the contrary - that guns kill more than they protect.

Admittedly this is hard, because how do you prove how many times something failed to happen? It's easy to show how many people are killed by guns, however. Of course there will be accidents and suicides. Accidents can be minimised by proper training and licensing. Suicides will happen anyway, although doubtless there are some who would kill themselves because they had a gun but might not if such an easy way was unavailable, but that's a completely different issue. Pragmatically, I think all that can be done is to permit ownership and see what happens, then make a final decision in the light of the real world evidence.

I would also add that the hypothetical argument that an armed populace prevents state tyranny is absolute hogwash of the first order. Just look at the heavily armed and tyrant-infested Middle East if you doubt it.

My view, which should by now be apparent, is that I see no real reason to prohibit general gun ownership PROVIDED (a) we also have a good and efficient system of police and criminal justice, (b) ownership is controlled by a system of training, education, background checks and licensing and (c) the net effect of gun ownership is to reduce crime and death.

I do not believe you can prove that gun ownership is either a good thing or a bad thing, not least because those interested enough to prove it one way or another already have their opinion and will readily bend the data to suit - our friend Lott springs to mind as a particularly egregious and mendacious example on the pro side, and Bellesiles on the anti side. Also, what works in one culture won't necessarily work in another, and we must take each case as it comes - widespread gun ownership may be (and plainly is) an integral part of much American culture, but the same is emphatically not true of England and so the same assumptions about the effect on crime and society are not valid in both cultures.

EG

Oh, god, Euan's back. I have gone into the defence mode of not reading beyond the first couple of sentences of his posts, but Euan, skipping down your penultimate post, we come across this: "we are still left with the inconvenient fact that the US murder rate is very much higher than the UK one,".

First, the term "murder" is perjorative here. You mean people who die from being shot. Large numbers, as has been pointed out will sadly, be suicides.

Even larger numbers will be scumbags terminated by home owners or people defending themselves in parking lots, their cars, whatever.

So take away the inner city gangs of highly stupid young male candidates for the Darwin Awards, suicides and self-defence terminations and I wonder how many true "murders" this leaves? Kim may have some knowledge.

I am not saying there are no gun-related murders in America; obviously there are - especially as America's population is five times ours. In Britain, they usually beat or knife people - usually very old people in their homes, and teen agers out walking home - to death. In America, murder is usually done by shooting.

It's surely more a case of them saying "I don't want people to get shot, and if that means you get shot then too bad."

What kind people these gun-hate nuts are.

This argument is plainly based on the premise that the system of police and justice either doesn't exist or has broken down.

Ha ha, it's very far from 'plainly' based on that premise. It could also be said that it is based on the premise that one can never, ever be assured that an officer of the law will arrive at just the right moment to deliver you from peril. Therefore you should be prepared to protect yourself. And since that is how it goes in real life, it carries more truth than what you said.

but he right to own a gun ends at the point when gun ownership endangers more lives than it protects.

The right to own a gun is a corollary of the right to act in defence of one's life. So you are in effect saying, 'the right to protect one's life (which every person holds in their own right, don't forget) ends at the point when owning the means to protect one's life endangers more lives than it protects', Or, to put it another way, 'a person's life would be more valuable, if the means to protect it had some tangible benefit for the aggregate, and it would likewise become less valuable - less worthy of regard - if the tangible benefit that came from his owning the means to protect it diminished...'

Now don't go saying that I'm saying that's what you're saying. But it seems unavoidable that a society that decided that people's individual lives would be less valuable, if it became too much trouble to guarantee their right to act to protect those lives, would be operating on the premise that people's lives had no real inherent value. In fact, people's lives would have no value at all, under such a 'utilitarian' ethos.

Careful, Euan. You might find yourself siding with those people who proclaim, 'I don't want people to get shot, and if that means you get shot then too bad', if you're not careful.

It could also be said that it is based on the premise that one can never, ever be assured that an officer of the law will arrive at just the right moment to deliver you from peril

Which is to say that the system of police and law enforcement has broken down, isn't it?

There can of course never be an absolute guarantee that the police will arrive in time on every occasion. Equally, there can be no guarantee that armed citizens will never kill or injure innocent people by mistake. The fact that neither system can give an absolute guarantee should not blind one to the defects in the other, nor should it excuse them.

The right to own a gun is a corollary of the right to act in defence of one's life

No, I don't think so. The right to own a gun for self defence is the right to defend oneself in a specific fashion. As has been pointed out before on this blog, you can have the right to self-defence but not the right to own a gun (e.g. in Britain). It is by no means the case that one can ONLY defend one's life by means of firearms.

But this right does surely end when its exercise causes more harm. Is it reasonable to say that gun ownership should be permitted if the price of that gun ownership is a significant increase in the number of people being killed?

a society that decided that people's individual lives would be less valuable, if it became too much trouble to guarantee their right to act to protect those lives

The whole question of self-defence in the UK has been gone into repeatedly here and elsewhere. It is the case that in Britain one IS allowed to defend oneself and indeed one IS allowed to use lethal force in doing so. The fact that the possession of guns in the UK is not permitted DOES NOT mean that self defence is not permitted.

Depriving people of the right to own guns does not deprive them of the right to defend themselves, only the right to defend themselves in a particular way. That is not at all the same thing, and it is quite specious to pretend it is.

EG

Depriving people of the right to own guns does not deprive them of the right to defend themselves,

Yes, Euan. That is precisely, in a nutshell what it does. Or did you have in mind all those kung-fu 90-yr olds who get bashed around and their little eggshell bones broken by some oxygen thief in search of their pension? Or those hunky, muscle-bound 13-yr old girls walking home from school? Or all those women who weigh 110 lbs but are trained boxers and can easily disarm a nervous, hopped up intruder in their bedrooms?

And all those bulky disarmed truck drivers, accountants and barristers who can protect their homes and families by dodging bullets.

I'm sorry, and this is not an ad hominem, Euan, but your premise is so silly it takes the breath away. There is a reason guns are called equalisers.

This was probably valid up until the 1980s or so, and the extremely low rate of gun ownership would appear to support the contention, but I don't think it could really be argued any more. I think there is some justification, therefore, for permitting gun ownership in the UK purely on the basis of crime control.

The extremely low rate of gun ownership in Britain is down to the Firearms Act 1920, no more, no less. The Act was designed to disarm the bulk of the British people, and in this it did exactly what it was meant to do. It was never a crime control measure, it was passed to ensure that demobbed soldiers could not get their hands on guns and take part in a Bolshevik uprising. Given that there was a general strike in 1926 maybe the establishment had a point, who knows? But let's not kid ourselves as to why gun control measures were introduced in Britain. Keeping guns away from ordinary non political criminals was not the point, although the then Home Secretary did lie to the House of Commons that that was its intention. The Cabinet minutes for 1920 prove otherwise.

That is precisely, in a nutshell what it does. Or did you have in mind all those kung-fu 90-yr olds who get bashed around and their little eggshell bones broken by some oxygen thief in search of their pension?

Instead of using rational arguments based on fact, lobbies both pro and anti use emotive drivel like the innocent child killed by the enraged armed parent or the grandmother killing burglars. How typical are such cases? Not very.

90 year old grannies might be able to fend off a burglar if they had a small but serviceable pistol. MIGHT be able to. On the other hand, 90 year old grannies are not known for the feline qualities of their reactions. Nor, for that matter, was there ever much probability of 13 year old schoolgirls carrying guns in their schoolbags. There are of course exceptions but an argument for gun ownership from such extreme and atypical cases is risible.

If guns are freely permitted, you can say that the burglar doesn't know whether or not granny has a gun and might thus be deterred. Equally, he might make the reasonable calculation that even if she does he can probably react faster and stands an excellent chance of disarming her. The mugger is going to make the eminently reasonable calculation that it is HIGHLY improbable that the schoolgirl is armed.

And all those bulky disarmed truck drivers, accountants and barristers who can protect their homes and families by dodging bullets.

This is presumably intended to create the impression that the streets of Britain are infested with armed thugs and robbers and the poor householder lives in constant dread of armed invasion. Unlike you, I actually live in Britain and it is simply not like that. I have lived in a major city for 22 years and in that time have had one TV nicked, and that was an inside job. I don't know anyone who has ever confronted a burglar in the act in this country and only very few who have ever had their homes burgled. I can even leave the doors of my house unlocked at night, and that in a major city. I do know from friends connected with the police and courts that the vast majority of burglars are unarmed opportunists who run away if they are even seen let alone confronted. Whether you might have a gun or not is unlikely to make the slightest difference in such cases. Even if you are a crack shot granny.

I support the right of people to own guns and to use them in self defence if necessary. But I don't accept pathetically juvenile arguments about armed grannies and pistol-packing teens wiping out a (mythical) wave of armed crime. If you're going to argue for guns, at least have the wit to use plausible arguments.

EG

Keeping guns away from ordinary non political criminals was not the point, although the then Home Secretary did lie to the House of Commons that that was its intention. The Cabinet minutes for 1920 prove otherwise.

I do know why the Act was introduced, and yes, the state did have a point.

However, from that time until the general ban in 1997 the rate of gun ownership was extremely low in the UK. For most of that same period, crime rates were pretty low. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that general gun ownership is NECESSARY to keep crime levels low. It may have that effect, but it is not the only thing that does.

Whilst the pro lobby can argue that gun ownership CAN reduce crime, this argument can be countered by the pretty obvious fact that so can a cohesive society, efficient policing and an equitable system of criminal justice. How else to explain low crime rates over a sustained period in a largely unarmed population?

EG

Here is a stat to reassure any of you that fear shoot-outs at the collision corral. By 2000 homicide during arguments “declined to the lowest levels recorded
recently”, half of 1980 levels. This, during the very time period when all of these concealed weapon carry laws were going into effect. (see page on Homicide Circumstances PDF) There's a saying that an armed society is a polite society. Maybe that's more true than we realize. Bullies back off when Granny might be packing.

Euan, “It is the case that in Britain one IS allowed to defend oneself” not exactly(Link).

And there is only one major problem with your speculations, Euan. They don't correlate with real world results. A suggestion for you would be to give up on ideas like burglers making "reasonable calculations". You vastly overestimate them. 'Shall Issue' laws really are wiping out a wave of crime.

Euan, "It is the case that in Britain one IS allowed to defend oneself" not exactly(Link).

You might link to a site that at least gets the facts right and tells the whole story. Osborn was prosecuted BUT he voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to a charge of manslaughter and DID NOT cite self defence. In British law, self defence is an absolute defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter - why did Osborn not use it? Not quite the impression you were trying for, I think?

And there is only one major problem with your speculations, Euan. They don't correlate with real world results

How about addressing the question of how the real world largely unarmed British population managed to enjoy a real world low crime rate for most of the past 70 years?

'Shall Issue' laws really are wiping out a wave of crime

But they are not the ONLY thing that can do this, nor are they necessary to achieve it, nor is it valid to assume that if it works in America it will work in Britain.

EG

Brett Osborne pled to manslaughter because he was told that if convicted of murder (which he was charged with) he would receive a mandatory life sentence, and after Tony Martin, he didn't want to risk it.

You overlooked the entire rest of that long piece to concentrate on Osborne? What, you have a short attention span?

As to Britain's "real world low crime rate for most of the past 70 years" - think again. Following the passage of laws prohibiting carrying of defensive weapons and other legislation in the 1950's, Britain's violent crime rate began its as of yet unending climb. Britain now among the most violent industrialized nations in the world. You just kill each other far less often. But then, you've ALWAYS killed each other far less often, even before there were ANY firearms laws on the books.

But with U.S. homicide rates declining, and UK homicide rates increasing, it looks like it will only take a few more years for the rates to cross.

Seventy years? Look at just the last forty and get back to me.

This is a point of view, but is it not just saying that you don't care if other people die as long as you're ok?

Who dies, in what circumstances? Caring is one thing, but law should not be based on emotionalism or sentimentality, it should be based on facts. The facts of the matter are that in the US, law enforcement is reactive, and an offense must be committed before the offender can be punished. This may benefit society in the long term, but it does little for the victim, who must exist in order for the legal system to take action.

This is not a problem any society has figured out a perfect solution for. The best compromise (very much IMO) is to have police capable of dealing with the worst cases, and to ensure citizens have legal access to effective means by which to defend themselves. The solution the US has mostly settled on (some jurisdictions differ) is that firearms should be legal for citizens to own, and that laws regarding the circumstances in which they can be used defensively should be created.

Britain seems to have decided that they perfer some other solution. That is the perogative of the British. I think the choices that are being made are unwise, and will have effects other than what is indended, but that is just my opinion.

Which is to say that the system of police and law enforcement has broken down, isn't it?

Which is to say that the police cannot do the impossible, as even you concede, so why did you feel it necessary to make this comment?

Euan doing his usual thang of deliberately misconstruing what others have said...right after saying 'Guy Who Responds To What People Write And Not What He Would Like Them To Have Written' no less.

Bit of a hypocrite, aren't you, Euan?

No, I don't think so. The right to own a gun for self defence is the right to defend oneself in a specific fashion.

You may note that it's a 'specific' means of self-defence, but that does nothing to diminish the fact that the right to own a gun extends from the right to protect one's life. And if you deny people that right, you are interfering on their right to protect their life, and you are insuring that they may not exercise such an important right as freely as they possibly could. There's no rhetorical trick in the world that will make this little truth go away.

But this right does surely end when its exercise causes more harm.

Again, exactly what authority do you possess that allows you to say when people do not have the inherent right to protect their lives?

Is it reasonable to say that gun ownership should be permitted if the price of that gun ownership is a significant increase in the number of people being killed?

Being killed how? With guns? With other means? With knives? With cars? You should have said. Don't forget that there would be other ways of reducing the 'number of people being killed' then by attacking the right of people to act in defence of their lives. Just like 'guns are not the ONLY way of defending oneself' (but most of the more effective means are classed as offensive weapons and are illegal).

Gun ownership is reasonable and legitimite not because of how much society might benefit, but because it extends from people's inherent right to defend their lives. People's inherent rights do not become more or less valid according to what is happening around them. Those who think otherwise are working on the presumption that both people's inherent rights, and the value of their lives, fluctuate depending on what happens in daily life. In effect, people would have no inherent rights at all.

So you might well perceive that people would have less right to protect their lives, if gun ownership 'led to more people being killed' (and if gun ownership did not lead to more people being killed, their rights would be greater). However, quite paradoxically, you would be acting on the premise that the more people dying as a result of gun ownership, the less valuable (less worthy or regard by the state/society) everybody's life became...

Maybe you could explain how external factors negatively, or positively, affect people's inherent moral rights?

The facts are simple, tho not simple enough for John K & Verity.
The US has 5 times the UK population.
UK has 800 murders a year, of which 200 by gun.
US has 16000 murders. 4 times UK.

However, from that time until the general ban in 1997 the rate of gun ownership was extremely low in the UK. For most of that same period, crime rates were pretty low. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that general gun ownership is NECESSARY to keep crime levels low. It may have that effect, but it is not the only thing that does.

I don't think gun ownership was that low for much of the period 1920-1997, especially for the early part of that period. Firstly, very few people with pistols came forward to get certificates. These guns had been owned for self-defence, not sport, and most people who had them, kept them. They kept turning up in amnesties for decades afterwards. This has recently been repeated with Brocock air pistols. About 75000 were sold, but only 7000 have been registered. It seems the owners of most could not face the hassle (if they knew about the change in the law) and have just stuck them in a drawer. I predict they too will turn up in amnesties for many years.

Secondly, sales of shotguns were uncontrolled until 1967, and then only lightly controlled until 1987. In 1920 the state had not been too worried about shotguns in private hands, seeing them as sporting guns of little use to revolutionaries.

So I think it's fair to say that until the late 60's ownership of firearms was fairly widespread, but often hidden, and on the whole caused no harm to society.

Whilst the pro lobby can argue that gun ownership CAN reduce crime, this argument can be countered by the pretty obvious fact that so can a cohesive society, efficient policing and an equitable system of criminal justice. How else to explain low crime rates over a sustained period in a largely unarmed population?

The above points are true, but scarcely apply to Britain these days do they? It's also the case that the British state has now moved on from its 1920 position of wishing to disarm malcontents, and now wishes to disarm all subjects. Apart from the many firearms bans, it is also illegal to own tear gas spray, stun guns, tasers, and other forms of non lethal self defence weapons. Although, as you say, self-defence is a legal right as an abstract concept, it is hard to reconcile with the state's prohibition of even non lethal items, even those such as folding batons and side handled batons (whose sale has just been made illegal) and tear gas sprays, which it issues to its servants, the police, but denies to its alleged masters, the public. A rum situation indeed.

The facts are simple, tho not simple enough for John K & Verity.

No Dick, you are simple.

Let me tell you something really complicated, but which I hope you might understand.

The UK is not the USA. The USA is not Brazil. Brazil is not Switzerland. Switzerland is not South Africa.

Can you think about this concept? Anything happening?

By the way, grown ups learn to use words properly. Thus, "murder" and "homicide" are not synonymous (sorry, that's a big word I know, but ask your parents to help you look it up in the dictionary).

Euan doing his usual thang of deliberately misconstruing what others have said

Not at all. I thought you meant that the effectiveness of the police system had fallen to such an extent that one could not depend on a reasonable response time and that you were using this as a justification for arming the people. That, of course, is an example of the system failing. However, I see now that you meant that because the police cannot do the impossible then the people should be armed. I don't necessarily agree with this and think your logic is too simplistic.

A guaranteed timely response is impossible. However, if the system works to the extent that there is, say, a 95% probability of a timely response, this will tend to make the casual burglar or attacker think twice. In such a circumstance, arming the people for self defence in order to reduce crime is not necessary, even if it may be desirable for other reasons. I readily concede that we do not have such a 95% probability, which is why I agree that in the present circumstances a case probably can be made for arming the people for self defence. However, such circumstances do not always apply.

I don't think gun ownership was that low for much of the period 1920-1997, especially for the early part of that period

I don't think it can really be proven one way or the other, but certain facts are known:

(a) the number of guns turned in during amnesties would not indicate widespread arming of the people;

(b) a significant proportion of the weapons turned in were war trophies, not necessarily kept for actual use;

(c) a number of the war trophies did not actually work.

These guns had been owned for self-defence, not sport

That's a pretty big assumption. Doubtless self defence was a rationale for keeping some of them, but so would have been sport, memorabilia, war trophy, grandad's pistol from the war, etc. I don't think you can say with any justification that self defence was the sole or even the primary reason.

The above points are true, but scarcely apply to Britain these days do they?

This is the point I am making. I'm on your side, I just prefer rational argument to emotional drivel.

Although, as you say, self-defence is a legal right as an abstract concept, it is hard to reconcile with the state's prohibition of even non lethal items

No, it isn't and this has been gone into elsewhere on Samizdata several times before. I'm not going through it all again, but will summarise the key points:

(a) there is a common law right to self defence;

(b) the Criminal Law Act, 1967, strengthens this right by codifying it, contrary to the assertions of the more rabid pro gun lobbyists;

(c) the common and statute law rights to self defence have not been altered since 1967;

(d) despite (c), the rise in crime, especially violent crime, is a relatively recent phenomenon and the timeline does not correlate with gun bans or changes in the law;

(e) self defence is an absolute defence to a charge of murder;

(f) the prohibition of offensive weapons does not alter the right of self defence - it may be illegal to own a gun, but it is legal to use this illegal weapon in self defence.

I suggest if you don't quite grasp (e) or (f) then you should speak to a lawyer.

There is little doubt that Britain is experiencing a high level of crime. However, the reasons behind this have little to do with changes in the law or the prohibition of weapons, and a lot to do with police inefficiency and laziness, slow court procedures, weak sentencing of convicts, the fragmentation and ghettoisation of society, failure of established institutions to maintain the respect of the people, a tendency to political correctness and most recently the introduction of an unbalanced approach to human rights. These things are VASTLY more important in understanding the rise in crime over the past couple of decades.

I am not 100% convinced that arming the population actually does reduce crime. No study has ever conclusively shown that it either does or does not, and those that purport to show it does generally overlook other trends and changes that have significant effects. Others just lie or bend the data.

However, I do concede that there is a potential argument for arming the population, BUT I would also require that the other problems - i.e. the ones that actually cause the rise in crime - are dealt with at the same time. Arming the people to cut crime does absolutely nothing to eliminate the cause of that crime. It is, if you like, treating only the symptoms and not the disease. This is not an adequate long term solution, and these causes must be dealt with at the same time as the symptoms are treated.

In general, I'd say that the whole question is FAR more complex than either the pro or anti gun lobbies seem to understand. "Guns cut crime" is far too simplistic and ignores the causes. "Guns kill" is too simplistic and ignores the reasons why people might feel the need to own them.

People need to think harder about this. Flinging around insults to holders of an opposing position won't help, but will go a long way to making the insulting one appear to be ignorant, boorish and thoughtless. If you want to be taken seriously, don't call people "pissant" just because they don't agree with you. Or if you must do it, don't surprised when many people classify the pro gun lobby as a collection of thuggish knuckledraggers.

EG

These guns had been owned for self-defence, not sport

That's a pretty big assumption. Doubtless self defence was a rationale for keeping some of them, but so would have been sport, memorabilia, war trophy, grandad's pistol from the war, etc. I don't think you can say with any justification that self defence was the sole or even the primary reason.

I was referring to the large number of pistols owned by the public prior to 1920, and I think it is fair to say these were mostly owned for self-defence, not target shooting. Obviously, anyone who wanted to use his pistol for target shooting would have paid 5/- for a cerificate. Most did not, they just kept hold of their property, and for decades after these pistols kept appearing in amnesties.

No, it isn't and this has been gone into elsewhere on Samizdata several times before. I'm not going through it all again, but will summarise the key points:

Yadda yadda yadda. I know all this. The point I'm making is that not only are guns not available for self-defence, but neither are a whole swathe of non lethal items, including things like tear gas and batons which the state happily issues to every police officer. The fact is that the British state criminalizes possession of anything which is designed to be a weapon, which does not give the impression that they really want to encourage self-defence.

There is little doubt that Britain is experiencing a high level of crime

There's no bloody doubt whatsoever.

These things are VASTLY more important in understanding the rise in crime over the past couple of decades.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't feel it helps that in the face of fragmenting society, inefficient courts and police etc etc we are also forbidden to own the appropiate tools to facilitate self-defence.

However, I do concede that there is a potential argument for arming the population, BUT I would also require that the other problems - i.e. the ones that actually cause the rise in crime - are dealt with at the same time

That's mighty white of you EG, but I'm sick and tired of this "gentleman in Whitehall really does know best" approach. We have a right to life, a right to self-defence, so we bloody well have the right to own the means to do it.

don't call people "pissant" just because they don't agree with you

Don't tell me what to do. If someone's a pissant in my opinion I'll call him just that. I've had it with dealing with trolls and other such tools. If they want to act like stupid children, that's how they'll be treated by me.

The point I'm making is that not only are guns not available for self-defence, but neither are a whole swathe of non lethal items

And the point I'm making is that this does not alter your statute and common law right to self defence. Read again the point about legally using illegal weapons.

we are also forbidden to own the appropiate tools to facilitate self-defence

I'm sorry, but I really don't buy the concept that self defence is only possible with guns.

That's mighty white of you EG, but I'm sick and tired of this "gentleman in Whitehall really does know best" approach

It's nothing to do with any man in Whitehall, it's common sense. If your car tyre keeps going down, do you keep on inflating it every morning or do you fix the puncture? The crime is a symptom of a deeper malaise. Whilst there's nothing wrong with tackling the crime itself, it is also necessary to fix the problems of which it is a symptom. It needs both, not one or the other.

If someone's a pissant in my opinion I'll call him just that. I've had it with dealing with trolls and other such tools

Well, if you can't or won't debate in a civil manner with them, don't you think that they have just the same right to be uncivil with you?

EG

No, Euan, I no longer live in Britain, the fascist usurpation of the natural right of self-defence and other outrages against the citizenry being a major reason.

The granny (why not say "old lady") with the "small but serviceable revolver" is referred to. Why would she have a "small" revolver? Why not a normal sized revolver? Is there a "grannies' revolver"?

Any burglar confronted by an old lady, old man or anyone else - and I include a 13 year girl in her own home - pointing a gun at him is going to think twice. If she has the wit (and I know this is asking a great marshalling of will and thought very suddenly and that is not easy) to fire - even if she misses - he is not going to approach her because the next shot may get him. Knowing that she has the will to shoot, this punk may not feel lucky and will probably run away. At least with a gun, the intended victim has a good chance of survival.

Any burglar confronted by an old lady, old man or anyone else - and I include a 13 year girl in her own home - pointing a gun at him is going to think twice

And this happened how often, exactly? Which is to say, what was the statistical probability of encountering the armed old lady (why not say "granny?") or schoolgirl? In England, not anywhere else because we are not talking about crime anywhere else.

EG

And this happened how often, exactly? Which is to say, what was the statistical probability of encountering the armed old lady (why not say "granny?") or schoolgirl? In England, not anywhere else because we are not talking about crime anywhere else.

Well, it obviously does not happen in England does it? that's the whole point of this discussion isn't it?

And the point I'm making is that this does not alter your statute and common law right to self defence. Read again the point about legally using illegal weapons.

EG, I know about this point, but I'm not interested in being able to use an illegal weapon for legal self-defence. I want to be able to have my common law and Consitutional right to own arms for my defence if I want to.

I'm sorry, but I really don't buy the concept that self defence is only possible with guns.

Of course it isn't, and that's why I've pointed out to you that the British state also bans non lethal weapons such as tear gas and stun guns which are quite common in many other countries. Why do think that is, if, as you imply, they are so happy for us to defend ourselves?

It's nothing to do with any man in Whitehall, it's common sense. If your car tyre keeps going down, do you keep on inflating it every morning or do you fix the puncture? The crime is a symptom of a deeper malaise. Whilst there's nothing wrong with tackling the crime itself, it is also necessary to fix the problems of which it is a symptom. It needs both, not one or the other.

But while the man in Whitehall tries and fails to solve the myriad problems of crime in modern society, we are still denied the right to own effective weapons for self defence (note I did not say guns). If it needs both, at present we get neither. And since Whitehall policy wonks aren't going to reduce crime any time soon, at least let us have the means to defend ourselves.

Well, if you can't or won't debate in a civil manner with them, don't you think that they have just the same right to be uncivil with you?

Trolls are not interested in having a rational debate, and you are wasting your time even trying. They are uncivil by their nature, so as far as I'm concerned they can get it back.

I want to be able to have my common law and Consitutional right to own arms for my defence if I want to

But that really means that the question is simply one of "I want a gun" and it's not so important whether or not there is an efficient system of police and criminal justice. Would it be fair to say that if you had a choice of living in a crime free society with no guns or a high crime society with guns (all else being the same), you'd prefer to live with the gun? Note I'm not saying this is a real choice you are being given, it's a hypothetical question.

As to rights, in English law you have no rights whatsoever other than those granted by Parliament, which can also take them away. This has also been dealt with in depth here before and relates to the legal doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament. And of course we don't have a constitution as such, so there is no document with an enumerated right to bear arms that cannot be overriden by Parliament.

Why do think that is, if, as you imply, they are so happy for us to defend ourselves?

I'm not sure it's useful to conflate the separate issues of self defence and permission to own weapons. For guns, I think there was probably a strand of rational thought that saw a disarmed populace as convenient for the state in that, in a turbulent century, it minimised the probability of armed revolt. I suspect this continued even though the danger of bolshevik revolution had long passed. But I think also there was the perception by the state that there was an effective policing and justice system and hence no necessity for the people to be armed. Finally, one must take account of the knee-jerk emotive reactions modern politicians are prone to, and in the wake of Hungerford and Dunblane it was more or less inevitable that the law would be tightened significantly, usually on the basis of thinking of the children.

I don't think there is any organised conspiracy specifically to stop the people defending themselves - the law on that hasn't changed for decades - but I do think the quite separate intent to disarm the population for no other reasons than state security and public safety has clashed with the self defence right. This might not have been a problem, but at the same time changes in policing, the structure of society, human rights law and the administration of criminal justice have resulted in increasing levels of crime. Quite probably an unforseen consequence.

But this leads to another interesting hypothetical scenario. Suppose crime levels were at an all time low, but guns were still forbidden. What would your justification be for demanding the right to own a gun?

If it needs both, at present we get neither. And since Whitehall policy wonks aren't going to reduce crime any time soon, at least let us have the means to defend ourselves

I wouldn't really argue with you on this, as should be clear from my earlier comments. However, I think it needs to be kept in proportion. Britain is not at the stage where, as some pro gun lobbyists would like to believe, armed packs roam the streets and burglarly is an everyday hazard for everyone. It simply is not like that, and the problem really is not as dire as many suggest - and hence the need for weapons rather less pressing than many would say.

They are uncivil by their nature, so as far as I'm concerned they can get it back

Nevertheless, I would urge you not to lower yourself to their level. Gun control is an extremely emotive issue, and once the insults start flying the very people you are trying to persuade will just walk away, preconceptions confirmed. Be above it and use rational, unemotional and fact-based argument in a civil and polite fashion and, behold, people will listen to you and not to the shrill control freaks. Lower yourself to their level, and nobody will listen and n