We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
News from gun-free Britain Gun crime continues to rise in Britain, with two young girls shot dead
at a party last night.
Perhaps Britain should ban all handguns. Oh, that’s right… they already are banned. So let’s ban… I dunno… let’s ban something else… toy guns, just like they are in Sweden! That will do the trick!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Since we seem to have proved that banning guns does not stop those that want them from obtaining them, can we please un-ban firearms so that the law abiding hobbiests, collectors and marksmen can go about their law abiding business again?
I’m not myself sure about an armed public, but my own approach to a rise in crimes committed using guns would be sharply higher sentences for people convicted of committing violent crimes while using explosives, gases or firearms.
The logic would be that all these weapons hugely increase criminals’ chances of getting away with a crime, and therefore a major sentence difference would be needed to make the risk of trying to commit a crime without them worthwhile [the difference between four years and twelve years, for example].
Guns and bombs are so much more effective than cruder weapons like knives, that we would have to [ho ho] bite the bullet, and accept that much lower sentences for vicious crimes committed with, for example, knives, are necessary so as to clearly discourage criminals from obtaining and using more effective, longer-range weapons to enforce their will.
It would be a difficult policy to explain at first, but the idea of all-crime-is-bad-so-we-need-long-sentences-for-all-crime has to be winkled out of the public’s confused mind somehow.
Hey! Let’s have an gun amnesty! The crims’ll be lining up to hand over their weapons! Brilliant!
I’d sympathize, but we’re catching up over here, slow but sure:
New State Anti-Gun Laws Endanger Countless Lives
Mark is sadly mistaken. The longer sentences mean the criminal has more to lose. So they’ll go more heavily armed and be prepared to shoot it out or go down with guns blazing.
More guns in the hands of the good means fewer of the bad. You should read Lott’s (not Trent!) work on crime and hidden carry in the US. Violent crime has drastically fallen. I suspect it would fall by an equally large amount if Prohibition II were repealed over there.
Sentences don’t do much to stop criminals. But the thought that the next mugging might result in their death has quite a salutory effect.
While sentences themselves don’t have any real effect on slowing crime, surety of punishment does. That means catching criminals and convicting them. Blunkett seems to have caught on to the convicting part, in a spectacularly wrong-headed way, but catching them is another matter, unless the crime is homophobia.
Perhaps the UK should consider bringing back public hangings for criminals. An even better idea would be to let Brits defend themselves….
The Guardian, in an article arguing against deregulation of pub opening hours, gives the example of Scotland, where knife violence is apparently on the rise. So: they’re next…
Packing.org has a thread on this very issue; would be interesting to see some Samizdatanistas commenting there…
Dennis
I wager that public hangings would have more support in Parliament than the right to self-defense.
Think about it: Public executions would allow MP’s to boast that they are tough on crime, BBC4 would get some help for its sagging ratings, and the Home Office would form another bureaucracy to administer the program. All while deflecting attention from the real reasons why crime is rising.
A statist’s dream.
Kevin
Hi, I’m from Texas, here in the U.S.A. About harsher penalties. We have the DEATH PENALTY here, and it is used quite a bit. Notice we have not ‘solved’ the crime problem.
Now with that said, I have a CHL, and I carry a pistol, but gun or not, there is a lot more to the problem than just absence or presence of guns.
Oh, I do wish you would get your guns back as it has NOTHING to do with crime, but we have ‘the’ harshist penalty, and it is not a cure-all.
Best,
Paul
Actually the presence of firearms has been proven to have a deterrent effect on crime. I too have my CHL, albeit in Florida. Florida’s crime rate has fallen through the cellar since the animals don’t know if their next target happens to be a little old lady with a .357 or just another disarmed bedwetter. More guns less crime. Executions also have an effect, In Florida and Texas (I was born there) executions are a regular occurrence. Crime is relatively low.
Ban parties with young girls present!