TargetTalk

Posted: **Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:38 am**

MichaelB:

Again, perhaps louder this time?

"It doesn't matter one whit what *you* think the probablility of a criminal facing an armed opponent is. It only matters what *the criminal* thinks."

What research we have shows that criminals *did and do* perceive a change in risk associated with the passing of additional restrictions on their victims.

It doesn't matter what you- or yoru friends- (making assumption about you and your friends of course) think. What matters is what the criminals think.

If the criminals think the likelihood of meeting an armed victim go down, then they will be more liekly to take the risks associated with "hot" crimes.

It doesn't matter what the victim thinks about the likelihood of needing the gun for protection. It doesn't matter what teh home office/FBI stats say about the likelihood of needing a firearm for self defense.

It only matters what the criminals think.

The interviews/court records show that criminals perceive a close relationship between gun control laws and hte likelihood that they will have to face an armed opponent.

William:

Yes indeed- and the facts (as fuzzy as they may be when studying human behavior) clearly demonstrate the weakenss of the various "alternative explanations."

Facts are truly stubborn things. So far, David et al have offered only "alternative explanations" that fail the 5 criteria. The actual research that has been done on the relationship between gun control and violent crime consistently meets the 5 criteria.

The fact that this research meets the very stringent criteria of the physical sciences makes it all the more powerful, not less.

And

Irrespective of the validity of the gun control causes violent crime science, one very stubborn fact remains:

It is a great moral evil to reduce the ability of the weak to protect themselves against the strong.

Steve

Posted: **Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:12 am**

Steve Swartz wrote:So far, David et al have offered only "alternative explanations" that fail the 5 criteria. The actual research that has been done on the relationship between gun control and violent crime consistently meets the 5 criteria.

Steve, what you still do not seem to understand is that, at least compared to US pistol ownership, we already had virtually total gun control.

Assuming that the 16% US pistol ownership I previously mentioned is correct then how much of a deterrent do you think the rest would be if you took their pistols away from 30 million people. Then lock the rest of the pistols away so they cannot effectively be used for self defence. In 30 years time you would be in the same position we were in before the ban.

Posted: **Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:09 am**

Thanks, Steve, but I think you're pushing your hypothesis too far beyond the limits of the data. The research you've cited presents a strong argument for lessening gun controls in the interests of promoting personal protections. But it doesn't rationally support the UK handgun ban increasing violent crime.

I've got two pistols in the house, right now. But they've done nothing to improve my safety. You're quite right that the perception of the local hood hasn't changed at all, and I'm still just as much at risk as ever.

Some time ago, in London, some other guy had two pistols stored in his house in identical conditions to mine, but they were taken away. But his risk of attack didn't go up. The perceptions of his local hood didn't need to change: the gun control was already effectively total. There are more things that cause increases in violent crime than gun control.

Posted: **Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:58 pm**

Steve Swartz wrote:MichaelB:

Again, perhaps louder this time?

"It doesn't matter one whit what *you* think the probablility of a criminal facing an armed opponent is. It only matters what *the criminal* thinks."

Irrespective of the validity of the gun control causes violent crime science, one very stubborn fact remains:

It is a great moral evil to reduce the ability of the weak to protect themselves against the strong.

Steve

I agree with both of those statements 100%:

1) based on an expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent being pretty much zero to start with, the expectation has nowhere further down to go

2) Absolutely...

regards

Ed

Posted: **Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:30 am**

edster99 wrote:... based on an expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent being pretty much zero to start with, the expectation has nowhere further down to go

Ed,

This appears to be the crux of the discussion. David quoted the following numbers:

- 42,000 FACs in Great Britain
- 60,000,000 people living in Great Britain

Of course, only a fraction of those 42,000 FACs are for ownership of handguns. David also asserts that all good, law-abiding citizens keep their handguns locked up, so they aren't available for self defense anyway. So, if we believe these figures, the "expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent" is, as you say, pretty much zero.

On the other hand, I've read estimates that the pool of illegal firearms in the UK is in the millions. And enough of those 60,000,000 people were concerned enough about illegal use of handguns that their elected officials enacted a handgun ban in 1997. Of those 60,000,000 people in the UK, only a small fraction are violent criminals.

So:

- Who owns all of those illegal firearms?
- Why are the majority of the voting people in the UK afraid of a non-existent problem?

In the US, we have "gun free zones" like the campuses of Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. Although a number of the students who were massacred in the mass-shooting incidents that occurred at these places had concealed-carry licenses, they were all unarmed, because they considered the risk of getting expelled to be far greater than the risk of being the victim of a violent crime.

"Opportunity cost" is a fundamental concept of economics. And you don't need a PhD to understand it -- you make these types of decisions yourself every day. When you raise the opportunity cost of doing something, people do less of it. When you lower the opportunity cost of doing something, people do more of it.

Presumably, many of those millions of illegal firearms are owned by otherwise law-abiding people, since it defies common sense to believe that the ralatively small number of violent criminals in the UK are maintaining vast arsenals of firearms. And since they are breaking the law anyway, it would be pointless to keep their guns locked up and unavailable for self defense. After all, personal safety is a fundamental human need.

But, when you raise the opportunity cost of owning an illegal firearm by banning handguns and increasing the penalties for doing so, people will do less of it -- i.e., there will be fewer otherwise law-abiding citizens owning illegal handguns for self defense. At the same time, reducing the number of otherwise law-abiding citizens owning illegal handguns for self defense reduces the risk to violent criminals of getting shot during the commission of a crime such as a 'hot' burglary -- i.e., it reduces the opportunity cost of committing violent crimes, so criminals do more of it. Since the handgun ban in 1997, criminals in the UK have been doing more of it -- a lot more of it.

Given the rigorous studies by John Lott and others that show that enactment of gun control laws that disarm the public is always followed by an increase in violent crime, your assertion that, "... based on an expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent being pretty much zero to start with, the expectation has nowhere further down to go" and that the dramatic increase in crime following the 1997 handgun ban is merely a coincidence simply doesn't make any sense.

"When I'm out west and I hear hoof beats, I don't look around for zebras."

Regards,

Al B.

Posted: **Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:50 am**

Steve Swartz wrote:It is a great moral evil to reduce the ability of the weak to protect themselves against the strong.

Steve,

While you are absolutely correct, there are two common attitudes that you need to overcome when discussing gun control:

1. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
2. "Disarming everybody makes the weak safer."

The fact is, gun control doesn't work, not even a little bit. So, the needs of the many simply aren't served by gun control. And disarming everybody doesn't make the weak safer -- it puts them more at risk, since they no longer have an 'equalizer'. If you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear from the planet, then you would simply have a situation similar to what existed in England 500 years ago, before guns were invented, when the homicide rate there was about 30 per 100,000.

Perhaps the Brits are more civilized nowadays than they were 500 years ago, but how long would that last?

Regards,

Al B.

Posted: **Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:03 pm**

alb wrote:
edster99 wrote:... based on an expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent being pretty much zero to start with, the expectation has nowhere further down to go
Ed,

This appears to be the crux of the discussion. David quoted the following numbers:

- 42,000 FACs in Great Britain
- 60,000,000 people living in Great Britain

Of course, only a fraction of those 42,000 FACs are for ownership of handguns. David also asserts that all good, law-abiding citizens keep their handguns locked up, so they aren't available for self defense anyway. So, if we believe these figures, the "expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent" is, as you say, pretty much zero.

why would you not believe these figures? Do you know better?

On the other hand, I've read estimates that the pool of illegal firearms in the UK is in the millions.

This is possible but maybe slightly high? Because of the fact they are illegal its all speculation

And enough of those 60,000,000 people were concerned enough about illegal use of handguns that their elected officials enacted a handgun ban in 1997.

No, they were convinced by a hysterical media after the hungerford incident that every law-abiding pistol shooter was likely to go off their heads and start killing people like Michael Ryan, who had a mixture of legal and illegal weapons.

Of those 60,000,000 people in the UK, only a small fraction are violent criminals.

So:

- Who owns all of those illegal firearms?

Most of them (99.5%) are violent criminals - who else is willing to take the risk?

- Why are the majority of the voting people in the UK afraid of a non-existent problem?

Because they have been brainwashed by the politicians jumping on the media bandwagon that most shooters are basically a few inches away from causing a massacre. Most of them have no experience of shooting anything at all, so have no compass to decide if this is complete rubbish, or not.

In the US, we have "gun free zones" like the campuses of Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. Although a number of the students who were massacred in the mass-shooting incidents that occurred at these places had concealed-carry licenses, they were all unarmed, because they considered the risk of getting expelled to be far greater than the risk of being the victim of a violent crime.

"Opportunity cost" is a fundamental concept of economics. And you don't need a PhD to understand it -- you make these types of decisions yourself every day. When you raise the opportunity cost of doing something, people do less of it. When you lower the opportunity cost of doing something, people do more of it.

Presumably, many of those millions of illegal firearms are owned by otherwise law-abiding people, since it defies common sense to believe that the ralatively small number of violent criminals in the UK are maintaining vast arsenals of firearms.

No - it doesnt. The consequences for an otherwise law abiding citizen to be caught in possesion of an illegal firearm is many years in jail, something most people are not prepared to chance.

And since they are breaking the law anyway, it would be pointless to keep their guns locked up and unavailable for self defense. After all, personal safety is a fundamental human need.

You have to balance the perceived risks of (a) needing a firearm (b) the benfits you would get from having it and (c) the risks and consequences of getting caught with it.

But, when you raise the opportunity cost of owning an illegal firearm by banning handguns and increasing the penalties for doing so, people will do less of it -- i.e., there will be fewer otherwise law-abiding citizens owning illegal handguns for self defense. At the same time, reducing the number of otherwise law-abiding citizens owning illegal handguns for self defense reduces the risk to violent criminals of getting shot during the commission of a crime such as a 'hot' burglary -- i.e., it reduces the opportunity cost of committing violent crimes, so criminals do more of it. Since the handgun ban in 1997, criminals in the UK have been doing more of it -- a lot more of it.

I totally agree with the principle but come back to my point that the perception change by the criminals is tiny, and that the direct behaviour change caused has to be negligble.

Given the rigorous studies by John Lott and others that show that enactment of gun control laws that disarm the public is always followed by an increase in violent crime, your assertion that, "... based on an expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent being pretty much zero to start with, the expectation has nowhere further down to go" and that the dramatic increase in crime following the 1997 handgun ban is merely a coincidence simply doesn't make any sense.

There is no logical discontinuity between agreeing with John Lott's principle (which I do) and saying that if the expectation starts at zero it cannot change crimial behaviour. Zero divided by 1 or a million is still zero. The point is that the public were not disarmed by the gun control laws, because they weren't, in any real sense, armed in the first place.

"When I'm out west and I hear hoof beats, I don't look around for zebras."

Regards,

Al B.

Posted: **Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:01 pm**

edster99 wrote:
alb wrote:
edster99 wrote:... based on an expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent being pretty much zero to start with, the expectation has nowhere further down to go
Ed,

This appears to be the crux of the discussion. David quoted the following numbers:

- 42,000 FACs in Great Britain
- 60,000,000 people living in Great Britain

Of course, only a fraction of those 42,000 FACs are for ownership of handguns. David also asserts that all good, law-abiding citizens keep their handguns locked up, so they aren't available for self defense anyway. So, if we believe these figures, the "expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent" is, as you say, pretty much zero.

why would you not believe these figures? Do you know better?
Perhaps it would be more precise to say that I seriously doubt that these figures represent the true ownership of firearms by otherwise law-abiding people in the UK.

On the other hand, I've read estimates that the pool of illegal firearms in the UK is in the millions.

This is possible but maybe slightly high? Because of the fact they are illegal its all speculation
It's no more speculation than David's and your assertions are. At least it's been studied by people who should know how to conduct such studies.

And enough of those 60,000,000 people were concerned enough about illegal use of handguns that their elected officials enacted a handgun ban in 1997.

No, they were convinced by a hysterical media after the hungerford incident that every law-abiding pistol shooter was likely to go off their heads and start killing people like Michael Ryan, who had a mixture of legal and illegal weapons.
At least we agree that they were convinced that there was a problem. However, I'm not so willing to dismiss the concerns of millions of people as "mass hysteria." Perhaps those people know more about the actual rate of gun ownership in the UK than you are willing to acknowledge.

Of those 60,000,000 people in the UK, only a small fraction are violent criminals.

So:

- Who owns all of those illegal firearms?

Most of them (99.5%) are violent criminals - who else is willing to take the risk?
Anyone who considers the (cost*risk) of being victimized by violent criminals to be greater than the (cost*risk) of being convicted of firearms offenses. Dying is a pretty high cost, so is being maimed. It takes a really small risk in order to discount it.

- Why are the majority of the voting people in the UK afraid of a non-existent problem?

Because they have been brainwashed by the politicians jumping on the media bandwagon that most shooters are basically a few inches away from causing a massacre. Most of them have no experience of shooting anything at all, so have no compass to decide if this is complete rubbish, or not.
One of the articles that I referenced in a previous post indicated that about 26 percent of people living in the UK have been the victim of a violent crime. I can believe that they've made a bad choice by blaming handguns and believing that oulawing them would reduce violent crime, but I find it hard to believe that they were somehow 'brainwashed'.

In the US, we have "gun free zones" like the campuses of Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. Although a number of the students who were massacred in the mass-shooting incidents that occurred at these places had concealed-carry licenses, they were all unarmed, because they considered the risk of getting expelled to be far greater than the risk of being the victim of a violent crime.

"Opportunity cost" is a fundamental concept of economics. And you don't need a PhD to understand it -- you make these types of decisions yourself every day. When you raise the opportunity cost of doing something, people do less of it. When you lower the opportunity cost of doing something, people do more of it.

Presumably, many of those millions of illegal firearms are owned by otherwise law-abiding people, since it defies common sense to believe that the ralatively small number of violent criminals in the UK are maintaining vast arsenals of firearms.

No - it doesnt. The consequences for an otherwise law abiding citizen to be caught in possesion of an illegal firearm is many years in jail, something most people are not prepared to chance.
If the consequences weren't less before the ban, then why enact the ban? And please don't blame it on mass hysteria. If the consequences are greater now then before the ban, then the (cost*risk) of owning a handgun is greater now, since the cost part of the equation is greater.

And since they are breaking the law anyway, it would be pointless to keep their guns locked up and unavailable for self defense. After all, personal safety is a fundamental human need.

You have to balance the perceived risks of (a) needing a firearm (b) the benfits you would get from having it and (c) the risks and consequences of getting caught with it.
Precisely.

But, when you raise the opportunity cost of owning an illegal firearm by banning handguns and increasing the penalties for doing so, people will do less of it -- i.e., there will be fewer otherwise law-abiding citizens owning illegal handguns for self defense. At the same time, reducing the number of otherwise law-abiding citizens owning illegal handguns for self defense reduces the risk to violent criminals of getting shot during the commission of a crime such as a 'hot' burglary -- i.e., it reduces the opportunity cost of committing violent crimes, so criminals do more of it. Since the handgun ban in 1997, criminals in the UK have been doing more of it -- a lot more of it.

I totally agree with the principle but come back to my point that the perception change by the criminals is tiny, and that the direct behaviour change caused has to be negligble.
I think you seriously underestimate the "perception change by the criminals."

Given the rigorous studies by John Lott and others that show that enactment of gun control laws that disarm the public is always followed by an increase in violent crime, your assertion that, "... based on an expectation of finding a pistol-armed opponent being pretty much zero to start with, the expectation has nowhere further down to go" and that the dramatic increase in crime following the 1997 handgun ban is merely a coincidence simply doesn't make any sense.

There is no logical discontinuity between agreeing with John Lott's principle (which I do) and saying that if the expectation starts at zero it cannot change crimial behaviour. Zero divided by 1 or a million is still zero. The point is that the public were not disarmed by the gun control laws, because they weren't, in any real sense, armed in the first place.
I'm glad we at least agree on Lott's findings. It's your assertion that "the expectation starts at zero" that I find extremely dubious.

"When I'm out west and I hear hoof beats, I don't look around for zebras."

Regards,

Al B.

As you can see, I reduced the size of the text in your responses. There is no need to 'shout'.

Regards,

Al B.

Posted: **Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:53 pm**

Am I the only person who wishes this discussion would go away? C'mon guys - there are plenty of other forums out there where you can discuss this sort of thing ad-infinitum. Can't we leave TT for what it was originally established for?

From the FAQ...

Healthy discussion of problems or concerns are allowable, but not to the extent it becomes a cyber-brawl. Any messages not having to do with the aspect of Olympic style shooting (sport shooting as its commonly known in Europe) will be removed. This site is not about hunting animals or self-defense. There are plenty of other areas on the web that deal specifically with these topics. In short, keep it clean, and in the vein of Olympic shooting.

Posted: **Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:57 pm**

Edster99 wrote:

Because they have been brainwashed by the politicians jumping on the media bandwagon that most shooters are basically a few inches away from causing a massacre. Most of them have no experience of shooting anything at all, so have no compass to decide if this is complete rubbish, or not.

Perhaps the crux of our disagreement is our inability, here in the U.S., to understand how a nation of 60 million could be so quickly and easily brainwashed. Of course, the U.K. has a much more homogeneous population than the U.S. (but is becoming less so). And the ground work for strict control of firearms had been laid years earlier. In the U.S. we have a system of mixed Federal and State laws for firearms, so even when some parts of the the country get brainwashed, there are other parts that resist and don't allow their politicians to pass such ridiculous laws. Also, the NRA acted as a rallying point for those fighting the gun control hysteria. My sense is that was not the case in the U.K.

Posted: **Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:08 pm**

Fortitudo Dei wrote:Am I the only person who wishes this discussion would go away? C'mon guys - there are plenty of other forums out there where you can discuss this sort of thing ad-infinitum. Can't we leave TT for what it was originally established for?

From the FAQ...

Healthy discussion of problems or concerns are allowable, but not to the extent it becomes a cyber-brawl. Any messages not having to do with the aspect of Olympic style shooting (sport shooting as its commonly known in Europe) will be removed. This site is not about hunting animals or self-defense. There are plenty of other areas on the web that deal specifically with these topics. In short, keep it clean, and in the vein of Olympic shooting.

This discussion is quite civilized - certainly not a brawl. We are attempting to understand the effects of gun control legislation on the future of the shooting sports. A lot more interesting to me than which ammo you use in your gun. I don't read that stuff and you don't have to read this.

Posted: **Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:14 am**

alb wrote:This appears to be the crux of the discussion. David quoted the following numbers:

- 42,000 FACs in Great Britain
- 60,000,000 people living in Great Britain

Of course, only a fraction of those 42,000 FACs are for ownership of handguns..

What I actually said was "approximately 42 thousand firearm certificates with pistols on them and a population of approximately 60 million".

Posted: **Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:24 am**

alb wrote:On the other hand, I've read estimates that the pool of illegal firearms in the UK is in the millions. And enough of those 60,000,000 people were concerned enough about illegal use of handguns that their elected officials enacted a handgun ban in 1997. Of those 60,000,000 people in the UK, only a small fraction are violent criminals.

I've heard estimates, all reputed to have come from reliable sources, of between 1 and 4 million illegal firearms in the UK. As the pistol ban only removed in the region of 160,000-170,000 legally held pistols it is pretty obvious that a violent criminal stands much more chance now of coming up against a firearm than he/she did before the ban.

alb wrote: - Who owns all of those illegal firearms?

By their very definition, criminals. It would be naive to suggest that none of those criminals previously held legal pistols but, from the rigorous background checks required to gain a firearm certificate, I would suggest it would be very few.

alb wrote: - Why are the majority of the voting people in the UK afraid of a non-existent problem?

Are you talking about now or before the ban.
If now, then why do you suggest it is a non-existant problem; it is very real. In the past couple of years there have been at least 3 shootings in pubs in my (reasonably respectable) area.
If pre-ban, why do you suggest that the majority were afraid.... All that we know for certain is that they elected a new government who included a comitment to ban legally held pistols as part of their election manifesto. It was certainly not a single issue election. I would even suggest that the proposed ban hardly registered in the thoughts of the majority.

Posted: **Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:02 am**

David Levene wrote:I've heard estimates, all reputed to have come from reliable sources, of between 1 and 4 million illegal firearms in the UK. As the pistol ban only removed in the region of 160,000-170,000 legally held pistols it is pretty obvious that a violent criminal stands much more chance now of coming up against a firearm than he/she did before the ban.

I've heard the same estimates. When you remove 10 to 15 percent of the available firearms from circulation, presumably virtually all of them being turned in by law-abiding people, this lowers the risk to violent criminals substantially. Additionally, when you prosecute people for defending themselves with illegal firearms, this will make people more reluctant to do so, again lowering the risk to violent criminals.

I wonder how many law-abiding people shipped their newly outlawed handguns out of the country rather than have them confiscated, as the original poster in this thread was contemplating doing.

David Levene wrote:
alb wrote: - Who owns all of those illegal firearms?
By their very definition, criminals. It would be naive to suggest that none of those criminals previously held legal pistols but, from the rigorous background checks required to gain a firearm certificate, I would suggest it would be very few.

I'll agree that 'by definition', an otherwise law-abiding person who owns an illegal firearm is a criminal. Also, a person who uses an illegal firearm in self defense, like Tony Martin, is 'by definition' a violent criminal. It isn't, however, a very useful definition for discussing an issue like gun control, since it leads to a tautology.

alb wrote: - Why are the majority of the voting people in the UK afraid of a non-existent problem?

David Levene wrote:Are you talking about now or before the ban.
If now, then why do you suggest it is a non-existant problem; it is very real. In the past couple of years there have been at least 3 shootings in pubs in my (reasonably respectable) area.
If pre-ban, why do you suggest that the majority were afraid.... All that we know for certain is that they elected a new government who included a comitment to ban legally held pistols as part of their election manifesto. It was certainly not a single issue election. I would even suggest that the proposed ban hardly registered in the thoughts of the majority.

I was talking pre-ban. My reasoning was that politians don't act without pressure from their constituents to do so. Since they acted, this suggests that a majority of their constituents perceived a problem. The Michael Ryan incident may have served as a catalyst, but it couldn't have done so if a public perception that there was a problem didn't already exist. Since it did exist, despite the extremely low gun crime rate in the UK pre-ban, this would suggest that gun ownership in the UK, whether legal or otherwise, was substantially higher than what you've stated, and that the public as a whole, including violent criminals, was aware of this.

Regards,

Al B.

Posted: **Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:01 am**

Forget the name of the recent book- summarizing the body of literature on how people perceive risks, and how their perceptions have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

Bear in mind once again that it doesn't matter what the actual risks are, all that matters are the perceived risks.

Some general observations from the literature:

- The General Public (GP) greatly overestimate the probability of accidental shootings
- The GP greatly overestimate the probability of previously non-criminal actors "losing it" and going on a "rampage"
- The GP greatly underestimate the frequency of defensive uses of firearms
- The GP somewhat underestimate the likelihood that they will be confronted by an Armed Violent Criminal (AVC)
- AVCs greatly underestimate the risks of being caught
- AVCs greatly underestimate the probability that they will have to use their firearms in the commission of a crime; however
- AVCs simultaneously overestimate the likelihood that they will be confronted by an armed GP in the commission of a crime in general
-- This overestimation is higher in areas where gun control is perceived to be ineffective
-- This overestimation is lower in areas where gun control is perceived to be effective; approaching an accurate assessment in extreme cases (Japan, UK, Germany, etc.)

Of course, these inferences are all drawn from surveys and interviews. There is something called "socially desirable responding" wherein an AVC may claim that they didn't actually think they were going to have to use their gun, when in fact they had it in their hand when they broke in (!?).

When you consider (GP perception) + (AVC perception) = Political Action resulting in "Unintended Consequences" (unintended my arse!) it is no surprise that bad law layered on top of bad law is the result.

But that Yugo sure was a great deal, and nothing will convince me otherwise . . .

Steve Swartz

Posted: **Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:16 am**

alb wrote:When you remove 10 to 15 percent of the available firearms from circulation, presumably virtually all of them being turned in by law-abiding people, this lowers the risk to violent criminals substantially.

Not when the overwhelming majority of those legally held firearms are being stored in conditions where they cannot be used for self defence.

alb wrote:Additionally, when you prosecute people for defending themselves with illegal firearms, this will make people more reluctant to do so, again lowering the risk to violent criminals.

That has got nothing to do with the pistol ban. In any case, the UK position regarding prosecuting people who use illegal firearms for self defence has not changed so far as I am aware.

alb wrote:I was talking pre-ban. My reasoning was that politians don't act without pressure from their constituents to do so. Since they acted, this suggests that a majority of their constituents perceived a problem.

What you must remember was that the arguements and fallout from the Dunblane tragedy happened during the run-up to a general election. Tony Blair was desparate to win power from the Conservatives who had been in power for, from memory, the previous 18 years. I have no doubt that, probably in response to an extremely efficient campaign by the anti-gun groups, he was advised that there would be a nett gain in votes from promising a total ban on pistols.

alb wrote:The Michael Ryan incident may have served as a catalyst, but it couldn't have done so if a public perception that there was a problem didn't already exist.

I presume you mean Thomas Hamilton, Michael Ryan was some 9 years before. Public perception was swayed by a ferrocious and extremely efficient campaign waged by the anti-gun groups.

alb wrote:Since it did exist, despite the extremely low gun crime rate in the UK pre-ban, this would suggest that gun ownership in the UK, whether legal or otherwise, was substantially higher than what you've stated, and that the public as a whole, including violent criminals, was aware of this.

I have no doubt that gun ownership was higher than just the legally held guns. I also have no doubt that those guns previously held illegally were not handed in as a result of the ban, nobody expected them to be. That does not detract from my assertion that the ban was not responsible for the increase in violent crime.

Posted: **Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:29 am**

To Al B and Steve, do you get the impression we aren't going to agree on this.

Posted: **Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:00 am**

David Levene wrote:
alb wrote:Additionally, when you prosecute people for defending themselves with illegal firearms, this will make people more reluctant to do so, again lowering the risk to violent criminals.
That has got nothing to do with the pistol ban. In any case, the UK position regarding prosecuting people who use illegal firearms for self defence has not changed so far as I am aware.

Ahh, but now you have the additional penalties associated with posession of a handgun.

alb wrote:I was talking pre-ban. My reasoning was that politians don't act without pressure from their constituents to do so. Since they acted, this suggests that a majority of their constituents perceived a problem.

David Levene wrote:What you must remember was that the arguements and fallout from the Dunblane tragedy happened during the run-up to a general election. Tony Blair was desparate to win power from the Conservatives who had been in power for, from memory, the previous 18 years. I have no doubt that, probably in response to an extremely efficient campaign by the anti-gun groups, he was advised that there would be a nett gain in votes from promising a total ban on pistols.

Precisely. Blair expected a net gain in votes from the pistol ban. This wouldn't happen if the voting public didn't perceive a problem. I would certainly hesitate to accuse someone like Tony Blair of failing to understand the concerns of his constituents.

David Levene wrote:
alb wrote:The Michael Ryan incident may have served as a catalyst, but it couldn't have done so if a public perception that there was a problem didn't already exist.
I presume you mean Thomas Hamilton, Michael Ryan was some 9 years before. Public perception was swayed by a ferrocious and extremely efficient campaign waged by the anti-gun groups.

I stand corrected. My reference to Michael Ryan was the result of a post by 'edster99'. Perhaps I misread it.

David Levene wrote:I have no doubt that gun ownership was higher than just the legally held guns. I also have no doubt that those guns previously held illegally were not handed in as a result of the ban, nobody expected them to be. That does not detract from my assertion that the ban was not responsible for the increase in violent crime.

David Levene wrote:
alb wrote:When you remove 10 to 15 percent of the available firearms from circulation, presumably virtually all of them being turned in by law-abiding people, this lowers the risk to violent criminals substantially.
Not when the overwhelming majority of those legally held firearms are being stored in conditions where they cannot be used for self defence.

alb wrote:I'll agree that 'by definition', an otherwise law-abiding person who owns an illegal firearm is a criminal. Also, a person who uses an illegal firearm in self defense, like Tony Martin, is 'by definition' a violent criminal. It isn't, however, a very useful definition for discussing an issue like gun control, since it leads to a tautology.

The tautology is this:

- Legally owned firearms must be kept locked up, therefore they are unavailable for self defense.
- A firearm that is not locked up is by definition 'not legal'.
- Since legal firearms are not available for self defense, any use of a firearm for self defense is by definition 'illegal'.
- Illegal use of firearms for self protection is not 'self defense' since by definition, such uses are 'mutual combat'.
- Since self defense with a firearm doesn't exist 'by definition', then a law that outlaws a class of firearms cannot have any effect on law-abiding people's ability to defend themselves.
-Therefore, no reduction in opportunity cost for committing violent crimes can result from such a ban, because the use of firearms for self defense is itself a violent crime.

The UK has seen a dramatic increase in violent crime since the 1997 pistol ban. Disarming law-abiding people has been demonstrated to be highly correlated with increases in violent crime, e.g., the work of John Lott. 10 to 15 percent of the guns in the UK were removed from circulation as a result of the pistol ban, all from law-abiding citizens. What caused the increase in violent crime? In the field of medicine there is a saying:

"When you hear hoofbeats, don't look for zebras."

Regards,

Al B.

Posted: **Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:03 am**

David Levene wrote:To Al B and Steve, do you get the impression we aren't going to agree on this.

Of course we're not going to agree. But personally, I find discussing such topics with people from different cultures and different points of view to be both interesting and educational.

And I certainly respect your opinion, even though I don't agree with it.

Regards,

Al B.

Posted: **Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:13 am**

David is quite right in his resume on British hand guns ban.

It was the Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard who put the ban in place not long before they lost the election. The incoming Labour party saw fit to keep the ban for political gain. Most of our politicians are grossly ignorant if not down right thick when it comes to shooting yet they cheer when a British shooter wins a gold medal.

The vast majority of the British population do not own guns let alone having ever fired one.

With the reporting by the media of every gun crime in the most sensational way they just fuelled the anti gun lobby and played right into the hands of the vote hungry political parties. No party while campaigning would dare be seen to be pro gun as it was a vote loser.

All the parties chose to ingnore the fact that licenced gun owners who were a tiny percentage of the population were the most law abiding section of the British community, Police figures can prove this.

I don't think it serves much purpose to criticise other countries for their laws on gun ownership. They are all different and and all have their own reasons for their laws. As an Englishman i hope i can express my views on other countries gun laws as other countries do about our laws, but there is no way i could change your laws as you can mine. We just have to accept the status Quo and live with it, but live in the hope for change.

Britain has a very small gun lobby un like America so its an up hill struggle for us to make our voice heard.

TargetTalk

New US president & effect on laws