New US president & effect on laws

[David Levene]

And my understanding is that self defense is not considered a legally valid reason for owning a firearm in Great Britain.

Your understanding on that is correct, apart from in extremely rare cases.

[RobStubbs]

So it was "pure coincidence" that cartridge pistols were banned, and the crime rate went up? Looks more like the direct effect of an action to me. The "bad guys" can now run rampant without fear of personal injury.

I'm fairly sure that gun crime just went up post hand gun ban but in a no more significant fashion than it had been rising before it.

And as David mentions, there's no instances that can be remembered where a legally held handgun was used in self defence of a violent crime.

Perhaps more pertinent is that one of the reasons given for the handgun ban was that it would reduce the amount of handguns and ergo gun crime would decrease. That was an obvious falacy as has been proven to be the case over the past 10 years.

Rob.

[Spencer]

...Perhaps more pertinent is that one of the reasons given for the handgun ban was that it would reduce the amount of handguns and ergo gun crime would decrease. That was an obvious falacy as has been proven to be the case over the past 10 years.

Rob.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any politician to admit to being wrong.

Spencer

[alb]

I'm fairly sure that gun crime just went up post hand gun ban but in a no more significant fashion than it had been rising before it.

Rob,

Please see this article, pg. 2:

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images ... es/282.pdf

See also:

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm

According to Home Office figures, the total number of deaths and injuries from gun crimes rose by 342 percent from 1998 to 2005. This sure seems significant to me.

I am curious, however. With crimes committed with handguns being rare prior to the pistol ban (2,636 total crimes in 1997 for England and Wales), and with less than 1 person in 1,000 owning pistols, and those pistols being effectively inaccessible for self defense (see David Levene's post), why did the British government find it necessary to ban handguns? Either handguns are a significant threat in your society or they are not. If they are a significant threat, then why wouldn't that threat act as a deterrent to criminals? And if they aren't a significant threat, then why were they banned?

Please see the following article for a discussion of how Great Britain compiles its crime statistics:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 5139.shtml

I've seen similar dicussions of this topic in more scholarly works.

You suggested that the handgun ban was intended to reduce the the amount of handgun crime by reducing the number of handguns. But, if legal handgun ownership is as rare as David Levene suggests to start with, then how can a complete ban have any significant effect?

The fact is, there has been a statistically significant increase in violent crime in the UK since the pistol ban. There has been a huge increase in gun crime and the number of deaths and injuries resulting from gun crimes since the ban. These facts are highly correlated with the gun ban. But correlation doesn't prove cause and effect. After all, there may be other confounding factors, or it may be just a coincidence. In light of similar experiences around the world and extensive analyses by people like John Lott and others, however, I would suggest that the likelihood of the UK experience being a coincidence is less than my odds of winning the lottery.

Given the magnitude of the increase in violent crime in the UK since 1997, it seems fairly safe to presume that something was deterring violent criminals. And we don't have to look very far to see what's changed.

Regards,

Al B.

[David Levene]

I am curious, however. With crimes committed with handguns being rare prior to the pistol ban (2,636 total crimes in 1997 for England and Wales), and with less than 1 person in 1,000 owning pistols, and those pistols being effectively inaccessible for self defense (see David Levene's post), why did the British government find it necessary to ban handguns?

It was a political decision in the wake of the killing of 16 children and their teacher in March 1996. The months that followed coincided with the last poltical party conferences before a general election. Tony Blair decided to jump on the bandwagon as he saw additional votes. There was a public enquiry into the killings which Blair originally said he would wait for the results from before making up his mind. He went back on that and announced that he would ban legal pistols at the Labour Party conference while the public enquiry was still sitting.

You suggested that the handgun ban was intended to reduce the the amount of handgun crime by reducing the number of handguns. But, if legal handgun ownership is as rare as David Levene suggests to start with, then how can a complete ban have any significant effect?

It can't but it made good PR in the run-up to the election.

Just to put some numbers on it, from memory, approximately 42 thousand firearm certificates with pistols on them and a population of approximately 60 million.

[Steve Swartz]

David:

What we've found in the colonies (and everywhere else we have seen the pattern repeated: over many different cases where this "coincidental" drop/rise in hot crimes happens when firearm ownership is incresed/decreased) is that

It doesn't matter what you think the likelihood of someone using a firearm in self defense is . . . and it doesn't matter what the statistics say the likelihood is of a firearm being used in self defense* is . . .

The ONLY thing that matters is what a violent criminal thinks the likelihood of being confronted by a firearm wielding potential victim is.

So of course, the best research takes that factor into account.

It's about the perception of the common street thug. When the UK made their foolish, well publicized decisions, the typical street thug doesn't act based on a rational analysis of government statistics.

The typical street thug just pops the champagne nad gets to work . . . like every other typical street thug in every other country/district/etc. since the world became "civilized."

How many times does B have to follow A (in varied circumstances across all cultures, situations, etc.) before the scales fall from your eyes?

Steve


*(official statistics of course don't even count ~80-90% of all defensive uses of firearms for obvious and well documented reasons)

[David Levene]

The ONLY thing that matters is what a violent criminal thinks the likelihood of being confronted by a firearm wielding potential victim is.

I cannot fully agree with that Steve. What no statistics can show up is that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK were not even aware that you could legally own a pistol. I remember the (happy) amazement I felt when I found out in 1979 that it was possible. To try again to put it into context, the number of legal pistol owners before the ban wouldn't even have half-filled Wembley Stadium.

It must also be remembered that with virtually no exceptions the pistols were locked up at home or at a club. How would you account for the dramatic increase in violent crime on the streets (where most of it happens). Even those who knew that pistols could be legally owned would not have dreamed that anyone would be walking around with one. I would imagine that the majority of pistols in the US are purchased for self defence (please correct me if I am wrong). None (or as good as none) of the legal pistols in the UK were purchased for that purpose.

There are many other factors which would contribute more to the increase in violent crime.

How about the increase in the use of drugs.
Or the reduced number of police man-hours on the streets caused by the dramatic increase in the paperwork associated with any arrests.
Or the easier availability of ilegal firearms.
Or the increasing lack of respect for authority.

Need I go on, I am sure that you have had exactly the same problems in the US since 1997. We have not however had the same starting point with regard to pistols before then. You had widespread firearms ownership for self defence before then, we did not. That self defence ownership has possibly helped to minimise the effects of "modern life", something that we would not have benefited from.

[Steve Swartz]

David:

Not to be boorish here, but unless you are a typical street thug (I'm assuming you aren't), it doesn't matter what your perception of "the facts" are!

The perception was that the risk environment changed when the laws were changed.

Whether/to what degree they actually changed is, frankly, somewhat irrelevant.

On top of that, what you fail to take into consideration are the firearms that were (are?) illegally owned and used by "law abiding citizens" (potential victims). The typical street thug knows all about the little old man with the Webley stashed in his nightstand. The Home Office doesn't.

When the law (and, somewhat more importantly, the enforcement of the law AND the trumpeting of the succes of that enforcement with cases liket he Martin case) changed, the PERCEPTION of risk of the typical street thug changed.

Again, in the U.S. (as well as other countries) you had to EXPLICITLY measure/estimate the "deterrent effect" (perception of street thug) of the risk of facing down an armed opponent to see this effect.

Of course, the politicians have no interest in measuring *anything* that would reduce their ability to increase the dependency of their "Subjects" on their benevolence.

Born "Booted and Spurred" and all that. Human nature doesn't change much over the years.

Steve

[2650 Plus]

Our polititions work every day to eliminate both. Why were the ten amendmants added to the constitution before it could be ratified ? Could it be that a people that had just finished years of war against an oppresive english king used that experence to preserve the tools necessary to over through a tyrant? Just a little reasoning will lead you to the conclusion that the amendments were added to insure that the power of government could not take these tools away under any pretext and they are the last resort to the great experiment going awry. I await the reveloution for it will surely come. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[David Levene]

Not to be boorish here, but unless you are a typical street thug (I'm assuming you aren't), it doesn't matter what your perception of "the facts" are!

Your assumption is correct ;-)

The perception was that the risk environment changed when the laws were changed.

The (non-shooting) public's perception before the ban was that only criminals and "special" police had pistols, and it didn't change after the ban.

I think we must agree to disagree.

[alb]

I am curious, however. With crimes committed with handguns being rare prior to the pistol ban (2,636 total crimes in 1997 for England and Wales), and with less than 1 person in 1,000 owning pistols, and those pistols being effectively inaccessible for self defense (see David Levene's post), why did the British government find it necessary to ban handguns?

It was a political decision in the wake of the killing of 16 children and their teacher in March 1996. The months that followed coincided with the last poltical party conferences before a general election. Tony Blair decided to jump on the bandwagon as he saw additional votes. There was a public enquiry into the killings which Blair originally said he would wait for the results from before making up his mind. He went back on that and announced that he would ban legal pistols at the Labour Party conference while the public enquiry was still sitting.

David,

That sounds about right. Polititians act on the concerns of their constuents. In the wake of the shooting, and probably for a long time before that, the public at large (including the criminal population) perceived a serious threat from handguns. The politians acted and outlawed handguns. The perceived threat went down, to criminals as well as law-abiding citizens. Reducing the threat reduced the perceived opportunity cost of committing violent crimes, so now you have more of it.

Need I go on, I am sure that you have had exactly the same problems in the US since 1997.

Actually, in the U.S., violent crime has been declining since 1994, reaching the lowest levels ever recorded in 2005. During that period, the Brady law has come and gone, and the ban on assault weapons has come and gone. What has changed is that since the mid 1990s, we now have 36 states with non-discretionary concealed carry laws, and gun ownership is at an all-time high.

It has been demonstrated that whenever a state adopts a non-discretionary concealed carry law, its violent crime rate trend drops. It has also been observed that when this happens, there is an increase in the property crime rate for that state (substitution effect, i.e., criminals switch to safer crimes). It has further been observed that for counties adjacent to each other, where one county is in a state that has addopted a non-discretionary concealed carry law, and the other county is in a state which hasn't, the crime rate drops in the county with the law while it simultaneously increases in the county that doesn't have the law (migration effect, i.e., criminals go where it's safer).

These effects are observed despite the fact that successful defensive use of a gun is virtually never reported in the press in the U.S. I suspect that if you are an armed robber, for example, and you've recently wet your pants during several failed robbery attempts where you discovered that your victim was armed (whether legally or otherwise), you might consider moving someplace safer or changing your career. The people who earn their living committing violent crimes probably have a better handle on this than you do.

Regards,

Al B.

[Steve Swartz]

. . . and, all of the statistical evidence aside (quite convincing as it may be for many) at the root of all of this is the simple observation (it bears repeating):

It is just plain EVIL to work for (or even stand by and allow) that state of affairs where the weak can be more easily preyed upon by the strong.

I know you don't see it that way, but that is indeed what you are doing when you support so-called "gun control" [sic; more appropriately called "law abiding citizen disarmament"].


"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

"The line between good and evil runs not through the geopolitical boundaries of states, nor through the geographical boundaries of rivers and mountains, nor through the sociological boundaries of society and culture. The line between good and evil runs instead through every single human heart."

"The best way to enslave them is to make every one a criminal. Pass enough confusing, conflicting laws and they will all be vulnerable to the state. When every man is a criminal, they are no longer citizens with either the ability or desire to exercise their own free will; they have at that point become subjects."

Steve Swartz

[p.s. to our friends in other countries (pointed out here before) two fundamental things about the US system of government vs. all others. First, government does not exist to "grant" rights; it exists at the pleasure of the people to secure the rights they already have. Second, any law that has ever been passed can only reduce those rights that already exist. And Oh By The Way, the second amendment to our constitution (second only to freedom of speech and religion) specifically commissions the government with the responsibility to make sure the citizens will always have the capability to overthrow it. Having a gun isn't about protecting yourself from a criminal; it is all about protecting yourself from your own government. So *any* "reasonable restrictions" on military style weapons is de facto unconstitutional; just not de jure classified as such!]

[David Levene]

What has changed is that since the mid 1990s, we now have 36 states with non-discretionary concealed carry laws, and gun ownership is at an all-time high.

It has been demonstrated that whenever a state adopts a non-discretionary concealed carry law, its violent crime rate trend drops.

Can I just clarify one thing. I am not saying, nor have I ever suggested, that legal ownership of firearms for self defence is not a deterrent to crime.

What I am saying is that the change in our law in 1997 was not the cause of our increase in violent crime.

Before that time only comaratively few knew that it was possible to legally own a pistol. Of those, Of those, the vast majority knew that there was a virtually zero chance of a legal pistol being used to stop a crime because they were not used for self defence.

Everyone else thought that before 1997 only criminals and police had pistols. They also know that since that time the chances of encountering a pistol have greatly increased. The scum who perpetrate the violent crimes will know how easy and cheap it is for anyone to buy a pistol, albeit ilegally.

[David Levene]

I know you don't see it that way, but that is indeed what you are doing when you support so-called "gun control" [sic; more appropriately called "law abiding citizen disarmament"]

Steve, I hope you are not suggesting that I support gun control.

What I do support however is democracy. Much as I might not like or agree with the result, if a government is elected on a manifesto that clearly includes a comitment to ban something, and a law is subsequently enacted which carries out that comitment, is it then right to break that law.

[alb]

What I am saying is that the change in our law in 1997 was not the cause of our increase in violent crime.

Before that time only comaratively few knew that it was possible to legally own a pistol. Of those, Of those, the vast majority knew that there was a virtually zero chance of a legal pistol being used to stop a crime because they were not used for self defence.

Everyone else thought that before 1997 only criminals and police had pistols. They also know that since that time the chances of encountering a pistol have greatly increased. The scum who perpetrate the violent crimes will know how easy and cheap it is for anyone to buy a pistol, albeit ilegally.

David,

I understand what you're saying, but it simply doesn't make sense that the government would ban handguns if the public didn't think there was a problem. I suspect that there were far more handguns owned illegally by otherwise law-abiding citizens before the ban, and that these were used far more frequently for self defense than you might realize, and that very few of these incidents ever got reported to the police -- the Tony Martin incident being a notable exception.

This happens in the U.S. as well. The U.S. Census Bureau conducted a study of defensive handgun use and reported a result that was more than an order of magnitude smaller than any of the other 14 studies conducted on the subject by professional polling organizations and independent researchers. Most people are simply not willing to admit to a government agency under penalty of perjury that they even own a gun, much less that they used it for self defense, particularly if they own or carry the gun illegally.

The change in the UK's crime rate is substantial enough and persistent enough that it's very unlikely to be the result of a simple random fluctuation.

How about the increase in the use of drugs.
Or the reduced number of police man-hours on the streets caused by the dramatic increase in the paperwork associated with any arrests.
Or the easier availability of ilegal firearms.
Or the increasing lack of respect for authority.

Are illegal firearms really more readily available than they were before the ban?

Has there really been a significant increase in the use of drugs since the ban?

Is your government's response to increased crime really to reduce the number of police man-hours on the streets?

Is there really an increasing lack of respect for authority? People have been making that claim for at least the last 2,000 years.

People do more of a thing in response to a reduced opportunity cost. So, what reduces the opportunity cost of committing violent crimes? Why ignore the 1,200 pound elephant standing in the middle of the room?

Regards,

Al B.

[Steve Swartz]

David:

No, I'm not suggesing you support gun control. By your own admission, you support something far more dangerous- democracy.

In the US we realized that democracy was not the answer. The answer was a constitutional form of representative government founded on the principles that 1) human rights were not granted by government, but protected by government; and 2) the rights of the individual trump the rights of the mob.

Heck, "democracy" will *always* be three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Not pretty.

Now turn around and arm the sheep, and we've got something . . . if "the people" have less power than "the state" then nothing else really matters. That's why democracies always get bollixed up eventually- you can always convince 51% of the people (who care enough to vote) to do something really stupid.

Government exists to protect rights, not grant them.

Good thing this was a purely political thread to start with, or we'd really be "off topic" by this point!

Steve

[David Levene]

Are illegal firearms really more readily available than they were before the ban?

Has there really been a significant increase in the use of drugs since the ban?

Is your government's response to increased crime really to reduce the number of police man-hours on the streets?

Is there really an increasing lack of respect for authority? People have been making that claim for at least the last 2,000 years.

By their very nature, statistics on illegal guns will always be guesswork. Current estimates are however that the number of available illegal guns is measured in millions. Despite this, our government insists that gun crime is falling.

Home Office figures for drugs related crimes, 1998/99 under 140000, 2005/06 178500. Figures before 1998 were not collected on a comparable basis.

The reduction in police man-hours on the street is a direct result of the increase processing time required of the police.

The increasing lack of respect for authority, whilst unlikely to be proveable by statistics, is noticeable. This government introduced the ASBO, anti-social behaviour order, as a "slapped wrist" for trouble makers. Rather than being treated as a deterrent it seems to be treated as an ambition. Coupled to the reduction in available penalties in schools and you have a recipe for declining values (IMHO).

[alb]

... the second amendment to our constitution (second only to freedom of speech and religion) specifically commissions the government with the responsibility to make sure the citizens will always have the capability to overthrow it. Having a gun isn't about protecting yourself from a criminal; it is all about protecting yourself from your own government.

Actually, the second amendment is about homeland security as well. Our founding fathers had just fought a successful rebellion against the preeminent superpower in the world at the time, and they new what it took to remain free. And it's as true today as it was 220 years ago. No invading army is ever a match for a well-armed population. Just look at how we've been doing in Iraq and Afganistan, for example. Look at how the Soviet Union made out in Afganistan as well.

Further, you have to read the second amendment in the context of the constitutions of the original 13 colonies, many of which contained similar provisions, usually with wording like, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense and defense of the state shall not be infringed."

Regards,

Al B.

[Jose Rossy]

David:

No, I'm not suggesing you support gun control. By your own admission, you support something far more dangerous- democracy.

In the US we realized that democracy was not the answer. The answer was a constitutional form of representative government founded on the principles that 1) human rights were not granted by government, but protected by government; and 2) the rights of the individual trump the rights of the mob.

Heck, "democracy" will *always* be three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Not pretty.

Now turn around and arm the sheep, and we've got something . . . if "the people" have less power than "the state" then nothing else really matters. That's why democracies always get bollixed up eventually- you can always convince 51% of the people (who care enough to vote) to do something really stupid.

Government exists to protect rights, not grant them.

Good thing this was a purely political thread to start with, or we'd really be "off topic" by this point!

Steve

Steve, so spot on.

And SO difficult to understand by those who do not fully comprehend the US system of government (and not just citizens of other countries).

[peepsight]

I know this is off topic and i appologise now, but i find the origins of US law and constitution fascinating. I don't pretend to understand all of it but from my school days i was taught by an American teacher a little about it

The original 13 colonies were all pretty hostile towards each other and all originally wanted to be seperate and individual countries with their own governments. This explains she shape of the original states as they all wanted to have their own access to a sea/river port just in case a federal government did not happen.

Each state allowed the arming of its citizens in case there were border troubles or invasions by a neighboring state usually over boundary disputes. It was also seen as a defence against foriegn powers who might invade them.

Today we see each State, [all with slightly different laws] protecting the citizens right to bare arms and quite right too.

Post first world war, the then British government encouraged small arms clubs to form all over the country as a means of training the population how to shoot in case of invasion by a hostile country. It was also seen as pre training if you got called up for military service in case of war.

Both these ideals were born out of self protection.