If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
article from the London Times
#From The Times September 8, 2007 Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun? British attitudes are supercilious and misguided Richard Munday Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls? The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman. Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain). America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”. In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones. We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Bront� recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery. If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence. As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week. Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist. Richard Munday is editor and co-author of Guns & Violence: the Debate Before Lord Cullen |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
article from the London Times
i.e. from Rupert Murdoch, the Aussie fascist who decided to wrap
himself in the American flag to make a few billion more. **** off, ****. ============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ============== Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760 http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975 stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
article from the London Times
Following up to Anonymouse wrote:
disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes heehee the devil is always in the detail -- Mike Remove clothing to email |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
article from the London Times
Following up to Jack Campin - bogus address
wrote: i.e. from Rupert Murdoch, the Aussie fascist who decided to wrap himself in the American flag to make a few billion more. funny how some people still think "the London Times" is some upstanding journal, not the purchased mouthpiece of an ozzie megalomaniac -- Mike Remove clothing to email |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
article from the London Times
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:15:49 +0000, Mike...
wrote: Following up to Jack Campin - bogus address wrote: i.e. from Rupert Murdoch, the Aussie fascist who decided to wrap himself in the American flag to make a few billion more. funny how some people still think "the London Times" is some upstanding journal, not the purchased mouthpiece of an ozzie megalomaniac He chose to be a yank, not an Aussie. Thankfully. Not one of our finer exports, but glad he went. Cheers, Alan, Australia -- http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Slovenia http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/ latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
article from the London Times
Anonymouse wrote:
#From The Times September 8, 2007 Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun? British attitudes are supercilious and misguided Richard Munday Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls? because we're noting they tend to happen in "gun free" places. criminals don't like to plan their killing sprees where THEY are likely to get stopped by a random citizen with his/her legal concealed firearm. -- Hackamore http://hackamoretravel.blogspot.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
article from the London Times
"hackamore" kirjoitti ... Anonymouse wrote: #From The Times September 8, 2007 Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun? British attitudes are supercilious and misguided Richard Munday Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls? because we're noting they tend to happen in "gun free" places. criminals don't like to plan their killing sprees where THEY are likely to get stopped by a random citizen with his/her legal concealed firearm. Heh heh! Show me such an American citizen and I personally introduce you to Jesus the Nasareth. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
article from the London Times
"hackamore" wrote in message ... Anonymouse wrote: #From The Times September 8, 2007 Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun? British attitudes are supercilious and misguided Richard Munday Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls? because we're noting they tend to happen in "gun free" places. criminals don't like to plan their killing sprees where THEY are likely to get stopped by a random citizen with his/her legal concealed firearm. -- Hackamore http://hackamoretravel.blogspot.com Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws we may have strict gun laws BUT handguns and ammunition are SOOOOoooo easy to obtain that we may as well NOT have them, all they have done is screwed up a legitimate and enjoyable sport (target shooting) for thousands of perfectly legitimate sportsmen and women |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
article from the London Times
On the particular moment of Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:24:15 -0600 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, hackamore put forth: Anonymouse wrote: #From The Times September 8, 2007 Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun? British attitudes are supercilious and misguided Richard Munday Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls? because we're noting they tend to happen in "gun free" places. criminals don't like to plan their killing sprees where THEY are likely to get stopped by a random citizen with his/her legal concealed firearm. In fact criminals are even known to relocate to different parts of the globle before indulging in wanton violence in gun free havens. Just make sure not to include drunken murder suicides in the stat(e)s. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NY Times article on Mustique | Don Wiss | Caribbean | 1 | May 4th, 2005 05:34 PM |
Article in NY TIMES Sunday | Robert Cohen | Air travel | 0 | January 25th, 2005 02:56 PM |
NY Times article on Trinidad | Don Wiss | Caribbean | 3 | November 22nd, 2004 10:49 AM |
A Queen Gets Her Sea Legs - NY Times Article | Brahmama | Cruises | 0 | January 31st, 2004 02:35 PM |
Cuba: You Can't Get There From Here . . . [NY Times article] | Don Wiss | Caribbean | 0 | November 15th, 2003 12:58 AM |