0
AggieDave

Total Gun-Ban worked...

Recommended Posts

Well, not really, but below is a link and the text to an interesting opinion piece that raises a couple interesting points in reference to a place that has a "total gun-ban" and how it has failed horribly.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;?xml=/opinion/2003/01/05/do0502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/05/ixopinion.html


  Quote

This is what happens when governments try to ban guns
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 05/01/2003)


You would think if "gun control" was going to work anywhere it would be on a small island. Particularly a small island at whose ports of entry the zealots of HM Customs like nothing better than performing intimate cavity searches on the off-chance you've got an extra bottle of duty-free Beaujolais tucked away up there. Surely, if you also had a Walther PPK parked out of sight, these exhaustive inspectors would be the first to notice.

But apparently not. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham's New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey. According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. One can query the methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire - draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric property crime.

What happened at that party in Aston? I don't mean "what happened?" in the sense of the piercing analysis of Chief Superintendent Dave Shaw, who concluded: "There has clearly been some sort of dispute which has resulted in people coming to the premises with guns, discharging their weapons and causing this incident." You can't put anything over on these coppers, can you? But my question is directed at the broader meaning of the event. Chief Supt Shaw went on: "We have never had to deal with anything like this. In terms of the nature of the incident, it's almost unprecedented in Birmingham." He didn't quite say Birmingham is one of those bucolic tightly-knit communities where everyone in the village knows everyone else and no one locks their doors, but you get the drift: this is some sort of bizarre aberration.

I think not. When those young men decided to open fire in Birchfield Road, they were making an entirely rational decision. One reason why Chief Supt Shaw has "never had to deal with anything like this" is because Aston was long ago ceded to the gangs. And, if you can deal drugs with impunity and burgle with impunity and assault with impunity and use guns with impunity, who's to say you can't murder with impunity? The West Midlands Police have offered a reward of £1,000 for information leading to the arrest of those involved. Think about that: would you name a known gang member for a thousand quid? Once the funerals have been held and the media's moved on, the constabulary will go back to forgetting about Aston. But you'll still have to live there.

When Dunblane occurred, all of us - even, if they're honest with themselves, the shrieking hysterics baying for pointless legislation - understood it was a freak event: a nut went nuts. It happens, and, when it does, the event has no broader implications. But what happened in Birchfield Road is of wider relevance: it's a glimpse of the day after tomorrow - not just in Aston, but in Edgbaston and Solihull and Leamington Spa.

After Dunblane, the police and politicians lapsed into their default position: it's your fault. We couldn't do anything about him, so we'll do something about you. You had your mobile nicked? You must be mad taking it out. Why not just keep it inside nice and safe on the telephone table? Had your car radio pinched? You shouldn't have left it in the car. House burgled? You should have had laser alarms and window bars installed. You did have laser alarms and window bars but they waited till you were home, kicked the door in and beat you up? You should have an armour-plated door and digital retinal-scan technology. It's your fault, always. The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita on higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven't had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding.

The gangs on Birmingham's streets instinctively understand this. They know, even if the Government doesn't, that the Blairite "total" ban, which sounds so butch and macho when you do your soundbite on the telly, is a cop-out: it makes the general population the target, not the criminals. And once that happens it's always easier to hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than the Yardies with the Uzis. When you disarm the citizenry, when you prosecute them for being so foolish as to believe they have a right to self-defence, when you issue warnings that they should "walk on by" if they happen to see a burglary or rape in progress, the main beneficiaries will obviously be the criminals. Aston is the logical reductio of British policing: rival bad guys with state-of-the-art hardware, a cowed populace, and a remote constabulary tucked up in bed with the answering machine on.

I see I haven't yet mentioned the touchy social factor which even squeamish British Lefties have been forced to confront: Aston is yet more "black-on-black" violence. The reason I haven't mentioned it is because there hardly seems any point. What's new? Canada also had a Dunblane-like massacre, followed by Dunblane-like legislation, and, like Birmingham, boring, bland Toronto has lately been riven by gun violence from - wait for it - Jamaican gangs. But in neither Britain nor Canada is it politically feasible to suggest that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. As it happens, that Canadian massacre, of Montreal female students 12 years ago, was committed by the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, but, although we all claim to be interested in the "root causes" of crime, they tend to involve awkward cultural judgments. It's easier, like Mr Blair, just to go "total": blame everyone, ban everything.

This basic approach of addressing any cultural factors apart from the ones that correlate was pioneered by American progressives. The corpulent provocateur Michael Moore, in his film Bowling for Columbine, currently delighting British audiences, spends an entire feature-length documentary investigating the "culture" of American gun violence without mentioning that blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the population, account for over half the murders (and murder victims, too). Once you factor them out, Americans kill at about the same rate as nancy-boy Canadians.

But, as I said, it's hardly worth mentioning in relation to Britain. In my part of New Hampshire, we're all armed to the hilt and any gangster who fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly ventilated by guys whose pick-ups are better equipped than most EU armies. The right of individual self-defence deters crime, constrains it, prevents it from spreading out of the drug-infested failed jurisdictions. In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem.

Meanwhile, America's traditionally high and England and Wales's traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it


--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,



You ought to know better than that. I can write a piece just as easily for the opposing viewpoint. If you are going to toss out unsubstantiated opinion pieces with the intent that the be accepted as fact, be prepared to accept whatever is posted in response as equally true. :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said it was fact. Actually, if you read my intro it says that it is an "interesting opinion piece." Basically I thought it was an interesting read and thought some others (from both sides of our long debated issue) would find it interesting (for different reasons, obviously).
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
In a word, holy Scheiß!

I recently read an interesting remark about Prohibition, and how the British made fun of the Yanks for it, and how ultimately useless and destructive it was.

This was in turn related to the British "Total Gun Ban". The gun prohibition, for all its good intentions does nothing but facilitate lawlessness and is ultimately destructive, just like the stupid Eighteenth Amendment was.

Nothing is less respected than stupid laws that cannot be enforced.

"Paved with good intentions", indeed.

The bleeding-heart gun-grabbers want what we would all like to see: a world without violence. Just like the Prohibitionists, they think in their misguided, myopic way that by getting rid of the instrument that they will somehow cause evil men to have a change of heart. Unfortunately, that's not realistic, and reflects a profound misunderstanding of human nature.

This, from people who by and large profess to be atheists. I guess if you spend most of your time worshipping trees or Noam Chomsky that a simple concept like this just won't click.

And those who are fed up with the stupid laws will in the future end up defying them, just like everybody who brewed gin in their bathtub back in the day, or lights up a doobie now.

KEEP YOUR FUCKING LAWS OFF MY GUNS
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh really? But the following is your opinion right?

  Quote

in reference to a place that has a "total gun-ban" and how it has failed horribly.



As someone who lived in South Africa until I was 23 and now lives in the UK, I can tell you where I feel safer. As someone who actually lives here I can tell you that I don't think the ban on firearms has failed. In fact they are now bringing in a minimum mandatory sentence of five years merely for possessing a firearm illegaly (pretty hard to own a firearm legally actually). Do you not think that all the gangstas might start thinking twice now? Knowing that being caught with a gun means five years in prison (let alone actually using that gun).

I've been to the USA five times now and I can tell you that the ridiculous ease with which total fuckwits can get firearms did nothing to make me feel safe there. According to your twisted logic legalized firearms make things safer for everybody - so shouldn't tourists be allowed fire-arms too? Or do tourists only have the right to be murdered and mugged in the USA? I say allow the tourists to carry guns too, no matter WHERE in the world they come from... B|

BTW how much time have you actually spent in the UK, Dave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its not my opinion, it was referencing the opinion expressed in the article. I've never been to the UK and have never claimed to have been to the UK. How much time have you spent in Texas? See, just as relevant since I wasn't offerering any fact, just posting what I thought was an interesting opinion article.

BTW Having visited the US 5 times now gives you the ability to know everything about the culture and the laws and steps used in purchasing a fire-arm? Thats funny, since I went through 2 background checks (State police AND the FBI) to have the right to carry a handgun outside of my home.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well having traveled with Dave and Glock or without Dave and his Glock, I can tell you where I feel safer. No worries, we live in Texas, and everyone here has a gun remember. Of course then again, our crime rates have dropped, and there have been almost no problems with concealed carry since it was instated years ago.

But I would rather debate it elsewhere, since this forum is in general 'opinion' based.
--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it must have been good, to type that much, i have not slept in 24 hours so i just scrolled thru it at warp speed with my middle real quick mouse button.
i'll come back and read it after i've gone surfing and have passed out for at least 5 hours sleepin like the dead

Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

KEEP YOUR FUCKING LAWS OFF MY GUNS



Mark,

They are your laws too. If you intend to separate yourself from the criminals you claim you need a gun to defend yourself against, you'll obey them.

If you don't like the laws, then either move or work to change them.

  Quote

Unfortunately, that's not realistic, and reflects a profound misunderstanding of human nature.



Violence is part of human nature. Does that mean it is sensible to allow those predisposed to be violent to have the greatest possible impact when they choose to hurt others?

The aims of gun control are not contrary to human nature. Neither are the wishes of many gun owners. If we are to find a middleground that suits the human nature of the average individual, both sides need to swallow their egos and come to the table ready to compromise.



Haven't we collectively been over this about a hundred times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in full support of strong gun control measures, particulary hand guns.

I would not feel safe walking around in a society where people are armed. Remove handguns from society, and you eliminate thousands of murders and accidental deaths.

I wonder how many people were shot in Texas today?



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

I wonder how many people were shot in Texas today?



That is exactly right...you wonder, because you have no idea. And neither do I because I am at work being paid to do other things. But a better question to be asked would be how many were should with legally carried guns, and how many were shot with illegal guns? Or how many crimes were averted by legally carried guns. My dad always said that locks keep the honest people out. Most gangs really dont care about gun-control, only law-abiding citizens do. Why not put more effort into enforcing the things that are already illegal.

Incidentally, I did a presentation in college in a humanities class on the concealed carry law. My mentor was less than supportive of the law and was completely surprised at how little evidence we found to point to any negative effects. Although that was 3-4 years ago, I doubt much has changed. At the time, the simple truth was that concealed carry had done nothing but good for Texas, as atested to by government officials, highway patrolmen, and surveys alike.
--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>. . . who spends an entire feature-length documentary investigating
> the "culture" of American gun violence without mentioning that
> blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the population, account for over
> half the murders . . . Once you factor them out, Americans kill at
>about the same rate as nancy-boy Canadians.

Well, there ya go! Just outlaw blacks, and the problem goes away. Good thing there are no blacks in Canada.


>In my part of New Hampshire, we're all armed to the hilt and any
> gangster who fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly
> ventilated by guys whose pick-ups are better equipped than most
> EU armies.

I have found that people who fancy themselves as a cross between the Lone Ranger and Clint Eastwood, and who prefer terms like 'ventilate' to 'kill,' have issues that make any serious discussion of personal freedoms a waste of time. Sorta like having a discussion about race relations with someone who refers to mexicans as 'wetbacks' or 'clonks.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As one who's lived 31 years in the UK and 26 in the USA, I give the Telegraph about as much credibility as the Chicago Defender (which is to say, almost none). The Telegraph's agenda is just to attack Tony Blair.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0