My Recent Radio Interview for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

[vortexring 0]

Who implied they couldn't/didn't fight back?

Put it this way, I know a lad who; roughly several seconds after being attacked, was left with a machette embedded in his elbow and a smashed knee cap from a baseball bat.

Are you surprised to know he continues his day to day life unarmed?

It's a mentality I doubt you can understand. In Glasgow the hardmen don't carry weapons for self defence. That's a small part of the mentality.

Do you go out wearing body armour? Do you take out with you a trauma pack? Do you drive in a car to work wearing a crash helmet?

Probably not. I don't wear body armour, or a crash helmet whilst driving, although I do carry a trauma pack inside my car.

When I leave the car the trauma pack stays there. I'll take that risk. Just like I'll take the risk of going about my day to day life unarmed. If I'm attacked and killed/seriously injured then so be it. Where do you draw the line to prevent this? Where do you draw the line on items to help prevent this? If you're line stops at physically carrying a pistol and learning martial arts fair enough. I'm not ridiculing anyone for this. (unless of course I'm ridiculed for not seeing it necessary to carry a pistol!)

And besides, do I really want to carry constantly a heavy lump of weight on my person every time I go out? Not a chance. I'll take my chances.

There are many other physical items designed for self defence? Do you carry these around with you? If not, why not?

Is it really worth arguing over? You'll keep your idea of what's best for you just as I'll keep my idea.

What is perhaps more worthy of discussion is America's gun culture problem. People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing.

That last paragraph is quite likely to cause some offence to yourself and others, but that's not my reason for saying it. I wrote it simply because that's what I believe.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

If you've got some sort of magic wand to get rid of the criminals (the only way you're going to solve that problem), then start waving it. I'd start by more effective campus security - and that would make a difference. PM me if you're not sure how.

Why via PM? If you have a magic answer, the Oakland and San Francisco PDs would love to hear it.

But I fairly sure you're blowing smoke.

That's fine. The PM suggestion was simply a hint that I can't really be bothered with a pointless argument. If Mnealtx is going to ask questions I've directed at someone else himself, he could at least then answer the particular questions.

Instead of making an attempt to ridicule other areas of my post, and preventing adult discussion.

Smoke... There's a possible comparison to gun laws. Really! The government recognises society is best off not smoking as a whole. It saves individual health, and with significantly less smokers, saves a nations health service millions upon millions. So despite there being people wanting to smoke - it benefits society if they don't.

So we've all these anti-tobacco laws coming into effect, such as banning smoking in public places. Quite possibly we'll soon see bans in private cars, even at home! It'll certainly save the kids from passive smoking, and the smokers themselves, even though they'll continually set themselves on fire given the chance - they have a right to smoke.

But what I've noticed is that less and less people smoke these days. It's fast becoming socially unacceptable.

Perhaps something similiar will happen to America concerning gun ownership?

edit: Did I say I have the magic answer? Improving campus security starts quite simply. There's always methods to improve security. Always. Have a think about it yourself.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

What is perhaps more worthy of discussion is America's gun culture problem. People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing.

I don't think that encouraging people to be helpless against someone with a gun is encouraging the development of society. Encouraging the development of lots of unarmed potential victims, yes. Developing society, no.

[vortexring 0]

Where on earth did I say or imply an encouragement of people being helpless against gunmen?

I'd rather people were confident enough to go about their daily lives without a firearm to help them feel secure. Confident enough to use alternative means for self defence.

Instead of wasting energy arguing over the right to carry a firearm, why not get involved in dealing with the gun culture problem to help end 'your' need to carry one?

And of course, you may well be doing so. Which, I'm sure you're aware, is the way forward.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Instead of wasting energy arguing over the right to carry a firearm, why not get involved in dealing with the gun culture problem to help end 'your' need to carry one?

And of course, you may well be doing so. Which, I'm sure you're aware, is the way forward.

I don't think it's the gun culture that's a problem. I think it's the criminal gun culture that's a problem, and yes, I am involved in dealing with that problem in my every day job.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Who implied they couldn't/didn't fight back?

Put it this way, I know a lad who; roughly several seconds after being attacked, was left with a machette embedded in his elbow and a smashed knee cap from a baseball bat.

Are you surprised to know he continues his day to day life unarmed?

It's a mentality I doubt you can understand. In Glasgow the hardmen don't carry weapons for self defence. That's a small part of the mentality.

Do you go out wearing body armour? Do you take out with you a trauma pack? Do you drive in a car to work wearing a crash helmet?

Probably not. I don't wear body armour, or a crash helmet whilst driving, although I do carry a trauma pack inside my car.

When I leave the car the trauma pack stays there. I'll take that risk. Just like I'll take the risk of going about my day to day life unarmed. If I'm attacked and killed/seriously injured then so be it. Where do you draw the line to prevent this? Where do you draw the line on items to help prevent this? If you're line stops at physically carrying a pistol and learning martial arts fair enough. I'm not ridiculing anyone for this. (unless of course I'm ridiculed for not seeing it necessary to carry a pistol!)

And besides, do I really want to carry constantly a heavy lump of weight on my person every time I go out? Not a chance. I'll take my chances.

There are many other physical items designed for self defence? Do you carry these around with you? If not, why not?

Is it really worth arguing over? You'll keep your idea of what's best for you just as I'll keep my idea.

What is perhaps more worthy of discussion is America's gun culture problem. People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing.

That last paragraph is quite likely to cause some offence to yourself and others, but that's not my reason for saying it. I wrote it simply because that's what I believe.

This is the same issue we were just discussing on the SCCC message board. Here is what I said last night:

Quote

When I used to work as a skydiving instructor, I came to realize that each person sets his or her own standard for safety. Some people jump with a helmet; some don't. Some people jump with an automatic activation device (opens your parachute if you get knocked unconscious); some don't. Some skydivers feel that high performance (high speed) landings are too dangerous. Others think that high speed landings are okay but that skysurfing is too dangerous. And others think that skysurfing is okay but that BASE jumping (jumping off of fixed objects) is too dangerous. Each person draws his or her own line in the sand. It doesn't mean that any of them are necessarily right or wrong.

Some people wear a seatbelt; some don't. Some people carry a gun; some don't.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[mnealtx 0]

>>America's gun culture mentality.

Here's some info from Nationmasters murder stats.

United States (24) 4.28/100k - that's with our "gun culture"

Jamaica (3) 32.4/100k

Jamaica, btw, has a complete ban on guns and ammunition.

I guess Jamaica REALLY needs to look at their 'gun culture', hmm?

>>What is perhaps more worthy of discussion is America's gun culture problem. People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing. <<

Bullshit. It's the actions of (primarily) inner-city criminals and drug gangs that are the problem.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Where on earth did I say or imply an encouragement of people being helpless against gunmen?

I'd rather people were confident enough to go about their daily lives without a firearm to help them feel secure. Confident enough to use alternative means for self defence.

Nice - how do you suppose that 85 year old, 105 lb granny is going to do in a physical confrontation with an 18 year old, 185 lb street punk?

Quote

Instead of wasting energy arguing over the right to carry a firearm, why not get involved in dealing with the gun culture problem to help end 'your' need to carry one?

Why don't you tell us exactly how to go about that? Especially describe how it's worked in completely eradicating all gun crime in Brittania. We'll be waiting.

Quote

And of course, you may well be doing so. Which, I'm sure you're aware, is the way forward.

The way forward to more unarmed victims for criminals, perhaps.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Put it this way, I know a lad who; roughly several seconds after being attacked, was left with a machette embedded in his elbow and a smashed knee cap from a baseball bat.

Are you surprised to know he continues his day to day life unarmed?

Well, it's not like he has a choice in the matter anyway. If the only choices in Glasgow are to go unarmed or kill yourself, of course you march on.

"Improve campus security" is the lamest solution suggested here. But like many solutions, no actual detail provided. If major city police departments can't prevent crime, how will the smaller universities (big ones are police departments) with security guards going to prevent anything bad from happening. They can't stop drinking and pot smoking, how can they stop all violence? They can't.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Instead of wasting energy arguing over the right to carry a firearm, why not get involved in dealing with the gun culture problem to help end 'your' need to carry one?

And of course, you may well be doing so. Which, I'm sure you're aware, is the way forward.

I don't think it's the gun culture that's a problem. I think it's the criminal gun culture that's a problem, and yes, I am involved in dealing with that problem in my every day job.

Glad to hear it. What exactly are you doing to deal with the problem, if you don't mind me asking?

According to some people here, it may well be you're wasting your time! There will always be a potential for armed attacks - it's unfeasable to eradicate all firearm crime, so why even bother? Wouldn't it just be better to allow everyone to be armed, to then deal with the matter, and leave it at that?
(And the American non-criminal gun culture / American criminal gun culture = American gun culture.)

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

"When I used to work as a skydiving instructor, I came to realize that each person sets his or her own standard for safety. Some people jump with a helmet; some don't. Some people jump with an automatic activation device (opens your parachute if you get knocked unconscious); some don't. Some skydivers feel that high performance (high speed) landings are too dangerous. Others think that high speed landings are okay but that skysurfing is too dangerous. And others think that skysurfing is okay but that BASE jumping (jumping off of fixed objects) is too dangerous. Each person draws his or her own line in the sand. It doesn't mean that any of them are necessarily right or wrong.

Some people wear a seatbelt; some don't. Some people carry a gun; some don't."


Most governments make it illegal to not wear a seat belt. Despite individual rights, this is a good law, from which countless people benefit..............

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>>America's gun culture mentality.

Here's some info from Nationmasters murder stats.

United States (24) 4.28/100k - that's with our "gun culture"

Jamaica (3) 32.4/100k

Jamaica, btw, has a complete ban on guns and ammunition.

I guess Jamaica REALLY needs to look at their 'gun culture', hmm? Of course. Would you find it preferrable that they didn't do anything instead?

>>What is perhaps more worthy of discussion is America's gun culture problem. People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing.
Bullshit. It's the actions of (primarily) inner-city criminals and drug gangs that are the problem.

Really!? These guys come under my bracket of American gun culture problems.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

>>America's gun culture mentality.

Here's some info from Nationmasters murder stats.

United States (24) 4.28/100k - that's with our "gun culture"

Jamaica (3) 32.4/100k

Jamaica, btw, has a complete ban on guns and ammunition.

I guess Jamaica REALLY needs to look at their 'gun culture', hmm?

>>What is perhaps more worthy of discussion is America's gun culture problem. People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing. <<

Bullshit. It's the actions of (primarily) inner-city criminals and drug gangs that are the problem.

Desperation showing again when you have to choose Jamaica as a comparison to make the US look good.

You could instead compare with industrial nations truly comparable with the US, like, say, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden.

...

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

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Where on earth did I say or imply an encouragement of people being helpless against gunmen?

I'd rather people were confident enough to go about their daily lives without a firearm to help them feel secure. Confident enough to use alternative means for self defence.

Nice - how do you suppose that 85 year old, 105 lb granny is going to do in a physical confrontation with an 18 year old, 185 lb street punk?
Mate, how many 85 year olds do you know who can handle a pistol properly? Who have the clarity of vision? The necessary speed of reaction? The dexterity to rapidly cock the weapon or deal rapidly with a stoppage? So all pensioners should arm themselves just in case? I'll warrant most American pensioners don't.

Quote

Instead of wasting energy arguing over the right to carry a firearm, why not get involved in dealing with the gun culture problem to help end 'your' need to carry one?

Why don't you tell us exactly how to go about that? Especially describe how it's worked in completely eradicating all gun crime in Brittania. We'll be waiting.
You'll be waiting a while - you'll never totally eradicate gun crime. Even you should know that.

Quote

And of course, you may well be doing so. Which, I'm sure you're aware, is the way forward.

The way forward to more unarmed victims for criminals, perhaps.

You know exactly what I mean!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Put it this way, I know a lad who; roughly several seconds after being attacked, was left with a machette embedded in his elbow and a smashed knee cap from a baseball bat.

Are you surprised to know he continues his day to day life unarmed?

Well, it's not like he has a choice in the matter anyway. If the only choices in Glasgow are to go unarmed or kill yourself, of course you march on.

"Improve campus security" is the lamest solution suggested here. But like many solutions, no actual detail provided. If major city police departments can't prevent crime, how will the smaller universities (big ones are police departments) with security guards going to prevent anything bad from happening. They can't stop drinking and pot smoking, how can they stop all violence? They can't.

Did I imply the option to arm himself wasn't there? Nice sidestep from the intended implication nonetheless. I see that a lot when gun issues are being discussed.

You might even accuse me of sidestepping the improvement of campus security issue you now have. Well, now you know!

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be also implying that since you can't stop all violence there isn't really an issue to discuss? Seeing as you can't eradicate all gun crime, you should just arm all the non-criminals and be done with tackling the problem!?


Come on!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Glad to hear it. What exactly are you doing to deal with the problem, if you don't mind me asking?

I work in homeland security. I help fund programs that try to keep illegal weapons from coming over our borders, as most weapons in the hands of gang members in LA have come through that route rather than through gun shows or legitimate dealers.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

>>America's gun culture mentality.

Here's some info from Nationmasters murder stats.

United States (24) 4.28/100k - that's with our "gun culture"

Jamaica (3) 32.4/100k

Jamaica, btw, has a complete ban on guns and ammunition.

I guess Jamaica REALLY needs to look at their 'gun culture', hmm?

>>What is perhaps more worthy of discussion is America's gun culture problem. People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing. <<

Bullshit. It's the actions of (primarily) inner-city criminals and drug gangs that are the problem.

Desperation showing again when you have to choose Jamaica as a comparison to make the US look good.

You could instead compare with industrial nations truly comparable with the US, like, say, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden.

Hmm... weren't YOU the one saying that cultural differences don't matter, before? Now that I've shown where gun bans AREN'T working, NOW you want to discuss cultural differences? Better late than never, I suppose.

If you're going to try to claim that the crime is because of the guns, I'm going to find an example where guns are banned. Sorry you don't like the comparison, but... *shrug*

Illustrates what *can* happen in a truly disarmed society where the criminals have all the advantages, I suppose.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mate, how many 85 year olds do you know who can handle a pistol properly? Who have the clarity of vision? The necessary speed of reaction? The dexterity to rapidly cock the weapon or deal rapidly with a stoppage? So all pensioners should arm themselves just in case? I'll warrant most American pensioners don't.

And you'd be wrong. Google "armed citizen" and see what you come up with. I still find it telling that you want to deny the most effective means of defense against a violent criminal.

Quote

You'll be waiting a while - you'll never totally eradicate gun crime. Even you should know that.

See last sentence, above.

Quote

You know exactly what I mean!

Yes, I do know exactly what you mean - you don't care how many innocent victims get racked up, just so long as the criminals aren't doing it with guns.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be also implying that since you can't stop all violence there isn't really an issue to discuss? Seeing as you can't eradicate all gun crime, you should just arm all the non-criminals and be done with tackling the problem!?


Come on!

Ok - you're wrong.

Nobody here is advocating doing nothing about crime - merely giving the criminal's VICTIMS a chance for an effective means of defense - the MOST effective, if you look at the data for it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ExAFO 0]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>>America's gun culture mentality.

Here's some info from Nationmasters murder stats.

United States (24) 4.28/100k - that's with our "gun culture"

Jamaica (3) 32.4/100k

Jamaica, btw, has a complete ban on guns and ammunition.

I guess Jamaica REALLY needs to look at their 'gun culture', hmm?

>>What is perhaps more worthy of discussion is America's gun culture problem. People continually insisting on the right to bear arms for self defence are detrimental to this problem. Instead of continually insisting on what is essentially a selfish right, why not think of your own input towards the society you live in, and what you can do to improve the situation, instead of holding it back from developing. <<

Bullshit. It's the actions of (primarily) inner-city criminals and drug gangs that are the problem.

Desperation showing again when you have to choose Jamaica as a comparison to make the US look good.

You could instead compare with industrial nations truly comparable with the US, like, say, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden.

Hmm... weren't YOU the one saying that cultural differences don't matter, before?

Really? When did I say such a dumb thing?

Quote

Now that I've shown where gun bans AREN'T working, NOW you want to discuss cultural differences? Better late than never, I suppose.

You've found a couple of totally atypical places to highlight, while denying the overwhelming bulk of the evidence.

Quote

If you're going to try to claim that the crime is because of the guns, I'm going to find an example where guns are banned. Sorry you don't like the comparison, but... *shrug*

Illustrates what *can* happen in a truly disarmed society where the criminals have all the advantages, I suppose.

Houston, Dallas, Orlando, Miami all have higher homicide rates than NYC or Chicago.

And comparing industrial nations (apples with apples, not bananas), all the nations of western Europe, Canada and Australia, have lower homicide rates that the USA.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be also implying that since you can't stop all violence there isn't really an issue to discuss? Seeing as you can't eradicate all gun crime, you should just arm all the non-criminals and be done with tackling the problem!?

I see you continue to fail to tell us how to improve campus security so these events won't happen. Yes, you're tapdancing big time.

Since you can't prevent risk without removing most freedom, you can't remove the threat. Therefore, you work on the defense.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Hmm... weren't YOU the one saying that cultural differences don't matter, before?

Really? When did I say such a dumb thing?

Quote

[url "http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2583374;search_string=guns%20culture;#2583107"]Here, perhaps?

To quote: "You're suggesting a culture that magically selects gun homicides for special emphasis in the USA without guns being somehow responsible."

Quote

Quote

Now that I've shown where gun bans AREN'T working, NOW you want to discuss cultural differences? Better late than never, I suppose.

You've found a couple of totally atypical places to highlight, while denying the overwhelming bulk of the evidence.

You cherry pick places with low gun ownership and low crime - what's your point?

Quote

If you're going to try to claim that the crime is because of the guns, I'm going to find an example where guns are banned. Sorry you don't like the comparison, but... *shrug*

Illustrates what *can* happen in a truly disarmed society where the criminals have all the advantages, I suppose.

Houston, Dallas, Orlando, Miami all have higher homicide rates than NYC or Chicago.

Show concrete PROOF that all those extra homicides are due to guns, then.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

• Quote

[Douva 0]

Quote

"When I used to work as a skydiving instructor, I came to realize that each person sets his or her own standard for safety. Some people jump with a helmet; some don't. Some people jump with an automatic activation device (opens your parachute if you get knocked unconscious); some don't. Some skydivers feel that high performance (high speed) landings are too dangerous. Others think that high speed landings are okay but that skysurfing is too dangerous. And others think that skysurfing is okay but that BASE jumping (jumping off of fixed objects) is too dangerous. Each person draws his or her own line in the sand. It doesn't mean that any of them are necessarily right or wrong.

Some people wear a seatbelt; some don't. Some people carry a gun; some don't."


Most governments make it illegal to not wear a seat belt. Despite individual rights, this is a good law, from which countless people benefit..............

What does that have to do with anything?

The government doesn't make it illegal to not wear a helmet while driving, and as a result people die in car accidents every year, despite wearing their seat belts, do to head injuries.

The government doesn't make it illegal to not wear a composite plastic chest protector while driving, and as a result people die in car accidents every year, despite wearing their seat belts, do to internal injuries.

Okay, seriously, what WAS your point?

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Douva 0]

Quote

And comparing industrial nations (apples with apples, not bananas), all the nations of western Europe, Canada and Australia, have lower homicide rates that the USA.

When quoting gun crime statistics from other countries, gun control advocates like to point to nations that have very different governments and judicial systems and that lack the gun culture and open borders of the United States. It's easy to point to the low crime rates in Japan or England, two small island nations with easily controllable borders, no significant gun culture (in part because they lack the frontier past of the United States and because they offer very little big game hunting), and judicial systems which afford citizens fewer rights than in the U.S. The British and Japanese definitions of "due process" are very different from the one Americans know. And the British and Japanese systems of government are more totalitarian than the U.S. system. Residents of Japan and England are treated more like subjects than citizens. Actions such as government censorship and warrantless searches, which would never be tolerated in the U.S., are deemed acceptable, under certain circumstances, by the people and governments of Japan and England and, to a lesser degree, Canada.

England never had significant gun crime, even before the implementation of gun control. Gun control was first implemented in Great Britain not because of any great need to curb gun violence but because, in the early 1920s, the British government feared the possibility of a working class uprising, similar to the Bolshevik Revolution that had just occurred in Russia. Gun controls were strengthened in the mid-1960s, as a way of appeasing public outcry for a reinstatement of the death penalty, following an incident in which three police officers were murdered with illegal revolvers. Because the revolvers used to murder the officers were already heavily regulated, the British government chose to respond to this crime by implementing shotgun control (despite the fact that recent studies had indicated that gun crime in Great Britain was under control and that shotgun controls would have no practical effect). The current gun control laws now enforced in England--virtually banning civilian ownership of firearms--were implemented in the late 1980s, following a mass murder in which a licensed gun owner killed eighteen people with a handgun and a semiautomatic Kalashnikov (AK-47) rifle. Because England lacks the strong gun culture of the United States, a strong media outcry for stringent gun control was met with little resistance. Though this massacre was the first and only time a centerfire, semiautomatic rifle was used to commit a murder in England, it led to the confiscation of every centerfire, semiautomatic rifle in the nation. The only protest from what passes for a gun lobby in Great Britain was an insistence that the government pay the owners of confiscated guns a small fee (a fraction of the actual value of most of the guns) for each firearm confiscated.

Gun control advocates tend to focus on the NUMBER of GUN crimes in countries with strict gun control, rather than focusing on the RATE of VIOLENT crimes in those countries, for two very simple reasons. First, focusing on crime numbers, rather than crime rates, allows gun control advocates to give the appearance that there is a much greater disparity than there actually is between the level of violent crime in America and the levels of violent crime in much smaller nations, such as England. Also, focusing on the low numbers of gun deaths in countries with strict gun control allows gun control advocates to avoid mentioning that many of these countries, such as England, have actually seen an increase in their overall homicide rates, since the implementation of strict gun control laws. And most of the countries, like Australia, that have seen a decrease in their homicide rates, since the implementation of strict gun control laws, have not seen as sharp a decrease during that time period as the United States of America, where gun control laws have remained virtually unchanged.

In the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, the homicide rate in England was 1/10th the homicide rate in the United States. In 1987 English citizens were shocked by a mass shooting at a public market. In 1989 American citizens were shocked by a mass shooting at a fast food restaurant. England responded by implementing the strict gun control laws currently in place. Americans chose not to implement stricter gun control. By the early ‘90s, the homicide rate in England was 1/8th the homicide rate in America. Today the homicide rate in England is 1/4th the homicide rate in America. Since the implementation of England’s strict gun control laws, England’s homicide rate has gone up; whereas, America’s homicide rate has gone down.

In 1989 the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice published a report showing that the Canadian homicide rate remained, for the most part, stable in the decade following the passage of the 1977 law requiring citizens to receive a Firearms Acquisition Certificate from police before purchasing a firearm.

If you compare 1976 homicide statistics to 2006 homicide statistics, both the U.S. and Canadian homicide rates have declined by 33%. Strictly based on those numbers, there is no evidence that the Canadian gun controls implemented in 1977 have accomplished anything.

Gun control advocates never mention countries like Mexico and Russia, in which gun control laws are VERY strict and murder rates are three to four times higher than in the United States. In truth, you can no more compare the United States to England, where virtually nobody has a gun and the violent crime rate is very low, than you can compare the United States to Switzerland, where virtually everybody has a gun and the violent crime rate is very low.

For more information read The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies, by David B. Kopel. The introduction can be read HERE.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.