News5 mins ago
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dinsdale. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As an American, I find this excerpt from a recent article written by Iain Murray, a British citizen who specializes in criminal justice issues at STATS B, the Statistical Assessment Service, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy organization. He is the author of the Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on gun control statistics, enlightening.
"... The recent International Crime Victimization Survey, which provides a good indication of overall
crime levels around the world, shows that, while crime fell dramatically during the 1990s in the United States and most of the rest of the world, it has remained steady in Britain and Australia (which also enacted a gun ban during the late 1990s).
Meanwhile, gun crimes in Britain are increasing. According to London's authoritative Sunday Times, the number of firearm offenses in Britain increased almost 40 percent from 4,903 in 1997 to 6,843 in 2000. These are still small figures in comparison to the United States, but the trend is the opposite of what might be expected.
It does not seem that Britain can be said to be a safer place as a result of the gun ban. The police there have traditionally gone unarmed, but the number of incidents in which police officers have had guns issued to them in
recognition of potential danger increased from about 6,000 in 1994-95 to over 12,000 in 1997-8.
Contd.
"... The recent International Crime Victimization Survey, which provides a good indication of overall
crime levels around the world, shows that, while crime fell dramatically during the 1990s in the United States and most of the rest of the world, it has remained steady in Britain and Australia (which also enacted a gun ban during the late 1990s).
Meanwhile, gun crimes in Britain are increasing. According to London's authoritative Sunday Times, the number of firearm offenses in Britain increased almost 40 percent from 4,903 in 1997 to 6,843 in 2000. These are still small figures in comparison to the United States, but the trend is the opposite of what might be expected.
It does not seem that Britain can be said to be a safer place as a result of the gun ban. The police there have traditionally gone unarmed, but the number of incidents in which police officers have had guns issued to them in
recognition of potential danger increased from about 6,000 in 1994-95 to over 12,000 in 1997-8.
Contd.
Contd.
With such incidents come the inevitable mistakes: British police recently shot dead a drug dealer in his own bedroom. He was both unarmed and naked at
the time.
Nor has strict control had much effect on the number of guns available to criminals. British police estimate that there are nearly 300,000 illegal guns in circulation there -- one for every 200 people.
To put that figure in perspective, the leading U.S. authority on gun numbers, Gary Kleck of Florida State University, estimates that only 180,000 guns are used in crimes in the United States each year.
So despite the strict gun control laws, there are more than enough illegally held guns in Britain to allow gun crime there to reach U.S. proportions."
I fully realize the strong feelings uncovered by such a news article as the Virginia Tech massacre, but I believe historical perspective is required in understanding the differences between British/European views as opposed to the U.S. insofar as gun control is concerned...
With such incidents come the inevitable mistakes: British police recently shot dead a drug dealer in his own bedroom. He was both unarmed and naked at
the time.
Nor has strict control had much effect on the number of guns available to criminals. British police estimate that there are nearly 300,000 illegal guns in circulation there -- one for every 200 people.
To put that figure in perspective, the leading U.S. authority on gun numbers, Gary Kleck of Florida State University, estimates that only 180,000 guns are used in crimes in the United States each year.
So despite the strict gun control laws, there are more than enough illegally held guns in Britain to allow gun crime there to reach U.S. proportions."
I fully realize the strong feelings uncovered by such a news article as the Virginia Tech massacre, but I believe historical perspective is required in understanding the differences between British/European views as opposed to the U.S. insofar as gun control is concerned...
Finally, I find this to be revealing as well...
"... The Bill of Rights of 1689. which is still in force as statue law and remains our central constitutional document, guarantees only two rights of the individual, and one of these - the ultimate surety, according to Blackstone, of the subject's other liberties - is the right to arms. It was not arms for target shooting that the Bill of Rights guaranteed, but arms for the citizen's personal defence..."
Additionally (same source) "... When Britain introduced her first Firearms Act in 1920, the Bill of Rights provision was respected: the normal "good reason" for the issue of a licence for a pistol was self defence. This remained the case following the Firearms Act 1937; a change of policy was only indicated when the Home Secretary stated in October 1946 that he would "not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for protection of an applicant's person or property as necessarily justifying the issue of a firearm certificate". Perhaps because applicants were advised that other "good reasons" were open to them, this shift of policy went unchallenged. But if the right to weapons for defence fell into abeyance, it was not thereby extinguished: in 1913 it had been ruled in Bowles v. Bank of England that "the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and no practice or custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject, can be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions..."
(Source: "The Use of Licensed Firearms in Homicide - England & Wales", Home Office RSD evidence to the Dunblane enquiry, reprinted in Munday & Stevenson, Guns & Violence (Piedmont 1996) pp.321-326 & commentary pp.341-363; Frank Cook MP. speech in Hyde Park 1.12.1996 & Hansard 4.12.1196 col. 1155 and Andrew Fletcher, Political Works, 1749, p.7.)
"... The Bill of Rights of 1689. which is still in force as statue law and remains our central constitutional document, guarantees only two rights of the individual, and one of these - the ultimate surety, according to Blackstone, of the subject's other liberties - is the right to arms. It was not arms for target shooting that the Bill of Rights guaranteed, but arms for the citizen's personal defence..."
Additionally (same source) "... When Britain introduced her first Firearms Act in 1920, the Bill of Rights provision was respected: the normal "good reason" for the issue of a licence for a pistol was self defence. This remained the case following the Firearms Act 1937; a change of policy was only indicated when the Home Secretary stated in October 1946 that he would "not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for protection of an applicant's person or property as necessarily justifying the issue of a firearm certificate". Perhaps because applicants were advised that other "good reasons" were open to them, this shift of policy went unchallenged. But if the right to weapons for defence fell into abeyance, it was not thereby extinguished: in 1913 it had been ruled in Bowles v. Bank of England that "the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and no practice or custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject, can be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions..."
(Source: "The Use of Licensed Firearms in Homicide - England & Wales", Home Office RSD evidence to the Dunblane enquiry, reprinted in Munday & Stevenson, Guns & Violence (Piedmont 1996) pp.321-326 & commentary pp.341-363; Frank Cook MP. speech in Hyde Park 1.12.1996 & Hansard 4.12.1196 col. 1155 and Andrew Fletcher, Political Works, 1749, p.7.)
Whilst not wishing to disagree with the above (at least until I have digested it, I feel that the actual wording of the Second Amendment is interesting. It says nothing about citizens having private weapons.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
1 to 4 of 4
