The Consequences Of Self-Disarmament
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Policy — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This editorial ought to give pause to anyone who believes that "the British experience with gun control" validates the implementation of gun control here in the United States. Key passage:
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 Brontë 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.
Again, simple economics helps explain much--if not all--of this phenomenon. Ban guns and the first consequence will be the creation of a black market in firearms, a market to which criminals will have primary access. Then you will have a society where law-abiding people are at the mercy of criminals with weapons, thus leading to the disillusionment with gun control that is prevalent in the United States and that has reached Britain as well.
All at the cost of innocent lives, one might add.
« Upset About The World Food Crisis? — Comments (3) | Neither A Surgeon Nor A General — Comments (4) »
The Consequences Of Self-Disarmament 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm of two minds about this. I don't really want to fear for my life next time somebody having a bad day thinks I cut them off in traffic. What about the jealous BF of the girl you're hitting on in a bar? People actually want to let drunk college frat brothers carry guns? Have they never seen a bit brawl?
I don't mind rifles, but concealed easy to carry handguns is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. The number of people momentarily flipping out or otherwise doing something stupid is common. Mixing a firearm will make it that much worse and possibly result in deadly consequences.
A shotgun, and especially the sound of pumping one, should be all the home protection anyone needs...
but I think some 40 states now allow concealed carry for law abiding citizens. In almost all states crime rates have dropped or remained steady. Home invasions in the US are extremely low compared to unarmed Western societies. Concealed weapons permit holders are statistically proven to have lower crime rates than almost any other group, when I say group I mean ministers, cops, everything.
Your "feelings" are simply wrong, I hope this does not hurt them.
Molon Labe!
...don't let the facts get in the way of your "feelings" about concealed carry. A simple Google query on "concealed carry" reveals numerous reports that refute your claim. Even the oft-liberal Wikipedia shows a number of references under "concealed carry" that indicates the inverse correlation between gun ownership and murder/violence.
Try again.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
that will protect you when an angry driver cuts you off, instead of the stupid driver. If an angry driver is so hostile as to threaten your life, he is a lunatic already and you should hope that others that are around will help you. Now do you really want the only one that has a gun to be the lunatic? Believe me, if he is acting as a lunatic, it does not matter if he has a gun or not. That is the reasoning that people seem to ignore.
Safety in numbers is allowing all sane people to be equipped to prevent problems.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
30 some odd states now have right to carry laws. Their real life experience is in direct opposition to your ignorant opinion. Read up on the subject so you won't reveal your ignorance in the future.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/sep/08/ben_bova_safety_wellarmed_cit...?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The 2nd amendment has little to do with self protection.
It mostly has to do with defense against out of control goverment, something like we have now.
Gun Control is imposed on those that goverment fears.
Armed men can not be enslaved, only defeated.
how can we defned against a rouge government if we can't defned ourselves. That leaves the question wide open...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
"A shotgun, and especially the sound of pumping one, should be all the home protection anyone needs..."
In D.C. the ammunition has to be kept separate from the firearm and handguns are banned since 1976. This handgun ban was overturned by the D.C. Court of Appeals. How does this provide any real protection for nearly every citizen of Washington D.C., NY or Chicago? I have a nice scattergun, always at the ready in my home. I cannot see a 70-80 year old man or woman wielding one effectively against a violent home invasion though. There are many people with anti-gun tendencies and unfortunately, many of them are city leaders like Fenty, with no lessons learned in 30 years of handgun ban. I offer the following interesting article about anti-gun and legal gun owner personalities. Please read http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
Diane Feinstein a mayor had a carry permit. She obviously knew of the need to protect herself and her family. Now she would deny all law-abiding citizens the same rights and would collect and destroy all the guns if she just had the votes. A mugged anti-gun liberal becomes a staunch 2nd amendment defender. Should not take that bad an experience. Too much emotion and not enough thinking people. Take a look at that article if you get the chance.
People are in the mind set that guns are something to fear, rather than be embraced. People just expect the government to protect them, but it takes the police time to respond, in that time you could be dead.
I am almost more concerned with citizens having guns to protect themselves from the government. An armed population has the best means of holding their government accountable.
You don't need to fear for your safety every time someone thinks you cut them off in traffic-- not by a lawfully armed citizen anyway. The fears of those kinds of things have been raised for the past 20 years, since Florida began the trend of liberalizing concealed carry laws in 1987.
The gunfights over trivial matters have not materialized, and the fears about them proved unfounded. The idea that everyone is a potential raving lunatic who is only kept from being a murderer by the lack of a gun has no merit.
80% of violent crime happens outside of the home. It's difficult to conceal a shotgun as one goes about his business. As the article showed, crime (and it is a crime to shoot people except in defense) was lower in the UK when carrying arms was commonplace, and the same is true in the US.
I don't want to fear for my life if I am out in public and I meet a dangerous criminal. That's a rational fear, given that dangerous criminals are... well, dangerous. Should the irrational fear of good people with guns trump the rational fear of bad people with various deadly weapons?
Man, nobody seems able to use the Reply To button!
I think the problem is one of scale at the moment. The number of people who carry concealed weapons is pretty small overall. My girlfriends father who lives in Florida has a permit and carries all the time but even there it isn't really popular yet. Thus it is probably true that people who DO carry right now are more than likely law abiding upstanding citizens. The real question is what happens if it became fashionable for people to carry. Suppose handguns became as popular as cellphones. What would be the result?
On the other hand if the people who have permits are so upstanding and law abiding why can't they carry a gun on a plane? To a football game? Or a concert? Or a casino? Or a bar? The common thread for the last few at least is alcohol. Which goes back to my point of even the best people who drink too much can do something really dumb.
I think you will agree that the more guns there are the easier it is for them to get into the wrong hands. At this point handguns are so common in the US that there aren't any good solutions. On the other hand, if you're British and only the most serious criminals have guns why arm the inept ones or your local punks?
In Japan organized crime is armed, but almost nobody else in the population is. How many innocents are mugged by gun robbers there? What about Canada? Culture seems to play a large part in this equation so what works one place might not work in another.
Just out of curiosity. What is going to be the long term result of cellphones instantly streaming video to 911 in the near future? I'd say that as a deterrent to crime the widespread adoption of such a technology would be immense. Dial 911, the video starts streaming, GPS pinpoints your location and the cops see it on a map along with the video in their car. It's only a matter of time. Would something like that change the equation about who should be carrying concealed handguns?
in the control of arms. Yes, Japan seems to be safer with their laws, but they are culturally programmed to obey authority. Same for a few other nations. That has led to their demise more than once...
In America, we have grown up in a culture of hunting and most of all distrust of government (thank goodness). Since we refuse to be overtaken by our own government, our forefathers had the foresight to include the 2nd amendment. Thanks to them, we still have some rights today although they seem to be going fast.
Other countries may brag about lower crime rates, but if you look at all of the statistics in total, we fare very well. Make that especially well as to crime prevention via citizen intervention.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Let me assure you, speaking as someone who moved here from Britain that it is not just 'the serious criminals' who have guns over there. Heck, just a couple of weeks ago an 11 year old was shot dead by a teenager - in a country where the most basic .22 caliber pistol has been illegal for 10 years! (Oh, and the legally owned ones were all collected by the government when they banned them thanks to mandatory registration).
The other thing to bear in mind in the UK is that it is not simply the fear of *armed* criminals that the population suffers from. There is a low level, ever present threat of violence when out in most public places there. Thugs swagger down the streets of small towns which, were they in the US, people would leave their cars unlocked. Burglary is more likely to happen when the owner is home than when they are not.
And, while it may be comforting to you to put your faith in a super-phone that can broadcast your murder to the police I would much prefer to have the means to defend myself available when and where I need them.
I'd been a member of redstate.com for 3 minutes when I replied to you... most sites that allow commentary on various articles don't thread the replies, so I didn't notice it.
If it became fashionable to carry by regular people, I think we'd see a downturn in crime. There is a profound difference between the typical murderer and the average person. The average murderer has a rap sheet a mile long, with a history of violent crime. The average good person doesn't.
While some want to make it appear as if everyone has the same level of predisposition to kill, and the difference is simply which ones have a weapon handy, the reality is that nearly all of the murders in the US are committed by a tiny segment of the population that engages in habitual criminal behavior.
Those are the "wrong hands" that we are concerned about getting ahold of guns. I'm not worried about making it harder for them to get guns, because they already have them, and they always will. They are the ones we need to fear, not the armed regular people (people flipping out and killing others for no good reason is exceedingly rare, far rarer than needing to have a gun to defend against the career criminals).
If keeping guns out of the wrong hands was going to work anywhere, it would have been the UK... but it has not worked. Anyone who wants an illegal gun there can get one (not just the most serious criminals).
It does not matter how low the crime rate gets, or what kinds of gadgets people can use to try to gather evidence to convict their murderers. People the world over have a right to defend themselves, and they have a right to carry handguns to do that. Many governments infringe upon this right, but that does not mean the right is not there.
I am all for allowing guns in all the places that you listed above. Aside from commercial airplanes, all of the places you listed are places where it is legal to bring concealed guns into in some states. It has not been a problem.
40,000 or more people die in cars annually, and at least half of those are alcohol related. But we accept that as an unfortunate side effect of living in modern society. We don't prohibit carrying of car keys into bars or restaurants that serve alcohol. There are penalties for driving drunk, but not for carrying car keys into bars.
I would not have a problem with a law that prohibited carrying of a gun when one is legally intoxicated, in much the same way as we now do with driving. But to prohibit sober people from carrying into places where alcohol is served (a prior restraint) presupposes that they are so irresponsible that they will get drunk and misuse the gun... an assumption that is not made with cars, even though drunk driving kills tens of thousands of people each year.
I have been in casinos, bars, baseball games, and concerts, and I have never gotten intoxicated in any of them. I don't drink or use drugs, and I never have. Why should my right to defend myself be restricted because someone else theoretically might do so (even though it has not been a problem in the states that allow carry into those places)?
In a free society, we presume that people will follow the rules, and we take action to punish those who do not. We don't presume ahead of time that peope will behave irresponsibly. That system is not perfect, but it is better than living in a state of perpetual childhood, having to ask permission for anything we do.
Nice posting. Well-said.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
on behalf of their lackeys, the Democratic Party. A turning point was the Columbine shootings. Intelligent liberals with their ever bright and quick minds knew immediately that what was needed was more gun control laws, imaginative and original to be sure.
An alternate media, usually described as hate filled and bizarre, continually pointed out that some twenty one gun laws were broken, that some guns used in the shootings were obtained illegally. The longer the debate continued the more the alternate view percolated and spread but flexible and quick witted liberals, assured of their superiority, pressed on.
No groundswell could be created by the Plato's of journalism schools, the issue flopped, liberals learned nothing but walked away ever more sure of their innate wisdom and convinced they live in a nation of contemptible, beer swilling comic book readers.
And the only liberal who made out was Michael Moore, long time recipient of Democratic party hugs and adoration.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
it still amazes me that the anti-gunners believe criminals are going to obey the law.these types of laws & ordinances are nothing more than feel good,do good for the ignorant law makers that pass them.
i've had a concealed carry permit for 20 years because i refuse to be a victim.these permits are not easy to get,as some might suggest.the cell phone to gun comparison doesn't hold water.it takes me maybe 5 seconds to get to my firearm.how long will it take for law enforcement to arrive?
- better to have it & not need it,than to need it & not have it -
"A free people ought to be armed" - George Washington
Don't you understand? We *could* disarm criminals, but the problem is we keep sending in the police, continuing the cycle of violence.
What we need is to use diplomacy. Promise not to send in the police, and just ask them to give up their guns voluntarily. If they rob a convenience store with a gun, then just apply economic sanctions (higher taxes) until they give up and pay reparations.
The only true solution to crime is gun control plus diplomacy.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Kennesaw Georgia passed a city ordinance years ago requiring every household to have a gun and ammo. Crime dropped signifcantly and stayed low compared to other cities it's size. There were no wild west shootouts that I ever heard or read about.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
2001-2006 and the crime rate in surrounding areas of this Metro Atlanta city was much higher.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I lived in Marietta and Roswell for 15 years. Used to carry a gun myself when I leased parking lots for car valet services in buckhead and midtown.
I'm surprised more cities haven't tried the same as Kennesaw.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
GC, Still basking in the glow from Saturday between the hedges. I am a Tech fan too..
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I grad from GT in 89 BS in MGT. A great education, great basketball, great baseball and some good football!
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
908... BS, E - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. First rate engineering school. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Delta or Southwestern?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
We'll tackle Beck and waterboard him with sweet tea and make him eat a bucket from the Big Chicken and a scattered smothered covered chunked from waffle house.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I spent lots of time in GA & TN. Love sweet tea, chicken and all forms of BBQ (heaven help the fool who thinks there's only one kind). And that TN ham slices that the "all you can eat" places serve up with bikits and red eye gravy. Yum.
I'll be on the patio. Just let Mrs908 you've come for me and she'll chain The Prince.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
a swarm of Yellow Jackets from the trunk of the Ramblin' Wreck...on San Luis...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
BBQ, ham, chicken and gravy. I've got my own waterboard, you can use it. (Came in handy with teenage boys)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Gamecock will have to bring the southern goods. I am now in Minnesota and all we got up here is lutefisk, walleye, and cheese curds.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
That Norweegan and Sweedish stuff isn't edible.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I spent a whole bunch a time in Minnesota too, doncha know.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
in the early seventies. I'd have rather made the two block walk to the bank without my pants than without my pistol; I'd have had some chance of making it alive with no pants, but none with no pistol.
One of the happier days in my life was when on the way here, we stopped at a Pay 'n Pak in Seattle and traded the handguns for long guns. Even today, I have only one modern handgun, a PPK, and I rarely carry even though Alaska is a carry unless prohibited state.
If I'm out on the boat or out away from town, I'm always armed, but with much heavier weapons than the average handgun - as it most everyone else. An armed society is a polite society, so one rarely has to deal with bad behavior.
In Vino Veritas
Disarmament of citizens wears the cloak of gun control. Disarmament is accomplished by anti-gun zealots who have no perception of what it means to disarm the good and leave the bad with full access to arms. These ant-gun activists are stupid and do not see the relationship between a firearm and a criminal with a firearm. Pretty obvious to most people, but not them. It is ludicrous for leaders of cities and municipalities to pass more and more gun laws. Basically, they have very little to NO effect on violent crimes. Their modus operandi is to register firearms, pay to buy them back, confiscate and then destroy them. This foolishness has left D.C. residents functionally without self-defense against armed and violent criminals. Same with Chicago, New York and other cities. D.C. v. Heller keeps referring in their appeal to the Supreme Court to other countries where "gun control" has led to confiscation. Crime is rising in most and citizens are undefended. Mostly liberals (but not all, Brady, etc.) are leading the charge. In the late 1970s, the health system got on board and tried to reduce private ownership of firearms by 25%. So, Clintons, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, et al., is this really a vast LEFT wing conspiracy to disarm America? Self-defense is a natural right, preceding the U.S. Constitution and that of the 50 states. How can you abridge a right if you did not have it in the first place? What Britain tells me is that their disarming of the law-abiding did not result in the reduction of violent crime, committed by criminals who did not follow the law in the first place. To repeat this in the U.S. is folly and is tantamount to recognizing a mistake the second time you make it. It was criminal to disarm citizens in D.C. and the other cities which denied citizens their 2nd amendment rights. My sense is that law-abiding people need to preserve this right, period. It should NOT be suspended in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and certainly not for the tyranny of governments against its own citizens. Speak up to your guarantee and rights to firearms owned by private citizens or you will surely lose them.