Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

England, Gun Control, and its Crime Rate

14567810»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually, I starting to rethink my 'sheeple' definition thingie...based upon a post in another thread regarding feudalism.

    Feudal societies literally bred for obedience to authority...or at least that is the way I read it...with a totally structured hiearchy that dictates down from the crown what you are allowed to do or feel...ie., if the crown tells you to disarm and that you are safe then that is the only thing you (collectively) have been bred to do...and likewise if the 'castle' iss under threat and the crown dictates to you that you are in danger and must take up arms then there is no stoping the bloodshed until the 'castle' (read that ol pirate kingdom) is once again secure and the serfs are told that they are safe and to disarm.

    How obtuse of me not to have noticed this in the first place...and my wholehearted apologies to all offended by the misunderstanding.

    And of course I do realize that the royals are just figureheads and all that and that they have no 'real' power...but since they control most if not all of the wealth in the 'kingdom' it is likely/probable that they dictate the facts of life to those pretending to govern by posing as 'democratic' and such!

    :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "most if not all of the wealth"?

    eh?

    the civil list isn't that big...and the Crown estates are likewise....the CofE has more then the Crown, and isn't in the least controlled by it....

    and as all americans are pretty much descendants of people who lived in feudal systems, wouldn't that make the americans the same? ie bred for obedience?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by nosferatu1000

    and as all americans are pretty much descendants of people who lived in feudal systems, wouldn't that make the americans the same?

    Besides the fact that some of them left those systems, what makes you think that pretty much all Americans are descendants of people who lived in feudal systems?

    Some of my ancestors lived in a feudal system. They gave the orders.

    Some of my ancestors didn't live in a feudal system. They lived in a clan system.

    Some of my ancestors didn't live in a feudal system. They lived in a tribal culture.

    :cool:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat

    Some of my ancestors lived in a feudal system. They gave the orders.

    Some of my ancestors didn't live in a feudal system. They lived in a clan system.

    Some of my ancestors didn't live in a feudal system. They lived in a tribal culture.

    Sounds like my "family history".

    Actually, what makes him think that there is any "English" blood flowing in my veins? There is none... but there IS a lengthy history of fighting off the attempt at oppression and tyranny by the inhabitants of that little island. :rolleyes:

    Strongest influence in my makeup comes from the Berserkers... wanna try a little social experiment? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Harvard Report ~~ !

    Lessons From History


    Thursday, August 08, 2002
    By Glenn Harlan Reynolds


    The trouble with lessons from history is that they often involve little actual history.

    Sometimes, the history was never there to begin with. Other times, lessons from history are wrong because nobody has bothered to look at the facts.

    Where guns are involved, people are beginning to look. Bentley College historian Joyce Malcolm looked deeply at the roots of America's right to arms in a 1994 book published by Harvard University Press, entitled To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. That book explained that the right to arms enshrined in the Constitution's Second Amendment was not merely the product of a "frontier mentality," as some gun-control proponents have suggested, but the outgrowth of a long and well-established English tradition favoring an armed citizenry as a defense against tyranny.

    Now professor Malcolm, and Harvard University Press, are back with a book entitled Guns and Violence: The English Experience, which addresses another English connection to American gun rights.

    It is a standard observation in American and English debates over gun control that England has strict gun controls and low crime rates, while America has (comparatively) liberal gun laws and higher crime rates. It is usually assumed that there is a cause and effect relationship, with the low crime stemming from the strict gun controls in England, and vice versa in the United States.

    This turns out not to be the case. As Malcolm observes, violent crime rates in England, very high in the 14th century, fell more or less steadily for five hundred years, even as ownership of firearms became more common. By the late 19th century, England had gun laws that were far more liberal than are found anywhere in the United States today, yet almost no gun crime, and little violent crime of other sorts. (An 1870 act, which was seldom enforced, required the payment of a small tax for the privilege of carrying, not simply owning, a gun.)

    Despite a well-armed populace, Malcolm reports, "statistics record an astonishingly low rate of gun-related violence in the late nineteenth century." How low?

    In the course of three years, according to hospital reports, there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people. Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides, and only 3 were homicides 3 an average of one a year.

    Despite these rates, which Malcolm is right to call astonishingly low, the British government decided at the turn of the 20th century to begin a program of gun control that would ensure "that nobody except a soldier, sailor, or policeman, should have a pistol at all." The claimed justification was the "enormous" number of handgun injuries.

    This effort was initially frustrated by popular resistance, but the first regulatory law in this campaign was passed in 1903, requiring a license for the purchase of a pistol. Such licenses were freely available, though, and citizens remained well enough armed that when (unarmed) London bobbies were chasing a group of armed robbers in 1909, they had no trouble borrowing pistols from passersby, while other armed citizens joined in the chase. Rates of gun violence remained low.

    After World War I, the English government got serious. Though fear of crime was (again) claimed as a justification for much more intrusive gun controls despite no increases of any significance, the real motivation -- as historical records make very clear -- was the fear of armed labor unionists, and perhaps even Bolshevik revolution. Though Parliament in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had seen an armed citizenry as a valuable check on tyranny, by the 20th century the government was determined to disarm the citizenry so as to eliminate any threats to its power.

    Because the 1903 act requiring firearm licensing had not resulted in strict limits on gun ownership, the populace was not much threatened by the 1920 Firearms Act. The act met with much less resistance than the early popular resistance to the 1903 law. But the 1920 Firearms Act began the trend toward the near-complete disarmament of the formerly well-armed English citizenry. This disarmament continued by gradual sub silentio changes in administrative policy. For example, in 1938 the government made the unannounced decision that pistol licenses would no longer be issued to individuals who wanted a gun to defend their homes. Additional legislation followed. As Malcolm puts it:

    Parliament passed a comprehensive firearms statute that eliminated the right of individuals to be armed. It was the culmination of fifty years of effort by British governments of every political stripe. The announced rationale by the ruling coalition government was, as usual, an increase in armed crime, yet statistics in London show no such increase. . . . Private Cabinet papers make clear that the government was afraid not of crime but of disorder and even revolution, the same fears that had fuelled government control measures in the past.

    By 1953, the English were effectively disarmed — and compounding the insult, courts began prosecuting people for previously legal (and even encouraged) acts of violence in defense of persons and property. In the future, only the police were to use violence, and even they tended to be quite lenient toward violent criminals.

    In a "coincidence" that will surprise few readers who are familiar with the work of criminologists like John Lott and Gary Kleck, English crime rates almost immediately began a steady rise, for the first time in 500 years. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States. And it wasn't just crime in general: Gun crimes became far more common as well. As Malcolm notes:

    The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence. By opting to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep guns or to carry any article for defence, English government policy may actually be contributing to the lawlessness and violence afflicting its people.

    Malcolm is commendably cautious when discussing the connection between stricter English gun laws and higher rates of crime. But at the very least, she has demonstrated that the history of English gun control does not support the commonly made claim that English crime rates were (formerly) lower in England because of stricter gun controls. The rise in English crime has coincided with the growth of governmental intrusiveness where firearms are concerned. The history is entirely consistent with the findings of Lott and Kleck: that disarming honest citizens produces more crime, not less.

    What's more, the English experience provides a concrete example of American gun owners' worst fear: A patient political establishment steadily whittling firearms rights away over a period of decades through means both open and covert as circumstances permitted, in order to bring the citizenry under more complete political control. These are lessons worth bearing in mind whenever the English experience is brought up as part of the American gun-control debate.

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and publishes InstaPundit.Com. He is co-author, with Peter W. Morgan, of The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined American Government, Business, and Society (The Free Press, 1997).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Confusing the issues with facts again, huh? Darn it, Diesel! ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Harvard Report ~~ !


    By 1953, the English were effectively disarmed — and compounding the insult, courts began prosecuting people for previously legal (and even encouraged) acts of violence in defense of persons and property. In the future, only the police were to use violence, and even they tended to be quite lenient toward violent criminals.

    In a "coincidence" that will surprise few readers who are familiar with the work of criminologists like John Lott and Gary Kleck, English crime rates almost immediately began a steady rise, for the first time in 500 years. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States. And it wasn't just crime in general: Gun crimes became far more common as well.

    DAMN YOU, DIESEL!!! :eek:

    Just cannot leave bad enough alone, can you? :mad:

    Just gotta confuse the illusion with a little reality... :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Come on guys, this thread was sinking nicely down the list, and now you bring it up again! ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin, actually...I consider this the most important issue of your life. People are not like dogs by nature...you dare not roll onto your back and expose your underbelly without expecting it to be ripped open...by other humans (or those who say they are).

    :eek:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Harvard Report ~~ !
    Originally posted by Diesel
    This turns out not to be the case. As Malcolm observes, violent crime rates in England, very high in the 14th century, fell more or less steadily for five hundred years, even as ownership of firearms became more common.

    Were crime statistics being kept back then?
    Despite a well-armed populace, Malcolm reports, "statistics record an astonishingly low rate of gun-related violence in the late nineteenth century." How low?

    er...could be related to the quantity of guns in circulation. ALthough the gun laws were very lax this doesn't mean that a huge number of people had guns.

    This was the 19th century, a time when poverty was high and many people were more concerned about food, rather than having a gun.
    In the course of three years, according to hospital reports, there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people. Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides, and only 3 were homicides 3 an average of one a year.

    Again you need to look at the respective time frame here, 19th century. Were guns as "effective" then? How many injuries were reported?
    The claimed justification was the "enormous" number of handgun injuries.

    Ahem, my point?

    Just because people weren't dying doesn't mean that they weren't getting shot.
    Such licenses were freely available, though, and citizens remained well enough armed that when (unarmed) London bobbies were chasing a group of armed robbers in 1909, they had no trouble borrowing pistols from passersby, while other armed citizens joined in the chase. Rates of gun violence remained low.

    Such utopia ;)

    How much is based on fact, and how much the wishes of a biased reporter wanting to support his article. Certainly this is news to me, perhaps a link to stories of this happening from this day would help...
    In a "coincidence" that will surprise few readers who are familiar with the work of criminologists like John Lott and Gary Kleck, English crime rates almost immediately began a steady rise, for the first time in 500 years.

    and in the US? Did it remain the same?

    What is the comparison, he stops referring to the US here. Why is that? Is it to hide something, could it be that actually crime rates across the globe rose dramatically around this time?

    ~~~~~~

    Whilst this article is interesting, I have to ask how relevant it is. WHat does it bring to the argument to discuss issues relating to the 19th century when weapon technology wasn't as high as it is now (hand held machine guns anyone?) and when the majority of the population were on low incomes.

    That;s like saying that the reason we don't have highwaymen anymore is because we stopped them having guns. Of course it could be for some other reason :rolleyes:

    Oh shit look there - an example of how gun control has reduced crime. Gosh, funny that ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Harvard Report ~~ !
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent

    Again you need to look at the respective time frame here, 19th century. Were guns as "effective" then? How many injuries were reported?

    A little research into the arms of the 19th century and their effectiveness is in order.

    Firearms of the 19th century were generally large caliber, fired a big lead ball at a relatively slow speed. Because of the medical technology of the time, most people shot would likely die. Firearms of the last half of the 19th century were consistently more accurate than most of the people firing them. Also in the 19th century, repeating weapons (revolvers) were available and common.

    An automatic weapon is no more deadly in itself than a single shot rifle. It is a common misconception among those who have not used weapons that somehow an automatic weapon is deadlier. It is not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/jennings/2002/aug08.html


    More good reading...just because we care...about EU/UK!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Re: Harvard Report ~~ !
    Originally posted by Greenhat



    An automatic weapon is no more deadly in itself than a single shot rifle. It is a common misconception among those who have not used weapons that somehow an automatic weapon is deadlier. It is not.

    Automatic weapons, however, tend to be MUCH less powerful, if they are man portable... ;)

    Center of mass shot with those old huge balls of lead flat ended things, whether quickly, or slowly...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good one Diesel!:D

    The British military does not need firearms as someone might get hurt. I think the troops should be trained in the art of non=violence as guns will only cause others to become violent.

    No wonder they want to disarm the people. If there were an uprising the military could not protect the status quo.

    I hear the sheep!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    gun control in the UK has not worked, the criminals have guns and no law has stopped them from getting or using them

    link
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Some more info:

    Criminal use of handguns has increased by almost 40% in the three years up to 2000, despite legislation introduced in 1997 banning these firearms, following the tragedy of Dunblane

    Last year handguns were used in a greater proportion of offences involving firearms - 54% compared to just over 10% for shotguns

    Above are just two of the frightening statistics revealed in a new report titled 'Illegal Firearms in the UK', written by King's College London's Centre for Defence Studies. The study, which was commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has taken one year to complete and has been written by former Detective Constable, John Bryan, who was head of the firearms intelligence unit at New Scotland Yard.

    Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world - second only to Japan. However, as David Bredin, Director the Campaign for Shooting, explains: "Looking at the research, it is crystal clear that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place".

    "Policy-makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws. But the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety. Furthermore, Home Office statistics are unreliable and measures to identify and counter the threat to public safety seem haphazard and ineffective".

    Criminals are able to get firearms from a great range of sources - the greatest source remains the illegal smuggling of weapons into the country. These include weapons disguised as key rings, no larger than a matchbox. However, the report also shows that current estimates of illegal guns in the UK range from 250,000 to 10 million - a clear indication that no one has yet focused adequate resources on assessing the scale of the problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.