A well regulated Militia by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A well regulated Militia

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Friday, June 2, 2006 10:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4839
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, June 1, 2006 1:33 PM

Is this for or against? I've seen that thread, the guys unhinged and shouldn't be allowed near a plastic fork let alone a knife. That's the problem with weapons, they make people feel invincible and let them go around threatening people on the street, and it's often legal owners that do it too.

The nutter argument was based around the incident that spurred the British banning of concealable weapons, where some guy brought his legal weapons into a primary school and started shooting up the place.

I find it rather amusing that some people can't tell the difference between an accidental death and a murder.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 1:51 PM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So you can have a musket, but a 9mm auto loader is right out. That's good to know, only 18th century weapons are constitutionally protected, everything else can be taken away.

I don't know a Minié ball can do a lot of damage to a man.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 2:16 PM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Is this for or against?

For...

When I was a freshman in high school there was a police raid executed and they found two pistols in lockers. Both were legal guns under the law. But, they were obtained on the street and were stolen. Just not sure if we made laws to ban guns completely we would be any better off. Yeah, take the existing guns and try to dispose of them. I’m sure thousands would somehow slip through the cracks into the wrong hands. (not saying that is your stance)

So, in the thread he used a knife... if we banned all guns what would be the next solution... he could of rammed him with his car. In fact, he could have come up with a lot of creative ways to damage the car. Anything short of becoming the Borg is not gonna change all of our ways in regards to violence. Believe me, I am all for a less barbaric society. I just think the people lobbying for gun bans could focus on some of the hotpoints you pointed out earlier like famine and disease. Ban the gun, here comes the laser

Are the majority of children dying from guns in the age range (mentioned in the article) murders or accidental deaths due to negligence?

The other part about "visions of the future" was just an attempt to expand the topic. So if we DID or DID NOT ban personal weapons, how would the future look?

Wha?!?... *sniff sniff* OH.... IM ON FIRE!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 2:39 PM

CAUSAL

Citizen--

Shoot--I was hoping I could get the left-wing thing out of there before you saw it. That was just plain a low blow, and for that I apologize.

Honestly, though, I wish that you would hear what I am actually saying: I'm curious as to what people think of the whole swimming pool thing. Myself, personally, I think only a fool would use that to advocate in favor of private gun ownership (and that's not what I'm doing by putting it up there). Obviously, no one is going to lobby to make private swimming pools illegal (even though they are clearly dangerous). So what I'm wondering is, why do people use the "it's dangerous for kids" argument against guns (in view of the fact that there are other, more dangerous things out there)? Anybody have any thoughts on that? Seriously; what do you think?

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 2:43 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well twisting another person point of view into something it's not because then you can denigrate it is very right wing of you. You pick one of the many facets of the argument and say "yeah but swimming pools!"

Also, I thought I'd point out--AGAIN--that I was trying to prompt discussion of a phenomenon, not make an objection based on the swimming pool statistic. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about that--I'm honestly just curious to hear what people think about that, not use it to weigh in on one side or the other.

Quote:

And your bias is fairly self evident...

So it's a well-informed opinion when it agrees with you, and "bias" when it doesn't? Is that how that works? Speaking of high horses...

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:21 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hey guys,

Proponents for and against gun guntrol use vivid imagery and anecdotal evidence to support their positions.

Banning Guns Argument? A couple of kids stole their grandpa's rifles, took them to school, and drilled their classmates full of holes. Or Gangstas drove past a mark and peppered the sidewalk with Tec-9 gunfire, killing 3 innocent bystanders and paralyzing an eight year old girl.

Tragedies.

Pro-Guns Argument? 30 year old woman shoots a man as he breaks down the front door of her home and advances on her. 60 year old man shoots a punk who threatened to carve him up with a knife. 28 year old man uses a gun to detain a naked home invader who broke in through his kids' bedroom window.

Victories.

We can imagine ourselves in any number of anecdotal situations. What father of a child shot dead wouldn't wish for guns to go away? What rape victim wouldn't wish for a revolver in their hand as they're being savaged?

It comes down to a tradeoff, apparently.

In a prolonged argument with Citizen, it was eventually shown that England has a higher rate of crime, including violent crime, than the US. But the US has a higher murder rate.

The United Kingdom has chosen to trade lives for crime. In the US, we seem to be trading crime for lives.

More people die here. More people are accosted there.

It is reasonable for someone to say, "It's worth having a higher risk of violent crime, in order to avoid more overall deaths." That is a fair and reasonable argument, and I am very glad that I finally understand the British position. There can be no doubt that their banning of guns (and all weapons, really) has reduced the number of lives needlessly lost.

But it is also reasonable for someone to say, "I don't want to be completely at the mercy of criminals. I want a chance to defend myself and my family if threatened."

I think these are both reasonable positions. Right now, my country allows me to hold the second position legally, and I am glad for it. Chances are I won't need to use a gun in my defense for the rest of my life. Chances are, if I was attacked unexpectedly, I wouldn't have the opportunity to defend myself before being subdued. But it's still an option. It's still a chance, if even only one chance in ten, that I can respond to a threat. That's the kind of option I want in my life.

As to the most recent question posed... Why do anti-gun activists always mention the threat of guns to children? Because it's the most effective anecdote possible. It's an anecdote that wrenches the heart, and changes minds. You're likely to hear pro-gun activists mention protecting their family for the same reason. The same gun that shot Billy could save Jane. And so it is the anectode that touches your heart more closely that will sway your opinion.

Perhaps the reason I advocate guns (and most weapons, really) is because I was accosted so often in my youth. I no longer desire to be powerless at the whim of a criminal. I suspect that the anti-gun crowd has similar feelings. They don't want to be powerless at the whim of a criminal...who is armed with a gun.

I believe that the anti-gun and pro-gun arguments share one thing in common. At their core, they are about retaining a degree of control and security in our lives. They are diametrically opposed paths to achieve the exact same result.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:43 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Why do anti-gun activists always mention the threat of guns to children?"

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:48 PM

CAUSAL

[ sincerity ] Whoa. Anthony. Good post. [ /sincerity ]

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

A second argument - the second amendment is the only provisional one.

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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

The framers knew how to write unequivocal language, but chose not to. So, rather than assume those men didn't know what they were doing, rather than sliding over the words or reinterpreting them, we might attend to their meaning.

(PS I'm not anti-gun. But the arguments for 'arms' ownership are twisted by reflexive dogma.)

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 10:33 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Casual:
I'm curious as to what people think of the whole swimming pool thing. Myself, personally, I think only a fool would use that to advocate in favor of private gun ownership (and that's not what I'm doing by putting it up there). Obviously, no one is going to lobby to make private swimming pools illegal (even though they are clearly dangerous).

Why didn't you say something like this in your original post?

Quote:
So what I'm wondering is, why do people use the "it's dangerous for kids" argument against guns (in view of the fact that there are other, more dangerous things out there)? Anybody have any thoughts on that? Seriously; what do you think?

Because there’s a big difference between accidental death and death at the 'hands' of a deadly weapon.

Quote:
I'm honestly just curious to hear what people think about that, not use it to weigh in on one side or the other.

Yet despite your protestations you're phrasing your posts like a for argument...

Quote:
So it's a well-informed opinion when it agrees with you, and "bias" when it doesn't? Is that how that works? Speaking of high horses...

Bias merely means you have a side. True it's often used as a slur or insult ("your bias prevents you seeing the evidence") but in these circumstances I used it to point out that your phrasing and what you were bring to the table were obviously down from a pro-gun position, not a neutral one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2006 10:56 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
In a prolonged argument with Citizen, it was eventually shown that England has a higher rate of crime, including violent crime, than the US. But the US has a higher murder rate.

The United Kingdom has chosen to trade lives for crime. In the US, we seem to be trading crime for lives.

This is getting tiresome. This was not shown, you SAID that it was the case I disagreed and asked you to back it up, something you still have not done despite re-iterating your original statement several times since, often alluding to some sort of endorsement from me.

The following statement brings us closer to what we agreed:

Quote:
More people die here. More people are accosted there.

[[]EDIT[]]
I.e. people have fights here, people are murdered there.
[[]/EDIT[]]

I'd like to see some evidence that we really do have more people (per capita) accosted than in the states before I completely sign off on it, but until then I'm confident that 'violent crime' over here means most often someone gets a few bruises and in the US it means someone gets a wake.

Murders involving guns here are so rare they always make the national papers, in fact most non-domestic knife murders do to, something that leads people who read the Sun's sensationalist news to believe that murder using deadly weapons is on the increase, something which couldn't be further from the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 5:52 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
The following statement brings us closer to what we agreed:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More people die here. More people are accosted there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which would actually indicate that the UK is trading crime for lives and the US lives for crime, not vice versa.

I'd like to see some evidence that we really do have more people (per capita) accosted than in the states before I completely sign off on it, but until then I'm confident that 'violent crime' over here means most often someone gets a few bruises and in the US it means someone gets a wake.

Murders involving guns here are so rare they always make the national papers, in fact most non-domestic knife murders do to, something that leads people who read the Sun's sensationalist news to believe that murder using deadly weapons is on the increase, something which couldn't be further from the truth.

Citizen, I fail to see where you are disagreeing with me? We both agree that we have more death from crime here, and that you have more crime there.

We trade crime for lives (give up quantity of crime in exchange for receiving larger quantity of lives lost.)

You trade lives for crime (give up quantity of lives lost in exchange for larger quantity of crime.)

Perhaps you misunderstood me, since we are in agreement over the facts?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 5:57 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Here is the article we discussed before:

Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

By Joyce Lee Malcolm

On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article’s battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America’s Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world’s gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England’s low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England’s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don’t need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it.

This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual’s rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone’s illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."

But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual’s right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances."

The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. All very sensible. Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law’s enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police -- classified until 1989 -- periodically narrowed the criteria.

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.

During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."

Another M.P. pointed out that while "society ought to undertake the defense of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender."

In the House of Lords, Lord Saltoun argued: "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy. I do not think any government has the right, though they may very well have the power, to deprive people for whom they are responsible of the right to defend themselves." But he added: "Unless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it."

That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."

The original common law standard was similar to what still prevails in the U.S. Americans are free to carry articles for their protection, and in 33 states law-abiding citizens may carry concealed guns. Americans may defend themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime. Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."

But English courts have interpreted the 1953 act strictly and zealously. Among articles found illegally carried with offensive intentions are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper. "Any article is capable of being an offensive weapon," concede the authors of Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, a popular legal text, although they add that if the article is unlikely to cause an injury the onus of proving intent to do so would be "very heavy."

The 1967 act has not been helpful to those obliged to defend themselves either. Granville Williams points out: "For some reason that is not clear, the courts occasionally seem to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater moment than the safety of the robber’s victim in respect of his person and property."

A sampling of cases illustrates the impact of these measures:

• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

The failure of English policy to produce a safer society is clear, but what of British jibes about "America’s vigilante values" and our much higher murder rate?

Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York’s homicide rate consistently about five times London’s. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."

Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England’s more restrictive policy was established in 1967.

The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors."

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

Preliminary figures for the U.S. this year show an increase, although of less than 1 percent, in the overall number of violent crimes, with homicide increases in certain cities, which criminologists attribute to gang violence, the poor economy, and the release from prison of many offenders. Yet Americans still enjoy a substantially lower rate of violent crime than England, without the "restraint on personal liberty" English governments have seen as necessary. Rather than permit individuals more scope to defend themselves, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government plans to combat crime by extending those "restraints on personal liberty": removing the prohibition against double jeopardy so people can be tried twice for the same crime, making hearsay evidence admissible in court, and letting jurors know of a suspect’s previous crimes.

This is a cautionary tale. America’s founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind. That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed in the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone needs to avail himself or herself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous.

The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America’s "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.

Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior adviser to the MIT Security Studies Program, is the author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in May by Harvard University Press.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 6:13 AM

CITIZEN

No we're not, I thought I stated that clearly now, then and a number of times in between, which is why I am asking, I have asked and I continue to ask for some sort of corroborating evidence that proves there is more violent crime in Britain.

I’m not talking about some article in the tabloid press; I’m talking about the actual figures.

The agreement came in that in Britain confrontations are less likely to end in death, it did not come in the way your spinning it that in Britain there is more violent crime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 9:45 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Sorry, Citizen.

I thought we were in agreement on the basic idea that you had more crime and we had more death.

Unfortunately, not being a statistician, I don't have access to raw data. I can only find articles about the data, like this one:

Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 2, 2001
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:

The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.
Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).

Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 10:00 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Here's another one I found:

Crime and Justice in the United States
and in England and Wales, 1981-96
Highlights
Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Dept of Justice

Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England. (All references to England include Wales.) According to 1995 victim surveys -- which measure robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft -- crime rates are all higher in England than the United States (figures 1-4 of the report beginning on page 1). According to latest (1996) police statistics -- which measure incidents reported to police of murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft -- crime rates are higher in England for three crimes: assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft (figures 5-10). The 1996 crime rate for a fourth crime (robbery) would have been higher in England than the United States had English police recorded the same fraction of robberies that came to their attention as American police (figure 15).

The major exception to the pattern of higher crime rates is murder, although the difference between the two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years (below, and figure 5 of the report).

Firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the United States than in England. According to 1996 police statistics, firearms were used in 68% of U.S. murders but 7% of English murders, and 41% of U.S. robberies but 5% of English robberies.

Since 1981, an offender's risk of being caught, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration has risen in the United States for all six measured crimes (murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft) but has fallen in England for all but murder (figures 43-48).

U.S. crime rates -- whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics -- generally fell in the early 1980's, rose thereafter until around 1993, and then fell again (figures 1-10). For most U.S. crimes (survey estimated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft; police-recorded murder, robbery, and burglary), the latest crime rates (1996) are the lowest recorded in the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996. By comparison, English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. For half of the measured English crime categories, the latest crime rates (1995 for rates from victim surveys; 1996 for rates from police statistics) are the highest recorded since 1981 (figures 1-10).
As a result of different crime trends in the two countries --

the U.S. robbery rate as measured in the victim survey was nearly double England's in 1981, but in 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times America's (figure 1)

the English assault rate as measured in the victim survey was slightly higher than America's in 1981, but in 1995 the English assault rate was more than double America's (figure 2)

the U.S. burglary rate as measured in the victim survey was more than double England's in 1981, but in 1995 the English burglary rate was nearly double America's (below, and figure 3 of the report)

the English motor vehicle theft rate as measured in the victim survey was 1.5 times America's in 1981, but in 1995 the English rate for vehicle theft was more than double America's (figure 4)

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2006 10:14 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Repeat after me ... google is my friend, google is my friend ....

the International Crime Victim Survey
http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/

Criminal Victimisation in Eleven Industrialised Countries; Key findings from the 1996 International Crime Victims Survey
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/summary162.PDF

AUTO THEFT
The risk of having a car stolen was highest in England and Wales (3% of owners had a theft), Scotland (2.2%), and the USA (2.1%).

Thefts from cars (luggage, radios, car mirrors etc) were highest in England and Wales (10% of owners had one or more theft), Scotland (9%), France (8%) and the USA (8%).

BURGLARY
The proportion of households who had a completed or attempted burglary was highest in England and Wales (6%), Canada, the Netherlands, and the USA (all 5%).

CONTACT CRIME
Contact crime comprises here robbery, assaults, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in England and Wales and the USA: over 3% were victimized

OTHER
There was a residual category of other crimes: vandalism to cars, thefts of motorcycles and bicycles, theft of personal property, offensive sexual behaviour, and threats. They are pooled together since most are seen as not very serious.
Taken as a whole, those in the Netherlands were hardest hit (26% experienced one or more incident in 1995), followed by those in England and Wales (23%) and Switzerland (21%).

In Scotland, France, Northern Ireland and England and Wales, half of the crimes reported in the ICVS were targeted at cars.

In the USA and Canada, burglaries comprised a bigger proportion of all crimes than elsewhere.

Contact crime, together with threats and offensive sexual behaviour, made up nearly a quarter of crime incidents on average. But proportionately more (contact) crime incidents in Finland, the USA, and Austria were of this type.

-----------------------------

In sum, 'crime' rates doesn't equal violent assaults. Much of the 'crime' in England is petty vandalism of autos. (Citizen, maybe the loss of your mirror was no accident!)

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE