http://members.misty.com/don/lede.html
Why LEDs can be 10 times as efficient as incandescents in some
applications but not in general home lighting!

UPDATED slightly 4/18/2004.



Some LEDs work well for night vision

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:28:17 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

You still havent gotten the clue that the Militia is NOT the National
Guard.

Need Orwells clarification once again?

The links you have been given have clearly shown your world view on
this to be deeply flawed. Your bias and agenda is noted.

Shrug..must suck to be you.

G

Gunner








That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 15 May 2004 17:47:04 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

You still havent gotten the clue that the Militia is NOT the National
Guard.

It isn't the Home Guard either!

Brits aren't paranoid about states rights the way Americans are.
They don't feel that they have to be armed to keep a federal
government off their backs.

Just wait a year or so. They are not cheap enough yet to replace
ceiling lights, but that day is definitely coming.

John Ings wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

To expand on this, the quote is from an article in the
Evening Standard, 8 Jan 1941, "Don't let Colnel Blimp ruin the Home Guard."

"Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where
men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things,
but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory
worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom.
THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S
COTTAGE IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE IT STAYS
THERE."

From http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerriflequote.shtml

Evidently your view didn't work out.. now its illegal for ALL guns in GB.

Good thing about the USA is that each state has the right to its own gun
laws.

PA Constitution Article 21 - The right of an individual to keep a firearm
for defense and protection shall not be questioned.

GB (AU and to a limited extent Canada) law abiding citizens are at the will
of thugs with guns. AU can't even have knives. You guys are soo screwed.

ENJOY!

"John Ings" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

The Brits don't think about the varmits either.

Dan

John Ings wrote in message

Brits aren't paranoid about states rights the way Americans are.
They don't feel that they have to be armed to keep a federal
government off their backs.

On 15 May 2004 16:09:07 -0700, (Dan Caster) wrote:

The Brits don't think about the varmits either.

I don't know of any varmits in North America that really need an
assault rifle to keep them under control, even in Alaska.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 18:03:18 -0400, "Paul Farber"
wrote:

Evidently your view didn't work out.. now its illegal for ALL guns in GB.

My view, and Orwells, is that guns issued by the national government
for the protection of the country against foreign invasion is
necessary for democracy. Not that privately owned or local government
issued weapons are necessary to protect the province or shire from the
democratically decided will of the nation.

Good thing about the USA is that each state has the right to its own gun
laws.

So some states are safe and some aren't. This is a good thing?

PA Constitution Article 21 - The right of an individual to keep a firearm
for defense and protection shall not be questioned.

Even if you aren't competent to use guns safely or even sane.

GB (AU and to a limited extent Canada) law abiding citizens are at the will
of thugs with guns.

We haven't noticed many thugs with guns, and our police feel a lot
safer. In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

AU can't even have knives. You guys are soo screwed.

Not that we've noticed. The only time I worry about an irate motorist
pulling a pistol out of his glove compartment and shooting at me
because I cut him off is when I cross the border!

ENJOY!

We are. You can live in Dodge City or Tombstone if you want.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:56:13 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 17:47:04 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

You still havent gotten the clue that the Militia is NOT the National
Guard.

It isn't the Home Guard either!

Brits aren't paranoid about states rights the way Americans are.
They don't feel that they have to be armed to keep a federal
government off their backs.


Subjects seldom do.

One should note the origins of gun control in the UK. Seems the Lords
of the Rlhem didn't want the pesky Reds coming across the Channel and
ultimately tossing them out on their asses.

So between the royalty and the Bolsheviks, they got a really nice
Socialist Kingdom going for themselves nowadays. Seems almost a
contradiction in terms don't it?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 15 May 2004 16:31:19 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On 15 May 2004 16:09:07 -0700, (Dan Caster) wrote:

The Brits don't think about the varmits either.

I don't know of any varmits in North America that really need an
assault rifle to keep them under control, even in Alaska.


Ask the Koreans during the riots after the Rodney King verdict.
Worked pretty well for them.

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of an "assault rifle"?
Type out your impressions, dont bother going and looking it up.

Just wondering on my part.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

John Ings wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

To expand on this, the quote is from an article in the
Evening Standard, 8 Jan 1941, "Don't let Colnel Blimp ruin the Home Guard."

"Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where
men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things,
but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory
worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom.
THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S
COTTAGE IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE IT STAYS
THERE."

From http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerriflequote.shtml

Bravo Ian!

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:29:25 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of an "assault rifle"?
Type out your impressions, dont bother going and looking it up.

Gee, after only 39 years in the military, qualifying with them every
year, how would I know?

Let's put it this way, you don't need a 30 round clip to hunt deer.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:27:43 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Brits aren't paranoid about states rights the way Americans are.
They don't feel that they have to be armed to keep a federal
government off their backs.

Subjects seldom do.

Ah the independent frontiersman! Nobody's gonna tell him what to do!
Not even his own elected government!

One should note the origins of gun control in the UK. Seems the Lords
of the Rlhem didn't want the pesky Reds coming across the Channel and
ultimately tossing them out on their asses.

Seems you need to read a few history books Gunner.

So between the royalty and the Bolsheviks, they got a really nice
Socialist Kingdom going for themselves nowadays. Seems almost a
contradiction in terms don't it?

## Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence;
## Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
Gladstone

On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:46:17 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:29:25 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of an "assault rifle"?
Type out your impressions, dont bother going and looking it up.

Gee, after only 39 years in the military, qualifying with them every
year, how would I know?

So your military issued you semi automatic rifles with no selective
fire mode?

Let's put it this way, you don't need a 30 round clip to hunt deer.

Howard Law Journal
34 (1991): 589

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AIN'T ABOUT HUNTING

Thomas M. Moncure, Jr.*

Copyright © 1991 by the Howard University School of Law; Thomas M.
Moncure, Jr.


"The Second Amendment ain't about hunting." [1] The current debate
concerning whether a particular gun is better suited for a hunting or
sporting purpose completely misses the aim of the second amendment.
The second amendment recognized a common law and natural law right,
taken for granted as inalienable, to keep and bear arms. Additionally,
the second amendment was directed at maintaining an armed citizenry
for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against
the tyranny of our own government. [2]

Colonial Americans possessed guns for a variety of purposes, including
hunting, personal self-defense and mutual defense against the Indians,
the Spanish, the Dutch, and the French. These necessities "put
firearms in the hands of nearly everyone." [3] The only people denied
this right, "Mulattoes, Negroes and Indians," were those who also
enjoyed less than full benefits of citizenship. [4]

The tradition of an armed citizenry has long been recognized in
England. [5] As early as 872 A.D., the "Great Fyrd" required both
[p.590] nobles and peasants to keep arms that were appropriate to
their status. [6] While the "Great Fyrd" was unsuccessful against the
Norman invasion, the Assize of Arms of 1181 retained this tradition
by, again, requiring the possession of arms. [7] The presence of an
armed citizenry is credited, in part, for the failure of a feudal
system to exist in England. [8]

Of more immediate interest to the Colonists were events that occurred
during the revolutionary period of 17th century England. When the
commonwealth government, under Oliver Cromwell, attempted to disarm
Catholics, its force was met in kind following the restoration by
James II's attempt to build a standing army composed of Catholics. [9]
These abuses led to the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, which
guaranteed that "subjects who are Protestants, may have arms for their
defense suitable to their condition." [10]

Sir William Blackstone, the "[g]reat [e]xpositor of the English law,"
[11] noted that common law recognized the three principle rights of
the people as "the right of personal security, the right of personal
liberty, and the right of private property." [12] In the redress of
private wrongs, the common law acknowledged self defense as the
"primary law of nature so it is not, neither can it be, in fact, taken
away by the law of society." [13] These rights were found to be
illusory absent arms, so Blackstone described the "right of having
arms for self-preservation and defense" as an auxiliary right. [14]

Two qualifications of the right to keep and bear arms were noted at
common law. [15] The first concerned the suitability of an arm [p.591]
to a particular class. The second qualification addressed the carrying
of weapons so unusual as to cause a breach of the peace. Mere
possession was not sufficient to constitute an offense, since
conviction generally required the intent of "riding or going armed" to
the terror of the populace. [16]

The prevalence of arms in colonial America, no less than in England,
made the imposition of tyranny a dangerous proposition. In the 17th
century, Royal Governor William Berkeley complained it was miserable
to attempt to govern "a people where six parts of seaven [sic] at
least are [p]oore [sic], [e]ndebted [sic], discontented and armed".
[17] Thus it should be of little surprise that at the Revolution's
onset, General Gage, in Massachusetts, and Lord Dunmore, in Virginia,
first attempted to seize the colonists' gunpowder and arms.

At the Revolution, states' Bills of Rights typically included
provisions which dealt with the militia and the right to bear arms.
[18] Following independence, concern that the consolidated government
might usurp individual liberty led the United States to enact the Bill
of Rights. Patrick Henry, equating the potential tyranny of Congress
to that of the Crown, was convinced that liberty could only be
preserved with "downright force." [19] The prevalence of this opinion
is reflected in Thomas Jefferson's famous suggestion that the "tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
and tyrants." [20]

The second amendment, when presented to the states for ratification,
attracted remarkably little attention. [21] Because it embodied
[p.592] fundamental common law and republican principles, the lack of
comment was not surprising. [22] Federalist No. 46, written by James
Madison, already addressed "the advantage of being armed, which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." His
description of the militia showed that he shared the same republican
principles of the anti-federalists: "[c] itizens with their arms in
their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting
for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments
possessing their affections and confidence." [23] Madison finally
noted that in the "several kingdoms of Europe ... governments are
afraid to trust the people with arms." [24]

The fear of a standing Army underlies the second amendment, [25] this
fear is also reflected in the third amendment. [26] Senator William
MacLay, from Pennsylvania, during the first federal Congress, bemoaned
that with a standing army "we must soon forego our republican
innocence" and in so doing "set apart a portion of our citizens for
the purpose of inflicting [m] isery on our fellow [m]ortals." [27] In
context, it should be noted that two of the amendments proposed by
Congress, regarding the size of districts and compensation, were
rejected.

The United States Supreme Court had no occasion to review the second
amendment prior to the passage of the fourteenth amendment. Prior to
the doctrine of selective incorporation, the cases heard in the 19th
century are as unillustrative as they are unpleasant. One such case
involved an attempt by 100 members of the Ku Klux Klan to disarm two
men "of African descent." [28] Another concerned a worker's parade
involving essentially a mini-army. [29] In these cases the Court held
that the second amendment was a ban only to federal [p.593] action and
thus not applicable to state action. [30]

The Court's refusal, in the 19th century, to extend the Bill of Rights
protection to state action, even after passage of the fourteenth
amendment, came as little surprise. Chief Justice Taney, in the
infamous Dred Scott decision, had expressed concern that if free
African-Americans were "entitled to the privileges and immunities of
citizens," they could "keep and carry arms wherever they went." [31]

Lack of constitutional protection in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries gave rise to gun laws which targeted certain
racial and ethnic groups. [32] Specifically, Jim Crow legislation in
the South and the Sullivan Law in New York assured that guns were not
available to African- Americans, Italians and other such
"undesirables." [33] These laws sought, as had General Gage and Lond
Dunmore, sought to assure the subjugation of a people. [34]

The only case squarely dealing with the second amendment in this
century, United States v. Miller, [35] has been cited as authority by
both sides of the gun issue. This case challenged the National
Firearms Act of 1934 [36] which restricted, but did not prohibit, the
possession of certain firearms, including machine guns. The Miller
Court refused to take judicial notice that a short barreled shotgun,
had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia," and was therefore not protected. [37]

Does Miller mean that only the Militia may have arms, or that the
people may possess only arms suitable to service in the Militia?
Professor A.E. Dick Howard found the latter reading a "disconcerting
possibility," [38] though it was in accord with the intention of the
founders. George Mason, asking rhetorically "[w]ho [i]s the [p.594]

[m]ilitia?," responded that the militia is the "whole people." [39]
Mason went on to express the concern that the militia of the future
might exclude some of the people from its ranks.

Many civil libertarians, uncomfortable with the private possession of
firearms, have found the militia prefatory clause of the second
amendment a convenient exculpatory clause. The Supreme Court has not
dealt directly with the constitutional militia, as opposed to the
National Guard, but there is nothing to indicate that the militia,
under second amendment analysis, is anything other than the "whole
people." [40]

In Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, [41] the Court distinguished the
"National Guard," the organized militia of the various states, from
the "National Guard of the United States," a reserve component of the
Armed Forces of the United States. [42] In reaching its decision, the
Court did not need to explore the nature of the unorganized, or
constitutional, militia. [43] All states and the federal government
have enacted provisions dealing with the militia independent of the
National [p.595] Guard. [44]

The greater issue of the second amendment revolved around whether it
would be incorporated into the fourteenth amendment and thus be
applicable to state action. While incorporation could be avoided by
treating the right as collective rather than individual, the greater
weight of constitutional interpretation and simple intellectual
integrity dictates its incorporation. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted
the term "the people" had the same meaning in the

first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments. [45] Professor
Sanford Levinson has also suggested the incongruity of reading "the
people" as conveying individual rights in some amendments and as
solely a collective right in the second. [46]

Current provisions regulating "assault weapons" reflect not only a
disregard of constitutional history, but fundamental technical
ignorance. [47] A true "assault rifle" is capable of selectively
firing both fully automatically and semi-automatically, [48] and is
currently regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. [49]
Recent "assault weapons" acts are aimed at semi-automatic rifles, as
well as pistols and shotguns with certain cosmetic features, literally
guns that "look" intimidating, but have a basic function and have been
in existence for over 100 years. [50] [p.596]

It is a most pernicious form of elitism that preserves the rights of
the wealthy to buy aesthetically elite guns, but deprives poor people
access to firearms within their economic means. The recent attempt to
deprive public housing tenants of their right to possess firearms has
drawn the ire of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People because this deprivation, in effect, equates them with
"felons and lunatics."

Calling a dog's tail a fifth leg does not change the tail, any more
than calling a gun an "assault weapon" changes its basic function.
Questioning the suitability of particular guns for hunting overlooks
the potential suitability for purposes of self defense. As government
is under no obligation "to protect an individual against private
violence," [51] the people must retain a means of protecting
themselves. Even if one adopts the conservative view of the ninth
amendment, namely that rights at common law were preserved, the right
to keep and bear arms exists independent of the second amendment.

The founders sought to protect arms from government interference,
because those same arms might be needed to protect the people from
government. They wanted to assure that the people remained both armed
and dangerous to tyranny. [52] The Virginia Declaration of Rights not
only reserved the right to overthrow a despotic government, but
suggested it has an affirmative duty of the people:

[t]hat government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common
benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community;
of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best ... is
capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and
is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration;
and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to
these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable,
inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it,
in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
[53] [p.597]

Mr. Mason's language remains unchanged in Virginia's current
constitution. [54]

Our constitutional system has existed and prospered because of
adherence to fundamental principles, and in particular to those
liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights. [55] To suggest that the
second amendment is entitled to less dignity than other amendments is
to disparage the entire Bill of Rights. The second amendment is not
about hunting but it is, in its final analysis, about liberty.

* Member, Virginia State Bar, Assistant General Counsel, National
Rifle Association of America. The views expressed in this article are
strictly those of the author. The assistance of Juanita Butler in the
preparation this manuscript is gratefully acknowledged.

1. So claims a bumper sticker, 20th century America's equivalent to
the colonial broadside.

2. Columnist George T. Will has identified the underlying theory as
one that "says that, free individuals must be independent from
coercion, and such independence depends in part on freedom from the
m逮age of standing armies and government monopoly on the means of
force". Washington Post, March 21, 1991, at A 21.

3. D. BOORSTIN, THE AMERICANS--THE COLONIAL EXPERIENCE 353 (1958).

4. VII THE STATUTES AT LARGE; BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THE LAWS OF
VIRGINIA, FROM THE FIRST SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE, IN THE YEAR 1619
at 95 (W. Hening ed. 1820 & photo reprint 1969).

5. W. SHEA, THE VIRGINIA MILITIA IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 1 (1983).

6. J. WHISKER, The citizen soldier and U.S. Military Policy 3-6
(1979).

7. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms-Report of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary 1 S. 97th Cong., 2d
sess. (1982).

8. 1 A. Howard, Commentaries on the Constitution of Virginia 268
(1974). See also J. Malcolm, The Right of the People to Keep and Bear
Arms: The Common Law Tradition, 10 HASTINGS CONST.L.Q. 285 1983.

9. S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed 45 (1984). See also D. HARDY,
ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT (1986).

10. I A. HOWARD COMMENTARIES 449, supra note 8.

11. BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES at 129 (St. George Tucker ed. 1803 &
photo. reprint 1969).

12. Id. at Vol. IV, p. 3.

13. Id. at Vol. II, p. 144.

14. See Caplan, The Right of the Individual To Bear Arms: A Recent
Judicial Trend, 4 DET.COL.L.REV. 789 (1982).

15. Statutes of Northampton (2 Edw. III c. 3). See also, V
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, supra note 10, at 148, and Caplan, The
Right of the Individual To Bear Arms: A Recent Judicial Trend, 4
DET.COL.L.REV. 789 (1982).

16. D. BOORSTIN, supra note 3, 353.

17. See Dowlut, Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees to Arms,
15 U. DAYTON L.REV. 59 (1989), see also S. HALBROOK, A RIGHT TO BEAR
ARMS (1989).

18. III Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 314 (J.
Elliot, ed. 1836 and photo. reprint 1974).

19. Letter from T. Jefferson to Wm. Smith (Nov. 13, 1787) reprinted in
THOMAS JEFFERSON WRITINGS 911 (M. Peterson ed. 1984).

20. Cress, A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA: THE ORIGINS AND MEANING OF THE
SECOND AMENDMENT in the BILL OF RIGHTS--A LIVELY HERITAGE 66 (J.
Kukla, ed. 1987).

21. See Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of The Second Amendment, 69
J. OF AM.HIST. 599 (1982). See also Lund, The Second Amendment,
Political Liberty, and The Right to Self-Preservation, 39 ALA.L.REV.
103 (1987) and Hardy, Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a
Jurisprudence of the Second Amendment, 9 HARV.J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 559
(1986).

22. The Federalist No. 46 at 321 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).

23. THE FEDERALIST No. 46, at 321-22 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).

24. Id. at 321-22.

25. Creating the Bill of Rights--The Documentary Record from the First
Federal Congress 182-186 (H. Veit, K. Bowling and C. Bickford, Eds.
1991).

26. THE DIARY OF WILLIAM MACLAY 375 (K.R. Bowling and H.E. Veit, Eds.)
(1988). As the Senate met in secret, Maclay's diary provides the best
single resource on its proceedings.

27. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 543 (1876).

28. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).

29. See Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894), see also Halbrook, The
Jurisprudence of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, 4 GEO. MASON
U.L.REV. 1 (1981).

30. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).

31. See Tahmassebi, That All Such Free Mulattoes, Negroes and Indians
....: Gun Control and Racism, 2 GEO. MASON CIVIL RIGHTS L.J. ----
(1991).

32. See, Restricting Handguns--The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Section
I (D.B. Kates, Jr., ed., 1979).

33. See Comments of Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts in creating the
Bill of Rights 182, supra note 25.

34. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

35. 26 U.S.C. § 5801.

36. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178.

37. I A. HOWARD COMMENTARIES 276-277, supra note 8.

38. III ELLIOT'S DEBATES 425, supra note 18.

39. Modern use of the unorganized militia is rare. In 1946, Governor
William Munford Tuck of Virginia called up the organized militia to
avert a strike by Virginia Electric and Power Company employees. See,
W.B. Crawley Bill Tuck, Ch. 4 (1978).

40. Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2418 (1990).

41. Id. at 2426.

42. Id.

43. Ala.Code § 31-2-2 (1989); Alaska Stat. § 2605.010 (1986);
Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 26-121 (1976); Ark.Stat.Ann. § 12-60-102 et.
seq. (1987); Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. §§ 27-1, 27-2 (West 1975); Del.Code
Ann. tit. 20, § 301 (1985); D.C.Code Ann. § 39-102 (1986);
Fla.Stat.Ann. § 250.02 (West 1989); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 121-1 (1988);
Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 129, para. 220.001 et. seq. (Smith Hurd 1953);
Ind.Code Ann. § 10-3-1-1 et. seq. (Burns 1986); Kan.Stat.Ann. §
37.170 (Baldwin 1984); La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 29:3 (West 1989);
Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 37-B § 222 (1989); Md.Ann.Code art. 65, § 1
(1957); Mass.Gen.Laws.Ann. ch. 33, § 2 (West 1985); Mich.Comp.Laws
Ann. §§ 32.509, 32.555 (West 1967); Minn.Stat.Ann § 190.06 (West
1986); Miss.Code Ann. § 33-5-1 (1973); Mo.Ann.Stat. § 41.050 (Vernon
1989); Mont.Code Ann. § 10-1-101 et. seq. (1989); N.C.Gen.Stat. §
127A-1 (1975); N.D.Cent.Code § 37-02-01 (1980); Neb.Rev.Stat. §
55-106 (1989); Nev.Rev.Stat § 412.026 (1989); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. §
110B:1 (1985); N.J.Stat.Ann. § 38A:1-1 (1989); N.M.Stat.Ann. 20-2-2
(1989); N.Y.Mil.Law et. seq. (McKinney 1990); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §
5923.01 (Anderson 1990); Okla.Stat.Ann.; tit. 44 § 41 (West 1990);
Or.Rev.Stat. § 396.105 (1989); 51 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 301 (1989);
R.I.Gen.Law § 30-1-2 (1982); S.C.Code Ann. § 25-1-60
(Law.Co-op.1989); S.D.Codified laws Ann. § 33-2-2 (1986); Tenn.Code
Ann. § 58-1-104 (1989); Tex.Govt.Code Ann. § 431.061 (Vernon 1989);
Utah Code Ann. § 39- 1-1 (1989); Va.Code Ann. § 44-1 (1989);
Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 38.04.030 (1990); Wis.Stat.Ann. § 21.01 (West
1986); Wyo.Stat. § 19-2-102 (1986).

44. Constitutions Ala. Const. art. 15, § 271; Ariz. Const. art. 16,
§ 1; Ark. Const. art. 11, § 1; Colo. Const. art 17, § 1; Fla Const.
art. 10, § 2; Ga. Const art. 3, § 11; Idaho Const. art. 14, § 1;
Ill. Const. art. 6, § 1; Kan. Const. art. 8, § 1; Ind. Const. art.
12, § 1; Me. Const. art. 7, § 4; Mich. Const. art. 3, § 4; Minn.
Const. art. 13, § 9; Miss. Const. art. 6, § 13; Mo. Const. art. 3,
§ 46; Mont. Const. art. 6, § 13; Neb. Const. art. 14, § 1; Nev.
Const. art. 12, § 1; N.H. Const. art. 24; N.J. Const. art. 5, § 3;
N.M. const. art. 18, § 1; N.Y. Const. art. 12, § 1; N.D. Const. art.
11, § 16; Ohio Const. art. 9, § 1; Okla. Const. art. 5, § 40; Or.
Const. art. 10, § 1; S.C. Const. art. 13, § 1; S.D. Const. art. 15,
§ 1; Tenn. Const. art. 4, § 1; Tex. Const. art. 16-46; Utah Const.
art. 15, § 1; Vt. Const. ch. 2, § 59; Va. Const. art. 1, § 13;
Wash. Const. art. 10, § 1; Wisc. Const. art. 4, § 29; Wyo. Const.
art. 17, § 1.

45. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1056
(1990).

46. Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 YALE L.J. 637, 645
(1989).

47. For an extensive discussion of this issue see Morgan, Assault
Rifle Legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional, 17 AM.J.CRIM.L. 143
(1990).

48. The accepted military definition is that "assault rifles are
short, compact, selective fire weapons that fire a cartridge
intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."
SMALL ARMS IDENTIFICATION AND OPERATION GUIDE, Defense Intelligence
Agency.

49. 26 U.S.C. § 5801.

50. Cal.Penal Code 12275, et. seq.; see also N.J.Stat.Ann. 2c: 39-1,
et. seq.

51. Richmond Times Dispatch, Jan. 26, 1991, Richmond dealing with
remedial legislation precipitated by Richmond Tenants Org., Inc. v.
Richmond Dev. & Hous. Authority, No. C.A. 3:90CV00576 (E.D.Va., Dec.
3, 1990). See also TONSON, GUN CONTROL: WHITE MAN'S LAW, REASON (Dec.
1985).

52. Deshaney v. Winnebago County of Social Serv., --- U.S. ----, 109
S.Ct. 998, 1004 (1989).

53. See Bordenet, The Right to Possess Arms: The Intent of the Framers
of the Second Amendment, 21 U. WEST L.A.L.REV. 1 (1990); see also
Hardy, The Second Amendment and The Historiography of the Bill of
Rights, 4 J.L. & Pol. 1 (1987).

54. Id.

55. Virginia Declaration of Rights, § 3. See also Va. Const. art. I.
§ 3.





That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:52:16 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:27:43 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Brits aren't paranoid about states rights the way Americans are.
They don't feel that they have to be armed to keep a federal
government off their backs.

Subjects seldom do.

Ah the independent frontiersman! Nobody's gonna tell him what to do!
Not even his own elected government!


Correct. We tell THEM what to do. Every 4 years we refresh their
memory. Sometimes they listen, sometimes not. However when the
government becomes oppressive odd things happen as demonstrated by a
certain document released in 4 July, 1776

One should note the origins of gun control in the UK. Seems the Lords
of the Rlhem didn't want the pesky Reds coming across the Channel and
ultimately tossing them out on their asses.

Seems you need to read a few history books Gunner.

So between the royalty and the Bolsheviks, they got a really nice
Socialist Kingdom going for themselves nowadays. Seems almost a
contradiction in terms don't it?

## Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence;
## Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
Gladstone

You are aware that the two terms have been reversed since Gladstones
time?

Gun Control in Britain
by Sean Gabb
(4873 words)
Published as Political Notes No. 33 by the Libertarian Alliance,
London, 1988, ISBN 1 860614 10 0
On Wednesday the 19th August 1987, an unemployed Hungerford labourer
named Michael Ryan, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, and in a mental
state unknown to us, went through his home town, shooting anything
that moved. He shot and killed 14 people., including his mother His
suicide a couple of hours later, and the subsequent deaths of two of
the 16 wounded, brought his total to 17.


Such killings being a rarity in England, their effect was tremendous.
Every small detail of the event was collected and printed; and, when
the stock of true details ran low, tabloid imagination supplied the
lack. A fund was set up for the survivors or the victims' next of kin.
Within a few weeks it had raised £380,000.1 Yet, with curiosity and
sympathy, perhaps no other emotion competed for primacy in the public
mind so strongly as determination. The Hungerford Massacre, it was
resolved, should not be repeated. And, as though the one naturally
followed the other, the cry went immediately up for a tightening of
the law controlling guns.


`The existing legislation is wholly inadequate ...' said the General
Secretary of the Police Superintendents' Association. `There are too
many guns in circulation and a lot of people who have guns clearly
should not be in possession of them.'2 Stephen Waldorf, perhaps, might
agree with this. So might the relatives of Cherry Groce. (These were
innocent British citizens set upon and shot in error by the police -
ed.) But whatever may be thought of their speaker, the words
themselves only expressed the general belief regarding firearms.
Stricter controls were essential, it was agreed, if criminal shootings
were not to become part of the normal run of things. Such was the
opinion six months ago. Reinforced since by a spate of armed robberies
and killings with shotguns, such remains the opinion now. `Weapons
should be kept under conditions so secure as to exclude most
householders from keeping them' wrote The Times.3 Indeed, the latest
Gallup Poll on the issue reports public favour at 75% for the banning
of all guns from private ownership.4 Leave aside the efforts of some
Conservative backbenchers, and of all the measures likely this year to
have the Royal Assent, possibly none will have had so easy and
uncontroversial a passage as the Firearms (Amendment) Act.


Yet for all its lack of controversy, the Bill is easily the most
illiberal measure of this entire long parliamentary session.5 For
legal access to firearms is already strictly and comprehensively
limited. The `wholly inadequate' current legislation already forbids
the public to own automatic weapons.6 Everything else, excepting
shotguns, which have a less restrictive form of control - and the most
feeble airguns - requires a Firearms Certificate, which is had from
the local Police and is renewable every three years. On it must be
recorded all transactions in weapons and ammunition. Applicants must
satisfy the Police of their `good reason' for possessing any
certifiable weapon, and that they can be trusted with it `without
danger to the public safety or to the peace'.7

`Good reason' is normally held to be membership of an approved
shooting club, or use of land not open to the public - but not, at
least since 1946, self defence.8 Forfeit of a certificate can result
in loss of all firearms held.9 Unauthorised possession is a serious
offence, bringing a penalty of three years imprisonment, or an
unlimited fine, or both.10 There is a penumbra of controls in other
statutes which, taken entirely, might seem already to discourage all
but the most determined from lawfully keeping guns. Despite all this -
despite levels of control comparable to those in Rumania on
typewriters - more is following. Some of the Bill's harsher clauses
have subsequently been softened.. Not all semi-automatic rifles and
pump action shotguns will be prohibited, as was at first intended. Nor
are weapons to be taken without compensation. But certain kinds of
shotgun are to be made fully certifiable, and access to other kinds
restricted. There are still more than a million certificate holders in
this country. They are nearly all peaceful and responsible citizens.
The new Act, when passed, will yet more limit their right to lawful
enjoyment of an activity quite as popular as any better known sport.


But the rights of sportsmen, though important, are not all that are
threatened. There is the matter of our constitutional rights - those
famous Rights of Englishmen, which have been the crude matter from
which every liberal doctrine has been refined, and possession of which
we trace back into the mists of time. To bear arms is one of those
rights, and the one with which the others have repeatedly been
protected. To go back only to the Revolution, it is specifically
affirmed in the Bill of Rights;11 and one of the grievances against
James was that he had caused `several good subjects, being
protestants, to be disarmed ...'12 A disarmed people was believed a
sure sign of approaching or actual tyranny, and Gibbon, in the next
century, only voiced the general prejudice in declaring that `[a]
martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of
property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only
balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises
of an aspiring prince.'13


For centuries there has been no good reason here for pulling down a
government. The right to bear arms for personal defence was
nonetheless jealously preserved, and still exercised into a time
almost within living memory. Ninety years ago, it was possible for
anyone in this country, regardless of age or capacity, to walk into a
gunsmith's and buy as many guns and as much ammunition as he could
afford. Since no effort was made to count the number of guns in
circulation, numbers are uncertain. But over 4,000 imported pistols
and revolvers were submitted for proof at the Birmingham Proof House
in 1889; and 37,000 British pistols were submitted in 1902. Price was
no constraint on ownership: pistols of a kind started at 1s 6d,14 or
eighteen times the cost of a daily newspaper. There was, it should be
said, Section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act, which penalised the carrying
of offensive weapons with intent to commit a felony. There was the Gun
Licenses Act of 1870 - despite its name a revenue measure requiring a
10s license to be taken out before any kind of firearm could be
carried or used outside of a private dwelling. Licenses were available
without question at all Post Offices. These restrictions aside, guns
could be had as readily and legally as television sets can today.


Quite obviously, the mere assertion of rights is no defence of them;
and it would be a very feeble case against gun controls that rested
here. The function of constitutional rights is to safeguard freedom,
the function of which in turn is to allow the pursuit of happiness -
however this may be conceived. There is no value in calling for rights
which, if had, would frustrate this purpose, or which would give more
freedom than is compatible with its own survival. Certainly, they are
not to be interfered with for any light, transient reason. Neither,
though, are they to be enjoyed absolutely, without regard for
circumstances. Freedom of speech, for example, is one of the essential
doctrines of liberalism; yet no liberal of any common sense would
press equally hard for it in every instance. There are places where
the open discussion of certain matters would produce not the
elimination of error but bloodshed on a massive scale. Even in this
country, there may be some danger that too much flaunting of blasphemy
might provoke an otherwise indifferent majority to censoring the
press. When therefore the exercise of any one right seems to endanger
the continued exercise of others, or of itself in a milder form, its
curtailment becomes a proper matter for thought.


Now, perhaps the individual owning of guns is another such instance.
There were few controls in the last century because few were required.
But the present age is believed more violent than any before it. There
has been both an increase in the effectiveness of most weapons and an
increasing willingness to use them; and new threats to public safety
call for new forms of protection. On this point, Peregrine Worsthorne
draws an ingenious analogy with the road traffic laws - superfluous
once but now essential.15 No one can know for certain what would
happen without controls; but American experience is normally taken as
a good indicator. There, despite some controls, guns are to be had
virtually on demand, the murder rate is regularly almost ten times
that of England and Wales, and more than three fifths of all murders
are committed with guns.16 Three Presidents have been shot this
century, two of them fatally. And even stockbrokers have not been
immune from the anger or disappointment of an armed public. Perhaps,
without what controls we have, armed violence in England might
increase to similar levels. Or fears for life and property might even
cause a lapse into a simpler, and more despotic, form of government
and justice. For avoiding either of these, the limiting of freedom
involved in gun controls is generally thought well worth the price.
Put forward as it is with great frequency and unanimity, the argument
does have an appearance of plausibility. Critically examined, however,
it is found to rest on a number of false assumptions. First, most
obvious and most easily exposed, there is the belief that gun controls
were put on in response to a need for them. Almost the exact opposite
is true.


Though guns were freely available, the late Victorians seem to have
been anything but careless or violent in their use of them. According
to Coroners' reports, in the three years from 1890, there was a total
of 524 deaths attributable to firearms. 443 of these were suicides,
which, being voluntary matters, are not our concern. This leaves 49
accidental deaths and 32 homicides. Accidents are not presently our
concern, involving as they often do self-inflicted harm. This leaves
an average of 10 instances per year of the lethal misuse of guns.17
Regarding their more general use in armed crime, not much can be said
owing to a lack of continuous statistics. But, in the nine years to
1889, 13 police offices were wounded by armed burglars in the
Metropolitan Police District. During the next five years, three were
so wounded in the whole of England and Wales, an area with a
population five times larger. In the earlier period, 18 burglars
escaped by using firearms in the Metropolitan Police District; in the
later period, in England and Wales, the number was still 18.18 These
were not unusually peaceful years. They knew the Fenian bombing
campaign in London, and the Jack the Ripper killings. Yet guns were
very seldom used.


Controls, nonetheless, began in 1903, with the Pistols Act, which
required the production of a Game or Gun Licence before buying certain
kinds of pistol. In the absence of any crime wave, supporters of the
Bill were reduced to giving anecdotal evidence of shooting incidents
involving children.19 But it was not seen as controversial, and had an
easy passage.


Next came the Firearms Act of 1920. Still, the use of guns in crime
was almost insignificant: between 1911 and 1917, there were 170
instance in London, or an annual average of 24.20 But, with civil war
in Ireland, fears in England of a Bolshevist coup, and the prospect of
millions of demobilised weapons coming onto the home market, it was
agreed that something ought to be done. Precedent sanctioned temporary
measures. The Government chose permanent ones; and its Act was
substantially the modern scheme of control. Only one Member spoke of
constitutional rights. He was ignored, and the Bill went through both
Houses almost by acclamation.21 During the next twenty years, the rate
of nearly every type of crime fell. Looking at the eighteen months to
the end of 1937, for example, only seven people arrested in the
Metropolitan Police District were found in possession of firearms.22
More controls, however, came in 1937, making sawn-off shotguns and
smooth bore pistols certifiable weapons, and prohibiting automatic
weapons.


Shotgun controls date from 1967, and were the direct response to the
killing of two policemen by criminals with pistols. Much was said
about a trebling since 1961 of indictable offences involving shotguns.
Probably there was an increasing use of shotguns. But, for every year
since 1961, the figures showing this increase had been collected on a
different basis; and the phrase `indictable offences involving
shotguns' covered every crime from armed robbery to the theft of
unusable antiques.23 Controls on the more powerful sort of airgun
followed in 1969, though not one instance was produced of them having
featured in a crime or accident.24

And so we have all but lost a right which our ancestors thought equal
in importance to the Habeas Corpus Act and trial by jury. And we have
lost it with scarcely a shred of good evidence that the loss was
required on the grounds of public safety. It would be gloomy yet
satisfying to think ourselves victims of despotic rulers or a
coalition of special interests. Yet if there is one certain fact in
the progress of our gun controls towards completeness, it is that they
have been overwhelmingly popular. At almost every stage, they have
been quietly accepted or loudly demanded. They are the outcome not of
any specific unhappy circumstances, but of general lack of interest in
being free which has been the mark of this country in the period of
its decline.


Against controls in the present, of course - whatever suspicion
against them it might raise - this purely in itself is no argument.
Simply because they were not needed once is no reason for not having
them now. Every hypochondriac, after all, does eventually die; and, in
the age of Michael Ryan, rather than criticise the superfluity of past
legislation, perhaps we should praise the foresight of its makers. But
though it is nearly an article of faith that the Firearms Acts are all
that keeps London from becoming like Detroit, faith is no guarantee of
truth. Different nations have different patterns of behaviour, and
with these go different propensities to violence. If there is greater
misuse of guns in one country than in another, there is surely more to
explaining the variation than knowing whether guns can be had on
demand or by permission. The example of America tends to dominate all
talk of gun control. But America is by no means the model of what a
country without them must inescapably become. Switzerland has very
moderate controls, and every man there of military age is even
required to keep firearms on his property. Yet the murder rate is
regularly lower than our own,25 and guns are seldom used as a weapon
of assault.26 Or, to look near the other extreme, there is Northern
Ireland. Controls there are more severe even than in England and
Wales, only one firearm being allowed per certificate, and shotguns
and all airguns being fully certifiable weapons. Nonetheless, the
murder rate in that unhappy place was actually higher in several years
than that of the United States.27 Or there is even our own example to
be looked at. A shared language and popular culture make England
almost a satellite of America. It may be yet noted that the American
murder rate with knives alone is far higher than the murder rate in
England and Wales from all causes combined;28 and the only restriction
on having any knife whatever in England is at most the additional cost
of a ferry ride across the Channel. If our crime rate is below the
American even in those cases where no preventive barriers exist to
parity, it hardly seems likely that our gun controls are all that
contains the rate of murder by shooting.



This being so, there remains the claim that controls, if not equally
needed in all places, may still have a certain use. For, on the above
principle, it is arguable that repealing all our laws against murder
might leave us safer on average than the Americans, though they were
invariably to catch and execute their murderers: and who would suppose
this a good case for repeal? Therefore, though already low, the
criminal use of guns in Switzerland might be even lower were they less
easily available. Northern Ireland, without any controls, might well
slip from endemic terrorism into civil war. But so far from saving the
case for controls, this claim only rests it on and isolates its most
basic assumption, which is that they work. While there is little doubt
that threatening the appropriate penalties may check the rate of
murder or other crimes, it is very much less certain whether controls
on guns do much to prevent their misuse.


Take the incidence of professional armed crime, which is normally the
main object of public concern. If controls had any substantial effect
here, we might expect to see some reflection of it in the statistical
tables. We should see, that is, little use of fully automatic weapons,
these being prohibited. Use of handguns, having been controlled nearly
seventy years, we might see rather more of. But shotguns and powerful
airguns, subject to control only these past twenty years, we ought to
see as almost the general firearm. We see, of course, nothing of the
kind. Choice of firearm seems determined far more by preference than
theoretical availability. In 1967, shotguns, though just controlled,
were used in only 21.3% of armed robberies. Pistols, however, were
used in 45.6%.29 Twenty years later, the proportions have not greatly
changed: the 1985 figure for shotguns was 26.8%.30 For obvious reasons
of convenience and firepower, most criminals who wish to carry a gun
will prefer to carry a handgun - this in spite of the written law. But
the law can regulate possession only of what the Police know to exist.
How many uncertified weapons there are no one knows. Guns wear out
slowly, and are not hard to repair. There might easily be millions of
them in the country, held either since before the 1920 Act or since
the War, when many controls were practically annulled by
circumstances. Certainly, in the four amnesties between 1946 and 1968,
weapons handed into the Police exceeded 20,000.31 Another amnesty is
planned for this year, and it will be interesting to see how many
warehouses will be filled this time with old service revolvers and
exotic memorabilia. It seems unlikely in the nature of things that
many of the weapons handed in were or will be owned for criminal
purposes. The number is, however, vast; and it may be wondered how
many others have found their way into the pool of uncertified guns
available for criminal use. Otherwise, if demand for guns exceeded the
domestic supply, imports could never be kept out.32 The record of our
drug laws illustrates how difficult it is to control the movement of
small but greatly desired items. More specifically, opposed even by
one of the best anti-terrorist forces in the world, the IRA has no
shortage of personal weapons, only of the men to fire them. For these
reasons, if the use of guns in professional crime is increasing - and
it almost certainly is - the speed of the increase seems almost wholly
determined by fashions within the criminal classes.


Take next the incidence of domestic violence. There can be few
households that are completely peaceful, and disputes within them are
often peculiarly savage. Whether there would be more disputes, and of
greater violence, in the absence of control cannot be known. Perhaps
more arguments than now become crockery fights would otherwise become
shooting matches. But, writing of homicides in general, the conclusion
of at least one researcher is firmly that `more than the availability
of a shooting weapon is involved in homicide ... The type of weapons
used appears to be, in part, the culmination of assault intentions or
events and is only superficially related to causality'.33 It may
easily be, then, that gun controls keep down the number of domestic
murders by shooting, but do so largely in those cases where murders
are committed anyway, though by other means. They may do little more
than force a substitution for handguns of shotguns, crossbows or
other, less convenient weapons.


Finally, take Michael Ryan. How maniacs are to be abolished by Act of
Parliament probably not the most fervent supporter of the Firearms
Bill can explain. Ryan is said to have been obsessed by guns, and
there are few obsessions that are not more powerful than the law. Even
if public opinion had had its way years ago, and civilian ownership of
all firearms had been absolutely prohibited, he might still have
collected an armoury quite as impressive as the one he acquired by
legal means alone. The existing controls did not put him off. The new
controls will not put off anyone strongly inclined to follow his
example. What they might do, indeed, is make his example all the
easier to follow. How far would Ryan have got that day had his victims
been carrying guns of their own? - had not controls disarmed the
law-abiding? As it was, nothing endangered him until armed police
could be brought in from outside.


None of this should be taken as denying that a problem does exist. The
incidence of all violent crime has increased alarmingly during the
past four decades. The criminal use of firearms, once a rarity, is
verging on the commonplace. It would be unnatural were people to look
on these increases and not demand that something be done. Even so, it
must be stressed - and repeatedly so - that gun controls are not the
required solution. They take from us an important natural right
without proper reason and without substantial benefit. Certainly, they
do have some damping effect on the rate of criminal misuse. They put
the lower class of street thug to the trouble of making phone calls or
waiting in public houses before being able to go about armed. They
ensure that enraged marriage partners reach out for carving knives
more often than automatics. There are some people who would cry up
even the smallest potential saving of life as justifying the controls.
Similarly, there are people who believe the avoiding of a few
disorders to justify censoring the press, or who want motor cars
banned on account of the road casualty figures. Every kind of freedom
is attended by particular ills, and looking only at these, ignoring
its general advantages, is a sure means of herding free men into a
slave gang. As said, freedom may be limited for reasons of public
safety. But, to justify any limitation, the balance of advantage must
weigh far more heavily in its favour than it does in the case of gun
control. This is so taking the measure only in itself. And the balance
falls still heavier considering also the scheme of law enforcement of
which control is an important part.


According to the old jurisprudence, crime is most effectively deterred
- of course assuming detection - by the severity of punishment. This
is a harsh doctrine, sanctioning as it often does very severe
punishments indeed. It is also a strictly limited one. It involves a
precise and known use of state power - a collection and focussing of
it over a small area, much as burning glass does to the sun's rays.
Only criminals are to be in fear of that power: the rest of us are to
be left freely to go about our business. Today, harshness is no longer
in fashion. There is no death penalty, nor flogging, nor hard labour.
They are thought barbarously cruel by those whose opinions count.
Therefore, when mildness and attempts at the reformation of character
fail, the only means left of ensuring obedience to the law is to try
restricting the means of breaking it. Yet, though apparently more
humane than deterrence, prevention requires the most constant and
unwelcome modes of State supervision. Acts which in themselves may be
completely harmless, or at least innocent, come under police
inspection. Those who use guns in crime are an almost insignificant
minority of all who own guns. Yet the entire class of gun owners is
treated as a potentially criminal class. Those who take out licenses
open themselves to all manner of legal harrying. Those who prefer not
to, though perhaps without the least aggressive intent against life or
property, become criminals - to be punished if caught. As best
illustration of this, however, take not gun controls, but the great
Miners' Strike. Violent mass picketing is a breach of public order,
and should always be put down with whatever force may be required.
Tear gas, baton charges, severe punishment of all taken on the scene
after a state time - these are the proper means of dealing with riots.
But modern English law has no Riot Act. Instead of mobs being
dispersed, road blocks were set up, for the Police to stop motorists
and turn them back or arrest them if suspected of travelling to a
picket line.34 Putting a rope round someone's neck is surely an
unhappy thing to do. But is it so bad and unthinkable as trying to
govern an entire nation as though it were a prison or a school? As was
said against another species of prior restraint: `He who is not
trusted with his own actions, his drift not being known to be evill,
and standing to the hazard of law and penalty, has no great argument
to think himself reputed in the Commonwealth wherein he was born for
other than a fool or a foreiner'.35


The normal conclusion to this kind of essay is to call for the
dismantling of controls, and to discuss the ways in which it might be
done. My own feeling, however, is that this would be to end on a note
of inappropriate optimism. Much is said of a liberal revival in this
country since 1979. Certainly, the economic role of the State is
smaller now than ten years ago, and this is reason to be glad. But it
should not be mistaken for more than it is. Just as even the Chinese
and Russian governments have abandoned the greater follies of
socialism, so has our own tried a limited freeing of markets - and for
much the same mercantilist reason, of preserving or maintaining a
certain national status. The immediate needs of economic efficiency
are one thing. Liberalism is something rather larger, and altogether
stranger and more frightening to Government and public alike.


The Firearms Bill will become law, and after a decent interval will be
followed by another, and then by another, until guns are in theory
outlawed among the civilian population. There is no opposing the
general will on this point. There is no place for fantastical schemes
of deregulation. All that can usefully be done is to observe and
record the progress of folly - and hope that its worst consequence
will be felt by a later generation than our own.



NOTES



1. Times, 31/8/87.


2. Times, 22/8/87.


3. Times, 16/10/87.


4. Daily Telegraph, 10/2/88. It should be noted that the poll was
commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports, and that none of the
questions asked was published in my source.


5. See the Bill reviewed in Policing London for December, 1987,
produced by the Police Monitoring and Research Group of the London
Strategic Policy Unit (a major part of the GLC's ghost).


6. Firearms Act, 1968, s 5.


7. Ibid 27 (1).


8. Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and
Firearms Control in England and Wales, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,
1972, p. 92.

9. F.A., 1968, ss 51 & 52.


10. Ibid, ss 3 (3). 51 (1). (2) & Schedule 6, Part 1.


11. Bill of Rights, 1689, S II (7) - `That the subjects which are
protestants may have arms for their defence suitable for their
conditions, and as allowed by law.


12. Ibid, I (6).


13. Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, Chapter III - last sentence of first paragraph.


14. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 26.

15. Sunday Telegraph, 27/8/87.


16. MURDER RATES PER 100,000 - VARIOUS COUNTRIES


1976 1977 1978 1979 1980


U.S. 9.1 9.2 9.4 NA NA ENG. & WALES 1.1 0.9
1.2 1.1 0.8 SWITZERLAND 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 NA N IRELAND
13.7 14.3 5.7 NA NA
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1982-3, Washington
D.C. 1982, Table 297.


MURDERS IN U.S. - % RATE GUNS AND KNIVES


YEAR MURDERS GUNS % KNIVES %
1970 13,649 66.2 17.8
1975 18,642 65.8 17.4
1980 21,860 62.4 19.3
1981 20,053 62.4 19.4

Source: Ibid, Table 298.

17. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 22. Despite ignoring accidents, I cannot
help relating that, in 1892, accidental deaths due to misuse of
pistols were just three more than those due to misuse of perambulators
(ibid).


18. Ibid, Table 2.


19. Ibid, p. 29.


20. Ibid, Table 5.


21. Ibid, Chapter 3.


22. A further 12 had airguns, and one a toy pistol - Ibid, p. 70.


23. Ibid, Chapter 8.


24. Ibid, p. 89.


25. M. B. Clinnard, Cities Without Crime: the Case of Switzerland,
Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 114-5.


26. See Ibid.


27. See Table above.


28. See Table above.


29. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 236.


30. From official figures (quoted by the Shooters' Rights
Association).


31. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 236.


32. It might also be said that guns are not difficult to make or
convert. See L. Wesley's very interesting Air-Guns & Air-Pistols,
Cassell, London, 1979.


33. Marvin E. Wolfgang, Patterns of Homicide in America, University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1958, p. 82 (quoted in Greenwood, op. cit., p.
130).

34. See Policing London: Collected Reports of the GLC Police
Committee, 1986, p. 100.


35. John Milton, Areopagitica, Clarendon Press, 1886, p. 30.





That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:01:15 -0700, John Ings
wrote:


GB (AU and to a limited extent Canada) law abiding citizens are at the will
of thugs with guns.

We haven't noticed many thugs with guns, and our police feel a lot
safer. In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

England's Civilian Disarmament Law
Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate

Failure of British Gun Ban Illustrates Folly of
California Gun Control Efforts

Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the
British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the
world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level
since records began being kept 100 years ago.

The number of murders in the first eight months of this year has risen
by as much as 22% in some of Britain's biggest cities, which account
for the majority of homicides. This builds on a 4% rise in the murder
rate in the year to March and is 20% higher than the total for 1997,
the first year of Tony Blair's government and the year that strict new
gun bans were imposed. Police say random killings are rising.
Official figures show the proportion of murders in which the victim is
not known to the killer has nearly doubled in the past decade to 31%.
The British Home Office reports that handgun crime is at its highest
since 1993, while overall gun crimes have never been higher. Since
the draconian 1997 gun ban was passed, criminal misuse of handguns has
jumped by 40 percent. As in California, much of the gun violence is
related to urban youth gang warfare and the illicit drug trade. But
petty criminals are now using guns during common street crime. London
has surpassed the crime rate of New York City. Robberies, in which
criminals use or threaten violence, have gone up by 35 percent in the
past year. In fact, Chris Fox, vice-president of the British
Association of Chief Police Officers, said the rising murder rate put
Britain out of line with America, where it has fallen 12%, and France
and Germany, where it has dropped 29% and 27% respectively since 1995.

Under the 1997 gun law, law abiding citizens were forced to give up
their handguns. Pistols that had been in families for generations,
including priceless antiques and Olympic pistols, were confiscated by
the government for a fraction of their value, all in the name of
public safety. Yet on October 13th, the London Sunday Times reported
that Commander Andy Baker, who is in charge of more than 900
detectives investigating all murders in London, blames drugs and a
greater availability of guns for the increased violence. And
according to Associated Press: "Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the
Metropolitan Police Federation, said the ban made little difference to
the number of guns in the hands of criminals." He acknowledged, "The
underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.:
Since the ban didn't work, Tony Blair's government is now calling for
a ban on replica firearms, gun shaped cigarette lighters, and air
pistols.

In California, similar past and present efforts to expand gun control
laws have been equally ineffective. For many years Los Angeles,
Oakland, and San Francisco have passed every ill-conceived gun control
scheme that was suggested by the gun ban lobby. Despite promises from
the promoters of these ordinances, these tried-and-failed schemes have
not slowed the rising violent crime and murder rate in those cities.

The gun ban lobby - in England and California - won't acknowledge that
banning guns doesn't stop criminals from misusing guns. But as
England vividly illustrates, gun control laws typically increase
violent crime by shifting the balance of power to the criminals, who
ignore the laws. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter
crimes and save lives.


Good Lord man..do you actually live in a cave????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1471716.stm

Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries


Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower
violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries`
crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of
firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated
countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and
Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of
Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a
part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From
available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is
difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict
firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . .
.. (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used
in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were
most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany,
gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland
and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation."
(Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign
Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower
crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And
many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms
laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . .
(T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the
industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun
policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other
Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued
fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes,
yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million
firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot
about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of
violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland;
Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are
prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic
shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their
country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15
years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between
1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed
and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in
1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down
in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s
suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom,
"In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1,
7/15/99.)

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with
restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun
laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the
number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million.
Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame
alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.)
Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and
is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other
restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since
1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and
pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot
..22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be
registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two
shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of
firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and
police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English
robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English
assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether
measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious
crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than
England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the
United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An
English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many
times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the
most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most
violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather:
`This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting
a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the
U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul
Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s
First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999
and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London
Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also
www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html,
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...nt071800c.html, and
http://www.nraila.org/research/19990...ights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun
requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a
legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was
imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and
many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of
Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated
and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of
Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed
robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent.
Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998.
(Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00)
For more information on Australian crime trends, see
http://www.nraila.org/research/20000...Guns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law
(Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for
acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for
acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted
weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively
attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer,
"assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited
compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of
privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by
Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003.
C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed
the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun
storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth
Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against
themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by
the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private
possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of
protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and
http://www.nraila.org/research/20010...trol-001.shtml.

From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing
the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes,
compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and
economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually
identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm
laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the
most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as
those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy
or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her
"need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for
hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in
Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use
in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for
protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of
firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995.
(Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further
than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to
self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping
the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for
guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today,
11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity
of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a
firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous
occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by
the military -- which in America would include countless millions of
rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are
prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,`
had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders
a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most
Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal
Justice Systems
While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of
firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other
respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney
David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun
statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would
succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American
gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low
crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and
sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily
available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of
(England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social
control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in
foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the
society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are
values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people
out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control
in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that
citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The
Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of
other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.)

Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by
law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of
civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the
American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along
with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil
liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun
control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and
society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian
American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to
government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way
around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun
activists often compare to the U.S.:

Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop
and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any
person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The
grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933.
Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and
criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda
rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked
that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers
away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain
allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be
used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is
unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police
wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras
overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to
observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has
introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders
intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a
crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders
can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular
street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from
his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence
of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that
the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on
fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p.
27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security
grounds. In addition, England`s libel laws tend to favor those who
bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the
United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In
England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex
parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even
having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free
speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets
Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any
government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of
any `secret` it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again
in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991,
pp. 99-102.)

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and
fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is
the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search
citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens`
residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate
is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese
police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases
where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the
physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their
confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system
"a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles."
Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being
brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many
other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation,
when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are
not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no
right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

John Ings wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

To expand on this, the quote is from an article in the
Evening Standard, 8 Jan 1941, "Don't let Colnel Blimp ruin the Home Guard."

"Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where
men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things,
but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory
worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom.
THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S
COTTAGE IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE IT STAYS
THERE."

From http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerriflequote.shtml

Bravo Ian!

Actually, I happen to agree with the poster that this fundamentally
disagrees with your position on what Orwell meant by this.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 16:31:19 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On 15 May 2004 16:09:07 -0700, (Dan Caster) wrote:

The Brits don't think about the varmits either.

I don't know of any varmits in North America that really need an
assault rifle to keep them under control, even in Alaska.


Ask the Koreans during the riots after the Rodney King verdict.
Worked pretty well for them.

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of an "assault rifle"?
Type out your impressions, dont bother going and looking it up.

Just wondering on my part.

Gunner,

I will take a 12 gauge Remington 870 pump with a 20 inch barrel with 5
rounds of # 4 buck over an assault rifle almost every time. If the range is
longer 00# buck reaches further. With #4 buck I have more fire power that an
assault rifle delivered faster and if it has a poly choke it works great for
quail and ducks as well.

If they are out of shot gun range a scoped rifle will do much better for my
old eyes and make the shots count and not shoot at to whom it may concern.
One shot where I want it to go is better than 30 in the neighborhood and
hope for a hit.


--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

Gunner,

It looks like you call Brits with out guns, targets.

Gordon

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:01:15 -0700, John Ings
wrote:


GB (AU and to a limited extent Canada) law abiding citizens are at the
will
of thugs with guns.

We haven't noticed many thugs with guns, and our police feel a lot
safer. In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

England's Civilian Disarmament Law
Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate

Failure of British Gun Ban Illustrates Folly of
California Gun Control Efforts

Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the
British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the
world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level
since records began being kept 100 years ago.

The number of murders in the first eight months of this year has risen
by as much as 22% in some of Britain's biggest cities, which account
for the majority of homicides. This builds on a 4% rise in the murder
rate in the year to March and is 20% higher than the total for 1997,
the first year of Tony Blair's government and the year that strict new
gun bans were imposed. Police say random killings are rising.
Official figures show the proportion of murders in which the victim is
not known to the killer has nearly doubled in the past decade to 31%.
The British Home Office reports that handgun crime is at its highest
since 1993, while overall gun crimes have never been higher. Since
the draconian 1997 gun ban was passed, criminal misuse of handguns has
jumped by 40 percent. As in California, much of the gun violence is
related to urban youth gang warfare and the illicit drug trade. But
petty criminals are now using guns during common street crime. London
has surpassed the crime rate of New York City. Robberies, in which
criminals use or threaten violence, have gone up by 35 percent in the
past year. In fact, Chris Fox, vice-president of the British
Association of Chief Police Officers, said the rising murder rate put
Britain out of line with America, where it has fallen 12%, and France
and Germany, where it has dropped 29% and 27% respectively since 1995.

Under the 1997 gun law, law abiding citizens were forced to give up
their handguns. Pistols that had been in families for generations,
including priceless antiques and Olympic pistols, were confiscated by
the government for a fraction of their value, all in the name of
public safety. Yet on October 13th, the London Sunday Times reported
that Commander Andy Baker, who is in charge of more than 900
detectives investigating all murders in London, blames drugs and a
greater availability of guns for the increased violence. And
according to Associated Press: "Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the
Metropolitan Police Federation, said the ban made little difference to
the number of guns in the hands of criminals." He acknowledged, "The
underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.:
Since the ban didn't work, Tony Blair's government is now calling for
a ban on replica firearms, gun shaped cigarette lighters, and air
pistols.

In California, similar past and present efforts to expand gun control
laws have been equally ineffective. For many years Los Angeles,
Oakland, and San Francisco have passed every ill-conceived gun control
scheme that was suggested by the gun ban lobby. Despite promises from
the promoters of these ordinances, these tried-and-failed schemes have
not slowed the rising violent crime and murder rate in those cities.

The gun ban lobby - in England and California - won't acknowledge that
banning guns doesn't stop criminals from misusing guns. But as
England vividly illustrates, gun control laws typically increase
violent crime by shifting the balance of power to the criminals, who
ignore the laws. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter
crimes and save lives.


Good Lord man..do you actually live in a cave????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1471716.stm

Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries


Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower
violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries`
crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of
firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated
countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and
Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of
Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a
part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From
available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is
difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict
firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . .
. (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used
in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were
most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany,
gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland
and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation."
(Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign
Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower
crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And
many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms
laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . .
(T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the
industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun
policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other
Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued
fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes,
yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million
firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot
about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of
violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland;
Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are
prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic
shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their
country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15
years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between
1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed
and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in
1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down
in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s
suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom,
"In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1,
7/15/99.)

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with
restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun
laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the
number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million.
Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame
alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.)
Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and
is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other
restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since
1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and
pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot
.22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be
registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two
shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of
firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and
police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English
robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English
assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether
measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious
crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than
England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the
United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An
English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many
times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the
most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most
violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather:
`This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting
a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the
U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul
Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s
First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999
and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London
Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also
www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html,
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...nt071800c.html, and
http://www.nraila.org/research/19990...ights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun
requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a
legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was
imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and
many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of
Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated
and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of
Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed
robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent.
Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998.
(Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00)
For more information on Australian crime trends, see
http://www.nraila.org/research/20000...Guns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law
(Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for
acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for
acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted
weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively
attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer,
"assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited
compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of
privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by
Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003.
C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed
the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun
storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth
Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against
themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by
the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private
possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of
protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and
http://www.nraila.org/research/20010...trol-001.shtml.

From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing
the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes,
compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and
economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually
identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm
laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the
most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as
those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy
or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her
"need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for
hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in
Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use
in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for
protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of
firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995.
(Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further
than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to
self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping
the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for
guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today,
11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity
of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a
firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous
occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by
the military -- which in America would include countless millions of
rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are
prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,`
had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders
a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most
Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal
Justice Systems
While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of
firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other
respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney
David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun
statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would
succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American
gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low
crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and
sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily
available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of
(England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social
control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in
foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the
society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are
values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people
out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control
in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that
citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The
Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of
other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.)

Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by
law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of
civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the
American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along
with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil
liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun
control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and
society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian
American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to
government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way
around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun
activists often compare to the U.S.:

Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop
and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any
person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The
grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933.
Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and
criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda
rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked
that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers
away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain
allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be
used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is
unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police
wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras
overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to
observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has
introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders
intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a
crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders
can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular
street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from
his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence
of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that
the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on
fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p.
27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security
grounds. In addition, England`s libel laws tend to favor those who
bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the
United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In
England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex
parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even
having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free
speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets
Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any
government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of
any `secret` it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again
in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991,
pp. 99-102.)

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and
fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is
the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search
citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens`
residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate
is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese
police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases
where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the
physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their
confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system
"a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles."
Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being
brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many
other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation,
when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are
not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no
right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 05:19:02 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Gunner,

It looks like you call Brits with out guns, targets.

Gordon


Arnt they? Given the rising crime rates in the UK..and the rising
rape, murder and assault rates.....Id have to say yes, they are.

Gunner


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:01:15 -0700, John Ings
wrote:


GB (AU and to a limited extent Canada) law abiding citizens are at the
will
of thugs with guns.

We haven't noticed many thugs with guns, and our police feel a lot
safer. In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

England's Civilian Disarmament Law
Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate

Failure of British Gun Ban Illustrates Folly of
California Gun Control Efforts

Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the
British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the
world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level
since records began being kept 100 years ago.

The number of murders in the first eight months of this year has risen
by as much as 22% in some of Britain's biggest cities, which account
for the majority of homicides. This builds on a 4% rise in the murder
rate in the year to March and is 20% higher than the total for 1997,
the first year of Tony Blair's government and the year that strict new
gun bans were imposed. Police say random killings are rising.
Official figures show the proportion of murders in which the victim is
not known to the killer has nearly doubled in the past decade to 31%.
The British Home Office reports that handgun crime is at its highest
since 1993, while overall gun crimes have never been higher. Since
the draconian 1997 gun ban was passed, criminal misuse of handguns has
jumped by 40 percent. As in California, much of the gun violence is
related to urban youth gang warfare and the illicit drug trade. But
petty criminals are now using guns during common street crime. London
has surpassed the crime rate of New York City. Robberies, in which
criminals use or threaten violence, have gone up by 35 percent in the
past year. In fact, Chris Fox, vice-president of the British
Association of Chief Police Officers, said the rising murder rate put
Britain out of line with America, where it has fallen 12%, and France
and Germany, where it has dropped 29% and 27% respectively since 1995.

Under the 1997 gun law, law abiding citizens were forced to give up
their handguns. Pistols that had been in families for generations,
including priceless antiques and Olympic pistols, were confiscated by
the government for a fraction of their value, all in the name of
public safety. Yet on October 13th, the London Sunday Times reported
that Commander Andy Baker, who is in charge of more than 900
detectives investigating all murders in London, blames drugs and a
greater availability of guns for the increased violence. And
according to Associated Press: "Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the
Metropolitan Police Federation, said the ban made little difference to
the number of guns in the hands of criminals." He acknowledged, "The
underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.:
Since the ban didn't work, Tony Blair's government is now calling for
a ban on replica firearms, gun shaped cigarette lighters, and air
pistols.

In California, similar past and present efforts to expand gun control
laws have been equally ineffective. For many years Los Angeles,
Oakland, and San Francisco have passed every ill-conceived gun control
scheme that was suggested by the gun ban lobby. Despite promises from
the promoters of these ordinances, these tried-and-failed schemes have
not slowed the rising violent crime and murder rate in those cities.

The gun ban lobby - in England and California - won't acknowledge that
banning guns doesn't stop criminals from misusing guns. But as
England vividly illustrates, gun control laws typically increase
violent crime by shifting the balance of power to the criminals, who
ignore the laws. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter
crimes and save lives.


Good Lord man..do you actually live in a cave????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1471716.stm

Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries


Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower
violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries`
crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of
firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated
countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and
Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of
Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a
part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From
available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is
difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict
firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . .
. (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used
in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were
most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany,
gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland
and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation."
(Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign
Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower
crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And
many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms
laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . .
(T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the
industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun
policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other
Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued
fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes,
yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million
firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot
about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of
violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland;
Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are
prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic
shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their
country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15
years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between
1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed
and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in
1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down
in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s
suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom,
"In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1,
7/15/99.)

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with
restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun
laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the
number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million.
Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame
alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.)
Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and
is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other
restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since
1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and
pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot
.22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be
registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two
shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of
firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and
police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English
robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English
assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether
measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious
crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than
England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the
United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An
English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many
times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the
most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most
violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather:
`This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting
a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the
U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul
Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s
First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999
and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London
Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also
www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html,
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...nt071800c.html, and
http://www.nraila.org/research/19990...ights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun
requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a
legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was
imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and
many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of
Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated
and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of
Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed
robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent.
Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998.
(Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00)
For more information on Australian crime trends, see
http://www.nraila.org/research/20000...Guns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law
(Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for
acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for
acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted
weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively
attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer,
"assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited
compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of
privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by
Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003.
C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed
the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun
storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth
Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against
themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by
the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private
possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of
protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and
http://www.nraila.org/research/20010...trol-001.shtml.

From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing
the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes,
compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and
economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually
identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm
laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the
most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as
those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy
or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her
"need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for
hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in
Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use
in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for
protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of
firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995.
(Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further
than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to
self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping
the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for
guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today,
11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity
of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a
firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous
occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by
the military -- which in America would include countless millions of
rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are
prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,`
had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders
a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most
Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal
Justice Systems
While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of
firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other
respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney
David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun
statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would
succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American
gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low
crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and
sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily
available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of
(England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social
control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in
foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the
society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are
values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people
out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control
in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that
citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The
Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of
other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.)

Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by
law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of
civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the
American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along
with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil
liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun
control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and
society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian
American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to
government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way
around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun
activists often compare to the U.S.:

Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop
and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any
person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The
grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933.
Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and
criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda
rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked
that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers
away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain
allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be
used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is
unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police
wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras
overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to
observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has
introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders
intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a
crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders
can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular
street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from
his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence
of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that
the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on
fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p.
27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security
grounds. In addition, England`s libel laws tend to favor those who
bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the
United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In
England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex
parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even
having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free
speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets
Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any
government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of
any `secret` it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again
in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991,
pp. 99-102.)

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and
fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is
the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search
citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens`
residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate
is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese
police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases
where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the
physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their
confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system
"a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles."
Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being
brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many
other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation,
when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are
not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no
right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 05:12:46 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 15 May 2004 16:31:19 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On 15 May 2004 16:09:07 -0700, (Dan Caster) wrote:

The Brits don't think about the varmits either.

I don't know of any varmits in North America that really need an
assault rifle to keep them under control, even in Alaska.


Ask the Koreans during the riots after the Rodney King verdict.
Worked pretty well for them.

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of an "assault rifle"?
Type out your impressions, dont bother going and looking it up.

Just wondering on my part.

Gunner,

I will take a 12 gauge Remington 870 pump with a 20 inch barrel with 5
rounds of # 4 buck over an assault rifle almost every time. If the range is
longer 00# buck reaches further. With #4 buck I have more fire power that an
assault rifle delivered faster and if it has a poly choke it works great for
quail and ducks as well.

#4 buck is an excellent antipersonnel load, followed by #6 shot. I
keep my home shotgun loaded with 6s.

If they are out of shot gun range a scoped rifle will do much better for my
old eyes and make the shots count and not shoot at to whom it may concern.
One shot where I want it to go is better than 30 in the neighborhood and
hope for a hit.

Im still waiting for the definition of an "assault weapon" as is
applied to the US.

You realize that if you used a Remington 7400 with a scope..you are
shooting what amounts to an "assault rifle", as you would with any
self loading shotgun with a couple cosmetic features, such as a pistol
grip, are you not?

As far as "30 in the neighborhood" are you suggesting that such arms
are only suitable for spray and pray?

We really need to go to the range sometime. Bring your check book EG


Btw...what arm is most suited for militia usage? Think hard..I will
respond G
Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:10:34 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:45:30 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

John Ings wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

You still haven't got the message have you Gunner? Orwell wasn't
talking about a privately owned weapon! That's a government issue
rifle for a Home Guard member he's referring to! The Brit equivalent
of a national Guard member.

To expand on this, the quote is from an article in the
Evening Standard, 8 Jan 1941, "Don't let Colnel Blimp ruin the Home Guard."

"Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where
men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things,
but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory
worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom.
THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S
COTTAGE IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE IT STAYS
THERE."

From http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerriflequote.shtml

Bravo Ian!

Actually, I happen to agree with the poster that this fundamentally
disagrees with your position on what Orwell meant by this.

How so, given a clear reading of the above? Even the English Bill of
Rights gives full and clear approval of the right to self defense.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:10:34 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Bravo Ian!

Actually, I happen to agree with the poster that this fundamentally
disagrees with your position on what Orwell meant by this.


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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No right of self-defense in Blair's barbaric Britain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


A British Times Literary Supplement reviewer recently took a shot at
tracing the "providential themes" present in George Bush's political
rhetoric. Indeed, the interminable war on "tyrants and terrorists" is
laced with evangelical zeal. The American president, however, is not
alone "in the redemption business."

Tony Blair fancies himself every bit the redeemer of mankind. Etched
all over Blair's address to Congress was the crazed devotion to the
"mystic [and, might I add, malevolent] idea of national destiny."

One particularly chilling dictate was this: "I know out there there's
a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own
business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'Why
me? And why us? And why America?' And the only answer is, 'Because
destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and
the task is yours to do.'"

The tyranny implied in Blair's maudlin grandiosity should be obvious.

First, the little guy back home ought to be the one calling the shots,
not Messrs. Messiah and Company.

Second, before Blair joins Bush in rousing the "visionless"
middle-class American from his uninspired slumber – The Great Redeemer
thinks it's below contempt to harbor a civilized desire to mind one's
own business and live in peace – he ought to take a look at the little
guy back in England.

Tony Martin, for one, is not having a terribly tranquil time.

He was only just released from jail for the crime of defending his
English liberties. Blair blathered to Congress about "the spread of
freedom" being "the best security for the free," but this poor,
benighted Norfolk farmer, doubtless would no more advocate the spread
of British-style freedom than he would the bubonic plague.

Martin killed a career criminal by the name of Fred Barras and injured
his accomplice Brendon Fearon when the two broke into the elderly
man's homestead. However, Martin, who was initially convicted of
murder and jailed for life, had no freedom to defend his property or
his life.

The "Rights of Englishmen" – the inspiration for the American founding
fathers – are no longer cool in Cool Britannia. The great system of
law the English inherited, including the 1689 English Bill of Rights,
which entails the right to possess arms, is in tatters. The sovereign
and his elites, most of whom enjoy taxpayer-funded security details,
have disarmed law-abiding Britons, who now defend themselves against
the protected criminal class at their own peril.

A right that can't be defended is a right that exists only in name. In
Britain there is, in effect, no right to life or property.

In Blair's Britain, proud and self-sufficient people like Martin have
been broken and subdued. His self-defense plea the Crown rejected,
although his conviction for murder was commuted to manslaughter once
Martin capitulated and agreed to accept a mental diagnosis. In other
words, to defend your home in Britain is to evince a paranoid
personality disorder.

According to a recent U.N. study, writes Historian Joyce L. Malcolm,
author of "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," "England and
Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for 'very serious'
offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed." While violent crime
in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, British
violence has been rising.

Since Blair's 1997 total ban on armed self-defense, things have gone
from bad to worse. "You are now six times more likely to be mugged in
London than New York," avers Malcolm. "Why? Because as common law
appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to
protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack
them ... A study found American burglars fear armed homeowners more
than the police." The most dangerous burglaries – the kind that occur
when people are at home – are much rarer in the U.S. ... only 13
percent, in contrast to 53 percent in England.

How far has British barbarism gone? Malcolm's evidently garden-variety
accounts include the story of an elderly lady who fought off a gang of
thugs "by firing a blank from a toy gun, only to be arrested for the
crime of putting someone in fear with an imitation firearm."

When Eric Butler was brutally assaulted in a subway, "he unsheathed a
sword blade in his walking stick and slashed" at one of his
assailants. Butler was added to the lineup – he "was tried and
convicted of carrying an offensive weapon."

Tony Martin was almost denied parole. You see, Martin was not contrite
for killing the creature that invaded what was supposed to be his
castle. I kid you not, but apparently, in the words of a probation
officer, Martin continues to be "a danger to burglars."

Having been robbed of three years and five months of his life for the
crime of self-defense, Martin's ordeal is not over. The surviving
ruffian, who has more than 30 convictions to his name, has been
granted permission to sue his victim, even given legal aid to so do,
for the injury he suffered on the "job."

The criminal protection and reinforcement program that is British
justice also entails honoring Brendon Fearon's "right" to know where
the old farmer will reside now that he's been released.

For this "Train of Abuses and Usurpations," Tony Blair is beneath
contempt and beyond redemption.


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

John Ings wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:29:25 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of an "assault rifle"?
Type out your impressions, dont bother going and looking it up.

Gee, after only 39 years in the military, qualifying with them every
year, how would I know?

Let's put it this way, you don't need a 30 round clip to hunt deer.

It's not a "CLIP", it's a MAGAZINE. I hate that -- you'd think that after
39 years in the military, you'd at least know the right words...



--

************************************************** *********************
Brad Millard On-line ballistics for small arms...
www.eskimo.com/~jbm
************************************************** *********************

On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:39:10 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against
the tyranny of our own government. [2]

My country doesn't have a tyrannous government. Neither does yours,
all your paranoia notwithstanding. What your country does have is a
greedy arms industry. Now every other drunk in your bars has a
Saturday Night Special and the drug dealers are better armed than the
police. I realize that you've let things get so out of control down
there that it would take decades to eliminate all the unnecessary
weapons flooding your country, but don't ask me to let my country come
to the same desperate straits. Especially not with the rationalization
that I need to defend myself against duly elected authority.

Maybe those guns do protect a few citizens from thugs, but they kill
more family members than thugs, and that's a fact. Not one handgun
owner in a thousand has the training necessary to use their weapon in
a shootout with something other than a paper target. And while there
are a few states in the US that have the necessary terrain for
successful guerilla warfare, most don't. So if trained regular
infantry come looking for your militia, they aren't going to last
long.

I suggest Bruce Catton's Civil War trilogy as a good reference to
consult with respect to what happens when state militias start taking
their guns off the wall to resist federal armies.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:01:03 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

## Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence;
## Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.
Gladstone

You are aware that the two terms have been reversed since Gladstones
time?

Only in YOUR mind.

`Good reason' is normally held to be membership of an approved
shooting club, or use of land not open to the public - but not, at
least since 1946, self defence.

And what solution would you suggest? Open the floodgates and let the
citizenry arm itself? Put handguns in the posession of incompetent
users in the hopes that some might get lucky and not too many will
shoot themselves or family members or bystanders? Turn England into
Dodge City East?

On Sun, 16 May 2004 05:19:02 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

It looks like you call Brits with out guns, targets.

That would be what you call Americans with guns also.
Very often it's their own gun too!

"John Ings" wrote in message
...
And what solution would you suggest? Open the floodgates and let the
citizenry arm itself? Put handguns in the posession of incompetent
users in the hopes that some might get lucky and not too many will
shoot themselves or family members or bystanders? Turn England into
Dodge City East?



Do you have that little faith in the citizenry of Britain that you think
everyone would go on a killing spree if they were armed?

Those Minds

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:01:03 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Ah the independent frontiersman! Nobody's gonna tell him what to do!
Not even his own elected government!


Correct. We tell THEM what to do. Every 4 years we refresh their
memory. Sometimes they listen, sometimes not. However when the
government becomes oppressive odd things happen as demonstrated by a
certain document released in 4 July, 1776

My country was ruled by the same monarchy, and still is. But we didn't
have to get into a shooting war to gain our freedom. You seem to feel
that a magnum load is the solution to every problem.

Gunner wrote:

Bravo Ian!

Actually, I happen to agree with the poster that this fundamentally
disagrees with your position on what Orwell meant by this.


How so, given a clear reading of the above? Even the English Bill of
Rights gives full and clear approval of the right to self defense.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

I see the meaning of those two sentences as saying that if the
government continued to act in a democratic fashion and did not become
repressive, there would be no need for the citizenry to rise up and use
those arms "on the wall" to overthrow it.

I'm all for that! And, it doesn't really conflict with your position either.

Jeff (Who is proud to be an NRA member.)

--

Jeff Wisnia (W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"If you can smile when things are going wrong, you've thought of someone
to blame it on."

On Sun, 16 May 2004 06:30:03 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Do you have that little faith in the citizenry of Britain that you think
everyone would go on a killing spree if they were armed?

A few would. Many would also engage in the same klutzy behaviour
as US handgun owners. Shooting themselves or shooting family members
by accident or deliberately. Acting as a source of handguns for the
criminal element, etc etc.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:12:24 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:01:15 -0700, John Ings
wrote:


GB (AU and to a limited extent Canada) law abiding citizens are at the will
of thugs with guns.

We haven't noticed many thugs with guns,

YOU might not have noticed more thugs with guns, John.

and our police feel a lot safer.

Please show us some articles which back up your statements, John.


In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

Perhaps not, but I'd be willing to bet money that they all WANT to.


England's Civilian Disarmament Law
Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate

Failure of British Gun Ban Illustrates Folly of
California Gun Control Efforts

Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the
British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the
world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level
since records began being kept 100 years ago.
-megasnip-

Good post, Gunner. I finished Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" a couple
weeks ago and found it interesting. He compiled and crossreferenced
a helluva lot more data than any previous study. I agree with his
title, though I used to have quite the opposite stance. The stats just
don't support any kind of gun regulation. I hope John comes around as
I did. Myth abounds in this country and his.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:12:30 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

I see the meaning of those two sentences as saying that if the
government continued to act in a democratic fashion and did not become
repressive, there would be no need for the citizenry to rise up and use
those arms "on the wall" to overthrow it.

But that's not how Orwell meant it! The intended purpose of that
GOVERNMENT ISSUE gun was for a Home Guard member to use on German
invaders, not his own government.

You and Gunner are projecting your own paranoia into Orwell's
declaration. If you're going to quote pro-gun advocates, quote ones
that really support your position. Don't use out-of-context quotes
from people who don't!

"John Ings" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 May 2004 06:30:03 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Do you have that little faith in the citizenry of Britain that you think
everyone would go on a killing spree if they were armed?

A few would. Many would also engage in the same klutzy behaviour
as US handgun owners. Shooting themselves or shooting family members
by accident or deliberately. Acting as a source of handguns for the
criminal element, etc etc.


By your reasoning, then I should have shot at least one or two of my family
members by now or should at least know someone who has shot someone
accidentally.
Given that automobiles kill more people in this country, (and they require
licenses and registration) than firearms, then should we now ban automobiles
and rely on the government for transportation?

Those Minds

On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:58:06 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Do you have that little faith in the citizenry of Britain that you think
everyone would go on a killing spree if they were armed?

A few would. Many would also engage in the same klutzy behaviour
as US handgun owners. Shooting themselves or shooting family members
by accident or deliberately. Acting as a source of handguns for the
criminal element, etc etc.


By your reasoning, then I should have shot at least one or two of my family
members by now or should at least know someone who has shot someone
accidentally.

No, the klutz incidence isn't that frequent. But it's way more
frequent than the "98 lb granny fights off 200 lb assailant"
frequency.

Given that automobiles kill more people in this country, (and they require
licenses and registration) than firearms, then should we now ban automobiles
and rely on the government for transportation?

No, because automobiles have another use besides "self protection".

"John Ings" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:58:06 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

Do you have that little faith in the citizenry of Britain that you
think
everyone would go on a killing spree if they were armed?

A few would. Many would also engage in the same klutzy behaviour
as US handgun owners. Shooting themselves or shooting family members
by accident or deliberately. Acting as a source of handguns for the
criminal element, etc etc.


By your reasoning, then I should have shot at least one or two of my
family
members by now or should at least know someone who has shot someone
accidentally.

No, the klutz incidence isn't that frequent. But it's way more
frequent than the "98 lb granny fights off 200 lb assailant"
frequency.

Given that automobiles kill more people in this country, (and they
require
licenses and registration) than firearms, then should we now ban
automobiles
and rely on the government for transportation?

No, because automobiles have another use besides "self protection".

Firearms have more uses than personal protection.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 07:36:29 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

GB (AU and to a limited extent Canada) law abiding citizens are at the will
of thugs with guns.

We haven't noticed many thugs with guns,

YOU might not have noticed more thugs with guns, John.

and our police feel a lot safer.

Please show us some articles which back up your statements, John.

Check with your own police forces on the subject. Do you think they
enjoy approaching a residence that has a sign that says "Never mind
the dog, beware of owner!"

In England police don't even have to carry guns themselves.

Perhaps not, but I'd be willing to bet money that they all WANT to.

You'd be wrong.

England's Civilian Disarmament Law
Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate

Non-sequitur conclusion. The armed civilians weren't holding the
murder rate down. The murder rate is up because of drugs and the
influx of immigrants that include Jamaican posses and the like.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:01:03 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths:

Correct. We tell THEM what to do. Every 4 years we refresh their
memory. Sometimes they listen, sometimes not. However when the

Sometimes they listen?!? I'm from Missouri. Show me.



17. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 22. Despite ignoring accidents, I cannot
help relating that, in 1892, accidental deaths due to misuse of
pistols were just three more than those due to misuse of perambulators
(ibid).

Heh heh heh. "BAN BABY CARRIAGES NOW!"

Let's just hope not too many people here are in the carriage
wheel (or frame) business.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development