Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
UK: So, how’s that gun control thing working?
Posted by: McQ on Friday, February 16, 2007

Apparently not as well as expected:
Armed police will patrol parts of south London following five murders, including the shooting of three teenagers, in less than two weeks, Scotland Yard said today.

Police have also set up a taskforce to investigate the murders, all of which happened in the boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth.

The most recent killing saw a 15-year-old boy shot dead at his home in the Clapham North area yesterday afternoon. Police today named him as Billy Cox, and said he had been shot in the chest.
Yes, as most who understand the dynamics of such things as gun control constantly warn, when you ban guns, essentially the only people who heed such a ban are law abiding citizens. The criminals? Well they're called 'law breakers' for a reason.
Earlier today, the deputy head of an independent advisory group to Operation Trident warned that, to young people, firearms had become "almost a status symbol demanding respect and power".

"Guns have gone from the domain of the crack cocaine dealers to now being an everyday accessory, a fashionable accessory, that young people want to be seen with, unfortunately," Claudia Webbe told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"It's become a lifestyle choice where it's become part of a culture to be part of a gang."
Well how about that!? Who knew?

And now the law abiding but disarmed citizenry is at the mercy of armed criminal class who is ignoring the law. No one saw that coming, did they? And police? Well they simply don't seem able to protect anyone, do they?

Self-defense is a basic human right and frankly, government has no business interfering, because, as usual, government is absolutely blind to the law of unintended consequences (as are those who call for gun bans). As is obvious, it is also unable to provide defense/protection to its citizens. All it can do is react.

Remove a person's ability to defend themselves while criminals, as is their want, ignore the law and the result is predictable. Why is it that those who would ban guns refuse to acknowledge this basic truth?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
America: Physician, Heal thyself!

Look McQ, when the USA suffers no gun crime then perhaps we’ll listen to what you have to say on the issue...



[This has been a tongue in cheek comment brought to you by the humourless Brit]
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
I have to periodcially endure the reasons HRH can rescind our independence (allegedly penned by John Cleese), I guess turn about is fair play.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Look McQ, when the USA suffers no gun crime then perhaps we’ll listen to what you have to say on the issue...

Kav,
The areas in USA with the highest gun violence are the cities with the toughest gun laws Los Angeles, New York and Washington DC.
So I take it that you support the rollback of gun laws in those places to determine if gun control works.

 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
Paul, did you even read the bottom of my comment?

Are you suggesting that it is the gun laws in those cities that directly leads to the gun violence?

My view on gun control in the UK is somewhat conflicted, I have yet to come down on either side of the debate. I guess one good thing with guns being essentially outlawed in the UK is that if someone has a gun in their possesion they can immediately be prosecuted for it. Assuming that those who carry guns are the ones likely to use them in crime then this has the advantage of removing criminals from the streets. Of course this only works if you have an effective police force who can, you know, police.

Looker, those things stopped being funny about the second time I read them.
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
over at redstate.com my signature quote is:
"You never need a firearm, until you need it BADLY"

I was making much the same argument as McQ this morning about when you have strict gun laws and regulations,only the criminals still feel free to arm themselves,leaving the populace at the mercy of criminals.
The right of self defence isn’t a constitutional or a government granted right,it is a basic human right.
I live in Ireland now and I truly miss my right to carry a concealed weapon with which to defend myself and my family.
I’d rather have it and not need it,than need it and not have it.
 
Written By: FireFireFire
URL: http://
Are you suggesting that it is the gun laws in those cities that directly leads to the gun violence?
Watch a predator sometime.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Personally I would rather not carry a weapon. Around machines that need careful manual dexterity I am clumsy; things snap off or break, or discharge when they should not. I am crap at DIY as I will invariably break something even though I put best efforts into not doing so; I had many Christmas days as a child where by the middle of the afternoon a bit had come off my new toy. On the flip side this meant that I did not get upset, it just became a fact of life.

What this boils down to is that I would not trust myself to own, touch, carry or use a gun anywhere where I was not carefully supervised by someone else. In fact scratch the last, if I was being supervised I would probably end up shooting the supervisor by mistake.
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Guns laws only seem to work where you don’t need them.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I love Kav’s rationale for supporting gun laws: "I’m a klutz, so in order to level the playing field for all other law-abiding citizens - they shouldn’t be allowed to handle a piece of complex machinery either." I wonder, Kav, do you own/drive an automobile?

Based on your rationale, we should all be equally disadvantaged because you are too clumsy to defend yourself. That way, the criminals will have a large pool of victims to attack, which will decrease every individual’s overall chance of being "the one"... The only problem with this rationale is that the criminals don’t seem to be interested in stopping once they’ve attacked an unprotected populace. They actually increase their attacks - because they have a reduced fear of being stopped. (Sort of the flock of sheep vs. the pack of wolves analogy. As the sheep lose their ability to defend themselves - say, because the shepherd is sick or otherwise unavailable - the pack of wolves becomes ever more brazen in taking the sheep; they get fat, and their numbers multiply. Over time you get far more wolves, taking far more sheep.)

Interestingly, if you know you are too clumsy to provide for your own defense (and don’t try), but you allow all the sheep (people) around you to provide for their own defense, the opposite behavior happens from the wolves (criminals). They never know which sheep are able to provide a forceful defense, so their attacks become less frequent and their population declines. Even the sheep (people) who provide for no self-defense gain the benefit from the ones who do provide their own defense.

For the record, the job of the "police" is not to prevent crime. It’s to prosecute crime after it occurs. In other words, they are the ones who track the wolves back to their feast and make sure that they pay for the sheep they’ve taken. Unfortunately, this method of "crime control" presumes that the wolves (criminals) actually have to pay an exceedingly high cost for the sheep they’ve taken, so that they will not desire to do it again. In modern "liberal" thought, we don’t make wolves pay any serious price - instead, we try to convert them into being sheep (rehabilitate them).

And lastly, the American 2nd amendment is not there for "crime control". It is there for "government control". That is, the purpose of leaving citizens armed is to add the healthy inference to the back-of-the-mind of the government that the people have the _right_ and the _ability_ to assert control over the government.
 
Written By: RW
URL: http://
RW, nice little rant there. I’m sure you feel that you cut my argument down to size. I’m sure that would be the case if I had even made the argument you suggest I am.

I respectfully submit that you should brush up on your reading skills and note what I said:

Personally I would rather not carry a weapon...
Now point out to me where it was that I offered what I said as a rationale to instigate gun control. I think you will find that it was nowhere. Fine, castigate me for offering a personal opinion about my reticance with guns with some little anecdotal material in a thread where we should be discussing the lack of ability of gun-control in the UK to prevent increasing gun crime, but kindly do not misrepresent what I said so that you can launch a broadside at the nice strawman that you have tried to turn me into.

Also what part of:
My view on gun control in the UK is somewhat conflicted, I have yet to come down on either side of the debate.
did you not understand.

Sometimes the problem is not with debating a topic it is the knee jerk reaction of people who ascribe opinions to you that you have not proffered. Try engaging me rather than making stuff up.

Also in response to this:
For the record, the job of the "police" is not to prevent crime.
I assume you do not think that having police on the beat is a good idea and that the very sight of a police presence does not act as a deterrent? My view is that it can and does work. The city where I went to university had a lot of gang-fight problems late at night in the centre. The police had a major crackdown on this and one of the principal drives was to increase a visible presence on the streets. This worked incredibly well such that one felt (and indeed was) much safer.

I can only assume that the last comment was directed to the discussion in general and not me since
a) I have not mentioned the 2nd amendment and
b) I live in the UK (gun control in the Uk was a topic of this post) and we don’t have the 2nd amendment so it is hardly pertinent to our gun control laws.


 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Sometimes the problem is not with debating a topic it is the knee jerk reaction of people who ascribe opinions to you that you have not proffered
Dude! I said I was sorry for that crass mistake I made the other day! Stop berating me you merciless heartless toffee nosed English....oh, uh, sorry, never mind (just kidding...not about the never mind part, I meant about the toffee nosed thing, and not the merciless heartless thing either, oh, never mind).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Kav don’t believe Looker he meant EVERY word to include "Toffee-nosed" AND "heartless"...by the way what is a toffee nose like?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Looker, lol.

Joe:
by the way what is a toffee nose like?
As long as it doesn’t get mistaken for a brown nose its kind’a sweet.

Of course it’s hell when you have a cold; a whole new meaning to the phrase "runny nose".

Have a good weekend folks
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Cheers Kav.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

Gee who would a thunk it...... criminals are scofflaws!
 
Written By: McQ2
URL: http://
I wonder why Kav refuses to draw any conclusions from the very nearly perfect—in fact, to all the evidence I have, perfect—universality of the following:

Observation A:
In broadly Western societies, violent crime is increasing least where public ownership and defensive use of firearms is least restricted, and when it is decreasing, it decreases most in like less restricted areas. There are no known cases of crimes waves beginning in conjunction with a loosening of firearms restrictions, and there are plentiful cases of firearms related and other violent crimes increasing when firearms restrictions are increased, especially to the level of a general prohibition.


One would think a trend might be acknowledged by the intellectually honest.

There is no "Antarctic data" analog in the statistics of crime where a loosening of firearms laws (or evolution in firearms technology) has lead to an increase in crime, without the following also being true:

1) The legitimate and functioning government present was engaged in a fundamentally illegitimate and illiberal (classically) campaign of prohibition or monopoly, and concommittant with that opposition to government action had to be competently armed.

or,

2) No legitimate government of any sort was present, neither did society generally organize itself extralegally into legitimately coercive entities to preserve the public peace. E.i., a state was in the "failed" condition.

Firearms laws of the sort that exist in Britain have never been seen to result in a public good, Britain should abolish it’s firearm laws.

They cannot be made to work.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
It’s amusing how if you proffer that you have not made a decision on a particular debate one of two things seem to happen:

a) you are assigned an opinion and then attacked for it

or

b) arch comments are made that attack the honesty of your position

statements of ’fact’ are also presented but neither of these approaches even pretends to try and convince the fence-sitter. It makes one wonder whether true debate on any subject is even possible on the internets.



 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
It’s amusing how if you proffer that you have not made a decision on a particular debate one of two things seem to happen:

a) you are assigned an opinion and then attacked for it

or

b) arch comments are made that attack the honesty of your position
One thing that I’ve learned, Kav (and I’ve learned this with hundreds of my blog posts) is most people don’t read for comprehension, they read until they think they find something to which they can object (and that’s where they stop reading).

Their unfounded assertion then takes on a life of its own, where you can literally quote yourself saying precisely the opposite thing claimed by your rhetorical opponent and it won’t make a bit of difference.

The best thing to do is to disclaim their assertions with a challenge to them to produce quotes from you which support their assertion.

But watching this thread is instructive, since it was clear to me, at least, that you were simply discussing the dilemma of the ban in the UK from your perspective in the UK. You made it very clear, from the beginning, "My view on gun control in the UK is somewhat conflicted, I have yet to come down on either side of the debate." Those that attacked you simply ignored that disclaimer for their own rhetorical convenience.

Defenders of gun rights needed someone to go after in order to make their argument and you were the most convenient foil. Such, unfortunately, is life in the blogsophere.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Kav wrote the following:
America: Physician, Heal thyself!
Look McQ, when the USA suffers no gun crime then perhaps we’ll listen to what you have to say on the issue...
[This has been a tongue in cheek comment brought to you by the humourless Brit]
and then
My view on gun control in the UK is somewhat conflicted, I have yet to come down on either side of the debate.
With what evidence exists, one would have to have a conclusory and perverse approach to the question to still be "up in the air." I suggest you have a thumb on the scale on the anti-gun side if you are still on the fence.
I guess one good thing with guns being essentially outlawed in the UK is that if someone has a gun in their possesion they can immediately be prosecuted for it.
And they will be prosecuted regardless of whether their actions merit it, non-violent target shooters and assasins alike. This is nothing for a nation to be proud of.
Assuming that those who carry guns are the ones likely to use them in crime then this has the advantage of removing criminals from the streets.
This cannot be assumed.
Of course this only works if you have an effective police force who can, you know, police.
The enthusiasm of the British body politic for permitting police to be effective peace officers is well known.
Personally I would rather not carry a weapon. Around machines that need careful manual dexterity I am clumsy; things snap off or break, or discharge when they should not. I am crap at DIY as I will invariably break something even though I put best efforts into not doing so
Your butter fingered proclivities are regrettable, but of course justify no sympathy for gun laws applying to anyone but solely yourself. Since they are singular to yourself, I do wonder why you brought them up at all.

At best it seems to be an inadvertently misdirecting digression on your part.

McQ then chimed in, partly quoting you:
You made it very clear, from the beginning, "My view on gun control in the UK is somewhat conflicted, I have yet to come down on either side of the debate." Those that attacked you simply ignored that disclaimer for their own rhetorical convenience.
I didn’t ignore his claim to be on the fence, I’m saying that an honest, intelligent, good-hearted person would not be on the fence.

Kav is free to pick what combination of the three he feels he fails regarding, and in what combination suits him.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
McQ, thanks. Let’s face it, I am hardly perfect on that scale but obviously it just hit a nerve recently.

Tom:
I didn’t ignore his claim to be on the fence, I’m saying that an honest, intelligent, good-hearted person would not be on the fence.
and so the insults begin. What a pleasant person you really are Tom. Did I do something to hurt you in the past?

I had written a little piece here saying some nasty things about you based upon things you have written. But then I stopped, took a deep breath and remembered that I am better than that.

So I’ll just ignore you from now on. I might even write a greasemonkey script to have you saying something amusing whenever you post a comment, at least then you will be bringing a little ray of sunshine into my day.

Cheers
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
What a pleasant person you really are Tom. Did I do something to hurt you in the past?
Anyone who genuinely wants people to be deprived of an effective—in most cases, the most effective—means of self defense is proclaiming a willingness to see them hurt rather than their having that means of self defense.

In the face of the evidence we have, it is worse than merely quixotic to remain "on the fence."

To the extent you are not a voice of reason, and temporizing is not reason, you are hurting your society and everyone in it.

You are hurtful in the same way that having someone say they are "on the fence" about any other fundamental human right is. You may as well be saying you are "on the fence" about female suffrage, legal priveleges for the nobility, or whether Jews should be allowed to testify against Christians on court.

And if my saying thing like this bothers you, I hope it is your conscience pricking you.
But then I stopped, took a deep breath and remembered that I am better than that.
Not really. Where Marie Antoinette was at best utterly clueless when the phrase "Let them eat cake." was ascribed to her, you have no excuse of ignorance, yet you are saying, "Let them call the police. Let them run away. I’m still busy thinking." How better a person can you be?

I can suggest how you might improve.
So I’ll just ignore you from now on. I might even write a greasemonkey script to have you saying something amusing whenever you post a comment, at least then you will be bringing a little ray of sunshine into my day.
If you will not bother to take matters of life and death seriously, I confess I am unconcerned with what ever you may do, your posts—if they continue in the vein of the past—will be a good foil whether you respond to my counterposts or not.

Still yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider