For added fun bonus-points, I'm going to discuss this article.
"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.
For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.
No to the second part, but whatever.
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
Even taking this at face-value, it still brings up the question as to what is considered a "very serious" offence.
But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
Wait, how is this a bad thing? I don't know about you, but I would rather live in a country that had a little more plain theft and a little less murder than the other way around.
I know I may be a big softie, but I rather hand in my wallet than be killed.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. 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. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.
Ofcourse, no mention of the fact that a burglary is far shittier when you're not at home. If a junkie breaks in, takes your cd-player and goes out it's far less fucked than when your entire home is robbed completely just because you're not there.
So I might not be completely understanding as to how this is in any way seriously bad.
Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.
Oh I get it. Americans just like killing eachother more. Go America!
A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.
Proof that Americans are violent bastards. Sure, you could ofcourse explain that there has been some serious changes to both cities which have absolutely nothing to do with laws but that would make your point less strong so just ignore it.
When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.
Murdering someone is not the same as using a gun for crime. I don't know if you americans noticed this, but using a gun to rob someone does not mean you have to shoot the person afterwards.
But anyway, this ofcourse has nothing to do with the "tough on crime"-mentality that the New Yorkers have supported compared to the british "criminals are just misunderstood and just need some love"-mentality.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone.
Wow. I admire this person for stating things everyone already knows. How controversial.
Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets.
I love exageration. I also love how this person says less cops on the street is due to THEM KEEPING TRACK OF GUNS instead of y'know, the increase of paperwork and the general restrictions the gov puts on them. I might be suprising you Americans again, but police-officers in Europe generally have far fewer options than those in the US.
And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.
ANARCHY IN THE UK BITCH!
Or wait, any of you londoners get robbed all the time? No? Weird.
According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".
This is true. It's sad that defending yourself is frequently suspect and might even get you a sentence. But that doesn't mean "MOAR GUNS" is the best option.
