From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<What statistics there are do show a much lower level of crime prior
to the Firearms Act 1920, with firearms at least. Statistics
for London are reasonably comprehensive.>>
Of course, if you put into place the methods of recording crime that are
used nowadays and couple that with the modern communications systems that we
have, then that would sort out the reasons why general crime figures were
much lower. A working class person in Whitechapel wasnt going to bother
reporting to the police that he had been robbed of a penny whilst walking
home from the tavern. Neither were there as many offences capable of being
recorded as a crime. (there wouldnt be any burglaries, for example, nor
thefts of or from motor vehicles, or twoc, or abstract electricity, or
public order offences other than breach of the peace, OR any firearms
offences, or any drugs related offences, etc etc)
How many firearms were in public hands prior to 1920? (In comparison to,
say, 1995?) If there was no regulation, then that can't be known. I know, if
guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.
The point is that society has changed since then.
Crimes, generally, were pretty unsophisticated and by and large petty in
comparison to today. In our current society, the criminal is willing to go
to greater and greater lengths to obtain what he or she wants. The media
image of armed criminality is widely copied. Uzis and Mac10's are designer
firearms for drug dealers and their minders. AK47's are widely available
from the former eastern bloc countries. We know there are virtually no
border controls at other than the main ports, so these weapons flood into
the country.
The point is, therefore, that the lower incidence of firearms related crime
prior to the 1920's has nothing to do with the lack of regulation of
firearms.
IG
--
A fair point, but it can't be argued that tighter controls
have led to less crime either.
As far as I have been able to piece together the reason the police
started refusing to issue FACs for personal protection after WW2 is
because armed crime was so rare that the police felt no-one had
sufficient justification to require a firearm.
I'm still a bit sketchy on the exact details but it appears that
the end came in 1954, when a jeweller was brutally murdered in
London during a robbery. Another jeweller applied for an FAC for
personal protection, and the police turned him down, pointing
out that it was such a rare event that he could not possibly
have a satisfactory "good reason". In 1953 there were 17 recorded
armed robberies in London and in 1954 there were 4. The police
thus established this policy and it has stayed with us ever
since, evolving into a myth about how people shouldn't have
firearms for self-defence because it's too dangerous, despite
the level of offences of armed robbery, assault, and murder
skyrocketing since 1954 (in 1993 for example there were about
4,000 recorded armed robberies in London).
This myth is partially behind the motivation for ever tougher
gun laws, although the indication is that despite the armed
robbery rate dropping recently, the rate of the most serious
offences is still moving upwards.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
