From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IG writes:
<< I quoted these laws in order to show that higher crime figures are as the
result of more laws that can be transgressed and to show how society has
evolved over the past 80 odd years....
:::::::::::Now the law abiding are penalised and criminal acts punished
diminished::::::::::::
In what way are the law abiding penalised, apart from the obvious one of
having our pistols and revolvers taken away? >>
IG is in danger of implying that higher crime figures are purely or largely
the result of there being more laws to break, IOW a product of statistics. In
the case of firearms-related crime this is clearly untrue, and the facts must
be remembered. The 1920 Act was the immediate consequence of political
paranoia, the concern of some Cabinet members that a Bolshevik-style
revolution here might be facilitated by the then widespread ownership of
guns; gun crime was in both absolute and relative terms very limited - far
more scarce than it is today. This is not a myth: the relevant Cabinet papers
were released in the early 1970s under the 50-year rule, and they have been
examined and commented upon by e.g. Colin Greenwood in his book published at
about that time. The only pre-1920 survey of gun crime that I know about is
one conducted by the Metropolitan Police covering the period (I think, from
memory - must look it up) 1911 - 1913, which revealed a low incidence of gun
crime, most of the offences reported being trivial ones rather than armed
robbery. The very much more common use of guns in armed robbery today is not
just a result of more accurate reporting, it's a real phenomenon, and of
course it occurs independently of the firearms controls, which are an
irrelevance to criminals.
Re. IG's use of the word "evolved", this tends to have positive connotations
- but as we know too well, change is not necessarily for the best, and the
undeniable shift of power from the individual to the State during the 20th
century is to be deplored by anyone who cares about liberty.
Drink-driving? Think shooting - control people's right to do something and
you permit the State to intrude upon their lives, to encourage a culture of
informing, to abolish or control still more activities by way of a precedent
having been set. Are we characterised by thankfully isolated occurrences such
as Dunblane & Hungerford? Of course not - just as the tragic deaths of people
killed by drunken drivers are not related to our own enjoyment of a pint of
beer or glass of sherry.
But the State-sponsored fear & hysteria over drink-driving (we're coming up
to the peak season for nasty anti-booze TV ads...) leads to policemen waiting
outside pubs to ambush patrons and secure convictions; to schoolchildren
being fed DfEE anti-booze propaganda; to a degree of interference which, if
it carries on, will lead to the mass closure of country pubs and unwelcome
social changes to life in the countryside, and possibly to Scandinavian-style
restrictions on our freedom to buy alcohol. If this is evolution, I'd rather
remain a dinosaur...
Getting a bit off-topic here, but I hope everyone recognises the parallels
with shooting. I'm not condoning drink-driving - just pointing out the
perils of over-regulation.
The law-abiding are penalised, IG, by being punished for crimes they did not
commit, by being discouraged from wishing to own inanimate objects (guns)
when there is no evidence that they might misuse them, by being treated as
potential criminals, by being entreated by the police to make themselves
prisoners in their own homes, with locked doors and windows, and not walk the
streets at night, rather than have the temerity to defend themselves in the
event of criminal attack. In another posting you say, <<Our right to
self-defence has not descended anywhere. I repeat...you all have a right to
self-defence!... It just so happens that firearms are not available...>>.
Well, our right to self-defence has been diminished very substantially, to
the extent that anyone using violence to defend himself is very likely to
come unstuck; it's all very well to assert that "no jury would convict you"
but the fact is that if you were to shoot someone in self defence you'd end
up in court on EXACTLY the same basis as some career criminal who made a
habit of violent assault. Need I mention Tony Martin again? For the State to
say we have a right to defend ourselves, while depriving us of the right to
carry (or in the case of handguns, to possess) the means of self-defence, is
cynical hypocrisy. Of the weapons you list, I'd say any free citizen in a
free country should feel he could choose to defend himself with whatever
weapon he thought appropriate or which was available.
<<In what way are criminal acts punished less...?>> you ask; I could mention
the dangerous growth of plea-bargaining. A recent case in Kent had a judge
being furious with a Crown prosecutor who declined to co-operate with his
plea-bargaining strategy over some Kosovars and other ex-Yugoslavian dross
who'd created mayhem in the street, and they escaped the prison sentence they
deserved because they "copped a plea" to some lesser offence. I'm sure you
know all about that kind of thing, IG.
I find it hard to blame you for seeming to lose your rag a bit lately, IG -
some people do get a bit personal, misread your postings, and say wild
things. You're very tolerant. But really this post of yours sums it up: you
have to recognise that a lot of "law abiding" (i.e. peaceable, socially
responsible, more or less respectable, non-criminal) people are just
thoroughly p***ed off with being bossed about, treated like children,
insulted & reviled, prevented from following their traditional pursuits, etc,
while the policies of our caring, generous governments seem to have no impact
at all on the activities of the thriving criminal underclass. BTW I think our
policemen are wonderful - even if many of them do look about 15 years old to
me these days.
Anthony Harrison
--
Just as a matter of interest but the actual Govt. report from 1918 is
on our website with permission of HMSO in the publications section.
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
