From: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason Price)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gun Control generally
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:10:55 GMT
Reply-To: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk
Followup-To: Gun Control generally
Organization: Aston University (Comp Sci)

( Please post replies to my mail straight to the bulletin board rather than to me personally if that's OK - I'll read them there.  Thanks. )

From hes%unity.ncsu.edu@uk.ac.nsf Mon Dec 21 23:40:30 1992
Posted-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 18:40:00 EST
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 18:40:00 EST
From: hes@edu.ncsu.unity
To: priceje@uk.ac.aston.cs
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks in MA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Organization: North Carolina State University
Cc: 
Content-Length: 4530

In article <1992Dec21.151949.10732@aston.ac.uk> you write:
>In article 92Dec21094400@macro.bu.edu, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
> ...
Jason,

>The point of view I have, being from England with somewhat more 
>restrictive (and I would say sensible) gun laws, is that by 
                              ^^^^^^^^
  But England has had several series of gun laws, perhaps
best divided up as before 1920-1930, from then to about 1980,
and then the current time.  The laws have become progressively
more restrictive (and England hasn't become safer.)

>restricting the availability of guns to people who don't have a 
>legitimate use (and in classing legitimate as something other than 

  We have different traditions with respect to who determines
what is legitimate for me to do.  I'm not comfortable with the
idea that I'm forbidden to do anything unless the government
(or the church?) has approved it.

>"home defence", which seems to be using a sledgehammer to crack a 
>nut in a lot of cases), you do avoid the situation in which people 
>are killed 'by accident' (e.g children getting hold of a parents 

  Now you are bringing in an entirely different argument.  It
may not even be relevant.  Do you have any basis for this idea
that "accidents" have any relationship whatsoever to what the
government considers "legitimate"?  

>gun and using it in the "heat of the moment") and th

  Again, is there any evidence a) that this really happens, or
b) that it happens less with "legitimate" use owners than with
other types of owners?
>
>
>
>
>
>t example used above.
>
>That sounds really anti-gun, which isn't my standpoint - I'm very 
>much a gun enthusiast with a couple of shotguns and I hope to 
>take up handguns at some point when I can afford it.
>
>In looking at the situation in the US, I don't think that it is 
>practical as some of your anti-gun lobby suggest, to move to a 
>situation of gun laws such as those we have over here in the UK.  
>The fact is that such a huge number of people own guns over th
>ere that it just wouldn't be possible to remove guns from people 
>who don't have "legitimate" reasons to own them and because you 
>can't tell who has a gun, self-defence has to be a legitimate 
>reason simply because the next guy is likely to own one.

  There is a basic question of whether self-defense is even
considered a reasonable activity.  I have been told that, under
English law, it is illegal to carry anything (a pocket knife or
a small wooden stick) with the purpose of using it for self-
defense.  (If I carry a pocket knife for opening packages, and
than happen to use it to defend myself it will probably be
ok because I didn't have the intent to use it.)  In the US
self-defense is not considered to be wrong, and anything which
can be legally posessed can legally be used, or intended to be
used, or self-defense.

  A (legally posessed) gun then can be used, and it is of much
broader use than just being used against an attacker who has a
gun.  It is an "equalizer" (I'm sure you know the old saying
about Samuel Colt) which allows a person to defend themself
against a larger/stronger/younger/faster attacker.  Even if the
attacker is just using a cosh, an elderly or weak person is 
unlikely to mount a successful defense if restricted to bare
hands or perhaps a stick.

>Peace through superior firepower seems to be the only effective 
>personal deterrent against violence!

  I think that there is an entirely different way out of this.
If violent crime can be reduced (by intervention against its
root causes) then we aren't working with personal self-defense
but rather decreasing its necessity and frequency.  If this
happens then the firearms ownership becomes rather a non-problem.
>
>In countries like the UK, where the ownership of guns by the 
>general population is restricted to legitimate reasons, such as 
>sporting use, I don't see the need to increase gun ownership to 
>the kind of levels ( and subsequently use and violence) that is se
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  You are making a cause-effect argument which I think is a)
unfounded, and b)incorrect.  You are saying that, for example, if
you were to purchase a handgun then you would be likely to start
a life of violent crime.  Do you really believe that?

>en over in the US and elsewhere.
> ...

--henry schaffer

___

England has one major firearm law - that is the firearms act 1966.  This is the basis for the gun controls applied over here.  The 1966 act was modified in 1986ish after the Hungerford Massacre, when a chap called Michael Ryan shot dead 16 people in a rather quiet town using an AK-47 assault rifle.

Unfortunately, the result of that amendment act has introduced a couple of inconsistencies into the law and resulted in the banning of all semi-automatic self loading rifles, as they are seen as unnecessary for sporting activity.  This is a point of controversy and the anti-gun lobby here I believe won that point.
I would argue that target shooting is a perfectly legitimate use for that gun and just because Michael Ryan happened to use it doesn't mean we ban it - he could have done the same with a side by side shotgun, or even a kitchen knife I suppose (The yorkshire ripper over here killed 13 people with a hammer and screwdriver etc.)  Mind you, it took him ten years, not an afternoon.

Sorry, that's a bit flippant.  I don't think the hungerford massacre was met with an appropriate response by the government.
Over here, it is true to say (as my reply to a previous mail memo says - just before this one), self defence is not considered a "valid" reason for holding a gun, as the guy breaking in is not likely to have a firearm and so you end up with an escalating spiral.  I shan't repeat myself again - all the arguments about that (which are addressed in your reply) are in that memo.

To say that England hasn't become safer is perhaps true, although we certainly haven't had any major massacres since Hungerford (I don't think), but that's not an argument for banning the guns - Michael Ryan shouldn't have been allowed to have his guns in the first place as he failed the requirements for a firearms licence and had consistently broken the law by carrying firearms on his person - the police just didn't apply the existing laws to remove his threat.   However, I don't think that England would 


be a safer place if you opened up the right of the civilian to carry a gun, with self defence as a motive either.

self-defence in itself is not an excuse for carrying a weapon.  The view of the police is that any weapon carried without a legitimate reason (and I shan't even attempt to define legitimate!) is not allowed.  The basis for this is the charge of possessing an offensive weapon.  Circumstance can be argued - for example , if I was carrying a potato peeler back from the shop with a pound of potatoes, it would not be an offensive weapon (I hope!) as I could argue that I bought it to peel my potatoes.  If I took


 it to a football match though, I'd have a more difficult time convincing a policeman that it was entirely innocent.

By opening up the field for anyone (effectively) to carry a gun for self defence, you surely make it far easier for a non-serious criminal (by this I mean to distinguish someone who'd break into your house to nick a video on a moment of opportunity rather than a hardened criminal - don't want to trivialise any crime) to obtain and thereby use a gun in the pursuit of his crime?  (more on this in my other mailing)

I'm not saying that because I own a handgun that I'm more likely to commit a crime, what I'm saying (as I explain in the other memo) is that because I own a gun, someone breaking into my house (say) is going to bring a gun because they know I might have one, so I'm certainly more likely to get shot (and killed, due to the significantly higher damage a gun could do than other weapons).

Jason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk	| "I have something to say...
Aston University,	|  it's better to burn out than to fade away"
Birmingham, U.K.	|  	 - Kurgen, (Highlander)