Please to explain for the hard of understanding...

[DanaC]

Part of our history is sending over thousands of basic firearms, rifles and handguns, for Britain's Home Guard defense against potential invasion by Germany during WWII. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun ... ill suited for military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition. Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II.

It wasn't just because of disarmament. Britain ploughed everything it had into arming and supplying its regular army - up to and including melting down or reusing anything that could be used to make weaopns and ammunition. The Home Guard was always a 'back up' plan in case of invasion - the biggest push was the army itself. The Home Guard was armed with odds and sods of stuff. Much of it bought in or, yes, donated by the US. But had the population been better armed, those arms would have been commandeered for the regular army, so it is a moot point. We were melting down pots and pans and park railings for our bullets ffs. The army took absolute precedence in all of that. Why on earth would we have left the better weaponry in the hands of the home defence when the main action wasn't on our home ground?

The main reason for the formation of the Home Guard was political pressure and a huge upswell of people wanting to form a home defence, primarily ex-servicemen and people who couldn't qualify for full military service. The vast majority of the weapons used for that home defence were purchased not donated. The rush to arm that home defence was more a response to that internal political pressure and the morale boost it would provide than actual expected military need.

I've met British and French military personnel, those who've seen how fragile social stability can be up close and personal, who were embarrassed by their civilian populations' apathy in this regard today and how they had resigned themselves to it.

And I have met military personnel who really do not want to see our population routinely armed. Who consider it their job as trained professionals and don't want civvys sticking their noses in where they might get blown off. Many of those same soldiers are pretty disdainful of the 'toy soldiers' who 'play weekend warrior' and civilians who play with guns.

Might surprise you to know I have a few friends in the service and my wider family has a history of military and naval service. Including, funnily enough, my dad being in the Home Guard in the late 50s because he didn't pass the medical requirements to enlist.

At times of war, when the country's security is threatened even those who are nominally pacifists enlist in large numbers. In times of peace we leave it to the professionals.

Many in your own military find you* loathsome.

And many don't. And would be deeply insulted by that statement.

[sexobon]

Due to the extremely high probability that my further discussion of this subject with you would be construed as trolling, I find it necessary to terminate the interaction at this time. So sorry for any inconvenience it may cause. HAVE A GREAT DAY!

[DanaC]

None of that is to say that I agree with the level of gun control in the Uk. I happen to think it has gone too far and become too restrictive. I wouldn't want a gun free for all. But some of the recent legislation to my mind was not well-thought out and was a knee jerk reaction to tragic gun deaths. I am similarly against the recent changes to laws on carrying knives - in particular the heavy sentences applied for those who do.

The element of the restrictions I disagree with is that 'home defence' is not considered a reasonable use and justification for gun ownership - though if you have a gun for professional sporting reasons and you then use it in home defence that is considered reasonable use.

I have a problem with the draconian sentences that are imposed for illegal gun ownership where no other crime has been committed. In particular the sentences imposed on soldiers who have brought guns home with the. It seems excessive if the gun hasn't been used to commit a crime to impose sentences that outlast the sentences for rape and some violent crimes.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Due to the extremely high probability that my further discussion of this subject with you would be construed as trolling

Nah. I get the impression this is a subject you are serious about.

But yeah. You too :P

Oh incidentally: when I said gun control was broadly supported, and not imposed on an unwilling populace I was talking about modern gun controls enacted by a modern parliament. The gun controls between the wars were absolutely about disarming the populace for fear of socialists and strikers with their ranks filled by large numbers of disgruntled and armed former soldiers. But that was a very different political culture with more in common with the 19th century than a modern democratic system.

[Big Sarge]

It looks like Great Britain is increasing the number of armed police on the streets in response to an unspecified IS attack. If 10 or 20 terrorists attack an area, I bet some folks would wish they could protect themselves. An armed populace can really be of assistance such as at Coffeville, KS.

[DanaC]

They do that occasionally when the terror threat levels rise. We do have armed police, particularly around airports and train stations etc.

And in some places (some parts of Scotland for instance) it's not uncommon for specialist armed police to also do routine policing for some of the time and still have their guns with them.

If 10 or 20 terrorists attack an area, I bet some folks would wish they could protect themselves. An armed populace can really be of assistance such as at Coffeville, KS.

Maybe. Or maybe it would lead to even more people getting shot :p

Seriously, would you trust someone like me with a fucking gun?




"Everybody who isn't an American put down the gun!"

I can think of waaaay more people I wouldn't want armed in that situation than I can of people I would. All fine and dandy if someone's been trained in the use of a firearm or been shooting since they were knee high to a grasshopper, out hunting deer in the wild. But there really aren't that many people in the Uk who hunt and not many places to hunt. Guns for sport is a thing - but not nearly as big of a thing as it is for you guys.

If some of those people were ex-military who know what they're doing, then awesome bring them on they'll probably not hit any bystanders. Or if they were people who had taken an interest in guns and gone to shooting ranges and learned how to use the weapon. Trouble is the people most likely to go out and get themselves a weapon and then have it with them in the event of an incident are people like my old mate Paul and frankly he'd be more dangerous than the terrorists to the people around him.

[Big Sarge]

Here's an interesting story.

Armed & dangerous: 89-year-old World War II veteran shoots armed robber

Arthur M. Lewis may be elderly, but criminals are learning the North Palm Beach man is no easy mark.

The 89-year-old decorated World War II veteran foiled an armed robbery attempt Saturday afternoon at his Lake Park jewelry business that left a 44-year-old suspect with six gunshot wounds, but no loot.

Lewis was working behind the counter at The Jewelry Exchange at 900 N. Federal Highway when he was approached by a gun-wielding man around 3 p.m., according to an arrest report from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. Lewis said he immediately grabbed the suspect’s revolver and pulled out a .38-caliber handgun from his own pocket.

The two men wrestled for several minutes and fired shots at each other. Despite battling someone half his age, Lewis got the best of it. A man identified by the sheriff’s office as Lennard Patrick Jervis, a Miramar resident, was shot six times by Lewis, including four times in the chest. Lewis’ left arm was grazed by a bullet, but he was otherwise unscathed.

No one else was in the store at the time.

“I thought he was going to kill me as soon as I saw the gun,” Lewis told The Palm Beach Post on Monday afternoon. “I thought, ‘This time, I’m dead.’ ”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/nationa...s-shoot/ng9Dc/

[DanaC]

89-year-old World War II veteran

Awesome story.

less awesome story:

A crew member with the long-running TV show Cops has been shot dead by police while recording officers trying to foil a robbery.

Sound operator Bryce Dion, 38, died from a gunshot wound when police opened fire, hitting him by mistake.

The robbery suspect, 32-year-old Cortez Washington, was also shot dead by police.

The incident began when a police officer responded to a request for back up at a Wendy's store in Omaha, Nebraska.

Two Cops crew members were with the officer, and accompanied police as they entered the restaurant.

As police confronted the suspect, Mr Dion, who was wearing a bullet-proof vest, became separated from his cameraman.

Officers then fired upon Washington as he fled the restaurant. He collapsed and died of his injuries.

Police later discovered that Washington was armed with a pellet gun, which officers thought was a real handgun.

I do genuinely mean that the old man foiling the robbery and defending himself was awesome btw. I just think that more guns in general circulation makes for more danger. He was able to protect himself - that is good.

[Big Sarge]

Some interesting view points from stars about guns. Note that many live in very liberal non-gun friendly locations.

James Earl Jones is a member of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and once said, "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

Miranda Lambert is packin' heat and she's not afraid to admit it: "I carry a weapon," she told Self magazine. "I got a death threat a few years ago and was really scared. But I don't want bodyguards. I am my own security."

Although he isn't currently a licensed gun-holder, Johnny Depp recalls being quite familiar with the weapon in his younger years -- a skill he's hoping to teach to his own children.

"We would just go out and line up a bunch of cans and shoot with rifles, handguns and at times, submachine guns," Depp said in 2009. "When I was a kid it was a controlled atmosphere, we weren't shooting at humans -- we were shooting at cans and bottles mostly. I will most certainly take my kids out for target practice."

Whoopi Goldberg disclosed during a taping of "The View" that she is a member of the National Rifle Association.

If we've learned anything from Angelina Jolie's acting career, it's that she looks good holding a gun.

In 2008, Jolie told the U.K.'s Daily Mail, "I bought original, real guns of the type we used in 'Tomb Raider' for security. Brad and I are not against having a gun in the house, and we do have one. And yes, I'd be able to use it if I had to ... If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them."

Simply showing that our royalty carry guns and it looks like your royalty do the same. Did you know Prince Philip enjoyed tiger hunting and Queen Elizabet II accompanied him? Prince Charles, Prince William and even Kate own guns and hunt.

[DanaC]

Yeah, I know that. There are some people who hunt. Not just royals. Hunting as a sport is a legitimate reason to own guns, by which I mean it is one of the reasons which is accepted in law as a legitimate reason to apply for a licence and own a gun. Most farmers own guns.

Figures from 2010 for gun ownership in the UK

According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 138,728 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 435,383 weapons. There are 574,946 shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns.

Statistics for Scotland show that 70,839 firearms were held by 26,072 certificate holders at the end of last year. Some 50,000 people in Scotland are certificated to hold shotguns - and 137,768 weapons are covered by that scheme.

It is difficult to get a gun licence. You have to prove that you have a reasonable justification for owning a gun - sport for instance or professional reasons (farmers for instance usually own shotguns). You have to provide references who will vouch for you. You have to be assessed as fit to own a gun and you have to comply with strict safety rules regarding how those guns are kept and where.


And yeah - sometimes criminal have guns.

But look at the figures for gun deaths and gun crime:

Gun Murders in England, Scotland and Wales 2011/12
There were 640 Murders / Homicides in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 2011/12 (10.43 per million population)
Of these 640 Murders / Homicides, 44 involved a gun or firearm as the main weapon. Gun murders in Britain in 2011/12 represent 6% of the murder cases, (0.72 gun homicides per million population).

Because criminals aren't as well or frequently armed the police don't have to be as well or frequently armed.

In the year 2011–12, there were 6,756 Authorised Firearms Officers, 12,550 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 5 incidents where conventional firearms were used.[2]

Between 1980 and 2012 there were 19 incidents of fatal shooting by police (not including Northern ireland - which is a very different kettle of cod).

Police officers in England and Wales opened fire just five times for the year 2011/12. Out of these incidents, two people were killed, including Duggan.

In the four years to 2012, armed officers officers opened fire 18 times - nine fatally. No-one was shot dead by police in 2012/13.

http://www.channel4.com/news/police-...ppy-fact-check

I have some sympathy with the American police. I can see why they might get a little itchy on the trigger given the serious danger they face on a regular basis of being shot at. And I can see why someone would want to own a gun for self defence when there is a serious danger of facing criminals who are armed with guns.

But it effectively leads to an arms race. Gun homicides in the US for 2012 were 2.83 per 100,000 population.

And that's just homicides. Thousands die every year to gun accidents. And tens of thousands commit suicide with a gun - which increases overall suicide rates as they are more likely to be successful suicides than most other methods.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_...United_Kingdom

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/repo...olence-uk.html


Look - I'm not going to convince you that gun control is a good thing. Nor is that my intent. The situation in America is culturally specific. And the problem with an arms race is - being the one who disarms first puts you at risk. But - I do want to show why I don't think it wuold be a good idea for the UK to emulate America's approach to gun ownership.

The dangers of possible invasion though possible are highly theoretical - not saying it couldnt happen - of course it could. But It is difficult to feel that as a real danger when we haven't been successfully invaded in many centuries. We've had invasion scares - but it's not materialised. There was an attempt in 1797 and that was actually the most recent attempt at an invasion - but the last successful invasion was 1000 years ago.

In terms of warfare there hasn't been a need for an actual battle on the mainland since (I think) the mid 18th century. Not counting the Battle of Britain of course which was fought in the air.

And the last time government forces fired on protesting civilians was, I think the 19th century (though I could be wrong on that). Riots and demonstrations haven't been met with deadly force for a very, very long time (again, except for in Northern Ireland).

So the threat of a tyrannical government imposing itself by force of arms similarly doesn't feel like a real threat. Again, that these things haven't happened for a long time doesn't mean they could never happen - but they just aren't as a big a part of our national psyche as they are for yours.

Terrorism as a threat is real, yes. But - actual incidents since the end of the Troubles have been few and far between (and for most of the time during the Troubles the threats were all to do with placed bombs) Horrific when they do occur - unlikely in most instances to have been less deadly had civilians been carrying weapons.


What does feel like a real threat is the idea of a lot more people having guns. And then a lot more police having guns. And a lot more criminals having guns. And a lot more people ....and repeat.

[Pamela]

This chart shows a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

[Big Sarge]

Hmm. It looks like Great Britain in 2010 had a 776 per 100,000 violent crime rate. During the same time, the US had a 403 per 100,000 violent crime rate. I guess our violent crime rate is less because criminals know we fight back.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The "arms race" argument is badly enough flawed that it's no longer a serious item of the discussion in the United States.

An arms race requires the resources of a nation behind it to, ah, fuel the racecar. If there is an arms race in civilian armament, the racers are shuffling along on walkers and invalids' slippers.

What really does seem to spread a particular weapon technology around is familiarity with the works. Percussion arms, a certain generation in the 19th -- widespread with military use of this with the rifle musket. Revolvers, another. Next big shift-over was the bolt-action rifle, mainstay of the medium- and big-game hunter for a lot of decades -- and began its career with military use brought very much home in the Great War. Now in the United States, we've had semiauto pistols serving this Republic's Army since 1911, still got semiauto pistols, and now more and more of the rifles have automatic transmissions and ergonomic handles sticking out of them, and this generation of rifle shooters is going to look upon the 5-round bolt-action rifle like it was a blackpowder musket -- and nostalgia-shooters will go out shooting them. The way I go out and shoot my .58 Hawken. Acre of white smoke after the BAM!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

. . . It's the emotional place of guns I think I have the most difficulty with.

Mmm. You'd probably have to have been born into, and raised in, a republic to come to that place easily. But not liking genocide is easier.

Originally Posted by DanaC

A few minor points from your response:

I suspect the Native peoples of America might argue with that one *smiles*. And given that the Founding Fathers were drawn primarily from European cultures, they were no doubt already aware of the genocides committed by their forefathers in places like South America. There's also an argument to be made that the slave labour which they and most of their peers made use of was itself the result of a form of genocide.

But no: they had no experience of being the victims of genocide.

The tools to do genocide effectively and deliberately did not then exist, and what really did the execution on the Indians (political correctness is altogether incorrect here, those most intimately involved with the question can tell you, and I refuse to use clumsinesses), while of European origin, was also not under European control to any effectual degree: disease. Nor was it all one way; it looks a lot like there was an exchange of poxes: the great pox for the smallpox.

You'll want an information dictatorship to conceal the genocidal actions and obfuscate the matter in any way possible, to anyone. This wasn't around before the twentieth century on the necessary scale -- and in the twentieth century, the communications technology gave the overwhelming advantage to national-scale entities and operations. The balance has now shifted to private entities, down to a microcosm scale, which works to make classic information dictatorships very much harder to achieve in the last century's manner. It will be harder to conceal genocides in the twenty-first -- and without exception, every genocide in the twentieth was kept secret as long as practicable.

As for slavery being genocide, that argument too is defective as the objective was hardly one of mass slaughter: it was of monetary gain all round, at every link of the chain. Casualties were plenty heavy, and enough to give the whole thing a bad name just by themselves -- but unlike genocides, the fatalities were not the point of the slave trade. They were overhead, the cost of doing that business.

Originally Posted by DanaC

That, I'm afraid, is not true. The genocide in Rwanda was the result of an armed population turning on itself. The power of one group lay in its semi-organised and rallied nature, not that it was armed and its victims unarmed. Most people on both sides had similar access to the kinds of weapons used in that genocide (mainly machetes).

"On itself" only in a nation-state sense, and Africa's also about the biggest region where the whole-nation-state mentality is the weakest. Tutsi and Hutu were peoples not about to cut each other slack on the grounds both were Rwandan. Fair amount of rifles got used as well. Big, wet rocks were in even more abundant supply than machetes and would have been every bit as fatal to use.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Genocide by the state against a subject group within that state may usually have the features you describe, but even then it is far from absolute. And genocide by one nation's forces against another may be made possible by a disparity in the kinds of weapons available to the victim population as opposed to the invaders (as was the case for the Incas).

Per Simkin, Zelman, and Rice, there's really no such thing as private-sector genocide, and they can't find genuine occurrences in their research. Their theory of genocide has a lot to recommend it: Genocide needs three precursors. It needs hatred of one party by another. It needs governmental power, either to lend sinews to the genocidal effort motivated by hatreds or to shield the activities of those carrying the genocide out. It needs the targets disarmed -- or you run out of Einsatzkommandos quickly and fatally on the one hand, or have to fight a full-on civil war on the other. Those contests become considerably more chancy than matters were in Auschwitz, Dachau or Sobibor. As Warsaw Ghetto demonstrated. That was an expensive pogrom for those who initiated it, not so?

Originally Posted by DanaC

Unless your population is not just armed, but armed to the teeth with the most powerful weaponry available being armed is not a protection against genocide.

I cited Warsaw Ghetto already, and really: had every Jew in Europe had a Mauser rifle and 200 rounds ready ammunition, Nazi Germany couldn't have afforded Kristallnacht, let alone all that followed, having satisfactorily disarmed not only the Jews but everyone else under the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938. If you were not, under this law's provisions, military, Party, or officially Party authorized, you went unarmed and keeping anything more potent than a pellet rifle was disallowed. Even the most onerous, draconian "gun control" -- never control, always denial -- gets written in reasonable-sounding language, never in an Andrew Cuomo tone.

Further, I'll cite Israel and all those privately carried arms. That Israeli daily arms carriers have the enthusiastic support of their state is secondary. But somebody around there does want all the Jews dead or, er, trying to swim to Cyprus... Amazing how mad some people get when somebody moves in and makes a big success of a place.

Originally Posted by DanaC

It may - may - be some protection against a state power that turns against its own people. But even then: it is more likely that state has the more powerful weapons and the more organised force. What is more likely to save a population from internal conflict in that scenario is not the presence of weapons in the general population, but the lack of appetite amongst the state's forces for use of deadly force agains their kith and kin (as in the early stages of the Russian Revolution).

Much of this is right -- I'll add some protection beats no protection, simply by clogging planning of oppressions with both delays and imponderables. There are entirely too many governments around which are essentially based on the ruling autocrat being the only individual in the whole country with any rights. This is hardly, may I say, a good or right social order.

Some of it simply betrays an igorance of unconventional warfare, one truism of which is that the guerrilla can use a lesser weapon to gain control of a greater, and turn that greater weapon to his own ends. Organization any outfit can do. The baseline cleverness to manage organization is easily achieved. Success at organization is more variable after that, owing to factors which can be internal, or can be external factors striving to defeat the organization before it becomes dangerous.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Hmm. It looks like Great Britain in 2010 had a 776 per 100,000 violent crime rate. During the same time, the US had a 403 per 100,000 violent crime rate. I guess our violent crime rate is less because criminals know we fight back.

I think that might be to do with how we record violent crime:



How the UK defines violent crime for the purposes of crime figures:

“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.)

How the US defines violent crime for the purposes of crime figures:

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime)

The UK’s approach seems to be a lot more encompassing in scope and adds to its definition of “violent crime” offences which are not matched by its US counterpart. This raises the obvious question of whether UK violent crime rates can be said to be higher simply because things considered “violent crime” in the UK are not so in the US. One example is “assault”, all forms of which are considered “violent” in the UK, whereas in the US only “aggravated” is considered violent. A further example revolves around sexual offences, only “forcible” rape featuring in the US definition, while the UK definition includes rape and any and all forms of sexual assault.

There are also other factors to do with rates of reporting. This page breaks it down very well.

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/


Having gone through the figures with a fine tooth comb, taking into account different reporting methods they conclude:

While it becomes clear that certain types of offenses are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. Rape of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. Before anybody asks, no, these do not take into account justifiable homicide and other “acceptable shootings”, nor do murders for that matter:


“The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.” (FBI – UCS – Violent Crime)