U.S.A. violent crimes drop 3% but....

[lazs2]

you lost your rights in the 20's... as was pointed out... it became allmost impossible to own a firearm.... "good cause" no longer involved "to shoot a burglar or to pot tin cans in the country whenever I feel like it"   the red tape and expense made it a loser to even own a firearm.

your ban did nothing so why do it?

lazs

[Elfie]

Thats already been shown Beet1e, you just choose to not see it.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
you lost your rights in the 20's... as was pointed out... it became allmost impossible to own a firearm.... "good cause" no longer involved "to shoot a burglar or to pot tin cans in the country whenever I feel like it"   the red tape and expense made it a loser to even own a firearm.

Ah!  See! That totally goes against what Mr. Toad said. He had no doubt that I could get a licence/permit for no better a reason than to shoot tin cans off my garden wall, or to shoot a burglar coming into my home - a long time after 1920!

it became allmost impossible to own a firearm....

That's what I've been saying all along. I don't know how many gun shops there were before 1920. I'll ask Mum next week, but even she might not know, much less care. The point is, Lazs, you're saying that the status quo has existed since 1920. Therefore the 1997 was NOT a ban, but a codicil to a ban that occurred much earlier.  That's what I said all along.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
as Mr. Toad insists (wrongly) that getting a gun permit was easy-peasy,

Reread what I actually quoted. The article shows, with support, that in the early days of your Firearms Act... the 20-50's say, it was relatively easy for a law-abiding citizen to get a Firearms Certificate.

That changed methodically, creepingly and significantly in later years, post '50's. The changes brought you to the point where you are now.... where some little Police Lieutenant has the power of a King.

Beet:
Mr Toad said "Of course they would. You're a fully cooked frog, poor lad. Your police have INCREDIBLE powers to approve or deny that defy reason. They are, in effect, Lords of their own little precincts with no appeal possible."

No, I'm quite correct and you are once again wrong.

Suitability to Possess Firearms

The police must be satisfied that you are a fit person to be entrusted with firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. The police will take into account whether there is any known history of alcohol, drug or medication abuse, violent of unsociable behavior or mental or psychiatric disorder.

A bit too much power for the individual local flatfoot, IMO. If the local cop is a guy that's hated you since grade school... there's not going to be a fair result.

What a lovely time afield I had with my Lab and shotgun today! Marvelous!

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
That totally goes against what Mr. Toad said. He had no doubt that I could get a licence/permit for no better a reason than to shoot tin cans off my garden wall, or to shoot a burglar coming into my home - a long time after 1920!

[/b]

No, that's not what I said.

Reread again:

Beet:

If I asked for a gun licence on the basis that "I wanted one so I could shoot tin cans off my garden wall" or "so I can shoot the burglar should one enter my home", the police would have shown me the door (after they'd finished laughing).

[/b]

Of course they would. You're a fully cooked frog, poor lad. Your police have INCREDIBLE powers to approve or deny that defy reason. They are, in effect, Lords of their own littel precincts with no appeal possible.

See, I agreed they wouldn't give you a gun now. So, you're wrong yet again.

 

Beet:

Therefore the 1997 was NOT a ban, but a codicil to a ban that occurred much earlier.  That's what I said all along.

Yes, and you have been wrong all along. It's clearly documented when the bans began. Basically, Hungerford resulted in the ban of semi-auto and pump action rifles. Dunblane resulted in the banning of all handguns. The history is there and prior to those incidents and the knee-jerk reactions they generated in Parliament, there were no bans.

[beet1e]

Lazs said

you lost your rights in the 20's... as was pointed out... it became allmost impossible to own a firearm.... "good cause" no longer involved "to shoot a burglar or to pot tin cans in the country whenever I feel like it" the red tape and expense made it a loser to even own a firearm.

And Toad said

Dunblane resulted in the banning of all handguns. The history is there and prior to those incidents and the knee-jerk reactions they generated in Parliament, there were no bans.

Oh OK. Now I get it. Guns weren't banned. They were just impossible to acquire because we'd lost our ownership rights. Big freaking difference. Thanks for explaining that, guys. So the pro-gun 1995 mantra would have been "Guns aren't banned - you just can't have one".

Lazs also said

beetle... at one point a lot of brits did own guns and it caused no problems.

OK, I'll type it out again...   There are two precursors to a gun crime. #1 is the gun, #2 is the criminal holding it. The US has lots of both #1 and #2, hence gun crime is out of control.

In the 1920s, Britain was hugely different from what it is today. Crime was negligible compared to today - no gang violence, no immigration, no drugs. We had a death penalty - hanging. The streets were much safer. There were only a few cars on the road so criminals did not have the mobility that they have now. We might have had quite a few #1, but many fewer #2. Now we have lots of #2, but #1 is controlled.

Before that, in the days before the railways were built, transport across country was by horse drawn coach. These sometimes got hijacked by "highwaymen" like the legendary "Dick Turpin", who would lay in wait, armed with some sort of crude handgun - flintlock maybe. They knew that there would be rich pickings on those coaches. Gentlemen passengers were advised to carry their sidearms! But then came the railways, and later came cars. London to Bristol used to involve an overnight stop at a coaching in. Now you can drive it in about 2 hours, and the highwaymen disappeared amidst the transport development progress.

So by the 1920s, sidearms were no longer needed. I don't think anyone enjoyed having to carry one. I don't think the travellers of that time thought "Hey great - let's go to London - it'll give us a chance to carry our sidearms". I don't think there would have been any whining and wailing at the thought of not needing to carry a sidearm on the 8:42 InterCity 125 from London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads.

By the way, Toad. The county in England where you shoot is Devon, not Devonshire - just as the neighbouring counties are not known as Cornwallshire, Dorsetshire or Somersetshire. Of course there is an entity known as a "Devonshire Cream Tea", but over here we know the county as Devon, with the accent on the first syllable, of course.  But I can understand your mistake - I don't know what your history resources tell you, but I guess it's just something you would only know if you'd actually lived here.

Essex Boy "Dick Turpin" on his way home from work

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
Now I get it. Guns weren't banned. They were just impossible to acquire because we'd lost our ownership rights.

[/b]

No, wrong again. They were not impossible. They were relatively easy to obtain through the '50's. It became incrementally harder through the later years up to the knee-jerk reactions to Hungerford and Dunblane.

For example, when I was there in the late 70's, a recreational shooter obtaining a Firearms Certificate was certainly not unusual. I shot skeet and trap with Englishmen who got them just for clay shooting sports during my deployments.

My hosts at the shoot told me it wasn't that difficult to get permits where they live even in the '80's. It's a rural area and there are many "good reasons" for a farmer or sportsman to have a firearm. In the cities, where chickens are born boneless and skinless on a styrofoam plate, I'm certain the Police Lieutenant Kings made it much more difficult before then.

The boiled frog analogy is particularly apt. Along with this loss of rights came incredible powers of search and siezure for your Police Kings.

To enforce the gun control laws, the police have been given broad search and seizure powers. Sections 46 through 50 of the 1968 Firearms Act authorized the police to search individuals and vehicles without warrants, to require the handing-over of weapons for inspection, and to arrest without a warrant, even in a home.[246]

The principle of warrantless searches for firearms was expanded to include searches for "offensive weapons" by the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill of 1984. Since "offensive weapons" are never defined, the police have nearly unlimited authority to search and seize. African combs, bunches of keys, and tools have been considered offensive weapons.

And this will only be the beginning. They've nearly done boiling your "gun frog". Since that won't change your crime in the least, they'll turn up the heat on boiling the "warrantless search and search and seizure" frogs.  One doesn't have to have a crystal ball to see that one coming.

Laz has it nailed with Ben Franklin's quote:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

You're trading for temporary safety. Checked your sharp instrument crime stats lately?

I think Franklin could have said "will lose both their Liberty and their Safety." just as correctly.

Funny, I heard folks in Devon saying "Devonshire" in many contexts. For example, my pup was almost registered in the KC with "Devonshire" in her official name. Maybe it's something that you'd only know if you live there instead of in Chickensbornbonelessskinlesso nstyrofoamplateland.

Perhaps you could call

Devonshire Heartland Tourism Association  and check it out.

If their line is busy, you might go to the

The Devonshire Cat

a nice looking little pub in Yorkshire and ask the locals about this "shire" thing.

Or perhaps you could contact the UK Genealogy Archives and get the true history.

Devonshire Geneaology Archives

They start out their article on the area with

Devonshire or Devon, a maritime county, bounded on the N by the Bristol Channel,

note the "or" indicating both are used.

You did know that historically, there was a Duchess of Devonshire, did you not? I mean, living there and being immersed in the actual history and all as you clearly are? The 5th Duchess of Devonshire was reputed to be quite a beauty. Imagine that... a Title using "Devonshire in the name. What could they have been thinking. They most certainly should have contacted you first. Oh wait... historically, you weren't even a gleam in your father's eye then.


But thanks for your concern over my use of "Devonshire". Always great to hear from an infallible one who is so totally knowledgeable.

[Nashwan]

For example, when I was there in the late 70's, a recreational shooter obtaining a Firearms Certificate was certainly not unusual. No, wrong again. They were not impossible. They were relatively easy to obtain through the '50's. It became incrementally harder through the later years up to the knee-jerk reactions to Hungerford and Dunblane.

For example, when I was there in the late 70's, a recreational shooter obtaining a Firearms Certificate was certainly not unusual. I shot skeet and trap with Englishmen who got them just for clay shooting sports during my deployments.

It's hardly "unusual" now.

As of 2001, there were 120,000 firearms certificate holders (with approx 300,000 firearms) and 575,000 shotgun certificate holders, owning 1,300,000 shotguns, in England and Wales.

(Incidentally, despite the "ban" on handguns, they still make up 3% of the legally held firearms)

The number of new certificates granted (not renewals) went up by 21% in 2001, and by 20% the previous year.

1% of new applications were refused, and 0.5% of renewals were refused.

0.25% of certificates were revoked during the year.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I pointed out to Lazs that the US has now taken to holding citizens without charge, lwithout access to legal representation, for indefinate periods, on the say so of the executive.

It's still the case. Jose Padilla is a US citizen, arrested in the US, declared an enemy combatant and held for nearly 2.5 years now without charge, and for most of that time without access to legal respresentation. He's still in custody, with no sign of any charges or a release date.

We might require a licence to own a firearm in this country, but your liberty is conditional on the executive not deciding to incarcerate you.

[Toad]

The difference, being that we have a Constitution, is that Padilla's case will eventually be worked through the courts and, if necessary, the Supreme Court will rule and that will be that pretty much forevermore.

I don't personally agree with some of the recent powers granted to the government in the Patriot Act. OTOH, I also know that it will be A) reviewed by Congress in the near future and B) challenged in court and measured against our Constitution.

In short, I know it will work out correctly.

What appeal do you have to the incredible search and seizure powers your Police have? What Constitutional right do you have that ensures that they won't eventually decide to summarily revoke all Firearms Certificates? You might have a HungerDunFordBlane and the Parliament may decide to round up everything that shoots. Pretty clear they can do that kind of thing anytime a knee needs jerking.  

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
(Incidentally, despite the "ban" on handguns, they still make up 3% of the legally held firearms)

The number of new certificates granted (not renewals) went up by 21% in 2001, and by 20% the previous year.

Three questions:

I take it the 3% of legally held handguns fall under these exemption categories then?

Special exemptions from prohibition of small firearms
Slaughtering instruments.
Firearms used for humane killing of animals.
Shot pistols used for shooting vermin.
Races at athletic meetings.
Trophies of war.
Firearms of historic interest.  

Or are there "regular" revolvers and semi-automatic pistols in the hands of mere citizens? Sau a 9mm Beretta for instance?

Just what was the number of new Firearms Certificates granted in 2001?

What was the number of new Firearms Certificates granted in 2000?

[Nashwan]

The difference, being that we have a Constitution, is that Padilla's case will eventually be worked through the courts and, if necessary, the Supreme Court will rule and that will be that pretty much forevermore.

So your consititutional right is that if the executive decides to incarcerate you, you will, after several years, finally get out, if a court decides in your favour?

Seems to me the opposite of the rights I take for granted, ie that the government cannot incarcerate me without due process. Your rights seem to be that you can be freed after due process.

I don't personally agree with some of the recent powers granted to the government in the Patriot Act.

Padilla isn't held under the patriot act.  Nothing in that act gives the president power to order indefinate custody without trial.

Padilla is being held simply because your executive has decided it has the power to hold him.

After nearly 3 years, he's still[/] being held.

In short, I know it will work out correctly.

For Padilla?

Personally, I'd be worried about living in a country where I could be held without charge or even due process for 3 years.  It seems to me after spending 3 years in solitary confinement, your rights have already been violated, and it's too late for things to turn out correctly.

How does he get the 3 years back?

What appeal do you have to the incredible search and seizure powers your Police have?

What incredible search and seizure powers?

The police in the UK have similar powers to the police in the US. They can stop and search you in the street if they have probable cause to suspect you of a crime. They can arrest you without a warrant if they believe you have committed a serious offence.

The US police have the same powers, and can even arrest for offences that the police in the UK cannot. (What you call misdemeanors are usually not arrestable in the UK, and if you give your name to the police, they cannot arrest you for them) They can search you in exactly the same manner.

If the police in the UK want to search your home, they have to get a warrant. Again, same as in the US.

What Constitutional right do you have that ensures that they won't eventually decide to summarily revoke all Firearms Certificates?

To revoke all firearms certificates, a law has to pass through both houses of parliament. That means it has to be approved by a majority of the elected representitives.

Seems to me that all "assault weapons" were banned in the US without violating the constitution, and "assault weapons" were defined in a totaly arbitrary manner.

What's to stop a redefinition of "assault weapons" to include any firearm? How about just having a handgun ban? If "assault weapons" can be banned without recourse to the constituion, why not handguns, rifles, etc?

You might have a HungerDunFordBlane and the Parliament may decide to round up everything that shoots. Pretty clear they can do that kind of thing anytime a knee needs jerking.

Pretty clear yours can too. After all, those guns with black plastic stocks are much more dangerous than the ones with brown wood ones, aren't they? And those integral bayonets, look how many they've killed in the last few years. And pistol grips, my God.

[Nashwan]

Just what was the number of new Firearms Certificates granted in 2001?

What was the number of new Firearms Certificates granted in 2000?

7,120 new firearms applications were granted in 2001, 22,710 new shotgun certificates.

 5,867 new firearms certificates were issued in 2000, 18,243 new shotgun certificates.

I take it the 3% of legally held handguns fall under these exemption categories then?

Special exemptions from prohibition of small firearms
Slaughtering instruments.
Firearms used for humane killing of animals.
Shot pistols used for shooting vermin.
Races at athletic meetings.
Trophies of war.
Firearms of historic interest.

I very much doubt races at athletic meetings, which is a long outdated provision of the firearms laws. Blank firers (including starting guns) do not require licences.

The others probably pretty much cover it, although there are still people who are licenced to carry handguns as part of their work or for self defence.

Or are there "regular" revolvers and semi-automatic pistols in the hands of mere citizens? Sau a 9mm Beretta for instance?

Not many, but some. It's not something I was making an issue of, just pointing out that the use of the word "ban" is a bit of a misnomer, handguns have gone from strictly regulated to extremely strictly regulated. (And I've said all along that I don't agree with the changes made after Dunblane.)

[Toad]

I had such a nice reply typed up and hit the wrong key. Oh well.

Do a search on the Justice Department's Press Conference on Padilla.

I agree, he needs to be given his day in court. You're undoubtedly aware that the Supreme Court ruled that Padilla must refile a lawsuit challenging his detention in a lower court.

By Padilla's own admission, he was trained by A/Q and accepted a mission from that organization to return here and set off a bomb or bombs.

You seem to think he's totally innocent. Based upon??

Puh-lease don't come back with what I think you will use. Sorry, I trust the Justice Department does indeed have evidence that will show him guilty. So he'll never get his "three years back" nor should he. BUT... he should get his day in court and he should be tried. He's still an American citizen, even if by his own admission he volunteered to fight for A/Q.

Seems to me the opposite of the rights I take for granted, ie that the government cannot incarcerate me without due process.

And what would stop them if they decided to do so? What Constitutional grounds would you appeal under?

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmm....

Ironically, while the British government believes that it functions just fine without a written constitution, the British government only grants approval to shooting clubs if they are "a genuine target shooting club with a written constitution."[273]

What topsy-turvy priorities for a body politic: Safety dictates that the law must demand "a written constitution" from each approved shooting club; but there is no "written constitution" demanded for the British government--which is vastly more important, and more dangerous than all the gun clubs put together.

Padilla is being held simply because your executive has decided it has the power to hold him.

No, they're holding him as an enemy combatant. They do have the power to hold enemy combatants.

The courts will have to decide if he is correctly classified.

Personally, I'd be worried about living in a country where I could be held without charge or even due process for 3 years.

I doubt anyone here worries about it. Well, unless they trained with A/Q and accepted an apartment building bombing mission from a terrorist organization.

How does he get the 3 years back?

If proven guilty, he never will. If proven innocent, he'll lose the time and become a multi, multi millionaire.

If the police in the UK want to search your home, they have to get a warrant. Again, same as in the US.

Not the "same as the US" at all.

Today the practice that police may inspect private homes without a warrant is being established by the "safe storage" provisions of the gun laws. In many jurisdictions the police will not issue or renew a firearms or shotgun certificate without an in-home visit to ensure that the police standards for safe storage are being met.

The police have no legal authority to require such home inspections, yet when a homeowner refuses the police entry, the certificate application or renewal will be denied.[249] The 1989 extension of the safe storage law to shotguns--a reasonable concept in itself--has added several hundred thousand more British homes to those to which the police consider they have the authority to demand entry without a warrant.

Finally, the gun control laws have helped teach that laws in practice are made by police administrators or London bureaucrats, rather than being the exclusive creation of Parliament.

What's to stop a redefinition of "assault weapons" to include any firearm? How about just having a handgun ban? If "assault weapons" can be banned without recourse to the constituion, why not handguns, rifles, etc? [/b]

That pesky Constitution of ours, and in particular the 2nd Amendment.

Any of the examples you use WOULD end up with lawsuits appealed by one side or other until they reached the Supreme Court. And then I believe the 2nd would not only be upheld but clarified for all time.

The "assault weapon ban" did not ( I think because of the "sunset" provision that just removed that knee-jerk reaction); I'm certain any of your examples would.

How do any of your citizens appeal the handgun ban? They answer is......... they can't. No Constitution.

What would you folks do if your free speech was banned? Speaker's Corner closed forever? To what court do you appeal?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
I very much doubt races at athletic meetings,

... handguns have gone from strictly regulated to extremely strictly regulated. (And I've said all along that I don't agree with the changes made after Dunblane.)

Hey, I was just quoting from a Home Office site on exemptions. Maybe you guys start your races with an air horn now. I mean, ya can't be tooooo careful with those blank guns.

I'd say it's a bit more than "extremely strictly regulated". When you HAVE to turn them in unless you are ... an official race starter or hog slaughterer or shotgun pistol vermin shooter or something... well, sure sounds like they are essentially banned to me.

I'm glad you don't agree with Dunblane.

I in my turn could easily countenance some further intelligent regulation of firearms here. (The Assault Weapons Ban is an example of totally non-intelligent regulation; all show, no "go".)

However, because of the creeping incrementalism, the "camel's nose" aspect and the published intent of the major anti-gun organizations here to eventually ban all firearms.....

I just can't support it. Because I know it will NEVER be enough and will only be one more step down the slippery slope to the bans.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad who was quoting Lazs who quoted Ben Franklin
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.  

Hah! Didn't quite work out like that, did it, old chum? Safety? LOL - More than 14,000 homicides in the US last year, AND the year before that, AND the year before that. Sure sounds "safe" Incidentally, I hope you don't mind the somewhat informal and familiar form of address of "Chum". I thought you might approve, because Chum is a brand of dog food over here, as I'm sure you already know, owing to your omniscient local knowledge of Britain.  

You're trading for temporary safety. Checked your sharp instrument crime stats lately?

No need! The US has more gun homicides in twelve months than we have in about 140 years, including those of about 70 heavily armed and highly trained cops who enjoyed the "essential liberty". Didn't do them much good though, did it? As for sharp objects, that's your field of expertise. You are a former captain of the industry that banned them. Ooops - I said the B-word.

Your local knowledge of Britain does not compensate for your lack of Googling skills: You missed Devonshire clotted cream and Devonshire toffee. However, I wasn't talking about those non geographical entities. They use the shire suffix to make it sound quaint for the tourists. Click here for a local area map - the county name is almost dead centre in large letters.

Back on guns, you said "No, wrong again. They were not impossible. They were relatively easy to obtain through the '50's.". Well, Lazs has declined to answer my question. Maybe you can help me out? IF guns were so freely available in the 50s (which contradicts Lazs's assertion that we "lost our rights" in 1920), and IF as the gun lobby has frequently told me "More guns = Less crime", then why didn't more people buy them? Could it perhaps be that you are .... wrong?