OK - my last post on this.
Toad - what are your thoughts on the re-offending statistics here in the UK and applying that finding to the overall effect of the VA program?? If you are putting repeat offenders away for 5 years then surely the crime rate will fall accordingly. I'm not saying it's wrong to do it but maybe there are other factors in the overall sucess??
Dowding - I think maybe you have mis-interprated the general outline of my views on this - probably I haven't explained myself well. The main points of your arguements seem to be based around the
carrying of arms whereas the arguement here is about the
legal right to own arms - to me there is a difference. Merely as an illustration my father-in-law in the states owns probably 4 to 6 weapons but never carries one of them.
I think I need to summarize where I'm coming from here.
I think the legal
right to
own a firearm maintains the power balance between the lawful section of society and the lawless. It is not having millions of people carrying handguns on the streets but the simple right of ownership. The statistics demonstrating the increase in criminality since 1997 are proof to me that the criminal society see a softening of attitudes in terms of protection of the lawfull. The government has in effect said that law abiding citizens are incapable of holding a firearm without it falling into criminal use.
This erosion of law abiding citizens percieved capabilty is amplified by the prosecutions of people defending themselves or their property.
The balance of power shifts to the criminal and that is where we are today.
I think this addresses this point of yours
In reply to your statistics describing an increase in criminality - are you saying this a direct consequence of the decrease in the number of weapons from "...418,300 in 1996 to 305,000 in 1997..."? Or that if guns hadn't been restricted, crime levels would have remained the same? I have no answer as to what has caused the increase - but there are far more factors to consider than simply the raw data. Changes in the way the police report crimes, and the policy behind 'quotas' might have an effect, for instance.
Might be the case, might not. This growth in 'power of the criminal society' can't simply be attributed to the removal of 27% of guns from society.
The statistics on refusal of certificates is used to demonstrate that there is no evidence to suggest that law abiding citizens are incapable of owning arms while not allowing them into criminal use.
The statistics comparing the fall in legal registered firearms against and almost level incidence of firearms offences to me shows that the firearms used in offences do not come from the legally owned sector - if they did then restriction of supply would have given a much more pronounced and ongoing fall in firearms offences.
To look at the last couple of points
Firstly, ten a day isn't really that significant compared to the crimes more likely to affect you - e.g. mugging, car theft, alcohol induced violence, maybe even rape. I'll try to find out the exact figures for these. Also, a firearms offence is much more likely to be 'detected' (to use Police terminology), by its conspicuous nature. The crimes I gave above, probably have much lower detection rates (especially rape).
Well thats just a definition of rare - I thought you were saying that the only firearms crimes were those we saaw on TV - I was trying to point out it was more prevalent than some may realise. I agree that violent crimes of other nature are more common - my post gave the figures as they are in the crime survey - and most crime goes unreported. I still do not consider moree than 3000 recorded firearms offences rare in such a highly retgulated enviroment.
I never said that prisons were successful in rehabilitation (read my post again) - I said rehabilitation was a key idea behind the prison service. I personally think criminals should serve their sentence, unless an appeal is successful. But the key question here, I think, is whether the tax payer will pay the BILLIONS needed to build the new prisons already needed by a prison service at bursting point?[/b]
I did read your post - what I simply totally disagree with is that rehabilition can hope to be achieved in a fixed sentance system. I used the re-offending rate to try and illustrate how it very clearly doesn't. I beleive sentencing and type of imprisonment should be based on the individuals ability to reform, not the offense. If my taxes were to go up to provide the infrastructure to achieve that then so be it - I would get it back from reduced insurance premiums and a better quality of life.
Deterrance is often used as an excuse to justify household gun ownership - I personally believe that having one gun per 120 people has never deterred any criminal.
I think to conclude this is where we differ. First, and as I said in the first paragraph, I don't believe that the right to own a firearm automatically determines 100% ownership and physical ownership is not a deterrent - it is last resort.
The right to own
combined with the support of the law system to those defending themselves or property IS a detterant to crime in my opinion.
Certainly a legally held weapon legally used in self defence has stopped criminals from creating another victim.
The basis of anti-gun legislation is that:-
1.The guns used in criminal activity coem from legal holding sources - there is no evidence of that.
2. Legal gun holders commit large numbers of firearms offences - there is no evidence of that (yes there will always be the odd looney...)
3. Legal ownership has no benefit to society - I think there is evidence to the contrary.
Americans - fight hard and long .....
Sparks <out>
