More Guns Less Crime

NewForester

Well-Known Member
It is with some trepidation that I enter this dicussion as I know this area is a hot potato. I have decided to create a new thread as I want to raise an issue that seems to be missing in UK gun debates.

John Lott has written an interesting book called "More Guns, Less Crime". He draws a corrolation between the tightness of gun control and violent crime. The corrolation is extremely strong. Where guns are banned, violent crime is highest. Where gun laws are freeist, particularly with Concealed Carry allowed, it is lowest.

Correlation does not prove causation, of course. However, one can understand that one may be less likely to rob a bank if you do not know which of your follow customers is armed.

So, a legitimate response to Cumbria can be, not that the Police should be armed, but that any individual should be able to arm himself should he choose to do so. But, we hear little of this in the UK press.

(I was in Vermont some time ago and was told by someone I met that not only did he not lock his house at night, but he did not lock it when he went on holiday! Another correlation, but there are few controls on gun ownership there.)
 
I have in my head that Switzerland has a very low crime rate. I belive this is down to the fact that every man over 18 (?) has a service rifle, as he may be called up at any time.

Dont know my view yet.

Sam
 
I have in my head that Switzerland has a very low crime rate. I belive this is down to the fact that every man over 18 (?) has a service rifle, as he may be called up at any time.

Dont know my view yet.

Sam


That's right, Sam.

I used to work in Switzerland and it was amazing to see people regularly carrying automatic rifles around.

I think that the Swiss claim to be able to put a million man army on the street in 24 hours. They were not invaded in WW1 and WW11, not because Switzerland was neutral, but because they were neutral and armed. (An interesting book is "Target Switzerland".)

Another small story is that a colleague took me and some other colleagues back to his house to work on a customer presentation. We left our laptops in the boot of his car, and when we were surprised that he did not lock the car and asked him to, he just said, "You're in Switzerland now!".

Regards

NewForester
 
Could not agree more.

There will always be guns, just more illegal ones if legislation is tightened. The cumbrian fellow would not have got far if folk could have shot back.
 
There is a trial of the plan to loosen gun control certain areas of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Nottingham. The results to date are far from convincing.


Regrettably it seems that Chavs will kill with whatever they have to hand let’s not put guns in those hands please, not everyone is as law-abiding as the standard FAC holder. Most of the people I know have a good moral sense and I would trust them with my children’s life, But there is a large populous in my area that I wouldn’t trust with round nosed scissors let alone a firearm.
 
Last edited:
We could in this country learn from the mistakes in the USA and create gun laws which would work even better. The CCW concealed carry warrant could work here if those to which it was granted were vetted correctly. No criminal record, regular psych evaluations etc etc. The US states which have introduced the CCW have seen dramatic decreases in violent crime, Hienliens' dictum of, "an armed society is a polite society" seems to have validity. Why should law abiding citizens not be armed? What is the real reason? Is it really an increase in crime? Evidence says no it actually drops, so logic dictates there are other reasons and I am not sure the real reasons the state do not want us armed are for our own good. It is more likely it is for the states good.

Matt
 
Switzerland was not invaded, because Germany needed a safe secretive neutral country to stash it's wealth, stolen from it's victims of invasion and anti semitism. To trust it to any other state would have left them at risk if that country became itself invaded by the allies, or Germany lost the war (what a ridiculous thought). That is why Switzerland was left by the Germans, nothing to do with their army I'm afraid. The Swiss were simply more useful as a neutral state than as a German one.

You might be right about the increase of arms link to a lower crime society, but this was not a good example.

Kind regards,

Mark.

.
That's right, Sam.

I used to work in Switzerland and it was amazing to see people regularly carrying automatic rifles around.

I think that the Swiss claim to be able to put a million man army on the street in 24 hours. They were not invaded in WW1 and WW11, not because Switzerland was neutral, but because they were neutral and armed. (An interesting book is "Target Switzerland".)

Another small story is that a colleague took me and some other colleagues back to his house to work on a customer presentation. We left our laptops in the boot of his car, and when we were surprised that he did not lock the car and asked him to, he just said, "You're in Switzerland now!".

Regards

NewForester
 
Last edited:
I think that the Swiss claim to be able to put a million man army on the street in 24 hours. They were not invaded in WW1 and WW11, not because Switzerland was neutral, but because they were neutral and armed.


Come on in...and fight your way up every street. It's a credible plan.

Was it Lord Salisbury who said he would laud the day when there was a rifle propped behind every kitchen door in England? That was before the executive got paranoid about a Bolshevik-style revolution here, of course.

Frankly, I'm with Welsh Guy. I think the cousins of his undesirables live near me. Never mind scissors. I wouldn't trust them with a pencil sharpener.
 
Last edited:
Not too long ago I spent some time in Houston. Whilst I was there I strolled into the local shooting range to see if I could have a play. All members of staff really friendly and openly carrying in hip holsters. was given a choice of pistols to shoot so spent some time with a .45 1911 for old times sake then had a go with a full auto Thompson. Ended up having a good old chat with the staff regarding the ccw situation. Basically because anyone in Texas can carry a gun openly the petty crime rate is very low. I think they need a permit to carry concealed.

I think the ethos is a good one but the problem lies in keeping the guns out of the wrong hands. What the Cumbrian shootings have highlighted to me are that the police are unable to protect the public adequately in these situations despite one murder being witnessed by several police officers. If CCW permits were allowed what would the chance be of there being an armed member of the public present at the time of the Hungerford, Dunblane or Cumbria shootings? I suspect fairly low. One question raised by one of my members of staff was... if you were out shooting and witnessed Birdie on his rampage, what would you be legally allowed to do?? What would the ramifications be for an individual who has rid society of a bad apple, would it be a pat on the back and cucumber sandwiches with the queen or would you be made a scapegoat and hounded for life??

Answers on a postcard please.......
 
There is also the other side of the coin, if you were to be a witness to something like which has just come to pass, you had the means to stop him & didn't? would you be able to forgive yourself? would you think about yourself before you did something to stop something like that?............ doesn't bear thinking about does it?
 
In the early years of the 20th Century there was a significant problem with anarchists in England. Apparently during one hot pursuit of armed anarchists through the streets of London, passing pedestrians were offering their revolvers to the unarmed police officers doing the chasing. How things change?
 
Switzerland was not invaded, because Germany needed a safe secretive neutral country to stash it's wealth, stolen from it's victims of invasion and anti semitism. To trust it to any other state would have left them at risk if that country became itself invaded by the allies, or Germany lost the war (what a ridiculous thought). That is why Switzerland was left by the Germans, nothing to do with their army I'm afraid. The Swiss were simply more useful as a neutral state than as a German one.

CORRECT. And why in 1914 Belgium was invaded but Holland was not but that in 1940 both were.
 
Guys,

You are out stalking and in the distance you see a man hitting a woman with a hammer. He hits her again, again and again.

I would turn away and go about my own business. I VALUE my time stalking.

I choose not to shoot paper.

Stan
 
When M Ryan started shooting people in Hungerford, a local stopped the copper and told him "I have a rifle in the boot of my car and can stop him (Ryan) now" the copper told him he wasn`t allowed to give him the go ahead., Ryan had only shot 2 people at that time....
 
Not too long ago I spent some time in Houston. Whilst I was there I strolled into the local shooting range to see if I could have a play. All members of staff really friendly and openly carrying in hip holsters. was given a choice of pistols to shoot so spent some time with a .45 1911 for old times sake then had a go with a full auto Thompson. Ended up having a good old chat with the staff regarding the ccw situation. Basically because anyone in Texas can carry a gun openly the petty crime rate is very low. I think they need a permit to carry concealed.

I think the ethos is a good one but the problem lies in keeping the guns out of the wrong hands. What the Cumbrian shootings have highlighted to me are that the police are unable to protect the public adequately in these situations despite one murder being witnessed by several police officers. If CCW permits were allowed what would the chance be of there being an armed member of the public present at the time of the Hungerford, Dunblane or Cumbria shootings? I suspect fairly low. One question raised by one of my members of staff was... if you were out shooting and witnessed Birdie on his rampage, what would you be legally allowed to do?? What would the ramifications be for an individual who has rid society of a bad apple, would it be a pat on the back and cucumber sandwiches with the queen or would you be made a scapegoat and hounded for life??

Answers on a postcard please.......
I know a few people in Houston, yes minor crimes might be lower, but serious crimes are rife, concealed carry is available to anyone who satisfies the criteria (probably means anyone not Mexican!) and who attends a training course. I don't think the advantage of having to carry a gun by any means outweighs the disadvantage of everyone else carrying a gun! home owners shooting dead burglars and thieves are reported almost daily, yet it doesn't stop burglaries... one of my friends shot and killed a young man who was breaking into his house in the early hours , he will live through that for the rest of his life, it affected him greatly, even though he is an ex marine and currently works as a parole officer and was protecting his wife and daughters. could you really live with that pressure?
an interesting site... http://www.mentalammo.com/policenews.html
 
I can't imagine ever being able to apply for a handgun with good reason being "self defence" in my lifetime.
 
A small excerpt from one of our target clubs pages.........
CRIMES INVOLVING THE USE OF HANDGUNS
1988 - - - - 1,484
1998/9 - - - 2,687
2008/9 - - - 4,275

SO..... deaths and injuries from armed crime have quadrupled, whilst legal ownership has been reduced by 1/3rd.
Pistols have been banned from legal use for most practical purposes, (reduced by around 98%) whilst the criminal use of pistols is getting close to doubling since the "ban."
NOW tell the victims that banning or licensing saves lives.....
 
A small excerpt from one of our target clubs pages.........
CRIMES INVOLVING THE USE OF HANDGUNS
1988 - - - - 1,484
1998/9 - - - 2,687
2008/9 - - - 4,275

SO..... deaths and injuries from armed crime have quadrupled, whilst legal ownership has been reduced by 1/3rd.
Pistols have been banned from legal use for most practical purposes, (reduced by around 98%) whilst the criminal use of pistols is getting close to doubling since the "ban."
NOW tell the victims that banning or licensing saves lives.....
no one here is arguing that banning guns will stop gun crimes, what you need to consider is that stopping gun crimes is not the agenda being followed by our politicians, the banning of hand guns has produced one, the only, statistic that matters....since the ban no one has run amok with a legally held handgun! (not counting the Police) simple! job done no argument! you can argue until you are blue in the face about the fairness or legality of the ban, but that one statistic ticks all their boxes! the same with semi-auto rifles, and large capacity shotguns, the ban works in their narrow terms of reference.Now the battle is to convince the politicians that there is no need to ban everything else! I note the reply from your MP, I also note that he has already jumped to the conclusion Recent tragic events in Cumbria have shown why there is a genuine need to
regulate the availability of firearms and other offensive weapons in the face of
violent crime
I suggest you ask him exactly what does he base that opinion on? and is he aware that firearms are already highly regulated in this country?
ken
 
Ken, I think that question would have more value coming from someone else, thereby giving him notice that his comments are in the public domain. Steve.
 
Ken, I think that question would have more value coming from someone else, thereby giving him notice that his comments are in the public domain. Steve.
Steve I was all fired up and ready to get emailing, then I reread his comments and realised that contrary to my first take on them that in actual fact he isn't actually calling for new controls, just restating that controls are needed, thanks for giving me the chance to revisit this, I think its too easy to not "get" the gist of something first time around, and I apologise for "venting" on you. ken
 
Back
Top