The folly of weapons control

[matt.m]

Well I am a former Marine Corps Sgt. as well as a well as a combat vet. Not only does it get better, but I am also full Scot with Highlander Blood running through my veins. I dont believe in bashing the British. They are supposed to be U.S. Allies. However, it is interesting how so many people get so touchy about certain things.

I have had a lot of brawls with the brit marines and navy. However, it was all in good fun. A lot of us Scots and Irish. But after we won for the most part then we would pay their tabs and run up bigger ones.

 

[Empty Hands]

...like someone who knows someone who knows someone who had their organs removed after being knocked unconcious.

That's no myth, that happened to my sister's best friend's cousin's former roommate!

 

[Tez3]

Too true, it's too easy for anybody to assume that the rest of the world works the same way as their own little corner does.



I guess that's where we, as Americans, feel like we do have some advice to offer -- you're dealing with our problems, in your country. That is, we've exported our problems to you by way of TV and movies. What makes matters worse is that those who want to "ape" what they see on American movies don't understand the reality of American culture that goes on behind those movies.

And it's not as though you inherited our problems because we can't control them, and they grew -- you've inherited the fictional version of our problems. So when we look to the U.K. and see gang violence there -- essentially our version of gang violence, as though a foreign weed has begun to take over your crops -- we tend to say "This is how we dealt with the reality-based version of gangs here, or at least slowed the growth. Perhaps, if you're dealing with American-style gangs, you should consider American-style countermeasures."

The gun does seem to be growing into the same iconic symbol of power as it is here in the States, it's just doing it in the sub-culture of gangs, and no where else. It is an emotive subject to gang members -- here, in the media, and in the minds of any who want to copy it. They're introducing "American Rules" into your culture.

If you were dealing with the British version of gangs, of which I'm sure there is a rich history, we would probably be more likely to keep our nose out of it. Though probably not - we're pretty nosy by nature!

The gangs tend to be a weird sort of British/American/West Indian type of thing! A lot of it has to do with football where 'massives' will fight each other for the sheer 'pleasure' of fighting! You may have seen that recently in Machester when the Scottish Rangers fans went on the rampage, beating up police officers. Excuses were made that the fans were upset at losing or that a big screen had gone down but frankly they would have fought even if their team had won, perhaps especially because their team had won.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7402858.stm

Guns are coming into the country more and more, many of them from America via Northern Ireland. However gang members or other criminals carrying guns hasn't reached the levels of America where from what I've seen on the television every gang member seems to be armed with some sort of gun. Killings by guns is still relatively rare here, knives are and I think always will be the favourite weapon of most young people. They are easy to obtain and easy to carry. They are easy to dispose of too.
No one is being complacent about gang crime and many hope to stop potential gang members before they actually join. I think too that perhaps while we have poverty, unemployment and social problems they are not on the scale of the American ghettos. One increase we have seen though is of Asian gangs, Muslim youths who are trying to turn where they live into a Muslim enclave. less criminal in the old fashioned term more 'political' perhaps but still breaking the law.this is something that frankly worres senior police officers I think more than old fashioned criminal gangs American style or not. Whether you can do anything about the gangs or not at least you know who''s who and who's on what side doing what!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece

 

[Tez3]

Well I am a former Marine Corps Sgt. as well as a well as a combat vet. Not only does it get better, but I am also full Scot with Highlander Blood running through my veins. I dont believe in bashing the British. They are supposed to be U.S. Allies. However, it is interesting how so many people get so touchy about certain things.

I have had a lot of brawls with the brit marines and navy. However, it was all in good fun. A lot of us Scots and Irish. But after we won for the most part then we would pay their tabs and run up bigger ones.

No wonder they fought if you called them Brits!
Quite frankly British soldiers will fight with anyone! And when they run out of people to fight they'll fight among themselves lol!
I believe there was a booklet produced by the American powers that be advising American GIs not to gamble or fight with the British soldiers as they'd lose at both! You will understand by the way why we are battening down the hatches and boarding up the windows as later this year we have The Black Watch (shivers with fear) posted into the Garrison here.

 

[CoryKS]

I apologise if I come over snippy in my last post but it really annoys me well outsiders albeit well meaning start saying oh the solution to this or that problem is such and such.

Yeah, we get a lot of that too.

 

[Tez3]

http://gangsinlondon.piczo.com/northlondon?cr=2&linkvar=000044

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Murray I'm making no comment about this one!

This is another problem we face with the gangs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-war-torn-countries-fuelling-gang-crime.html

 

[thardey]

The gangs tend to be a weird sort of British/American/West Indian type of thing! A lot of it has to do with football where 'massives' will fight each other for the sheer 'pleasure' of fighting! You may have seen that recently in Machester when the Scottish Rangers fans went on the rampage, beating up police officers. Excuses were made that the fans were upset at losing or that a big screen had gone down but frankly they would have fought even if their team had won, perhaps especially because their team had won.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7402858.stm

That's definitely not part of our culture here - it's something that mystifies us.

Guns are coming into the country more and more, many of them from America via Northern Ireland. However gang members or other criminals carrying guns hasn't reached the levels of America where from what I've seen on the television every gang member seems to be armed with some sort of gun. Killings by guns is still relatively rare here, knives are and I think always will be the favourite weapon of most young people. They are easy to obtain and easy to carry. They are easy to dispose of too.
No one is being complacent about gang crime and many hope to stop potential gang members before they actually join.

Knives are probably the weapon of choice here, too. TV and movies about gangs in America are probably as accurate as "Murder She wrote, Cabot Cove." Think about it this way: If every gang member had a gun, then it wouldn't be a status symbol, would it? The movie and TV gangsters have guns to set them apart. Most gang members can't afford one, or if they had one, they would probably sell it to a higher-ranking member.

Also, you're spot on about the sensationalist news. It's as bad here, as anywhere in the world, particularly when it comes to reports about gangs. So take what you've read in the newspapers, and cut it by a 10th, an you may be getting closer to what some people may deal with in certain parts of select cities. Take whatever you've seen on TV and throw it away completely.

As for me, we're surrounded by "Nortenos" and supposedly the "Surenos" are moving in for some kind of turf war. There has been a couple of drive-by shootings this year, our first ever. Still, the closest I've ever been was when I could actually identify a gang member last month by the clothes he was wearing.

I think too that perhaps while we have poverty, unemployment and social problems they are not on the scale of the American ghettos. One increase we have seen though is of Asian gangs, Muslim youths who are trying to turn where they live into a Muslim enclave. less criminal in the old fashioned term more 'political' perhaps but still breaking the law.this is something that frankly worres senior police officers I think more than old fashioned criminal gangs American style or not. Whether you can do anything about the gangs or not at least you know who''s who and who's on what side doing what!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece

That's exactly one of the things I had in mind when I was talking about the "reality based" gang culture here. From what I understand, you don't have the same causes for gang membership that we have here. Generations of poverty have produced many of our gang members - they join because they have no where else to go. They don't "Choose" to become members so much as they are born into it, and affiliating yourself with a powerful gang is an issue of survival. Many, many members are initiated in prison. The two major gangs in our area started out as prison gangs, then people keep their loyalties when they get out, and help their "brothers" in prison. Gangs offer security and safety - family. I think many would prefer to live in the kind of situation that doesn't require gang membership, but they do, and they've committed, so they're in. One may as well make sure that the gang they belong to is the strongest.

I could be way off, but this is the image I see -- it seems that many of the "American gang imitators" you are dealing with in the UK are either doing it because they're otherwise bored, or have political motivations. Is that even close?

 

[thardey]

http://gangsinlondon.piczo.com/northlondon?cr=2&linkvar=000044

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Murray I'm making no comment about this one!

This is another problem we face with the gangs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-war-torn-countries-fuelling-gang-crime.html

Right, race issues as well. But if I'm not mistaken, didn't many of the race wars between whites and asians involve otherwise well off whites? (At least, they weren't in total poverty?)

 

[Tez3]

I think if you talk to poor people here they will define poverty differently than poor people in America. Poverty here isn't as grinding and all encompassing perhaps as there are always benefits to be had, health care is free, as is schools meals, medical prescriptions etc when you are on benefits. There's unemployment benefit if you don't work and housing benefit which means while you may live in a B&B hostel type place you have got a roof over your head and local councils do try to house you. You can get one off payments for childrens clothes, furniture etc. None of these benefits despite what the paper say are huge but it does mean poverty here is less pernicious than other places.
One way todays society here has gone is that celebrities, footballers etc seem to have everything for very little work and the average youth wants that too. It used to be you worked and saved until you could afford the things you wanted, now youth has become accustomed to demanding their rights ie a colour televison, designer clothes etc. They don't see that working for things is the right way so if they can make easy money selling drugs, stealing etc they will.
I think violence in this country is often looked at as a leisure activity. With the football gangs meeting up for battles. Luckily outsiders aren't often caught up in these battles.
If you can, see if you can watch this film. This is the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=551-QfYJymI&feature=related

You will need a strong stomach though I'm afraid but it may explain how the football violence is connected to crime and perhaps why they do the footbal fighting.

 

[thardey]

I think if you talk to poor people here they will define poverty differently than poor people in America. Poverty here isn't as grinding and all encompassing perhaps as there are always benefits to be had, health care is free, as is schools meals, medical prescriptions etc when you are on benefits. There's unemployment benefit if you don't work and housing benefit which means while you may live in a B&B hostel type place you have got a roof over your head and local councils do try to house you. You can get one off payments for childrens clothes, furniture etc. None of these benefits despite what the paper say are huge but it does mean poverty here is less pernicious than other places.
One way todays society here has gone is that celebrities, footballers etc seem to have everything for very little work and the average youth wants that too. It used to be you worked and saved until you could afford the things you wanted, now youth has become accustomed to demanding their rights ie a colour televison, designer clothes etc. They don't see that working for things is the right way so if they can make easy money selling drugs, stealing etc they will.

Right, it's a matter of convenience, rather than survival. While many members here probably *could* have other options, the actual driving force of those who are heavily involved often join because there is no other workable choice.

I think violence in this country is often looked at as a leisure activity. With the football gangs meeting up for battles. Luckily outsiders aren't often caught up in these battles.
If you can, see if you can watch this film. This is the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=551-QfYJymI&feature=related

You will need a strong stomach though I'm afraid but it may explain how the football violence is connected to crime and perhaps why they do the footbal fighting.

If that's true, then I definitely see your fears about arming the general public. Even in the "Bad Old, Old West" days, (again, no matter what movies you've seen), violence wasn't a leisure activity. Granted, some competitions get violent, but that's not the same. At least in S. Oregon, being given a gun by your father or grandfather is an endorsement that you understand what a gun is to be, and not to be used for. Particularly a handgun. One of our most famous guns was called a "peacekeeper" and that image has stayed strong with us. Guns are for ending violence, not contributing to it. My first pistol was called a "Lawman Mk III" and was a gift from my Grandfather, who was a retired police officer.

There seems to be a completely different attitude towards violence between our cultures.

 

[Gordon Nore]

You're right and I understand that, I just don't believe doing things the American way is right for this country just as I don't believe that people who haven't expeienced our way of life can understand how things work here....

Speaking as a Canadian, I relate very strongly to your comments. I am a member of a society that does not equate gun ownership with freedom. It's not in the cultural fabric of my country; there's no constitutional language upon which to build a discussion about gun rights. Apart from bureaucratic red tape that makes it harder for Canadians to get guns legally -- a complaint among a couple of my friends who shoot -- there is not the divisive debate that exists south of the border.

There is a debate here to be sure. It's passionate at time, but it is not one that makes or breaks political careers. No one's patriotism or love of freedom is particularly called into question when they choose up sides here on gun control.

It's not always a rational discussion. Some members of one side of the debate ignore the reality of illegal weapons smuggled across the border. Those who argue passionately for the other side conveniently forget that many weapons used in crimes or seized by officers from criminals were once-legal weapons that were stolen, lost, unsupervised, etc.

What intrigues me about the Guardian article at the top of the post is not the strengths / weaknesses of gun control, or that knives are used in place of guns, but (if facts are stated correctly) that so many people are prepared to kill -- up close and personal. Reading the article I don't see how relaxing gun laws makes the situation less violent, nor how presence of legal firearms would make anyone significantly safer.

 

[Ahriman]

"nor how presence of legal firearms would make anyone significantly safer."
(my statement goes for all kind of weapons, not only for firearms)
Simple, there are more people out there who prefer safety and stability than criminals. There were a few minor riots here in the past 2 years, and quite some of us would've loved the chance to aid cops' work a bit.

But Hungary is a place where some laws from "our Soviet friends" are still in place just as the mentality that made those laws. Since 2006's October having a b'vest with (not on, only WITH) you in public is considered "especially dangerous to the public safety", just because some 'sholes wore a few in the riots.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Reading the article I don't see how relaxing gun laws makes the situation less violent, nor how presence of legal firearms would make anyone significantly safer.

Gordon,

You mistake all violence as being bad. Self defense, were violence is used to defend oneself, is not bad. It is not evil. It's a necessity to survive a wrongfull assault. Legal weapons don't make it less violent, they make it where the decent people survive and not the criminal element.

And safer? Read the article.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5793973.html

that's how it makes people safer.

Deaf

 

[Grenadier]

It's not always a rational discussion. Some members of one side of the debate ignore the reality of illegal weapons smuggled across the border. Those who argue passionately for the other side conveniently forget that many weapons used in crimes or seized by officers from criminals were once-legal weapons that were stolen, lost, unsupervised, etc.

You've just proven the point that I have been making all of these years, that it's not a weapons issue, but rather, a cultural issue.

Bad people are going to do bad things, regardless of what methods are available to them. Even in a world of pink unicorns, where firearms somehow magically disappeared, there's always someone who will use another method, such as the one used in the Bath school massacre (truck loaded with explosives).

Law abiding citizens are not the problem, since they obey the laws. Law abiding folks tend not to go out and slash people with knives. They tend not to rob other folks at gunpoint, or engage themselves in drive-by shootings. Nobody can dispute this fact, that law abiding folks generally obey the laws.

While there may be an occasional bad apple in the bushel, it's foolish to assume that the bad apple represents the overwhelming majority, despite what a sensationalist media may tell you. If the media's portrayal of such situations were really valid, then one would have to think that Israel is a land filled with constant rocking explosions, bombs, etc., when in reality it's actually a really nice place to visit.

Reading the article I don't see how relaxing gun laws makes the situation less violent, nor how presence of legal firearms would make anyone significantly safer.

Yet, how will it make things more violent? Criminals already have weapons, including firearms. They are going to cause problems, no matter how strongly you decide to punish the law-abiding citizens for crimes that were committed by the criminal element.

The flawed argument used by the gun-grabbing crowd, where they assert that the streets will be flowing with people who are going to kill each other with their new weapons, is complete garbage. Having anything potentially dangerous in your possession doesn't change who you are.

Even here in the "violent USA," I'm still waiting to see the waves of shootings committed by law-abiding, concealed firearms permit holders, that the gun-grabbers predicted would occur. Certainly there have been a few isolated incidents, but if you look at the crime rates amongst concealed firearms permit holders, versus the rest of the populace, you'll see a significantly lower crime rate amongst them.

Having potentially dangerous items in one's possession doesn't turn them into killers. It's not a weapons issue. It never has been, and never shall be. It's a cultural issue, plain and simple. Good people obey the laws, and abide by moral standards. Bad people don't.

 

[tellner]

Some weapons control laws actually work. For all of its problems the 1934 NFA - which the NRA supported - put a real dent in the supply of destructive devices and automatic weapons.

Yes, I know. There are all the standard arguments:

The gunnies will reflexively say "The only crimes committed with legally owned full auto have been one or two that belonged to corrupt idiot cops." The tax stamp was very high for the 1930s. That and the required proctoscopic background check along with very restrictive national laws made full auto expensive and difficult to get. It got people out of the habit of thinking of submachine guns and rocket launchers as something that they might realistically own. It changed people's minds which is where the real battle always lies.

The next argument is that full auto isn't that hard to make. A good machinist can put a Sten gun together in a few hours out of scrap. A bad machinist can do it in a day. The point is that they don't. Most people even most gun owners have gotten out of the habit of even thinking about Class III. The penalties are ferocious; law-abiding types aren't willing to risk jail and fines just to own one.

People who are in the habit of breaking the law have other things that work well enough. For robbery, rape, everyday murder and most other crimes a pistol or shotgun or in exceptional cases a rifle works perfectly well. There's no need to run the extra risk and expense of getting a bullet hose. A dozen shots from a handgun will do the job much more cheaply. If you want to blow something up there are always dynamite and homemade pipe bombs. Fights between criminals are almost always settled with semi-auto. Sometimes improvised explosives or re-purposed improvised explosives get used. The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre is long past.

The market for homemade automatic weapons is tiny.

An argument can easily be made that full auto and things which explode are easy to steal from the military or smuggle in in routine cocaine shipments. It's true. They are. But when it's discovered it makes the local and regional news big-time. It's pretty rare. And even when it happens the guns are usually just found sitting in their stashes unfired. There isn't that much machine gun crime. It tends to be confined to a very small subset of the criminal world.

The same thing happened with automatic knives aka "switchblades". Banning interstate commerce made them less popular and more expensive. Associating them with Mexicans, Negroes, Italians and other criminal low-life subhumans, not Real Americans, was an effective psychological tactic in the 1950s. The majority wasn't interested in them anymore. Since criminals don't appear out of thin air but come from the general population they became less prevalent there, too.

Now yes, there are some people on the wrong side of the law who have push button knives. But they are not what they once were. Even in states like Arizona and Oregon where they are legal they are expensive, rare and not very popular. The only real markets are the serious knife aficionado, the oddball collector and the weapons fetishist who won't be happy until he's as loaded down with ordnance as Damon Runyon's Tobias the Terrible.

It was almost thirty years before Sol Glesser came up with his combination of pocket clip and thumb hole that made pocket knives as quick and easy to deploy as the spring-powered ones. They became popular with law enforcement early on which was not entirely accidental. Now automatic knives are a curiosity

So what sort of weapons laws work? I think there are a few factors that contribute:

• The law needs to be implemented all at once on a nationwide scale. The anti-gunners are right. As long as people in part of the country have some sort of weapon it will be impossible to keep it away from other parts if only because those affected think of it as something that regular people somewhere else might have.
• The law has to effectively raise the price beyond most people's means.
• The weapon needs to be easily demonised, particularly if it can be associated with a despised outside group.
• There should not be an effective existing infrastructure for making it clandestinely.
• The barriers to creating a new production network should include fierce penalties.
• The weapon should be substantively different from other ones people are used to. A 1950s Schrade pocket knife is much different than the pushbutton imported Italian items. A revolver or bolt rifle is manifestly not a Thompson gun. There's a reason the "assault weapons" ban was a failure. The things that were banned weren't that much different than weapons which most people considered legitimate. There's a reason it was ultimately successful; it concentrated on imagery and made associations in people's minds which bypass the higher faculties like logic and discrimination.

 

[Deaf Smith]

So what sort of weapons laws work? I think there are a few factors that contribute:

The law needs to be implemented all at once on a nationwide scale. The anti-gunners are right. As long as people in part of the country have some sort of weapon it will be impossible to keep it away from other parts if only because those affected think of it as something that regular people somewhere else might have.

Firearms and ammunition are not mystries. Secret factories were used by the Israilies before independance. They built one of them under a laundry right under the noses of the British! I have no doubt they can be produced in any machineshop, and nitrates are not hard to find nor make.

The law has to effectively raise the price beyond most people's means.

Legaly that is. That's what the black market feeds on, just like Prohibition did! Just like drugs do! Imagine how powerful the mob would be if 80 percent of the people, who feel the 2nd Amendment is about owning firearms and other weapons, decided to buy them from the mob, black market.... Bet the mob would be happy to supply them.

The weapon needs to be easily demonised, particularly if it can be associated with a despised outside group.

Oh yea, the anit's do that all the time, does not matter that gun. From snub-nose to 'sniper rifes' to 'assault rifes' to dangerious shotguns.

There should not be an effective existing infrastructure for making it clandestinely.

That will be the day! No, even a high school machne shop and chemistry dept can make guns and ammo. Not real fancy ones, but they can be made. And no telling how many real factories would be built by enterprising engineers in some back woods or basements.

The barriers to creating a new production network should include fierce penalties.

Well with the prisons already releasing violent criminals cause of overcrowding, that would be interesting. Turn the good people into bad, and the bad become the good. We have real real 'fierce' penalties for drug smuggling, see how well that works?

The weapon should be substantively different from other ones people are used to. A 1950s Schrade pocket knife is much different than the pushbutton imported Italian items. A revolver or bolt rifle is manifestly not a Thompson gun. There's a reason the "assault weapons" ban was a failure. The things that were banned weren't that much different than weapons which most people considered legitimate. There's a reason it was ultimately successful; it concentrated on imagery and made associations in people's minds which bypass the higher faculties like logic and discrimination.

Enland as banned carrying pocket knives like the Schrade. 'Offensive weapons' you know.

Weapons like the AR-15 are legitimate not because they are used for deer hunting, but because they are combat weapons. The 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting! And that is what the anti's really don't understand (or maybe they do, but feel an Empire is better than a democracy.)

The bad will always find a way to get weapons. Breaking the law is just part of their job description. And dictators will aways fear an armed populance. That's just their nature.

The Bill of Rights was put there as a check on the central government. Every one of them is an individual right. And the 2nd protects the others from being lost. Lose the 2nd, and one day you will lose them all.

Deaf

 

[tellner]

Deaf, you slipped right past the points.

The NFA was effective. It reduced both supply and demand for fully automatic weapons. And it decreased the amount of crime committed with these weapons.

The 1950s ban on interstate commerce in spring operated knives was effective. It reduced the supply and the demand for them.

I said that it would be technically simple to make automatic weapons from scratch. But in spite of that we haven't seen a great Renaissance in home machine gun manufacture. The laws and the social changes they caused were very effective in making them hard to get and socially unacceptable. Not 100%. Nothing man-made works all the time. But they showed that weapons control laws can certainly have an effect under certain conditions.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Deaf, you slipped right past the points.

The NFA was effective. It reduced both supply and demand for fully automatic weapons. And it decreased the amount of crime committed with these weapons.

Mearly reduced the crime used with that type of weapon. The criminals simply went to other weapons. I think the crime reduction had more to do with the LEOs killing off alot of gangsters than the law. Keep in mind many of the full autos used were taken from military armories, and not bought over the counter.

The 1950s ban on interstate commerce in spring operated knives was effective. It reduced the supply and the demand for them.

Yea, they simply used other knives. In Texas you can own a switch blade as a 'curio or relic' and at the Arkansas IDPA state matches they sold them ($200 bucks, real nice ones.) So I guess the supply didn't dry up enough.

I said that it would be technically simple to make automatic weapons from scratch. But in spite of that we haven't seen a great Renaissance in home machine gun manufacture. The laws and the social changes they caused were very effective in making them hard to get and socially unacceptable. Not 100%. Nothing man-made works all the time. But they showed that weapons control laws can certainly have an effect under certain conditions.

It has an effect. The criminal class mearly gavitate to other weapons if it's not much of a hassle. If the demand is there, they will be supplied I assure you.

But if you try to ban guns in the U.S.A., expect rebellion. And that will create quite a demand for them!

Deaf

 

[Langenschwert]

I am a member of a society that does not equate gun ownership with freedom.

Speak for yourself. I'm as Canadian as you.

It's not in the cultural fabric of my country;

I grew up shooting. Nearly everyone I knew grew up with in Nova Scotia had guns. It's certainly part of MY cultural fabric, thank-you. Many, many Canadians own firearms, whether pistols, rifles, shotguns or whatever. If firearms are that ubiquitous in Canada, then they're certainly part of the cultural fabric.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Langenschwert]

it concentrated on imagery and made associations in people's minds which bypass the higher faculties like logic and discrimination.

Quite. This is quite necessary when implementing whack-job legislation that is the essence of much firearms-control policies.

@ Deaf Smith: The forum won't let me "rep" you anymore for a bit. Just putting it on record that I would if I could.

Best regards,

-Mark