Posted on 5/26/2002, 7:43:57 PM by VegasAce
Edited on 4/13/2004, 9:07:49 AM by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The evidence suggests that gun control has not made England a safer, fairer society
By Joyce Lee Malcolm
5/26/2002
Americans who believe that more guns mean more crime awakened earlier this month to find, to their dismay, that the Justice Department and the federal courts had affirmed their constitutional right to be armed. Presumably, they would have preferred restrictions based on the English model, where the toughest firearms regulations of any democracy have been credited by gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime.
But there are two problems with that model. When guns were freely available, England had an astonishingly low level of violent crime. A government study for the years 1890-1892, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. One century and many gun laws later, the British Broadcasting Corp. reports that England's firearms restrictions and 1997 ban on handguns ''have had little impact in the criminal underworld.'' Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. And what is worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
Five centuries of growing civility in England ended in 1954. Violent crime there has been climbing ever since, and armed crime - with banned handguns the weapon of choice - is described as rocketing. Between April and November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose by 53 percent. Last summer, in the course of a few days, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of North London.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of robbery and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of burglaries in England occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the United States, where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.
This sea change in English crime is indicative of government policies that have gone badly wrong. Gun regulations have been only part of a more general disarmament based on the premise that people shouldn't need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It will also protect their neighbors. Citizens who witness a crime are advised to ''walk on by'' and let the professionals handle it. First, government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people carrying any article that might be used for self-defense; lastly the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed ''reasonable in the circumstances.''
The 1920 Firearms Act, the first serious British restriction on guns, required a local chief of police to certify that the potential gun owner had a good reason for owning a weapon and was a fit person to have it. All very sensible. Yet over the years a series of secret Home Office instructions to police - classified until 1989 - narrowed both criteria until, in 1969, police were instructed that ''it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person.'' Since 1997, handguns have been banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.
Far more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act that made it illegal to carry any article in a public place ''made, adapted, or intended'' for an offensive purpose ''without lawful authority or excuse.'' Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Individuals stopped by the police and found with such items were guilty until proven innocent. As a concerned member of the House of Commons pointed out, while ''society ought to undertake the defense of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender.''
In the House of Lords, Lord Saltoun argued that the object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and this bill was ''framed to destroy.'' He added that he did not think governments ''have the right ... though they may very well have the power ... to deprive people for whom they are responsible of the right to defend themselves ... [u]nless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it.''
But at government insistence the law passed and became permanent. A broad 1967 revision of criminal law altered the common law standard for self-defense so that everything turns on what appears ''reasonable'' force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As the author of a leading British legal textbook pointed out, that requirement is ''now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law.''
Three cases illustrate the results of these measures:
In 1987, two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, ''My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life.'' In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
In August 1999, Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two professional burglars burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before but, like 70 percent of rural English villages, his had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun.
In 1994, an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house, while he called the police. When the officers arrived they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to put someone in fear. Parliament is now considering making imitation guns illegal.
This is a cautionary tale. America's founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as one of the three great and primary rights of mankind. That was their main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed. Everyone doesn't need to avail himself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous.
The English government has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. ''It is implicit in a genuine right,'' an English judge pointed out, ''that its exercise may work against (some facet of) the public interest: a right to speak only where its exercise advanced the public welfare or public policy ... would be a hollow guarantee against repression.''
Public safety is not enhanced by depriving individuals of their right to personal safety.
Joyce Lee Malcolm is a history professor at Bentley College and author of "Guns and Violence: The English Experience."
These laws were in response to people (that could afford to do so) fortifying their homes against criminal invasion buy building elaborate walls of stone and iron, topped with barbed wire, electrical fences, and huge metal doors on their homes in place of traditional wooden doors.
A Spanish Company who built secure buildings and reinforced structures had moved from Spain to Britain because there was such a demand.
If I recall the cry from the politicians had to do with the potential injuries that could come from exposure to such “fortresses” as they called them.
This is just more proof that governments need the citizenry to have a level of fear and be at a certain level of risk, to keep them in line.
Another idea is that the governments see this as a way for people to keep out government as well.
The myth that government is going to protect you is the biggest lie of all; in fact the evidence is to the contrary. Just look at the only flights that are required to have Air Marshals on board.
Flights into and out of DCA, Washington National. They are only worried about their protections not mine and not yours, they only want their personal guards to have guns to protect them from harm, or to go out a meet a “threat” with overwhelming force.
Of course that “threat”, the definition of threat will grow as government grows to one day include anything and anyone who shows any propensity to be “anti-government” in any form.
TMMT
Yesterday's London Telegraph reported that their socialized-medicine system is having to subcontract out surgery to American and French doctors. That's the latest crisis in their socialized-medicine bureaucracy; recent scandals included involuntary euthanasia of elderly hospital patients en masse.
Scandals of antigun politicians - from Kalifornia to New York!
Must be a social justice thing. We can't go around frightening those in the business of looting the middle class.
Extremist Identifiers
A law enforcement officer needs to take safety precautions when dealing with situations involving members of extremist groups or movements. Sometimes the officer will be lucky enough to know in advance that he or she will be encountering such individuals, but this is not always the case. Many such encounters are unplanned and spontaneous; moreover, extremists are unlikely to explicitly identify themselves to officers as belonging to fringe movements or groups.
However, perceptive officers may often be able to detect visual and verbal clues that help them recognize that the person with whom they are dealing may adhere to an extreme ideology. These identifiers, especially if several are recognized, can act as important warning indicators.
It must be stressed that extremist identifiers should be used only to alert officers to take safety precautions. They are not indicators of criminal activity and should not be treated as such.
Visible extremist identifiers are often observed on motor vehicles and may be noticed at a person’s residence as well. Verbal identifiers may present themselves during conversations with such persons.
Vehicular Identifiers
Vehicles belonging to extremists often display clues as to the ideological convictions of their owners or drivers. These include, but are not limited to, the following identifiers.
Bogus license plates or driver’s licenses.
Many anti-government extremists do not believe the government has the right to require items such as license plates or driver’s licenses. Some even view such items as "contracts," the use of which implies consent to the authority of the government. As a result, many extremists create their own license plates, either to make a political statement or simply to fool law enforcement officers. These homemade plates range from crude cardboard plates sporting terms such as "Militia" or "UCC1-207" to realistic looking metal plates with fictitious countries on them such as "Washitaw Nation" or "British West Indies." Many extremists may also have fake vehicular documents such as bogus licenses and registrations. Another identifier that sometimes appears on driver’s licenses is the use of strange phrases or abbreviations following someone’s signature. Common terms used in this way include "UCC1-207" and "TDC" (the former indicates that they are not giving up their rights by signing; the latter indicates that they have signed under "threat, duress, or coercion"). Similarly, the complete absence of plates, license and registration might also be a sign.
Bumper stickers, placards, stickers.
Many people use bumper stickers to indicate their political or cultural beliefs. Extremists will often do this to an unusual degree, displaying so many that they turn their vehicles into what some call "ideology-mobiles." They might also have offensive or simply very unusual bumper stickers, such as "White Power" or "Americans Don’t Wear U.N. Blue."
Unusual modifications to their vehicle.
Officers should pay attention to strange or unusual modifications to vehicles. Some extremists have been known to turn the whole tailgate of their pickup truck into the equivalent of a huge bumper sticker; others paint their vehicles with homemade camouflage patterns. Some vehicles may even display warnings to "government agents." Any drastic and odd modification to a vehicle, especially in order to express some political view, ought to be a warning sign.
Residential Identifiers
Just as extremists sometimes adorn their vehicles with items that serve as warning signs to law enforcement, they can also do the same to their residences. Officers who approach such homes or apartments should be appropriately careful.
Signs directed at law enforcement.
Some extremists display "No Trespassing" signs on their property that are noticeably different from normal "No Trespassing" signs: they are directed specifically at law enforcement officers or government agents. Sometimes these notices are homemade, but several places sell manufactured versions of these signs. Officers have also observed signs and placards that included warnings to burglars that the residence is protected by the "militia."
Unusual banners or flags.
Obviously, Klan flags, Nazi flags, "white power" flags, and similarly blatant displays serve as clear warning signs. Sometimes, however, the banners or flags may be a little more subtle. Extremists may display a sign with a red line through a United Nations logo or an upside down American flag. An upside down flag is traditionally a sign of distress and extremists sometimes use it to indicate that the country is in distress.
Signs of "fortification."
Some extremists go so far as to turn their residences into miniature fortresses. They may reinforce walls, store weapons in every room of a house, or in other ways prepare for some sort of violent conflict. Many such measures will not be visible from the outside, although some might be. Boarded up windows in an occupied house, slits that could be used to fire weapons through, cleared "fields of fire," metal plating on walls—these are all possible signs of homemade fortifications.
Verbal Identifiers
Conversation with extremists, particularly during situations such as traffic stops in which an extremist might contest an officer’s authority, may provide clues to officers that they are dealing with a member of an extremist group or movement.
The extremists who are most likely to offer identifying verbal clues are those involved in anti-government movements or groups. Members of such groups have evolved a wide variety of verbal and other tactics to use against police officers during traffic stops.
Asking for "Oath of Office."
Some anti-government extremists will demand to see a law enforcement officer’s "oath of office." Some may demand to see other documents during a traffic stop such as "arrest warrants."
Giving particular documents to officers.
Some extremists have produced warnings, questionnaires, and other items designed to be handed to police officers who have pulled the extremist over. These include special "Miranda Warnings" for officers as well as "Public Servants Questionnaires" that list more than twenty leading questions officers are ostensibly supposed to answer and sign their name to. People who ask that officers read or sign certain documents before agreeing to speak or answer questions may be giving verbal clues that they adhere to extreme ideologies.
Unusual/Inapplicable references to Bible/Constitution.
Many anti-government extremists have developed elaborate religious or political justifications for why they can ignore traffic laws and regulations. A person without a valid driver’s license or registration who gives unusual Biblical or Constitutional rationalizations for his or her actions, such as "this Bible is my driver’s license," may be identifying themselves with verbal clues.
Use of strange/pseudolegal language.
Members of extreme anti-government groups believe in a plethora of unusual pseudolegal theories. Officers who are subjected to a torrent of language about the Uniform Commercial Code, "martial law," "emergency war powers," the common law, or similar topics should consider it as a warning sign.
Contesting authority or jurisdiction.
Many extremists will simply tell an officer who has pulled them over or is at their front door that the officer simply has no authority or jurisdiction over them. Members of extremist groups are often taught to refuse to roll down windows for officers, or only to roll windows down an inch. Extremists may demand that an officer provide some sort of "proof of jurisdiction" before the extremist will cooperate.
For instance: "subject" for "man", "woman" or "child"; "proceeded" for "went"; "individual" for "person"; "perpetrator" for "criminal"; "civilian" for "citizen" and so forth.
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.