Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!im4u!ut-sally!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Firearms ownership (in the UK)
Message-ID: <943@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jul-86 12:38:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.943
Posted: Wed Jul 23 12:38:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jul-86 03:12:17 EDT
References: <902@kontron.UUCP> <182@suneast.uucp> <923@kontron.UUCP> <1721@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 152

> Disclaimer - I haven't the time or inclination to go and gather
> facts on this, so the below must count only as opinion. Also my
> comments only apply to mainland Britain - Northern Ireland is
> obviously a different kettle of fish. Now read on ....
> 
> In article <923@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes:
> 
> >The majority of burglaries in the U.S. are of unoccupied dwellings as well.
> >But when a burglar breaks into an occupied dwelling here, they know there 
> >is at least a possibility the occupants will kill the burglar.  Doesn't
> >sound like that's even a remote possibility in Britain.
> 
> True enough. The burglar killing the owner is also a very remote
> possibility.
> 

A lot of "burglar kills occupant" crimes here are done without a firearm.
(Knives, strangulation, and blunt objects are a lot quieter.)

> Personally speaking, if I ever find myself having to confront
> a burglar, I'd rather that neither of us were armed. Even if I
> came off worse, I think I'd regard my property of being of less
> importance than my life.
> 

You assume that all that's at risk is your property.  It has become
pretty common the last fifteen years for burglars breaking into an
occupied dwelling to rape the occupants -- regardless of sex.  (I have
some friends to whom this happened.)

I would prefer if confronting a burglar that HE be unarmed -- but I'm
not at all willing to be unarmed when the burglar has a knife, or a
baseball bat, or have to fight with three or four burglars at once.
(Again, something that has happened to SEVERAL of my friends in 
different incidents.)

> >Accidental gunshot deaths in the U.S. are VERY low -- less than two thousand
> >a year, most of them hunting accidents.  (I presume that Britons are allowed
> >to hunt, and I presume they make mistakes, also.)
> 
> Hunting in the UK is not at all comparable to that in the US. Hunting
> with firearms over here is done by a tiny minority, and the weapon used
> is then almost invariably a shotgun. Hunting with rifles, it seems to
> me, is very rare indeed. The vast majority of the UK population do
> not hunt at all (the only people I know who hunt are foxhunters),
> and indeed have no wish to.
> 

Probably reflective of the considerably less wild nature of Britain 
compared to the U.S.  It was quite a surprise to talk to some of my
colleagues in West Germany and find out that you don't run into wild bears 
in the forest.

> The sporting use of rifles and pistols is confined (pace above comment)
> to target shooting. The reguations on rifle ownership are very strict. From
> memory, to own a rifle you must be a member of a licensed rifle
> club, which will have a secure armoury where the weapon and all
> ammunition must be kept and accounted for. Each application for
> a permit can be rejected by the police for any reason they see fit -
> I don't think there is any appeal. A shotgun licence is much easier to
> obtain, but I don't know the details.
> 

Seems to be a police state.  No appeal -- permits rejected for any reason
they see fit.  Sounds like a great way to supress rebellion by the
population, if you chose to do so.

> >My understanding is that criminal use of handguns has been on the rise for
> >some years in Britain, in spite of the difficulties in obtaining them.
> >Why keep honest people disarmed so that the criminals have the advantage?
> 
> Again, true enough. However, a couple of points.
> 
> Use of firearms during a robbery is confined almost exclusively to
> pre-planned robbery of a bank or Post Office. It is a very out of the
> ordinary mugging or robbery from the home that involves firearms.
> So, are those caught up in an armed robbery at more of a disadvantage
> because they are unarmed ? I don't think so - it seems to me that
> if the criminals work on the assumption that everybody is likely to
> be armed they are more likely to shoot somebody making a wrong move.
> 

As long as murder is a more serious crime than armed robbery, criminals
will be interested in reducing the seriousness of the crime charged in
the event they get caught.  (Of course, most criminals never expect to
get caught -- in this country, that's a reasonable expectation, since
our courts are not particularly interested in locking up criminals --
another major difference between the U.S. and Britain.)

> >But not because guns are not legally available -- because the population
> >of Britain is more peaceful with ALL types of weapons than the population
> >of the U.S. ..... Firearms aren't the reason that Britain is
> >so much less crime-besieged.
> 
> Now, I'm far from convinced that making firearms generally available
> here would do anything to the crime rate other than increase it.
> The argument is that burglars, rapists and whoever are much less likely
> to ply their trade because they fear the victim may be armed. Given that
> US society is armed, it would therefore seem to me that the propensity
> of the average American to rob and main his/her fellow man must be
> astronomical.
> 

The AVERAGE American has no propensity to rob and maim others.  But there
is a very tiny minority of the population that is completely without
fear of the law, and completely unconcerned what suffering they induce
in others.  (This is even a minority of all criminals convicted
of crimes.  In California, more than half the violent felonies are 
committed by less than 30,000 people -- in a state of 25,000,000!)

> No. It seems to me much more likely that the crime rate is determined
> by factors other than the possible consequences to the criminal. In
> this case widespread ownership of firearms would at best make little impact,
> and at worst increase the amount of serious crime - a handgun can so
> easily promote a minor offence (e.g. a pub brawl) into a major
> one.
> 

I used to get very angry at bad driving, and would (like lots of other
Americans), express my irritation through gestures and language.  I don't
do that anymore -- because I came to the realization that LOTS of people
carry guns in their cars (in violation of lots of laws).  Now, most of
those people are as rational and calm as I am, and would never try to
kill someone for criticizing their driving skills -- but there are a few
who might.

An armed society is a polite society -- impoliteness MAY cause the one
crazy in a 100,000 to threaten your life.

> Finally, the lifting of restrictions on firearm ownership would be
> a monumental political mistake for any Government of the UK. Reason ?
> Widespread ownership of firearms would necessitate the arming of the
> police as a matter of course. It is probably difficult to appreciate
> the impact this would have if you haven't been bought up in a society
> where the police are unarmed. The police themselves view such a move
> with extreme disfavour. I have heard it said that any party which dared
> to put a speed limit on the autobahns in Germany would be politically
> crippled for about 20 years - for me, at least, arming the British police
> forces would make a similar impact.
> -- 
> Jim Hague       UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!jmh		Failure has gone to his

Even in California, you'll find unarmed police officers in outlying areas.
The sheriff of Humboldt County, CA, was shot to death about three years
ago by a guy with a LONG history of crime and mental problems (for which
no court ever locked him up).  Why?  The sheriff of Humboldt County seldom
carried a gun on duty -- there wasn't any reason to do so.

Our crime problems are concentrated in big cities -- I suspect that many
rural counties in the U.S. are nearly as crime-free as Britain is.

Clayton E. Cramer