Posted on 08/19/2005 12:28:00 PM PDT by neverdem
The government has been urged to relax gun laws which make it illegal for Britain's top pistol shooters to train in England, Scotland and Wales.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has given special permission for pistol events to be staged at the London 2012 Olympics.
But British team members face having to do all their 2012 preparations abroad.
"It would be fantastic if they were given the ability to compete on a level playing field," said British shooting's performance chief John Leighton-Dyson.
"I would like to think reasonable people will be able to have reasonable discussions and come to reasonable conclusions about this."
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
We must be allowed to train on the same level as other athletes if we're to have a reasonable chance of competing effectively
British shooting's performance director John Leighton-Dyson
|
|
|
|
Laws banning most types of handguns were introduced after gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and their teacher at Dunblane Primary School in March 1996.
As a result, British shooters who compete in the rapid fire, 50m pistol men and 25m pistol women Olympic events can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or Isle of Man.
Team members currently spend about 20 to 30 days a year training in Switzerland, and receive no funding because their events are illegal in the UK.
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Home Office agreed to relax the law so the three events can be staged in 2012, as it did for the 2002 Commonwealth Games events, although stringent security measures will still be required.
But the government's current stance is that there will be no further concessions for training in the build-up to the Games.
Japan, which has similar gun laws to Britain, gives its elite pistol shooters a special exemption.
And Leighton-Dyson is keen to set up talks with the government, the British Olympic Association and London's organising committee in an attempt to broker a similar compromise.
"It is very difficult for us to get young people to come into a sport they can't practise domestically," he told BBC Sport.
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
The banning of handguns wasn't a matter of eroding personal freedoms
Home Office spokesperson
|
|
|
|
"The British team in 2012 will be the biggest we can possibly put out because we are playing at home.
"We must be allowed to train and prepare on the same level as other athletes if we are to have a reasonable chance of competing effectively."
The International Olympic Committee has received letters from various parties since London won hosting rights for 2012 asking it to push for changes in Britain's gun laws.
But IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said: "We are totally comfortable with what has been put in place for Games time."
A Home Office spokesperson said the laws had been voted in by an "overwhelming majority" of MPs.
"The banning of handguns wasn't a matter of eroding personal freedoms, it was a matter of ensuring that what had been shown to be a terrible, if statistically small, risk was removed," she said.
But they do have access to home-made guns, the manufacture of which is now a thriving cottage industry in some cities. Firearms are, after all, 700 year old technology and can be made by resourceful criminals. The only people who are definitely disarmed are the law-abiding civilians. The drug dealers also routinely carry knives whilst the general public obviously can not.
Drunks are a menace sometimes, this Singleton case is a particularly sad incident - and not so common, as the judge noted.
It may be not so common in the UK, but its even more uncommon in American states with CCW. Bear in mind too that it could happen to anyone and for the individual concerned its a life-ruining event. There have also been many cases of elderly people and women being stabbed, raped or beaten to death by burglars in their homes too. That sort of thing was common in Newcastle when I was there and I hear that things are now so bad that there is now an active vigilante group there.
Banning toys and replicas is going much too far.
Agreed, but no mainstream senior British politican seems to have the guts to say it.
Originally I'm a yamyam - full points if you know what this is.
Would that be a German, or a resident of a certain area of Germany?
If you are the person being raped, stabbed or beaten, I very much doubt you care how statistically anomalous your situation is.
Now, if the victims had had guns, would this have helped? maybe, maybe not.
Gee, lemme see. Does a firearm increase one's lethality. I dunno. Maybe, maybe not?
Denial is not just a river in Africa.
Luckily, in Britain we do it on the cheap. If you hear someone downstairs at night, off you go with a broom, pair of scissors, beer mug, letter opener, whatever and get stuck in: you'll almost certainly be better armed than your assailant, and you know the "terrain" and where other potential weapons are. He'll probably do a runner long before that anyway. What he can steal from you isn't for him worth the violence and the possibility of a long spell in the nick.
That's great. I'd love to hear your back-up plan. What he can steal from you isn't for him worth the violence What he can steal from you is your life, the life of your loved ones, your kid daughter's virginity (as happened down the road from me), etc.
And that is certainly worth violence unless your civilization is bent on committing suicide.
Sound familiar? Anyone over 40 knows where this is headed.
But did those poorly networked criminals have access to firearms under the previous gun control legislation? The first significant study into these matters ever carried out in Britain was by Colin Greenwood (later to retire a Superintendent of Police) during a sabbatical, when he worked at the Institute of Criminology in Cambridge.
As a policeman he began his study by being in favour of more gun control legislation. When he had finished, he wrote:
"...It cannot be claimed that strict controls have reduced the use of firearms in crime. On the basis of these facts, it might be argued that firearms controls have had little effect and do not justify the amount of police time involved. Indeed, it is possible to build up a sound case for abolishing or substantially reducing controls.... The system of registering all firearms....as well as licensing the individual takes up a large part of the police time involved and causes a great deal of trouble and inconvenience. The voluminous records so produced appear to serve no useful purpose. In none of the cases examined in this study was the existence of these records of any assistance in detecting a crime and no one questioned during the course of the study could offer any evidence to establish the value of the system of registering weapons."
-- Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales - Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1972, pages 243-247.
He also wrote:
"At first glance it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime, yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon. The numbers of firearms required to satisfy the 'crime' market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime."
-- Colin Greenwood, Shooting Back - Police review, 10 November 1978 page 1668
A little anecdote: when we cleared out my old man's house we found his anti-burglar devices: a lead pipe about a foot-long with a leather strap, and a flick knife (illegal in the UK!). I'd argue that these kinds of low-tech weapon would have been just as useful (or just as useless) as a handgun in all the BBC-reported cases except perhaps the 3rd one, with gun-armed intruders. You need a weapon to hand or it's no good at all, failing that you grab the nearest blunt/sharp object. OAPs are in any case virtually defenseless whether they've got a lead pipe or an Uzi. If they're too feeble to fight back physically, they'll not be up to using a handgun effectively either.
(As it happens, my dad's lead pipe and knife did him no good: when he was finally burgled - once in 36 years! - the alarms went off as soon as the burglar was through the window, alerting all the neighbours but not my Dad who slept through the whole thing! The burglar was off like a shot and nobody saw him.).
Denial? Not me, I know that terrible things can and do happen. I believe in self-defence, and had my dad been awake he could have done serious injury to an intruder. But a burglar sneaking into his bedroom could have surprised him while he was asleep and neither handgun nor lead pipe would have helped him one bit. You see my point? My dad was more familiar with guns than me (Lee-Enfield, Sten, revolver), but never would have tolerated one in the house (though he did allow my brother an air-pistol).
Another case from Germany. A friend's father was an important man and received anonymous death threats back in the early 70s. Not wanting armed bodyguards hanging around the house, he bought his own weapons and did some top-up training with them (he was an ex-Wehrmacht man). They were never needed of course, but he kept the guns anyway (a Walther, a S&W revolver, some Mauser or other) and they caused nothing but trouble for the family. By the late 90s there were grandchildren running around the house, so his wife and family insisted they had to be kept out of kids' reach - locked in a cupboard, the key in a safe place. This made them useless against any late-night intruder. His family took the piss out of him incessantly, and later as he became doddery it turned out the key was lost: a good job too, since he became mentally confused and semi-paranoid. The key only turned up after his death. Ergo, he'd have been better protected with my dad's lead pipe.
As for the sad case of your neighbour, was this in the USA or the UK? Did this family have a gun or not, and would it have made any difference?
German? Zero points! Wulfrunian. Off on my hols today, no further replies for a while.
Well hurrah for Ireland
Check out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439908/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1451733/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413966/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458369/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453973/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459816/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1465915/posts
There are many more cases where armed OAPs sucessfully used a firearm to defend themselves against violent burglars, but I don't have time to find any more.
This one is about an armed mother not an OAP:
Best regards,
Those were the most beautiful children I have ever seen. It would have been just as great a tragedy of course if they had been plain looking but it does somehow strike you more of what a terrible waste it was.
Not true. A feeble man or woman can take on half a dozen attackers with a Glock and a mob with a battle rifle.
If they're too feeble to fight back physically, they'll not be up to using a handgun effectively either.
Again, false. In America, geriatrics routinely kill their youthful assailants.
When I was a boy I went on vacation with my grandfather to Miami. The hotel was dodgy, as you say, and 3 hooligans approached us as we left our car and headed for the hotel room. My grandfather calmly removed his GI 1911 from under a newspaper and racked the slide.
Suddenly they didn't want to mess with us anymore.
I helped bury him recently. You would have to kill me to get that 1911.
If you can find any of his articles I would very strongly recommend you read them.
Where I come from, our homes are still our castles
Enter Joyce Lee Malcolm into Reason Magazine's search function for further articles
Back off my holidays, I see this thread died. but for courtesy's sake I just want to reply to the comments and make a concluding remark or two, although I know you've got lots of other problems on your mind at the present.
Adamselene, David Hunter: OK, OK, it was unthinking of me to generalise about OAPs, I was thinking more of the really old and feeble ones. In some of the cases you cited, I reckon these old folks put themselves to a lot of unnecessary risk, and I also still think less lethal weapons could have also done the business. But whatever. These were all American situations – none of my concern.
Neverdem, I read the link to Joyce Lee Malcolm with interest, but took the liberty of googling some of the names in it, and found this: http://timlambert.org/2004/11/malcolm2/. It seems the people cited who got into trouble were, alas, engaged in rather more than self-defense, which remains a perfectly valid legal defense in court. So I'm not in any way convinced. Nice try, but no cigar.
Adam: So, you agree that guns by themselves aren't always the dog's bollocks: you need to have them to hand. So this means for you: "quick draw kydex holsters, pocket holsters, and quick access handgun safes for use in households with immature children". No doubt wonderful inventions for the USA that would solve much crime at a stroke. If you want to lug heavy guns around all day, go ahead. After reading about the armed looters in the Katrina-affected areas, I'd go further, and take things to the logical conclusion. Let – or even make – all adults (except convicted felons) carry a gun at all times (and even kids! Prevent another Columbine!); carry loaded pump-guns and/or assault rifles in cars; put mines on their property. Better buy NVGs, helmets, bullet-proof vests too; you can't be too careful. You also need laws allowing you to draw on anybody you think is acting suspiciously and also exempting you from punishment if you shoot someone due to an honest mistake. I'm sure all these measures would reduce crime to zero and you'd live happily every after. Since an armed society is a polite society, as you gun people like to say, more guns would improve manners no end, and make sure you all act VERY prudently and carefully and don't make sudden moves. An added benefit: you could also defy any cops or officials trying to enforce ridiculous and tyrannical taxes and laws you didn't vote for. And as for post-Katrina-like situations, where local, state and federal authorities might not be able to help, you'll need even more guns. Firstly, you need to protect your life, family and property against looters. Secondly, if your supplies run low or are looted, you'll need guns to acquire essential supplies and perhaps other luxury goods like gold etc. (to serve as bargaining chips and to ease rebuilding of your lives later on). Go for it, buy more guns now, you know it makes sense! All of this done in a responsible manner, of course. It's all fine by me (I haven't the slightest interest in visiting the USA).
But let's get back to Britain. Do you seriously expect us to go about our daily lives tooled for instant action against the off-chance of violence? Or to engage in a ridiculous and expensive arms race against scumbags? No way, José. Given the incontrovertible fact that gun crime in Britain against normal and unarmed people is extremely rare, why bother carrying a gun? I mean, it's like issuing snowshoes to Marines going to the desert and expecting they carry them all the time. You never know, they might need them one day. If they complain and the DoD then says, yes, but they would need them in the Rocky Mountains, they'd perhaps not be very appreciative. In this simile, Britain is the desert, the US is the Rocky Mountains. Let's not compare the two.
I think that's a good point to stop here. Not one link I have read on this thread has convinced me that more widespread gun ownership would lower crime rates in the UK. What other countries do, and what the guns/crime/burglary figures are in Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Serbia or the USA, have little relevance. On the other hand, I'd favour a less restrictive approach as called for in the original article.
As I've been saying all along, in the USA you should do what you like, just stop being sneery at the UK's approach.
Thanks for taking the time to provide me with food for thought.
An intruder with a knife is breaking into your home.
I guess you would be asking yourself: Does the man look poor or oppressed? Could we hide? What does my wife think? What about the kids? If I had a gun, could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does my gun have an appropriate safety device on it? Why do I have a gun in the house and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just taking my belongings and raping my wife? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, would my family be able to run away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion...
Personally, I would issue a verbal warning and if the intruder became aggressive then I would shoot him. These things are so much more straight forward when you're armed.
>An intruder with a knife is breaking into your home. I guess you would be asking yourself: ....<
I wouldn't be asking myself anything. I'd just grab the nearest heavy and/or sharp object and lay about him till he's down or does a runner, then call the police. I'd (perhaps) worry about his social circumstances much later on. As you know, the Home Office issued guidelines on what you could and could not do to an intruder. To sum up, you can kill a burglar if you HAVE to, but not if you WANT to. Perfectly clear. So if my makeshift weapon happens to wound him fatally while he's attacking me or mine, that's his hard luck. And contrary to what the tabloids say, the police will NOT do you for murder. That's good enough for me. No need to ponder the situation, just act.
There is no point in saving them again.
Good for you, but you're assuming that he is incompetent in basic knife-fighting techniques. Also remember that elderly and physically vulnerable people are unlikely to succeed in hand to hand combat against a knife wielding assailant, even if they have a "makeshift weapon". Give the vulnerable resident a shotgun and some basic training and they are far more likely to survive an armed intrusion uninjured. BTW, in the unlikely event that you do have to shoot the intruder that doesn't automatically mean that they will die.
>assuming that he is incompetent in basic knife-fighting techniques<
Given the usual background of run-of-the-mill, common-or-garden burglars, I'd think that a fair assumption.
I'd prefer not to judge whether elderly and physically vulnerable people can really handle shotguns competently. Sawn-off, perhaps?
I don't doubt that shooting isn't always killing, but we shouldn't really be worrying too much about the lifespan of burglars anyway.
Right, I've made my points, and I'm a bit too pushed for time to post again (unless I see something annoyingly incorrect and misleading from our American friends). Like I said, you can't really compare the US and the UK.
Thanks for your time!
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.