Re: Safe Gun-Free Britain (was Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights])

Joe E. Dees (
Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:46:04 -0500

Date sent:      	Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:13:15 -0400
From:           	"Michael S. Lorrey" <>
Subject:        	Re: Safe Gun-Free Britain (was Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights])
Send reply to:

> Rick wrote:
> > > Charlie Stross [] also wrote:
> > > >If widespread gun ownership deters crime, then one would expect the USA
> > > >to be a crime-free zone compared to the UK
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Remember the Dunblane massacre in Scotland where so many infants were shot
> > and killed? After that there was an uproar and the government acted on it.
> > Now the UK has probably the toughest gun laws on the planet. Freedom?
> > Despite these laws, we are not any less free than those in the US. We're
> > just free without worrying so much whether our kids will be shot to death at
> > school or whether a burglar will easily shoot us to death when they break
> > into our homes.
> If Britain is so safe, why are gun crimes still happening? I have not heard of a
> single instance of a Brit successfully defending themselves in many years.
There's not a whole lot of them getting shot, either, Mike. I just thought I'd mention this, since you conveniently forgot.
> Additionally, no you are not as free as an American. You are a subject, not a
> citizen. Your rights only exist as a matter of statute, not as a matter of
> Natural Law. You did once have a similar level of freedom, but it was severely
> eroded under Charles I and James I. You have no freedom of speech except for in
> one location on some stone in a park somewhere. Everyplace else your speech is
> only what the government allows you to say. The illusion of freedom is not the
> same as actual freedom. Actual freedom survives tests of its limits. Illusiory
> freedom triggers additional limitations on that freedom. Granted that things
> here have been becoming more and more illusiory the last few decades.
He is more free from the threat of gun violence than we; why don't we combine his greater freedom and ours, and render ourselves freer still?
> > I cannot believe people use freedom as leverage behind having the right to
> > carry a gun. It is pointless in this day and age. Sounds to me like many
> > people believe they are still living in the world as it was 200 year ago.
> Has the human animal significantly changed over the last 200 years? No it has
> not.
Some cats refuse to be declawed even when they eat din-din from a dish.
> > In the UK, when crimes involve guns special police units take care of it.
> As stated repeatedly here, there have been numerous Supreme Court rulings that
> specifically declare that no police unit or personnel at any level of government
> in the US is permitted or delegated the authority to protect individuals from
> crime, or to prevent criminals from commiting crimes. They are only authorized
> to catch criminals once they have committed crimes. Part of the whole 'innocent
> until proven guilty' tradition that you all seem to forget so easily. The
> presumption of innocence dictates that you cannot apprehend anyone for the
> crimes they have not yet commited. You can only apprehend them while in the
> commission or after the commission of a crime.
When someone pulls a gun on another person, a present policeman has probable cause to assume that the gunman is about to rob, wound or kill him, and is authorized to act to protect his life and/or property.
> It is a recognized fact that 2.5 million crimes are prevented by private
> citizens with guns here in the US each year, most of these WITHOUT DISCHARGING
> THE WEAPON. Some 60,000 people are killed every year with guns. Half of these
> are suicides and should not be counted as crimes. At least half of the remainder
> are the offenders being killed by law abiding citizens. Of the remaining 15,000,
> 90% are themselves criminals who are killed by other criminals, leaving around
> 1500 innocent civilians who are killed by guns each year. So we have 1500
> murders/homicides by guns countered by 2.5 million crimes prevented by guns.
Well let's work to keep the guns out of the hands of the violent criminals, the mentally deficient and/or deranged, children, and spouse and/or child abusers, and bring the 1500 bad ones down as far as possible (as well as some of the 30,000 suicides, preferably those which do not represennt a rational desire for surcease from intractable physical pain), while not interfering with the right of responsible people to defend their lives, families and property. What could possibly be wrong with that?
> > You see, in the UK they actually employ police officers that are trained for
> > those situations. Unlike in the US where people obviously have so little
> > faith in the law enforcement agencies that they feel they must deal death
> > themselves. As for protecting yourself, chances are, in a situation where
> > they police don't have time to respond, you'd probably be dead anyway before
> > you have a chance to brand your gun and do that bit of shooting which people
> > are just dying to do (no pun intended). Is that a wrong perspective? Well,
> > then why dictate you need a gun to 'defend' yourself, what else do you plan
> > on doing with a gun?
> Its a proven fact that in any given crime situation, a police officer is five
> times more likely to kill an innocent civilian that a law abiding citizen in the
> same situation. What sort of special training does it take to do THAT badly? Its
> also proven fact that a person carrying a gun is 29% more likely to survive a
> given crime situation than without a gun (you are only 16% more likely to
> survive if you have a knife.)
This is because the victim KNOWS who the bad guy is, but the policeman who walks into the evolution of a strange situation can never be as sure.
> Before I carried a gun, I was a victim of crime on three occasions. Only once
> did I come out on top, after police luckily arrived on the scene. I was getting
> a bit tired beating on this acid tripping nut job who assaulted me, and probably
> wouldn't have lasted much longer. Since I started carrying regularly, I have
> been in two situations that would have evolved into much more severe crime
> scenes had I not been carrying. On both occasions the situation was dissipated
> before it got a chance to go far enough.
I'm happy for you. Next time, the other person may have a gun he never intended to use until you flashed yours.
> Rather than a danger to the community, I am an asset. I know the people and the
> geography, and function much like a plainclothes police officer, although as a
> private citizen I am limited to making citizen's arrests. The only people in
> government who will look at me as a threat are the types who have really nasty
> things in mind to do with their government authority.
Sounds like a closet authoritarian to me. You dislike the government because you don't control its every move, and like the idea of playing cop with your piece.
> Mike Lorrey