Text 11482, 250 rader
Skriven 2008-02-22 22:42:00 av Martin Atkins
     Kommentar till en text av ROY WITT
Ärende: Shootings in USA
========================
-=> ROY WITT wrote to MARTIN ATKINS <=-

 MW> 21 Feb 08 03:12, Martin Atkins wrote to ROY WITT:

 MA>> In the wake of a series of high-profile shootings, an observer might
 MA>> assume that guns are suddenly pouring into the UK for the first
 MA>> time.

 RW>> Just as the Australian gun ban caused crime to increase, not
 RW>> decrease as they hoped, it was a disaster. As is the Brit gun ban.

 MA> The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether
 MA> or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS
 MA> figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide
 MA> and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.

 MW> I don't believe you.

The figures are from The Australian Bureau of Statistics. It is apolitical.

 MA> The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains
 MA> one-fifth that of the United States.

 MW> Australia has 1/5th the population.

What is it you don't understand about "per 100,000 population"?

 MA> Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of
 MA>  new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common
 MA> assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon).
 MA> In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a
 MA> firearm.

 MW> Unvarifiable jibberish.

ABS statistics. Let me explain it in terms a juvinile freak like you may
understand.

Crimes involving violence went up after the new gun laws but armed
robberies involving a firearms went down.

 MA> "Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of
 MA>  armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."

 MW> LOL! That's what the government wants you to think.

The ABS is apolitical. It issues it's statistical findings even if they
embarrass the incumbent government.

 MA> -- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics,
 MA> Jun 1999

 MA>> But gun control is a relatively recent phenomenon in Britain, where
 MA>> ownership of  firearms was relatively common a century ago.

 RW>> Sixty years ago, the British citizen's firearms were voluntarily
 RW>> given to help the Brits get off the beaches at Dunkirk. What would
 RW>> they have to offer today?

 MA> In the face of iminent invasion they would do the same and give them
 MA> as much training as they could on how to use them.

 MW> Where would they get them? The people no longer have firearms.

The government armories.

 MA>> The contrast between UK legislation on gun ownership - among the
 MA>> strictest in the world, and that in the United States - among the
 MA>> most relaxed, might appear stark.

 RW>> Considering the following, it is.

 MA>> But in fact both countries' firearms laws can be traced back to the
 MA>> same source.

 RW>> Do Brits believe in God Given Rights too?

 MA> I don't know about god given rights but most i know believe in some
 MA> rights being fundimental to all.

 MW> That figures. Fundimental rights can be taken away. As we've seen in
 MW> Britain and Australia. At least some Canadians had the guts to tell the
 MW> governmen to go to hell.

Since a large part of the UK citizenry do not reside in rural areas it wasn't
considered a big issue. Shooting deer and pheasant doesn't involve the use
of assault rifles or hand guns.

 MA>> The right to bear arms was guaranteed in the 1689 Bill of Rights, in
 MA>> which the new King William of Orange enshrined a series of rights
 MA>> for his subjects-Catholics were famously excluded.

 RW>> Gun control is not a new idea, but an old one. English kings,
 RW>> starting at least in the realm of Henry VIII, attempted to limit who
 RW>> was allowed to own guns. Henry VIII, for example, prohibited poor
 RW>> people from shooting crossbows or guns. If you were a king, wouldn't
 RW>> you want the rabble to be disarmed?

 MA> It wasn't a resounding success. When England was ever at war it as
 MA> the peasantry that supplied the archers.

 MW> Yes and it was the King's arsonal that supplied the weapons.

Nooo. The peasantry had their own bows and arrows and the lords and knights
supplied there own armor and horses.

 MA> The Tudor kings experimented with limits upon specialized
 MA> weapons--mainly crossbows and the then-new firearms. These measures
 MA> were not intended to disarm the citizenry, but on the contrary, to
 MA> prevent their being diverted from longbow practice by sport with
 MA> other weapons which were considered less effective.

 MW> Of course. That was so the peasants wouldn't have a chance, faced with
 MW> troops with superior weapons.

The longbow was the superior weapon of the time on the field of battle.
As the French found out on many occasions. It had a longer range than the
crossbow and greater penetration power due to it's heavier and longer shaft.

Pistol/guns of the day had marginally more penetration power at short range
but where slow to load and seriously inaccurate. The rate of fire by the
longbowmen made muskets good for about one shot.

 MA> Even these narrow measures were shortlived. In 1503, Henry VII
 MA> limited shooting (but not possession) of crossbows to those with land
 MA> worth 200 marks annual rental, but provided an exception for those
 MA> who "shote owt of a howse for the lawefull defens of the same". In
 MA> 1511, Henry VIII
 MA> increased the property requirement to 300 marks. He also expanded the
 MA> requirement of longbow ownership, requiring all citizens to "use and
 MA> exercyse shootyng in longbowes, and also have a bowe and arrowes
 MA> contynually" in the house. Fathers were required by law to purchase
 MA> bows and arrows for their sons between the age of 7 and 14 and to
 MA> train them in longbow use.

 MW> All a waste of time, since we already know that peasants weren't
 MW> allowed equally as powerful weapons by the King...Your own words.

You are a selective reader and you have poor comprehension skills. On the
field of battle the longbow out fired both the crossbow and musket.

The crossbow took longer to load, didn't have the range or the penetration
power of the longbow but was more accurate at short range.
The musket took longer to load was inaccurate and had less penetration
capabilities at long range.

 MA> COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH
 MA> CONGRESS, FEBRUARY 1982

 MA> So far from disarming the peasantry he wanted them ready for war.

 MW> Like sending lambs to the slaughter...

For England it has always been thus.

 RW>> In the seventeenth century, Charles II and James II passed various
 RW>> measures to disarm untrustworthy sorts, required gunsmiths to
 RW>> register guns that they worked on, and limited imports of guns.

 RW>> Unsurprisingly, when the Glorious Revolution of 1688 took place, and
 RW>> Parliament invited William & Mary to become the new monarchs, they
 RW>> wrote a Bill of Rights that guaranteed a right to keep arms:

 RW>> "That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their
 RW>> defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

 MA> As i said. The pesantry was not in general suppressed by arms
 MA> control.

 MW> I guess English isn't your native tongue...

I am English. Is the best shot you got a typo? You are pathetic in the
extreme.

 RW>> What about the Catholics?! They didn't get the right to own arms.

 MA> No because they where considered enemies of the realm and the
 MA> protestant church.

 MW> So not all English subjects were equal under the law...nuf said.

Of course they weren't. It wasn't until the civil war that such notions
where even considered. Even then the emancipation of the commoner
took many more lives before the parliamentary house of the commoners
took president over the house of the lords and the church.

 MA>> This was enshrined in common law during the early years of the US,
 MA>> and later informed the second amendment of the US constitution,
 MA>> which explains why the right to bear arms remains so strong a factor
 MA>> in America. :-

 RW>> In Colonial America, however, things were a bit different. The
 RW>> colonies were far enough away that uppity colonists with guns
 RW>> weren't any threat to the king (though they sometimes were to the
 RW>> king's governors and soldiers).

 MA> Yea well they got that wrong when the colonies rebelled and eventualy
 MA> gained indipendance.

 MW> Meantime, there was plenty of gun control enforced by the King's
 MW> forces.

There is no reference that I can find that King George III exhorted any
kind of gun control on the English mainland. Your source is?

 RW>> From what I gather of your writings, you're just another
 RW>> mis-informed ignorant Brit with a big mouth. Not to mention that
 RW>> your version of history has a bias that only a stupid Brit would
 RW>> believe.

 MA> I merely quoted verifiable facts. At the age of 14 I had a gun
 MA> licence that allowed me to posses and carry a twelve bore shotgun in
 MA> public provided it was wholly enclosed in a locked bag and I was
 MA> accompanied by an adult.

 MW> Wow! That's some freedom...At that age, I had both a 12 gage shotgun
 MW> and a .22 'semi-automatic' rifle. Oh, and there wasn't any such thing
 MW> as a license to posses or carry either one. I had to have a hunting
 MW> license later, at the age of 16.

Why would I need all that crap when I lived in London? Do you need all
those weapons to make you feel like a man?

 MA> Also if questioned I needed to explain were i was taking the gun and
 MA> show that it was destined for privately owned property or a place of
 MA> lawful discharge (shooting range).

 MW> LOL! No questions asked here.

Horses for courses. Since I lived in a city I would expect the police to
ask why at the age of 14 I needed all those guns.

 MA> I only needed to fill in a form at my local police station and have
 MA> written consent from my parents.

 MW> Some freedom. On occasion, I'd go hunting, using an open vehicle for
 MW> transportation (Ford Model A pickup), to and fro. To safeguard my
 MW> firearms, I would carry them into the store to buy a cold drink. Nobody
 MW> ever said a word about the firearms in the store. Under the law here, I
 MW> can walk down the street with a sidearm in a holster and nobody would
 MW> say anything. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be stopped and
 MW> questioned, but it never happened in all the years I did that.

I would look pretty fucking stupid doing that down my local high street.
What's more I would expect the cops to disarm any wanker that did before
he did anyone any harm.
 

--- EzyQwk V2.15g1 00F90257
 * Origin: Afraid of the competition? We ARE the Competition! (3:633/104)