More fuel on the gun control debate fire... new Harvard book tracks gun violence in UK from middle ages through today

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Article link

Blaming violence on guns and fanning hysteria over accidental deaths to children from firearms are staples of antigun propaganda. Media help gun-control zealots spread false information that gun ownership and self-defense are certain paths to injury and death. Handgun Control Inc., gives erroneous advice that if you are attacked, the best way to avoid injury "is to put up no defense." Anti-gun zealots blame the actions of criminals on guns and argue that disarming law-abiding gun owners is the best way to reduce the crime rate.

Scholars such as Gary Kleck, Don Kates and John Lott have demonstrated the falsity of these claims. Now comes an important new book from Harvard University Press. "Guns and Violence" by Bentley College history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm brings new evidence that guns reduce violence. Professor Malcolm's carefully researched book is a study of guns and violence in England from the Middle Ages through the present day. When the English were armed to the teeth, violent crime was rare. Now that the English are disarmed, violent crime has exploded. Indeed, crime in England is out of control. Offering instruction for the U.S., the English experience will be covered in a subsequent column. Professor Malcolm presents many facts about guns and violence in America, and it is to these we turn first.

Did you know that water is 19 times more dangerous to a child than a firearm? In 1996, 805 children died from accidental drownings and 42 died from firearm accidents. (Gun control zealots inflate "child" firearm deaths by including teenage drug gang members killed in turf battles.) Bathtubs are twice as dangerous to children as guns. Fire is 18 times more dangerous to children than guns. Cars are 57 times more dangerous. Household cleaners and poisons are twice as dangerous.

Did you know defensive gun use prevents far more crimes than the police? National polls of defensive gun use by private citizens indicate that as many as 3.6 million crimes annually are prevented by armed individuals. In 98 percent of the cases, the armed citizen merely has to brandish his weapon. As many as 400,000 people each year believe they saved a life by being armed. Contrary to Handgun Control's propaganda, in less than 1 percent of confrontations do criminals succeed in taking the gun from the intended victim.

Did you know that the testimony of incarcerated felons supports the large number of defensive gun uses? Thirty-four percent of felons said they were scared off, wounded or captured by victims who turned out to be armed. Convicted felons say they are more deterred by armed victims than by the police. In the U.S. where roughly 50 percent of households are armed, only 13 percent of burglaries occur with residents at home. In contrast, in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 50 percent of home burglaries take place with the residents present.

Gun control zealots claim that the availability of guns is the primary cause of homicides. Between 1973 and 1994, the number of guns in private ownership in the U.S. rose by 87 million. During this period, both the homicide rate and the percent of homicides committed with firearms dropped.

Another test of the relationship between guns and violence is provided by the concealed-carry laws now in force in 33 states. Gun control zealots predicted that traffic accidents and other altercations combined with an armed public would result in a bloodbath. Professor Malcolm confronts this false prediction with empirical evidence: "In all the decades of experience with concealed-carry laws in an increasing number of states, there is only one recorded incident of the use of a permitted handgun in a shooting following a traffic accident, and that was determined to be a case of self-defense." The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime. Their restrictive gun laws produced 1,400 more murders, 4,200 more rapes, 12,000 more robberies, and 60,000 more aggravated assaults.

Professor Malcolm disproves the claim that family members are the main victims of gun ownership. This myth results from FBI reports that most victims are "known" to the murderer. In the category of "known to the murderer," the FBI includes members of rival drug gangs, prostitutes and their pimps, and even cabdrivers killed in robberies by "customers." Far from the picture of hot-tempered spouses turning the family firearm upon one another in moments of rage, it turns out that 90 percent of adult murderers have prior criminal records involving major felonies. Three-quarters of juvenile murderers and their victims have an average of 10 prior criminal arraignments.

The English Bill of Rights guarantees English citizens "arms for their defense." Politicians and bureaucrats stole this right from the people by subterfuge. In England today, only outlaws have guns. Sens. Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, are working to duplicate the English calamity by stealing gun rights from the American people. Do these three senators represent the criminal lobby? Are they trying to create a black market in guns?
 

Torghn

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2001
2,171
0
76
At first I just asumed gun control advocates were just stupid, that they thought what they where doing was for the better. Now I'm not so sure, just look at some of the most vocal advocates. Rosi O'Donall's bodyguards cary guns, yet she is very adamint it saying no one else should be allowed to.
 

dexvx

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2000
3,899
0
0
Anyone know what kind of permit you need for an assault rifle ? (Legal, pre-ban assault rifles of course).
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
Originally posted by: dexvx
Anyone know what kind of permit you need for an assault rifle ? (Legal, pre-ban assault rifles of course).

Assault rifle as in the stereotypical AR15-style weapon? I think it depends on what state you're in...if you're in NJ or CA, don't count on getting one. NH & FL (I'm currently a FL resident, used to live in NH) shouldn't be too much of a problem - I don't think you have to have a special permit. I'm not absolutely positive, however.

I want a Class III weapon - unfortunately, they're extremely expensive, and transfer of the weapon will cost you a $200 tax fee. I saw an MP5K PDW for a cool $12k...
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Originally posted by: dexvx
Anyone know what kind of permit you need for an assault rifle ? (Legal, pre-ban assault rifles of course).
None, just have to have the paperwork done by an FFL. Usually costs $10. For full autos/silencers/aow you just submit your form to the ATF, wait 4-6 months for it to pass, pay the $200 transfer tax. No permit needed either. Just have to keep the paper work with you, and have your chief law enforcement officer sign off saying that you're good to have one. By preban you are refering to specific arms (like autos) made before 1986. Anything after 1986 is post-ban and can just be done with the FFL (the pre-ban stuff is where the ATF comes in).
 

Maetryx

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2001
4,849
1
81
Thanks for the article, glenn1. It's a lot like hearing a favorite tune being played again on the radio. :)
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
"Did you know that water is 19 times more dangerous to a child than a firearm?"

Water is also much more plentiful and used more often than firearms. How about looking at the percentage of "incidents" with water compared to usage; and then looking at guns the same way. Unless you are using percentages, any pure numerical comparison holds no weight.

"As many as 400,000 people each year believe they saved a life by being armed."

I would hope that the majority of weapon carrying citizens actually believe it is helpful. Why else would they carry it?

"The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime."

How has the data changed based on the concealed weapon laws? What were the numbers before and after? There are so many variables, unless you tie the "important" ones down, such data is useless.



Now, I support gun ownership. I think a license to purchase one is okay, seeing as how you should be *at least* as responsible with a gun as you would a car. You know, pass a basic test. I fully support the constitution, and that includes the right to gun ownership. I support concealed weapons, certainly if licensing were forced. But we shouldnt try and pretend there is a much greater good in having weapons everywhere. The dangers we face are worth the freedom we then have.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
"Did you know that water is 19 times more dangerous to a child than a firearm?"

Water is also much more plentiful and used more often than firearms. How about looking at the percentage of "incidents" with water compared to usage; and then looking at guns the same way. Unless you are using percentages, any pure numerical comparison holds no weight.

"As many as 400,000 people each year believe they saved a life by being armed."

I would hope that the majority of weapon carrying citizens actually believe it is helpful. Why else would they carry it?

"The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime."

How has the data changed based on the concealed weapon laws? What were the numbers before and after? There are so many variables, unless you tie the "important" ones down, such data is useless.



Now, I support gun ownership. I think a license to purchase one is okay, seeing as how you should be *at least* as responsible with a gun as you would a car. You know, pass a basic test. I fully support the constitution, and that includes the right to gun ownership. I support concealed weapons, certainly if licensing were forced. But we shouldnt try and pretend there is a much greater good in having weapons everywhere. The dangers we face are worth the freedom we then have.

IF you were an NRA Member YOU would already be informed. As it is all you need to do is read a few articles posted hereabouts and all your questions will be answered in short order.

 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Gun control in the US isn't going the way the liberals want it to go but they'll likely keep trying forever. Since liberal democrats are bought and paid for by trial lawyers, they're now attempting to morph the law into something resembling what the Brits are oppressed with -- criminal proscecution for simply defending yourself.

Apparently, in the UK if you use a weapon to defend yourself you go to jail. How that happened I don't know. But it's being tried here in the States. Someone really wants a disarmed citizenry here.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
"IF you were an NRA Member YOU would already be informed. As it is all you need to do is read a few articles posted hereabouts and all your questions will be answered in short order."

Well, I consider the NRA to be as much of an extremist group as the enviromentalists, just a different subject matter, thats all. Ive seen all sorts of data (like posted here above) on guns, alot of it inaccurate and sensationalist, very little that is actually solid. Its obvious that the guy is a History professor and not a Math professor.

The simple fact is that gun ownership is a constitutional right, and should always be defended because its in the Constitution. Whether or not you own a gun, you should respect the right of others to do so. People are lobbying against gun ownership in many forms, and they should meet resistance. That doesnt mean that any inconclusive data should be touted as a savior.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
"IF you were an NRA Member YOU would already be informed. As it is all you need to do is read a few articles posted hereabouts and all your questions will be answered in short order."

Well, I consider the NRA to be as much of an extremist group as the enviromentalists, just a different subject matter, thats all. Ive seen all sorts of data (like posted here above) on guns, alot of it inaccurate and sensationalist, very little that is actually solid. Its obvious that the guy is a History professor and not a Math professor.

The simple fact is that gun ownership is a constitutional right, and should always be defended because its in the Constitution. Whether or not you own a gun, you should respect the right of others to do so. People are lobbying against gun ownership in many forms, and they should meet resistance. That doesnt mean that any inconclusive data should be touted as a savior.

The NRA is the ONLY group supporting YOUR rights with cash AND voters. YOU need to READ!
Support your allegations or shutup.

:|
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
The NRA is the most vocal, and the largest, but certainly not the only one. I would go as far to say they do as much harm as good on the whole issue. The wacko enviromentalists give more moderate people a bad name, strengthening opposition to the cause. Same thing happens with the NRA.

Im a democrat, but I wholly support gun ownership. Ive seen ALOT of people around me that are VERY MUCH against gun ownership (Im considered the "conservative" one, because im more moderate than most vocal democrats...but i digress) and the NRA only adds fuel to their fire. Gun control is a popular subject for many people, and a large number of people support it nationally. You'll find that the NRA does alot to convince people which side they do NOT want to be on.

If the NRA could be more like the AARP then they would be alot more effective.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
If the NRA could be more like the AARP then they would be alot more effective.
I don't think so. Liberal democrats will outry lie and use atrocious scare tactics to promote their gun control agenda. The only effective way to fight this is by opposing it with equal might. Anything less won't work. It's sad but true.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
The AARP! Give me a break!

My parents are in their 70s and resigned that politically motivated POS organisation years ago!

You made allegations. You care to back them up or like most Democrat Weiners run away when confronted by facts...which is what your friends are evidently afraid of.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Ive stated that the NRA is to "extreme", which JellyBelly agreed to, though he says its necessary. Ive explained how the numbers in the original post were misleading. What more do you want?

You say your parents resigned from the AARP because it was politically motivated, yet you support the NRA? Do you not know that they are also politcally motivated, as is the case with "group supporting YOUR rights with cash AND voters" as you say.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
It is your post that are misleading. This article is only a small part of the data garnered over decades of research yet Democrats continue to vote to restrict the right to own a firearm.

Those they vote for use fear and misinformation to further an agenda that seeks to ban the ownership of firearms. You are at the least two-tongued.