England, I Told You So

[Geezah]

by Larry Pratt
Executive Director, Gun Owners of America

The British Home Office, in its "Practical Guide To Crime Prevention," offers what are referred to -- presumably with a straight face -- as some "sensible precautions."

Regarding how to stay safe at home, it is said: "If you wake to hear the sound of an intruder, only you can decide how best to handle the situation. You may want to lie quietly to avoid attracting attention to yourself, in the hope that they will leave. Or you may feel more confident if you switch on the lights and make a lot of noise by moving about. Even if you're on your own, call out loudly to an imaginary companion -- most burglars will flee empty-handed rather than risking a confrontation.

"Ring the police as soon as it's safe for you to do so. A telephone extension in your bedroom will make you feel more secure as it allows you to call the police immediately, without alerting the intruder."

This same "Guide" suggests the following, "if the worst happens," and one is actually attacked: "You have every right to defend yourself, with reasonable force with items you have with you... an umbrella, hairspray or keys can be used against the attacker. The law however doesn't allow carrying anything that can be described as an offensive weapon."

But, of course, in England, individuals are not legally allowed to decide how best to deal with those who break into their respective homes. For example, private persons cannot legally own handguns for protection -- which in the case of repelling a home intruder would be a defensive weapon.

What is suggested in this "Guide" is neither "practical" nor "sensible." An umbrella? Hairspray? Keys? Please. This is dangerously absurd. In America, several studies have estimated that from 1,000,000 (the Clinton Justice Department number) to 2.5 million individuals (a Florida State University scholar's number) every year use firearms successfully in self-defense. Proportionately, based on your population, there is no reason to believe that this would not also be true if firearms were as easily available in England as (thank God) they are in my country due to the Second Amendment of our Constitution.

And there appears to be a stronger need than ever for your government to allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for self-defense if they so desire. In a recent letter-to-the-editor in the American newspaper "USA Today" (February 7, 2000), Jennifer Arney of Shere, Surrey, England, writes, in part: "After living in England for more than two years, I know there are no tragic results that come from the confiscation of guns. I've never felt safer strolling through London, where the only arms bearers are selected Bobbies."

But, to put it charitably, Ms. Arney seems not to have the slightest idea what's happening in her part of the world. The BBC's "News Online" (January 18, 2000) reported that Home Office statistics reveal "a huge surge in muggings, amid a worrying rise in violent crime." The number of robberies (most of them muggings) increased by 19 percent in the year to September. And the biggest rise in crime was in London which saw a 22 percent increase -- more than one million offenses.

Overall, the violent crime rate in England now exceeds that of the U.S. rate according to a joint Oxford University/U.S. Department of Justice study.

And the "only arms bearers" in London are "selected Bobbies"? Not exactly. In London last year, there were more than 20 fatal shootings allegedly linked to the "Yardies," gangsters who have their roots in Jamaica.

Indeed, according to the January 16 issue of The Times criminals have an estimated 3,000,000 illegal guns in the country. Once again we see that gun control works -- against the law abiding only, not the criminals.

Last July, Tim Westwood, a BBC hip-hop disk jockey, was shot by a man who opened fire on the car in which he was traveling in South London. And Amnesty International reports that London is a base for another gang, the "Tamil Tigers" of Sri Lanka, who extort money from London's Tamil community and then buy guns and explosives which they give to terrorists. On the night of August 30, 1999, at the Warren Farm Sports Center in Southall, UK, two gangs said to work for the "Tigers" attacked each other with guns and machetes.

In addition, the "Manchester Guardian" has lamented the fact that their city is now called "Gunchester" with police sources quoted as saying that guns had become "almost a fashion accessory" among young criminals on the street. Shootings in the area totaled 41 last year with three people being shot dead during a 10-day period last summer.

One of these victims was Patrick Logan who was murdered by a hooded intruder who broke into his home. I guess he forgot to lie still and/or turn on his lights, yell to a non-existent companion, or call the police immediately. Or, maybe, he didn't have handy an umbrella, hairspray or keys.

Your suicidal anti-self-defense lobby is wrong. So-called "gun control" has not and will not make your country safer. And you're seeing the truth of this assertion with a vengeance. According to a U.S. Justice Department victim survey, in 1995 -- the last year for which complete data was available for both countries -- an individual in your country is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen, as in America. There were 20 assaults per 1,000 households in England and Wales but only 8.8 in the U.S. One article in a major British newspaper (London Sunday Times, Jan. 11, 1998), calling Britain "the crime capital of the West," has noted that more than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of 40. The question is asked: "Where have we gone wrong?"

One place you've gone wrong is by denying your citizens the right to defend themselves, their family and friends and their property with firearms. This is immoral and stupid. As Colin Greenwood, the Chief Inspector of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, has correctly observed: "There is no case... in which [gun] controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals, or in any way reduced crime."

Shortly before your government's last assault on lawful gun owners I debated a member of Parliament on CNN International. I predicted to him that your crime rate would increase if the gun confiscation bill were to pass.

It gives me no pleasure to say: "I told you so." Those of us who favor the God-given right of self-defense, and the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, have argued all along, as the old saying goes: "That when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." England has proven that with a vengeance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America (315,000 membership, June 2000), has held elective office in the state legislature of Virginia and is an elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. Gun Owners of America can be found on the web at http://www.gunowners.org.

I started another thread on this subject as it seems to be one that gets quite a few reposnses!

[Sixgun Symphony]

I wonder what the violent crime rate in the UK today is compared to what it was before they enacted gun controls in the early to mid 20th century.

[martinexsquaddie]

the only thing wrong with tim westwood was being shot was it was'nt fatal he is the uberwigga :lol:
what you are not hearing so i will try again
legal handguns were banned for TARGET SHOOTINGHOW CAN THE ABSENCE OF A MINORITY OF TARGET SHOOTERS AFFECT THE LEVEL OF VIOLENT CRIME
there were 80 fatal shootings in the UK thats right 80 out of a population of 55 million.
when America has a similar level of death from guns maybe we will listen to you otherwise shut up

[Geezah]

the only thing wrong with tim westwood was being shot was it was'nt fatal he is the uberwigga :lol:
what you are not hearing so i will try again
legal handguns were banned for TARGET SHOOTINGHOW CAN THE ABSENCE OF A MINORITY OF TARGET SHOOTERS AFFECT THE LEVEL OF VIOLENT CRIME
there were 80 fatal shootings in the UK thats right 80 out of a population of 55 million.
when America has a similar level of death from guns maybe we will listen to you otherwise shut up

Me thinks your numbers are way off when you are 6times more likely to be mugged at gunpoint in London than in New York!

From what I read resitrictions were slowly over a period of time implimented on legal gun owners, if you like over a hundred yrs the stranglehold became tighter and tighter but because it was over a long period it wasn't as noticable.
Now.....IF YOU HAD LEGAL GUN OWNERS IN THE UK THAT COULD CARRY ALL THE TIME THE CRIME LEVEL WOULD BE ALLOT LOWER!

P.S.If you like I can dig out all the stats so you can see the the UK, Canada and the USA?

[jones]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.

[Loco]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.
Perhaps by the same reason you only call "Americans" to the citizens of only one american country. ;)

[Sixgun Symphony]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.

The word is Britain, yes?

[Loco]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.

The word is Britain, yes?
As I know, Britain is England+Wales.

[Fenna]

Er, and Scotland

Ever noticed that there are a lot of Scots in the British army?

[Geezah]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.

The word is Britain, yes?
As I know, Britain is England+Wales.

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of Great Britain!

[cbreedon]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.

The word is Britain, yes?
As I know, Britain is England+Wales.

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of Great Britain!

The official name is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is part of the UK not Britain.

When I lived in London, I would take the piss out of a Scotsman at work but telling him that Scotland was a State, just like Texas....... :D He didn't like that......

[Loco]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.

The word is Britain, yes?
As I know, Britain is England+Wales.

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of Great Britain!
You´ve got a penny, brittish from Ohio! :lol:

[Geezah]

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Modern Flag (adopted 1801)
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb.gif

History of the flag: 1606-1801
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb-1606.gif
When King James VI of Scotland ascended to the English throne, thereby becoming James I of England, the national flags of England and Scotland on land continued to be, respectively, the red St George's cross and the white St Andrew's cross. Confusion arose, however, as to what flag would be appropriate at sea. On 12 April 1606 a proclamation was issued:

"All our subjects in this our isle and kingdom of Great Britain and the members thereof, shall bear in their main top the red cross commonly called St George's Cross and the white cross commonly called St. Andrew's Cross joined together according to a form made by our heralds and sent to our Admiral to be published to our said subjects."
This is the first known reference to the Union Flag. Although the original design referred to has been lost, it is presumed that it was the flag which, with the addition of the St Patrick's cross, forms the basic design of the British Union Flag today. It is also interesting to note that the new flag was not universally popular nor accepted. The English were not overly pleased at the obscuring of the white field of the St George's flag. The Scots, with more justification, were upset at the fact that the red cross was laid over the white. The Scots proposed a number of alternative designs. These included:
The St George's flag with the St Andrew's flag in the canton
The St George's flag with a St Andrew's flag in each quarter. In this bizarre design the white cross of the St Andrew's flag does not extend to the corners of the flag.
The St George's flag with a St Andrew's flag in the centre

Scottish variant

None of these are very convincing designs and none were ever used. The Scots did, however, use an ingenious design in which the white cross of the St Andrew's flag was brought forward to overlay the red cross. This flag even seems to have achieved some limited official sanction. When the king visited Dumfries in 1618 he was hailed as the king under whose banner "the whyte and reid croces are so proportionablie interlaced." The word interlaced is held to be significant as it implies the use of the 'Scottish' version of the Union Flag:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb-altsc.gif

As late as 1693, Slezer, Captain of Artillery and Surveyor-General of Stores and Magazines in Scotland, produced an engraving on Edinburgh Castle in which the 'Scottish' version is shown: again, an implication of actual use. Source: Paul Harris (ed.), Story of Scotland's Flag, Lang Syne Publishers Ltd, 1992. Available from the Flag Research Center.

Stuart A. Notholt, 4 May 1996

The design of the Union Flag that preceded the current version was established by a royal proclamation of 12 April 1606. However it was for use only at sea in civil and military ships of both Scotland and England. In 1634 its use was restricted to the king's ships. The flag went out of use in 1649 when England became a commonwealth but was restored for use in the king's ships after the restoration in 1660. The flag became 'the ensign armorial of the United Kingdom of Great Britain' as one of the provisions of the Act of Union in 1707, when the kingdoms of England and Scotland were united.

Early designs for a Union Jack
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb_1604a.gif
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb_1604b.gif
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb_1604c.gif
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb_1604d.gif
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb_1604e.gif
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb_1604f.gif

The June edition of "BBC History" magazine has a short piece marking the four hundredth anniversary of the Union of the Crowns in 1603 when James VI of Scotland became James I of England. This included a photograph of a series of designs for a Union Flag, here redrawn by Ivan Sache. The caption to the article said: "Cross countries: designs for a Union flag, kept in the National Library of Scotland, c 1604 by an unknown artist; the Note of Preference is signed by the Earl of Nottingham" [this note was attached to the fifth design, per pale Cross of St. George, Cross of St. Andrew.]

André Coutanche, 25 May 2003

As a matter of interest, the 'impaled' design was actually used (from c1643) as a jack by Royalist ships in the English Civil War. Another design not shown had a quarterly arrangement - Cross of St George first and fourth, Cross of St Andrew second and third - and this is known to have been used as a jack on at least one occasion (1623).

Adoption of the 1801 flag

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gb_1800c.jpg

A drawing of the Union Flag that was sent to the Office of Stores for the Navy Board, on 15 November 1800 was marked, 'Union Flag from 1st January 1801 (C)', but the fimbriation had been made by reducing the width of the red diagonal. The drawing, as reproduced in the Mariner's Mirror (Journal of the Society for Nautical Research), is shown here.

It was found among a collection of drawings and letters from the office that organised flags for the Navy. The collection of correspondence was closed in 1837 and apparently retained in the Secretary of the Admiralty's Office until 1949, when it was handed to the Admiralty Library. It is unlikely that it was ever seen by William G. Perrin. Commander Hilary P. Mead R.N. described it in two articles in the Mariner's Mirror, April 1951 and February 1952. He commented that the drawing, "differed somewhat from that in Perrin's plate IV." I wonder if the change was made by accident or design?

"Admiralty Office, 15 November 1800.
Gentlemen,
A Report from the Lords of the Committee of the whole Council, dated 4th instant etc.etc. [details of decision to issue a Royal Proclamation]

That the Committee were further of opinion that the Union Flag should be altered according to the Draught thereof marked (C) in which the Cross of St George is conjoined with the Crosses of St Andrew and St Patrick:

And that the Standard be the Arms of the United Kingdom according to the Draught marked (B);

And that on and after the First Day of January next ensuing the said Flags and Banners should be hoisted and displayed on all His Majesty's Forts and Castles within the United Kingdom, and the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, and also on board all His Majesty's Ships of War, then lying in any of the Ports or Harbours of the said United Kingdom, or of the Islands aforesaid, and on board His Majesty's Ships employed on Foreign Service, as soon after the said First Day of January next as His Majesty's Proclamation or Order in Council shall be received by the Commanders of His Majesty's Ships employed on Foreign Service; We herewith transmit to you a Printed Copy of His Majesty's Order in Council of the 5th instant approving the Report of the Lords of the Committee afore-mentioned, and do hereby desire and direct you to cause such Flags and Standards as may be necessary to be prepared conformably to the said Draughts for the use of His Majesty's Ships of War at Home and on Foreign Stations, and to be supplied with them accordingly, with all the dispatch that may be.

You are also to cause the Colours described in the said Order in Council to be hoisted in all the Dock Yards of the Kingdom upon the 1st Day of January next, and to supply the necessary Colours for the use of the Naval Hospitals at Home, and the Naval Yards and Hospitals abroad, in the manner directed by the said Order in Council; We are Your affectionate Friends,
Arden, J.Gambier, W.Young. Navy Board."

Note by John David Rolt, chief clerk in the Office for Stores, the Navy Board. Memorandum ( to C ). "The Ensign is Red, White and Blue according to the Colours of the Admiral's Flag, who bears it, with this Union Jack in a Canton in the Upper or Chief Dexter corner, and next the staff." Mead notes; "The Union Flag is from 24 to 18 breadths and is allowed to Flag Ships only. The Jack is the same in all respects except in sizes, which are from 10 breadths downwards.

David Prothero, 2 February 2003

I checked some documents that might have had information about the introduction of the new Union Jack in 1801.

The Captains Logs from ten RN ships in commission on 1 January 1801, selected at random, produced three references to the occasion. Blanche in Portsmouth "hoisted the (something, possibly 'union') colour", Phoebe in Cork "fired salute of 21 guns to celebrate union between Great Britain and Ireland" and Agincourt at Spithead did the same, though a day later on 2nd of January.

The notice that announced the Red Ensign was headed;

"Caution to Masters of Merchant Vessels Against Wearing Unlawful Colours. By the King a Proclamation, First Day of January 1801."

It included a small drawing of the Red Ensign in black and white with the colours indicated by words. The width of the diagonal stripes was in proportions 1-2-3, arranged with the wider white stripe uppermost not only in the first and third quarters, but also in the second and fourth quarters.

David Prothero, 6 February 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolution of the use of the Union Jack as the national flag of the United Kingdom
It was noted that Edward VII tried to make the British Royal Standard more personal by restricting its use. How did he try to restrict it?

Nathan Lamm, 28 March 2003

During the reign of Queen Victoria, the Royal Standard was considered to be the Standard of the United Kingdom, and not the Standard of the Sovereign. It was used by members of the Royal Family; flown at certain military parades; displayed on fortresses and official buildings in the United Kingdom, and at Government House in the colonies, on the Sovereign's Birthday and on the days of Coronation and Accession; and flown on government buildings when the sovereign was passing in State. It was also flown by private individuals and organisations who thought that it was an appropriate way of displaying their loyalty to the crown.

When the Prince of Wales became King Edward VII he tried to introduce a Royal Standard differenced with an oval shield in the centre carrying his cypher and crown on a purple ground. It was to have been for his exclusive and personal use alone, with misuse guarded against by the Trade Mark Act of 1883. However the Board of Trade, who were responsible for trade marks, wrote that changes to the Royal Standard were not within their competence. The Law Officers thought that since the Arms and Standard had been created by the Act of Union with Ireland, any alteration to the Royal Standard would probably require an Act of Parliament. This was thought to be unfeasible, and the proposal was abandoned.

As an alternative, measures were taken to restrict the use of the Royal Standard. The Home Office noted that the King was aware that legally no one could be prevented from flying the Royal Standard, but he wanted it to be discouraged.

In 1906 the Admiralty and War Office issued Circulars that the Royal Standard was not to be displayed on fortresses and official buildings on King's Birthday, etc., but only when the sovereign, was present in person. To avoid contentious legislation, restrictions on the use of the Royal Standard by private individuals were promulgated by Circulars to Police Forces.

In the course of 1907 instructions were issued by various government departments cancelling existing orders, and directing that the Royal Standard was to be flown on government buildings only when HM was within the building.

Home Office and Scottish Office Circulars stated that the Royal Standard could not properly be used without HM permission, and that persons should be asked to discontinue its use, and the Secretary of State informed of any refusal. It was acknowledged that the instructions could not be enforced, but it was hoped that the restrictions on its use could be achieved by appealing to the people's sense of good taste.

In 1908 it was reported that action (unspecified) was taken against persons or bodies reported for flying the Royal Standard. In a letter to 'The Times', the Earl of Crewe wrote that the belief that the Royal Standard could be flown anywhere, by anybody, was incorrect.

By the time that George V succeeded Edward VII in 1910, it had become generally accepted that the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom was the sovereign's personal banner.

Public Record Office : ADM 1/8765/311; HO 45/10287/109071;
HO 45/10316/126525; HO 144/602/B22911; HO 144/7048;
MEPO 2/1070; WO 32/16192; WO 32/14,700; WORK 21/6/9.
David Prothero, 30 March 2003

Was the restriction on use of the Royal Standard what prompted the widespread use of the Union Jack, or was that a result of Jubilee celebrations a few years earlier?
Nathan Lamm, 30 March 2003

It is hard to judge what impact the restriction had. The Union Jack replaced the Royal Standard in the relatively few places/occasions where the latter was no longer permitted. The publicity, if there was much, may have raised the profile of flags, and encouraged the idea that the Union Jack could be used by the general population, as well as being an emblem of the state.
David Prothero, 6 April 2003

Why would an act of Parliament be required to alter it, when it had been altered in Victoria's time (removing Hanover, etc.) and before (elector to king, etc.), but after the Act of Union?
Nathan Lamm, 30 March 2003

To the best of my knowledge an alteration to the Royal Standard would not need an Act of Parliament.
Christopher Southworth, 30 March 2003

Such things are done through the Earl Marshal, I believe.
Anton Sherwood, 31 March 2003

It was only a legal opinion, not definitely established, that an Act of Parliament would be required. Before 1801, I assume, the royal arms and standard were the concern of no-one but the Monarch, the Court, and the College of Arms. This changed when the alterations to the flag and arms in 1801 were instituted by an Article in the Act of Parliament that created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The changes that modified, and then removed the Hanoverian escutcheon, were, following the advice of HM's Privy Council, declared by Royal Proclamation. The perceived problem with Edward VII's proposal was, not that it would have changed the standard, but that it would have created a new standard, along side, and derived from, the existing standard.
David Prothero, 6 April 2003

I wrote when this first came up "that it was one for the lawyers amongst us" and let say at once that I am not qualified to offer a legal opinion. But does the possible requirement for an Act of Parliament not depend upon whether the 1801 Act of Union was formally repealed upon the creation of the Irish Free State in 1921? If it was not, then the power (to select the symbols of the Union) granted to the Monarch under Article One of that Act is surely still operative?
Christopher Southworth, 6 April 2003

I wonder if the legal basis for this advice might have been that, as Hanover was itself not subject to the authority of the British Parliament, the removal of its arms from the British royal arms and standard could not be regulated by an act of the British Parliament. This theory would be weakened if the 1801 act specifically mentioned the Hanoverian escutcheon, of course, but even so it would not be British law that would govern to whom the Hanoverian arms legitimately descended upon the death of William IV. On the other hand, British law would govern the disposition of the basic British (English, Scottish, Irish) quarterings.
Joe McMillan, 7 April 2003

Hanover was included in the 1800 Act of Union; (effective 1 January 1801):
"... the arms or ensigns armorial of the said United Kingdom shall be quarterly, first and fourth, England; second, Scotland; third, Ireland: and it is our will and pleasure, that there shall be borne within, on an escocheon of pretence, the arms of our Dominions in Germany ensigned with the Electoral Bonnet. And it is our will and pleasure that the standard of the said United Kingdom shall be the same quarterings as are hereinbefore declared to be the arms or ensigns armorial of the said United Kingdom, with the escocheon of pretence thereon herein before described."

That particular article in the Act was a package that encompassed the Royal Stile and Titles, the Ensigns Armorial, Flags and Banners, and the impressions on Coins, Dies, Stamps, and Marks; but different parts were treated in different ways. The changes to the arms/standard were by proclamation; "We have thought fit, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, to declare that henceforth the shield or escocheon of pretence representing His late Majesty's dominions in Germany, and ensigned with the Hanoverian royal crown, shall be omitted, and the shield left to contain the arms or ensigns armorial of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland only;".

However in 1902 a Parliamentary Counsellor wrote:
"It is a well known constitutional rule that where a power is granted by Parliament to the Crown, that power is exhausted by its first exercise. In accordance with this constitutional rule the various alterations or additions which have been made to the Royal style and title have always been authorised by special legislation ( eg. 39 & 40 Vict. c.10, and 1 Edw.7. c.15 ). It appears to me that any alteration of the Royal standard, on which the Royal Arms are blazoned, would require similar legislation."
I think this refers to Victoria taking the title 'Empress of India', and Edward VII adding 'and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King,'

There was reluctance to undertake legislation that might be opposed in parliament, but concern that adding the King's personal cypher to the standard without any legislation might be successfully challenged in the future. Instead the standard became, by persuasion, the sovereign's personal standard, even though the Act creating it describes it as, "the standard of the said United Kingdom", not "the standard of His Majesty, King of the United Kingdom".
David Prothero, 9 April 2003

What artistic changes have been made to the harp over the years?
Nathan Lamm, 30 March 2003

There have been two versions of the harp in recent times; the winged female, and the Gaelic. Heraldically, either is acceptable, since the blazon calls for a harp, and anything which looks like a harp is correct, as long as it is gold, with silver strings. In 1954 the Queen approved a design of the Royal Standard with a Gaelic harp. At the time, it was thought by some, that this had then become the definitive pattern. However in 1957, when the Ministry of Works asked Garter King of Arms for the design that should be used for the standards that they supplied to the Royal Households, a drawing of a standard with a winged female harp was sent. During this period a question arose about the Standards of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and Princess Margaret. If the Royal Standard had a Gaelic harp, did these two other standards have to have the same harp ? Garter ruled that it was entirely the choice of the owner of the standard. In general the Gaelic harp tends to be used on shields, as the shape is a better fit, but the winged female harp always(?) appears on the Royal Standards.
David Prothero, 6 April 2003

If a banner is defined as being "Quarterly X and Y," if X or Y change on their own and thus the banner changes, is there an appropriate act? For example, say Scotland decided, on its own (assuming it had that power) to remove the border of its banner. Would the UK's banner change, and if so, how?
Nathan Lamm, 30 March 2003

The Royal Standard is no more nor less than a banner of arms, and would (I assume) normally change automatically when the arms change. Past changes in the Royal Standard have generally (but not exclusively) signaled either, a change in the personal circumstances of the monarch (such as the various Hanoverian alterations and change to the present design), or of the monarch's aspirations (such as when the fleur-de-lis were dropped).
Christopher Southworth, 30 March 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maritime Flag History
According to Whitney Smith's book on flags, merchant ships from 1606-1634 flew the Union Jack (minus the cross of St Patrick of course) on the foremast and the flag of England (Cross of St George) on the jack staff. He gives four possible positions for flags, going from fore to aft on the ship they are: jack staff, foremast, mainmast, ensign staff.

Before 1606 they flew the flag of England from both the foremast and the jack staff.
From 1634-1707 they flew the flag of England from the jack staff and a version of the Red Ensign (with the cross of St. George in the canton instead of the entire Union Jack) from the ensign staff.
From 1707-1801 they flew the flag of England from the jack staff and the Red Ensign from the ensign staff.
From 1801 onward they flew the Union Jack with a white border from the foremast and the Red Ensign from the ensign staff.
Nathan Augustine, 23 August 1995

Perrin (1922), p.132, quoted the 1808 edition of the 'Regulations and Instructions relating to His Majesty's Service at Sea' which confirmed the continuing use of the St George's Cross as a jack by the merchant marine. It is speculation as to whether they actually did so at this late date, however, :

Wilson (1986), p.34, said that 'This flag (a Union Jack with a white border) was introduced in 1823 as a signal for a pilot in Marryat's Code of Signals for the Merchant Service and later came to be worn as a jack'. He went on to say 'that it is still a legally permitted jack for merchant ships' - which, of course, it is.

Christopher Southworth, 15 March 2003

Based on http://fraser.cc/FlagsCan/Appendicies/Chronology.html, which is an online version of The Flags of Canada, by Alistair B. Fraser, I've condensed a much longer treatment, mostly focusing (as one would expect) on Canada, to cover only cantons/unions in British and related flags. There's also information on French and Viking flags.

1165 - First reference to the use by Scotland of the Cross of St. Andrew. The reference claims that its use goes back to King Hungus in the eighth century. The choice of blue for the field evolved only later.

1277 - First reference to the English use of the Cross of St. George as a flag.

1557 - In his voyage to (what is now) Frobisher Bay, Sir Martin Frobisher carried St. George's cross with a quartered shield of arms in the centre. First and fourth quarter were French modern, while the second and third quarters each contained two English lions. [Click here for an illustration ( from "The world atlas of exploration", Eric Newby, Colporteur Press, Sydney, 1975). The original illustration seems to be from the British Museum. - James Dignan, 8 September 2003]

1574 - Ensigns, to be flown at the stern of a ship, were introduced at sea about this time so individual ships could be recognized. In the early ensigns, the field was often multi-coloured strips with St. George's or St. Andrew's cross in the canton depending on whether used by English or Scottish vessels.

1606 Apr 12 - The first, two-crossed, Union Flag is introduced.

1621 - The first red ensign was made and it began to be used by both the King's ships and merchantmen. By 1633 the striped ensigns had been abandoned and Red, Blue and White ensigns were used by the English fleet to denote the three different squadrons.

1649 - Union flag gives way to Cromwell's Commonwealth Ensign.

1674 Sep 18 - The red ensign is specified as the proper flag for a merchant ship. It continued to be used by a Naval Squadron until 1864. The canton contains either the Cross of St. George or St. Andrew, but not the Union Flag.

1694 Jul 12 - Vessels in the non-military branches of the King's service were to use a red ensign with a badge of the department on the fly. Before this time no distinction in flags was made between the navy's ships of war and vessels in the civil departments of the navy or other branches of the king's service. The colour of these state ensigns was changed to blue in 1864. (Wilson)

1707 Jul 28 - The red ensign alone is proclaimed the National Ensign, and all merchant ships were expressly ordered to wear it. The White and Blue Ensigns were looked upon as mere variants for the purposes of naval tactics.

Joe McMillan, 16 September 2003

1621 and 1633 accord with Perrin, however, regarding the Blue and White Ensigns. Definite use of the White and Blue Ensigns to distinguish the private ships of van and rear squadrons may be dated from an Order of the Navy Commissioners of March 1653. Such Ensigns were made in small numbers prior to this date, but private ships had almost certainly flown a Red Ensign and had been distinguished by an appropriately coloured pendant (see Nathanial Botelier's "Dialogues about Sea Services" written c1634, Perrin and Wilson).
Christopher Southworth, 16 September 2003

[Geezah]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.

The word is Britain, yes?
As I know, Britain is England+Wales.

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of Great Britain!

The official name is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is part of the UK not Britain.

When I lived in London, I would take the piss out of a Scotsman at work but telling him that Scotland was a State, just like Texas....... :D He didn't like that......

Thank you, I stand corrected, I wasn't aware that NI is not part of Britain but made up the UK.

Everyday you learn something new :D

[Geezah]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.

The word is Britain, yes?
As I know, Britain is England+Wales.

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of Great Britain!
You´ve got a penny, brittish from Ohio! :lol:

Got a penny or spend a penny:D British living in Ohio but not frm here it's my adopted home, started in Richmond, In ended up in Xenia Ohio(home of Tornados) the connection is my Grandfather,

Petersen's Crew
http://www.486th.org/Photos/Crew2/PetersenG.jpg

Left to right, back row: SGT Lyle J. McKenzie (BG), LT John H. Gillick, Jr., First Navigator, LT John W. Fox, Jr. (CP), LT Charles B. Cashin, Bombardier, 2nd Navigator and Gunnery Officer, LT Gene Peterson (P). Left to right, front row: SGT Herbert L. Huff, (FE/Top), SGT Wilbur S. Everman, (TG), SGT Matthew S. Caggiano, (R/O), SGT Patrick J. Netzel, (WG), SGT Darrel T. Koll, (WG).

Photo was taken July 1944, somewhere in England. LT Peterson and crew trained at Rapid City, S. Dakota. SGT Netzel was transferred to Italy before the crew had their first mission. On November 30, 1944, their plane was shot down over Merseberg, Germany. All of the crew bailed out over Belgium and eventually were returned to their base in England.


Wilbur(Jimmy) Everman
http://www.486th.org/BS833/Peterson.htm

[marktigger]

i get fed up with the make up of the various bits of Britain. Just as bad as the Unionists here who call the 6 counties of Northern Ireland Ulster which is infact 9 counties 3 of which belong to another country which joins with the United Kingdom ,Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to become the British Isles.

[Gringo]

Me thinks your numbers are way off when you are 6times more likely to be mugged at gunpoint in London than in New York!

Where's you evidence or source of this information?


Now.....IF YOU HAD LEGAL GUN OWNERS IN THE UK THAT COULD CARRY ALL THE TIME THE CRIME LEVEL WOULD BE ALLOT LOWER!

How can you be so sure that it would lower the crime rate?

[Geezah]

Me thinks your numbers are way off when you are 6times more likely to be mugged at gunpoint in London than in New York!

Where's you evidence or source of this information?


Now.....IF YOU HAD LEGAL GUN OWNERS IN THE UK THAT COULD CARRY ALL THE TIME THE CRIME LEVEL WOULD BE ALLOT LOWER!

How can you be so sure that it would lower the crime rate?

On your first question I will find them for you and on the second, because it works over here, you can check out the FBIs website and see the crime stats!

[Gringo]

Me thinks your numbers are way off when you are 6times more likely to be mugged at gunpoint in London than in New York!

Where's you evidence or source of this information?


Now.....IF YOU HAD LEGAL GUN OWNERS IN THE UK THAT COULD CARRY ALL THE TIME THE CRIME LEVEL WOULD BE ALLOT LOWER!

How can you be so sure that it would lower the crime rate?

On your first question I will find them for you and on the second, because it works over here, you can check out the FBIs website and see the crime stats!

However, it may work over the pond, but that doesn't say it will work over here. And how exactly does it work, do these people who carry a gun put fear into the people around them, so this becomes a form of controlling people.
IMO civillians should not be allowed to play around with, let alone carry a gun. The use of a gun is to kill, period. Civillians do NOT need to kill.

[Geezah]

Me thinks your numbers are way off when you are 6times more likely to be mugged at gunpoint in London than in New York!

Where's you evidence or source of this information?


Now.....IF YOU HAD LEGAL GUN OWNERS IN THE UK THAT COULD CARRY ALL THE TIME THE CRIME LEVEL WOULD BE ALLOT LOWER!

How can you be so sure that it would lower the crime rate?

On your first question I will find them for you and on the second, because it works over here, you can check out the FBIs website and see the crime stats!

However, it may work over the pond, but that doesn't say it will work over here. And how exactly does it work, do these people who carry a gun put fear into the people around them, so this becomes a form of controlling people.
IMO civillians should not be allowed to play around with, let alone carry a gun. The use of a gun is to kill, period. Civillians do NOT need to kill.

In the UK there is no equalizer, most hardened criminals don't care about the Police but over here you find that CCW(Concealed Carry) has almost a subliminal affect because you don't know who's carrying and so you find that the big bad bully criminal isn't willing to take a chance.
Being able to carry doen't mean you can pull it whenever you feel like it, only when you are 100% sure that your life or a 3rd parties life is at risk, if you pull for no reason your looking at a felony and then possible civil lawsuits that would end up crippling you financially!

"Civilians do not need to kill" but Uniformed Civilians do? so while your waiting for the Knight in shinning armour to turn up and save the day what do you think you should do.........die?

By the way I get to play around with a Sig P226 and P239!

[cut]

Why do Americans still think Scotland, Ireland, Wales are part of England?.

The word is Britain, yes?
As I know, Britain is England+Wales.

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all part of Great Britain!

wrong actually, northern Ireland is part of Ireland suprisingly enough.

the official title of the country you have lost touch with is:

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


as for the article (http://www.gunowners.org.) hardly unbiased

[martinexsquaddie]

if you want to be a pendant (it's the internet who would'nt :lol: )
ireland the uk and various other small islands make up the BRITISH ISLES hours of fun to be had winding up citzens of the eire with that little gem rofl

[Gringo]

Me thinks your numbers are way off when you are 6times more likely to be mugged at gunpoint in London than in New York!

Where's you evidence or source of this information?


Now.....IF YOU HAD LEGAL GUN OWNERS IN THE UK THAT COULD CARRY ALL THE TIME THE CRIME LEVEL WOULD BE ALLOT LOWER!

How can you be so sure that it would lower the crime rate?

On your first question I will find them for you and on the second, because it works over here, you can check out the FBIs website and see the crime stats!

However, it may work over the pond, but that doesn't say it will work over here. And how exactly does it work, do these people who carry a gun put fear into the people around them, so this becomes a form of controlling people.
IMO civillians should not be allowed to play around with, let alone carry a gun. The use of a gun is to kill, period. Civillians do NOT need to kill.

In the UK there is no equalizer, most hardened criminals don't care about the Police but over here you find that CCW(Concealed Carry) has almost a subliminal affect because you don't know who's carrying and so you find that the big bad bully criminal isn't willing to take a chance.
Being able to carry doen't mean you can pull it whenever you feel like it, only when you are 100% sure that your life or a 3rd parties life is at risk, if you pull for no reason your looking at a felony and then possible civil lawsuits that would end up crippling you financially!

"Civilians do not need to kill" but Uniformed Civilians do? so while your waiting for the Knight in shinning armour to turn up and save the day what do you think you should do.........die?

By the way I get to play around with a Sig P226 and P239!

I was right, the only way this CCW works is by intinmidation. If that's the case why don't they carry replica guns then?

Have you found your evidence yet?

[marktigger]

Cut I would sugest you go back to primary school and learn some Geography Northern Ireland is Part of the United Kingdom and will remain so.

[marktigger]

Geezah I would also sugest when you are looking for the stastics you also look at how they are collected and the definitions as In the UK we collect crime stastics differently from the USA and use slightly different definitions.
CCW is not the answer there has been CCW in Northern Ireland since the start of the troubles and have spoken to a couple of policemen who have been to shootings that have been where someone with a CCW has spotted someone else with a CCW thought they were under threat and opened fire.
Channel 4 did a series on texas and one of the issues they covered was CCW yes in a country with an obscene number of firearms in free circulation i could see the need for CCW. But it isn't the answer to crime and looking at the High school shootings, snipers in various parts of the country I would sugest America need to look closely at its gun culture along side looking at the causes of crime.

[marktigger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3545305.stm

Well there is someone who's political career is over. Take a little look at the gun crime stats on the link from that story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm#map

some crime stats

9,974 firearms offences in the UK last year

gun killings 0.14 per 100,000 UK
0.59 per 100,000 canada
0.15 per 100,000 New Zealand
0.34 per 100,000 Australia
0.51 per 100,000 Switzerland
0.37 per 100,000 sweden
3.97 per 100,000 USA


The availability of legal firearms has never been a factor in keeping crime under control in the UK. The rises in crime are more due to the rise in availability of illegal drugs, the changes in policing, The Justice system being weighted towards the criminal and changes in the culture in the UK eg the lack of respect for both the individual and institutions and the me first mentality. Some of thease need to be changed right from the cradle and changes to policing and the criminal Justice system are a mater for government.
How bad the Criminal justice system is a Burgular breaks into your house whilst fumbling about in the dark he falls down the stairs and breaks his leg. He is entitled to sue you the house owner for compensation for his injuries.

[Geezah]

Geezah I would also sugest when you are looking for the stastics you also look at how they are collected and the definitions as In the UK we collect crime stastics differently from the USA and use slightly different definitions.
CCW is not the answer there has been CCW in Northern Ireland since the start of the troubles and have spoken to a couple of policemen who have been to shootings that have been where someone with a CCW has spotted someone else with a CCW thought they were under threat and opened fire.
Channel 4 did a series on texas and one of the issues they covered was CCW yes in a country with an obscene number of firearms in free circulation i could see the need for CCW. But it isn't the answer to crime and looking at the High school shootings, snipers in various parts of the country I would sugest America need to look closely at its gun culture along side looking at the causes of crime.

How do you spot someone with CCW when the firearm must be concealed? the whole point of CCW is that you don't know who is carrying so you have a slightly friendlyer society!

[Gringo]

Geezah I would also sugest when you are looking for the stastics you also look at how they are collected and the definitions as In the UK we collect crime stastics differently from the USA and use slightly different definitions.
CCW is not the answer there has been CCW in Northern Ireland since the start of the troubles and have spoken to a couple of policemen who have been to shootings that have been where someone with a CCW has spotted someone else with a CCW thought they were under threat and opened fire.
Channel 4 did a series on texas and one of the issues they covered was CCW yes in a country with an obscene number of firearms in free circulation i could see the need for CCW. But it isn't the answer to crime and looking at the High school shootings, snipers in various parts of the country I would sugest America need to look closely at its gun culture along side looking at the causes of crime.

How do you spot someone with CCW when the firearm must be concealed? the whole point of CCW is that you don't know who is carrying so you have a slightly friendlyer society!

Or a society that will become suspicious and paranoid of each other.

[Geezah]

Me thinks your numbers are way off when you are 6times more likely to be mugged at gunpoint in London than in New York!

Where's you evidence or source of this information?


Now.....IF YOU HAD LEGAL GUN OWNERS IN THE UK THAT COULD CARRY ALL THE TIME THE CRIME LEVEL WOULD BE ALLOT LOWER!

How can you be so sure that it would lower the crime rate?

This was taken from the Sun newspaper online, the page unfortunelty has now expired,

Tidal wave of violent crime

THE number of violent crimes soared last year, shock Government figures revealed yesterday.

Police recorded a 14 per cent rise in offences involving violence.

From July to September there were 289,500 violent crimes in England and Wales — compared with only 253,000 in the same period in 2002.

This included an 18 per cent increase in homicide and serious wounding, from 10,000 to 11,800.

****** offences also rose eight per cent from 12,900 to 14,000, according to Home Office figures.

Minor woundings, harassment and common assault rocketed from 203,800 offences to 238,000.

There was also a huge 46 per cent jump in the use of replica weapons to 1,815 incidents.

Officials said the way police record crimes and the fact that more people were reporting them explained the rises in the Government figures.

Home Office minister Hazel Blears said: “It is important to put the increases in police recording of violent crime into context.

“We are also encouraging victims to report crimes, especially violent and ****** offences, and we would expect to see a rise in these figures.”

But the Tories blamed Tony Blair and Home Secretary David Blunkett. Leader Michael Howard condemned the rises as “appalling”.

And shadow home secretary David Davis said: “For the Government to describe this as some sort of success shows how bad things have become.

“If Blair or Blunkett think they are winning the war on crime they are living in a different country.”

Another survey revealed yesterday that burglaries by armed and violent intruders have almost doubled in the past ten years.

One household in every 200 now risks the prospect of an armed burglar each year. That is a rise of 79 per cent since 1993, according to Chubb Insurance.

The study followed raids on celebrities like TV’s Cilla Black last year and Chelsea star Juan Sebastian Veron this month.

Criminal psychologist Professor David Canter, author of the report, said: “Aggravated burglary is increasing.

“Non-violent burglaries may be on the decline as home security increases, but this is forcing other violent or career criminals to resort to physical attack to gain access to valuables.”

Britain dominates the top five in the crime league of Western countries, with only Sweden above them.

England and Wales have 10,608 crimes for every 100,000 citizens, followed by Scotland and Northern Ireland with 8,315.

Germany has 7,734, France 6,880 and America — known for violent crime — just 4,157.


Violent crime up by 14%

Violent crime in England and Wales has risen 14%, Home Office figures show.
There were 289,500 violent crimes recorded between July and September last year, compared with 253,000 during the same period in 2002.

But ministers say part of the increase has resulted from new methods in the way police record crimes.

Overall crime rates remained stable, with significant falls in burglaries and vehicle crimes.


Offences of violence against the person rose 17%, serious violence such as killings were up 18%, and serious wounding and ****** offences rose 8%.




Click here to see change in crime rates

But the British Crime Survey - regarded by ministers as a more reliable indicator of trends - suggests violent crime actually dropped 3% in the year to September.

The BCS also indicates a slight fall in overall crime rates over the same period.

There is also evidence that people are less worried about crime than they used to be.

Home Office Minister, Hazel Blears, said changes in police recording procedures introduced in 2002 with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) explained much of the apparent rise in violence.

Better recording, said Ms Blears, meant police forces now had a clearer picture of crime in their areas.

Anti-social behaviour and "low-level thuggery" - both included in violent crime figures - were also more accurately recorded.

"We are also encouraging victims to report crimes, especially violent and ****** offences, and we would expect to see a rise in these figures."

Overall crime 'stable'

According to the BCS, overall crime was down 1% compared to the same quarter in 2002, while burglary, robbery and vehicle crime, fell significantly. The police figures suggested overall crime remained stable.

President of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) Chris Fox said: "It is good news that reported crime generally is not rising, and in many categories continues to fall.

But he said the rise in violent crime remained a "particular concern", although he noted the BCS had suggested a fall in violent offences over the period.

The BCS figures are based on interviews with 36, 854 adults living in private households in England and Wales.

The fieldwork was carried out by BMRB Social Research between October 2002 and September 2003.

'Slowdown' in gun crime

Meanwhile, separate gun crime figures indicate a two per cent increase in firearm offences in the year to March 2003.

The figures came as the Home Office announced that offenders possessing illegal firearms would from now on receive a mandatory five-year prison sentence.

It said the gun crime figures showed "a dramatic slowdown" compared to a 34% increase the previous year.

But they also pointed to a 46% rise in the use of imitation firearms, with 1,815 recorded offences.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39769000/jpg/_39769351_crime.jpg
The British Crime Survey is seen as having the most reliable figures, and is based on interviews with the public
Recorded crime represents incidents reported to the police
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3419401.stm

[Geezah]

Geezah I would also sugest when you are looking for the stastics you also look at how they are collected and the definitions as In the UK we collect crime stastics differently from the USA and use slightly different definitions.
CCW is not the answer there has been CCW in Northern Ireland since the start of the troubles and have spoken to a couple of policemen who have been to shootings that have been where someone with a CCW has spotted someone else with a CCW thought they were under threat and opened fire.
Channel 4 did a series on texas and one of the issues they covered was CCW yes in a country with an obscene number of firearms in free circulation i could see the need for CCW. But it isn't the answer to crime and looking at the High school shootings, snipers in various parts of the country I would sugest America need to look closely at its gun culture along side looking at the causes of crime.

How do you spot someone with CCW when the firearm must be concealed? the whole point of CCW is that you don't know who is carrying so you have a slightly friendlyer society!

Or a society that will become suspicious and paranoid of each other.

So out of the other 45 states that have CCW, everyone's paranoid?, get a grip man I lived in richmond,In for a few years and they've had there CCW for years but I don't remember saying "be careful because that man over there might be a Law Abiding Citizen that's Carrying Concealed!"
In the UK people are are already paranoid!

[Gringo]

How bad the Criminal justice system is a Burgular breaks into your house whilst fumbling about in the dark he falls down the stairs and breaks his leg. He is entitled to sue you the house owner for compensation for his injuries.

Someone really needs to get the head out of the arse on that issue.
It seems they're more interested in catching speeding motorists then anything else.

[Gringo]

Geezah I would also sugest when you are looking for the stastics you also look at how they are collected and the definitions as In the UK we collect crime stastics differently from the USA and use slightly different definitions.
CCW is not the answer there has been CCW in Northern Ireland since the start of the troubles and have spoken to a couple of policemen who have been to shootings that have been where someone with a CCW has spotted someone else with a CCW thought they were under threat and opened fire.
Channel 4 did a series on texas and one of the issues they covered was CCW yes in a country with an obscene number of firearms in free circulation i could see the need for CCW. But it isn't the answer to crime and looking at the High school shootings, snipers in various parts of the country I would sugest America need to look closely at its gun culture along side looking at the causes of crime.

How do you spot someone with CCW when the firearm must be concealed? the whole point of CCW is that you don't know who is carrying so you have a slightly friendlyer society!

Or a society that will become suspicious and paranoid of each other.

So out of the other 45 states that have CCW, everyone's paranoid?, get a grip man I lived in richmond,In for a few years and they've had there CCW for years but I don't remember saying "be careful because that man over there might be a Law Abiding Citizen that's Carrying Concealed!"
In the UK people are are already paranoid!

That is uncalled for. And btw, if americans aren't paranoid why do they need guns?

[Geezah]

This is what happens when governments try to ban guns
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 05/01/2003)


You would think if "gun control" was going to work anywhere it would be on a small island. Particularly a small island at whose ports of entry the zealots of HM Customs like nothing better than performing intimate cavity searches on the off-chance you've got an extra bottle of duty-free Beaujolais tucked away up there. Surely, if you also had a Walther PPK parked out of sight, these exhaustive inspectors would be the first to notice.

But apparently not. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham's New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey. According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. One can query the methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire - draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric property crime.

What happened at that party in Aston? I don't mean "what happened?" in the sense of the piercing analysis of Chief Superintendent Dave Shaw, who concluded: "There has clearly been some sort of dispute which has resulted in people coming to the premises with guns, discharging their weapons and causing this incident." You can't put anything over on these coppers, can you? But my question is directed at the broader meaning of the event. Chief Supt Shaw went on: "We have never had to deal with anything like this. In terms of the nature of the incident, it's almost unprecedented in Birmingham." He didn't quite say Birmingham is one of those bucolic tightly-knit communities where everyone in the village knows everyone else and no one locks their doors, but you get the drift: this is some sort of bizarre aberration.

I think not. When those young men decided to open fire in Birchfield Road, they were making an entirely rational decision. One reason why Chief Supt Shaw has "never had to deal with anything like this" is because Aston was long ago ceded to the gangs. And, if you can deal drugs with impunity and burgle with impunity and assault with impunity and use guns with impunity, who's to say you can't murder with impunity? The West Midlands Police have offered a reward of £1,000 for information leading to the arrest of those involved. Think about that: would you name a known gang member for a thousand quid? Once the funerals have been held and the media's moved on, the constabulary will go back to forgetting about Aston. But you'll still have to live there.

When Dunblane occurred, all of us - even, if they're honest with themselves, the shrieking hysterics baying for pointless legislation - understood it was a freak event: a nut went nuts. It happens, and, when it does, the event has no broader implications. But what happened in Birchfield Road is of wider relevance: it's a glimpse of the day after tomorrow - not just in Aston, but in Edgbaston and Solihull and Leamington Spa.

After Dunblane, the police and politicians lapsed into their default position: it's your fault. We couldn't do anything about him, so we'll do something about you. You had your mobile nicked? You must be mad taking it out. Why not just keep it inside nice and safe on the telephone table? Had your car radio pinched? You shouldn't have left it in the car. House burgled? You should have had laser alarms and window bars installed. You did have laser alarms and window bars but they waited till you were home, kicked the door in and beat you up? You should have an armour-plated door and digital retinal-scan technology. It's your fault, always. The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita on higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven't had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding.

The gangs on Birmingham's streets instinctively understand this. They know, even if the Government doesn't, that the Blairite "total" ban, which sounds so butch and macho when you do your soundbite on the telly, is a cop-out: it makes the general population the target, not the criminals. And once that happens it's always easier to hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than the Yardies with the Uzis. When you disarm the citizenry, when you prosecute them for being so foolish as to believe they have a right to self-defence, when you issue warnings that they should "walk on by" if they happen to see a burglary or rape in progress, the main beneficiaries will obviously be the criminals. Aston is the logical reductio of British policing: rival bad guys with state-of-the-art hardware, a cowed populace, and a remote constabulary tucked up in bed with the answering machine on.

I see I haven't yet mentioned the touchy social factor which even squeamish British Lefties have been forced to confront: Aston is yet more "black-on-black" violence. The reason I haven't mentioned it is because there hardly seems any point. What's new? Canada also had a Dunblane-like massacre, followed by Dunblane-like legislation, and, like Birmingham, boring, bland Toronto has lately been riven by gun violence from - wait for it - Jamaican gangs. But in neither Britain nor Canada is it politically feasible to suggest that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. As it happens, that Canadian massacre, of Montreal female students 12 years ago, was committed by the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, but, although we all claim to be interested in the "root causes" of crime, they tend to involve awkward cultural judgments. It's easier, like Mr Blair, just to go "total": blame everyone, ban everything.

This basic approach of addressing any cultural factors apart from the ones that correlate was pioneered by American progressives. The corpulent provocateur Michael Moore, in his film Bowling for Columbine, currently delighting British audiences, spends an entire feature-length documentary investigating the "culture" of American gun violence without mentioning that blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the population, account for over half the murders (and murder victims, too). Once you factor them out, Americans kill at about the same rate as nancy-boy Canadians.

But, as I said, it's hardly worth mentioning in relation to Britain. In my part of New Hampshire, we're all armed to the hilt and any gangster who fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly ventilated by guys whose pick-ups are better equipped than most EU armies. The right of individual self-defence deters crime, constrains it, prevents it from spreading out of the drug-infested failed jurisdictions. In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem.

Meanwhile, America's traditionally high and England and Wales's traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it.


Taken from AK-47.Net
http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=153919

[Geezah]

[quote:79f83decf2]| Washington University School of Law Home Page | Publications Home Page |
| Quarterly Home Page | Quarterly Issues |

© 1997 by Washington University


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volume 75 Number 3 Fall 1997

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OF HOLOCAUSTS AND GUN CONTROL
Cite as 75 Wash. U. L.Q. 1237
DANIEL D. POLSBY


Don B. Kates, Jr.
This essay seeks to reclaim a serious argument from the lunatic fringe. We argue a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide[1] upon its own people. This notion has received a good deal of disdainful public attention over the past several years because of the Oklahoma City bombing, the "Republic of Texas" siege, and the inflamed subculture from which the defendants in those incidents emerged. Some Americans, it appears, believe that their country is on the verge--if not in the grip--of a virtual coup by a sinister international directorate of Jews, one-worlders, and Trilateralists. For them, acting on this belief means arming oneself and confronting representatives of government with distrust, if not open hostility. By now it is widely appreciated that people with this particular fixation can be extremely dangerous. Yet their delusions take a special bitterness from the fact that something real and terrifying, the problem of genocide, lies in the general direction of their paranoia.

The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people."[2] Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.

Nor should this be altogether surprising. An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenseless. This is not to say that the plans of a government resolved to eradicate an ethnic or political minority would necessarily be precluded by armed resistance. As elsewhere in life, raising the cost of a behavior, whether genocide, smoking cigarettes or anything in between, merely makes that behavior more unusual than it would otherwise be, not impossible for those willing and able to pay the price. No specific form of social organization will ever make genocide or any other evil literally impossible. Nevertheless, because most important questions are matters of degree, it is still worth inquiring into the connection between the virulence of a government and the degree of its effective monopoly on deadly force. And it is especially timely to do so now, in the wake of Oklahoma City, the "Republic of Texas" incident, and the increased public attention these have brought to the enigmatic civic denominations from which these plots evidently emerged, because now the philosophical and historical context that links genocide with the state of civilian arms has tended to become obscured.

Barry Bruce-Briggs pointed out a generation ago that public controversy surrounding weapons control laws degenerates into the venting of raw antagonisms between various factions more often than it matures into creditable public policy research.[3] What gets lost in the contest is a sense of those points that are actually in dispute and those that are not. Virtually every gun control partisan in this country is, like the typical gun owner,[4] a peaceable, educated member of the middle class who wants to put a stop to the mindless violence that has engulfed the streets of American cities.

However, the convictions of gun controllers do differ from those of gun owners in several important ways. First, they make different estimates about the usefulness of firearms for defensive and deterrent purposes. Second, they often differ in how they appraise the morality of using violence against violence. Third and perhaps most important, they are inclined to make very different guesses about how much potential for evil to ascribe to the government of the United States. Few if any of those who are hostile to the institution of an armed civilian populace consider the possibility that our government, with its Constitution, its checks and balances, and its traditions of free speech, civility, and respect for the individual, could ever degenerate into the sort of pitiless totalitarian instrument that has, at one time or another, afflicted most of the peoples of the Old and Third Worlds. The question is whether to label this attitude serenity or insouciance. Whichever it is, the fact remains that from time to time, genocides and other extreme forms of tyranny do occur, even in the midst of high civilization.

In our view, the failure to acknowledge the prospect of rogue government represents a serious failure of imagination. Trusting in the free press and the right to petition government to redress grievances, firearms abolitionists do not envision a world in which satanic rather than benevolent bureaucrats possess the effective monopoly of the means of force. Their gaze is not on more-or-less probable future worlds in which civil atrocities could become just one more idiom of political discourse, but on the world here and now, where criminals and lunatics find it all too easy to acquire powerful weapons and reasons to use them.

We argue that there is a great deal more to weapons policy than some sort of cost-benefit calculation of firearms' crime control benefits versus public health costs. The larger point, that no one who has lived through the greater part of the twentieth century may conscientiously disregard, is that sometimes people in power behave like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong rather than like President Clinton. Of course public policy must acknowledge that exceptional brutality is indeed exceptional rather than commonplace. But it is senseless to pretend that what has happened many times before cannot possibly happen again. Sound policy makes allowances for even remote contingencies when they are grave enough, and denies opportunity to predators whenever it can.

Hence, notwithstanding that it is hindsight, one may well reproach the liberal, democratic Weimar Republic and its successors for disarming the German people in the hope of taking back the streets from the right- and left-wing brawlers of the 1920s and 1930s. National Socialists had nothing to do with these firearms confiscations, but once in office, it suited them that Germany's laws left decisions concerning gun ownership to the administrative discretion of police or military authorities. The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures.[5]


GUN CONTROL AND GENOCIDE
In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect. Combat carried on barehanded or with swords, pikes, clubs and the like, generally results in the weaker, less numerous party surrendering whatever their adversary demands, what Spencer called the "ceaseless devouring of the weak by the strong."[6] However, defenders armed with guns can often repulse a numerically stronger aggressor who possess only lesser weapons.[7] When all parties have guns, the defensive advantage of firearms diminishes but does not give way altogether. Firearms, even in the hands of the weak, pose a credible threat of death if fired. Consequently there remains a deterrent effect against aggression which is far greater than that of manual weapons only. And even if both aggressor and defender have guns, an attack carries a far greater risk of death than if both were armed with weapons other than firearms. Of course it is easy to imagine circumstances in which the prospective cost of aggression may be very low despite the fact that the victim has a gun--for example, attack by ambush. On the other hand, the presence of firearms on both sides of a contest often allows weaker victims to overcome aggressors without significant loss to themselves. For instance, marauders attacking a house or town have often been defeated by a far outnumbered party of defenders armed with guns, whereas hand-to-hand combat invariably favors the stronger company.

When victims have guns, the overwhelming advantage otherwise enjoyed by physically superior or more numerous aggressors is diminished. One (usually unintended) consequence of an effective ban on citizen firearms ownership is to weaken the weak and strengthen the strong relative to one another. It is not embellishment to call this effect a "cause" of genocide, because it foreseeably expedites this outcome by lowering the costs of predation. In practical effect, moreover, the matter is even more stark, because gun bans are never universal. By definition they do not operate on people whom government illegally supplies with guns such as government officials.[8]

To summarize: from the point of view of any aggressor, it is desirable if not essential that intended victims not possess weapons, especially firearms. This principle holds true whether the subject is a gangster premeditating a crime or a government planning a genocide. This is an inherently dangerous incentive structure. It seems to us indefensible to fail to acknowledge its potential for mischief even if at the end of the day one decides that "tyranny" is too remote an evil, and an armed citizenry as a means of avoiding this evil too feeble, to repay its cost in accidental or unjustifiable bloodshed. We discuss these questions presently, but we turn first to a threshold question.

It is a controversial point whether, in the circumstances of modern life, private persons should ever be conceded a privilege to shed blood. As we discuss below, the common law as well as the statutes of every state permit the private use of deadly force when necessary for self-protection. However, it appears to be the considered view of many reputable people that this forbearance is obsolete if not depraved. Furthermore, many gun owners seem to support keeping firearms less as a crime-fighting tool than as a political statement about individual sovereignty and the value of self-rule. It is therefore necessary to elucidate the legal and moral status both of fearful householders and proto-insurrectionists who assert the right to possess firearms.


SELF-DEFENSE AND BARBARISM
A preoccupation with stripping civilians of military weaponry, including even some utterly cosmetic attributes of military arms, is one of the dominant ideological strains in the American gun control movement. The idea is that defensive firearms ownership by laymen is alienating and dangerous, and therefore must be banned as part of what has been called the "civilizing process."[9] Garry Wills, one of the country's most distinguished historians, has argued


Mutual protection should be the aim of citizens, not individual self-protection. Until we are willing to outlaw the very existence or manufacture of handguns we have no right to call ourselves citizens or consider our behavior even minimally civil. There is something obscene about a person's appeal to our basic social contract to justify [this] anti-social behavior [i.e., defensive gun ownership].[10]
It is questionable, however, whether individual and collective defense can be divided so nicely. The idea of general deterrence often assumes that these values are intertwined: "my safety" and "the community's safety" overlap substantially. Vindicating the rights of individuals by force means imposing costs on a wrongdoer; placing oneself in a position to put wrongdoers at risk benefits private citizens by ensuring individual security and the public by making wrongdoing more costly.[11] Yet on the commanding heights of our popular culture there remains an abiding reserve of disbelief in the notion that private and public security might be connected. In fact, just the opposite principle is widely accepted. For example, Betty Friedan has called the trend of women buying guns "a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism."[12] She believes "that lethal violence even in self-defense only engenders more lethal violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety."[13]

The Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church takes the point a step further, stating that women have a Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the rapist's life. "Is the Robber My Brother?" the Board's official publication asks rhetorically, to which it rhetorically answers "yes": although the burglary victim or the "woman accosted in the park by a rapist is not likely to consider the violator to be a neighbor whose safety is of immediate concern . . . , [c]riminals are members of the larger community no less than are others. As such they are our neighbors or, as Jesus put it, our brothers. . . ."[14] (Let it be noted that the Board is the founder of the Coalition to Stop Gun violence, formerly known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, the country's premier anti-gun advocacy group, with which it still shares offices.)

If individual and collective security are antithetical, if violence does in fact beget more violence, if the welfare of wrongdoers and innocents occupy the same moral footing, then it follows that firearms, and for that matter weapons of any kind, should not be used for self defense. They should be used, if at all, for recreation, and security concerns should be left in the hands of professionals. As James Brady, the White House Press Secretary shot during John Hinckley's attempt on President Reagan's life, told an interviewer (in response to the question whether any handguns should be considered permissible): "For target shooting, that's okay. . . . Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments."[15] His wife, Handgun Control, Inc., chairperson Sarah Brady, says "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes."[16] One of the earliest and most active anti-gun organizers, University of Chicago Pritzker Medical School Professor Robert Replogle, has testified to Congress in a similar manner: "The only legitimate use of a handgun that I can understand is for target shooting."[17]

To lawyers steeped in the defense-privileging traditions of common law, these accounts of right conduct seem curious, so lest they be considered mere offhand remarks rather than a thought-out view of the matter, we quote Professor Wills as to why "individual self protection" is in and of itself a form of "anti-social behavior": "Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other. Those who do not trust their own people become predators upon their own people. The sick thing is that haters of fellow Americans often think of themselves as patriots."[18]

Professor Wills, resonating the views of a large and influential constituency, asserts that not seeking to possess the means of self-defense is a defining element of civilized life. Good citizens should depend instead on the military and police for their physical safety. The mere desire to defend hearth and home counts "among the worst instincts in the human character."[19] The ownership of firearms for defensive purposes is "vigilantism,"[20] a usurpation by citizens of what should be the exclusive prerogative of the collective power, "anarchy, not order under law--a jungle where each relies on himself for survival."[21] It follows, many gun control activists argue, that there ought to be a national gun licensing program, which would assign to whomever sought to own a gun a burden of explaining the reason. The need or desire to defend oneself or one's neighbors would not be counted as an acceptable reason to own a firearm.[22]

If these views are driven by a pacifist phenomenology (e.g., "violence only begets violence"), one hesitates to offer criticism because they are planted more firmly in faith than in empiricism. In the empirical world, however, what one finds is irregular and more complicated. Defensive violence does sometimes seem to provoke an attacker to commit more violence, but not always and not usually. Quite often violence subdues violence. It is apparent, for example, that when intended victims resist robbers or rapists with firearms, they are only half as likely to be injured as those who submit, and are much less likely to be robbed or raped.[23] There is evidence also that the mere prospect of encountering an armed victim deters criminal attack,[24] and that criminals who encounter armed victims usually run away without a shot being fired.[25] Hence it is overdrawn to say that violence is wrong (or "obscene") without reference to whether violence is lawful or unlawful. Even so, Professor Wills's argument denies that such a distinction is meaningful. Because he sees defense of self and others as a literal contradiction, the choice of "self" comes at the expense of "others," and amounts to barbarism. However, it is far from obvious that any such contradiction exists. When a police officer uses lawful violence to subdue unlawful violence, one does not think of barbarism. Why should it be any different if a civilian does the same?

A more troubling aspect of Wills's position, however, is that it gives little weight to the dark side of the communitarian force of radical whose temperate side Professor Wills has been among our country's foremost champions.[26] Time after time in recent history this dark side has materialized to assert that the demands of community, Volk, party, state, tribe, race, or some other collective abstraction, should be placed before those of any individual. It does not disparage democratic government to question whether the authentic road to a gentle life is one on which only sworn officers of the state are entitled to arms. The counterexamples to this proposition are too pointed to ignore. Trust of "the law . . . your representatives . . . your fellow citizens," uplifting though it sounds, has furnished scant consolation to tens of millions of victims of official terror. Quite evidently some balancing principle is required. Finding this balance, far from being the hobbyhorse of right-wing lunatics, has actually been one of the central projects of Western political philosophy.[27]

It is hardly a secret that lawful governments sometimes do grotesque things, quite often to popular acclaim. One thinks, for example, of the Kristallnacht. On November 9, 1937, German mobs perpetrated a nationwide "spontaneous uprising" against the Jews, assaulting and killing hundreds of people, smashing shops and homes, burning synagogues, and inflicting losses of over one billion Reichmarks.[28] The constitutional government of that place--what in some theories would be called the "virtual representatives"[29] of the Jews--immediately swung into action. Calculating that one billion Reichsmarks of damage claims might prostrate the German insurance industry, the government canceled the Jews' insurance coverage by decree and then fined them one billion Reichsmarks for the nuisance that resulted from the destruction of their property.[30] Where were the police? "I refuse the notion that the police are protective troops for Jewish stores," said Hermann Goering, who was then chief of the German national police. "The police protect whoever comes into Germany legitimately, but not Jewish usurers."[31]

Though it may be an extreme example, the Holocaust draws into question precisely the problem of relying exclusively and simply on "the law . . . your representatives . . . your fellow citizens." Professor Robert Burt put the matter poignantly:


[H]ow we can rely on our government, on our fellow citizens, on our neighbors; how we can rely on anyone who today seems at least tolerant, and maybe even friendly, but tomorrow might turn on us with murderous rage just because we are Jews or African Americans or Bosnian Muslims or Irish Protestants or mentally disabled or whatever? [One lesson of the Holocaust may be] . . . that our government, our neighbors, our friends of today, can quickly and easily become our assassins of tomorrow.[32]
Professor Burt was not discussing firearms ownership but the movie Schindler's List; however, his statement of the problem is convincing. Here we have a feature of the abiding condition of social human beings. What to do? What did Schindler do when he was finally able to free "his" Jews? "[H]e handed them all semiautomatic firearms so they could fight the Nazis"[33]--their lawful government. Was this a barbarism?

To judge from Professor Wills's appreciation of the problem, one might suppose that the primary axis of disagreement between the argument for popular armament versus popular disarmament is one of social values--a dispute pitting quixotic and not altogether civilized cowboys-postulant (or the ******ly anxious or "angry white males" or some other condescending stereotype) against the virtuous forces of orderly social life.

The planted assumption is that an armed society is a violent society, and a disarmed society is a non-violent society. This premise is empirically shaky and philosophically incomplete. It does not in fact pose what is genuinely a contest of norms--martial values versus the values of peace--but a contest between different understandings of social cause and effect. Furthermore, it makes the mistake of assuming that an armed population exemplifies "an implicit declaration of war on one's neighbor."[34]

There is no serious argument for conflict-filled life as a social ideal. The argument for a widely armed citizenry holds the opposite ideal: a social equilibrium of nonviolence. "Individualists," "communitarians" and "none of the above" should all be able to agree at a minimum on this much: it is an empirical question what distribution of firearms does in fact tend to social peace. It is not in fact true that a world without guns must be a world without violence. Nonviolence was not the characteristic state of the world before there were guns,[35] and it is not the characteristic state of the world now in places where access to guns is practically or legally restricted.

The absence of firearms is not inconsistent with orderly public life, nor is it a necessary or a sufficient condition of social peace. It is a condition that can and sometimes does lend itself to catastrophe. Whether one considers the matter abstractly as one of theory or concretely as one of experience, universal disarmament in the municipal sphere is no more an encouraging road to communal amity and concord than universal disarmament in an international sphere is an antidote to war.

It is tendentious, moreover, to insist that "individualist" and "communitarian" ideas are antithetical with respect to civilian armament. The argument for an armed citizenry is not to further the project of making of war on one's neighbor with arms but to cooperate with one's neighbor in the use of arms. The Constitution's Second Amendment, for example, is decidedly of this cast of mind. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Second Amendment contemplates that the militia--"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"--will, when called, "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."[36]

The peculiar utility of firearms is to make the weak relatively stronger, to deter attack by raising its potential cost, and to lower the expected cost of altruistic interventions. Curiously, these propositions are completely uncontroversial applied to police, which is why we allow, and often require, police officers to carry guns.[37] The question is why the same reasoning should not apply to the population generally. The usual answer to this question is that an armed citizenry would mistake every bush for a bear, every stranger's unexplained movement for a threat, and would shoot indiscriminately. The whole world would become a shooting gallery, as in the Wild West of the penny-dreadfuls. We now turn to considering the plausibility of this line of reasoning.


AT AN ACCEPTABLE COST?
Even if an armed populace serves as a deterrent to the most extreme abuses of state power, it would still be rational policy to disarm the people if the benefits of doing so outweighed the costs. Tyranny, after all, though a very great evil, is one that lies dormant in a possible future and does not subsist today. The cost of tyranny must be discounted by the probability of its occurrence. Accidents with firearms and ordinary wrongdoing--murders, suicides, robberies and so on--are lesser evils than genocide, but unlike some atrocity-****e government of the imaginable future, they are not contingent, but with us in the here and now. Accordingly, it is necessary to give some account the role the availability of firearms plays in rendering America, in comparison to many other parts of the world, a wild and woolly place.

In recent years this question has been the central one in gun control debates. The subject is far too involved to allow adequate treatment here, but a few words are necessary.[38] The organized American medical profession in particular has sought to establish as a fact beyond serious conversation that guns "cause" high murder and suicide rates in much the same way that cigarettes "cause" lung cancer.[39] In this endeavor, they have been abetted by the indefatigable sagecraft of most of the nation's principal newspapers, few if any of which have ever acknowledged the legitimacy of civilian firearms possession for other than recreational activities. Nevertheless, despite periodic outbursts of press-release advocacy announcing that the latest science from the scientists at such-and-such university has at last established that firearms are indeed the proximate cause of a horrific public health crisis, the conversation continues.

The causes of crime and suicide are not completely understood. Undeniably, the murder rate in this country (both perpetration and victimization) increased rapidly among teenagers, especially among minorities, from 1983 to 1992.[40] However, firearms are not "more accessible" to today's adolescents than they were to yesterday's. In fact, until 1968 anyone in this country could readily mail-order Army surplus .45 automatic pistols, German Lugers, high-powered semi-automatic rifles, or even trench mortars and bazookas, along with ammunition for all. Munitions of all sorts other than fully automatic weapons (which have been banned since the mid-1930s) could be purchased anonymously by anyone who would check a box on a mailing coupon that said "I am 21 years old or older." Despite this laisser faire regime, in the twenty years following the end of World War II, America's crime rates, including its murder rate, were much lower than today.[41]

Although firearms are not more "accessible" today than in the past, they are certainly more numerous. The increase in the civilian stock of firearms, and handguns in particular, has been continuous for generations.[42] Of course a number of countries with tight legal restrictions on civilians' access to firearms, in particular England and Japan, enjoy very low murder rates.[43] Yet it is also true that some other countries with similarly exacting restrictions (for example Mexico, South Africa, and Russia) have very high murder rates.[44] Furthermore, some countries with civilian firearms access comparable to or even greater than that in the United States (such as Switzerland, Israel, and New Zealand) have very low murder rates.[45] Some of the highest suicide rates in the world are found in countries where firearms are hardest to come by, including Japan, Hungary, and Romania,[46] and some of the lowest suicide rates are found in sub-populations that suffer from some of the highest murder rates, for example, African-Americans males between fourteen and thirty-five years of age, which have relatively easy, though usually unlawful, access to firearms.[47] It weakens any argument for weapons restrictions if such complexities are not acknowledged and probed to reveal what they might intimate.

A recent batch of state legislation, relaxing the standards for civilians carrying concealed weapons offers yet a further challenge to the Wild West hypothesis. The experience from the field in these places seems to disprove the notion that armed civilians behave like movie cowboys. Thirty-one states have relatively permissive rules regulating the carrying of concealed handguns, and among them over two million residents possess concealed permits. Scholars have sharply disagreed whether these laws have a detectable crime-fighting (that is to say, general deterrent) effect. John Lott and David Mustard, examining a set of nationwide, county-by-county data over a period of fifteen years, found large reductions in confrontational crimes and large increases in non-confrontational crimes associated with the adoption of these laws.[48] Some other scholars, such as Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, have argued that the Lott-Mustard results are a statistical artifact: the claimed deterrent effect operates unevenly from one place to another so that if one removes the Florida data from the set, the regression equations depicting the experience of the nation as a whole no longer show a convincing crime-fighting effect, at least not an immediate one.[49] Whatever the merits of the Black-Nagin point, however, there is not an obvious attraction to excerpting from nationwide data the experience of the fourth most populous state. In any case, even Black and Nagin concede that after a lag of four or more years, there is a strong correlation between liberalized carry-concealed laws and declining rates of confrontational crime.[50] Yet rehearsing the intricacies of this ongoing debate, however, deflects attention from the main point. What is most important for present purposes, after what must have been millions of additional person-hours of public gun-toting, is that there has been not a single reported instance of an "O.K. Corral" scenario involving a lawfully carried concealed handgun. In fact, jurisdictions with more relaxed concealed-carry laws have experienced falling murder rates.[51]

This deluge of anomalies in the firearms-violence causation story bears witness to the complexity of the problem of violence, but it is safe to say that the problem with firearms in our society is not a supply-led but rather a demand-led phenomenon. The abuse of firearms by private citizens is rare except in certain sub-populations and, among the American population as a whole, is actually declining.[52]

Falling crime rates and increasingly widespread civilian gun ownership are not only theoretically compatible, but are currently being seen. In short, the collateral costs associated with having an armed populace are not necessarily large, and are by no means obviously greater than the deterrent benefits.


REVOLUTION AND RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY
Locke called tyranny "the exercise of Power beyond Right,"[53] and thought that in some circumstances it gave rise to a right of revolution.[54] The rendition of this precept into policy is fraught with difficulty, especially since the Oklahoma City bombing has drawn public attention to the existence of a number of individuals who possess a stunning sense of grievance toward the federal government and are content to act out their fury by shedding the blood of innocents. When one speaks of a generally armed population making tyranny less probable by making it more costly, what one has in mind is a credible threat of armed resistance to agents of the government. This lethal contingency is in fact the very substance of the deterrence principle.

Reasoning from the deterrence of tyrants, therefore, one inescapably encounters the norm that, at least under some circumstances, it must be permissible to kill soldiers or police officers who are simply following orders--something like a right of revolution. This entailment of the argument deservedly poses the highest hurdle to dispassionate argument about civilian weapons policy. People arming themselves in order to rebel against the government? We have been down that road before with the Weather Underground and Symbionese Liberation Army of yesteryear and the unhinged survivalists and racial supremacists of the present day. Americans do not need to be reminded that paramilitary shtick is no passing fad, but the accustomed fashion statement of the profoundly alienated. There appears to be a constant supply of people at the margins of society who consider themselves to be soldiers and patriots who regard their country's government as tyrannical, its residents expendable, and its institutions of democracy contemptible. Legislators can hardly be expected to ignore the existence of these individuals when establishing rules to govern firearms possession and use in society, because in the contemplation of law, sturdy Jeffersonian yeomen and fey skinheads stand essentially in the same shoes until they differentiate themselves by behavior--by which time some life or lives will be beyond saving.

At the same time, however, the question of what rights people have against a de facto government (even including a right to revolution) ought not to be resolved, and in any event cannot practically be resolved, by reference to the proclivities of three-standard-deviation wackos. The challenge is to articulate some defensible middle ground that makes sense of an armed population as a deterrent to tyranny without tacitly shaking hands with domestic terrorists.

It is too much to ask that a constitutional order be indifferent to armed rebellion. But some recognition must be given to the possibility that the offices and power of the state are capable of being used in ways beyond the corrupt or distasteful, ways extreme and completely at odds with the natural rights the Constitution has always been thought to secure. Thinking of an armed populace as a deterrent to tyranny should not lead one to regard violent right- (or left-) wing desperados as patriots rather than criminals. One should rather think of the problem of lawful government itself falling to a coup or virtual coup at the hands of the same sort of extremists, as has happened so often in other places, for example by disaffected military officers or civilian demagogues with contempt for the substance or even the forms of democratic conversation.

As we discuss at length below, when such apprehensions are broached, the usual retort is, "It can't happen here."[55] We ask, why can't it? One reason why such a risk is low in the American context is our latticework of institutional stops, which has always included an armed civilian population as one of its elements, that would make it very difficult for anything like such a project to succeed. Plans with an obviously poor chance of success are less likely to be laid in the first place, and will be less likely to attract the collaboration of conspirators.

The essence of deterrence is not, after all, to deal with trouble once it starts, but to keep it from starting in the first place. Fair enough to criticize the lout on the next barstool (or for that matter the teacher in the next classroom) for tirades--common enough in recent years--against the President, Congress, or the entire political order. But one cannot reason that an American tyranny is impossible simply from the fact that overwrought judgments on this subject are commonly and casually made, often by people who should know enough to weigh their words before speaking. The principle that justifies armed resistance to tyranny does not equally justify armed resistance to a government for which one feels mere or even profound disgust.

Common law recognizes the right of an innocent to defend himself or others with force, lethal if necessary, even against officers of the state. It goes without saying that this right is narrowly bounded. The common law never considers an amount of force reasonable when a defender could reasonably use less,[56] nor does it permit the use of deadly force except when the person seeks to protect himself or someone else from being killed or subjected to a forcible felony such as rape, robbery or kidnapping. There is also no privilege to resist a lawful arrest by lethal force or even by non-violent means such as flight. If an officer possesses a warrant (even if the warrant should later turn out to be invalid) or if he believes, though mistakenly, that he has observed a subject committing a crime, arrest is lawful and resistance unlawful. The officer may use deadly force if necessary to subdue the suspect and may even shoot a suspect who runs away if there are reasonable (though mistaken) grounds to fear that the suspect may be dangerous.

The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code sets out what is undoubtedly the correct rule in the vast majority of cases: a subject arrested even wrongly by a person whom he knows to be a police officer must simply surrender.[57] Misunderstandings can be sorted out later with a magistrate or supervisor. No one needs to get hurt, and unlike the case with muggers or street criminals, it will almost always be possible for a wronged suspect at least to identify the officer who supposedly wronged him. The common law is parsimonious with blood. Immediate, deadly solutions to problems are forbidden where eventual, verbal solutions might reasonably be substituted.

The rule is different where a subsequent peaceable solution of a problem is out of the question. If a gang of police officers mistakenly (or maliciously) surrounds a house and tries to shoot rather than arrest a suspect, it is in theory lawful for him to defend himself. Recognizing this proposition involves no more than acknowledging that peace officers may exceed their own privilege to use deadly force, and that when they act without privilege, they may be resisted.[58] This is not all an exception to the general principle, but merely a recognition that sometimes, albeit rarely, an innocent who does not return fire may be killed before the mistake (or the conspiracy, as it may be) can be corrected.

The problems that attend the use of deadly force in this context are ultimately no different from the general legal problem of defensive force. The privilege arises from necessity and is lawful if used within reason. The rules of common law depend on the particular and specific facts of each case, and the concept of due process of law is a broad commitment to weighing particular and specific facts, in context, before passing judgment on a person's actions.

It is an esoteric question, one that seldom finds facts that make it real, whether it is unconditionally the case, as the Model Penal Code holds, that a person is obliged to yield to what he knows to be a good-faith effort to arrest him. The most extreme circumstances in which this question can arise implicate the right of revolution. It may seem unintelligible to speak of a "right" of revolution arising under a Constitution meant to establish domestic tranquillity; indeed, revolution is scarcely coherent with the idea of constitutionalism itself. The Constitution provides for how it may be amended, and government thus transfigured. Even if Article V is not the "exclusive" route to amendment that it pretends to be (as some prominent legal scholars have contended),[59] it would be hard to rationalize "non-peaceable amendment" in the United States, a democratic concern going well into its third century of existence. Moreover, the precedent of the Civil War--the War of the Rebellion as it is officially called--ought to count for something. The legalistic basis of that war was the supposed right of sovereign states to withdraw at will from a "union" into which they had originally entered voluntarily. The war may be argued to have put that claim to rest, so that it might be thought that there is no right under the Constitution of states or citizens to annul the authority of the Constitution by extra-constitutional means.

Yet surely this interpretation goes too far. Our Constitution is, after all, only a second draft (the Articles of Confederation were the first) of an organic document for American political society. It is altogether permissible (if not necessarily wise) to think of a third or subsequent draft more nearly suited to the conditions of third millenium life. There is, in other words, a supraconstitutional entity in which the Constitution is embedded and from which it draws its authority. It is perfectly circular to think that the Constitution legitimates itself, for the authority of a constitution, ours or any, is inevitably extra-constitutional.[60] The Declaration of Independence supports the principle that at a minimum legitimacy requires the "consent of the governed" (the Constitution's "We the people"). Other constitutional orders have different legitimating conventions, for example, the will of God, the Mandate of Heaven, or the dictates of prudence, but all share the attribute of extra-constitutionality. If the Constitution itself is legal, there must be some sort of right to establish legal constitutions extra-constitutionally--in short, a right of legal revolution.

Granted a constitutional order cannot at once assert its own lawfulness and yet confess that it might be terminable by means and for reasons other than, and antipathetic to, its own. But peaceable amendment itself assumes a functioning constitutional system. What if the system has broken down or has been destroyed? This has not happened in America, but it is a long way from "has not" to "cannot." And in the eyes of the Founders, at least, the right to resist tyranny ("the exercise of power beyond right") entailed nothing like a contradiction of the premise of constitutionalism; to the contrary, it was thought of as a principal mainstay of organized constitutional government.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of, and purports to rest upon, a number of familiar substantive axioms, most of them taken straight from Locke,[61] about the moral nature of human beings and the purposes of government. All men are created equal; they are endowed with inalienable rights by a Creator; governments are instated to protect these rights; governments that become destructive of this end may rightly be supplanted. But there is much more to the Declaration than a manifesto about rights, their origins, and negotiability. If we attach significance to the Founders' effort to articulate a justification for their political actions, the Declaration also incorporates a nucleus of adjective propositions that suggest what might be thought of as a code of revolutionary procedure. By parsing that argument as a series of interrelated declarative propositions, it becomes evident that the sort of revolution that Locke described as a right--at least as Jefferson and his compatriots seem to have understood Locke--was very remote from anything resembling Nietzsche's will to power, but was rather meant as a resuscitation of natural law principles that the sovereign no longer would honor, and that had to be restored. This was revolution as a putting back rather than as a casting down. Americans, Gordon Wood wrote of the time of the founding, "sincerely believed they were not creating new rights or new principles prescribed only by what ought to be, but saw themselves claiming `only to keep their old privileges,' the traditional rights and principles of all Englishmen, sanctioned by what they though had always been."[62]

Five elements can be drawn from Locke's writings that distinguish lawful revolutions from mere barbarism. It may be useful to examine these five requirements in detail.

1. A lawful revolution involves decent respect for the opinions of mankind. It is hard to imagine Lenin or Robespierre admitting to any such prerequisite, and indeed it is a good question why a revolutionary party should consider itself to be bound to any form of decency or the need to pay respect to any opinions other than its own. Surely the reasoning goes beyond the prudential desirability of enlisting international opinion when striking militarily at an established sovereign. Locke argued that the "testimony of others' experience" is one of the most important ways we have of ascertaining truth.[63] Hence the opinions of others matter because they increase the certainty that causes justifying revolution are in fact present. Steven Shapin argues that to seventeenth-century British intellectuals, "truth" in the scientific and philosophical sense, and "decency" in the sense of "the way in which proper gentlemen behave," were intricately connected.[64] It is not inordinate to describe the American Revolution as a revolution of gentlemen, displaying both the manners and epistemology of gentlemen. [65]

2. Revolution is the lawful right, not of "persons" but of "the people." This carries forward Locke's argument that self defense as part of the law of nature is good even as against the king, but that it is "the Privilege of the People in general, above what any private person hath; That particular Men are allowed . . . to have no other Remedy but Patience; but the Body of the People may with Respect resist intolerable Tyranny[.]"[66] For Locke, the troublesome abstract problem of how justifiable individual grievance commutes into a right of revolution was resolved by the practical reality that


[if tyranny] reach no farther than some private Mens cases, though they have a right to defend themselves, and to recover by force, what by unlawful force is taken from them; yet the Right to do so, will not easily engage them in a Contest, wherein they are sure to perish; it being as impossible for one or a few oppressed Men to disturb the Government, where the Body of the People do not think themselves concerned in it, as for a raving mad Man, or heady Male-content to overturn a well-settled State; the People being as little apt to follow one, as the other.[67]
3. To be lawful, a revolution must be justified by reasoning. It is not enough simply to have good reasons; those reasons must be declared and defended. This core norm of the common law tradition embodies several values. Most obviously, reasoning informs and persuades others and hence evinces a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. Reasoning also attempts to assure that the decision possesses some sort of regular, impersonal character, thus drawing on "rule-of-law" values such as treating like cases in a like manner, allowing the making of plans, and so on. Beyond those first-order qualities, the process of reasoning also evokes what might be called the spirit of heedfulness, which embraces the perplexity of human judgment and thus acknowledges the need for rational checks on that judgment.

4. A lawful revolution cannot be provoked by some transient cause but must be based on "a long train of abuses, and usurpations" by the established government. This principle is obviously based on Locke's observation that the oppression of this person or that person might be mere bad government and not tyranny, which would engage the interest of the whole people.[68] Yet, "a long train of Abuses, Prevarications, and Artifices, all tending the same way" might make the government's tyrannical design "visible to the People," so that they "should then rouze themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands, which may secure to them the ends for which Government was at first erected[.]"[69]

5. A lawful revolution requires that adequate notice and opportunity for remonstrance if not reform shall have been given to the established government, and that non-revolutionary means of redressing grievances first shall have been exhausted. This is the notion that force can be justified only in the last resort. With this still-vigorous common law principle Locke strongly agreed:


[W]here the injured Party may be relieved, and his damages repaired by Appeal to the Law, there can be no pretence for Force, which is only to be used, where a Man is intercepted from appealing to the Law. For nothing is to be accounted Hostile Force, but where it leaves not the remedy for such an Appeal. And `tis such Force alone, that puts him that uses it into a state of War, and makes it lawful to resist him.[70]
Active and passive hostility toward established government are not the same thing. Jeffrey Snyder has stressed the importance of the Lockean distinction to be drawn between noncompliance (secret or open) with unjust laws and the use of violence as a means of resistance.[71] It is one thing to disobey the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, by running an Underground Railway or to disobey the military conscription laws by burning one's draft card, but violence against others may be used only to prevent violence to oneself, never as a means of coercing a change in the laws or the government. Coercion and consent are mutually exclusive; it is self-contradiction to speak of "coerced consent," and unintelligible to speak of a government deriving just powers by means of consent coerced from the governed.

The Declaration's procedural criteria for legitimate revolution are arguably more noteworthy than its substantive account of legitimate government and fundamental rights. If the Oklahoma City bombing or the acts of other latter-day revolutionists compels a rethinking of the right of revolution in modern context, it is apropos to consider whether the actions of contemporary domestic insurgent movements could pass the Lockean test of political obligation, by which Jefferson and the others evidently considered themselves bound. The American Revolution involved few acts of what we should call terrorism, and indeed involved nothing like an ordinary civil war.[72] Loyalists, for the most part, simply fled, to "Hell, Hull or Halifax."[73] Those who remained voluntarily abandoned one sovereignty and embraced another. If ever there was meaning to the notion that "the people" could be author of a sovereign transformation, the American revolution illustrates it.[74]

We can hardly compare the behavior of our Founders to that of modern radical insurgents, whose idea of political dialogue consists of bombing government buildings and indiscriminately taking and jeopardizing innocents' lives without warning or remorse. To paraphrase Professor Elaine Scarry, it is as misguided to try to understand the right of revolution by reflecting on the Oklahoma City bombing as to try to come to know the freedom of speech by reflecting on ****ography.[75]


IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE
To many Americans, genocide seems so remote a contingency that the relevance of policies meant to constrain it can simply be dismissed out of hand. This is one aspect of the theory of American exceptionalism--the idea that we Americans are different from and perhaps better than the other members of the human race. One is entitled to be skeptical whether this self-conceit is sound, especially given that one of the more terrifying aspects of genocide has been its prevalence among civilized, educated, cultured people. A reality check is in order for Americans who reflexively dismiss the relevance of genocide to their lives.

Consider a thought experiment suggested by Professor Robert Cottrol. Let us travel by some means back in time to the year 1900, and there convene a committee of the most exalted thinkers from all over the world. We inform them that within fifty years a great and cultured nation will try to exterminate, with near success, one of its most important ethnic, racial, or religious minorities. We now ask them to forecast who the victim group and the perpetrator nation will be. Would any predict the Holocaust?

It is hard to see why anyone would. Jews as a likely victim group might have been foreseen, though other candidates would surely have ranked higher. As for potential perpetrators, surely the United States would have been high on the list, what with that proverbial culture of guns and violence that Europeans find so quaint, to say nothing of our many minorities--immigrant, indigenous and racial. Germany, the homeland of music, philosophy, mathematics, public sanitation, environmentalism, physical culture, social security, and the rule of law could hardly have figured at all.[76]

We Americans have had, arguably, some close encounters with genocide-like outrages. In the last century, various Indian massacres, such as the "battles" of Wa****a and Sand Creek,[77] were publicly celebrated as glorious feats of arms. Only in very recent times have official ceremonial markers on these sites been emended to reflect what really happened, a concession not to political correctness but to ordinary devotion to the truths of the past. One hopes the old plaques have been kept in a museum somewhere as a testament to the purblindness of which public opinion is capable.

A more recent example furnishes at least as ominous an example. On May 15, 1942, a proclamation was issued on the orders of Lieutenant General J.L. DeWitt of the Northern California Sector of the Western Defense Command that required one hundred thousand American citizens of Japanese descent to report to depots for transfer to detention camps. As a result of doing so, they lost, along with their freedom, property with a value in the billions of dollars-- all their businesses, virtually all their personal property of any importance, and much of their realty. American policy was based on wartime fear of a poorly-understood minority group that was deemed disloyal. Fearing sabotage, espionage, and other "Fifth Column" activities elsewhere in the hemisphere, the United States even urged Central and South American governments to round up their own Japanese nationals and ship them to the United States for internment here.[78]

Genocide was neither the intent nor the result of this policy. But what if the terrible defeats suffered by American forces at Pearl Harbor and for half a year thereafter had continued beyond the Battle of Midway?

Midway was meant to be, and in fact was the decisive battle of the Pacific war. There, in June of 1942, thirteen hundred miles northwest of Hawaii, the Imperial Navy marshaled a powerful aircraft carrier task force with the intention of inflicting a terminal calamity on what was left of the United States Pacific Fleet after Pearl Harbor. As it turned out, it was the Japanese who suffered the calamity, from which they never recovered. It could easily have been otherwise and nearly was. If the Japanese had won that battle, Hawaii would certainly have fallen. Admiral Yamamoto, the commander-in-chief of the Imperial Fleet, had already ordered plans to this effect to be prepared as early as 1942, according to the historian Gerhard Weinberg.[79] The entire West Coast, with thousands of miles of undefended beaches and dozens of coastal cities, would have been laid open to raids and shelling, if not invasion by Japanese soldiers, who had regularly shown themselves to be capable of the most outrageous brutality toward every civilian population that came under their control. The War Ministry in Tokyo in fact had ambitions even greater than Yamamoto's. It wanted to take over all of Alaska and Western Canada as well as Washington State, Central America, Colombia, and the major islands of the Caribbean, along with Australia, New Zealand, and most of the littoral lands of the western Pacific and eastern Indian Oceans.[80]

One should consider the effect had the war unfolded thus instead of the steady diet of success enjoyed by American forces at Midway and after that placated Americans' fury over the Pearl Harbor sneak attack. Situations of this imagined kind are the media in which demagogues thrive. Surely demagogues would not seek to explain Allied reverses by the inadequacies of American manhood or machinery. Surely the onus would have been placed elsewhere, on the friends and relatives of the Emperor, including (one can hardly doubt) Japanese-Americans in Hawaii (who were not interned because they were too numerous), and God alone knows what else. It should not be too hard to imagine what the drift of public opinion would have been the day the Japanese Army descended on Seattle, or the day that Havana capitulated to the Imperial Fleet, or the day of the shelling of Santa Cruz or Oxnard. Demagogues would say: the Japanese all look alike, do they not? Are they not furtive and treacherous by nature? Why not then deal wisely with them, lest they join themselves to our enemies and fight against us?

It is hardly far-fetched to imagine this line of reasoning emerging in a foundering, beleaguered America. Things were bad enough while the war was going well. In 1944, when America's eventual victory in the war seemed assured, a Gallup Poll asked Americans what should be done with the Emperor's subjects after the war. Thirteen percent of the respondents answered: kill them all.[81] Popular support in Germany for the extermination of the Jews may never have been as great.


EXCEPTIONAL AMERICA
Thirteen percent is an alarming statistic, but perhaps one should not dwell on it without also considering the possibility that American institutions do provide some significant insulation from the genocides to which other societies have capitulated. Consider the history of the Second Ku Klux Klan, which initially was much more successful in America than was the Nazi Party in Germany. At its high point in the 1920s, KKK membership exceeded four million, and even outside the deep South the KKK "came to exercise great political power, dominating for a time the states of Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, and California," as well as wielding substantial power in New Jersey and Illinois.[82] One element in this success was the severe economic downturn of the immediate post-war years, which persisted throughout the 1920s in the nation's agricultural areas.[83] Another was that a "younger generation of blacks--led by soldiers returning from World War I, familiar with guns and willing to fight for the equal treatment they had received in other lands--had to be painfully reintroduced to the forces of social control."[84]

Those forces of social control included restrictive gun laws directed against African-Americans. Over a period of two centuries gun control laws played an indispensable part in Southern control of slaves and--after the Civil War--of freedmen.[85] This legacy to the Second KKK from the triumph of the First Klan was enlarged when in 1911 New York followed Southern states by conditioning handgun ownership on obtaining a police license. The purpose of this requirement was to disarm Italians, Jews, and other supposedly criminous immigrant groups.[86]

Even so, the American tradition of armed self-defense was difficult to eradicate. When attacked by the Klan or other racist groups in the 1910s and 1920s, armed victims defended themselves vigorously; mob members and other attackers were killed or wounded and the Klan defeated by "mass, armed counterattacks so determined that the National Guard was called out on at least one occasion."[87] Klan literature abounded with distracted warnings "that Catholics were stockpiling weapons to take over the country"; that "white people must ready themselves for an imminent race war with people of color";[88] that America was being inundated with radical alien immigrants like Sacco and Vanzetti (arrested under a Massachusetts gun control law), whom many Americans associated with the bloody revolutions staged by radicals first in Russia and then in Hungary and Germany;[89] and that the danger of radical uprising was magnified enormously by the machinations of the Catholic Church, an institution allegedly so committed to the violent overthrow of free American government that it was willing to make common cause even with leftists to accomplish that purpose.[90]

Concomitantly 1917-27 were watershed years for states to enact firearms licensing requirements which, like those of Weimar Germany, allowed police to grant or deny firearms in their administrative discretion. In both the North and South, states adopting such laws were Klan-influenced if not Klan-controlled.[91] This is not to say that the Klan was the sole, or even the most important, factor in enacting such laws. Many post-Civil War Southern gun laws were enacted after the formal dissolution of the First KKK and before the creation of the Second. It was not the Klan as such, but the outlook for which it spoke, that was the problem. A full six years before the Second Klan was chartered, a Comment in the predecessor to the University of Virginia Law Review argued thus for disarming "the son of Ham":


It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of `toting' guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime. . . . Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.[92]
In the same spirit, a Congressional ban on cheap handguns, what we refer to today as "Saturday Night Specials," was proposed by a Tennessee senator for the express purpose of allowing "the dominant race" to prevent "the carrying by colored people of a concealed deadly weapon, most often a pistol."[93]

By the end of the 1930s the Klan was in decline, unable to take any advantage of the same Great Depression that had brought the Nazis to power in Germany. One factor in the KKK's downfall may have been that its victims' continued to have access to the means of self-defense. (Credit the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Revolver Association, whose efforts caused laws restricting such access to be defeated, repealed, or held unconstitutional across the nation.)[94] It would be incorrect to claim that America's rejection of the Second Klan was primarily attributable to the tradition of firearms ownership and armed self-defense. Nevertheless, the American tradition of armed self-defense conferred at least three important benefits on Klan victims and targets.

First, armed self-defense brought police intervention which martyrdom would not have done. African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, immigrants, and radicals were neither popular nor powerful in the areas in which the KKK thrived. Public authorities and influential private citizens might well have been content to see unarmed victims brutalized or slain, if the violence could have been so confined.[95] When victims arm themselves, however, authorities are compelled to act lest incidents lead to widespread bloodshed and disorder.[96] Florida's Governor Martin "spoke out forcefully," stating that such a situation in which "mobs formed at night to terrorize the community and citizens had to carry concealed weapons" for their own protection could not continue.[97] In the words of the author of the law in another state, which broke the thitherto-increasing power of the Klan, "We don't want conditions in North Dakota to become such that a man must carry a pistol to be safe."[98]

Second, gun ownership gave victim groups both the courage and the means to sustain themselves in the face of the KKK threat and police indifference or hostility.[99] In fact, victim perseverance was essential to eventually discrediting the KKK. By defeating its initial attacks, maintaining themselves, and asserting their rights, victims encouraged decent citizens in the majority community to come to their aid.

Third, because decent citizens were themselves armed, they were able to speak out, thereby engendering, nurturing, and enlarging overall community support that eventually ostracized the Second KKK and consigned it to oblivion.[100] These advantages were not enjoyed during the 1920s and 1930s by decent people in Germany. There ca

[Geezah]

deleted

[Gringo]

U are really trying to get your point across. U want Civillians to have guns, I don't. Your entitled to your opinion, but so am I.

[Geezah]

U are really your point across. U want Civillians to have guns, I don't. Your entitled to your opinion, but so am I.

I'm glad that we have come to the point where we must agree to disagree but I will say this, since when can you decide what the next man is or is not allowed to do? rofl I don;t want all civilians to have fireamrs I just want them to have the choice, what ever happened to the freedom of choice......again you would only give them what they need not what they want!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Not exactly an objective article and somewhat pointless, you seem to be cutting and pasting articles from US pro gun groups trying to justify their fight against further firearms controls in the US. I really do not care how many guns or what type of guns Americans are allowed to keep and I am not anti-gun myself but the Britains current high crime rate has nothing to do with the handgun ban, I think we over here have tried to make that clear to you Geezah but its not getting through is it, you are flogging a dead horse give it up and focus on US domestic gun controls.

[Geezah]

Not exactly an objective article and somewhat pointless, you seem to be cutting and pasting articles from US pro gun groups trying to justify their fight against further firearms controls in the US. I really do not care how many guns or what type of guns Americans are allowed to keep and I am not anti-gun myself but the Britains current high crime rate has nothing to do with the handgun ban, I think we over here have tried to make that clear to you Geezah but its not getting through is it, you are flogging a dead horse give it up and focus on US domestic gun controls.

Something I don't think you realize is that I've lived on both sides of the fence and I know which side has a better garden, but as far as you're concerned anything that I post which proves gun control doesn't work you will paint as pro-gun!
Maybe one day we may meet and I'll be able to take you to the range so you can experience how well disciplined the majority of American gun owners are!

[Geezah]

Geezah I would also sugest when you are looking for the stastics you also look at how they are collected and the definitions as In the UK we collect crime stastics differently from the USA and use slightly different definitions.
CCW is not the answer there has been CCW in Northern Ireland since the start of the troubles and have spoken to a couple of policemen who have been to shootings that have been where someone with a CCW has spotted someone else with a CCW thought they were under threat and opened fire.
Channel 4 did a series on texas and one of the issues they covered was CCW yes in a country with an obscene number of firearms in free circulation i could see the need for CCW. But it isn't the answer to crime and looking at the High school shootings, snipers in various parts of the country I would sugest America need to look closely at its gun culture along side looking at the causes of crime.

How do you spot someone with CCW when the firearm must be concealed? the whole point of CCW is that you don't know who is carrying so you have a slightly friendlyer society!

Or a society that will become suspicious and paranoid of each other.

So out of the other 45 states that have CCW, everyone's paranoid?, get a grip man I lived in richmond,In for a few years and they've had there CCW for years but I don't remember saying "be careful because that man over there might be a Law Abiding Citizen that's Carrying Concealed!"
In the UK people are are already paranoid!

That is uncalled for. And btw, if americans aren't paranoid why do they need guns?

The same could be said about Martial Arts, Boxing why learn them if you have nothing to fear and please tell me where this Utopia is that you live in because I need t move there?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Something I don't think you realize is that I've lived on both sides of the fence and I know which side has a better garden, but as far as you're concerned anything that I post which proves gun control doesn't work you will paint as pro-gun!
Maybe one day we may meet and I'll be able to take you to the range so you can experience how well disciplined the majority of American gun owners are!
I was aware that you have at least spent your formative years in the UK and as for what country you favour I could not care less but your attempts to compare two very different cultures relationship with firearms are at best pointless, the UK despite having strong military traditions never had a gun culture like the US. I am not anti-gun and would never dare to be critical of US gun laws although I have wondered why folk would want AP ammo buts thats another story. Hand gun control in the UK has not affected the crime rate because people did not carry them when they were legal. As for visiting the US to shoot I will be in NY later this year and yes I will be going too the range if possible.

[Geezah]

Something I don't think you realize is that I've lived on both sides of the fence and I know which side has a better garden, but as far as you're concerned anything that I post which proves gun control doesn't work you will paint as pro-gun!
Maybe one day we may meet and I'll be able to take you to the range so you can experience how well disciplined the majority of American gun owners are!
I was aware that you have at least spent your formative years in the UK and as for what country you favour I could not care less but your attempts to compare two very different cultures relationship with firearms are at best pointless, the UK despite having strong military traditions never had a gun culture like the US. I am not anti-gun and would never dare to be critical of US gun laws although I have wondered why folk would want AP ammo buts thats another story. Hand gun control in the UK has not affected the crime rate because people did not carry them when they were legal. As for visiting the US to shoot I will be in NY later this year and yes I will be going too the range if possible.

I will agree on the AP ammo comment, in my long rifles I only shoot FMJ but I have HP for the AK, now on the 12ga I have got into a bad habit of shooting slugs through it all the time which is a bit of a rush but that's neither here nor there.
The only ammo that I use that could be considered destructive is Cor-Bon Beesafe which is prefragmented 9mm ammo and Federal EFMJ for home defense as I don't have to worry about over penetration in my home.
I understand where you guys are coming from because I once was in the same position and had the same thoughts.

It's a shame you can't get out a bit more West like, NY has pretty strict gun laws but the further out West you go the more choice you have?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

It's a shame you can't get out a bit more West like, NY has pretty strict gun laws but the further out West you go the more choice you have?Visiting my pal so won't be going far from NYC and Long Island apart from wanting to sail round the British Isles ( while not at work of course ) and bike through the South of France I have always wanted to do a zig zag through the US states avoiding the urban areas if possible. As for handguns I have shot Colt 45's, Brownings, S&W revolvers and semi's, Taurus, Beretta and a suppressed .22 semi auto pistol, the suppressed pistol experience made me cynical of Hollywood special effects departments ever since.

[marktigger]

Geezah I actually am pro gun and believe the firearms laws in this country suck. But I do believe in responsible and accountable gun ownership.
The arguments about genocide and firearms control are hysterical garbage. Go and take a little look at the suicide figures for countries were firearms have been freely available as well as the crime figures.
Yes the Knee jerk reaction following Hungerford and Dunblane was to sooth a media frenzy to ban guns. The Hungerford restrictions were about to be re looked at when Dunblane happened. Then there was the shooting of 2 girls last year the media went into its usual anti gun feeding frenzy then realised that the Ingram or Mini Uzi's used could not have been obtained from legal sources. The issue is being further complicated by the recent jailing of a father and son who were selling de activated weapons and also supplying kits to re activate them so de acs probably will be banned along with some replicas. The realisation is comming in the British media that criminals are still getting guns despite the bans and that the theory that criminals used legally held guns for crime is gradually being eroded. As in one of the other threads CX20 has said about gangs having Russian GPMG's when those are used the media frenzy as to how thease got on the streets will reach fever pitch maybe after that point will the penny drop and a sensible adult discussion take place about firearms in British society in general. When the criminal and street gun culture is delt with.
The issue of firearms being used in self defence of person and property is well covered by the Tony Martin case the British courts see no justification in the use of firearms in thease circumstances.
In America the time will come when society as a majority call for a regining in of firearms it may it be after another N LA shoot out or another High school masacre the ownership of firearms by the private citizen in a modern society is a privilige not a right (no matter what the American constitution says) and requires responsibility and accountability.
As to CCW no method of conceling is perfect and the movement of a jacket or jumper or a bulge were it shouldn't be is enough to start suspicions.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I believe that free pistols are going to be legal again sometime soon.

[marktigger]

given the comments this morning by a Conservitive MP and the media reaction to them I think it will be a while yet. Change to the pistol ban wheel out the Dunblane families is what the media will do as they want all firearms taken of everyone.
The Laws if anything at the minite are about to get tighter on replicas, certain airsofts and de activated weapons.

[Geezah]

Geezah I actually am pro gun and believe the firearms laws in this country suck. But I do believe in responsible and accountable gun ownership.
The arguments about genocide and firearms control are hysterical garbage. Go and take a little look at the suicide figures for countries were firearms have been freely available as well as the crime figures.
Yes the Knee jerk reaction following Hungerford and Dunblane was to sooth a media frenzy to ban guns. The Hungerford restrictions were about to be re looked at when Dunblane happened. Then there was the shooting of 2 girls last year the media went into its usual anti gun feeding frenzy then realised that the Ingram or Mini Uzi's used could not have been obtained from legal sources. The issue is being further complicated by the recent jailing of a father and son who were selling de activated weapons and also supplying kits to re activate them so de acs probably will be banned along with some replicas. The realisation is comming in the British media that criminals are still getting guns despite the bans and that the theory that criminals used legally held guns for crime is gradually being eroded. As in one of the other threads CX20 has said about gangs having Russian GPMG's when those are used the media frenzy as to how thease got on the streets will reach fever pitch maybe after that point will the penny drop and a sensible adult discussion take place about firearms in British society in general. When the criminal and street gun culture is delt with.
The issue of firearms being used in self defence of person and property is well covered by the Tony Martin case the British courts see no justification in the use of firearms in thease circumstances.
In America the time will come when society as a majority call for a regining in of firearms it may it be after another N LA shoot out or another High school masacre the ownership of firearms by the private citizen in a modern society is a privilige not a right (no matter what the American constitution says) and requires responsibility and accountability.
As to CCW no method of conceling is perfect and the movement of a jacket or jumper or a bulge were it shouldn't be is enough to start suspicions.

As you know I'm 100% pro gun but at the same time I believe heavily in teaching the public the safety aspects of gun ownership. Where I work it's buisness casual and not your average down the pub mentality, I'm always promoting gun ownership and safe storage of guns because it's almost like it's becoming a taboo subject a dirty dubject you try and avoid. I believe this shouldn't be the case and I'm quite open. Now at home we have a 3yr old and I'm not prepared to take any chances where she's involved so I have a gun safe where everything apart form my 12ga is locked up and the 12ga is unloaded but has shells on a side saddle.

I read the BBC news, Telegraph and Sun newpser online everyday plus I watch the BBC World News over here so I'm always on top of what's taking place over there.
But the two girls that were killed last year are a prime example of why gun control doesn't work, rather than come out with new laws they need to enforce the laws already there! Maybe even bring back the death penelty, it's allot easier to prove without a doubt if someone is guilty plus I think that may be a good deterant to child molesters/*** offenders seeing as they would be the first on my list to get it!

The numbers on suicide aren't really a good argument against gun control because if it wasn't a gun it would have something else?

On the CCW, you'd be surprised how well you can conceal a weapon now,
http://www.comp-tac.com/images/ctac/tot_conceal.gif
http://www.comp-tac.com/index.html

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Looks like free pistols are back.

http://www.gtsc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/main.htm

http://www.nsra.co.uk/viewnews.asp?NewsID=415

http://www.sportsmansassociation.org.uk/Newsletter%20October%202003.htm

woot

[marktigger]

The numbers on suicide aren't really a good argument against gun control because if it wasn't a gun it would have something else?



actually access to firearms is a factor other methods take longer to plan a firearm if available and is seen a quick solution. That is one of the areas the deaths at Deepcut Barracks have highlighted. In Northern Ireland there has been a higher than average number of deaths by suicide among Police officers the most common method has been with their own revolvers which they carry 24/7.

[marktigger]

Geezah I agree completly and actually thing no one should be allowed to own a firearm without proper training or it being held securly in a gun safe.
The 2 girls being shot is exactly what you say an example of how gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting firearms and it has made some elements of the media question the gun control line they were taking. IE the penny is finally begining to drop that criminals will get hold of weapons illegally and that registered firearms were not the huge danger they were portrayed as.
The Dunblane and Hungerford shootings will still be rolled out to stop the relaxing of bans. It may happen but I think not for a good few years.
Unless the message you preach on safety and responsible gun ownership takes of in the States I can see it going exactly the same way as the UK.

[George W. Bush]

Everyone should be allowed to own firearms unless of course you live in a police state like the UK.

[Geezah]

Geezah I agree completly and actually thing no one should be allowed to own a firearm without proper training or it being held securly in a gun safe.
The 2 girls being shot is exactly what you say an example of how gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting firearms and it has made some elements of the media question the gun control line they were taking. IE the penny is finally begining to drop that criminals will get hold of weapons illegally and that registered firearms were not the huge danger they were portrayed as.
The Dunblane and Hungerford shootings will still be rolled out to stop the relaxing of bans. It may happen but I think not for a good few years.
Unless the message you preach on safety and responsible gun ownership takes of in the States I can see it going exactly the same way as the UK.

The NRA/ILA work hard on teaching kids safe handling and the like, but I don't forsee the US becoming like the UK mainly because, one the strengh of the internet and the growing number of gun owners.

In regards the AWB, the law is in place, all the anti gun people say it works, if it sunsets then the pro gun people will be able to say that it didn't do a thing to stem crime(which the FBI website proves) but if the anti gun people get it reenacted before sunsetting they get to say "see it still works"
The North Hollywwod shootout is a prime example of why the assault weapon ban doesn't work because the weapons they had were full auto which are not covered by the ban and so prove that people aren't being killed by the legally owned AKs or ARs?

[Geezah]

Looks like free pistols are back.

http://www.gtsc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/main.htm

http://www.nsra.co.uk/viewnews.asp?NewsID=415

http://www.sportsmansassociation.org.uk/Newsletter%20October%202003.htm

woot

Even though 22lr pistols/rifles are fun to shoot at the range and cheap hopefully this is the start of things to come and it opens you up to larger calibers?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Everyone should be allowed to own firearms unless of course you live in a police state like the UK.Another quote from the militaryphotos dumb f*ck, you are as reliable as a Swiss clock when it comes to posting dumb ass comments. :lol: Keep it up your posts amuse me.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Even though 22lr pistols/rifles are fun to shoot at the range and cheap hopefully this is the start of things to come and it opens you up to larger calibers?Maybe .22 semi's pistols will become legal but I think they will stop short at allowing full bore multi shot pistols.
Practical rifle is getting popular both in .22 and up to 7.62, Bench Rest once unkown outside a few fans is all the rage at some clubs. Our local gunmaker does a nice line in Bench Rest rifles. www.jacksonrifles.com

[Geezah]

Even though 22lr pistols/rifles are fun to shoot at the range and cheap hopefully this is the start of things to come and it opens you up to larger calibers?Maybe .22 semi's pistols will become legal but I think they will stop short at allowing full bore multi shot pistols.
Practical rifle is getting popular both in .22 and up to 7.62, Bench Rest once unkown outside a few fans is all the rage at some clubs. Our local gunmaker does a nice line in Bench Rest rifles. www.jacksonrifles.com

I will say that out of all my rifles my Ruger 10/22 with Butlercreek stock and fluted barrel is the most fun, it's an absolute tack driver and makes for many hours of fun at the range woot
Next would be my Bushy AR15/M4A3 which comes in a close second ;)

The guy at Jackson Rifles charges a pretty penny? way over the top but it comes down to supply and demand :|

[Sabre]

I read the BBC news, Telegraph and Sun newpser online everyday plus I watch the BBC World News over here so I'm always on top of what's taking place over there.
But the two girls that were killed last year are a prime example of why gun control doesn't work, rather than come out with new laws they need to enforce the laws already there! Maybe even bring back the death penelty, it's allot easier to prove without a doubt if someone is guilty plus I think that may be a good deterant to child molesters/*** offenders seeing as they would be the first on my list to get it!

The numbers on suicide aren't really a good argument against gun control because if it wasn't a gun it would have something else?

Let's not get out of hand here. I don't think opening up the dealth penalty can of worms will help this thread!

I share your sentiments in terms of deterrents. I think a few well-delivered PSG-1 rounds in the direction of the next 'self-styled gangsta' who fancies a pop with his GAT would definately help! ;)

As far as suicide goes, people who want to kill themselves will, no matter what means they have available. I do think that the readiness of a firearm might influence a 'spur of the moment' suicide in someone who was likely to take their own life, however. But that is a poor argument on gun control.

As far as the crime argument goes, I agree with you. The UK would probably have a lower violent crime rate if we all carried guns. However, we would have a much higher gun death rate! That's the point! I can accept being mugged at knife point, or even (illegal-owned) gun point. After all, they are just after your wallet. But I would not welcome the irresponsible gun owner leaving their weapon loaded for their kid to find (or mine to find a their house) and shoot themselves with. Or, isolated incidents where some dissaffected individual decides to shoot up a school, street, pub etc, for whatever reason they have (as in Dunblane). Such an incident happend rarely in the UK before handguns were banned, but it took the malicious gun-death rate up from around 5/year to over 30 in one day. How can you tell the parents of those children that their deaths are and acceptable risk of having legally held guns? Just try telling them that face to face.

Anyway, by the pure logic of it, even though some criminals can get weapons illegally in the UK despite our gun controls, surely far more criminals would have guns if they could simply walk down to Kensington Highstreet and buy one (instead of the latest Berhaus jacket!)?!

If one wanted to reduce the violent crime rate in the UK, the best way to do it would be to bomb into oblivion the drug-fields and factories in S. America. 75% of violent crime in the Uk is drug-related. That's either they're on drugs, or more likely, they are looking to nick stuff to sell for drugs.

Of course, the far better way of reducing violent crime would be to engender a sense of social responsibility in the population...fat chance! ;)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Jackson rifles have picked up more than a few trophies over the years he is usually up too his ears in work.http://www.reflexsuppressors.co.uk/images/rpa6br_2.jpg//
He imports suppressors both in .22 and up to .50 if needed, decent .22 suppressor's start about £29.95 for a small SAK suppressor.
http://www.reflexsuppressors.co.uk/

[Geezah]

I read the BBC news, Telegraph and Sun newpser online everyday plus I watch the BBC World News over here so I'm always on top of what's taking place over there.
But the two girls that were killed last year are a prime example of why gun control doesn't work, rather than come out with new laws they need to enforce the laws already there! Maybe even bring back the death penelty, it's allot easier to prove without a doubt if someone is guilty plus I think that may be a good deterant to child molesters/*** offenders seeing as they would be the first on my list to get it!

The numbers on suicide aren't really a good argument against gun control because if it wasn't a gun it would have something else?

Let's not get out of hand here. I don't think opening up the dealth penalty can of worms will help this thread!

I share your sentiments in terms of deterrents. I think a few well-delivered PSG-1 rounds in the direction of the next 'self-styled gangsta' who fancies a pop with his GAT would definately help! ;)

As far as suicide goes, people who want to kill themselves will, no matter what means they have available. I do think that the readiness of a firearm might influence a 'spur of the moment' suicide in someone who was likely to take their own life, however. But that is a poor argument on gun control.

As far as the crime argument goes, I agree with you. The UK would probably have a lower violent crime rate if we all carried guns. However, we would have a much higher gun death rate! That's the point! I can accept being mugged at knife point, or even (illegal-owned) gun point. After all, they are just after your wallet. But I would not welcome the irresponsible gun owner leaving their weapon loaded for their kid to find (or mine to find a their house) and shoot themselves with. Or, isolated incidents where some dissaffected individual decides to shoot up a school, street, pub etc, for whatever reason they have (as in Dunblane). Such an incident happend rarely in the UK before handguns were banned, but it took the malicious gun-death rate up from around 5/year to over 30 in one day. How can you tell the parents of those children that their deaths are and acceptable risk of having legally held guns? Just try telling them that face to face.

Anyway, by the pure logic of it, even though some criminals can get weapons illegally in the UK despite our gun controls, surely far more criminals would have guns if they could simply walk down to Kensington Highstreet and buy one (instead of the latest Berhaus jacket!)?!

If one wanted to reduce the violent crime rate in the UK, the best way to do it would be to bomb into oblivion the drug-fields and factories in S. America. 75% of violent crime in the Uk is drug-related. That's either they're on drugs, or more likely, they are looking to nick stuff to sell for drugs.

Of course, the far better way of reducing violent crime would be to engender a sense of social responsibility in the population...fat chance! ;)

I see *** offenders as a burden upon society and deserve no place on this Earth(but that's MHO)seeing as they do more harm than good plus a few well placed public executions would be somewhat of a future deterant :)

On CCW allot of anti gun people over here keep on preaching about wild west shoot outs but they have to happen so I think it would work and slightly differently than you think.

In this day and age gun owners over here cannot be irresponsible because it fuels the anti guns voice, but not everyone is like me.

The problem with the massacres is that after the fact the victims want answers and look to blame someone so in effect all of society is blamed, I think it was terrible when Dunblane happened and I would have not thought twice if I could have traded my life for those poor primary kids that got shot but it doesn't happen that way. The thing is if maybe one other person in that school had been armed, the teacher, headmaster or janitor just maybe that night have made a difference but that's an IF and IFs a very big word.

[Geezah]

Jackson rifles have picked up more than a few trophies over the years he is usually up too his ears in work.http://www.reflexsuppressors.co.uk/images/rpa6br_2.jpg//
He imports suppressors both in .22 and up to .50 if needed, decent .22 suppressor's start about £29.95 for a small SAK suppressor.
http://www.reflexsuppressors.co.uk/

I would need to get papers(class 3?) to own a supressor for any of my rifles, but I don't really see a need for them unless hunting.

[Gringo]

Everyone should be allowed to own firearms unless of course you live in a police state like the UK.

wtf is that supposed to mean, huh?

[Sabre]

Geezah wrote:
The thing is if maybe one other person in that school had been armed, the teacher, headmaster or janitor just maybe that night have made a difference but that's an IF and IFs a very big word.


So primary school janitors should be armed? What, you mean like Ian Huntley?

The teacher would have to be armed, have ready access to a loaded weapon (in a primary school class, are you insane??!!!) and be proficient in shooting under fire...not many primary school teachers I know could do that.

[Geezah]

Geezah wrote:
The thing is if maybe one other person in that school had been armed, the teacher, headmaster or janitor just maybe that night have made a difference but that's an IF and IFs a very big word.


So primary school janitors should be armed? What, you mean like Ian Huntley?

The teacher would have to be armed, have ready access to a loaded weapon (in a primary school class, are you insane??!!!) and be proficient in shooting under fire...not many primary school teachers I know could do that.

Whoa there nelly......if the "POLICE" had done their job those two poor girls would still be here now, again the "POLICE" failed the innocents! Why is it the Police want to be the big protecter but they've taken on more than they can chew!


Sue Andrews hasn't told her students about her firearms lessons at A&A Shooting Club in Nelson Township. She and Campbell both trained at the range through Targething, a year-old firearms training company in Portage County.

Andrews, 52, said she won't shy away from the concealed- gun subject if her fifth-graders bring it up.

``I'm sure it's going to bring up a lot of issues, good and bad,'' said the James A. Garfield Intermediate School teacher. ``But that, to me, is what education is about.''

Ohio is the 46th state to permit carrying hidden guns.

Those who apply forconcealed-weapon permits must be at least 21 years old. They will have to pay a fee, undergo criminal background checks and take 12 hours of firearms training.

Hidden guns won't be allowed in school zones, on college campuses or in public places that serve alcohol.

``I really don't know if I will carry a concealed weapon,'' said Andrews. ``But I feel like the class has empowered me to know what to do in handling a gun responsibly.''

Having a gun concealed on your person is the whole point of concealed carry, noone knows you're carrying so if maybe that option had been available maybe the outcome would have been different? Like I said before IFs a very big word, if my kids teacher has passed a background check and has no record of mental problems I would prefer them armed than unarmed!

CCW is new for Ohio so there wiil be a few bugs needed to be worked out of HB12.

[cut]

Or you could ban the use of guns and make school even safer.

[Gringo]

The same could be said about Martial Arts, Boxing why learn them if you have nothing to fear and please tell me where this Utopia is that you live in because I need t move there?

Martial Arts and Boxing are a form of fitness and sport.

I remember hearing from someone that a teacher shot a kid in the head, coz the kid was being a pain in the arse, from what I heard, the teacher just cracked pulled a gun on the kid and just shot him.
I wasn't sure where it happened. Has anybody heard of this?

[Geezah]

Or you could ban the use of guns and make school even safer.

That's right because again "You've Proved Gun Control Works"?? there's been a few cases over here where guns are banned from college campases but for some reason the law abiding citizens obeyed the law? but the nuts that started shooting people did not, so again "where is this Utopia you guys talk about"?

[Geezah]

The same could be said about Martial Arts, Boxing why learn them if you have nothing to fear and please tell me where this Utopia is that you live in because I need t move there?

Martial Arts and Boxing are a form of fitness and sport.


Martial(adjective:relating to soldiers, war or life in the armed forces) Art(noun:a skill or special ability) last thing I remember I wasn't learning TAE BO?

[cut]

Or you could ban the use of guns and make school even safer.

That's right because again "You've Proved Gun Control Works"?? there's been a few cases over here where guns are banned from college campases but for some reason the law abiding citizens obeyed the law? but the nuts that started shooting people did not, so again "where is this Utopia you guys talk about"?

ok columbine and there have been more since then, there has not been anything like that the laws were introduced.

[Geezah]

Or you could ban the use of guns and make school even safer.

That's right because again "You've Proved Gun Control Works"?? there's been a few cases over here where guns are banned from college campases but for some reason the law abiding citizens obeyed the law? but the nuts that started shooting people did not, so again "where is this Utopia you guys talk about"?

ok columbine and there have been more since then, there has not been anything like that the laws were introduced.

Where here or there, we had one at one of the colleges here in Ohio at the end of last year but please tell me where your idea of a "total ban" has worked?
Dunblane was one situation that should never accured but your idea of a total ban on guns would not apply to the Criminal, you do understand the difference between law abiding citizen and criminal?
Wasn't th nut at Dunblane a cub scout leader and a bit of a perv or am I thinking of somewhere else?

Criminals do not obey the law and this so called "total ban" would not influence them in the slightest?

[Gringo]

martial art any of various fighting sports or methods of self defence, such as karate or kung fu.

[Geezah]

martial art any of various fighting sports or methods of self defence, such as karate or kung fu.

Do you practice any form of Martial Art and if so please explain the history behind it, then I will explain the history behind mine and the fact it was not created as a form of keep fit?

If you like I could give you a break down of Martial Arts and how the majority started as a Military Skill!

[Geezah]

martial art any of various fighting sports or methods of self defence, such as karate or kung fu.

This would be a very good read for someone wanting general knowledge on Chinese Martial Arts and how they've crossed over to todays Wushu!



The Spring and Autumn of Chinese Martial Arts -- 5000 Years
by Ted Mancuso

Publisher and co-author of Lam Sifu's book Moi Fah: The Plum Flower Fist (B001)

Here's a little information on our Spring/Autumn book. Kang Ge-wu is one of the leading scholars of Ba Gua and is credited with proving Tung Hai-Chuan as its creator. I attended the 1993 International Shaolin Competition with him. We agreed that the best thing necessary for English language Kung Fu studies was a basic history without the "legends". Much of the research has been personally done by Kang himself, traveling all over China, talking to masters, holding conferences. We visited the Shaolin Temple together and Kang conducted personal interviews with some of the authentic novices there. He also helped me investigate the origins of our style at the Ta Gou school (Lam Sifu's Shaolin style - Ed.), interviewed the head teacher there at his home, and secured a personal demonstration of the authentic forms there. I attended a long discussion about the government intervention in the teaching of Shaolin and found that, in the main, Professor Kang agreed with my feelings about traditional versus contemporary Wushu.

The Spring and Autumn of Chinese Martial Arts -- 5000 Years is the first complete English-language history of Chinese Martial Arts. Professor Kang Ge-wu, one of the leading experts on Wushu, personally traveled throughout China gathering archeological data and oral histories on the valuable cultural treasure that is Martial Arts. This books is an essential text for anyone interested in the origins of such diverse styles as T'ai chi, Shaolin, Ba Gua, Shuai Jiao (ancient wrestling) and Qi Gong. Its timeline format covers thousands of years of significant developments in the long history of marital arts. Styles and masters, philosophies and strategies, sword fights and political struggles: all are included here.

This is an important books because it gives a historical basis to so many claims. Earliest mention of many styles is made. Important figures are notated. And, most significant to me, historical reality is recorded. In modern times too many people are claiming to create ideas and techniques that date back before the Han dynasty. The only way to really promote Chinese marital arts, as I see it, is to truly show the long line of concepts and research that have been struggled with for thousands of years. In my opinion even the simplest of ideas are still alien to most people interested in martial arts.

I also hope that this will be a valuable resource for people beginning to research their own styles. Slowly we will uncover the truly great ideas and truths that are hidden in the wide landscape of martial arts. The jade is there but we have to dig for it.


It may benefit you also to read The Art Of War:Sun Tzu

This is probably the best version I have,
http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/ISBN/0-87773-513-1.cfm

[Geezah]

martial art any of various fighting sports or methods of self defence, such as karate or kung fu.

Something else I thought about is if you've ever learned any form of MA, from what you have written above, it would seem you were only ever presented with the sport/entertainment side.

[Gringo]

1. No, I do no do Martial Arts

2. The definition is what I got from Chambers Dictionary

3. Yes, I have read The Art of War by Sun Tzu

[Geezah]

1. No, I do no do Martial Arts

2. The definition is what I got from Chambers Dictionary

3. Yes, I have read The Art of War by Sun Tzu

1, Ok that tells me allot, you have an outsiders view and by having that view you will not fully understand what you are writing about.

2,You have to remember that Martial Art is the general translation and you have to break the words down.

3, I have two copies but as I said above the one I posted is by far the best. Something else you may enjoy, I have a book on Chinese Military theory and it covers different stages in their history one being Mao Ze Dong.

I am learning "Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen" check the links, Grandmaster Garret Gee is able to trace his direct ancestral line back to Zhu Xi(check link, second name down)
http://www.asiawind.com/hakka/people.htm
My Sifu is Sifu Chango Noaks and his Sifu is Master BennyMeng,(check link)
http://home.vtmuseum.org/

"Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen"
http://www.hungfayi.com/mainhfy.htm
I have been exposed to more HFY butwe also learn "Chi Sim Weng Chun Kuen(check link)
http://www.wengchun.net/index_e.htm