Could Free Stater's example of smart gun ownership spark a debate about gun control in the UK?

[Keith and stuff]

Guns and consequences
What are the costs of gun ownership?
Jul 10th 2014, 20:31 by E.B. | LANCASTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/guns-and-consequences

I'm posting various paragraphs, not in order. Click on the above link to read the whole thing. Clearly, the reporter is a statist that is against guns and self defense. Yet, the report still had a great time at PorcFest

I WASN'T sure what to expect from the Porcupine Freedom Festival, but I was delighted by what I found. At this annual gathering of libertarians, anarchists and jovial “freedom-lovers”, the conversations were thoughtful, the atmosphere festive and the bonhomie infectious. Sure, there was plenty of hyperbole about the “inevitable collapse of the state” (in the words of Jeffrey Tucker, Chief Liberty Office of Liberty.me). But I also met plenty of people running for local office with some good ideas for removing silly regulations and reducing official corruption. Many of these revellers have already pledged to move to New Hampshire in the hopes of making it the “most free” state in the union. “To have so many extremely thoughtful people moving to our state is really positive,” observed Jim Rubens, a New Hampshire Republican who was busily shaking hands and wooing voters for his run for US Senate. “I’m not an anarchist, though,” he swiftly added.

But such cost-benefit analyses are tricky, and nowhere are they more fraught than when it comes to guns. Guns were indeed everywhere at PorcFest—casually tucked in holsters, jauntily slung across bare backs and boldly decorating T-shirts (a personal favourite featured a woman with a gun and the line “My rape whistle is louder than yours”). Libertarians believe that law-abiding, responsible citizens should be allowed to own guns and wear them openly—a constitutionally-protected right that helps some people feel safer and ostensibly hurts no one else. Frankly, I was unnerved by the sight of them. A gun on one’s hip poses an odd, primal asymmetry in conversation; suddenly there’s a fickle, testy elephant in the room with fatal powers. (Indeed, many companies are politely asking customers to put these elephants away.) Gun rights seem like a plain case of negative externalities. The news over the weekend that no fewer than 82 people were shot in Chicago, 14 of them fatally, added a bit of icing to this bitter cake.

But what is the relationship between gun ownership and gun crime? And what impact does gun control have on curbing the bad effects of guns? In light of reports of a “new gun-control fight brewing in the Senate", these questions loom large. Unfortunately, answers are not so easy to come by. America’s homicide rate is certainly far higher than that of any country where guns are largely prohibited, such as Britain, France, Germany and Japan. Yet this rate is in decline, with firearm-related homicides falling 39% from 1993 to 2011, even as gun ownership remains widespread. And in New Hampshire, where guns are flaunted proudly, the rate of violent crime is among the lowest in the country, behind only Maine and Vermont, according to FBI figures.

The question then becomes what to do about places where gun violence is more common, such as Chicago, where urban poverty, poor schools, higher unemployment and racial friction create an often toxic mix. Jeffrey Miron, a libertarian economist at Harvard, has argued that stricter laws would be counter-productive, keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding people (who might otherwise use them to defend themselves) while doing nothing to reduce bloodshed among law-breakers. And because Americans are rather attached to their guns—unlike Australians, who seemingly had little trouble binning them after a massacre in Port Author killed 36 people in 1996—a strict prohibition would only lead to a black market in weapons, with all the nasty consequences of similar prohibitions on booze or drugs.

Sensible stuff. But we probably won’t be seeing much of it any time soon. This is a shame. But I wonder if some of the talk about gun control is a bit of a red herring. The places in America where gun violence is a serious problem are cities with bad schools, few low-skilled jobs, powerful gangs and large groups of segregated poor minorities. The violence that Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal rather vilely blames on “black pathology” might otherwise be seen as a by-product of insidiously few opportunities and a rather corrupt criminal-justice system. Access to guns does not in itself explain why folks in New Hampshire can sing karaoke with pistols on their hips while kids in Chicago are getting shot. Given the fruitlessness of any debate over regulating guns, perhaps we could talk a little more specifically about why some gun-owners are dancing while others are dying.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Government in all its regulation and social engineering, doesn't just perpetuate poverty and violence, it cultivates it.

 

[Republicanguy]

http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2014/nov/woman-who-was-shot-dead-holloway-named-former-highbury-school-pupil

This incident took place in my part of the city I live in. Greater London.

I prefer keeping the Firearms act of 1968 in place. I could only imagine the reality of the wrong people getting hold of weapons in numbers. An air rifle here isn't legal without a five year license under strict rules, and needs to be renewed every once it expires quickly.

Just how did Richard get hold of that shotgun to murder that woman.

That is part of the requirement,

(1)Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person—

(a)to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate;

(b)to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, any ammunition to which this section applies without holding a firearm certificate in force at the time, or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate, or in quantities in excess of those so authorised.

(2)It is an offence for a person to fail to comply with a condition subject to which a firearm certificate is held by him.

(3)This section applies to every firearm except—

[F1(a)a shot gun within the meaning of this Act, that is to say a smooth-bore gun (not being an air gun) which—

(i)has a barrel not less than 24 inches in length and does not have any barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter;

(ii)either has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges; and

(iii)is not a revolver gun; and]

(b)an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol [F2which does not fall within section 5(1) and which is] not of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of this Act to be specially dangerous).

[F3(3A)A gun which has been adapted to have such a magazine as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(ii) above shall not be regarded as falling within that provision unless the magazine bears a mark approved by the Secretary of State for denoting that fact and that mark has been made, and the adaptation has been certified in writing as having been carried out in a manner approved by him, either by one of the two companies mentioned in section 58(1) of this Act or by such other person as may be approved by him for that purpose.]

(4)This section applies to any ammunition for a firearm, except the following articles, namely:—

(a)cartridges containing five or more shot, none of which exceeds ·36 inch in diameter;

(b)ammunition for an air gun, air rifle or air pistol; and

(c)blank cartridges not more than one inch in diameter measured immediately in front of the rim or cannelure of the base of the cartridge.

 

[Pericles]

. I could only imagine the reality of the wrong people getting hold of weapons in numbers. .................

Just how did Richard get hold of that shotgun to murder that woman.

Obviously, one does not have to imagine what the wrong people getting hold of weapons in numbers is like. We have any number of examples in action.
1) The communist party
2) The nazi party
and so on.

The wrong people consistently have weapons because they do not respect the notions of laws and individual rights.

Why would any rational person conclude that when laws against murder, rape, and robbery fail, some weapons prohibition law will have success? Did the people of Luton purchase quantities of American baseball bats due to a sudden aversion to Cricket?

 

[osan]

Government in all its regulation and social engineering, doesn't just perpetuate poverty and violence, it cultivates it.

And so it has been throughout the history of human Empire with but scant few exceptions.

The pattern is clear and in fact glaring. Theye sow the seeds of discord, poverty, disease, war, death, and misery; then chide, punish, threaten, and admonish when people behave as Theire machinations all but guarantee. They do so as they assume a false high ground of moral righteousness and authority, acting the charade to perfection in accord with the role of knight in shining armor keeping order and saving the seely and abused masses from further destruction as they simultaneously and violently disavow their parts as the progenitors of the very chaos and destruction they purport to fight and hold at bay in the names of compassion and love.

I do no know whether Theye are even aware of this schizophrenic condition. Perhaps Theye even believe that they are acting in a world whose daily results are beyond their control. I cannot say what lies in the hearts of others. However, I can see what Theye do; I see the results,; I see that they play both ends against the middle, all the while wringing their hands with the veil of their professed piety, charity, compassion, and the moral authority they claim and would have the world believe valid and confirmed by instruments never explained by any means beyond vapors and vagaries.

Theye are narcissists beyond the human comprehension of what that condition can be. Theye are sick beyond sickness. Theye are wicked beyond wickedness. Theye are disconnected from truth and sanity beyond all disconnection from truth and sanity. They are wildly and incomprehensibly dangerous in their single-minded devotion to their vision for the entire world such that they will tell any lie and commit any act deemed necessary to achieve the goal. Theire willingness to violate any man not of Theire ilk belies Theire professed love of and compassion for their fellow men, all the while glaring brightly, Theire inability or unwillingness to perceive Theire endlessly clumsy and feckless hypocrisy. Theye see Theire fellows not as fellows; nay, not even as human beings, but as hated obstacles standing in the path of the vaunted goal of Theire Golden Reich, wherein all men shall be equal. Equally bent of thought. Equally looked after. Equally obligated. Equally unworthy. Equally trained to the whip. Equally poor. Equally diseased. Equally downtrodden. Equally miserable and afeared of Themme. Equally endowed with status as Theire chattel as Theye brazenly label it with the greatest lie of all: "freedom".

Theire hatred, which Theye call "compassion" is so bitter and all-consuming that no man not of Theire circle is safe from Theire scarlet caprice.

It is the same old, clapped out, trite, weary, boring, and wretched song as always it has been. Nothing has changed, save the length of the levers that our modern technologies afford Theire hands.

 

[Republicanguy]

Obviously, one does not have to imagine what the wrong people getting hold of weapons in numbers is like. We have any number of examples in action.
1) The communist party
2) The nazi party
and so on.

The wrong people consistently have weapons because they do not respect the notions of laws and individual rights.

Why would any rational person conclude that when laws against murder, rape, and robbery fail, some weapons prohibition law will have success? Did the people of Luton purchase quantities of American baseball bats due to a sudden aversion to Cricket?

Your outlook is essentially, well you know reality is quite violent let us own weapons to protect us from insane groups and get on with our own lives, bad incidents happen whether you can own or not.

I have thought to myself, would I even want a license for a weapon that would be legal to own here in the UK, in the end it all costs money. But I still type and say no, no, no, no!

I had a woken up one morning last month thinking should I encourage again for following year the local council town hall to hoist the state flag or my deluded dream of the UN flag. Not to mention having spent four years, a couple of times sending out an email each of those years to the former leader of the council on why the state flag should be kept for more than one day, beyond the patron saint day of April 23. Only this year was that a reality. Since there are only three flag poles, the borough/district flag of the city, UK, and EU. Something had to give.

And since the former leader is a socialist, even the current one is, but obviously a difference in view from the previous one.

Naturally, socialists always have some form of empathy with others else where, state localism isn't an interest, except for an expanded government.

 

[pcosmar]

Naturally, socialists always have some form of empathy with others else where,

Bullshit.

Socialism is elitism coupled with unbridled selfishness.
Gun control is simply a way of disarming the masses,, so that control is easier.
Can't have uppity peasants overthrowing their "betters".