- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on June 08, 1999 at 17:03:51:

In Reply to: combining posted by Gee on June 07, 1999 at 12:11:39:

: It appears the UK data is different, although I would discount the middle group as being too broad to be relavent.

Yes, but we can adopt a working proposition that roughly one third of thiose 'aquaintance killings' are from someone reasonably close, friend, neighbour, drinking buddy, and say anotehr third are 'know him from around here, never talked to him/much' with the other third being shop assistants, etc, taxi drivers, whatever, still, it means close to half all murders are by someone very close.

: Remember that the key to this is not whether or not people can draw guns in specific situations, its the perceived chance of being shot whilst commiting a crime that is the deterrent.

And criminals would know that a taxi driver is unlikely to be able to reach his weapon, that the bloke he's talking to won't reach their weapon, I don't see how free ownership of guns is a deterent.

I'll posit a killer for you- In America, you allready have teh freedom to own Guns, many Guns, much more Guns than we have here, and yet still, the murder rate is high- we're not dealing with hypothetics here, we are dealing with actualities. Can you show me how teh freedom to own Guns in the US has settled in teh Crminal mind, ever in history mark you- that it is uunwuse to commit a crime.

I suggest your model is fundamentally flawed.

: I repeat that wodespread gun ownership presents a deterrent to criminals because criminasl generally want it risk free and even small risks are too much.

Most crimes are crimes to property, most victims of crime are the poor- there is no sign that Gun ownership in the US acheives lower crime rates than non Gun Ownership in the UK.

Again, Guns make for lousy public order policy.

:this is supported by studies in america, but causilty is only demonstrable in anecdotal evidence as some other change (eg the weather) could be held as the cause.

I'd suggest economics, which has univeralisable properties, and thus can be compared with similar studies in non-gun-owning states.

: Then would hitting with fists be something we could consider as pointless too? the establishment of the principle of self defence requires the ability to do so without being placed at a weak position.

No, I would say that the best policy is to avoid being in teh situation of needing to use fists, just because I ahve a right, doesn't mean I should make a policy of using it- in teh US I would have teh right to not incriminate myself to officials, however, I persobnally would not like to actuialise that right, by never being in a position to use it. Using fists is not an offence, uinless you are a registered martial artist, and then your criterion change.

: An indivuals self defence is a provate matter however.

But the Article Doesn't discuss that, 'Personal safety and defence being necessary for the good public order of our society, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Bit different dontcha think?

:Most people can read it either way, personally I think it needed more clarification - its almost as if the writer were thinking specifically of a way in which to confuse readers a hundred years donw the line

I think, if we take a pragmatic approach, there is a lot of 'Presupposition' in there, by which it was crystal clear to them as framed it, because context gave it extra meaning. Its hard to fire-proof written documents against meaning change, its an argument against an overly rigid codified Constitution...

Like I say, only historical analysis would do it- I'll make a point, In England (And this of course would be known to teh founders) tehre was a Military Body, the Yeomanry, made up of certain classes of society, it was effectively a local militia, but of course, certain classes couldn't join. Effectively, if we read the Article with this in Mind, its an injunction that no class of man/person can be excluded from the Militai, a radical and democratic statement.

: Anyway..imagine that the amendment was "You can use a gun as part of a militia and no more"

I don't think it means that, what it means is IMNSHO is that gun ownership may not be limitted in such a way as to inhibit joining/organising the local city militia, or to exclude any groups from it. Essentially, other uses of Guns *can* be banned/limmitted, doesn't make them excluded by teh constituoin, just not protected.

: So you wouldnt be opposed to ownership of the means to self defence meanwhile

No, but I would be opposed to Gun ownership being adopted as the dominant public order policy. I am, as you know, against all Law, so I wouldn't say 'Make Guns illegal' but then, I wouldn't encourage my fellow workers to hide behind an illusion of gun owndership.

: Incidently, whilst I also agree that much crime is borne of poverty, I dont think it would drop to near zero.

No, but such matters would be inevitable and ineradicable, personbal conflicts, crimes of passion- of course, no prisons under socialism...they'll have to deal with their crime for themselves...

: I understand that whilst British law tends to be reasonable when it comes to court, there is a tendecy for people to who defend themselves to be treated as the criminal if you dont do your lawful duty and an englishamn and die (leaving sufficient evidence for CID if possible)

No, reasonable force means you can do enough and no more, if someone attacks with bare hands, I may only do enough to either escape, or disable them (breaking arms, if done deliberately, is out), I may not shoot an unarmed attacker. Reasonable force means any responce must be proprtionate to the threat, killing a mugger would be illegal.

: So theyre ok ? And the fact that crims can get guns and you cant is ok?

Whatever, it doesn't matter what tool they ahve, their intent/ will to use violence makes them dangerous irregardoless, and I wouldn't feel any safer with a Gun.

: Is that a play on words ("bang")? then a woman shooting a rapist as he attcks is ok, a man shooting the gang of hoodlums (i like that word) whove beaten him and his friend and who might carry on until he is dead is ok?

If he has reasonable grounds to beleive he may be killed, yes, it becomes proprtionate, not sure about the rapist though, might not be reasonable force, have to ask a lawyer...

: Maybe you have a basis for our earlier concern over whats acceptable. Most guns (especially handguns) are not really ranged (unless your one of the now unemployed british target shooters)

Ten yards away is ranged, can shoot a fleeing target...

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup