Re: FBI: More Guns == Less Crime

["Joe St Sauver" <joe () oregon uoregon edu>]

Gadi commented on Dan's remark:

#> The UK pulled all guns in the 90's. Violent crime quadrupled.
#
#Got a reference on that by any chance?

I think the quotation that folks had in mind may have actually been:

   "The government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent 
   of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures 
   showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than 
   fourfold since 1998.

   "The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - 
   show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England 
   and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means 
   that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every 
   day."

   Ministers 'Covered Up' Gun Crime
   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece
   August 26, 2007

You may also want to find a copy of "Guns and Violence: The English 
Experience" by Joyce Lee Malcom (available from all the usual online 
sources or your favorite local independent bricks and mortar book seller)

I also find the following relatively recent article of some interest:

-- "UK is violent crime capital of Europe:
   The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one 
   of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, 
   according to new research."
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/
   5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html (URL wrapped due 
   to length), 02 Jul 2009

   That article begins: "Analysis of figures from the European Commission 
   showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and 
   sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power."

Gadi also mentioned:

#I am a moderate on this. I believe guns are not evil, but distribution 
#of them should be controlled (for example, require license, no criminal 
#or bad psych record, and some limit on guns and ammunition outside of 
#the range).

Just for the sake of discussion, Gadi, what would you require of someone
who wants to own a handgun?

-- Would they need to establish a bona-fide basis for being in fear for
   their life, or the safety of their family? Would they need to have a 
   documented history of having been beaten to the point of requiring
   hospitalization by some thug? Do I need a restraining order issued
   by a judge, or what's the evidentiary standard you'd require? What 
   if I just live in a bad inner-city neighborhood? What if I have a 
   store or gas station in an isolated rural area, literally an hour
   from the nearest police station or sheriff's office?

   The real problem, of course, is that a handgun is designed as an
   insurance policy to cover a hopefully rare situtation, sort of 
   like a fire insurance policy. It would be great if I knew a
   priori when I'd need fire insurance, but the reality is that 
   one can't schedule coverage just for that rare lightning storm,
   or just for the botched wiring job, or just for the time that
   visiting Uncle Billy sneaks a smoke and falls asleep with a 
   lit cigarette in bed. Similarly, it would be great if knew that
   I might need a handgun in May 2011, but the reality is that
   none of us have a crystal ball when it comes to the future.

   Or what if I simply want a gun for informal target shooting or
   hunting? Remember that in most of the United States, purchasing
   a firearm is a relatively simple process if you're a law
   abiding citizen: visit your local federally licensed firearms
   dealer, fill out a form 4473 and provide fingerprints, pass a 
   telephone insta-check, pay and leave with your firearm.

   Ammo typically requires no paperwork whatsoever, and for that
   matter, in most jurisdictions I can order antique firearms 
   manufactured before 1898, blackpowder firearms, ammunition and 
   airguns (including fifty caliber airguns such as those made by
   ShinSung in Korea) by mail.

   Heck, I can even purchase and posess a full-size black 
   powder cannon (see for example http://www.steencannons.com/ )
   in most parts of the United States w/o restriction.

-- How much training should someone have? A one afternoon quickie
   class, classroom only? A term-long class? (The local community
   college here in Eugene used to offer a 42 hour handgun training
   class that included 12 hours of range time, but that's the
   exception, not the rule, I think)

   Who should be eligible to offer such classes? Anyone who wants
   to do so? Only NRA certified instructors? Only law enforcement
   officers? 

   Should the coverage be purely technical, or should it also
   include legal training? (that might require instruction by 
   someone who has recognized proficiency in legal issues)

   What level of proficiency would you require of them, keeping in 
   mind that handguns are most often used in self-defense at ranges
   of 7 yards or less? Would you require them to demonstrate
   proficiency on a conventional bullseye course at 25 and 50 yards?
   Proficiency on an IPSC practical shooting course of fire?
   Demonstrated ability to shoot under conditions of stress and in
   low light situations, while taking advantage of cover and 
   concealment? How often would I need to requalify? If I have more
   than one gun, do I need to qualify with each of them?

   Remember that qualified instructors are relatively scarce, as
   are ranges, and there's always an interesting bootstrapping
   problem if sheer ownership is limited to experienced people 
   (how do I get experience with a handgun if I need experience 
   with a handgun as a pre-requisite for buying a handgun?)

-- What sort of background investigation should be required? 
   Fingerprinting followed by a national agency check? Felonies
   would presumably be disqualifying, but what about misdemeanors?
   How about a history of "reckless behavior," as manifested by 
   getting repeated speeding tickets? Heck, even a history of
   getting multiple parking tickets evinces a certain level of
   carelessness or disregard for the law, doesn't it? Where does
   one draw the line there, eh? 

   And then there's mental health issues. No one wants a nut to
   have a gun, but if any contact with a mental health professional
   is disqualifying, will that discourage someone who may need 
   help from asking for it in the first place? Does someone need
   to be adjudicated incompetent? Actually institutionalized?
   What if they've been cured and released back into society? 

-- How about safe storage? I'm personally a big fan of encouraging
   people to either carry their firearm on their person, or to
   store them in a safe or other locked facility, but do they 
   need to have a particular *sort* of safe? Do they need a burglar
   alarm? Do we take their word for what they have, or do we
   create people to go out and inspect these storage facilities
   to insure that people are telling the truth? Should the rules
   be the same for a single person living in the country as for
   a person who's got a bunch of kids in the middle of the city?

-- You also mentioned limits on guns and ammo "outside the range."
   Assuming I want a handgun for personal protection, having 
   a handgun that's only available at a shooting club isn't 
   really going to help unless I'm only worried about being a
   potential victim of crime while at that range. :-; Of course, I
   suppose there are some people who have enough acreage that
   they have their own home shooting range, but I suspect that's
   not what you have in mind. :-;

-- What about costs for licensure? Should costs be high, to
   discourage "frivilous" applications? Or do poor people have
   as much right to self-defense as the affluent? (Note that 
   there's a long history among proponents of gun control of
   targeting "cheap guns", largely in an effort to reduce the
   ready availability of guns to those in lower socio-economic
   strata)

-- Should rules be consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
   or should each state be able to set its own requirements?
   Should states be required to recognize and accept handgun
   licenses issued by other states, even if the requirements are
   different from one state to another? (We recognize other
   states marriage licenses and drivers licenses, right?)

Just for the sake of discussion, if you're interested, you can
see what Oregon requires for a concealed handgun license at
http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_sen
g&link_item_id=14705 (URL wrapped due to length)

Note that in general no license is required to simply *purchase* 
or *own* a handgun in Oregon (assuming you meet federal purchase 
requirements); the preceding information refers only to those
who want to become licensed to *carry* a *concealed* handgun...

So anyhow, I'm sincerely curious what you specifically believe
should be in place.

Regards,

Joe

Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.