Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Serial killer Ted Bundy blames pornography for murderous lust | Main | The Do-Nothing-Crowd: What should government do to fix the economy? What it should do about all sorts of problems. Nothing. »

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

British want their guns back

Here's a nice video of Brits demanding their fundamental, traditional British liberties back. Which include, of course, the freedom to own a gun, to hunt, and so on.

Listen to the marchers and their articulation of their actual demands: It's not about fox hunting, which prompted the protest, or anything particular, it's about their individual freedom of choice. Good for them.

The Brits banned handguns a while ago now, but gun crimes have gone up. Yes, they have. Maybe it's time to reconsider the old saws, yeah? Maybe it's time to reconsider gun laws in Britain. And in Canada. And in parts of the U.S.

h/t: Instapundit

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 28, 2009 in Gun freedom | Permalink

Comments

Legalize and decriminalize gun ownership! It's not the gov'ts business if I keep guns at home. They pose no threat to anyone so long as they do. Stop persecuting me for this one harmless form of recreation!

Now do you see how stupid decriminalizing drugs can be?

If drugs are decriminalized, then guns should be too, with a castle law allowing me to shoot druggies who set foot on my property. Fair is fair, right?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-01-28 8:44:04 AM


Wow, Zeb, I have no idea what your point is.

Yes, legalize and decriminalize private gun ownership. It isn't the government's business whether or not I own a gun. Whether I hunt, or defend my home with it, is my business.

We support private gun ownership. We support legalizing drugs.

I don't get why you're in a tizzy about this.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-01-28 9:10:46 AM


Perhaps, P.M., it's because there is not a high degree of correlation between firearms ownership and criminal behaviour (if guns do cause crime, then mine are defective). But there IS a high degree of correlation between hard drug use and criminal behaviour, and not simply because of the legal status of the drugs.

You see, even if heroin was legal, it would still likely be available by prescription only (unless you want to argue that doctors have no business writing prescriptions). It would also still cost money, and since drug addicts usually can't hold down a job, they would still need to steal to pay for it, assuming they could get a prescription for it, which they wouldn't.

Heroin and other hard drugs were outlawed for a reason, and it wasn't because of "Reefer Madness." It was because people in the early 20th century had seen at first hand what irresponsible use of these drugs did to people--and what these people then did to the people around them.

I'm glad to see that rural England, at least, retains the love of liberty that has always distinguished the English. But I think it will have to get much worse in the cities before it gets better. City folk are particularly prone to the extremes of fads, fashions, and trends. And that phenomenon is by no means unique to England.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-28 10:01:34 AM



"...If drugs are decriminalized, then guns should be too.."

and at the same moment in time, for maximum effect
it will be a magic day for liberty,- lemme tell yuh
sort of like the magic when bleach mixes with drain cleaner

breath deep these winds of freedom

Posted by: 419 | 2009-01-28 10:17:45 AM


To Shane,

You're right about you say about druggies. However, do keep in mind that drug prices would fall quite a bit if they were legalized. Junkies wouldn't need to round up as much money to buy them. As far as soft drugs goes, they aren't more or less harmfull than alcohol which has been around for quite some time. Prohibition is what increases drug related crime.

Posted by: Steven | 2009-01-28 1:17:37 PM


Actually, Steven, drug prices would probably RISE if they were legalized, because they'd be subject to approval by regulatory bodies, safety standards, quality control, and a raft of other considerations that producers of street drugs don't concern themselves with--to say nothing of the taxes the pro-legalization crowd insists we could levy upon them.

As for the harm caused by soft drugs, I suppose that depends on how you define harm. The gateway effect is there; the druggies attempt to explain it away with all manner of conjecture, but it is there. Also the fact that it is possible to drink without getting drunk, whereas it is highly improbable that you could smoke pot and not get stoned.

Alcohol does more damage than marijuana only because it is consumed in far greater quantities. You could as easily say that nuclear weapons are less dangerous than conventional ones, because conventional weapons kill more people every year; the logic is exactly the same.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-28 3:40:02 PM


You see, even if heroin was legal, it would still likely be available by prescription only (unless you want to argue that doctors have no business writing prescriptions). It would also still cost money, and since drug addicts usually can't hold down a job, they would still need to steal to pay for it, assuming they could get a prescription for it, which they wouldn't.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-28 10:01:34 AM

That's a pretty good point Shane. I think the attrition rate on drug abusers would show itself in quick time. They would simply become extinct.
(Whatever would Pike rave about then?)

And I've still never seen a gun go to jail for killing someone.

Posted by: JC | 2009-01-28 3:51:55 PM


Alcohol also IS highly correlated with criminality. Alcohol also still costs money (a lot of money esp. in Canada) and alcoholics also can't hold down jobs. They are quite happy to steal or pander or deceive in the most egregious manner, in order to get a drink. The people of the early 20th (the KKK drove prohibition) also saw the horrible impact alcohol abuse brought to the community and families. However, Catholics and Jews demanded their sacramental wine. Grape juice just wouldn't do. If the drug of choice for the Catholic church was sacramental pot, then, no doubt, alcohol would be illegal today.

Posted by: DJ | 2009-01-28 5:04:01 PM


I'm not sure I concur, JC. If there are already legions of people willing to risk lengthy prison terms for the privilege of getting hooked on heroin, why would their numbers decrease if it became suddenly *easier*?

Guns used in killings don't receive prison terms; they receive death sentences. They are typically melted down. The actual murderer, on the other hand, is allowed to live.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-28 5:06:59 PM


I'm not sure I concur, JC.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-28 5:06:59 PM

Fair enough. Reasonable men may differ in opinion and still be reasonable men.
Its my feeling that given time there would be an attrition rate in the number of abusers out there especially if the hard drugs were easier to get.
And with parents actually taking some responsibilty the numbers might be reduced.
Criminal drug adicts commiting break and enters...might well be shot for their efforts if we had the right to self defense.

A lot of maybe's all in all...

Posted by: JC | 2009-01-28 6:42:11 PM


What are they talking about? Traditional British liberties?

When my first Canadian ancestor arrived here from Britain in 1783, gun ownership was only for soldiers and landed gentry. Since he was a soldier, he was priviledged. My family has been traditionally well armed ever since.

Posted by: dp | 2009-01-28 7:24:15 PM


Right on dp. I think family traditions are to be respected. And its never too late to start a new tradition folks...give it a go.

Posted by: JC | 2009-01-28 8:30:47 PM


.. all you need now is a guy like Marc Emery to sell you bullets through the mail.. with a catalogue of over 300 different rounds of ordinance in his glossy colour magazine devoted to all things that explode..implode or go boom

you know, something like " Cannon Bizz Culture "

Posted by: 419 | 2009-01-28 10:07:41 PM


DJ, it has been estimated that about 90 percent of the adult population uses alcohol. That is too nearly universal to extrapolate ANY kind of meaningful statistic. Alcohol ABUSE, in the form of grossly excessive consumption, is associated with criminal behaviour, however.

Moreover, many if not most alcoholics ARE employed. Tosspot employees are actually something of a problem. But even a cirrhotic, pickle-nosed lush is a more useful and productive creature than a heroin addict, who resembles living proof of life after death.

Your grape juice/sacramental pot example is pure conjecture, and absurd conjecture at that. It also smacks of bitterness. This is why activists are so often dismissed; all too often, they come off sounding like petulant adolescents, and we all know or have known a few of those.

P.S. It was actually women who drove the temperance movements, just as it was women who drove the anti-gun movement. The spectacular failure of both movements demonstrates the folly of basing policy on emotion. This is why soccer moms and granola eaters don't run the world.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-28 10:23:02 PM


Maybe, DP, by the middle of the Victorian era, it was very common for an English gentlemen to carry a concealed revolver or a sword cane. Moreover, in the early Middle Ages English citizens were REQUIRED to carry arms, and were expected to assist in arresting wrongdoers. In the Hundred Years' War, every Englishman was required to own a longbow and practice with it on a regular basis; this law was not officially removed from the books until 1960.

Moreover, Colonial America was firmly grounded in English laws and tradition, yet every settler who did not arrive as a convict had a gun. In fact, the law required indentured servants whose terms of service had expired to be GIVEN a gun so they could start their own homestead.

England is the land of the Magna Carta, the first document expressly limiting the powers of the government and extending basic rights to its citizens. It's a shame to see it slipping into a police state. Sir Robert Peel must be weeping in his grave.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-28 10:50:16 PM


Shane, Alcoholics do not need to consume excessively to abuse. The quantity, frequency and regularity of alcohol consumption required to develop alcoholism varies greatly from person to person.

"A large number of people, however, simply cannot drink because of the problems they encounter when drinking. In fact, approximately 14 million Americans are alcoholics or chronic alcohol abusers.

In fact, according to recent studies, it has been discovered that approximately 53% of adults in the United States have reported that one or more of their close relatives has a "drinking problem."

US statistics show that alcohol abuse is way out of control. During 2004, 16,694 deaths occurred as a result of alcohol-related motor-vehicle crashes. This amount was approximately 39% of all traffic fatalities. German stats show at least 30% of the alcoholics in treatment are unemployed. The divorce rate is up to seven times higher among alcoholics. So convinced were they that alcohol was the cause of virtually all crime that, on the eve of Prohibition, some towns actually sold their jails.

Sounds more like Catholics and their church were the petulant adolescents. Despite the enormity of the evidence of the deleterious effects of alcohol, even in the early 20th century, these bigots just wouldn't cooperate because the Proddies just might get a leg up.

P.S. It was actually Klan who fought for prohibition

The Ku Klux Klan was “revived in Atlanta in 1915 to defend Prohibition,” which existed in Georgia at that time.* 1

"Prohibition became one of the Klan’s leading issues” 2 and the Klan strongly supported both Prohibition and its strict enforcement. 3

“Enforcement of Prohibition, in fact, was a central, and perhaps the strongest, goal of the Ku Klux Klan.” 6

“Demon Rum (and the support of Prohibition) was the most obsessive issue on the Klan mind next to the pope.” 7

The KKK’s “support for Prohibition represented the single most important bond between Klansmen throughout the nation..” 8

Because it so strongly “opposed the sale of alcohol,” 9 the new Klan “attacked bootlegging.”

“The Klan's resurgence in the 1920s partially stemmed from their role as the extreme militant wing of the temperance movement. In Arkansas, as elsewhere, the newly formed Ku Klux Klan marked bootleggers as one of the groups that needed to be purged from a morally upright community. In 1922, 200 Klansmen torched saloons that had sprung up in Union County in the wake of the oil discovery boom. The national Klan office ended up in Dallas, Texas, but Little Rock was the home of the Women of the Ku Klux Klan. The first head of this female auxiliary was a former president of the Arkansas WCTU.” 11

The rapid growth of the new Klan probably reflected the fact that “It promised to reform politics, to enforce prohibition, and to champion traditional morality.” 22

There was much interaction and overlap in membership between the Klan and other prohibition supporters. For example, a top leader of the Klan, Edward Young Clarke, raised funds for both the Klan and the Anti-Saloon League. 12

Its enforcement of prohibition was one of the factors “most responsible for the Klan’s great popularity” in some states and communities. 13

The KKK challenged bootleggers by organizing armed patrols to intercept shipments of alcohol. 14

“The Ku Klux Klan associated itself with the campaign against alcohol…. One of the major KKK activities in the 1920s was rooting out bootleggers and breaking up speakeasies.” 15

On occasion, Ku Klux Klan tarred, feathered and ran bootleggers out of town. 17

Some bootleggers would have preferred being tarred and feathered. “In ‘Bloody Williamson,’ a county in far southern Illinois, battles between the operators of wide-open taverns and the ‘dry’ Ku Klux Klan killed 14 people in 1924-25.” 18

Although Prohibition became increasingly unpopular with the passage of time, the KKK strongly and actively opposed its repeal. 19

Posted by: Dj | 2009-01-28 11:37:07 PM


Ontarians should not have guns or weapons of any kind. They're simply too mentally unstable to be allowed implements like that.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-01-29 12:39:29 AM


That's a fairly long-winded missive, DJ, which I shall try to deal with succinctly:

1. "Excessive" is a relative term, and will vary from person to person. Basically if you regularly drink until you're drunk, you're abusing alcohol. Substituting one relative term for another changes nothing.

2. That 53% figure is meaningless without information on the average number of "close relatives" per respondent, along with a definition of "close relative." Even then, what one respondent considers a close relative another might consider more distant.

3. You don't have to be visibly drunk to be impaired behind the wheel. And the German figure quotes only alcoholics in treatment; what about alcoholics not in treatment? Really, DJ, you're not going to convince anyone with such obviously cherry-picked statistics. I'm an expert on gun-grabbers' tactics, which are basically the same as what you're employing here.

4. "Enormity of the evidence"? When even cherry-picked, out-of-context statistics elude you, you resort to drama? And more to the point, what proof is there that the wine used in sacraments contributed to that "enormity of evidence"? Have you so much as attended a Catholic mass in your life?

5. Your assertion that the KKK was founded primarily to promote Prohibition is news to me. In any case, temperance and anti-saloon movements had been growing for decades, supported especially by women, as previously noted. (I found the web page where you lifted all that stuff verbatim, by the way; what I did not find were the footnotes to go with the superscripted numbers after each item.)

In any case, one has to wonder just how wise an idea could be if it were being actively pushed by a group whose entire reason for existence was to promote hate and intolerance toward anyone who didn't share their narrow ideological view. Hey, they're starting to sound more progressive already.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-29 6:52:13 AM


One big reason the Brits want their guns back is, they've begun to realize what absolute cowards their civil servants are. The police ran like rabbits from a group of muslim protestors. They realize their last line of defense is not in uniform.

We're in the same boat in Canada. It seems to me that our police forces are made up of some absolutely cowardly members. They harass kids on skateboards, taser drunks, arrest girls on the stroll, and point radar guns at people trying to get to work on time. Are they ever in the vicinity of a gang shooting? Is that a coincidence? When a hundred muslims with illegal signs threaten a little Jewish woman, who do the police threaten to arrest?

The Brits are not going down without a fight, neither are we.

Posted by: dp | 2009-01-29 7:21:44 AM


dp, you forgot to mention how they send the SWAT team to swoop down on anyone suspected of carrying any kind of weapon. Time was a single officer carrying a six-shot revolver was enough to hold the line. Now it's a dozen sharpshooting officers with armour and what can only be described as weapons of war, simply to serve "high-risk" search warrants.

In one incident a few years back, police received a report that three men in a van had a handgun. SWAT descended on the van in a fury, firing tear gas through the window and dragging out the three men and kneeling on their backs at sub-machinegun-point. Only then was it discovered no handgun was present.

It's not so much cowardice, as paranoia. We live in a paranoid age, thanks in large part to the triumph of feminism and the pussification of the Western male. But as you observed, there are signs this is starting to change, and not before time, too.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-29 8:31:09 AM


The police ran like rabbits from a group of muslim protestors. They realize their last line of defense is not in uniform.
Posted by: dp | 2009-01-29 7:21:44 AM

The average British "Bobby" never carried a gun. Ever.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-01-29 8:44:03 AM


the temperance movement in the 19th C was a primarily womens' movement so says my sister who took womens studies ( and still not paid back her student loan ) Other civic minded groups took up the anti alcohol cause as well, possibly the KKK- basically anybody who was tired of wiped out retards on alcohol - clogging up the advance of society. They were all originally temperance promoters-that is " take it easy- be moderate" - But with the arrival of the automobile, in combination with alcohol excess, the destruction, loss & carnage was even greater .

Wipeheads, as history shows are rarely critical thinkers except when dumping on everybody else.. so the next step in the continental fight against retarded consumption of alcohol was "prohibition"-- and when prohibition was repealed, there was in its place an iron clad series i=of integrated laws governing every aspect of the juice from production to consumption.. when prohibition was lifted, in came the biggest of big brothers to oversee every aspect of beverage alcohol

BTW- if recreational drugs are ever legalized, you can expect the same degree of total control over every aspect of production, distribution and consumption..

back to the discussion is about guns, the UK and the KKK-
-- have a nice day

Posted by: 419 | 2009-01-29 10:42:49 AM


Let the British people own handguns! The police can't be everywhere. Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons and defend their property. If British officials want to help the public then they should bring back the death penalty. Hang murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Give long prison sentences to the rest. The U.S. has its problems(unrestricted abortion and Obama's push to give us a socialist economy) but I like our gun and law enforcement policies. In most states, we execute murderers(Not enough but no ones perfect), 40 of 50 states have concealed carry laws, 33 states have castle doctrine, almost all 50 states have Jessica's Laws(25 to Life) for child molesters, and several have 3 strike laws(3 violent crime convictions means life with no parole ever). Also, most of our police haven't been undermined by political correctness. The result is a 43% decrease in violent crime since 1991. I saw the video of Hamas supporters intimitating British police. Its sad how political correctness has largely rendered that force ineffective. In the U.S., most of the police won't have let themselves be pushed around like that. I hope that the Canadian police haven't been reduced to the same level as Britain's. However, I hear a lot of stories about the feminists and liberals having sissified the police and general culture.

Posted by: Aaron | 2009-01-29 8:40:52 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.