Author Archives: Joe

It couldn’t happen here

Posted on by

I was poking around in one of my old directories on my network hard drive and found a file from 1994. Yeah, I’m a bit of a packrat.

It was a Usenet post from talk.politics.guns and talk.politics.misc which I had saved. Yes, I’ve been doing this for a long, long time.

Here is the header with the “bang paths”:

From owl.csrv.uidaho.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.clark.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!synapse.bms.com!sis.bms.com!HAMBIDGE Thu Jul 14 12:25:08 1994
Path: owl.csrv.uidaho.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.clark.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!synapse.bms.com!sis.bms.com!HAMBIDGE
From: hambidge@sis.bms.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: A Canadian’s Letter to Americans
Date: 8 Jul 1994 13:34:30 GMT
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Lines: 164
Message-ID: 2vjkl6$hp@synapse.bms.com
Reply-To: hambidge@sis.bms.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: watson.bms.com
Xref: owl.csrv.uidaho.edu talk.politics.guns:79300
talk.politics.misc:79280

It was a rather disturbing post which I suppose is why I had saved it. I decided to look on the Internet and see if I could find it via another source. Maybe it was just something someone made up for the Usenet tinfoil brigade. Nope:

CENSORSHIP: IT COULDN’T HAPPEN IN CANADA – OR COULD IT?

Posted: Saturday, July 9, 1994 8:00 pm
BY SUSAN RIGGS Knight-Ridder Newspapers greensboro.com

Government can get too powerful before you know it.

An open letter to my American neighbors:

Like you, I woke up today, got dressed and settled down to a steaming brew and the morning newspaper before heading out to work. Unlike you, I read that dozens of my fellow citizens were arrested for carrying copies of The Buffalo News. The newspaper contained information about a trial here that the powers-that-be did not want us to read. It is that simple.It is now 11:15 p.m. Minutes ago, I turned on the Buffalo television station, hoping to see on my TV what could not reach us through the newspapers. I am now looking at a blank screen. We received about 10 seconds of the trial controversy, and suddenly my screen went blank. A message appeared on the screen explaining that because of the contravention of a ban, the station was prohibiting broadcast of the news. Along with the sign was a high-pitched whistle that sounded like the air-raid sirens the Britons used during World War II.

As I sit here alone, I realize that my blood is running cold at the sound of that whistle.

This could never happen here.

Not in Canada.

You must wonder about a country that would deny its own citizens the freedom to read. As a Canadian, I have done a lot of hard thinking about it. I guess the powers

Susan Riggs is a Canadian citizen living in Ontario. She wrote this article for the Detroit Free Press.

have their reasons for the ban. Censorship always has its reasons, but, believe me, when you are on the receiving end of government censorship, no reason amounts to a hill of beans – and that is why I am writing to you.

It is my hope that you will read the Canadian story and, as your famous columnist Ann Landers says, “wake up and smell the coffee’ – while you still have a newspaper to read along with it.

I have always loved the United States of America, and I know that you are now making critical decisions about the role of government in your lives. Many years ago, we in Canada were at a crossroads in our decision making that is similar to the one you are at now. I wish our decisions back then had been very different. Then maybe I wouldn’t be sitting here staring at a blank screen.

Some two decades ago, Canadians were concerned with how government could best help its citizens. We looked around at countries with a comprehensive social welfare system and envied them their cushions of comfort for everything from universal medical care to national day care.

We were a country that held individual freedom in high esteem. Surely, we thought, it was possible to take the best aspects of socialism and weave them into the fabric of a free society. After all, this was democratic Canada and not the Soviet Union.

Over the next 20 years, we developed an extensive social support network at both the federal and provincial levels of government. The government spent money on every conceivable program. We spent and spent. Still, no one was ever really satisfied.

The spending even now continues unabated, and our national deficit today stands at more than $45 billion. (We are now looking to New Zealand for pointers on how to control our deficit.)

When you adopt an extensive government agenda, you soon discover that all the entrenched programs and layers of bureaucracy become impossible to budge. Much of the population works for the government; about 1 of every 4 Canadians now draws a government paycheck.

People learn to depend on government, and all governments, even those whose leaders warn against this dependency, learn to love the power that flows from it.

As for the threat to individual liberty, newspaper censorship is, frankly, the tip of the iceberg. Government intervenes in our lives constantly, and individual liberties are abrogated in new and ever more imaginative ways each day.

Recently, while on vacation, I rented a car in Seattle and tried to drive into British Columbia. My car was confiscated at the border. When I asked for an explanation, I was told that I had not paid taxes on it – a rental car. Had I been an American, there would have been no problem, but, as a Canadian, I had to pay $200 more for a Canadian rental car in order to continue my trip.

Canadians who dare to get a haircut or a car tune-up across the border are being photographed and prosecuted upon their return to Canada. Why? Because they have secured these services without having to incur the 7 percent goods and services tax slapped onto our ever-burgeoning provincial taxes. Even insurance plans are now taxed.

A black market has sprung up, mainly in liquor and cigarettes, which carry the heaviest taxes. Don’t think that the taxes will end there, though.

Once it takes hold, monopolization by government soon spreads to nearly every aspect of your life; in the Toronto area alone, we have six separate municipal governments and one super-municipal government (the “mother’ of all local governments) called Metro, which exists to oversee the others.

You will find that after a time, your state and federal governments – even those of a different political stripe – will join forces to make their task of tax collection easier.

Our entire education system, up to university level, is governed by a centralized bureaucracy called the Ministry of Education, which dictates what can and cannot be taught in the schools and how it is to be taught. Universities are mainly government-funded.

I realize that the issue of government-run programs is particularly important to you now because of the state of your health-care system. I sympathize with you completely. I cannot imagine a world where one could be left bankrupt because of illness. I also think that you are on the right track with your solutions. If anyone can devise a workable system for medical care, it is you.

I suggest that you look upon it as you do your police protection: a guard in place for the physical and mental well-being of your citizens. The real danger in socialized medicine is the attitude of entitlement it engenders.

The stories you have heard about us are largely true. It is not uncommon to pick up a newspaper and read about “The Frightening Wait for Cancer Therapy’ here in Ontario, and the situation is no better in the other provinces. There is a shortage of the most advanced diagnostic technology. Thousands of the health cards that ensure access to medical care have have been issued erroneously.

We do wait two hours for an appointment booked weeks in advance. Despite our world-class doctors, many patients can’t get treatment in time because of overcrowding. When you are faced with a life-and-death medical situation, you don’t mind paying whatever it costs. Under the government-dominated medical system, however, you can’t even buy your way in – unless, of course, you go to the United States.

The sound of the air-raid siren on my TV has stopped, at least for now. As the politicians love to say, this is my “defining moment.’

Writing is my great love, the part of me that can never be censored. This letter was difficult to write, and no one up here knows that I have written it. All these issues are not just personal; they are professional, too.

I am employed in administration at a prominent Ontario university that has historically enjoyed a high degree of autonomy. Last summer, my president wrote a letter to the staff explaining that the government had expressed an intention to take a more active role in the management of university affairs. He described this as an enormous threat to our autonomy as a free-thinking institution, and in the end the government retreated – for now.

As I sit here tonight, it is simply beyond my comprehension that such a well-intentioned and beloved country as my own could go so far astray so quickly. And it is all the more remarkable that it has taken place without grand conspiracies or intricate plots.

Indeed, most Canadians are as offended by the images of totalitarian government as you are. We shared your joy at the fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of the Soviet bloc; we value freedom. And yet we have fallen into a trap where we are not free.

As with that other well-known road, we traveled this one with the best of intentions.

To those who would dismiss me as an alarmist, I issue this invitation: Read our newspapers, watch our news broadcasts (what is left of them) and see for yourselves. Prove me wrong. I wish you could.

When you make critical decisions about the role of government in your life, please think about me, about this letter and about Canada.

Really think about what it could mean when you hear about a government initiative that sounds too good to be true. Thank God for a free press, even when you find yourself criticizing the media for broadcasting stories that you would rather not hear about. The recent publication ban is not the first one. There are others, and their numbers are growing.

Listen and learn, America. Cup your ear to the wind and hear the blood-chilling wail of the siren whistle as it drifts down across your border.

If just one of you reads this letter and pauses, even for a moment, to think about what unchecked government can do, then it has been worth the writing.

I have faith in you, America. Your road is tough and not perfect. Nothing is. Your road will keep leading you to freedom – the freedom to read and think and be exactly who and what you are – if you only let it. Treasure that freedom, love it and resolve never, ever to let it go.

Quote of the day—John Robb

Posted on by

Social media amplifies every incident, spreading the anger it evokes like contagion across the country.  Just watch.  This suggests that the next open source protest we are likely to see will form to force Donald Trump from the Presidency before the next election — a Tahrir square moment in cities all across the US.  A massively and diverse open source protest that has one simple goal: the immediate removal of Donald Trump from office. 

Unfortunately, an open source insurgency that forces a sitting President from office without the benefit of an election could result in the same outcome as Egypt (or worse Syria).

John Robb
November 11, 2016
Trump’s Insurgency creates our Tahrir Square Moment
[I think I need to read his book: Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization.—Joe]

On my wish list

Posted on by

A couple of days ago Annette posted about a shooting mat that is going on my wish list. I used to have one I really liked which was similar. But someone, who shall remain nameless, left it at on the shooting berm at Boomershoot one fall and it ended up spending the winter there. I cleaned it up as best I could but the fabric was damaged by all the exposure to sun, water, ice, insects, rodents, and growing grass. I looked and looked for another like it but couldn’t find one. I think the company went out of business. I finally bought another and I just don’t like it nearly as well.

Annette spends a LOT more time on the ground shooting a rifle than I ever have and as well as her calling out the features that I had looked for in a shooting mat I trust her judgment. She isn’t the only real shooter that recommends this mat.

Annette further informs us that if you use the discount code 30CalGal you will receive 15% off.

Maybe some of those people who want to give me a Christmas gift could pool their money and I would have a new shooting mat for next spring.

Quote of the day—Sean O’Reilly

Posted on by

The Collaborative Firearms Education Initiative involves two steps. First, a push to get the CDC funding to actively catalog and study gun related violence much as it does motor vehicle fatalities and a push to increase the educational requirements for firearm purchases with the NRA being the main organization for implementation and provision of this education.

We need reliable, unbiased information and understanding of it. Without a complete understanding of the problem we are left only with speculation and theories.

Secondly, instead of looking to limit accessibility to firearms in efforts against the NRA and other political groups, increasing the level of education necessary to purchase firearms in conjunction with the NRA.

To drive a vehicle on streets, hunt on public land , or carry a concealed weapon, every individual is required to attend formal and regulated training and be licenced.

Sean O’Reilly
October 12, 2016
A third way on gun control allows both sides to win
[Most of the vehement opposition to gun ownership comes in the aftermath of a mass shooting atrocity. Nearly all of those have a strong mental illness component. The major source of gun deaths are due to gangs and the illegal drug trade. While I can see some policy changes making a significant difference there I can’t see how requiring training could help. And training and licensing for hunting and concealed weapons is already the norm for nearly all states.

And if he thinks these restrictions are acceptable for the specific enumerated right of gun ownership I don’t think he envisioned the slippery slope of applying similar restrictions on religion, speech, freedom of association, and abortion.

I suspect O’Reilly doesn’t really understand the current situation and hasn’t thought through what he does know.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Theotis Robinson

Posted on by

There is no electoral path to the presidency left for The Donald. He knows there isn’t. So now he is trying to de-legitimize the election by claiming that it has been rigged by a shadowy global conspiracy to prevent him becoming president of the United States. Trump is the one who has prevented himself becoming president by his foul mouth, repeated lies and incoherent policy statements.

Theotis Robinson
October 23, 2016
Trump has only himself to blame for likely loss
[Certainty is for ignoramuses. Or as Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man wrote:

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

H/T to David Hardy.—Joe]

Mugme street news

Posted on by

Late yesterday afternoon Barb had business in downtown Seattle. I didn’t find out about the “protest” until 5:00 PM on the Internet. This was almost exactly the same time Barb found out about it… as she was walking to her bus stop on Second Ave between Pine and Stewart just a half block from this on Pine:

She skirted the protest as best she could and she got on her bus which was about an hour and fifteen minutes before the shooting started.

The McDonalds you see in the background of the video is on 3rd Avenue – which Barb named Mugme Street. I used to work in a building on that block. I’m sure glad neither Barb nor I have to go there on a regular basis any more.

The “protestors” blocked streets:

From the Boston Globe in regards to Seattle on election night:

SeattleProtestorsBlockTraffic

Later the fire department was needed to clean up after the “protestors”:

On election night daughter Jaime was scanning the reddit forums looking for material to satisfy her schadenfreude appetite and found Hitler reference gems like, “I don’t know whether I should just register myself now or wait for the Gestapo to force me to.” and “I’m thinking it is better to kill myself and die with dignity than to be executed in the camps.” And who do we find practicing for Kristallnacht? Yeah, you guessed it. It was the Nationalist Socialists back in 1938 and it was the Socialists on November 9, 2016.

I know it’s irrational to expect people to be rational, but these people are messing up the streets and causing problems for people who probably voted about 80% or 90% for Clinton (the entire county went over 75% for Clinton, Seattle would have been even harder left).

What is it they are trying to accomplish? The answer, I believe, is that it is in their nature to get physical when they don’t get their way through legal processes and they just can’t help themselves. Socialists are nothing but thugs with a thin veneer of respectability and when that veneer gets scratched, they get physical.

Drain the entire swamp

Posted on by

Former Illinois congressman with ‘Downton Abbey’ office is indicted:

Schock was charged in a 24-count indictment with wire fraud, mail fraud, theft of government funds, making false statements and filing false documents. The 52-page document spells out a broad array of misdeeds spanning 2008 to 2015.

The indictment alleges that the former congressman from Peoria, Ill., reimbursed himself for 150,000 miles he never drove, bought a new 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe for his exclusive use with campaign committee funds, and reimbursed himself with congressional funds for camera equipment purchased for himself and his personal photographer. It alleges that Schock used government and campaign money to take a private plane with a group to Chicago for a Bears football game, and remodeled his Illinois apartment and Capitol Hill office — paying those who did the thousands of dollars worth of work at least in part from government and campaign funds.

Schock also, according to the indictment, accused a former staffer of inappropriately accessing a friend’s social media account and falsely claimed the FBI and Capitol Police were investigating — prompting the former staffer’s father to hire a lawyer.

All told, Schock caused the government and his campaign committees to lose more than $100,000, authorities said.

Note that Schnock is a republican. Fine with me. Drain the entire swamp.

Go for it

Posted on by

Eric Levitz in New York magazine writes Why the Decimated Democrats May Turn Left:

Without the immense power (and glamour) that comes with the White House, Democrats no longer have any distraction from their fundamental weakness at all other levels of government.

Since President Obama took office, more than 900 Democratic state legislators have been ousted. In January 2009, the party occupied 29 governor’s mansions. Today, it lays claim to 15. The GOP — the party that was supposed to be headed for a great crack-up — holds 33.

In 24 states, Republicans control the Executive branch and both legislative houses. Of course, they now enjoy the same trifecta in Washington, D.C.

But Democrats have lost more than power. They’ve also lost their faith in demographic destiny.

…

The upcoming DNC leadership election is expected to be cast as a struggle for control of the party’s future. For now, the party’s Sanders-Warren wing appears best positioned to win that civil war.

Sure thing Eric. Socialism is the future. Go for it.

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

Most of us don’t want power to rule others: we want to be left alone. But in order to be left alone, you have to seek enough power to make them leave you alone. That, I think, is our great Catch 22.

Sebastian
November 7, 2016
Busybodying May Be The Most Powerful Force in the Universe
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

He has a time machine

Posted on by

On August 5th, 2015 Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, wrote How Trump Becomes President. That’s right, 15 months before yesterday’s election.

Less than a week before the election he said:

I predict Trump wins in a landslide.

This was even when almost all polls were telling us Hillary was going to win. The polls continued this claim to the morning of the election. The polls, built and conducted by hundreds, if not thousands, of extremely experienced political observers, mathematicians, and pollsters got it wrong. They couldn’t see the future a few hours ahead of time as well as some guy who makes his living drawing cartoons about engineers and pointy haired bosses did 15 months prior to the event.

Trump, who had never held a political office or been in the military had to defeat, what was it, 16 republican candidates for the nomination? Then he had to defeat whoever the democrats threw at him in the general election. That first point, alone, is unheard of in this country.

For Scott Adams to successfully make this prediction one has to believe he has either, hereto unknown to mankind, god-like political insight or that he has a time machine he isn’t telling us about.

Occam’s razor says he has a time machine.

Quote of the day—Scott Adams

Posted on by

On election day, should Trump win as I predict, I ask for Trump supporters to stay cool when the predictable riots erupt. And keep in mind that if you vote for Trump, you own it. If you aren’t helping him get it right after he wins, you haven’t done enough. Trump is a group-participation president by design. He is directly asking for voters’ help in “draining the swamp.” In the short run, the best way to help Trump is by avoiding trouble on election day and by reassuring Clinton voters that you have always been on their side as Americans. Then act that way.

The fight ends Tuesday. After that, let’s try to be useful. No matter what happens.

Scott Adams
November 6, 2016
I Don’t Want a Government Job
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Overheard near my desk

Posted on by

Brett: I voted for the Disney party.

Joe: A lot of people did whether they realized it or not.

Brett: Stop that! [Wheeze, wheeze.] I won’t be able to breath.

#ClimaxForClinton

Posted on by

In the light of the news that Hillary Clinton went to “Orgy Island” on the “Lolita Express” at least six times I find this tweet from Jenny Block very telling about those who support Clinton for president:

Female orgasm’s the most powerful force in the world. Don’t forget to Climax for Clinton today! Let me know you did with #ClimaxForClinton !

I don’t have a problem with consenting adults doing pretty much whatever they want in their bedrooms, or on an island, but the reports are that many of the participants on the island were not adults and some of the adults were not consenting.

But almost as disturbing is that Ms. Block somehow thinks orgasms are applicable to a presidential election.

The Anonymous Conservative will claim this is a validation of r/K theory.

Quote of the day—Michael Krieger

Posted on by

I want to take a quick moment to discuss his most meaningful insight, which is the idea that “political systems scale poorly.” This is hugely important, because as the current status quo system collapses, many of us in the Western world will be presented with an incredible opportunity to do things completely different.

Michael Krieger
November 6, 2016
Here’s What Happened When a Hillary Supporting MIT Professor Decided to Analyze Her Emails…
[Communism works well enough for a family unit and maybe even a small tribe. Democracy works for somewhat larger groups. Republics work for even larger groups. Republics with strong minority rights work for still larger groups.  But it should be obvious by now that we haven’t recently field tested a particularly good political system for large populations with diverse cultures and large geographical areas. Krieger suggests something that showed considerable promise in earlier tests and should be reevaluated.

If it’s not obvious to you then a civil war may be in our future and you will be enlightened.—Joe]

Jews in the attic example

Posted on by

Via email Bob Reynolds points out:

Here’s one for the “Jews in the attic” category: http://komonews.com/news/local/king-county-using-grocery-store-data-to-target-pet-owners

From the article:

“This is not King County going and grabbing this data, you know, big brother watching what you buy at the grocery store,” said Satterfield.

Instead, the county said they pay the company who pays stores such as Safeway and QFC for access to customer data contained in every one of those reward card swipes.

Satterfield seems to think that paying someone to do it for you means you are “not doing it”.

From my Jews in the Attic Test web page we have an example which predicts the result Bob points out:

Elimination or severe restriction of anonymous financial transactions.  The purchase of food and other supplies for your “Jews in the attic” would show up in the records as being excessive compared to what your needs were.

Quote of the day—Middle Class Warrior ‏@ZeitgeistGhost

Posted on by

So is it an inability to get or keep an erection that makes u compensate by being a gun nut @MarkAWebster1? u too @CommodusLucius

Middle Class Warrior ‏@ZeitgeistGhost
Tweeted on February 13, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Masterful logic

Posted on by

Barb: (Somewhat sheepishly) I ate a bunch of snacks this afternoon.

Joe: That’s okay. I finished off the cookies Kim gave me. I figured they were making me fat so I had to get rid of them.

Barb: Masterful logic!

Guns and crime in England

Posted on by

I frequently want to look up certain things about guns and crime in England that I vaguely remember and I have trouble finding things I thought were fairly well documented.

The other day I found FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN EARLY LEGISLATION and decided to blog about it to make it easier for me (and perhaps others) to find in the future. I have a link to this post on my “Important posts” page for easy reference in the future.

Here are some important points from the UK Parliament Publications linked to above. The most important parts are bolded.

  • Early English legislation relating to firearms was concerned only with the duty of the citizen to arm himself for the defence of the realm and for the maintenance of order.
  • Until the start of the 20th century, therefore, the right to keep arms was vigorously upheld by Parliament and all attempts at legislation to restrict arms generally or firearms in particular failed completely.
  • The Pistols Act of 1903 was the first piece of legislation to attempt some control on pistols. It required only that a prospective purchaser provide proof that he held a gun licence available on demand at a post office, or that he was a householder, or was to proceed abroad.
  • During the early part of this century anyone, respectable citizen, criminal or lunatic, could walk into a gunshop and buy any firearm he wanted.
  • The 1988 Act had many different effects. The Home Office failed to produce a single case in which self loading rifles had been used in crime other than the Hungerford incident. In that case, the fact that the rifle was self loading was of no significance because the rate at which shots were actually fired was within the capability of any firearm including the most simple single shot weapon.
  • Countries all require a permit of some sort to acquire a handgun, but in general these are much more easily obtained than they were in this country….Single and double barrel shotguns will remain completely uncontrolled and, as now, will be freely sold in gunshops and even supermarkets.

In regards to the Dunblane atrocity:

  • The Government of the day rapidly appointed Lord Cullen to head an inquiry and asked that judgement be delayed until he had reported.
  • The Labour Party in opposition took an entirely different approach and rapidly produced a 15 page submission to Lord Cullen
  • It is clear that those who prepared the submission sought no professional assistance in producing this document and that they did not consult with the shooting community. It seems that they did not regard the matter as sufficiently important to warrant extensive research.
  • The document displays a complete unawareness of the nature and economic value of shooting sports in general or of pistol shooting in particular.
  • The Labour submission also demonstrated an incomplete knowledge of the safeguards already in place in firearms legislation and of the many obstacles placed in the way of a person wishing to hold a firearm certificate. They noted the increase in reported crime involving firearms, though their analysis of the trend was flawed and failed to even attempt to correlate the reduction in legally held firearms and changes in rates of armed crime.
  • then the Labour submission turned to the extremely complex question of international comparisons, the researchers failed to realise that published statistics are not comparable and quoted conclusions from carefully selected works that have not stood up to even modest examination of their reliability.
  • On the basis of this flimsy and entirely unreliable evidence, the Labour Party suggested a whole raft of reforms of firearms legislation, including many which have civil liberties implications. They proposed, for example, that chief constables should have absolute discretion to refuse any application and should not be required to give reasons for doing so (Para 32). They conceded that a Star Chamber system might further consider the chief constable’s decision in some cases, though the applicant would not be told why the decision had been taken.
  • This mass of law was based on intrinsically flawed panic legislation of 1920. It has been added to by one panic measure after another. It has never been the subject of rational consideration. The principles which should apply to all legislation are lost. No-one has ever stated a precise objective for the legislation or indicated how it will be measured against that objective to see whether or not it is working.

Guns, crime, and the misuse of statistics:

  • There can be no system of measuring the number of illegally held firearms and estimates made vary considerably. Some commentators have suggested a figure of four million illegal firearms in circulation in Britain. Bearing in mind tht almost one million illegally held firearms have been surrendered to, or confiscated by, the police since the end of World War II and that the number of firearms available for use in crime does not seem to have diminished, it seems reasonable to suggest that the number of illegal firearms cannot fall far short of the total number legally held.
  • A time series study relating to Great Britain is a relatively simple process, but simplistic conclusions should not be drawn from it. However, if the thesis that more guns means more violent crime is correct, it must follow that fewer guns should mean fewer violent crimes. Home Office criminal statistics for England and Wales have given figures for the use of firearms in crime only for relatively modern times, prior to which the only information available was that from major cities, notably London, or from anecdotal and unreliable evidence. All the evidence that can be found from these sources shows that when there were no controls on firearms the rate of armed crime was very low and it remained so until the mid 1960s when it began to escalate. But the rate of legal firearms ownership was declining and has continued to decline whilst the rate of armed crime has grown.
  • Though there has been a gradual increase in the use of firearms in homicide it has remained a fairly constant proportion of all homicides.
  • The rise in the use of pistols in homicide since 1992 reflects a most important change in the nature of homicide and may well be associated in the rise of drug and criminal gang related shootings which are being reported in the media and by the police. A discernible change in the pattern of homicides involving firearms is taking place which may reflect a total failure to effectively police a segment of the community and which will have far reaching implications if not tackled effectively. Tackling this phenomenon through the medium of stricter controls of pistols is clearly not an option. They were extremely strictly controlled throughout the period and are now effectively banned.
  • Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. The adjustment is made only in respect of figures shown in one part of the Annual Criminal Statistics. In another part relating to the use of firearms, no adjustment is made. A table of the number of homicides in which firearms were used in England and Wales will therefore differ according to which section of the annual statistics was used as its base. Similarly in statistics relating to the use of firearms, a homicide will be recorded where the firearm was used as a blunt instrument, but in the specific homicide statistics, that case will be shown under “blunt instrument”. [Emphasis added.]
  • Acting within the remit of Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice recommended that a study be undertaken in member states into the regulation of firearms together with other topics assumed to be related to such regulation.
  • The authors of the UN Report draw a series of conclusions which are not justified by their own evidence. The only conclusion which can safely be drawn in that there is no casual relationship between the number of firearms in a State and the levels of death through homicide, suicide or accident.
  • The data produced in the survey provide no evidence of any correlation between firearms ownership and firearms accident levels.
  • The UN survey makes no pretence of controlling for any of the many variables known to influence suicide rates, but even these crude figures show that there is no correlation between firearms ownership and either overall suicide rates or firearms suicide rates.
  • The debate seems to assume that the United States is a homogenous unit, but that does not seem to be the case. Homicide rates vary from the extraordinarily high level of about 80 per hundred thousand in Washington DC which has a total ban on the ownership of most firearms, to rates less than those in the UK and Europe in States like Vermont which does not allow any restrictions on firearms ownership.
  • In the Study, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 by Professor David Farrington of Cambridge University and Dr Patrick Langan of the US Department of Justice, compared rates of reported assaults, robbery and burglary in the two countries were compared to discover that in all cases, England and Wales has overtaken the United States. The report was based on both crime victim surveys and police statistics and so is as reliable as any such report can be. The situation was reached in 1996 where the robbery rate in England and Wales is 40 per cent higher than it is in the United States whilst assault, burglary and “auto-crime” in England and Wales are almost double those in the United States.
  • Of even more significance is that the fact that the “hot” burglary rate (burglary committed whilst someone is in the house) involved 13 per cent of burglaries in the United States and about 50 per cent in England and Wales (Wright and Rossi 1986).
  • Many of the international studies on the relationship between levels of firearms ownership and crime rates have value only if studied with great care taking proper account of the many variables. A time series study in this country shows that no such relationship exists here and a study of the more reliable cross sectional analyses fails to disclose sufficient evidence of any such relationship and tends to disprove it.
  • Attempts have been made throughout this century to reduce levels of crime generally and levels of violent crime in particular by imposing strict controls on access to firearms. These have been applied in most parts the world and over a long period. There has yet to be a single follow-up study which shows that the imposition of controls on firearms, or the tightening of existing controls, has caused any reduction in the use of firearms in crime over time in any particular country or more generally. [Emphasis added.]

The first bolded point is of great importance and I repeat for even more emphasis:

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction.

This last bolded point is, in essence, a restatement of Just one question.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with bringing up England as justification for gun control. They are ignorant, misinformed, or lying.

Winning

Posted on by

Remember new shooters Kurt and Tracie?

Yesterday they went to the range with Barb and me. They haven’t purchased a gun yet but they have been looking and test fired two guns they rented at the range. Kurt has applied for his concealed pistol license and Tracie was asking good questions about shooting in self defense.

They went through 500 rounds of .22 LR, 100 rounds of 9mm, and about 20 rounds of low powered .40 S&W.

This is how we win the culture war.

Quote of the day—NRA ILA

Posted on by

UK law enforcement’s warning on terrorist gun attacks is a stark illustration of the fundamental flaw of gun control. Rather than scheming of new firearms restrictions that violent offenders will simply ignore, policy makers should be looking for ways to empower the law-abiding to better provide for their own defense.

NRA ILA
November 5, 2016
Despite Severe Gun Controls, UK Warns Of Terrorist Gun Attacks
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]