Meanwhile, across the pond
England, which has more violent crime than the US despite conventional wisdom, is currently pushing for right to unlimited self defense. Dave Kopel has a good article on it:
One reason that British burglars are so much bolder than their American cousins is that only about 4% of British homes legally possess a gun, whereas about half of American homes do. British police administrators require guns at home to be stored unloaded in a safe, and that ammunition be in a separate safe. No American jurisdiction has such extreme “safe storage” requirements. As a result, an American burglar who breaks into an occupied home faces a significant risk of getting shot.
As I detailed in an article in the Arizona Law Review, when an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is about equal to his chance of being sent to prison. According to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are about half a million incidents every year in which an American burglar is scared away by a victim with a firearm.
Kevin has been on this story for quite some time, go there and scroll away. The fact that a man defending himself can be subject to the same (or worse) criminal penalties in England is hideous. I guess that’s the price you pay for being a subject. Americans are more like verbs.
December 8th, 2004 at 1:13 pm
The statistics that say that the US has less violent crime is misleading. The FBI defines violent crime as “Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and
nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated
assault.”. On the other hand, Canada includes things like someone threatening to use a weapon without actually doing anything as a violent crime. Violent Crime in the U.K. includes something they refer to as “snatch theft”.
December 8th, 2004 at 1:35 pm
When i add up the offenses listed by the FBI that are also listed on the Canadian stats, I still get 910. I haven’t looked at england.
December 8th, 2004 at 2:01 pm
The difference is that America is based on rights inherent in nature (The part about the Creator in, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” If rights adhere to people because of nature, they cannot be taken away by the government (they can only be usurped). If your rights come the government, then you have no rights – for they can be taken away at any time.
The hunting mess in England is not about hunting. It is about government control of your life and your property.
December 8th, 2004 at 2:09 pm
Threatening someone with a weapon is aggravated assault.
see http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2004/10/boy-charged-with-aggravated-assault.html
“Snatch crimes” are robbery (purse snatching for example – in which it is not uncommon for the victim to be thrown to the ground.
December 8th, 2004 at 2:10 pm
Same topic in this article from yesterday. Steyn’s the best.
December 8th, 2004 at 2:56 pm
SU..you may be looking at another set of tables, but all that I see from the linked stats is that the majority of violent crime in Canada (746.5 of the total) is ” Assaults (level 1 to 3)” which is defined as:
“Assault level 1” is the first level of assault. It constitutes the intentional application of force without consent, attempt or threat to apply force to another person, and openly wearing a weapon (or an imitation) and accosting or impeding another person. “Assault with weapon or causing bodily harm” is the second level of assault. It constitutes assault with a weapon, threats to use a weapon (or an imitation), or assault causing bodily harm. “Aggravated assault level 3” is the third level of assault. It applies to anyone who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of complainant.
The FBI’s stats only include “aggravated assault”.
As to Steyn’s piece, I had this to say on another blog:
Don’t get me wrong…I do support the 2nd Amendment and an individuals right to bear arms, however, I don’t think that support of the 2nd Amendment requires one to believe that more gun ownership will solve the worlds problems.
America’s murder rate is still much higher than the U.K. Stein also seems to be arguing that rich people shouldn’t have to be murdered in Britain, that it should only be limited to poorer areas. The specific example he gives of a wealthy person get stabbed in his home probably would still have happened since I would assume that a wealthy Brit would be somewhat unlikely to think that he would need a gun.
The “I was frightened to defend myself” happens here too and is probably more a function of how much attention that the media in both countries places on trials involving attackees being charged with violent crime against the attacker than anything else.
December 8th, 2004 at 5:35 pm
however, I don’t think that support of the 2nd Amendment requires one to believe that more gun ownership will solve the worlds problems.
Well, Steyn is not arguing about the “world’s problems,” he’s simply saying that usurping the basic human right of self-defense creates localized problems like home invasions.
And the “I was frightened to defend myself” as it occurs in the U.S. is a function of jurisdictions that have made their law-abiding citizens sitting ducks.
December 8th, 2004 at 6:07 pm
karlicko…I would think that the Brits gladly deal with the home invasions rather than have our murder rate. Thats not to say that I think that our murder rate would like the U.K.’s if the U.S. banned weapons. However, it comes down to that a population (like the U.K.’s) that doesn’t want to arm itself is only asking for trouble by making weapons more freely available in the same way that bringing gun control to a population that does want to arm itself (i.e. the US) would also bring problems.
December 8th, 2004 at 10:25 pm
Well, we’ve certainly reached a point of disconnect. This is not about what any one person or gov’t thinks Britons want. As Steyn closes the article: “The right to protect your family does not derive from any home secretary or chief constable.”
December 9th, 2004 at 1:42 am
karlicko…Britain is a democracy. If the people wanted to arm themselves, they would elect someone that would let them do so.
December 9th, 2004 at 10:52 am
Your last post demonstrates a misunderstanding of basic human rights in the political sphere. These rights, including self-defense, are inalienable. A gov’t that abrogates these rights, regardless of majority approval, forfeits the moral right to govern. Steyn’s closing quote, in other words, is saying it ain’t up to a gov’t to let people arm themselves. They already had that right.
December 9th, 2004 at 11:07 am
And there’s a thoughtful post on this topic at the Belmont Club today.
December 9th, 2004 at 11:13 am
The above link ain’t working but here’s the URL: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/12/defense-of-realm-dr.html
December 9th, 2004 at 6:26 pm
It isn’t the British population that doesn’t want arms. It is the British government.
According to a recent London Telegraph poll, “71 per cent of voters believe that householders should have the ‘unqualified right to use force, including deadly force if necessary’ – against burglars.”
See Brits want to be able to defend themselves
December 10th, 2004 at 2:53 am
Zendo..the editorial that you linked to says that Brits want the right to defend themselves and not get hauled into court if they hurt or kill an intruder. The poll doesn’t explicitly ask if people want freely available guns.
karlicko..your going way off the deep end, dude. By your definition, Saddam’s Iraq is one of the few governments that had the moral right to govern and had more of a moral right to govern than the President of the United States. There are two issues here…the right of self defense and loosening gun control in the U.K.
I believe that people have the right to defend themselves. I do take issue with shooting a fleeing intruder in the back, but generally think it should be not be criminalized because no one should be in the position of having to think of these sorts of things in that situation. From what I’ve gathered, it appears as though the U.K. has had some cases where homeowners have been charged with using excessive force on an intruder. I don’t know if these are cases of shooting the intruder in the back or legitimate uses of force.
On the other hand, one can protect themselves without guns in the U.K., particularly when gun ownership is rare. Just as in the US, gun ownership is common such that one is at a disadvantage without a gun. I could argue that I can only protect myself in the US if I am able to possess chemical weapons. However, since I’m not likely to have any run-ins with others possessing chemical weapons, its a fair fight when all parties have access to the same weapons.
If gun control was relaxed in the UK, criminals would also have access to weapons. Something that you don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge. Few criminals have guns in the UK now.
December 10th, 2004 at 4:16 pm
Manish, when I refer to basic human rights, I am talking about a larger group of rights than just the right of self-defense. So your Saddam-U.S. comparison is not really applying my definition. Saddam’s government was illegitimate in its origin, and violated most of these rights in getting and maintaining power.
On your second point, you continue to separate the two issues, whereas I would properly conflate them. To me, the British people are being denied a basic human right by their government via gun control. Period.
And that illuminates what I think is the point of disconnect between us. I believe there are certain natural rights which pre-exist the U.S. Constitution or any consensual gov’t. You seem to believe you need the gov’t to grant you these rights, and Parliament can do whatever it wants as long as it has majority approval. I see that view as morally relativistic to an Orwellian degree, as wretchard points out in the Belmont Club post. Saying you support the 2nd amendment, while appreciated, is not the same thing as actually believing that it is the enshrinement of a natural right.
As for your last part, I’m not sure I get it. Criminals love gun control, b/c the only thing it does is disarm the law-abiding citizen. Ultimately, when a gov’t makes all gunowners criminals, it makes a contemptible tradeoff that is wrong on two basic counts: it ignores that criminals don’t obey laws and denies that citizens deserve the right to defend themselves.
December 10th, 2004 at 9:07 pm
Criminals love gun control, b/c the only thing it does is disarm the law-abiding citizen.
this is true..IN AMERICA. In Britain, criminals don’t have guns and loosening gun control woul allow them to get them. Thus I can’t see why you think they would oppose it in Britain. They could find themselves in a situation in a burglary where both themselves and the homeowner has a gun, but they would likely find that they are the only person with a gun in that situation. You have to remember that America has a tradition of gun ownership, while the U.K. does not. Suddenly making guns freely available in the U.K. would likely be disastrous and America is not a model that they would want to follow…I would assume that most Brits would gladly keep their burglary problems rather than have our murder problem.
Further, it isn’t necessary to own a gun to defend yourself. Look at it this way, in England your allowed to own knives, bowling balls, baseball bats, etc. All of these have a primary purpose unrelated to self-defense, but can still be used in such a capacity.
In America we have the right to own all of these things and guns. But we don’t have the right (or the ability to acquire in some cases) to own bombs, grenades, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. How do you draw the line and say that gun ownership means that one can protect themselves and that other means aren’t necessary?
I believe there are certain natural rights which pre-exist the U.S. Constitution or any consensual gov’t. You seem to believe you need the gov’t to grant you these rights, and Parliament can do whatever it wants as long as it has majority approval.
I’ve heard this line of reasoning many times and all that I can say is that its nice in theory, but reality is quite different both here and across the pond. A man’s home is his castle and he can do what he wants on it, except that he has to abide by zoning laws, can’t put the wrong Christmas ornament up, can’t paint it the wrong color, etc. And we accept these things because you don’t want your neighbor to open an all night strip club or have a 24-hour construction crew building a 40 story high rise, because your own property value will take a tumble.
The right to bear arms is not somehow a “natural right” in the manner that it is popularly interpreted by most pro-gun folks. How do we decide that gun ownership is a natural right, while possessing nuclear, chemical biological, missiles, etc. is not a natural right? And somehow possessing knives, baseball bats, bowling balls, etc. aren’t quite enough to fulfill the “natural right” requirement.
December 11th, 2004 at 4:14 pm
Manish, Little late getting back to you. You’re wrong about Britain and the use of other weapons. Britain under the 1997 Knives Act has banned the sale of “any knife suitable for combat.” Proponents admit this could be interpreted as any knife, and Parliament has even increased police search and seizure powers to search suspects for knives. And they’ll likely keep going to ban cricket bats, scissors, and whatever they can think of, b/c it won’t work.
I was hardly suggesting that these natural rights should be completely w/o limits. Lines are drawn all the time via the law when the assertion of one’s rights intrudes upon the rights of others. Zoning laws stem from the natural right to own property, and thus the examples you mention would violate the rights of other property-owners by devaluing their property, among other things. In another example, you can’t break into the Pentagon, steal military secrets and publish them on your website and claim first amendment protection. You’d be threatening the safety and liberty of your fellow citizens.
So how do we decide that guns are included in the natural right of self-defense, and weapons of mass destruction, like nukes, aren’t?
B/c you can direct a firearm against an individual attacking you without threatening the rights of others around you. Weapons that are clearly unable to be used in a manner that can discriminate between an attacker and innocents are inappropriate for self-defense. WMDs, landmines, and (arguably) machine guns and small explosives are included in that category.
As for the other side, you might be able to defend yourself with a baseball bat or a bowling ball (good luck on that), but what about your grandma or your little sister? Guns equalize and that’s why criminals use them and fear them. Here or over there.