Once again music gets the blame

[Ted Jackson]

On 8 Jan 2003 at 15:17, M Holmes wrote:

> Similarly the UK had the right to keep and bear arms, and at one point
> it was even mandatory for a man with the means to buy a gun to do so
> specifically in order to prevent crime. Every infringement of this
> right up through the Dunblane Act has led to higher gun crime. On its
> own, that can perhaps be written off to higher crime rates generally
> (but why?). In conjunction with experience of 33 US states relegalsing
> and seeing crime rates fall faster than states which didn't, it raises
> the very ominous question that we're pursuing exactly the opposite
> strategy that we ought to be.
>
I don't have access to the statistics, but i'm willing to bet that those 33 states are
likely of smaller population, and, more importantly, of smaller URBAN population.
Primarily rural US states will have a lot of gun owners, but they will be the most
responsible ones, e.g. hunters.  Florida has easy access to handguns, and there
 are a lot of accidents each year from senior citizens being triggerhappy.  I'm not
wild about 70-year-olds carrying handguns, unless they're Clint Eastwood [a big
gun owner in 'real life']

> The trouble with Mike Moore is that he has an axe to grind and he can
> just make it up as he goes along. Some of the stats in the movie have
> been hilariously debunked and he's been forced to admit that you can't
> walk in to a bank, open an account, and walk out with a gun as shown
> in the movie. The bank passed on a credit for a gun which had to be
> obtained in the normal way after background checks.
>
> I find Mark Thomas amusing whereas Mike Moore seems merely irritating.
> That said, I did enjoy his Pink Bus tour of Bubba country.
>
The best way to treat Moore is like Oliver Stone's 'political' films:  enjoy them as
filmmaking, and take the 'issues' with a big grain of salt...

> Well, to be honest, though I'm very much in favour of well-balanced
> and law-abiding citizens rights to carry for defence of themselves and
> others, I'd be put in the "gun banners" category in the US because I'd
> insist on training in target acquisition, law, security and safety,
> with a veto going to the gun clubs doing the training if they felt
> anything was amiss in the attitude of the trainee

But over here, you'd be labeled a 'wierdo' if you went to join a club and DIDN'T
advocate spraying the countryside with ammo!

 (three Scottish
> clubs practically begged the Police to pull Thomas Hamilton's licence
> and the Police failed to do so).
>
I doubt that would happen here, though...

> > the analogy to Canada is an interesting one.  I'd like to know what
> > the per capita ownership is in Canada, and how many multiple weapon
> > owners are there, also how many are licensed gun dealers...
>
> Per capita ownership is higher in Switzerland in the US (it's
> mandatory for males to keep a gun and ammunition) while the crime rate
> is lower.

Right you are.  But compare the education level and socio-economic state of Swiss
gun owners to that in the US...

>
> There's something about the US all right. The places with the most
> legal guns have the lowest crime rates and places which extend legal
> rights see crime rates fall. The most likely explanation is that even
> criminals want to live through an extended career and adjust their
> behavior to achieve this.
>
See above.  The states in the US with the most crime are those with the largest
urban populations, and those are the states that don't facilitate handgun ownership.
The states where crime levels are falling are also those where the population level is
falling! I see it as a sociological problem here, and gun crime is an urban thing...

theo