Comments on: Mob Rule at the BBC

By: Gregg

Gregg — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 03:51:03 +0000

So did the jury in the Martin case, using the well-established legal definition of ‘reasonable force’. Shooting someone in the back at close range while he pleads for mercy doesn’t fit that definition. Nor does then proceeding round to the neighbour’s house, waking him up and compelling him to drive you round the countryside looking for someone else to shoot. As Tony Martin did. Tony Martin went to prison for going beyond reasonable force to commit acts of revenge. There were mitigating circumstances, and nobody would suggest that he acted in cold blood, hence his light sentence. But he went beyond the use of reasonable force. And I suspect that he’d have been prosecuted in America, too. Every year, thousands of Brits use reasonable force to defend themselves from crime and, after an investigation to establish the facts, no action is taken against them. Every few years, one person goes beyond the use of reasonable force, into the territory of revenge or vigiliantism, and is prosecuted. And the media goes ape-shit.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:01:01 +0000

I didnt say gun control would reduce gun crime, it too late for that. What i meant was that if america hadnt embraced guns in its constitution so long ago then they wouldnt be so common now, if they werent so widely available now then criminals wouldnt have such easy access to them and there wouldnt be so much gun crime. Every single shooting in england is followed by massive media coverage and public outcry. Talk about self defence all you want but its my opinion that guns are for cowards, whether they’re ciminal or claiming to be defending themselves. I’d rather be shot than use one.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:56:00 +0000

Andrew, the point Cesare was making, which is well understood even today by criminologists, (That’s why gun control “research” such as Kellermans’ tend to be published in medical journals.) is that by it’s very nature as a law, gun control first disarms the segment of the population from whom the least harm, and the most benefit is derived: The law abiding. And only at the very last, if at all, disarms those from whom the bulk of the harm derives. You pretty much have to dismiss the existance of any benefit AT ALL from gun ownership, to conclude that gun control passes a cost/benefit analysis, because it’s the benefit you lose first. Your analogy to drunk driving is pathetic: Drunk driving is ITSELF an offense, while what you’re proposing to ban is drinking. And while drunk driving is HIGHLY dangerous, the vast majoritiy of gun owners somehow manage to own a gun their entire lives without ever causing anybody any harm. Almost all the harm comes from a small segment of the population. Who gun control is least effective at disarming!

By: andrew

andrew — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:07:04 +0000

This gun-control discussion is kinda silly, as it suffers from a lack of data on the empirical questions. This does, however, lower the barrier to entry for numbskulls like me to participate, so here I go: If a guy with a fancy name (Cesare Beccaria) and a quote in actual italics says that accidental shootings are an “imaginary or trifling inconvenience” it must be true, right? And as to why a society should “expect criminals to obey gun control laws”…We don’t have to. As long as it’s not a real moral issue, only is required that the costs outweight the gains. In where do the advantages lie? Oh yeah, in political appeals to emasculated males. Here’s a stretched analogy: drunk driving provides a benefit – being able to drink whenever we like and then drive home is convenient. And drunks are more likely to survive a crash. Though they are more likely to cause one. Private benefits, external costs to society. Like firearms. A tiny chance that an owner is safer, while society is made less safe. And the illusion of safety is really all that is offered: the gun owner and the drunk driver are actually more likely to hurt themselves.

By: Kragen Sitaker

Kragen Sitaker — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:41:48 +0000

Kieran, your last post nearly prevented me from considering reading Tacitus, because you pointed out that he was obviously a scoundrel and a knave. But your assertions turned out to be mistaken, as the comments showed. Don’t you think you should post a retraction to CT’s front page already?

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:34:54 +0000

I think I’ll just quote the founder of criminology, Cesare Beccaria: “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty—so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator—and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” Or to paraphrase, why do you expect criminals to obey gun control laws?

By: darwinian

darwinian — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:42:22 +0000

Has it occurred to you that you’re incoherent?

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:14:00 +0000

Has it occured to any of you that the fact that 40% of american households own a gun is the reason why you feel you need them to defend your homes. In England we have the right to protect the safety of ourselves or others by any means necessary but not our property. If you werent all armed then neither would the person your defending yourself from.

By: darwinian

darwinian — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 15:07:45 +0000

So should the State ban Drano? Seems logical if you think it should ban personal gun ownership. But then, I’m not intellectually rigorous. But I do think that every little home hazard contributes overall to reducing the spread of stupidity.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:09:22 +0000

It would be a cogent suggestion, were it really true that gun ownership had severe adverse consequences. According to the CDC, there were under 800 deaths from accidental shootings. That can of Draino under the kitchen sink is more of a threat to your childrens’ lives than the .45 in the dresser drawer.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:20:53 +0000

“If you want to reduce the number of people who favor personal gun ownership the most effective way would be to let the fools own all the guns they want.” Actually, jeff, this statement seems cogent to me, if you assume (as I think one must) that people argued out of supporting gun ownership are not by definition lost to the ranks of its supporters. Has your comment exposed a hidden flaw in its logic? That would usefully support your above conclusion. Or perhaps I am missing the relevance to this debate of how big the current number in fact is, your point as I understand it. If you reduce a number from 70 to 69, it is smaller, much as a number reduced from 7 to 6 is. I therefore feel certain that your above refutation is more complex than I have grasped.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 07:12:39 +0000

Since another poster mentioned that 40% of U.S. households contained at least 1 firearm (and based solely upon personal experience, I have no reason to doubt the figure), and a majority of U.S. citizens strongly support the RIGHT (as in, written into the Constitution, as the Second Amemdment) to bear arms, it would seem that your post shows a distinct lack of intellectual rigor, Darwinian.

By: darwinian

darwinian — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:32:39 +0000

It would appear that most shootings of self and family members occur accidentally; i.e. because of the carelessness and/or stupidity of the gun owner rather than his murderous or suicidal tendencies. In my view preventing people from suffering the consequences of their own stupidity and/or carelessness is not smart social policy. If you want to reduce the number of people who favor personal gun ownership the most effective way would be to let the fools own all the guns they want.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:30:22 +0000

Yup, just another way our legal system is being contaminated by European influences.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 01:43:31 +0000

I double checked with my criminal law textbook & while that is still the rule in many jurisdictions, there’s a recent trend away from any exception to the “home is your castle” exemption from the duty to retreat.