Thursday, April 21, 2016
OH: Armed Victim Captures 2 Burglars, 1 Escapes
According to Mercer County, Ohio, authorities, a homeowner responded to two would-be robbers breaking into his home by pulling out his firearm and detaining the two suspects while he called police.
More Here
AL: Son Captures Burglar at Mother's Home
BESSEMER, Ala. —
A
man who broke into a stranger's home in Bessemer, Alabama, got a
surprise Sunday afternoon when the homeowner's son confronted him at
gunpoint, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office said Tuesday.More Here
TX: Neighbor Drives off Armed Robber with Gunfire
Then the homeowner said the suspect went to the back of the house with a gun where the boy's mother was. The suspect took a watch and other items, according to the homeowner.
Meanwhile the boy ran across the street to ask for help.
The homeowner says that soon after, that neighbor fired several shots toward the suspect. The suspect was not hit and took off.
More Here
OH: Armed 80-Year-Old Shoots two, Kills 1 Robbery Suspect
An 80-year-old man living in the residence said Shaver, Grossklaus and a woman attempted to rob him after the woman came to his door, asking to use his phone for an emergency, according to a press release from the Fairmont Police Department. When he let her in, two men dressed in dark clothes entered the home, showed what appeared to be a handgun, and demanded items from the victim.
He shot both men as they were trying to rob him, according to police.
Police later identified the robbers' weapon as a realistic looking pellet or BB gun.
More Here
FL: Armed Victim Shoots Robber, Loses Gun
Police in Pembroke Pines are looking for a pair of robbers - one of whom might be suffering from gunshot wounds - after their victim turned the tables and fired at them early Friday morning.
More Here
AL: 16-Year-Old Burglar Shot, Wounded, by Armed Victim
Birmingham police Sgt. Bryan Shelton said a man returned home at around 12:30 p.m. on Saturday to find a burglar at his residence.
The homeowner fired shots, hitting the burglar at least once.
More Here
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Guns are not Designed to Kill People
A common slogan of disarmists is "Guns are designed to kill people". There are several variations; the only purpose of guns is to kill people; guns are designed for one thing: to kill; assault weapons are designed for one purpose: to Kill as many people as quickly as possible. All are false. It is easy to demonstrate that this is true.
First, what are guns designed to do? Guns are designed to project force at a distance. They do this by propelling a projectile out of the end of a barrel, at a velocity sufficient for the task at hand. The higher the velocity, the more force can be projected at further distances. The heavier the projectile, the more force that can be projected at a given velocity. Guns are machines that allow us to effectively project force at a distance.
To clarify, consider the purpose of a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile tipped with a nuclear warhead. What is its purpose? Its basic design is to project force at a distance, much like that of a simple pistol. But it was not designed to kill people. It was designed to provide deterrence; that is, to stop other people from killing us. No Minuteman III has ever been used to kill a single person, but it was, and is, used to deter an attack on the United States through the ability to project force at a distance.
This principle is as old as humanity. The most famous adage associated with it is: Si vis pacem, para bellum (if you wish peace, prepare for war).
People who buy guns in the United States buy them for three primary reasons; hunting, defense, and target shooting.
A majority of guns in the United States are designed to kill things, but they are not designed to kill people. All hunting guns are designed to project force to kill the game that they are used to hunt. That is a clear and obvious truth. Single shot shotguns are seldom used to shoot targets; though they can do so. They can also be used for effective self defense. Their primary design purpose is to project force at a distance to kill small game, birds, pests, and even big game, with the proper ammunition.
People who push for more restrictions on the ownership of guns claim that they have no desire to restrict people from having hunting guns. Guns that are specifically designed to be used to kill animals. Guns that can be used to kill animals can be used to kill humans, but that is not their design function.
Some guns are not designed to kill at all. Guns that are designed for target practise are not designed to kill anything. They are specifically designed to place shots accurately and/or quickly on targets for score. Numerous gun designs are specifically marketed for target shooting
Some guns are designed to prevent killing. Guns that are designed for self-defense or defense of others fall into this category. Most guns used for self defense are never used to kill anyone. Most police officers carry a gun their whole career and never shoot anyone. The guns are there to project force to prevent extreme harm or death, much like the Minuteman III. While many are used for defense, few are used to actually kill a human.
Most defensive uses are against people armed with knives, clubs, or hands and feet. Many are defenses against animal attack. Deterrence is largely sufficient for humans. About one human is killed for roughly a thousand defensive uses.
Defensive uses of guns occur about 500,000 to 3 million times a year; justified homicides occur about 750 to 1500 times a year. The FBI under-reports justified homicides(pdf) because of the way they are defined in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR).
How about military guns? Military guns are also used to project force, and to provide deterrence. The vast majority of military guns are never used to kill anyone; they are used to project force and deter killing.
The Barrett .50 caliber rifle was developed for the U.S. Military and has been legal for ordinary citizens to own since its invention. It has never been used in an illegal homicide, though it is commonly used in long range target shooting.
Other semi-automatic rifles deserve a mention. While the AR 15 is commonly described as a "military gun" it has been altered specifically for the civilian market. It is included in all the political lists of "assault weapons". It is not an assault rifle. It is correctly described as a sport and utility rifle. The AR platform is readily adapted for hunting, target shooting, and self defense. It is the most popular rifle in the United States, precisely because of its adaptability and utility. It is seldom used in crime.
A great many guns are like the AR 15; they have multiple purposes and can be used effectively for hunting, target shooting and defense, even though one or two of those purposes may not have been the primary purpose for which they were designed.
A shotgun designed for skeet shooting can be used for hunting and for defense. A target pistol can be used to shoot grouse for the camp pot, or to defend against a rabid fox; a self defense handgun can be used for target shooting or hunting; even if they are not the optimum tool for that purpose.
All guns can be used to kill people, so can hammers, screw drivers and cars. That does not mean that they were designed for that purpose. There are about 400 million firearms in the United States. There are about 9,000 murders and 500 accidents committed with firearms in a given year. In each year, roughly 1 gun out of 42,000 is used to kill someone who does not want to be killed. Add in suicides, where people kill themselves, and the ratio becomes 1 in 12,500. If guns were designed to kill people, the designers are doing a lousy job.
The next time you read or hear that "Guns are designed to kill people", you will know that the writer or speaker has not really thought about what they are writing or saying. They are repeating a propaganda talking point designed to have you forget about the common uses of guns, and concentrate on the rare and uncommon.
Guns are designed to project force at a distance. The intention behind that force is up to the operator of the gun.
Definition of disarmist
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch
Universities Embrace "Assault Weapons" on Campus
Over a hundred universities and colleges have embraced the concept of having "assault weapons" on campus. It is worth noting, that when the university administrations buy the weapons for their own use, the menacing nomenclature of "assault weapon" is magically transformed into "semi-automatic rifles".
Campus administrations all over the country who have been claiming that allowing adults who have concealed carry permits on their campus will chill free speech and academic freedom, have no such concerns with having "assualt weapons" on campus, as long as the weapons are in the hands of the people they command. From abcnews.go.com:
Once a rarity on campuses, semi-automatic rifles are becoming a standard part of the arsenal for college police forces — firepower they say could make a difference the next time a gunman goes on a rampage.
In the hands of the people, AR 15 rifles have been routinely decried as "assault weapons". In the hands of university and college administrations, they are necessary tools to defend the school.The weapons are rarely seen in public and often stashed away in cruisers or at department headquarters, and many schools won't talk about them. But federal data and Associated Press interviews and requests for records reveal that over the past decade, at least 100 U.S. college police agencies, and probably many more, have introduced rifles or acquired more of them.
Every "assault weapon" bill or statute that I have read has included the AR 15 and variants as one of the listed "assault weapons". Numerous politicians and disarmists have said, over and over again, that the only purpose of such firearms is to kill many people very quickly. That is false, as demonstrated by the reasons given for the police adoption of these common and popular rifles.
"A bad shot with a rifle is better than a good shot with a handgun," said Skip Frost, who until February was deputy chief of police at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which offers a semi-automatic rifle to every officer.It is easy to find police who extol the virtues of the AR-15 rifle. From bluesheepdog.com:
That same philosophy can be applied to the selection of rifles, and the reason a rifle can be more advantageous than a shotgun in some situations. Probably the most commonly used patrol rifle in American law enforcement is the AR-15. This weapon allows the officer to field up to 30 rounds of .223 rifle ammunition at the start of an engagement. Should the need arise, extra magazines are relatively easy to carry and quickly add to the officer’s ability to engage armed criminals, multiple adversaries, and even those who themselves are armed with rifles and maybe ballistic armor.As citizens who are not police officers face exactly the same threats that police do, it is obvious that the same advantages of the AR-15 apply to them.
AR-15 rifles make excellent home defense firearms. Their easily recognized shape and features give them an edge in deterrence. The magazine capacity is outstanding, allowing the engagement of multiple targets, quickly. The ease of use gives the rifle better practical accuracy. The right ammunition selection can prevent over-penetration.
There are a great many reasons why universities and colleges would welcome these effective defensive tools.
If only they would apply that logic to everyone, and not just themselves. It is marvelous how a rifle is transformed from a machine that has only one purpose; to kill as many people as fast as possible, to an essential tool of defense; depending on whose hands are holding it.
Definition of disarmist
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch
Followup DE: Police find that Travis Coneil Dixon Shot Andraes De'Quan Bryant in Self Defense
No charges will be filed in the shooting death of a 26-year-old man earlier this month in the Houston Moore public housing complex.
Wilmington Police Department spokeswoman Cathryn Lindsay said Monday that Travis Coneil Dixon, 24, of Wilmington was acting in self defense when he shot Andraes De’Quan Bryant in the Greenfield Street neighborhood in the early evening hours of April 9. Bryant also lived in Wilmington.
Bryant was pronounced dead at the scene, and Dixon, who was seriously injured by gunfire, was taken to New Hanover Regional Medical Center for treatment.
More Here
SAF SUES MONTANA OVER LAW BARRING CCW PERMITS FOR LEGAL RESIDENT ALIENS
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Montana, challenging the state law that does not allow concealed carry licenses to be issued to legal resident aliens, because only citizens are issued such permits in the Big Sky Country.
“This is not our first rodeo on this subject,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’ve successfully fought similar laws in New Mexico, North Carolina and Omaha, Nebraska. In other states, such as Washington, just the threat of legal action has resulted in a change of the law.”
The case is brought on behalf of Lenka Knutson, a 34-year-old mother of two who resides in Whitefish with her husband and children. She received a permanent resident visa in 2005, and has worked as a bank teller supervisor in Whitefish since 2007. She is a SAF member, as well.
“The Courts have repeatedly stated that lawful resident aliens have the same Second Amendment rights as everyone else, and still some states choose to discriminate against them on this point,” said attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Ill., who is handling this case for SAF. “It is our hope this unfair and illegal law will be swiftly struck down.”
“SAF has opposed such laws wherever and whenever we find them,” Gottlieb stated. “Even non-citizens are afforded protections under our constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms. It is inconsistent with our tradition of liberty that people who come to our country legally and become productive members of the community shouldn’t have the same personal protection rights as anyone, because criminals do not play favorites, even in Montana.
“Our lawsuit is firmly grounded in the recognition and incorporation of the Second Amendment that came with our Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago,” he noted. “We also believe the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause renders the state law to be unconstitutional.
“This is one more example of SAF’s ongoing effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time,” he concluded. “Our track record has been solid on this, as we have won more Second Amendment lawsuits than anyone else.”
Source
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Guns Do Not Kill People
It is a staple of disarmists that the phrase "Guns kill people" is a truism. But a more valid truism holds: "It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so." The maxim that "guns kill people" is simply false. As true believers in the maxim, disarmists have attempted to craft studies to show that it is true. The "studies" are little more than thinly veiled attempts to validate a previously arrived at conclusion. Any study, for example, that only looks at "gun violence" can immediately be discarded. It is total homicides, accidents, and to stretch a point to the breaking, suicides that must be counted, not simply ones committed with guns. If homicides with guns are reduced, but all other forms of homicides increase to more than make up the reduction, society has not gained, but has lost. Any study that tries to answer the question must examine the evidence that guns have beneficial effects. Guns can be used to save lives as well as take them. If the cost to benefit ratio is not included in a study, it is worthless.
In this article, I won't consider the long term consequences of citizen disarmament on governmentally caused deaths, and whether democidal governments are deterred by armed citizens. Nor will I attempt to answer whether disarming a society would have malignant or beneficial results several generations in the future. I will not dwell on the grammatical error of granting volition to inanimate objects.
A number of criminologists and economists have attempted to answer the question of whether guns have a net benefit or cost in contemporary America. Gary Kleck is the best known criminologist; his book, Point Blank, has become the classic among criminologists. His studies make it clear that in American society, guns are used to protect and save lives more often than they are used to take them.
John Lott is the foremost economist who has studied the issues. His research goes a bit further. His studies use the most detailed data that I have seen, down to the county level. He claims, in his famous book, that "More Guns, Less Crime", that an increase in the legal carry of guns decreases violent crime. Nearly all other economic studies have either agreed with him or found that more guns did not have a measurable effect. The only studies that show a very limited increase in certain crimes with an increase in the availability of guns, show it in very limited areas and time frames, for very specific crimes. The authors were not economists, but partisans in favor of more controls.
The echo chamber of elite media reinforces the discredited idea that guns kill people. Michael Bloomberg funded a workshop for journalists about how to report on gun issues. It was held in Phoenix in 2015. It was run by the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma. The director at Dart, Bruce Shapiro, was interviewed by Ray Stern, a reporter for the Phoenix New Times. Ray asked why no academics who showed beneficial effects of gun ownership were included. From phoenixnewtimes.com:
But why doesn't the lineup include any scholar who's researched the idea that guns, or at least the defense display of guns, may often save lives?Stern goes on to reveal more indications of a world view antagonistic to anything positive about guns or gun ownership:
Shapiro guffawed: "Look, guns kill people, right?" he said.
Um, okay, professor. Sorry we asked.
Reporters at the seminar will receive an education in how guns work, too, Shapiro confirmed. So which of the many gunsmiths or firearms dealers in Arizona did the Dart Center invite to go over that material? Maybe someone from the Ruger manufacturing plant in Prescott?There are a number of studies from health care journals. They typically do not acknowledge the criminological or economic studies. I have yet to see one that attempts to measure the benefits of gun ownership; that eliminates them as serious contenders to answer the question of "do guns kill people?". Would these health care professionals test a drug for cancer, and only look at the people who have side effects of lack of appetite, or hair loss in a few patients, while ignoring the cancer cures that occur? That would be ethically wrong, and frowned upon. That is exactly the approach that health care journals apply to gun ownership.
Nope -- serving as the seminar's gun-hardware expert, Shapiro said, will be journalist Marc Cooper, who wrote in 2013 that he'd subscribe to Guns & Ammo magazine after one its columnists (now fired) advocated for gun-control measures.
To believe the health care journals you have to believe that a high level of gun ownership causes a moderate level of suicide in old white men, but has nothing to do with their low level of homicide; while simultaneously believing that a low level of gun ownership causes a high level of homicide in young black men, while having nothing to do with a relatively low level of suicide for them!
The evidence is clear that the number of guns in society has little effect on the number of homicides, suicides and accidents. There is no credible study that shows that "guns kill people", and there are some credible studies that indicate that more guns in America reduce crime a statistically significant amount.
The "Guns kill people" meme is a convenient shortcut to avoid serious thought on the subject. But some people do not care if "Guns kill people" or not. They simply want the common people disarmed. Writing of disarmist Professor and sociologist, Laurence Ross, Don Kates provides insight into this view. From guncite.com:
Ross does not deny (though neither does he dwell on) the fact that handguns save far more innocent lives than criminals misusing them take each year. However, Ross asserts that "despite the masses of data and the cleverness of his analysis and argument, Kleck has missed the point." According to Ross, KleckRoss' attitude demonstrates why so many who push for more and more infringements on Second Amendment rights are not swayed by logic or facts. Logic and facts are irrelevant to their desire to rid society of guns in the hands of those who are not in the government or elite. But they cannot reach that goal by stating it clearly. They have to obfuscate. The cause, "Ban Guns Because they are Icky" does not have any moral punch. The vast majority of people will recoil from the idea of gun control, if it costs lives, just to satisfy the desires of an elite few.
[E]mbrace[s] a society based on an internal as well as an external balance of terror. The social order is seen to rest adequately on masses of potential victims using the threat of gun violence to deter masses of potential armed criminals. [This] spectacle is one that ought to disgust rather than cheer the civilized observer.[15]Advocates like Ross commonly assert that gun control is "worth it" if it saves even one life. But Ross' remarks show that this argument means less than otherwise appears. For, when it turns out that it is defensive gun ownership that saves lives, it also turns out that saving lives is not "worth it"--at least not to Ross who is very candid about this observation. Ross approvingly notes that the tragic "fate of James Brady" provided the "impetus for attempts at broader gun control." He actually welcomes "more [such shooting] incidents, more heinous ones with more tragic or more important victims, [as the impetus for us] to develop the necessary determination" to move beyond "narrow controls" to the desired goal of banning and confiscating all guns.[16]
There is no evidence that "Guns Kill People", no matter how much the phrase is thrown about. In nearly all cases, when strict gun controls were imposed, the homicide rate increased. Australia is an outlier. When strict controls were imposed, the homicide rate momentarily went up, then continued down at the same rate that it was declining before the controls were put into effect. In New Zealand, which did not implement the Australian level of controls, the homicide rate continued to fall at a greater rate than Australia. The controls, overall, had no measurable effect. They did not even measurably affect the rate of decline of gun homicides.
"Guns Kill People" is not a phrase used by serious academics, because there is no serious evidence to support it. It is an emotional slogan to support a desired political end.
Definition of disarmist
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch
Opposition to "Assault Weapon" Ban at Record High, Support at Record Low
The above chart, created by ABC News, illustrates the trajectory of support and opposition for policies promoted by media elites that have no actual basis in fact or logic. New media allows a significant, underdog, method to distribute facts about the policy. The chart is a little misleading. It starts in the middle of 1994, when the elite media control was near its height, and at the end of a blitz of media efforts to push the "Assault Weapon Ban" policy.
These sort of policies, that rely on emotion, have to be enacted quickly, before the public can discover how much they have been mislead. That is what happened with the "Assault Weapon Ban" (AWB). In the case of the AWB, the proponents were not worried about the public learning the truth; they controlled the media, with almost no effective opposition. But that was changing quickly. Talk radio had already begun to make inroads, and the Internet was just starting to become a viable method of mass communication.
The opponents of the ban, more attuned to reality, had managed to include a sunset to the bill ten years in the future. By the time the sunset came due, enough people had learned the truth to prevent an extension of the bill.
I recall talking to a former military officer who was a manager in the Civil Service. It was about 1992, as the propaganda campaign in favor of the AWB was ramping up. He was astounded that the AWB only affected semi-automatic firearms. He had assumed, from the propaganda, that it was all about fully automatic arms; those had already been excessively regulated for 60 years. He understood the implications quickly and clearly. It only took a minute to explain them.
That is what has happened to a large plurality of the electorate as they have become educated on the issue. 35% completely reversed their positions. It is because they have been exposed to facts and rationality instead of purely emotional arguments and falsehoods.
You see the same effect in multiple attempts to pass more infringements on Second Amendment rights. The current campaign is for the vague phrase "Universal Background Checks" (UBC). The percentage in favor and against started at about the same level shown for the AWB in 1994. There were about 80% to 90% in favor in selectively worded polls in 2013. Nearly all the support was based on ignorance, emotional arguments, and false representation of the actual legislation.
The support for UBC is already eroding, as more and more people are becoming informed. Even in liberal Washington state, with massive funding by Bloomberg and several other enormously wealthy elitists, with an ad campaign based on falsehoods, the actual vote was only 60% for, an erosion of 20-30%. There was almost no effective opposition. The opposition to the referendum was outspent by 15-1, and the major media in the area actively supported UBC.
Emotion and lies can sway an electorate; but when there is a means of getting the facts out, emotional support, based on lies, eventually is eroded. That is why the proponents push so hard to pass the measures quickly. The good news is that once former voters are educated, they are much harder to fool again. A bit of credibility is lost each time this happens. That credibility was built up over decades of relatively careful reporting, followed by decades of an effective control over the media; it has been worn away to a fraction of what it was 30 years ago. Faith in news reporting is at a low not seen for a long time.
There is plenty of room for faith in the media to fall further. The gallup poll taken in 2015 puts faith in the media at 40%. Presumably, those are people who obtain most of their information from the old, elite, media. Younger people are more skeptical yet, with their trust level down to 36%.
Even more skepticism is likely in the future. Credibility is slow to build, and easily eroded. That is a good thing for those who are Second Amendment supporters.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
Followup MI:Felon Repelled by 11-Year-Old with Shotgun is Sentenced
LAPEER COUNTY, MI – A plea deal has been reached in connection with a home invasion where an 11-year-old girl used a shotgun to defend herself inside a Lapeer County home.
More Here
NC: Dispute Over Parking on Private Land Leads to Self Defense Shooting
Deputies say Causby, who lives nearby, returned to the property around 6 p.m. armed with a handgun and began firing shots at the 67-year-old owner.
Gilliand returned fire and fatally shot Causby in the head.
More Here
TX: A&M Welcomes Campus Carry
Texas A&M University’s proposed new campus carry rules include few major restrictions for handguns and will allow the weapons in classrooms and dormitories.
The proposed rules have been approved by Chancellor John Sharp and A&M System legal staff. They will be reviewed by regents later this month. State law doesn’t require board approval of campus carry rules, but does allow regents to amend the rules if they disagree with them.
MI: Domestic Shooting May be Self Defense
DETROIT (WJBK) - Detroit police are investigating a shootout at a gas station on Detroit's west side that killed one man and injured another.
More Here
Monday, April 18, 2016
English Gun Law was a Colonial Import from India
Destruction of the Magazine at Delhi During the Indian Mutiny 1857-58
Gun control, or more properly, the restrictions on the ownership and use of guns by the general population, was not a common or popular phenomena in Europe until after the First World War. One of the most influential and gun control laws was instituted in England and Wales in 1920. It has been the basis for a great deal of restrictions on the private ownership of firearms around the world, both in the Commonwealth countries and in Europe. These restrictions were not designed to protect the public from criminals. Rather, they were designed to protect the ruling class from revolution. Colin Greenwood and Joyce Lee Malcolm are the two foremost scholars on the history of firearms controls in England and Wales. From A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales by Colin Greenwood, page 246:
How, then, should policy on firearms controls be affected by the facts produced? The system of registering all firearms to which Section I applies as well as licensing the individual takes up a large part of the police time involved and causes a great deal of trouble and inconvenience. The voluminous records so produced appear to serve no useful purpose. In none of the cases examined in this study was the existence of these records of any assistance in detecting a crime and no one questioned during the course of the study could establish the value of the system of registering weapons.It was not until much later that Greenwood discovered the purpose of the English firearms registration laws. They were passed to facilitate firearms confiscation in the event of civil unrest or revolution. From Colin Greenwood, May 15, 2000. The term "Constitutionalists" below means British Constitutionalists:
Constitutionalists might argue about whether in Britain, Statute law can over-ride the basic principles of the Common Law, but in 1920 the Government of Britain was in fear of revolution and documents such as the. Cabinet Diaries reveal debates about the number of aircraft available for use against insurgents within the British Isles. In that climate, the registration of firearms (other than shotguns) was imposed for the purpose of “ensuring that all arms are available for redistribution to friends of the government”.Extensive research by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm buttresses what Colin Greenwood found. From Guns and Violence, the English Experience, page 162:
Second, the Firearms Act of 1920, which took away the traditional right of individuals to be armed, was not passed to reduce or prevent armed crime or gun accidents. It was passed because the government was afraid of rebellion and keen to control access to guns.The British government did not have to invent new law. It already had an example that it had been using for 40 years, in India, as a prophylactic against revolt there. The British Crown took over the governing of India from the East India Company after the mutiny or revolt that occurred in 1857-58. Immediate restrictions on the ownership of arms were put into effect. Restrictions on the ownership and use of Arms were codified into law in 1877. From statutoryy-law.knoji.com:
Before 1857 there was no gun control law in India. Any Indian could own any weapon of any caliber. After the mutiny things changed as the British decided that the time had come to restrict Indians from owning weapons and hence the first seeds of arms control were sowed.The 1877 law has a several similarities to the Firearms Act of 1920.
1. The ownership of pistols and rifles were immediately reduced to a privilege, which could only be obtained by asking the government for permission (The 1877 law included all arms. Perhaps the difference is due to the large number of sporting shotguns owned by the British aristocracy.)
2. A reason had to be given for owning the arms.
3. The license could be denied at the discretion of the authorities.
In practise very few Indians were able to obtain licenses to own and use firearms, while nearly all Europeans were able to obtain them easily. I have a picture of famous geologist, a relative on my childrens' maternal side, with a rifle in an Indian jungle, while he was employed there in the 1920's.
The Indian arms act of 1877 was successful in controlling proliferation of guns in India and hardly .5% of Indians were issued gun licenses. In a way unbridled owning of guns as protected by the 2nd amendment in the USA never happened. The British were thus successful in keeping the local Indian population unarmed.It has taken a hundred years of incremental tightening of the bureaucratic and legislative screws in England and Wales to reduce the number of people with permits to 783, 000, of which 582,000 are shotgun licenses. That is about 1.3% of the population. The percentage of English and Welsh who owned firearms in 1920 was small compared to the United States. The vast majority of people did not hunt, and the crime rate at the time the 1920 law passed was incredibly low; far, far lower than it is today.
In contrast, in India in 1857, at least in some cities, most men went about armed:
"Everyone," observed Frayer, "in Lucknow in those days (pre-annexation) went about armed."In spite of the differences between the implementation of the acts in India versus England and Wales, the purpose was the same. Protect the rulers from revolt.
It appears that gun control in England and Wales was a cultural implant from colonial India.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
AZ: Prohibition on Fees, Taxes, or Encumbrances on the Private Sale of Firearms Signed by Governor Ducey
Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona signed HB 224, which protects the right to transfer firearms in private transactions, without fee, tax or encumbrance, into law on 30 March, 2016. The law went into effect on 31 March.
From the Governor's Office:
"This bill protects the Second Amendment freedoms of Arizonans by allowing for the exchange of firearms without assessments or penalties imposed by state and local government.”
The law is succinct and easily understood, a nice contrast with much legislation that is passed in recent times. From cqstatetrack.com:
CHAPTER 36HB 224 passed the House with a strong 35-25 vote; then it passed the Senate with a vote of 19 to 10, was transmitted to Governor Ducey on 29 March, and signed the next day.
PRIVATE FIREARM TRANSACTIONS
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
44-7851. Definitions
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Firearm" Means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will expel or that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a solid projectile by the action of expanding gases.
2. "Private party" means a person who is not a prohibited possessor under state or federal law and does not include a person who possesses a federal firearms license and who primarily engages in the business of selling, trading or purchasing firearms.
3. "Transfer" means when a person gives, loans, offers for sale, wills or in any manner offers another person a firearm for any lawful purpose and the person is not a prohibited possessor under state or federal law.
44-7852. Private party firearms transfer; state or political subdivision encumbrance prohibited This state or any political subdivision of this state may not enact or implement any additional fee, tax, assessment, lien or other encumbrance on the transfer of a firearm between two private parties who are not prohibited possessors under state or federal law.
The Arizona transaction privilege tax does not require tax the transfer of private goods, rather it taxes the "privilege" of transferring goods from a number of explicit businesses. Individual sales are not considered retail sales, and are not taxed.
In response to the federal district court finding, the government of the Commonweath of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) has passed an import tax of $1,000 per handgun. The Arizona law was signed by Governor Ducey 13 days before Governor Torres signed the handgun tax for the CNMI. The two approaches show two radically different approaches to Second Amendment rights. The Arizona government celebrates and protects those rights; the CNMI government is doing everything it can to minimize and obstruct the same rights.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
KS: Armed Woman Shoots, Kills Man Attempting Break-in
The homeowner told police she heard loud banging and knocking on her front door. A police news release said the woman got her gun because she could not see who it was at the door and was scared for her life.
The woman, who was questioned and released from custody, told investigators that she shot the man after he kicked in the front door and came after her.
More Here
TN: 61-Year-Old, Who Never Fired a Gun, Misses Robbers Twice
“I can hurt you if you do crazy stuff to me,” Adams said. “I can’t deal with you hitting my mouth.”
That’s when Adams said he reached for the pistol hidden under the register. He fired one shot, narrowly missing the suspect.
“I’m 61, and this is the first time that I’ve ever shot a gun,” Adams said. “No wonder I shot the wall, but I really meant to hit him.”
Adams then chased the men out of the store, firing one more shot and once again missing.
More Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
