Do it again, only HARDER!

KevinLeave a comment

In the comments to yesterday’s post, “…only the strictest control of firearms will protect the public”, reader Richard wrote:

There are over 1/2 a million shotgun shooters here in the UK. Politically we are not going to be as easily oppressed as the 47,000 pistol shooters were. I live in hope that we will ride this out without any new legal idiocy despite the vileness of the left trading on peoples grief and loss.

Half a million! Sounds impressive, doesn’t it?

Let’s check that number. According to Home Office statistics as reported by the Guardian, here are the numbers since 1995:

So, as of 2008/09 574,000 people have shotgun certificates, and 138,728 people have firearm certificates. What’s the difference between the two? As I understand it, a shotgun certificate will allow you to possess smoothbore long-guns capable of firing not more than two shells before reloading. A firearm certificate will allow you to possess both rifled and smoothbore long-guns capable of holding more than two rounds.

British subjects are forbidden from possessing centerfire and rimfire handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action centerfire rifles, and anything fully-automatic. Short-barreled rifles and shotguns are similarly verboten. However, suppressors (silencers) are readily available over there with little hassle. Go figure.

The data above is for England and Wales, excluding Scotland and Northern Ireland. The current population of England and Wales is estimated at about 54.5 million. Given this, approximately one person in a hundred holds a shotgun certificate there. Approximately one person in five hundred holds the more stringent firearm certificate. And there must be significant overlap between the two groups. I am reminded here of St. George Tucker’s 1803 commentary in his American Blackstone law text concerning our Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep,(sic) and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Just barely over one percent of the population of England and Wales owns firearms. They’ve got just a bit farther to go to get to that one in five hundred number for all firearms. “Without being subject to a penalty,” that is.

Sorry, Richard, but 98% of the population can steamroller just over one percent like they aren’t even there. And it doesn’t take 98%. It takes less than 51%. A lot less, depending on voter turnout.

What happens when only one percent of the population possesses something? The majority of the rest of the population has no firsthand knowledge of it. All they know of it they learn from where? The media, generally. Or they don’t learn anything at all.

What do people fear? The unknown.

Here’s an admittedly biased sample of comments from that Guardian piece:

I am so angry by what has happened today in Cumbria that I think that it is time that we had a radical change in our approach to gun ownership in this country. I think this has to start with a referendum on whether the public should be allowed to own firearms at all. I know that this will rile the gun lobby in this country and those who believe that they have a right to bag the odd rabbit, grouse or even clay pigeon, but is one single life worth appeasing the minority who get a kick out of their double barrels? I’d rather see hunting with hounds come back than have guns available. I’ve heard it said earlier on the radio that these murders could have been done with any weapon, but surely not as fast and as lethally as this. You can’t wander around a county strangling and stabbing innocent people as quickly as this guy did with 2 guns!

Let’s get a majority opinion, once and for all, on whether such deadly devices should be so widely available. I don’t believe that most sensible people would believe that anyone other than the Police and armed forces should have access to them. It’s not ‘totalitarian’ to say that it should be the decision of the majority of people in the country whether individuals should be allowed to own leathal(sic) weapons. – “Sefidahjan”

—

I don’t know why someone who isn’t a hunter needs a gun at home. – “Summertimephantasy “

—

The gun lobby always say that the problem isn’t with them, the law abiding good folk who have licenses. They say the problem is illegal, inner city gun ownership. Sorry, but I’m just as afraid of a person who has a license as someone who doesn’t. For those of us who see no point in firearms, a gun is a gun! – “Sefidahjan” again.

—

Living in the British countryside where gun ownership is quite common.
Its too easy for licensed gun holders to obtain weapons and ammunition, when they flip. There are probably hundreds of mentally unstable gun owner who could potentially turn their guns on their families, others or themselves.
The police seem to have little interest in addressing the potential problems.

A public list of licenced gun owners would be useful so mental problems and other character issues could be notified to the authorities to alert them of potential problems and misuse. – “Sleaseball”

—

How do you find out if there’s a gun-nut in your community? Are license addresses available? I think I want to know. – “Danceswithcats”

—

You put your finger on the problem, though, which is that the ‘vetting’ obviously isn’t working. At the moment renewals occur every five years and they seem to be fairly standard criminal record checks. What’s needed is an annual psychological assessment of the individuals (at their own expense). – “DonutHingeParty”

I said in my earlier piece that I expected there to be legislation presented very shortly to ban shotguns and .22 rifles, but on further consideration I don’t believe that will be the case. They’ve already done that with full-autos, semi-autos, pump-actions, and all handguns. It’s time for a change in tactics, and “DonutHingeParty” has the answer: Make getting and keeping a firearm or shotgun certificate even more difficult, expensive, tedious and insulting than it already is.

Look at what the UK’s current death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy has accomplished so far. Here’s a graph of homicide in England and Wales from 1898 through the 2007/2008 recording period. Bear in mind that the way they keep statistics over there has changed more than once during this period, and there is no data for 1939 as they were a bit busy at that time.

And another for “Violence against the person,” as it is kept by the police statisticians:

This data comes from Police Recorded Crime data available from the UK Home Office in Excel spreadsheet form. Obviously something changed between 1997 and 1999/2000 in their record keeping, but Britain has been declared the most violent country in Europe. As you cans see from the graphs above, the Brits have never been much into killing each other, but banning firearms hasn’t lowered their homicide rates, nor has it lowered their other violent crime rates.

In short, it hasn’t made them safer, even though that’s what they’ve been promised each and every time the laws have been ratcheted tighter. And the public hasn’t learned any better, either, because in the majority they still support ever more restrictive gun laws.

After all, the philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again, only HARDER!

“…only the strictest control of firearms will protect the public.”

KevinLeave a comment

Well, now the Brits will probably lose their .22 rifles and shotguns.

Taxi driver Derrick Bird got into his cab with a .22 rifle and a shotgun, and went on a shooting spree in Cumbria, England. He killed twelve and wounded another 25.

His rampage lasted three and a half hours.

It was ended, as most of these are, by a man with a gun. In this case, himself, once he’d decided he was done preying on a defenseless victim pool.

England has been on a long death-by-a-thousand-cuts path to complete disarmament since the 1930’s. The last two “turn ’em all in” bans came in 1987 after Michael Ryan took an AK-47 clone, an M1 Carbine and a semi-automatic pistol on a shooting spree in Hungerford, killing sixteen before he offed himself. The result of that was a ban on all semi-automatic and pump-action rifles larger than .22 rimfire caliber.

The British public was told it would make them safer.

In 1996 Thomas Hamilton took four handguns into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and killed sixteen students and a teacher before, again ending the shooting spree at the time of his own choosing by killing himself.

The response by the government? A ban on all centerfire handguns, followed by an expansion to include all .22 rimfire handguns as well.

The British public was told it would make them safer.

Since the 1987 semi-automatic and pump-action long-gun ban, gun crime in Great Britain has increased. Since the handgun ban of 1997, it has continued to increase. Even handgun crime has continued to increase.

Now someone has taken a .22 rifle and a shotgun and gone on a rampage. The predictable result? I have no doubt that a bill is sitting on a desk somewhere, pre-written and just waiting for the proper incident to drag out and dust off, that will ban .22 rifles and shotguns.

And the British public will be told it will make them safer.

After all, in 1997 Home Office Minister Alun Michael said:

Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. We recognize that only the strictest control of firearms will protect the public.

Sure it will.

It’s doing a bang-up job. I’m sure James Kelly will be at the forefront of the effort.

My condolences to the victims and their families. Perhaps now the Brits will start insisting on restoring their right to the tools of self-defense, because once again it has been proven that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

FINALLY!!

KevinLeave a comment

First, the good news: The FedEx truck showed up at my house today at about 10 AM. (Click on image for super-size.)

Now the bad news. See the scope rings?

They don’t work. The scope needs to come back about another inch, inch-and-a-half. Those are LaRue Tactical LT719 30mm QD rings. I paid $195 plus $9.95 shipping, and they don’t work. (I mean, they do work, just not on this rifle.) I think I’m going to have to get a GG&G QD rail mount instead. Whatever I get has to be quick-detach if I want to be able to use the iron sights (and I do). This time, however, I’m going to have to check the dimensions very carefully to make sure whatever I get is actually going to work.

So, anybody need a set of LaRue 30mm QD rings at a discount?

I’m Often Glad I’m a Pessimist by Temperament

KevinLeave a comment

This way I’m very seldom disappointed but often pleasantly surprised.

Today I’m not pleasantly surprised.

My rifle was dropped off at a FedEx facility on Wednesday for shipment on Thursday and delivery on Friday by 3:00PM local time. I even received an automated phone message from FedEx yesterday telling me that a package was coming requiring an over-21 adult signature to receive. It’s currently 4:42. Do I have my rifle? No, I don’t.

I’ve been checking FedEx all day. According to their computer system it was “picked up” in Medford OR yesterday. From that point, it never went “in transit.” I called customer support just a few minutes ago. Apparently it’s on a flight NOW, but it was “missed” yesterday. They’re going to try to upgrade it to Saturday delivery, but if not I won’t get it until TUESDAY.

I took the day off to receive it today. I can’t take Tuesday off. My wife may (I emphasize may) be home to receive it.

We’ll see if it comes tomorrow, but (being a pessimist by temperament) I’m not holding my breath in anticipation.

UPDATE: Yup. Tuesday. No shooty goodness for me this weekend.

“Federal Express: When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight, we’ll screw it up!“

Industrial Equipment

KevinLeave a comment

Want to know what I did while I was out of town last week? Here’s a (very unflattering) shot of me standing next to a 2200Hp slurry pump. (No, I’m not that fat, it’s the way that damned safety vest hangs with my computer bag hanging off my shoulder.)

There were four of those at the site, all run on large variable-speed drives. I used to apply and sell those drives. Now I specify them, and then make sure they’re installed properly.

Intentions and Results

KevinLeave a comment

Back in January when I wrote What We Got Here Is . . . Failure to Communicate, essentially a book review of Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, I quoted extensively from that work. One of those excerpts was this:

Where in Adam Smith moral and socially beneficial behavior could be evoked from man only by incentives, in William Godwin man’s understanding and disposition were capable of intentionally creating social benefits. Godwin regarded the intention to benefit others as being “of the essence of virtue,” and virtue in turn as being the road to human happiness. Unintentional social benefits were treated by Godwin as scarcely worthy of notice.

To which I added:

So in the Constrained vision human nature is flawed, and while some flaws in some – even most – men can be ameliorated with time and teaching, this does not hold true for the whole of mankind. We are imperfect, and being imperfect the systems we establish, the institutions that we build, the traditions, laws and rituals that we practice carry along with them vulnerabilities to our inherent flaws. In order to achieve social benefits those institutions, traditions, laws and rituals must offer individuals some incentive. But more, those institutions, traditions, laws and rituals must also carry protections against abuse by those in which the flaws are extreme. In the extreme Unconstrained vision, intentions are more important than results, and results without intention are “scarcely worthy of notice.”

I was reminded of this when I read that the Dalai Lama proclaimed himself a Marxist, because:

(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits.

Marxism has moral ethics.

However, he does admit:

(Capitalism) brought a lot of positive to China. Millions of people’s living standards improved.

But those improvements were unintentional, and apparently don’t count, because capitalism is only about how to make profits.

In Bill Whittle’s most recent PJTV piece We are Iron Men, Bill has a clip from this series of YouTube videos of Milton Friedman being interviewed by Phil Donahue in 1979. I invite you to watch all five pieces, but here’s the point that’s pertinent to this post:

http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vidmg.photobucket.com/albums/v99/smallestminority/Milton_Friedman.flv

Thomas Sowell authored another book that I think should be mentioned here, Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy. Perhaps the Dalai Lama should read it.

Communism, the “real-world” application of Marxism by the flawed humans we of Sowell’s Constrained Vision recognize, has resulted not in an improved standard of living for millions of people, but the deaths of millions of people at the hands of their own governments.

The Dalai Lama proves that the beautiful lie of Marxism truly does lodge deep in the hopes of some men.

But I wouldn’t trust even the Dalai Lama to organize society for us. I trust capitalism, self-interest, and Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” We have the track records of both, and I KNOW which one works.

He ought to, too. Because he’s seen which one kills.

HOME!

KevinLeave a comment

We were greeted at Customs by the agent singing “José, Can You See . . . ” No, I’m not kidding – and he was Hispanic. Apparently it’s a running joke between him and one of the pilots, (the José in question).

That was a LONG seven days. Mining towns are not “touristy” even in the States. In rural central Mexico, there’s no pizza, much less a Domino’s. (Considerably better than Domino’s is on its way to me right now.)

I just got off the phone with Ted Brown. My M14 is done. My LaRue Tactical rings were waiting for me when I got home – along with a LaRue Tactical hat, a ‘Dillo “Beverage Entry Tool,” a pocket edition of the Constitution of the United States, and two “God Bless Our Troops… Especially Our Snipers” bumper stickers. LaRue knows how to treat its customers! If I’m lucky I’ll have a range-ready rifle in my hands in time for the long weekend!

UPDATE: Pizza’s here! Nom nom nom . . .

Regular blogging to resume shortly.

Well, I’m Here

KevinLeave a comment

As expected, internet access is very slow, so not much surfing or blogging will get done for the next six days or so. Sorry.

Is it “charming”or “quaint” to hear braying burros outside your hotel room in the evening?