Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.law-enforcement,alt.politics.british,uk.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: [r--s--l] at [eternity.demon.co.uk] (Russell Earl Whitaker)
Subject: Part 1 of 3: The Case Against Gun Control
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 00:47:34 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
THE CASE AGAINST GUN CONTROL
DAVID BOTSFORD
Whoever controls the weapons makes the rules. Political power, that
is, the power of one individual over another, rests partly on assent
on the part of the ruled, whether through perceived self-interest
or belief in the justice of the ruler's claim to power (or a combination
of both), and partly on the capacity of the ruler to enforce his power
over the subjugated by his control of more physical force than the
latter. These factors are related: the majority of people throughout
history either have not been in a position, or have not had the inclination,
to make up their minds about abstract political ideas and then decide
whether or not their current political arrangements suit these ideas;
the very fact that the claim or assumption of power is made, backed
up with sufficient capacity for violence to enforce it, is enough
to make most people not only go along with the wishes of the ruler,
but few will question the abstract legitimacy of his right to assert
them. State power is a combination, in varying proportions, of violence,
fraud, extortion and conspiracy to rob other people. In politics,
unfortunately, might makes right, generally speaking. And neither
is this true simply of conventional political relationships: psychologists
record many cases of victims of terrorist hijackings falling in love
with their captors, and in situations, such as the end of the American
civil war, or the abolition of slavery in other countries, where slaves
have suddenly been released from bondage, plentiful evidence exists
that many ex-slaves were far from happy about their new situation.
The same principle applies to situations where the individual is simply
trying to preserve power over himself or herself, rather than impose
it on someone else. Where the individual has the capacity, if necessary,
to defend himself and his property by force, and to inflict injury
or death on those attempting to violate them, that factor wiill always
be present in the thinking of those seeking to exercise coercion over
him, whether by political power or by more honest forms of robbery. While
this capacity will by no means make anybody immune to such coercion,
it will nonetheless be a limiting factor in what potential coercers
will attempt to get away with.
WEAPONS AND THE INDIVIDUAL
This history of technology has, in general, been partly one of continuous
enhancements in the power of the individual (interrupted by various
Dark Ages and relatively static periods), and partly one of attempts
by those in power to restrict the spread of such improvements: for
centuries after the invention of printing, Church and state authorities
attempted to restrict the spread of both printing presses and printed
books. Many inventions have been used both for the benefit of individuals,
and for state control over individuals. Barbed wire greatly assisted
the farming of cattle, and also made possible the development of concentration
camps. With the early spread of computers in the 1950s and 1960s,
fears were expressed that they would facilitate totalitarian controls
by the state over the individual: in fact, while such fears have proved
far from groundless, more significant is the use of personal computers
in setting up alternative networks of information which have helped
to undermine totalitarianism, particularly in the Soviet bloc.
Nowhere is this dichotomy clearer than in the field of weaponry. Throughout
most of history the technology of weaponry made it rather difficult
for the individual effectively to defend himself against more powerful
enemies. This led to political dependence on somebody else. In Europe
in the early middle ages, for instance, the development of feudalism
meant that the peasantry lost what individual autonomy they had: unable
effectively to defend themselves against invading barbarians, the
peasant had to accept an arrangement with a local lord whereby he
became the latter's vassal in return for protection. The lord was
rich enough to pay for the castle and knights which were able to defeat
the barbarian raiders; this capacity, and the political arrangements
consequent on it, gave him in most cases virtually the power of life
and death over his villeins and serfs. While feudalism varied greatly
from place to place, control over effective weaponry clearly reflected
political power. In 1215, the barons of England, each with their
own feudal armies, succeeded in forcing King John to sign Magna Carta
because they had the military power to do so when the king was temporarily
unable to finance sufficient forces to resist them. In 1381, by contrast,
the great uprising against prices and incomes policy and poll tax
known as the Peasants' Revolt (but actually lead by merchants, craftsmen,
clerics and townspeople) was tricked and then brutally repressed by
the royal authorities because, according to a contemporary source,
"some carried only sticks, some swords covered with rust, some
merely axes and others bows more reddened with age and smoke than
old ivory, many of their arrows had only one plume."1
The development of gunpowder, artillery and other firearms brought
about a changed situation. On the one hand, the king was able to
destroy the power of local barons and establish a centralised monarchy
in which his power was exercised throughout his realm, as only he
could afford the huge cost of armies equipped with artillery, which
could destroy the barons' castles' walls, if they failed to submit
to the king's wishes. On the other hand, the development of small
arms made it increasingly possible for the ordinary individual to
provide for his own defence, either alone or in concert with others. The
introduction of repeating rifles and revolvers in the 19th century
marked one of the most important technological revolutions in history
in this respect. Before the introduction of small firearms, the individual
armed with a sword, axe or pike would stand little chance against
a group of marauders similarly armed; the bow took years of practice
to master, and even an expert bowman could almost never prevail against
a number of similarly-armed enemies, who could strike him down as
he notched another arrow. Even the musket had a lengthy and complicated
reloading procedure, during which its possessor was vulnerable, and
could be rendered ineffective if rain extinguished the fuse. Another
problem was that early muskets and pistols could only be produced
expensively by hand, thus restricting the number of people who could
afford to buy them: the many fine specimens with intricate silverwork
that we see in museums were specially made by gunsmiths for wealthy
customers; the more plain ones were generally for the use of soldiers
in royal armies.
But the repeating rifle and revolver enabled the user to fire several
shots in succession without having to reload; the chances of a skilled
marksman against several enemies were greatly improved. These could
also be mass-produced in factories at very low cost, bringing them
within the reach of almost everybody. The individual armed with these
weapons, and practised in their use, therefore achieved considerable
autonomy in terms of the defence of his own life and property. One
political implication of this was that, since political authority,
whether that of the feudal master or the modern state, had rested
largely on the claim that the powerful were protecting the powerless,
who in return owed the powerful (whether an individual monarch or
noble or an idea, such as "state", "nation" or "society")
allegiance, the scope of this authority could therefore be reduced
to the extent that the previously powerless were now able to defend
themselves. In response to this situation the state sought to restrict
private ownership of weapons and establish a monopoly of legal force
within society, in order to reinforce and increase its own power. Indeed,
if the state could convey the illusion that the private ownership
of weapons, and the willingness of individuals to use these weapons
to defend themselves if necessary, was itself a "threat to society"
of some sort, for example by associating it with the use of weapons
in robbery and murder, then this progressive technological development
could be used as a justification for even further extending state
power at the expense of individual liberty. Not only would the individual
be made dependent on whatever the state may or may not effectively
provide for his protection against aggressors, but he would be incapable
of self-defence if the state itself should become the aggressor.
POLICE MONOPOLY
This, of course, describes the situation in Britain today. Britain
has by far the strictest controls on the private ownership of firearms
and other weapons of any western country, and the smallest distribution
of (legally-held) firearms. During unrest in Soviet Georgia early
in 1989, in the course of which 21 demonstrators were shot dead in
Tbilisi by the Soviet authorities, one measure introduced by the regime
to put down the protests was the seizure of all privately owned firearms
in Georgia. The number seized proved to be almost exactly the proportion
of legally-held firearms per head as those owned by the British population.
It is a sobering thought to anyone who has noticed how short and insecure
in history are the periods of relative freedom compared to the periods
of oppression that the British people would be in no better position
to defend themselves from any future tyranny imposed by a British
government than are the oppressed people of Georgia.
Indeed, we are not even allowed adequately to defend ourselves from
violent assault by individual aggressors. In 1987 Eric Butler, aged
55, who had been entirely law-abiding throughout his life and who
was, among other charitable activities, a fund-raiser for the Royal
National Lifeboat Institute, was assaulted on the London Underground
by a gang of drunken young men. Evidently motived by entertainment
rather than material gain, the youths first punched, strangled and
kicked Mr Butler, then held him against the door of the train and
repeatedly punched him and pushed his head hard against it. He succeeded,
however, in drawing a sword-stick which he carried with him and wounding
one of his assailants in the stomach (the attacker ended up in hospital
for several days), thereby breaking free. At the next station he
immediately informed the police, who proceeded to arrest Mr Butler
and charge him with carrying an offensive weapon and causing grievous
bodily harm, while releasing the two attackers. Mr Butler was fined,
thereby gaining him a criminal record, and his sword-stick was confiscated.
After a public outcry, two of the attackers were eventually charged with
assault and themselves fined.
The individual is expected to rely exclusively on the police for protection,
and to use no force against attackers beyond what is officially considered
the level of force being used against him (or her). Neither may the
individual attack or even warn off a burglar with any form of weapon. In
1987 John O'Connell, aged 40, a south London grocer, whose shop had
been burgled seven times in just over a month, kept watch at night
in his cellar and attacked the eighth burglar with a piece of lead
piping which broke his jaw: the burglar spent two weeks in hospital. When
he called the police Mr O'Connell himself was arrested and tried for
grievous bodily harm! Fortunately the jury acquitted him, and it
was reported that he had not been raided since (although neighbouring
properties had been hit as hard as ever). What is instructive is
what the burglar, who was given a sentence of 80 hours' community
service for four burglaries (in practice gardening and other activities
many people do as a hobby), said after the trial:
"Good luck to him. I don't blame him at all, but I just
wish he had not hit me so hard. I know he had to protect his property,
and I probably would have done the same thing in his position. This
has certainly stopped me committing any more crime."2
A burglar, in other words, accepts his victim's right to self-defence
far more than does the law of the land! If all victims of burglary
and other crimes were legally allowed to defend themselves with effective
weapons, including firearms, a large number of other criminals would
be stopped from committing any more crimes.3
A recent Government Statistical Office survey reveals that the official
clear-up rate for burglary throughout the country is 26.9%; robbery
20.9% and criminal damage 22.1%.4 This does not, of course, mean
that the victim will get any of his property back, even if the case
is solved, but demonstrates the low efficiency of the monopoly police
service which the taxpayer is forced to pay for, and which will be
used against him if he attampts to provide for his own protection. On
17 July 1989 Douglas Hurd, the Home Secretary, admitted that in the
London area seven out of every ten reported crimes (outside certain
"serious" categories) are ignored by the Metropolitan Police
as a matter of policy, with "non-aggravated" burglary and
car break-ins top of the list of offences to be ignored. The individual
is, in short, unilaterally disarmed by law against potential attackers
and robbers.
What is striking, in examining the history of weapons ownership control
in England, is how recently this situation has developed, and what
a striking departure from historical practice it represents.
THE HISTORY OF WEAPONS CONTROL
In examining the history of weapon controls in England, a distinction
should be made between the private ownership of weapons by individuals,
and the use of weapons by the militia system, which was the main method
of law enforcement in England throughout most of its history. From
Anglo-Saxon times onwards, individuals were enrolled in groups of
about ten families called tythings, which were responsible for local
law enforcement, and, where necessary, for the defence of the realm,
as there was no police force or standing army. Every freeman had
a duty to keep arms in order to carry out these functions. The Assize
of Arms (1181) detailed the type of weapons to be kept by persons
of various ranks. The Statute of Winchester (1285) commanded
"that every man have in his house Harness for to keep
the Peace after the ancient Assize; that is to say every man between
fifteen years of age and sixty years shall be assessed and sworn to
armour according to the quality of their lands and goods."5
The spread of firearms in the early 16th century, then regarded as
inefficient novelties, caused concern about armed crime and the neglect
of archery, and in 1541 Henry VIII forbade the use of "crossbows,
handguns, hagbutts and demy-Hakes" by anybody with an income of
under UKP 100 a year. Even this latter class were to have handguns
"not less than three quarters of one whole yard in length".6 However,
exceptions to this law permitted the use of such weapons by the inhabitants
of towns "for shooting at butts or banks of earth" and by
anyone to defend a house outside the limits of a town.
In 1671, in order to reserve game for the wealthy, Charles II enacted
that any person without an annual income of over UKP 100 (except
those of or above the rank of esquire and owners and keepers of forests)
were not allowed to keep any gun, bow, greyhound, setting dog or long
dog. Neither of these laws, however, affected either the duty to
keep arms under the militia system, or the right to private ownership
of other weapons (principally pikes for the lower orders by 1671).
The Roman Catholic king, James II, however, violated these traditional
rights, among others, by dismissing many Protestants from the militia
and prohibiting them from owning weapons. When William of Orange
overthrew James in 1688, parliament presented him with the Bill of
Rights, which complained that James did "endeavour to subvert
and extirpate the laws and liberties of the Kingdom" in thirteen
ways; the sixth of these was that James had
"Caused several good subjects, being protestants, to
be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and imployed,
contrary to law."
Claiming that they were asserting no new rights, parliament declared
"that the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their
defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law".7 The
Bill, which was accepted into law by William and Mary, did not seek
to disarm Roman Catholics, but to end discrimination against Protestants
in arming themselves.
Sir William Blackstone's /Commentaries on the Laws of England/,
first published in 1765, is a study of common law rights and the (unwritten)
constitution which is still regarded as the definitive statement of
the common law at that time. Blackstone wrote:
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that
I shall mention at present, is that of having arms for their defence,
suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by
law. Which is also declared by the same Statute I W & M St 2 c2 and
it is indeed a public allowance under due restrictions of the natural
right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society
and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression
...
"And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily,
in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty and
of private property. So long as these rights remain inviolate, the
subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny
and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights,
having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed ... And,
lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated and attacked,
the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular
administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next
to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of
grievances; and, lastly to the right of having and using arms for
self preservation and defence. And all these rights and liberties
it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our
country have laid them under necessary restraints; restraints in themselves
so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon further enquiry, that
no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened."8
A comparison between this view and current official attitudes to the
desire of individuals to provide for their own defence gives a good
idea of the decline of liberty in this country over the past two centuries.
The right to possess arms was vigourously defended and upheld by
parliamentarians throughout the 19th century.
Following the industrial unrest of the 1810s, when the government
believed a revolution was brewing, the repressive administration of
Lord Liverpool introduced the Seizure of Arms Act 1820, which authorised
a Justice of the Peace, on the oath of a credible witness, to issue
a warrant to enter any place to search for
"Any pike, pike head or spear in the possession of any
person or in any house or place; or any dirk, dagger, pistol or gun
or other weapon which, for any purpose dangerous to the peace is in
the possession of any person or in any house or place."9
Weapons seized were to be detained unless the owner satisfied a JP
that they were not kept for a purpose dangerous to the peace. Although
the Act applied only to the industrial areas affected by disturbances
(Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire,
Nottinghamshire, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Northumberland, Durham,
Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire, and the cities of Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
Nottingham and Coventry), and was limited to two years, several members
of Parliament objected to the infringement of liberty the Bill entailed.
George Bennet protested that the distinctive difference between a
free man and a slave was the right to possess arms, not so much to
defend his property as his liberty. Neither could he do battle, if
deprived of arms, in the hour of danger. T. W. Anson protested that
the principles and temper of the Bill were
"so much at variance will the free spirit of our venerated
constitution and so contrary to the undoubted right which the subjects
of this country have ever possessed - the right of retaining arms
for the defence of themselves, their families and properties that
I cannot look upon it without loudly expressing my disapprobation
and regret."10
George Canning, a senior minister (and later Prime Minister) replied:
"I am perfectly willing to admit the right of the subject
to hold arms according to the principles laid down by the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman, having stated it on the authority of Mr Justice
Blackstone. The doctrine so laid down, I am willing to admit, is
no other than the doctrine of the British Constitution. The Bill
of Rights, correctly quoted and propery construed, brings me to the
construction of the Bill which, in fact, recognises the right of the
subject to have arms, but qualifies that right in such a manner as
the necessity of the case requires."11
The Gun Licences Act 1870 required that, with certain exceptions,
any person carrying or using a gun elsewhere than in or within the
curtilege of a dwelling-house should pay a revenue fee of 10 shillings.
This was purely an excise measure, with no intent of controlling firearms:
licences were available without question at any post office. Nonetheless,
in committee P. A. Taylor condemned the Bill as "an attempt to
bring our laws and cunstoms into harmony those of the most despotic
Continental Governments - it is an attempt to disarm the people!"12
It should be noted that during the 19th century, when British people
were completely free to arm themselves, although the population grew
to several times its original size (from 11 million in 1801 to 41
million in 1911), the crime rate fell not only in relative but also
in absolute terms. Nonetheless, the final decades of the 19th century
saw a marked increase in the control by the state over the life of
the people in many fields, and demands were increasingly put forward
for various measures of gun control. A leader in the /Daily Telegraph/
of 5 November 1888, for instance, argued that
"We can conceive instances in which it is justifiable,
or at least excusable, for civilians to have revolvers in their dwellings
... The carrying of a revolver on the person is quite another matter;
and it is distinctly a cowardly, bloodthirsty, and un-English habit
...
"Let the proprietors of revolvers be registered and let
no person be placed on the register until he can show his right to
possess such a weapon, which should be numbered, and let infraction
of the law be made a misdemeanour punishable by fine and imprisonment."13
In this new mood, the government introduced the Pistols Bill 1893,
which sought to impose restrictions on pistol sales and use, but the
Bill was defeated. C. H. Hopwood objected that
"It attacked the natural right of everyone who desired
to arm himself for his own protection, and not harm anyone else."14
In 1895 a private member's bill which sought similar restrictions
was again defeated, the same Hopwood arguing that
"To say that because there were some persons who would
make violent use of pistols, therefore the right of purchase or possession
by every Englishman should be taken away is monstrous."15
Colin Greenwood, former Chief Inspector of the West Yorkshire Constabulary
and now editor of /Guns Review/, in his definitive study /Firearms
Control/ summarises the legal situation with regard to firearms
in 1900:
"England entered the twentieth century with no controls
over the purchasing or keeping of any types of firearm, and the only
measure which related to the carrying of guns was the Gun Licence
Act, requiring the purchase of a ten shilling gun licence from a Post
Office. Anyone, be he convicted criminal, lunatic, drankard or child,
could legally acquire any type of firearm and the presence of pistols
and revolvers in households all over the country was fairly widespread
...
"... guns of every type were familiar instruments and
... anyone who feld the need or desire to own a gun could obtain one. The
cheaper guns were very cheap and well within the reach of all but
the very poor ... the right of the Englishman to keep arms for his
own defence was still completely accepted and all attempts at placing
this under restraint had failed."16
GUN CONTROL IN OUR TIME
The Pistols Act 1903 introduced the first restriction on retail firearms
sales, albeit an apparently mild one. It made unlawful the retail
sale or hire of a pistol unless the purchaser either held a gun licence
under the Gun Licences Act 1870, or proved that he was a householder
seeking to use the pistol in, or within the curtilege of his own house,
or produced a signed declaration from a magistrate or police inspector
that he was about to go abroad for at least six months. More significantly,
it was made unlawful for persons under 18 to buy, hire, use or carry
a pistol, and for anyone to sell or deliver a pistol to a person under
18, or knowingly to sell a pistol to anyone intoxicated or of unsound
mind. Also, retailers were required to maintain full records of all
pistols sold, and show these on demand to a police or revenue officer.
This could have little practical effect on retail sails to adults, as a
gun licence was available on demand to anyone for 10 shillings, and
no restriction was placed on private sales or gifts between individuals.
Nonetheless it removed the freedom of a large group of British subjects
- - those under 18 - to arm themselves with pistols, and also subjected the
right of everybody else under the control of statutory legislation,
however apparently innocuous, for the first time. Although other
firearms were not affected, this was a dangerous precedent, in that
when, in a more intolerant atmosphere, the state sought further restrictions
on firearms, and these were objected to, it could point to the existence
of the Act as justification for the principle of further statutory
controls.
Such an atmosphere emerged with the First World War and its revolutionary
aftermath. In 1918 the Sub-committee on Arms Traffic saw the vast
quantities of surplus weapons that would come onto international markets
after the war as a possible threat to the British Empire, both from
"Savage or semi-civilised tribesmen in outlying parts of the British
Empire" and
"The anarchist or `intellectual' malcontent of the great
cities, whose weapon is the bomb and the automatic pistol. There
is some force in the view that the latter will in future prove the
more dangerous of the two."17
It is important to stress that the government was not seeking to disarm
the broad mass of responsible British people. Indeed, at the end
of the war the government gave away nearly all its huge stockpile
of captured German weapons to individuals who had contributed to the
war savings scheme. Each person who had given a small amount received
a rifle; those who had given more received a machine-gun; and those
who have given particularly large donations were given a piece of
German field artillery each!18
The Firearms Act 1920 introduced major firearms control for the first
time in British history, although in theory it did not extinguish
the right to keep arms to defend the person and household. Under
Section 1, with certain exemptions, an individual could only purchase
or possess a firearm or ammunition if he held a firearms certificate,
valid for three years and renewable for three-year periods, which
"shall be granted by the Chief Officer of Police" in the applicant's
district, if the applicant had "good reason for requiring such
a certificate"; could be permitted to possess, use and carry a
firearm without endangering public safety; and on payment of a fee. The
Chief Officer was to deny a certificate to anyone he considered "unfitted
to be entrusted with firearms". The certificate, which was to
be shown on demand to a police officer or magistrate, would list the
number and nature of the firearms. Section 2 introduced the registration
of firearms dealers; trade in firearms was restricted to those who
registered with the local Chief Officer of Police; registration could
be refused if the police believed the dealer "Could not be permitted
to carry on business without danger to the public safety or the peace."19
It was made an offence to supply a firearm to persons under 14, persons
drunk or of unsound mind, or certain convicted persons for specified
periods. The Act also introduced the concept of "prohibited weapons",
which means any "designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid,
gas or other thing". (One result of this section of the Act is
that anti-mugging aerosol cans which discharge CS or Mace gas in the
face of an attacker without doing him permanent harm - and would thus
be ideal for those who wish to defend themselves without risking killing
anyone - are illegal.) In parliamentary discussion of the bill, Mr
Kiley objected that a burglar seeking firearms could easily burgle
a place where they were stocked and steal them wholesale.
"While it achieves no useful purpose, so far as I can
see, it does interfere with legitimate traders. So far as burglars
are concerned it will have no effect."
Only Lt-Commander Kenworthy objected on constitutional grounds, pointing
out that there was
"... a much greater principle involved than the mere
prevention of discharged prisoners having weapons. In the past one
of the most jealously guarded rights of the English was that of carrying
arms. For long our people fought with great tenacity for the right
of carrying the weapon of the day, the sword, and it was only in recent
times that it was given up. It has been a well known object of the
Central Government of this Country to deprive the people of their
weapons."20
Nonetheless the Bill became law. It should be noted that the 1920
Act was never intended as a measure against the ordinary criminal
use of firearms, and did not prevent it. Nonetheless, it was typical
of the slap-dash and superficial treatment of British firearms legislation
this century that in 1934 the Bodkin Committee assumed, presumably
without examining the background to the 1920 Act, that that had been
its purpose, and regarded the well-publicised (though not much increased)
criminal use of firearms as evidence that further restrictions were
necessary. The Committee recommended, along with several minor changes,
the classification of machine-guns as "prohibited weapons",
and the law was updated in the Firearms Act 1937.
During the Second World War, the government, which was short of small
arms, repeatedly appealed to the public to offer privately-owned firearms
for sale, and thousands were bought in this way. At the end of the
war, despite prohibition from military authorities, thousands of servicemen
brought home weapons as souvenirs. In 1946, under a six-week amnesty
(under which illegal weapons could be surrendered without fear of
prosecution), 75,000 illegal weapons were handed in, including 59,000
pistols and 1,580 machine-guns. In October 1946 the Home Secretary
went further than previous legislation in controlling private arms
when he said:
"I would not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted
for the protection of an applicant's person or property as necessarily
justifying the issue of a firearm certificate."21
The legislation of the 1960s, which gave Britain the strictest firearms
control in the western world, was in Greenwood's view the result partly
of a political trade-off with the abolition of the death penalty,
partly based on ignorance of facts and misinterpretation of data connected
with firearms and crime. In 1965 the government was seeking to abolish
the death penalty, a step strongly opposed by public opinion and many
MPs. At that time, a number of well-publicised robberies and murders,
committed with firearms, had taken place (although the statistical
incidence of such offences was no higher than in the late 1940s). As
a concession, in order to be seen to be "cracking down on crime"
and thus obtain support for the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty)
Bill, and also fearing an increase in armed crime after the passage
of that Bill, the government very hastily introduced the Firearms
Act. As well as minor further restrictions, this introduced the offence
of carrying firearms with intent to commit an offence; further restricted
carrying firearms in public; extended the powers of the police to
require that weapons be handed over for inspection, search persons
and vehicles suspected of carrying arms, and to arrest without warrant;
and drastically increased the penalties provided in the 1937 Act. The
police were empowered to impose conditions on registered firearms
dealers, and for the first time those who dealt in shotguns were required
to be registered, and to keep records of all transactions.
In an incident in August 1966 three policemen were murdered in London
by a criminal gang using pistols. Massive protests from the public,
the Police Federation and other bodies demanded the return of the
death penalty for murder, arguing that the criminals would not have
killed the officers if it was still in force. Roy Jenkins, the Home
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
iQCVAgUBLJz19YTj7/vxxWtPAQGxdAQAp5CQWg5pSGThUNuvW6RKjFPEDr+MjC6r
OfN5WM/PE3fOsb3ffKlMNbYMhArbcvLeUidr4P8rSYJehK/YUcH4QA1iAmITwG7c
IKiQFrJPe+3NqK8gUNuBKy280DL23nDAPEw/VDeFqvQE6EbxSzdsgHooudMxWpi/
K75hKksaZ54=
=kNu6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Russell Earl Whitaker [w--ta--r] at [eternity.demon.co.uk]
Communications Editor AMiX: RWhitaker
EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought
Board member, Extropy Institute (ExI)
Co-organizer, 1st European Conference on Computers, Freedom and
Privacy, London, 20 November 1993