Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The guns of Brixton & elsewhere: A thought experiment

Three solutions to gun crime in the UK. Would you like to rank them from most ineffectual (but headline grabbing) up to most effective?

Blair announces new gun-crime measures after fourth murder
Monsters and Critics.com - 18 hours ago
London - Following the deaths by shooting of four young men in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced harsher penalties for possessing firearms.

In an alternate universe, suggests Pacific Empire:

Following the deaths by shooting of four young men in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced harsher penalties for shooting people.

And in another universe, in which the UK followed the advice of Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance:
We believe the best action would be to relegalise guns and let ordinary people fight back with lethal force against the violent criminals who presently rule the streets of our cities...
To help you in your decision, Dr Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance points out on behalf of beleaguered Britons: "We have the most restrictive laws in Europe on gun ownership. These have plainly not worked. In 1968, in 1988, and twice in 1997, we were promised a safer country if only we gave up our guns. We were cheated. In fact, the only people who have no guns are the respectable."

So which is it? Which solution would be the most effective? And which the least?

LINKS: Crime and punishment - Pacific Empire
Relegalise guns: Power to the People! - Dr Sean Gabb, Libertarian Alliance, UK

RELATED: Politics-UK, Self-Defence

Labels:

2 Comments:

Blogger Robert Jackman said...

Mr Un-PC,

It's not the guns that kill - it's the vicious values driving our society.

I've just blogged on the issue. Come have a read. And leave comments - it'll be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Robert :)

2/20/2007 08:56:00 am  
Anonymous Tim Wikiriwhi said...

Tony Blair must be brain dead considering his support of the Iraq war and the war on terror!
He rightly ignored the hordes of protesting peaceniks and reached for his Gun and went to war knowing armed thugs like Bin Laden and Sadam Insane can only be met with deadly force.

Why can he not see this rule applies equally between individuals at home in the London neighbourhoods… as it does in the Middle East?
Why does he now pander to the anti gun lobby?
Is it because he himself has an armed guard 24/7???
His gun ban only makes criminals stronger!

How can he say guns are good in his hand against international murderers...but bad when used against native murders by those individuals who voted for him and are being murdered, robbed and raped?
How can he of all people justify leaving the Good defenceless against the bad???
How can he think banning guns will stop criminals from shooting people, esp when today any kid who owned a meccano set can whip up a gun out of thin air????

His Government only has the right to bare arms because it has been delegated by the individual Britons who have that right to self defence and bare the means of self defence (You cannot delegate a right if you have no authority to do so!)
Nor would anyone delegate such a right to the State, if it meant they must surrender themselves to the mercy of armed criminals!

The only answer is to recognise that private citizens have the right to defend themselves by many means necessary...and today Guns are necessary!
Guns save lives!
There is plenty of evidence for this!

Tim Wikiriwhi

2/20/2007 10:47:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home