Gun Control: Ten point plan.

6/1/2013

In the course of writing The Second Amendment, an alternative proposal for Gun Control started to take shape. After all, I felt there would be little point in having such a controversial issue in the spotlight without any possible solution also on the table.

After contact with several gun control groups, six months ago it was suggested that I try and shape that proposal into something which could be put before Congress. Further research and contact with interested parties has added some enhancement, but the core proposal remains unchanged.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, the call for something to finally be done has of course increased. I personally have been involved in signing two petitions to the White House, one of which already has over 500,000 signatures (far more than the 100,000 asking for Piers Morgan's deportation, I might add :) Again I was asked to finalize my own proposal for Congress, to serve either as a rider or follow-up to these petitions.

Anyone who knows the background to the writing of The Second Amendment and my lobbying efforts and comments since, will also know that part of this proposal is based on Swizerland's 'at home' private militia. It is indeed ironic that the NRA has ofted cited Switzerland as an ideal example of a nation with a high gun ratio yet a low gun crime rate, as if to support that there is no correlation between the two.

However, Switzerland's guns are strictly controlled along the lines set out below and their model is in fact far closer to the original ethos of the 2nd Amendment than the current free-for-all in the USA. It's also worth noting that the following proposal falls in line with recent US Supreme Court rulings that the 'right' of US citizens to bear arms may also be for personal protection and security, not just for national militia/security reasons.

Ten-point plan:

1. Every US home to have a gun (with current 'clearance' procedures observed). In most cases this would be a hand gun (range of choice of .38, 9mm and .45 caliber). Some may opt to have a single-shot rifle instead.

2. All weapons to be kept at home in a pin-number controlled lock-box. Those anti-gun who do not wish to have a gun at home may opt to have their weapon held in store by an elected neighbourhood-watch warden (store also pin-control locked).

3. No guns under any circumstances to be carried in the open on the streets. Current 'conceal carry' laws in certain States to be revoked. The only exception would be some hunting, farming and 'open range' areas.

4. Strict induction and training in use of the weapons, along with signed agreement as to their use: only for national security, should the nation come under threat, or for personal protection of life, limb or property.

5. If the pin-controlled boxes are opened, an alarm sounds with local police and with local wardens. This then would have the effect of calling assistance in the case of threat; but in the case of wrongful use (such as shooting a neighbour, family member or fellow US citizen outside of purely personal protection) could lead to arrest and conviction.

6. Mid-level neighbourhood wardens could have both a handgun and a rifle in their care under pin-lock. High-level neighbourhood wardens could also hold semi-automatic or assault rifles. These local wardens would be elected between the local police and neighbours, and would also normally have had police, military or gun association training.

7. The general aim would be to have an effective and highly-trained private militia force, on call and ready in the face of any national threat or emergency. While at the same time giving sufficient provision for private US citizens to protect their own family and property from threat or attack.

8. Amnesty on all guns currently in circulation. In many cases these could be exchanged for the newly-designated lock-box guns or rifles. This amnesty would be without questioning of individuals or recrimination, penalty, fines or charges for any illegal weapons handed in.

9. Heavy penalties and charges for anyone carrying illegal weapons after the amnesty period, or for carrying weapons on the streets, towns or in urban areas. 3-5 year minimum penalties. It is accepted that even with an amnesty in place coupled with stricter control laws, it could take some time to see a reduction in the number of illegal guns. However, in the meantime US citizens would be fully protected by having their own guns at home, as well as fuller training as to their use and a more effective neighbourhood back-up force in the case of emergency (national or private).

10. Individual States may wish to propose the use of 'smart guns' as the at-home weapon of choice for individuals. These would have radio-controlled firing mechanisms which would prevent them from being fired beyond a certain radius of the designated home.

Advantages

A. The proposal falls more in line with the original ethos of the 2nd Amendment and would provide for a far more efficient private militia force than the current free-for-all whereby 98% of gun attacks are against fellow US citizens.

B. The induction and training would further bolster and enhance that private militia force, as well as generally teach people more respect regarding use of their guns, in terms of both safety and proficiency.

C. The pin-controlled boxes would at the same time protect the guns from theft by house-robbers or the danger of children gaining access to them (an increasing problem).

In summary, if indeed this or a similar proposal was adopted, it is perhaps suitably ironic that a return to the 'grass roots ethos' of The Second Amendment would not only create a stronger, more proficient and 'well-regulated' private militia force, which was the original intention, it would also lead to saving an increasing number of US lives.

57 Comments

Anita Allen

9/1/2013 09:19:41

Hopefully, this article was satire, as any regulation of regular citizens having guns will not happen. What business is it of anyone whether I have 50 guns or none if I have committed no crime.

David

26/1/2013 11:00:26

I don't see signing my 2nd amendment rights away. Owning guns lawfully and responsibly is enough. The bad guys won't carry in public. I see this as government holding the controls too much.

29/1/2013 20:36:51

Nobody has even intimated that your 2nd Amendment rights are going to be "signed away". It's ironic that, while some of you (Americans) are quite cynical about your own government, you don't hesitate to spew the very right that government affords you. While the responsible gun owners in your country have the right to bear arms, ALL the citizens in your country have A RIGHT to feel safe. We have millions of guns in Canada and we have strict gun laws yet we have fewer incidents of gun violence/murder and have had very few mass shootings. One of the many differences between Canada and the U.S. is the mentality of its' people. The "greatest nation in the world" rhetoric is only believed by Americans who lack the ability to recognize just how short your country falls of being respected. Arrogance is what sets you apart - a sense of entitlement, a 'me' mentality, a 'get them before they get me' twisted logic that only Americans understand. In reality, the people in your country are no better, or worse, than anyone else and the sooner you recognize that, the sooner the gun violence in your country will drop to a level that justifies your being proud of where you live. The U.S. needs to gets its act together because, while you're spewing your paranoia about why you need magazines that hold dozens of bullets, your people are being slaughtered. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

John Matthews

30/1/2013 04:49:21

Hi R, Exactly. None of the proposals by Obama or different states (such as NY recently) are suggesting 'taking guns away'. They focus purely on semi-automatic weapons and aim to tighten up background checks and loopholes like gun shows (where many criminals can get hold of guns without background checks).

Interestingly too, the weapons under focus were not even thought of when the Constitution was written; it was still all single shot, tamp-gunpowder muskets. So the 2nd Amendment, as written, did not even cover semi-automatics. A bit like having a law written for horse drawn buggies saying that their speed limit 'should not be impeded' (fully knowing that the maximum speed was something like 35 mph), then along comes the internal combustion engine and superchargers which means cars can go 120 m.p.h plus. Then as soon as legislators try and set speed limits, avid car enthusiasts point to their 'motion vehicle' rights.

Canada is indeed a good nation from which to view 'sensible gun' policy. I lived in Vancouver for almost 3 years and still have a lot of family there and in Toronto and Montreal. Lot of guns, but only to be kept in the home and strict conceal carry laws which keeps guns off of the streets. If the US adopted similar policies, over time they would get close to the Canadian murder rate, which is about a third of theirs.

Sandy

11/3/2013 18:04:26

What is your purpose for having 50 guns? What is your purpose for having 1 gun? It is a phenomenon I will never comprehend.

George Jones

1/6/2013 04:19:16

oh i don't know, maybe hunting, target shooting, if billybob/jose/tyrone break into my house etc. those are my reasons for having a gun

John

7/2/2014 12:45:03

I think the point is missed here. How many guns a person has is not the governments business anymore than how many dinner plates you have in your house is the governments business. So far no one has a good solution on how to keep crazies from getting guns. Most are on psycotropic drugs and way out there when they kill. My Constitution is larger than just the Second Ammendment. Make a small change in one part and you may screw up something else, especially if it's a major part of the US Constitution.

John Matthews link

9/1/2013 09:44:29

I'm sure you hope that it is satire while fully realizing it is not. I would equally hope that the 11,200 gun deaths in the USA vs 35 in the UK, while also being told that gun control has little to do with that statistic, is also 'satire'.

This proposal does in fact fall more in line with not only the original precepts of the 2nd Amendment but also follows the Swiss model, which I note the NRA often cite as an 'ideal example' of a nation with a high gun ratio yet a low gun-crime rate. I've actually added a couple of opening paragraphs to explain this since first posting.

Brian

26/1/2013 14:28:11

Maybe you should relook at your statistics. The number of gun deaths in the UK is HIGHER than that (although it is still lower than the US) and the number in the US is actually LOWER than what you have posted.

You should also look at the VIOLENT CRIME rates for both countries if you want an actual statistic to work with. The per capitia rate in the UK makes it the MOST VIOLENT country in Europe. The US is much lower in this instance.

Another statistic that needs to be looked at is the number of times a gun is used to STOP a crime. Of course this has to be guessed at since nobody collects these stats and most are actually not reported. If you think that these would stop if there were no guns available, you are dreaming. The criminal, by definition is out to break the law. Breaking a second one to ensure that they had total control of the situation would not phase them at all.

You also cannot say that the police are there to protect us. The police, according to the courts, have an obligation to protect society as a whole, not the individual. Besides by the time the police arrive, the crime is already OVER and the individual is either beated, robbed, or worse. Average time for police response (when called) is 10 to 15 minutes. Average response time for a gun is 900 to 1500 feet per second.

Mark

26/1/2013 19:16:05

Brian,
The collection of data for violent crime statistics in both countries does not make it easy to compare. But if you take the Bureau of Justice figures and not the FBI figures (FBI do not record ALL crime) then the USA is more violent than the UK and any other European country.

Guns account for 70% of all homicides in the US. This % has been on the increase consistently.

All gun deaths have risen from 28,874 in 1999 to 32,163 in 2011.

"Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense" This is a quote from a Harvard study.

More guns = More dead people - FACT

John Matthews link

26/1/2013 20:03:14

Hi Brian,
You'll see that I in fact answered this issue with Mark earlier, but it bears repeating here since you've raised the issue of 'high' violent crime in the UK again. This as you'll see from the text below is because of teh different way 'violent' crime is recorded. If you have every push and shove and minor tussle recorded, then of course your stats are going to be much higher.

The most telling factor was in fact rape, where the UK rate is about 4/5ths that of the USA, which makes more sense. The OVERALL murder rate between the two is almost 4 times higher in the USA, and I think the reason for that big difference is mainly down to guns. Otherwise I think the differential would be closer to the rape figure.

>>> repeated from earlier:

The same issue of 'violent crime' in the UK I see is now continually raised. It was raised by some of your debaters, and also was brought up by Alex Jones with Piers Morgan. A lot of this stems from a Daily Telegraph article citing 2,000 'violent crimes' per 100,000 vs only 450 per 100,000 in the USA. This made no sense given that the UK murder rate is only 1.2 per 100,000 and the USA rate is 4.3.

I decided to dig deeper and check. First of all, this article stemmed from the Conservatives trying to paint a picture of increasing crime under a Labour govt (and The Telegraph is a Conservative newspaper). The other factor which played into their hands was the fact that in the UK 'violent crime' includes even minor assault, often without any injury. The US stats do NOT include this element. I then came across the following article which does give a US figure for all such 'assault' crimes: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/17/us/violent-crime/index.html

So we see from this a figure of 22.5 per 1,000 - 2,250 per 100,000, slighlty more in fact than the highest UK figure. This seemed to make more sense, but I decided to check another constant 'violent attack' stat: rape. The figures for the UK are 23.4 per 100,000 vs 30.6 per 100,000 in the USA. So this then gives more consistency with the figures.

Interestingly, if you take the gap between the UK and USA murder rates and also the fact that guns are responsible for 67% of US deaths, this all but fills that gap right there. But these stats are continually bent by gun proponents. Just last week, one staunch gun supporter argued that baseball bats were responsible for more deaths than guns - what was I going to do, 'ban baseball?' I checked: baseball bats murders were a max of 3.7% (if bats constituted ALL blunt instrument attacks), whereas guns were 67%. Yet this falsehood had been widely circulated on the web and repeated by pro-gunners.

George Jones

1/6/2013 04:20:45

Oh the UK is great, you can walk down the street and get beheaded by islamic terrorists, and the cops can't even stop it because they don't carry guns

mark

1/6/2013 04:51:18

George,

One is nearly 5 times more likely tobe murdered in the US than the UK. Your society is more violent, the easy access to guns multiplies your murder rate, your suicide rate and death by firearms.

The cops, as you say, shot the terrorists. In the USA the terrorists would have been better armed, armed citizens could have opened fire, increasing the innocent death count. This is why the UK and nearly every other OECD country is safer than America, because there is no easy access to firearms.

marlea shirley

10/1/2013 08:41:04

First,I believe that most children could figure out their parent's pin (unless it is ridiculously long).
And I would add that ever weapon/gun owner must confirm the location/possession on their weapon on an annual basis, with penalty of severe criminal charges if unable to locate and confirm.

John Matthews link

10/1/2013 09:32:23

Maybe (re: pin number). Bit worrying for all the bank and credit card holders that their kids could grab $300 in pocket money when they fancied :)

It was just a suggestion to add an extra level of security. An electronic security key would be another option (as long as that was not easily accessed by children).

The idea of this proposal is to get people talking about it. In the end, if it did finally take root and get to legislative level, no doubt each State would fine-tune the security elements they feel would work best.

nope

11/1/2013 09:19:05

I spend on avarage fourteen hours per day away from my home out in public and your plan does nothing to protect me in that situation, and since it is both impractical, and most certainly impossible, to collect every gun in the world that might be a threat to me or my family, ultimately, you proposal provides little comfort of security for me.

Your interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd is flawed. Though I was not there when it was signed, the American societal view commonly presented is exactly what was meant. Given the period in which it was created there would have be no possible way We the People would have accepted the solution you present...the dangers of that period, the fact that firearms where still widely used for food, and still the threat from other.

I would go on but I see no need. Thanks for the English advise but like the first time.... We don't need it.

John Matthews link

12/1/2013 07:56:43

Of course it would be impossible to get rid of 'every' gun carried in urban areas. But this is an odds game. If 60-70% of guns are left at home and not taken on the street, then that reduces your chances of getting shot by 60-70%. If it was the case that ALL guns were got rid off, then of course the experience in the UK would be zero gun deaths. As it is, it's extremely low, only 35 a year, vs 11,200 in the USA and overall murder rates here are about a quarter per 100,000 than the USA.

The history of the NRA and gun control isn't quite how you believe and the West not quite as 'wild' as depicted in Hollywood, as this article shows: http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/winkler-the-nra-used-to-support-gun-control-1.3865217

The original foundations of the NRA were in fact to support a well-organized and highly-trained militia, as set out in the 2nd Amendment. And indeed they supported gun control at times when armed private insurrection looked most prevelant, as in the Capone era or with the Black Panthers in the 1970s.

My suggestion is for a move back to the original ethos of the 2nd Amendment and in that respect is far more pro-American than the current free for all which puts US citizens lives at continuing risk. As for 'foreigners' not giving advice. I do in fact have large parts of mine and my wife's families in the USA and Canada, so it is something of concern on a wider family basis and something which comes up in skyping and emails with them.

But even if that were not the case, if foreigners were 'ill-advised' to comment on or interfere in the policies of other nations, that would rather scuttle US foreign policy for the past thirty years, would it not? :)

J F F

5/2/2013 21:17:49

"But this is an odds game. If 60-70% of guns are left at home and not taken on the street, then that reduces your chances of getting shot by 60-70%. "

Your statistics make 2 assumptions that are almost certainly not correct. First that all gun owners are equally likely to shoot you and second that all gun owners are equally likely to leave their guns at home. So for a reduction of 60-70% reduction in carrying to result in a 60-70% reduction of the chance of being shot you have to assume that that retired policeman, the nurse working in a bad area, or the chiropractor going to lunch with her pensioner parents are equally likely to carry in violation of the law and shoot you as the young thug running a protection racket, the local drug dealer, or the gang-banger.

Logic tells us that the first people who will obey the law are the retired policeman, the nurse, and the chiropractor. Of course, they are also the least likely to shoot you on the street. They just don't go around shooting innocent people on the street. The last people to stop carrying will be the thugs and criminals.

So your plan, at least initially, will result in a drop of 60-70% in carry according to your estimate. The resulting drop in your chance of being shot will drop much much less because the people who obey the laws regarding carrying are also the people who obey the laws regarding not shooting people.

PS: Students of the American gun control debates may recognize the chiropractor as Dr. Suzanna Hupp. She went to lunch in Luby's with her elderly parents. Carefully following Texas law, she left her legal pistol locked in her vehicle outside in the parking lot. So when a madman crashed his truck into the restaurant and started killing people, she reached for her missing pistol and watched helplessly as the madman killed both her parents.

Of course to many people there is no difference between Dr. Hupp carrying a gun to protect herself and her elderly parents and George Hennard carrying a gun so he can kill as many people as possible. They both carried a handgun outside the house so they must both be equally likely to kill an innocent.

Are you one of those people?

John Matthews

6/2/2013 02:45:32

Hi, JFF,
I think you've misread my assumptions or maybe I didn't lay them out clearly.

In that 60-70% reduction in guns relating to crime, I in fact was referring to ONLY the criminals. Law abiding ex-cops or someone carrying to protect their parents on a day out I'm assuming would abide by the law 90-95% - as happened in the diner shooting you gave.

Fact of the matter is, in that case it's the diner owner or security who should have been carrying. HIS premises, so under the pin-box arrangement perfectly legal and perhaps if he could get 'militia' listed he'd have a semi-automatic and also be highly trained.

Shocking admission for someone who is anti-gun, but my Uncle on my father's side owned the largest antique gun collection in the UK at home. My uncle on my mother's side was a marksman with the Irish guards and two of my on-off drinking buddies are ex-SAS and another an army sharpshooter with one of the longest ever 'kill-shots' to his name in Iraq: 2.1 miles. I also have more gun manuals at my home than most, because of my thriller-writing. I like to keep up to speed on what both my heroes and mean guys might be carrying.

No, the reduction I mention was purely the criminals and the guys currently shooting. A number of them are going to continue breaking the law - especially when the sentence for carrying is far less than the end crime: such as bank robbery or drug dealing.

But the majority of chance shootings are from people carrying during minor crimes: muggings or small store hold ups. And then of course the even larger majority that take place when there's an argument and the Saturday night specials come out.

If we here in the UK had guns on the same widespread, casual basis as in the USA, I'm sure our murder rate would be 3-4 times higher. Check out any reality TV show which follows the binge drinking or Saturday night pub brawls. Throw guns into those situations and you're looking for trouble.

Most criminals are not going to risk a 3-5 year prison term for carrying when the crime they might commit, IF convicted, might only get them 1-2 years (which is the sentence here with minor, non-violent purse snatchings - muggings - or shoplifting). I say 60-70% less, but it might only be 50% reduction. But that's still 50% less shootings across the board. It's a start.

J F F

6/2/2013 22:43:12

Thank you for clarifying that to get your 60-70% reduction in shootings will require a 60-70% decrease in carry by the criminal element. However, your initial discussion had omitted that there would also be a 90-95% reduction in carrying by law-abiding citizens.

One thing you have not mentioned (or perhaps I just missed it) is an answer to the following:

How is Dr. Hupp and her family (what's left of it) safer if you take her gun out of her hand?

How am you, or I, or society in general (other than a criminal involved in a violent crime) safer if you take her gun out of her hand?

I can see your argument that taking guns out of the hands of thugs and criminals will make us safer. But your plan is to prevent anyone from carrying.

Please note that I'm not asking if you think that she "needs" a gun.

The question is how does taking her gun from her hand make us safer?

J F F

6/2/2013 22:43:32

J F F

6/2/2013 22:43:45

J F F

6/2/2013 23:01:31

Very sorry for the multiple posts. When I clicked "post" I got an error message saying that the post did not go through and I should try again. Same error message on the subsequent tries. However, it is clear that the posts did in fact go through.

Again, my apologies for the multiple posts.

John Matthews

7/2/2013 04:17:35

Hi JFF,
Taking an isolated incident as with Dr Hupp, you're right, she's not on that case example going to be safer. But where she WILL be safer is taking the broader context.

Her increased safety will in fact come from the fact that anything from 50-70% less criminals will be carrying - so 50-70% less chance of her being attacked by a criminal with a gun.

Unfortunately the 'one law for all' is what restricts things here. In a utopian society, it would be great just to ensure all the law-abiding people had guns and the criminals and the mentally unbalanced did not. However, that is proving to be somewhere between difficult and near impossible.

But while the rest of the population are then tooling up in defence, that also increases the number of arms with criminals and the general population too. More importantly it stops police from doing their jobs by ensuring guns are NOT carried on the streets. They can hardly stop a criminal they suspect might be up to no good and charge him with 'carrying' if it's the law to be able to 'carry' in that particular State. So you can see the problem. So the fact that the general public can carry then allows X number of criminals to carry without any worry about consequences.

Also, 95% of incidents do not happen in the same way as the Dr Hupp shooting. They happen close to home or from arguments and fights that then go to the next level. I mentioned in an earlier post the fight I'd seen in a local pub a few weeks back. If both of those combatants had guns in their cars, then it could have gone to the next level and led to someone being killed rather than just having a bruised cheek. Multiply that problem by a thousand such bar fights over the country in a month... you can see the stats start to build.

There was in fact a fight at a pub a mile from me that did go tragically wrong 5 years ago. And one of the men involved was a close friend of one of my drinking buddies. The problem started when the 50 year old partner of a female pub manager got in an argument with three young scaffolders who'd been drinking too heavily. A fight ensued, and they beat him up very badly.

As they left, he overheard them saying to each other they were going to another pub a mile away - The Good Companions. He felt humiliated by the beating and so called a friend on his cell phone. The friend was on his way back from hunting and had two shotguns in his Range Rover. They picked up another friend on the way and then went to this other pub, calling out to the young scaffolders from the car park.

Whether any shooting was intended or whether they just went to warn the young scaffolders off is not clear (and was the subject of a major trial). One witness said one of the scaffolders got an iron bar out his car, another said they were unarmed.

But what is clear is that as the scaffolders approached and a tussle ensued, the guns went off. Two of the three young scaffolders were killed. Two 50 year olds got murder charges, the third was charged as an 'accomplice', even though he didn't fire a weapon. Two lots of 20 years and a 10 year sentence.

The judge summed up that if the shooting had taken place at the original pub, self-defence might have been arguable, but the fact that the three 50 year olds had time to think and drove to the other pub with 'intent' meant something else.

Of course, the friend I now talk to who knows one of them says that if the friend had not been hunting at the time and did not have the shotguns with them, the incident wouldn't have happened. It would have just turned in to another fight - though of course the best option would have been to call the police and drag the three young men through the court system. GBH assault carries heavy sentences.

So you see here how guns can escalate a situation. Then too we have the case of the Canadian husband I mentioined earlier who pulled a gun on his wife in the middle of a heated argument. If Adama Lanza hadn't had so many guns readily available in his home... the list goes on.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the USA adopted even something along the lines of the Canadian laws, whereby guns are allowed at home but NOT on the street, the murder rate over time would end up similar - about a third of what it is now.

Mark

11/1/2013 13:54:07

Hi John,
I took an interest in the gun control debate since the tragedy at Sandy Hook and then came across this blog post, which I posted a response to. http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/mr-obama-are-your-daughters-more-important-than-mine/
As you can see by the responses and the other posts on the blog there is a terrifying level of ignorance, willful lies and misuse of statistics surrounding this debate.
I am flabbergasted at what I read on DC Clotheline, but these people lap it up. What hope is there?
I use twitter to poke at some of the tweeters I come across but they are verging on the insane.
Will you be doing more to use your voice in the debate, I'd be happy to help.
@thestockdales.
Mark

John Matthews link

12/1/2013 13:32:48

Mark, thanks for commenting. I checked out the link you provided and unfortunately these same arguments have changed little in the 12 years since I wrote the 2nd Amendment.

I lived for a while in Spain and three of my regular drinking buddies were from the USA, two from Texas (both oil engineers), the other an ex-marine from New York. One of the Texans had also seen active duty in Vietnam. Oddly enough the two who'd seen military service were for gun control, the Texan who hadn't was a staunch pro-gunner and the debates at times between us were strong and vocal.

The Texan gun supporter raised the issue of violence in Britain, at which time football hooliganism was riding high in the media. 'Exactly,' I countered. 'Can you imagine that lot getting hold of guns. We'd be talking a dozen dead at matches each week.' The argument ended there.

The same issue of 'violent crime' in the UK I see is now continually raised. It was raised by some of your debaters, and also was brought up by Alex Jones with Piers Morgan. A lot of this stems from a Daily Telegraph article citing 2,000 'violent crimes' per 100,000 vs only 450 per 100,000 in the USA. This made no sense given that the UK murder rate is only 1.2 per 100,000 and the USA rate is 4.3.

I decided to dig deeper and check. First of all, this article stemmed from the Conservatives trying to paint a picture of increasing crime under a Labour govt (and The Telegraph is a Conservative newspaper). The other factor which played into their hands was the fact that in the UK 'violent crime' includes even minor assault, often without any injury. The US stats do NOT include this element. I then came across the following article which does give a US figure for all such 'assault' crimes: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/17/us/violent-crime/index.html

So we see from this a figure of 22.5 per 1,000 - 2,250 per 100,000, slighlty more in fact than the highest UK figure. This seemed to make more sense, but I decided to check another constant 'violent atatck' stat: rape. The figures for the UK are 23.4 per 100,000 vs 30.6 per 100,000 in the USA. So this then gives more consistency with the figures.

Interestingly, if you take the gap between the UK and USA murder rates and also the fact that guns are responsible for 67% of US deaths, this all but fills that gap right there. But these stats are continually bent by gun proponents. Just last week, one staunch gun supporter argued that baseball bats were responsible for more deaths than guns - what was I going to do, 'ban baseball?' I checked: baseball bats murders were a max of 3.7% (if bats constituted ALL blunt instrument attacks), whereas guns were 67%. Yet this falsehood had been widely circulated on the web and repeated by pro-gunners.

On a final note, I notice that one of the main posters on that board mentions the Swiss and their high gun ratio vs low gun murder rate. There is, as can be seen from my proposal, a good reason for that: strict control, NO open carry, and ONLY to be used for national defence. But certainly by all means quote this proposal to any and all who mention the Swiss. It's an extremely good yardstick which I feel could be adopted well in the USA.

Matt

12/1/2013 20:05:25

While your ten point plan is very ambitious and I appreciate the work your doing in support of gun control, I see a few potential pitfalls. First is the financial aspect of getting a pin-controlled gun safe in every home would be quite costly. I also think that if a person is anti gun, that should be that, there is no need for an elected warden to hold a gun for a person that they are more than likely never going to use. This just adds more guns to the equation nd there could be situations where many neighbors choose to not have guns leaving the warden with a stockpile of arms. Finally, while agree with tougher penalties for those with illegal guns, I feel if enforced properly it would put a strain on our already over-populated prison system. That said this is a great base for a plan in the future and could potentially save a lot of lives. I love your ideas on smart guns and required training.

John Matthews link

16/1/2013 06:53:09

You have a point about the cost of the pin-controlled boxes, however this could largely be offset against the cost of guns handed in under the amnesty program. For instance, hand in three guns and you get back one legal gun and a pin-controlled box with no cost (there might even be some cash back, depending on the number of guns handed in).

Also, produced on a mass-market basis, the cost of this sort of electronic device is very low indeed, even with a radio connection to the local police station. Gun manufacturers can also start investigating 'smart guns' if they want to keep their sales buoyant.

The thing to remember is that this is just the basis for a discussion document. Right now it's simply something which ticks all the right boxes with the 2nd Amendment and so might, just might have a chance of passing muster with Congress, as well as even hard core pro-gunners like the NRA. Interestingly, the NRA keep citing the Swiss high gun ratio vs low crime rate - so this in a way calls them out on that: 'Want the same? But also want to satisfy the 2nd Amendment, a better trained and regulated private militia plus also keep your homes protected? OK, here's the plan.'

But my experience so far is that this is all just empty talk from them to defend gun stats and keep the status quo as it is. Generally they try and avoid any degree of change or control - even if it might lead to countless lives saved.

John

16/1/2013 06:24:11

Well John, good effort, but you can see what you're/we're up against.

I keep coming back to Norman Mailer's great quote as to why we're in this mess: "Stupidity is the disease of America".

Also it's about the tragedy of the commons. Many in the U.S. simply don't care about the greater good. They insist on having guns to protect THEIR home and hearth, as if crime is rampant-- it's not, the overall crime level in the U.S. has been dropping for years now-- but the general impact of millions of guns, mass murders like Sandy Hook, don't matter. I guess it's acceptable "collateral damage".

John Matthews link

16/1/2013 14:08:16

At times it does seem an uphill battle. However, there are some encouraging signs this time. The New York Senate voted FOR gun control measures with a vote of 43 vs 18. If that's reflected nationwide, we could see some serious change this time.

I felt I'd gone quite a way with my proposal in ensuring Americans could remain protected in their own homes. I understand that fear with so many guns still out there. In many ways under my scheme they would be better protected because of the pin code notifying the local police, etc; also, they would be better trained.

But then a previous poster argued that would leave him unprotected on the streets. My feeling is that guns have no place on the streets in urban areas. If under my proposal there's a 60-70% reduction in guns on the street, then that would be the reduction in the gun murder rate. Haiwaii is one example where they've drastically reduced gun crime the past 30 years (by 60% or more), purely by having stricter 'conceal carry' laws.

In any case, a gun carried in public wouldn't reduce the risk of getting shot. Bank robbers would still carry them, as would gang members for attacks/defence against each other. But in the case of a random robbery or attack with a gun, the chances of drawing a gun on an assailant first are always the same: 50/50. In fact, given that he's observing, has already picked his target and has the element of surprise, probably far less. So in fact if you draw your gun late (which would probably be the case), your chances of getting shot are in fact higher. Also, it's no way to live, having to look over your shoulder every minute and be armed and prepared in case something might happen.

Most street shootings in fact escalate from something else. A case in point was a music pub I go to regularly: three weeks ago a small fight started. A bit of tussling then a punch was thrown and a guy fell before the bar staff grappled with them and hustled them both out. But they were still shouting and gesturing at each other from ten paces in the car park area while being held back by the bar staff, and it struck me: if one or both of them had a gun in their cars, it could easily have escalated to the next level. They certainly were out of control enough, screaming for each other's blood.

How many incidents like that are there across the UK on a Friday or Saturday night? Which if you add guns to the equation could turn into something far more ugly. A lot of incidents in the USA are lke that; or neighbours playing their radio too loud or family arguments which get out of control.

The recent NY vote at least demonstrates that some there are keen to make a change and make the USA the safer, better place it should be.

John

16/1/2013 18:23:40

Thank you for your response, John.

Yes, New York's legislation is good news-- and I think that is how progress is going to be made; state by state. I doubt that much will be done on the national level.

Regarding the person who feels "unsafe" on our streets, total nonsense. I've lived and worked in Chicago for over ten years, a city with over 500 murders last year. Never once have I feared for my life, never have I thought "I need a gun to protect myself while away from my home".

Now, do I go into certain areas of Chicago at 2:00 am? No, I do not. Regardless, the majority of the city and suburbs are safe.

John Matthews link

17/1/2013 07:30:40

I notice that there have been some encouraging trends with a number of large cities in the USA. For instance, the murder rate in New York in the 70s used to be about 2,000 a year vs 200 a year in London: 10 to 1 for cities of similar population. Now the rate in New York is more like 600 a year (and London is about the same at 200).

So in that 30-40 year span, the murder rate in New York has been cut by 70%+. Whether this is down to tough new laws there under Bloomberg and previous Mayors, I don't know. Perhaps the same is true of Chicago - although inLA the downturn is less over those years.

Haiwaii is another example where murder has been drastically reduced over the past 30 years or so. The rate there too has been cut by 70%, mainly due to tougher 'conceal carry' laws.

So there are areas of the USA where tougher gun control laws can be seen as having a tangible effect on reducing murder rates - if the NRA and pro-gunners would but look.

Teri

26/1/2013 09:29:35

Simply put, you know nothing about what you are spouting. You have never faced a criminal with a gun, I HAVE. I will NEVER be in that position again. I WILL NOT give up my right to carry a concealed weapon. PERIOD

John Matthews link

26/1/2013 11:19:20

The problem is, Teri, those very same 'conceal carry' laws allow more criminals to carry guns on the street so in fact greatly increase your chances of getting confronted by one.

Criminals are far more proagmatic than you think. Are they going to risk 3-5 years merely to relieve you of the cash in your bag? Probably not. Or even if it's 50% who would still take the risk, that's at least 50% less armed robbers out there.

And if you had a gun yourself, would it help? Only if you saw them coming and got the draw on them first. Most good muggers would come out of the shadows so that you couldn't see them, and at that point would be in a highly charged state. Chances are if they saw you going for a gun, you'd just increase your chances of getting shot.

As for me not knowing anything about those situations: I was a war zone journalist when I was only 26 and in the Lebanon in the last 2 years of the Lebanon Civil war, visiting Shatilla refugee camp; the most dangerous terrorist stronghold at the time. One of my tennis partners in Spain was a bank robber hiding from UK justice, and I've spoken with more villians, police and soldiers in the course of researching my various books than most.

If you'd read my earlier blog comments you'd have seen that another of my US buddies was an ex Vietnam war veteran; who actually, like another REAL soldier, Coleen Powell, was decidedly anti-gun. I think he saw enough in Nam to see what guns can do in the wrong hands.

Michael

26/1/2013 11:13:01

With all due respect you miss the heart and true intentions of the 2nd Amendment. It is not to protect ourselves in our homes. The men who crafted the 2nd Amendment had recently come out of a war. A war not against an enemy that invaded and attacked but war against their own tyrannical government.

Actually if you look at the Declaration of Independence and get beyond the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you will see a list of grievances against the King. You can draw direct lines from those issues written 240 years ago to issues taking place in Washington DC today.

The well regulated militia is every able-bodied citizen who should be properly trained in order to protect and defend liberty and freedom.

Liberty and freedom is not defined by narrow regulations overseen by a local warden, i.e. government official. No, this isn’t a different world than it was 240 years ago. Tyranny existed back then, tyranny exists today. Things change and things change fast. Assad of Syria was labeled as a “reformer” (one of the good guys) by Hillary Clinton in 2011. Today he kills his own citizens on a daily basis. Today he is warned against using chemical weapons against his own people. This alone should disqualify Hillary from seeking higher office in 2016 but that’s another story.

I’m sure they said “it can’t happen here” in Germany before Hitler acted; in Russia when Joe Stalin surrounded himself with children; in China before Mao surrounded himself with smiling children; in Uganda before Idi Amin killed his own, in Zimbabwe. The list goes on and on, all in the 20th century.
So please don’t try to define the argument and call your plan something other than gun control, because that’s exactly what it is. “Shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean only in the kitchen, only within the confines of your home. Doesn’t mean some “smart” system under government control where the government get to decide when the gun does and does not operate.

John Matthews link

26/1/2013 11:45:06

'With all due respect you miss the heart and true intentions of the 2nd Amendment. It is not to protect ourselves in our homes. The men who crafted the 2nd Amendment had recently come out of a war. A war not against an enemy that invaded and attacked but war against their own tyrannical government.'

I haven't missed the point at all. Quite the reverse. And the war was actually against the British and was to protect should the British decide to try and reimpose their colonial hold.

There were a lot of internal 'tyrranies' going on in the UK at the time too: landholder reform in Ireland so that the people there had more control over their fate. New laws to stop child labour andsending them up chimneys half the day. Women getting the vote.

Oh, yes, and abolition of slavery. We abolished that here in the UK 40 years before you did so in the USA, and in the interim period British navy gunships used to attack US 'slaver' boats off the coast of West Africa. Indeed, the tree under which William Wilberforce (who championed the abolition of slavery) met Pitt and set out the main charter is only 3 miles from where I live.

So there was a great deal of social reform here over those years, as we became 'less tyrranical', if you want to put it that way. Or perhaps it was all just good social reform.

But the fact remains that at that time your own govt was NOT tyrranical, nor perceived that it might become so (since the whole idea of democracy was a BY the people govt... FOR the people). So the entire intention of the 2nd Amendment was to protect against possible foreign forces, which indeed was a good idea.

But if you are truly seeking a 'well-regulated' and efficient militia, as per the original tennets of the 2nd Amendment - rather than the current ludicrous free for all where criminals and neghbours take pot shots at each other - then the closest good example is the Swiss.

They have a very high concentration of arms, including semi-automatics, but these are ALL kept at home. Yet they are on two minute call-out given any emergency situation, and it takes only another minute to get that gun out its lock-box and defend the nation against any possible attacks. As a result they remain the most effective, well regulated private militia in the world. But the guns are also there to protect your home and family if need be.

Is a govt suddenly gone out of control going to attack all those men fully knowing they have those guns at home and have been highly trained? I don't think so. And as for outside tyrrany, see my Swiss militia comments about 'firing twice and going home'. If it was enough to keep Hitler at bay at the height of his power, then 'job done' I would say.

Jeff Marienthal

27/1/2013 09:23:59

The 2nd Amendment was intended as a protection against tyranny, not just foreign invasion. The purpose of our Constitution is to limit government as a protection against tyranny. That's clear from the writings of the founders, e.g.:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence (sic), raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787

It also for self-protection, based upon a founding principle rooted in Natural Law. In a state of nature, a living being has an innate right of self-defense."Among the natural Rights of the Colonists are these: First, a Right to Life; secondly, to Liberty; thirdly, to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best Manner they can. Those are evident Branches of, rather than Deductions from, the Duty of Self-Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature."
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/makingrev/crisis/text6/bostonpamphlet.pdf

Regarding British Navy attacking US slave ships, that's unlikely. Britain and the U.S. both ended slave trade in 1808. And slave ships bound for the U.S. after that date would not be U.S. flag ships.

John Matthews link

27/1/2013 06:35:55

Interresting article and poll here from the Washington post which shows that the NRA does NOT speak for all gun owners, in fact quite the opposite. They represent only a small proportion of gun owners, though generally the more staunch and vocal.

Possibly that more 'forceful vocal' activity gives many the impression they speak for the majority of gun owners, or at least their views are shared by that majority. This poll and study shows that is far from the truth. We can see that too from the comments here, with some gun owners being particularly staunch and protective, even in the face of a plan that ticks EVERY box with the 2nd Amendment and would lead to far less US gun deaths every year.

Certainly that has been the experience in Switzerland, while preserving a high quota of arms. It also answers that much vaunted 'national security' issue, plus provides better regulation and training. Quite simply, if the Swiss can do it, why not the USA?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/23/gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/

Jeff Marienthal

27/1/2013 08:41:44

Can someone explain how anyone stays proficient with firearms if an alarm sounds and police arrive every time you open your pin-controlled box? There are thousands of gun owners across the country who shoot in NRA or CMP sanctioned matches weekly throughout much of the year. Many of us shoot between 2000 and 5000 rounds per year in practice and competition.

You don't stay proficient by keeping a gun in a lock-box.

John Matthews link

27/1/2013 09:04:26

Hi Jeff,
That issue is easily addressed. In fact, it came up in the wake of new laws after the Dumblane shooting.

We already had strict laws in the UK, but if you were a registered member of a gun club or shooting range, you were allowed to transport that weapon to and from the club/range. Unfortunately, the shooter at Dumblane was such a person, and that incident was the closest we came to Sandy Hook in the UK. Out of interest, our tennis ace Andy Murray was a kid in Dumblane school at the time of the attack.

So the laws were then tightened up and any guns used HAD to be left on the gun range premises. The same could then apply in the USA. You have a weapon or two of choice at home, then one or two under lock and key at the gun range/club, etc. So it's an issue easily addressed. They could in fact be the same guns, or different guns.

One added factor that hit me with all this. There's going to be a semi-automatic ban imposed pretty soon, certainly at least in a number of states (few or many depending how each votes). The pin-lock box could be a way of addressing that. For those keen to keep their weapons, they could argue to have it kept under such a circumstance. This means at least they'd still have it as a handy protection for their own home and family as well as any 'national emergency' situation. Then also they could have the same semi-automatic under lock and key at the gun club. So there could be several advantages to this as an 'alternative' back-up plan in the wake of an all-out semi-automatic ban.

Jeff Marienthal

27/1/2013 09:30:15

Don't expect any semi-auto bans without a Constitutional challenge. The 2nd Amendment protects arms in common use.

Having duplicate arms in various places would be costly and inconvenient. I compete at 10+ ranges in 4 states. If my match rifle is at my home club 45 miles south of my home, and I wish to compete at a club 180 miles north, my traveling distance for a weekend of shooting doubles.

Mostly, the whole plan is an unacceptable government intrusion. The problem isn't 80 million law-abiding gun owners. The problem is mental health and criminality. Guns do not cause us to be criminals.

John Matthews link

27/1/2013 10:07:54

Jeff, I don't see how anything proposed here in this ten-point plan stops you either: a: protecting your home and family b: protecting against tyrrany, whether it be foreign or home-originated.

As indeed is the case in Switzerland. As I said before, if that was effective in fending off Hitler at the height of his power. As for British Navy gunboats confronting US slavers in that interim period, that's a matter of historical record. Wilbur Smith in fact devoted part of one of his books to that issue alone.

Finally, if a bit of extra cost and inconvenience on the part of 2% of the US population that make up the NRA is all that's at issue, then I'd say that's a small price to pay indeed for thousands of lives saved a year, including the 20 kids at Sandy Hook. And I'm sure you're not going to scrimp your pocket to stop your favourite sport.

I have a friend who wants to get his son more into competition go-karting. It ends up expensive, and that's a sport with few social repurcussions. That's just the way it is with some sports. Also there might be a way if it's the same organizations handling these shooting events to get the guns transported there for you.

Jeff Marienthal

27/1/2013 16:30:05

The historical record is that both the U.S. and U.K. banned slave TRADE in 1807-1808. Any ships operating AFTER 1808 would not be U.S. ships. The well-known Amistad, for example, was owned by a Spaniard living in Cuba. Slavery existing in the U.S. until the Civil War, but any importation of slaves was illegal.

Anything which costs me more is not an inconvenience, it is an infringement of my liberty. I am not wealthy. We have seen many attempts in the last decades to drive up the cost of firearm ownership by various schemes, making it difficult for average citizen to afford them. This is an infringement. If the cost of my sport doubled, I would have to give it up.

John Matthews

30/1/2013 05:04:17

Such is life, Jeff. The cost of many things has gone up over the past thirty years, or been driven up by governments.

Motoring is an ideal example. Rising petrol/gas costs, road taxes, punitive parking charges, strict speed limits. The 55 mph limit in the USA for a while was a great impediment to those traveling long distances. Yet many would view the use of the car as an 'essential freedom.'

It extends to many sports too. I love a good game of tennis and I'm still a keen amateur contender. However, the cost of tennis club membership was 4 times higher in Canada than the UK, so I could only play rarely (when invited by a friend who was a local club member).

The same was true with my mother and swimming. She developed severe arthritis in her later years and the only thing that relieved it was swimming regularly. Yet she couldn't afford the local sports club membership in the UK, so I paid this for her. That too you could term an 'essential', yet was restricted by cost. Yet both of those sports hold no threat to others because of misuse/abuse by some parties.

Michael

27/1/2013 10:32:43

This is one of the reasons there was such an outcry when Elena Kagen was nominated to the Supreme Court. She believes that we need to look to international law to interpret out laws in the U.S.

If you think all this junk works in the UK, great. Have at it. It doesn't and will not be acceptable in the US. The US is unique in many ways, we are not subjects to a blood line, we are free men. We have a country where we regularly speak out against the government, without fear of harassment. Where we treat that law as the most important. The first RIGHT in the Bill of Rights is about freedom of speech, association, religion. The Second Amendment is second in importance because it protects and secures the First Amendment. (The UK has free speech as well, until you offend someone.)

The US is one of a handful of countries where the common citizen can achieve land ownership. We have property rights. A concept that is not well understood in the vast majority of the world. Most of the world doesn’t understand the concept of true freedom. Which is why we are usually out numbered at the United Nations. Be it jealousy or idiocy, take your pick. Is the US always right? No. Do we have our issues? Yes, but it is second to none, why else do people risk their lives to come here? Freedom, like no other place on the planet.

Such freedom is why there is such an outcry against UN Agenda 21 which means to strip US citizens from their property rights, and create a greater world through a world governing body of oppressive laws. Such a plan doesn’t cause alarm in other countries because they are used to authoritarian control. Not here in America, we won’t stand for it. Which is why there is such pressure to get rid of the guns, and such plans as this one is but the camel nose under the tent. It won’t work, it doesn’t address the issues. When it doesn’t work those who want to ban guns will point to this ridiculous scheme of pin code boxes, alarms and wardens, magical guns that shoot only when the government allows, as not going far enough. Not being restrictive enough.

In the US there are bans on heroin, cocaine, crack, and other drugs. Very stiff laws against the possession, sale, purchase, and transport of them. Yet they still exist and they are readily available to all those who want them. If we have laws against them, how can this be? The answer is only law abiding citizens (by definition) abide by the laws and criminals (by definition) do not. Gun control benefits only the criminal.

No, Sir. We’ll keep our guns, you can keep your fantasy world where evil and tyranny do not exist.

John Matthews

30/1/2013 04:37:10

It isn't only in the UK that it works, but most of Europe and many other regions too. Australia, for instance, as much a 'new frontier' nation in many respects, adopted strict gun laws years ago and 90% of the Australian people fully embraced these and it has led to greatly reduced murder rates.

Canada too (as a Canadian poster recently commented) has millions of guns, but they are ONLY to be kept in the home and their strict NO 'conceal carry' laws gives them a murder rate a third of the USA, even though they are right next door.

The Swiss model in fact derives from it being the closest to the original ethos of the Second Amendment with a 'well-regulated militia' that has private guns at home. Indeed, the NRA themselves often mention the Swiss as a nation with high gun ownership and a low murder rate.

What particular blind spot is it that stops strong gun proponents adopting a similar system, when in fact this is the VERY SAME system the NRA themselves have pointed to as an example of a 'gun nirvana', ergo: high gun ratio, low crime and murder rate.

Michael

27/1/2013 10:32:51

John Matthews

27/1/2013 11:16:17

'The first RIGHT in the Bill of Rights is about freedom of speech, association, religion.'

It might have been a good idea if that was given a bit more thought to before Alex Jones and his supporters decided to get together a petition to deport Piers Morgan purely for exercizing those same rights.

As for the rest of your comments, I would say we probably have as many if not more freedoms in the UK, as does France and much of Europe: freedom of speech, property ownership, etc. For instance, we don't have such strict 'three strikes and out' laws which means you have some prisoners doing ten years for petty robbery or shoplifting.

Yet most of those countries have strict control on guns WITH the consent of the people. It was seen as wise choice, nothing more; and the reduction in gun crime seems to support it as 'wise'. So that was the way they exercized their 'freedom'.

John Matthews

30/1/2013 05:18:49

'This is one of the reasons there was such an outcry when Elena Kagen was nominated to the Supreme Court. She believes that we need to look to international law to interpret our laws in the U.S.'

I would imagine one good reason why she looked to international law is simply that if you're looking to reform laws, you look to those nations where they work best. So it's perhaps no surprise that she might look to nations in Western Europe with very low gun murder rates (and indeed murder rates in general 75-80% less than the USA).

In the same way that if you were looking for a good high speed rail system you'd look to the French; if you wanted to know how to brew authentic Guiness, you'd look to the Irish; good pasta and prestige sports cars, the Italians; well-engineered saloon and sports cars, the Germans. Or if anyone was looking to develop a good space program, they'd look at the USA and NASA. Same too maybe for commercial aircraft development.

If you're looking for good guidance, you look to the nations that have systems which work well. You should also remember that the legal system in the USA was largely based on the British system and the core of the Democratic Constitution was based on the ethos of the post revolution French Republic (which was why France gave the USA the Statue of Liberty, in recognition of that). Oh, and the White House design was inspired by the French Palace of Versailles. And New York's new-wave 'block architecture' was largely due to a German architect who wished to bury reminders of anything European. So there is in fact a bit of history to the USA 'looking outside' for influence.

John Matthews

27/1/2013 11:30:51

'The problem is mental health and criminality. Guns do not cause us to be criminals.'

Jeff, we've heard this time and time again over the past 30 years, but still there has been little reduction in the number of US gun dead each year.

Fact of the matter is, if that was the main or only cause, then we would have to have 4 times as many criminals or mentally ill in the UK for the comparative murder stats to hold. I don't think that's the case. So something else has to be the 'smoking gun' (if you'll excuse the pun).

Also I know many 'mentally challenged' people who are totally harmless (my wife works in the mental care industry and takes care of anything from Downs Syndrome to epyleptics to more severe cases). Yet I know some totally sane people who I'd consider volatile and dangerous.

Then too we have cases like Adam Lanza, well on the way to being insane, but not yet fully registered as such. Then the many, many people who are sane 99% of the time yet go off the rails in a blind irrational moment. 9 times out of 10 you're not going to spot who shouldn't have a gun until it's too late.

Jeff Marienthal

27/1/2013 16:24:05

"Mentally challenged" is different from mentally disturbed, sociopathic or psychopathic. No one said the mentally challenged are more likely to commit crimes. Lanza’s mother was taking legal steps for his mental health, but not fast enough. 80 million gun owners in this country will probably not suddenly go on a homicidal rampage.
Murder rate in the U.S. has been declining for 20 years. See: http://iapcar.org/?p=1215
Here's a video, or you can check the stats yourself at fbi.gov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=share
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/june/crimes_061112/crimes_061112
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
So-called "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles. Rifles as a whole constitute a small percentage of homicides; e.g., in my state, in 2010 there were 3 homicides with rifles of all types, and only one in 2011. It is still not clear to me that Lanza used a rifle. The initial report was 2 handguns found in the school, later 4 handguns. A rifle was shown in the trunk of a car, which turned out not to be his. Based on the information that has been available to the public, I can't imagine how one makes the leap to banning arms which were not used by someone who broke many existing laws to commit his mayhem.
Homicides went up in the UK following the 1997 Gun Control Law: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/10/graph-on-uk-gun-control-laws-and.html
One of biggest problems here is that media and politicians who know nothing about firearms spread myths and lies which echo movie fantasy about weapons, but not reality. And finally, the victims of mass shootings by crazies in the last 20 years pales in comparison to the number of people killed in the streets of Chicago within a month or two. Chicago had 506 homicides last year, and similar number the year before, not by law-abiding gun-owners, but by gang members killing other gang members or innocent bystanders.
The greatest mass school slaughter occurred in 1927, killing 38 and injuring 58. The weapon was explosives. It ranks third among all U.S. mass murders, behind Oklahoma City (fertilizer and Diesel fuel), and 9/11, where the weapon was airliners (and box cutters).

John Matthews

27/1/2013 16:37:58

I was being 'kind' when I said 'mentally challenged'. It's not politically correct to say 'mad as a box of hatters', we can get arrested for it here :)

You're spot on about the gun crime decline (see my comments earlier about that). When I was in New York in the late 70s, the murder rate was 2,000 a year, now it's 600. Haiwaii too has cut its murder rate by 70% in that same period.

Then check out the VERY strict conceal carry laws introduced in those States, which the likes of Bloomberg would like to see tightened even further. I don't think it's purely by accident that those murder rates have lessened; there's been a lot of tightening and tweaking over those 30 years.

I just thought that with something like the Swiss system, you'd have the perfect situation: 2nd Amendment satisfied, more responsible gun use, better trained gun owners and ready militia, etc, etc. Ticks all the boxes. After all, why have 11,000 dead a year when you can have only 20% of that by following the Swiss?

Jeff Marienthal

28/1/2013 09:40:35

You mentioned Downs and epilepsy, which are clearly not the problem.

Chicago is among the tightest gun control cities in the U.S., and among the highest murder rates. Where gun control is tightest, murder rate is generally highest. Where concealed carry or open carry are permitted, murder rates tend to be lower. You really should study those FBI statistics.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFbAj-75R-A
Of 12,664 total murders in 2011, 8,583 were committed with firearms—not 11,0000.
Of the firearm homicides, 6,220 were by handgun, 323 by rifle (all types); 356 by shotgun; 1,684 firearms identified, 1,694 by knife or edged weapon; 1,659 "other"; and 728 by hands, fists, feet (including being pushed). The homicide and suicide rate in Japan and Canada bear out that, in the absence of firearms, other means will still be employed.

We are not the Swiss. The Swiss don't have states and cities run by "progressive" Democrats with out-of-control gang and drug problems. We aren't randomly killing each other. Most of the problems are gang and drug related.

John Matthews

29/1/2013 19:05:02

I think you'll find that the ruling Swiss political party is far closer to the Democrats than it is the Republican party... as is the case with much of Europe.

The proposal is simply one which moves more to the grass root intentions of the 2nd Amendment than the current situation. Strict gun laws have worked to reduce crime in both Haiwaii and New York. Chicago has always been high, but strict laws there too have reduced it considerably over the past 20 years.

You are not going to get rid of every gun and every criminal. But under 'the one law for all' rule, the police have a much harder time confronting criminals carrying guns on the street when EVERYONE is carrying them. He doesn't need to explain why he's carrying, nor is he breaking any law. 'Hey, I'm just going to show my mom the birthday present she got me.'

These laws DO have teeth and they work, but they take time. Of course, if you want to convince yourself that they do not work and the low gun crime in Europe is purely by accident or we're simply a darnsight less nuttier, fine. One thing where we're equal both sides of the Pond, no laws or restrictions: opinions.

Diane

1/2/2013 13:32:56

I believe the writers of the 2nd amendment wanted to prevent having a standing army. Do the Swiss have a standing army? Do you propose doing away with our military? I think we do need gun control and we do need to work for peace. Meanwhile, what about our country's international role? I'm willing to go with United Nations recommendations, but how many Americans agree?
Thanks for your book, and your blog.

John Matthews

1/2/2013 14:56:40

Hi Diane,
Nice to have a comment that looks at the broader picture rather than someone just talking about their 'rights'. In the same breath they talk about how the main problem lies with criminals and gangs.

What they don't realize is that gang members probably have more pressing reasons to carry because of the areas they live in. I recall reading about the notable battles between the Bloods and the Crips in LA years back. At first their fights were just with fists and the occasional knife or iron bar. Then a few of them started carrying guns and so the others felt compelled to do so too. In the end, everyone ends up with an excuse to 'carry'... and the weapons too get more powerful and more proficient. It's a rocky road to go.

Yes, at the time of the 2nd Amendment it was just loose bands of fighting men who'd fended off the British redcoats. An organized standing army was still some way off. So that seemed a reasonable solution at the time. But I would never for a moment suggest any lessening of the US military. Nor indeed any greater powers for the UN or NATO.

My proposal would merely be a back up to US defence following along Swiss lines. And seeing as they have no standing army and managed to keep Hitler at bay, it was fairly effective. It also means that all those who shout the 2nd Amendment as soon as gun control is mentioned can actually start adhering to its ethos more stringently. They would also as part of the induction and training become more proficient and safer gun users. Some 'respect' for those guns would be a core part of the traning, something which indeed the NRA would welcome and support.

But of course by the reactions of arch pro-gunners here, the truth emerges. They have no interest whatsoever in protection of the nation or being part of any 'second stage' militia force. This is purely about their own personal protection (even though this plan fully protects their families too) supported by a mish-mash paranoia about roaming armed criminals and the big bad state. To the effect that both are just waiting for them to put down their guns so that they can be shot in their beds. That level of misplaced paranoia is a major obstacle to any progress.

AZ Red Winger

7/2/2014 13:09:54

I find the same garbage about guns coming from both the Conservative and the Liberal. Most of you have no idea what you are talking about. You spout statistics like it was the holy grail of truth. 80% of all statistics are made up and the other 20% are doubtful. For those who live in the frozen north (Canada) please stay at home this winter...see how much you miss the US. :-) Having lived around the world, I've found no better place to live than here. So, I say to you all, stay home and be safe. I'm free, living and because I carry my gun legally, I'm safe too.

Author

John Matthews is a leading British thriller writer. His books span genres of crime, action, mystery and legal-thriller and include: Basikasingo, Crescents of the Moon, Past Imperfect, The Last Witness, The Second Amendment, Ascension Day, The Shadow Chaser, Blind School, The Prophet, and his current book series set in 1890s New York with the first days of criminal forensics.

They have been translated into 14 languages with total sales of 1.5 million. In 2007, Past Imperfect was included in a top ten all-time best legal thrillers list in The Times. He was one of only two British authors in the list.

John is also an accomplished screenwriter, including a film adaptation for Past Imperfect and original screenplays, with two recent projects in collaboration with Nigel McCrery, creator of TV's Silent Witness and New Tricks.

Buying a NEW Kindle?

Best US Kindle Packages here with 4,000 FREE books bundled in!

UK Kindle buyers link HERE!

Gun Control: Ten point plan.

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories