Posts Tagged ‘Guns’

More Flintlocks, Less Crime

Friday, August 13th, 2010

Don B. Cates, writing at Cal Guns:

[The following is from an article that Carlyle Moody and I are writing on the theory that more guns in a society will cause more crime. This part of the article was written by Prof. Moody an economist at William & Mary College.]

If more guns cause murder, and more guns cause more murder, it would seem societies with no guns at all should be the safest possible states. There are few gun free societies in the world today. However, if we look back in history to the time before the invention of firearms, we can judge for ourselves whether those societies were tranquil and safe. Remarkably good homicide data is available for England, beginning in the 1200’s. Those data indicate a pre-gun homicide rate in England of roughly 20 per 100,000 [roughly four times greater than the U.S. today]

Firearms were introduced into England in the 1400’s and were in wide use by the 1500’s, coincident with a decline in the homicide rate to 15 per 100K. However these early guns were predominately of the matchlock design. This design featured a slow burning fuse held in a clamp at the end of a serpentine lever. When the trigger was pulled the clamp dropped down so that the end of the lit fuse touched the powder in the flash pan, firing the weapon. The design was simple and the weapons relatively inexpensive. The major problem with the design from the point of view of personal defense was that, because of the need for a lit fuse, the weapon could not be kept and carried loaded and primed for quick use against a sudden attack.

The first firearm that could be carried loaded and primed was the flintlock, introduced into England around 1630. In this design the fuse is replaced by a piece of flint. When the trigger is pulled the flint strikes a piece of steel producing a shower of sparks that ignite the powder in the flash pan. This technology persisted through the early 1800’s. While matchlocks were almost exclusively long guns, flintlock technology was readily adapted to produce handguns, which were particularly useful for self defense. The flintlock pistol was relatively inexpensive, could be comfortably carried, was ready for action in an instant, and did not require a great deal of physical strength or expertise to operate. The flintlock could be fired in an instant, making it the ideal self- defense weapon. Armed with a flintlock, the physically weak found themselves on an equal footing with the physically strong in a confrontation.

The introduction of the flintlock coincided with the largest decline in homicide in English history. The homicide rate plunged to 6 per 100K in the 1600’s. The English homicide rate continued to decline slowly and steadily until well into the 20th century. For example, in 1900 the homicide rate was 0.96 per 100K.

The last hundred years of English history tells the reverse story. The first modern gun law in England was the Pistols Act of 1903 which required Englishmen to purchase a permit in order to acquire a firearm. Since 1920, the English government’s policy has been ever more restrictive. The Firearms Control Act of 1920 imposed a true permit requirement to possess rifles as well as all types of pistols and empowered local authorities to determine if the applicant would be allowed to purchase arms. This permit requirement was administered progressively more stringently and was amended to increase restrictions over time in an attempt to reduce the civilian gun stock. The Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 and the Criminal Law Act of 1967 redefined the right to self defense more restrictively making any act of self defense potentially criminal. The Firearms Acts of 1968 and 1998 brought shotguns under strict regulation; the Firearm Act of 1997 effectively banned the private ownership of handguns and provided for the confiscation of all legally owned handguns.
According to the more guns more crime hypothesis, all this restriction of civilian guns should have resulted in England enjoying lower and lower rates of violent crime. Unfortunately, the facts reveal a pattern that is almost opposite. [as of 2000 England had twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.] and I are writing on the theory that more guns in a society will cause more crime. This part of the article was written by Prof. Moody an economist at William & Mary College.]

If more guns cause murder, and more guns cause more murder, it would seem societies with no guns at all should be the safest possible states. There are few gun free societies in the world today. However, if we look back in history to the time before the invention of firearms, we can judge for ourselves whether those societies were tranquil and safe. Remarkably good homicide data is available for England, beginning in the 1200’s. Those data indicate a pre-gun homicide rate in England of roughly 20 per 100,000 [roughly four times greater than the U.S. today]

Firearms were introduced into England in the 1400’s and were in wide use by the 1500’s, coincident with a decline in the homicide rate to 15 per 100K. However these early guns were predominately of the matchlock design. This design featured a slow burning fuse held in a clamp at the end of a serpentine lever. When the trigger was pulled the clamp dropped down so that the end of the lit fuse touched the powder in the flash pan, firing the weapon. The design was simple and the weapons relatively inexpensive. The major problem with the design from the point of view of personal defense was that, because of the need for a lit fuse, the weapon could not be kept and carried loaded and primed for quick use against a sudden attack.

The first firearm that could be carried loaded and primed was the flintlock, introduced into England around 1630. In this design the fuse is replaced by a piece of flint. When the trigger is pulled the flint strikes a piece of steel producing a shower of sparks that ignite the powder in the flash pan. This technology persisted through the early 1800’s. While matchlocks were almost exclusively long guns, flintlock technology was readily adapted to produce handguns, which were particularly useful for self defense. The flintlock pistol was relatively inexpensive, could be comfortably carried, was ready for action in an instant, and did not require a great deal of physical strength or expertise to operate. The flintlock could be fired in an instant, making it the ideal self- defense weapon. Armed with a flintlock, the physically weak found themselves on an equal footing with the physically strong in a confrontation.

The introduction of the flintlock coincided with the largest decline in homicide in English history. The homicide rate plunged to 6 per 100K in the 1600’s. The English homicide rate continued to decline slowly and steadily until well into the 20th century. For example, in 1900 the homicide rate was 0.96 per 100K.

The last hundred years of English history tells the reverse story. The first modern gun law in England was the Pistols Act of 1903 which required Englishmen to purchase a permit in order to acquire a firearm. Since 1920, the English government’s policy has been ever more restrictive. The Firearms Control Act of 1920 imposed a true permit requirement to possess rifles as well as all types of pistols and empowered local authorities to determine if the applicant would be allowed to purchase arms. This permit requirement was administered progressively more stringently and was amended to increase restrictions over time in an attempt to reduce the civilian gun stock. The Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 and the Criminal Law Act of 1967 redefined the right to self defense more restrictively making any act of self defense potentially criminal. The Firearms Acts of 1968 and 1998 brought shotguns under strict regulation; the Firearm Act of 1997 effectively banned the private ownership of handguns and provided for the confiscation of all legally owned handguns.
According to the more guns more crime hypothesis, all this restriction of civilian guns should have resulted in England enjoying lower and lower rates of violent crime. Unfortunately, the facts reveal a pattern that is almost opposite. [as of 2000 England had twice the violent crime rate of the U.S.]

[Emphasis in the original.]

Here it is again: the key tactic in any argument with a gun control advocate is to demand the citing of any instance where relaxing gun control laws has increased crime. And, I suspect, you can also do well by demanding the citing of any instance where imposing gun control on the general population has decreased crime. (The “on the general population” proviso is aimed at excepting closed, tightly controlled areas such as prisons. Presumably, most gun control advocates would not be willing to voluntarily live in a prison.)

===

Ack, I’ve lost the via.

“76 Reasons to Own A Gun”

Monday, September 14th, 2009

Just a quick link and cut & paste from Terrence Gillespie at Lew Rockwell:

  1. The simple act of having a gun is its own best use. Like a battleship parked off the coast its mere presence changes the dynamic of the situation without having to fire a single shot. By having a gun you become too dangerous to your predators. Criminals interviewed in jail say they don’t want anything to do with an armed civilian. That change in my human predators is exactly what I want to accomplish.
  2. A right exercised is a right retained.
  3. It’s the best single tool for protecting your life and the lives of your loved ones.
  4. You detest American gun laws based on 1938 Nazi weapons laws.
  5. Armed societies are polite societies. (Switzerland).

Now go read the other seventy one, and Gillespie’s commentary.

Guns on The Island Off the Coast of France

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

Yes, I watch Warren Ellis’ Twitter, because he’s just that clever.

I do not, however, agree one hundred percent with some of his political views.

Tshirt I need to see – SARAH PALIN: IN ENGLAND WE SHOOT PIT BULLS

Followed by:

Yes, we have guns in the UK. It’s how our police kill foreign tourists. Think on that.

Also, Mr. Ellis, guns are how yobs rob, rape, and kill increasingly desperate subjects. And yes, the yobs have got plenty. Too bad the desperate subjects are defenseless, and if they do fight back, they receive more punishment than the yobs. What the hell is the matter with you people? And why do you think we should listen to you?

Too bad the subjects aren’t also allowed to have and use guns against yobs. Funny thing, that.
[Note: that's a BBC link, not an NRA link.]

UN-Stopping Rape

Friday, August 8th, 2008

The United Nations thinks rape as a military tactic is a bad thing, m-kay?

They want us all to spread this cross-armed gesture in protest:

arms crossed fists closed

However, this reminds Breda of Oleg Volk’s version of the same gesture:

cross arms or point gun

Except, of course, the UN doesn’t think anyone but them should have a gun to actually do something about rape:

Probably because, of course, if women were armed they’d shoot at the UN personnel raping them.

US out of UN. UN out of US. The United Nations is a scandal. It’s been hijacked by tyrants and pirates. It advocates the cowardly peace of surrender, not the bright clash of liberty. I’m sick of my nation hosting it and supporting it.


To believe in gun control, you must believe a woman lying raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to a woman standing over a dead rapist with a smoking gun in her hand.

Prof Meets Gun 4: UD Visiting Gun Show, Range

Monday, June 16th, 2008

The author of University Diaries, UD, will be going to a gun show, and plans to contact someone about a trip to the range.

She compares two extreme viewpoints there.

First Amitai Etzioni, a GW sociologist:

If one holds, as most studies do, that guns provide more danger than protection, and notes that other democratic societies greatly limit private gun ownership, one is naturally troubled by the threat that the new scholarship may help to overturn a strong and long-established endorsement of gun control laws by the Supreme Court. With so much at stake, should scholars refrain from conducting studies that might have grave unsettling social consequences?
… Would my colleagues put on their web site a study that demonstrating how to make the Ebola virus in a kitchen sink? Would they publish ways to make nerve gas in one’s basement? As I see it, when the results of a publication may well be fatal on a large scale, great weight should be given to social prudence.
… [M]y good colleagues in law schools [should] consider whether they should devote themselves to an academic pursuit other than undermining the Supreme Court rulings that have rendered gun control possible and legitimate…

To her credit, UD:

…finds Etzioni’s analogies — an individual in possession of a gun is a deadly virus, a nerve gas — as well as his aristocratic conviction that the possibly correct reading of one of our nation’s more important documents ought to be kept from ordinary American citizens, pretty stunning.

Stunning indeed, not least because Etzioni is comparing Second Amendment scholarship, not guns, to Ebola and nerve gas. We’ll assume ignorance, not malice, to be behind his comments about “most studies” and “a strong and long-established endorsement of gun control laws by the Supreme Court”.

Second, she cites GW law professor Robert J. Cottrel, who says:

[A] society with a dismal record of protecting a people has a dubious claim on the right to disarm them…. [I]t is unwise to place the means of protection totally in the hands of the state….

[T]he ultimate civil right is the right to defend one’s own life…. [W]ithout that right all other rights are meaningless.

Both of these quotes are from NRA websites; UD is not relying on one sided sources. She is honestly and thoroughly investigating guns and the Right to Keep and Bear.

Whatever conclusions she comes to, whether she elects to become a gun owner or not, she will have honestly earned her opinion, and I for one will respectfully listen to whatever she has to say.

[Series note]

I didn’t realize this was going to turn into a series. I’ve retitled the posts so far, but have left their URLs untouched so as not to break any existing links. Note that my numbers are not consistent with UD’s.

Posts in this series:

Prof Meets Gun 4: UD Visiting Gun Show, Range (this post)

Prof Meets Gun 3: On Scholars Visiting Gun Ranges

Prof Meets Gun 2: Gun Range Visit & Gun Answers

Prof Meets Gun 1

Prof Meets Gun 2: Gun Range Visit & Gun Answers

Friday, June 13th, 2008

A couple of days ago I pointed at UD, an academic who was planning to visit a gun range to, you know, actually get some actual facts, rather than just go with the antis told her.

Here UD comments on her experience.

Two things: first, she’s having to deal with the obligatory canard that wanting to shoot guns is all about penis envy.

Second, she’s asking her readers for advice on whether or not she try shooting herself. She gets some very good, very positive answeres.

Five people, four of them local, have offered to take [UD] shooting at a range.

Before she talks about that, she wants to thank all the gunnies (This is one of many new words UD has learned; and here’s a new phrase, courtesy of one of the readers of her other blog: freaking the mundanes. Which in this case refers, I guess, to UD freaking out gun control people.) who’ve written comments here or who’ve emailed her to express appreciation for her willingness to get closer to guns rather than, as she’s done before this, rail against them at a distance. She’s been delighted by the helpfulness, courtliness, and humor of many of these responses.

Almost every single person I’ve ever seen or heard says exactly the same thing about their first contact with gunnies. As Heinlein says, “An armed society is a polite society.”

No one advises her not to shoot, except for one clown who warns her that she might end up as the president of the NRA (a ha-ha-only-serious comment if there ever was one). The anti-freedom crowd has zero presence in this discussion.

My answer on both points:

You should go shooting exactly because you “have reservations”.

Face your fears. Resist peer pressure. Take command of your life.

If you can get about without a minder, you can handle a gun safely. For inspiration, watch this girl go through a tactical shooting exercise. If she can do it, so can you.

Since you’re fending off attacks by your peers on the “necessary and boring” sexualization of guns, let me provide you with my standard response to charges of “penis envy”:

My father owns a walking-stick made from a bull’s penis stretched over an iron rod. He is the only person I know who can, heh heh, beat off an attacker with his penis.

I admit that my own, personal penis is pitifully inadequate for self-defense purposes.

Clearly, women should be left defenseless, since they are anatomically unsuited for it. Plus, it makes them so much easier to subdue.

It’s also true that the elderly and handicapped do not deserve the right to self-defense, since their wang-fu will likely be inadequate for a variety of reasons. We don’t need such human rubbish, anyway.

And I admit, I’ve always found it disturbing that we must publicly brand our police and military as puny weaklings by issuing them handguns and rifles.

Go to the range. You’ll have fun.

Welcome to freedom.

By the way, from comments there, in one of the comments I found this excellent article with links to sources rebutting most of the gun control propaganda. It’s an absolute gold mine. Strongly recommended.

[Series note]

I didn’t realize this was going to turn into a series. I’ve retitled the posts so far, but have left their URLs untouched so as not to break any existing links. Note that my numbers are not consistent with UD’s.

Posts in this series:

Prof Meets Gun 4: UD Visiting Gun Show, Range

Prof Meets Gun 3: On Scholars Visiting Gun Ranges

Prof Meets Gun 2: Gun Range Visit & Gun Answers (This post)

Prof Meets Gun 1

Prof Meets Gun 1

Friday, June 6th, 2008

An pro-gun-control English professor is off to the range, specifically to educate herself about guns.

Good for her; I’m looking forward to her reports.

I hope she can also get her husband to go, eventually.

[Series note]

I didn’t realize this was going to turn into a series. I’ve retitled the posts so far, but have left their URLs untouched so as not to break any existing links. Note that my numbers are not consistent with UD’s.

Posts in this series:

Prof Meets Gun 4: UD Visiting Gun Show, Range

Prof Meets Gun 3: On Scholars Visiting Gun Ranges

Prof Meets Gun 2: Gun Range Visit & Gun Answers

Prof Meets Gun 1 (This post)

Can We Trust Megan McArdle With a Gun?

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

Over at the Atlantic, Megan McArdle ponders:

So if Heller, as libertarians devoutly hope, legalizes gun ownership in DC, the question immediately arises for those of us who live here: buy one, or not? On the one hand, they are expensive, and shooting ranges far away. On the other hand, I live alone in an apartment that is something less than amply fortified. On the third hand, I’m pretty sure I shouldn’t handle a gun when I’m sleepy.

First of all, as one of her commenters noted, it’s not “the third hand”, it’s “the gripping hand“.

Beyond that, the short answer is, “Of course!”

And to answer Megan’s objections, perfectly acceptable home defense guns start at about $150; excellent choices can be had for around $500. That’s pretty cheap insurance.

And if you can’t deal with a firearm when sleepy, how will you deal with a rapist who will not accept “lemme go back to sleep” as an answer?

Click for the long answer: Show ▼

In a separate comment, I also responded to some of her commenters:

TW said: “Don’t buy a gun just because you can.”

In my mind, “Just because I can” is a fine reason to buy a gun. You do not need any reason or excuse to exercise a right, particularly one protected by the Constitution.

Oh, absolutely, as I’ve said in an earlier reply which appears to be still pending, take lessons and think hard about how you will use the thing.

However, do not let the training process daunt you. We’re talking about a couple of hours of classroom instruction and a couple of hours on the range, at most. You probably spent more time learning the far more complex task of driving.

And with no training or introspection at all, I trust you — Yes, YOU, Citizen! — with a gun far more than I trust the government with so much as a paperclip. A file cabinet is a far more dangerous weapon than any bomb.

Owning a gun is the only way to truly understand the rights and responsibilities appertaining thereto. Buying a gun is the best way of learning just how radically that right has been infringed.

Buy the gun, Megan. Join the free

Several folks recommended she get a dog. Well, yes, a dog is a fine companion and a pretty good goblin alarm. Do not, however, delegate your security to a critter who can be bribed with a piece of steak or a belly rub, or who can be repeatedly tricked into chasing after a ball that was, in fact, never thrown.

What is the deal with thinking that dogs can be trusted with life and death decisions but humans cannot?

Sheep

Sunday, May 18th, 2008

Awhile back I referenced LTC David Grossman’s excellent essay “On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves“, which explains the cost of pacifism and the difference between defensive violence and predatory violence.

Click “Show” to read the whole thing. Show ▼

The sheep metaphor is a powerful one, and appears in at least two parables I know of, and just now ran across again.

First, Charles Riggs “The Parable of the Sheep“, about some sheep who decide to arm themselves against a wolfpack, and the response they get from the rest of the flock.

Show ▼

Then there’s Oleg Volk’s fable of “The Good Shepherd“. I’ve mentioned Volk several times. His photo essay “Self Defense: A Human Right” is required if you claim to be well-informed on gun control. You do not have to agree with Volk, but you must be able to answer him if you want your opinions on the topic to have any weight.

Show ▼

Morgue Ballistics

Friday, May 2nd, 2008

Here’s a post by a guy who works in a morgue and sees a lot of bullet wounds. It’s long and disorganized (apparently strung together from a series of forum posts over a long period of time), but utterly fascinating and possibly life saving.

[Note: "BG" means "Bad Guy".]

I see an average of 8.2 autopsies per day/365 days per year, and I can tell you that when the chips are down, there’s nothing that beats a 12-gauge. As for handguns, the name of the game is not only shot placement but how a properly-placed bullet acts once it gets there. I’ve seen folks killed by a bb to the eye and others survive after being hit by several well-placed rounds with a 9mm.

As for me, I’ll take a slow-moving .45 to a gun fight any day. I absolutely despise a 9mm for defensive situations (yes, they will eventually kill but often not quickly enough to prevent the BG from doing you in first)….

The .357 is gloriously effective. It’s just that semi-autos are much more common than they used to be, so we see far more 9mm and .380 rounds on the autopsy table than we do the .38 and .357. Particularly among the gangbangers, the 9mm and .380 are the weapons of choice. The .357 is a wonderfully effective round for self-defense from what I’ve seen, but it’s rare that we get them in anymore….

…A few thoughts on shot placement. First, as j2k22 suggests, there’s no shot that will end the fight faster than a head shot. The brain is the center of the neurological system, and a shot there will end things immediately. The problem is that the head is very mobile and can be darting from side to side while the thorax stays still. A shot to the spine is also a very good choice, but the spine is probably no more than two inches wide and can be very hard to hit.

When all is said and done, go for the chest. Unless it’s a child molester or rapist, however, in which case I plan to give him a .45 caliber vasectomy first so in the event I don’t kill him with subsequent shots, at least he’ll no longer be able to commit assault with a friendly weapon. The body remains relatively stable, while the legs, arms, and head can be moving from side to side.

…Whenever possible use a shotgun. Doesn’t matter if you’re using 7.5 shot or 00 buck, use a shotgun! Trust me on this one! A spray of birdshot to the ‘nads or the eyes can end a fight really quickly, and if the range is short enough a high concentration of even very small shot can make a really, really big hole. Also, you’d be surprised at how deeply small shot can penetrate at relatively long distances. And even if the distance is such that small shot will be ineffective, most BGs aren’t willing to chance closing the distance to get a better shot once they know a shotgun is in use.

[My bold].

Oh, and I have to include this, for those of you think you don’t need a gun, because the cops will protect you with theirs. This confirms what many have noticed before, that many cops only shoot once every year or so in order to “qualify”, that is, to maintain their training certification to carry a duty weapon. Here’s where that attitude gets you:

…Allow me to vent one of my pet peeves, if you will. That pet peeve is having a cavalier attitude toward qualifying. Let me explain it this way: I go to an indoor range near my home almost every Friday, mostly to get ready for an IPSC match the following day or on Sunday. A few weeks ago I was at the range when a guy took the lane next to me and put up a 50-foot silhouette target . After some period of time he leaned over into my lane and asked, “How do I get this thing downrange?” “Try the switch on the side”, I replied. He ran the target down to 10 yards and began blazing away with his Beretta 92. The holes appeared all over the paper, and the closest thing I could find to a group was whatever was defined by the margins of the paper.

Feeling comfortable that he was now in the ballpark, Bubba ran the target to 25 yards and began blazing away again. Half a box of ammo later he still hadn’t poked a hole in the paper, much less the silhouette. He then left, purchased another box of ammo at the front counter, returned, and began firing away. About 20 or so shots later I began to see a few holes near the shirt cuff of the silhouette, and he never got closer to the x-ring than a foot or so. He packed up his gear and on his way out said to me, “I’ve got to qualify tomorrow and I can’t shoot for (doodly squat).” “You’re in deep doo doo, pal” I replied. Once he was gone I retrieved his target and counted 7 holes in the silhouette and 45 on the paper but not on the silhouette.

I have no idea what his occupation is. Maybe it’s a policeman, maybe a security guard, but it’s something that definitely requires him to carry a weapon frequently enough that he’s required to qualify with it at least once a year. And if he’s required to carry it it seems to me like he should take the time to become proficient with it. But Bubba’s attitude toward qualifying was that it was something he had to do, not something he needed to learn to do.

In retrospect, I guess I should have taken him aside and said “Look, quit treating this like it’s a test you have to pass in order to keep your job! Think of it as a skill that might keep you or me alive someday. Think of it as a skill that might keep your wife from becoming a widow or your kid from growing up without a father.” It was obvious that he hadn’t been to a range in a very long time, probably since the day before he had his last qualification, and he’s unlikely to return until a year from now when he has to qualify again.

And yet, in many jurisdictions, he’s one of the Only Ones allowed by law to exercise his right to keep and bear arms, in defense of himself and his neighbors. Shameful.

I’ll probably do some quote cherry-picking later, but seriously: if you have any interest at all in defensive firearm use, this is a must read. All of it, every messy word.