Once again music gets the blame

[M Holmes]

Ted Jackson writes:

> On 8 Jan 2003 at 9:41, Paul Mather wrote:
>
> > One interesting point raised in the film is that although many other
> > countries around the world have much the same circumstances as the USA
> > (e.g., availability of guns; bloody historical past; watch violent
> > films; play violent video games), for some reason those other
> > countries are not killing themselves at the same rate as the USA: tens
> > or hundreds of deaths per year vs. many thousands.  In particular, the
> > film highlights Canada, which has about the same ethnic mix and guns
> > per capita as the USA, yet has only a fraction of the gun deaths (plus
> > they don't lock their doors;).

Similarly the UK had the right to keep and bear arms, and at one point
it was even mandatory for a man with the means to buy a gun to do so
specifically in order to prevent crime. Every infringement of this right
up through the Dunblane Act has led to higher gun crime. On its own,
that can perhaps be written off to higher crime rates generally (but
why?). In conjunction with experience of 33 US states relegalsing and
seeing crime rates fall faster than states which didn't, it raises the
very ominous question that we're pursuing exactly the opposite strategy
that we ought to be.

That is if the aim is to reduce crime rather than to exercise a pogrom
against gun owners and satisfy a hoplophobic streak in the UK. On the
latter terms, we've done excellently well.

Perhaps I'm strange, but I'd very much rather see crime go down, even if
it means making the criminals scared to go about their business.

> > So, the root cause must lie somewhere other than guns or violent
> > films, music, and video games: perhaps it is something innately
> > cultural, but what?  I don't know, but, like I said, it's thought
> > provoking.  Don't buy the fear hype.  Remember, as Sir Paul McCartney
> > reminds us, "it's getting better all the time." :-)

The trouble with Mike Moore is that he has an axe to grind and he can
just make it up as he goes along. Some of the stats in the movie have
been hilariously debunked and he's been forced to admit that you can't
walk in to a bank, open an account, and walk out with a gun as shown in
the movie. The bank passed on a credit for a gun which had to be
obtained in the normal way after background checks.

I find Mark Thomas amusing whereas Mike Moore seems merely irritating.
That said, I did enjoy his Pink Bus tour of Bubba country.

> I think one key factor in the US is the easy availability of gun
> dealership licenses.  Virtually anyone can become a 'gun dealer' here,
> even if they aren't in business or have no intention of ever doing
> retail business.  An average bloke can buy a hundred assault weapons
> if he wants.  Of course you don't have to be a 'dealer' to own
> hundreds of guns here, but if you're a dealer, you can get more
> 'exotic' weapons...

Well, to be honest, though I'm very much in favour of well-balanced and
law-abiding citizens rights to carry for defence of themselves and
others, I'd be put in the "gun banners" category in the US because I'd
insist on training in target acquisition, law, security and safety, with
a veto going to the gun clubs doing the training if they felt anything
was amiss in the attitude of the trainee (three Scottish clubs
practically begged the Police to pull Thomas Hamilton's licence and the
Police failed to do so).

> the analogy to Canada is an interesting one.  I'd like to know what
> the per capita ownership is in Canada, and how many multiple weapon
> owners are there, also how many are licensed gun dealers...

Per capita ownership is higher in Switzerland in the US (it's mandatory
for males to keep a gun and ammunition) while the crime rate is lower.

There's something about the US all right. The places with the most legal
guns have the lowest crime rates and places which extend legal rights
see crime rates fall. The most likely explanation is that even criminals
want to live through an extended career and adjust their behavior to
achieve this.

The other side is the inner cities where guns are illegal. Prohibition
II provides the cash to pay people to risk their lives to defend retail
rights. There's also the tradition aspect garnered there from
Prohibition I.

I'd really really like the UK to see sense on this one before we garner
that level of tradition. There's no obvious cause for hope as yet though
and even the politicians must realise that a gun ban will work about as
well as a drug ban.

Back to the topic: music is obviously linked to drugs to some degree and
I doubt that the rap glamorisation of gun culture helps matters but the
basic facts are that singing about it is very far from the core of the
problem.

Of course it's easier for New Nanny to pick on rap musicians than admit
they got it wrong with the Dunblane Act.

Sick of politicians...

FoFP