Ban Ban You're Dead
The Government has only just finished the last round of legislation on gun crime where they banned replica guns. During the consultation and as a result of lobbying the government excluded deactivated guns from the legislation. A matter of months later and the Home Secretary has announced now that a ban on pre 1995 deactivated guns is needed. What is needed from the government is common sense. For those who are wondering what this is all about I will try and explain.
Before 1995 the deactivation of a gun was carried out by cutting a slot in the barrel and welding a steel rod into it. For guns with removable barrels, the barrel would be welded on. The breech block (the bit that contains the firing pin, would be ground down so that a firing pin could not be fitted. In many cases the block is ground down significantly. This left the weapon in a state where it could not chamber a round into the barrel but you could cock the gun and dry fire it. You could strip it down so you could clean it and examine how the mechanism worked.
After 1995, most deactivated weapons were deactivated by having the above done and welding all the parts solid, so the gun could not be stripped down. It should be made clear that the change only applied to sub machine guns, pistols and rifles as the government considered that the threat from large machine guns was very small.
There are already a number of discussions on the web on this subject and inevitably the anti gun folk turn to the question of why do we collect these things anyway. Which ultimately turns this into a different argument and not one about the practicalities of gun crime. It is becomes and argument about freedom.
There are a number of reasons people collect deactivated weapons. Not one of those collectors does so in order to commit any form of gun crime. I cannot speak to why other people collect weapons but I collect WWII weapons (specifically ones deactivated before 1995) because of the history behind them. All of my weapons have seen battle. Some were at Stalingrad, some used in the Baltics, some in the Finnish war against Russia. I am very interested in the history of the war, not the romantic view of the films of heroes, but the grim practical reality of what those people faced on the front lines. Take the MG42 or the MG34. Both of these are German light machine guns. They had high rates of fire, are extremely well designed and in many respects elegant pieces of engineering. The German weapons were superior in many ways but ultimately they were costly to make in terms of time and resources vs the Allies' weapons. If you have ever tried to lift one of these weapons you would be amazed at how anyone could carry one a hundred yards let alone in battle.
We regularly teach history to children and it is well understood that simply learning from books is not effective and so field trips and trips to museums are regularly undertaken. All other areas of history encourage the discovery and ownership of artefacts from history. Why should war be any different? Why should we not be open about weapons and the devastation they cause when used effectively. It is thought that many soldiers cannot bear to shoot another human and it is reckoned that many soldiers would aim off rather than shoot a man. Imagine looking down the sight of the gun you are holding and thinking about whether, when it came to that moment, you could bring yourself to shoot another man.
But this is not the argument. Cars pollute the earth significantly and cause numerous deaths. If you are asking why should we not weld up historic guns, to me it is like welding up a car. Imagine you own a 1945 classic Porsche. The government in its carbon policy decides that what is best is that no classic cars are allowed to pollute. So stage 1 is to take out the spark plus and grind down the cylinder heads so that the car cannot run. Then weld up the head and all inlet and outlet valves and weld the engine to the body to prevent the engine being replaced. The car would still turn over but it would not run. The steering wheel would turn, the wheels would go round etc etc. That would be considered an act of vandalism. Now the post 95 rules kick in and you have to weld up the entire moving parts and then weld the bonnet shut. This just to stop further pollution. A drop in the ocean of pollution would be the argument and why would government not tackle the millions of cars in use today rather than destroy the few thousand classic pieces of history. If the government is concerned about the real need for ownership and display of historic war artefacts then they will no doubt be removing HMS Belfast from the Thames and Victory from Portsmouth. What interest could anyone have in a war ships?
But when it comes right down to it, it is not for me to justify my interest in the subject or desire to collect such items. I think the collection of plates or china statues or football memorabilia is a pointless waste of time and money but that is not my business either.
But is there any valid argument? The current argument is that by removing the deactivated guns (which are not actually working firearms) there would be less guns killing kids on the streets. This is a flawed argument made for political purposes. The first thing is that the conversion of a deactivated weapon requires engineering skills which most people do not have. You cant just do it at home if the deactivation was done properly (pre 95). It would mostly require another barrel (which is illegal to import or own) or create a new barrel which would also require the right materials and engineering facilities to accomplish. New breech blocks would be needed (again, probably illegal to own or manufacture). And that is the crux of it. If you want to reactivate a gun, it is not the kids who will do it. It is professional criminals. They tend not to follow the law.
The conservatives estimate that the number of crimes in 2004/2005 where reactivated deacts were used was 0.04% of the 21,000 crimes committed. Lets be clear about this. The claim is about 4 or 5 weapons. They estimate that there are around 120,000 deactivated weapons available in this country which, with the right engineering skills and criminal intent be reactivated. So why are we not seeing floods of deact guns on the streets. The reason seems pretty obvious. The criminals are able to get the real modern weapons (pistols and automatic weapons) with relative ease. A TV programme last year highlighted this by obtaining such weapons. Allegedly for hire. X pounds if you dont shoot it, y pounds if you actually use it.
The second reason is that the majority of deactivated weapons are old. Why would you go to the lengths of trying to get the parts for an old weapon which are illegal and reactivating it with all the chances you would be caught when you can obtain a smaller, higher powered modern weapon.
Please keep in mind at this point we are not talking about the ownership of live weapons or the justification for that. That is an entirely different debate. This is the same argument as drugs and prostitution. Both are banned and both, by banning, drive the business underground. Weapons are also banned but clearly the ban does not work as criminals tend not to follow the ban if the demand is there and our borders are easy to get contraband in. We have drugs, people trafficking and plenty of guns to go around already.
But this is not about logic or reason. The politician can stand up and say if one life is saved then it was all worth while. In the absence of other guns then the reasoning may be acceptable. If a criminal wants to carry a gun and there are no deactivated ones to get hold of then they will simply get hold of the real thing.
The best we can hope for is that government puts in place some form of license system. Of course gun crime will not drop, but at least they will be able to tax the real law abiding owners and perhaps we will be allowed to collect these in peace. Kids will continue to die for the same reason that soldiers do. It is not the gun which kills. There are deep cultural issues which cause someone to obtain a gun, go out and shoot an innocent person and very complex reasons behind a government's decision to go to war (or invade Afghanistan or Iraq). None of these reasons are to do with the availability of guns, legal or otherwise. Take away one tool and the intent will still be there. Other tools will be found.
Before 1995 the deactivation of a gun was carried out by cutting a slot in the barrel and welding a steel rod into it. For guns with removable barrels, the barrel would be welded on. The breech block (the bit that contains the firing pin, would be ground down so that a firing pin could not be fitted. In many cases the block is ground down significantly. This left the weapon in a state where it could not chamber a round into the barrel but you could cock the gun and dry fire it. You could strip it down so you could clean it and examine how the mechanism worked.
After 1995, most deactivated weapons were deactivated by having the above done and welding all the parts solid, so the gun could not be stripped down. It should be made clear that the change only applied to sub machine guns, pistols and rifles as the government considered that the threat from large machine guns was very small.
There are already a number of discussions on the web on this subject and inevitably the anti gun folk turn to the question of why do we collect these things anyway. Which ultimately turns this into a different argument and not one about the practicalities of gun crime. It is becomes and argument about freedom.
There are a number of reasons people collect deactivated weapons. Not one of those collectors does so in order to commit any form of gun crime. I cannot speak to why other people collect weapons but I collect WWII weapons (specifically ones deactivated before 1995) because of the history behind them. All of my weapons have seen battle. Some were at Stalingrad, some used in the Baltics, some in the Finnish war against Russia. I am very interested in the history of the war, not the romantic view of the films of heroes, but the grim practical reality of what those people faced on the front lines. Take the MG42 or the MG34. Both of these are German light machine guns. They had high rates of fire, are extremely well designed and in many respects elegant pieces of engineering. The German weapons were superior in many ways but ultimately they were costly to make in terms of time and resources vs the Allies' weapons. If you have ever tried to lift one of these weapons you would be amazed at how anyone could carry one a hundred yards let alone in battle.
We regularly teach history to children and it is well understood that simply learning from books is not effective and so field trips and trips to museums are regularly undertaken. All other areas of history encourage the discovery and ownership of artefacts from history. Why should war be any different? Why should we not be open about weapons and the devastation they cause when used effectively. It is thought that many soldiers cannot bear to shoot another human and it is reckoned that many soldiers would aim off rather than shoot a man. Imagine looking down the sight of the gun you are holding and thinking about whether, when it came to that moment, you could bring yourself to shoot another man.
But this is not the argument. Cars pollute the earth significantly and cause numerous deaths. If you are asking why should we not weld up historic guns, to me it is like welding up a car. Imagine you own a 1945 classic Porsche. The government in its carbon policy decides that what is best is that no classic cars are allowed to pollute. So stage 1 is to take out the spark plus and grind down the cylinder heads so that the car cannot run. Then weld up the head and all inlet and outlet valves and weld the engine to the body to prevent the engine being replaced. The car would still turn over but it would not run. The steering wheel would turn, the wheels would go round etc etc. That would be considered an act of vandalism. Now the post 95 rules kick in and you have to weld up the entire moving parts and then weld the bonnet shut. This just to stop further pollution. A drop in the ocean of pollution would be the argument and why would government not tackle the millions of cars in use today rather than destroy the few thousand classic pieces of history. If the government is concerned about the real need for ownership and display of historic war artefacts then they will no doubt be removing HMS Belfast from the Thames and Victory from Portsmouth. What interest could anyone have in a war ships?
But when it comes right down to it, it is not for me to justify my interest in the subject or desire to collect such items. I think the collection of plates or china statues or football memorabilia is a pointless waste of time and money but that is not my business either.
But is there any valid argument? The current argument is that by removing the deactivated guns (which are not actually working firearms) there would be less guns killing kids on the streets. This is a flawed argument made for political purposes. The first thing is that the conversion of a deactivated weapon requires engineering skills which most people do not have. You cant just do it at home if the deactivation was done properly (pre 95). It would mostly require another barrel (which is illegal to import or own) or create a new barrel which would also require the right materials and engineering facilities to accomplish. New breech blocks would be needed (again, probably illegal to own or manufacture). And that is the crux of it. If you want to reactivate a gun, it is not the kids who will do it. It is professional criminals. They tend not to follow the law.
The conservatives estimate that the number of crimes in 2004/2005 where reactivated deacts were used was 0.04% of the 21,000 crimes committed. Lets be clear about this. The claim is about 4 or 5 weapons. They estimate that there are around 120,000 deactivated weapons available in this country which, with the right engineering skills and criminal intent be reactivated. So why are we not seeing floods of deact guns on the streets. The reason seems pretty obvious. The criminals are able to get the real modern weapons (pistols and automatic weapons) with relative ease. A TV programme last year highlighted this by obtaining such weapons. Allegedly for hire. X pounds if you dont shoot it, y pounds if you actually use it.
The second reason is that the majority of deactivated weapons are old. Why would you go to the lengths of trying to get the parts for an old weapon which are illegal and reactivating it with all the chances you would be caught when you can obtain a smaller, higher powered modern weapon.
Please keep in mind at this point we are not talking about the ownership of live weapons or the justification for that. That is an entirely different debate. This is the same argument as drugs and prostitution. Both are banned and both, by banning, drive the business underground. Weapons are also banned but clearly the ban does not work as criminals tend not to follow the ban if the demand is there and our borders are easy to get contraband in. We have drugs, people trafficking and plenty of guns to go around already.
But this is not about logic or reason. The politician can stand up and say if one life is saved then it was all worth while. In the absence of other guns then the reasoning may be acceptable. If a criminal wants to carry a gun and there are no deactivated ones to get hold of then they will simply get hold of the real thing.
The best we can hope for is that government puts in place some form of license system. Of course gun crime will not drop, but at least they will be able to tax the real law abiding owners and perhaps we will be allowed to collect these in peace. Kids will continue to die for the same reason that soldiers do. It is not the gun which kills. There are deep cultural issues which cause someone to obtain a gun, go out and shoot an innocent person and very complex reasons behind a government's decision to go to war (or invade Afghanistan or Iraq). None of these reasons are to do with the availability of guns, legal or otherwise. Take away one tool and the intent will still be there. Other tools will be found.
posted by So long and thanks for all the fish at
10:32 am
0 Comments
