Comments on: The pub: Fingerprint first, then your beer http://hadleybeeman.net/2006/10/23/the-pub-fingerprint-first-then-your-beer/ Contributions to the conversation from Hadley Beeman Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:51:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Colin http://hadleybeeman.net/2006/10/23/the-pub-fingerprint-first-then-your-beer/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Colin Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:40:53 +0000 http://collaborator.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/the-pub-fingerprint-first-then-your-beer/#comment-18 Point #1: The idea that extremely drunk hooligans would either stop to consider whether the object of their violence might be toting a concealed weapon or be deterred if such were thought to be the case is dubious at best. This does not seem to work in the US even among subcultures who frequently do carry firearms - the only difference here is that more drunken brawls end in serious injury or death. Point #2: Although crime in the UK is at disturbingly high levels, gun crime itself accounts for a tiny percentage of that total. Figures released by the Home Office in 2005 estimated that only 11,000 gun crimes occurred from 1/05 through 6/05 in the UK, and many of those involved replica guns or air guns. By comparison, the same report estimated that there were 318,000 violent crimes just from 4/05 to 6/05, half of that timeframe. Extrapolating from these numbers would put gun crimes at something like 2% of all violent crime in the UK. Your connection between the handgun ban and high crime levels contains an implicit assumption that the ban was designed to lower the number of crimes of all types. This is also dubious. It seems more likely that the ban was designed to reduce the number of injuries/deaths by firearm. Point #3: It's plausible that the handgun ban is partly responsible for the increase in general crime levels (when guns are outlawed, etc.); this may be the point you intended to make. However, since the UK is already suffering from so many related problems that also increase general crime levels, such as cycles of poverty in immigrant populations and light enforcement of criminal penalties by police, one would have a very difficult time determining how much any one of these factors has affected the situation. Point #1: The idea that extremely drunk hooligans would either stop to consider whether the object of their violence might be toting a concealed weapon or be deterred if such were thought to be the case is dubious at best. This does not seem to work in the US even among subcultures who frequently do carry firearms – the only difference here is that more drunken brawls end in serious injury or death.

Point #2: Although crime in the UK is at disturbingly high levels, gun crime itself accounts for a tiny percentage of that total. Figures released by the Home Office in 2005 estimated that only 11,000 gun crimes occurred from 1/05 through 6/05 in the UK, and many of those involved replica guns or air guns. By comparison, the same report estimated that there were 318,000 violent crimes just from 4/05 to 6/05, half of that timeframe. Extrapolating from these numbers would put gun crimes at something like 2% of all violent crime in the UK.
Your connection between the handgun ban and high crime levels contains an implicit assumption that the ban was designed to lower the number of crimes of all types. This is also dubious. It seems more likely that the ban was designed to reduce the number of injuries/deaths by firearm.

Point #3: It’s plausible that the handgun ban is partly responsible for the increase in general crime levels (when guns are outlawed, etc.); this may be the point you intended to make. However, since the UK is already suffering from so many related problems that also increase general crime levels, such as cycles of poverty in immigrant populations and light enforcement of criminal penalties by police, one would have a very difficult time determining how much any one of these factors has affected the situation.

]]> By: Matty G http://hadleybeeman.net/2006/10/23/the-pub-fingerprint-first-then-your-beer/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Matty G Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:17:10 +0000 http://collaborator.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/the-pub-fingerprint-first-then-your-beer/#comment-17 I am of two minds on the subject. If I am not committing a crime, I have nohing to hide. I am not bothered by wiretapping or cameras in parking garages, so why should fignerprint checks at a bar (aka pub) bother me? On the other hand, the government is confiscatory in nature, and one small concession of privacy leads to greater and greater concessions. This is why you Brits are no longer are allowed handguns (yet crime is still high.) Of course the best solution to all of this nonsense would be to quit smashing pints over eachothers' heads but that's asking a bit too much of the modern man if you ask me. You could always introduce some handguns to the equation. I imagine hooligans are less likely to start trouble when they aren't sure if their would be victim is packing heat. I am of two minds on the subject. If I am not committing a crime, I have nohing to hide. I am not bothered by wiretapping or cameras in parking garages, so why should fignerprint checks at a bar (aka pub) bother me? On the other hand, the government is confiscatory in nature, and one small concession of privacy leads to greater and greater concessions. This is why you Brits are no longer are allowed handguns (yet crime is still high.) Of course the best solution to all of this nonsense would be to quit smashing pints over eachothers’ heads but that’s asking a bit too much of the modern man if you ask me.

You could always introduce some handguns to the equation. I imagine hooligans are less likely to start trouble when they aren’t sure if their would be victim is packing heat.

]]> By: Jim Donohue http://hadleybeeman.net/2006/10/23/the-pub-fingerprint-first-then-your-beer/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Jim Donohue Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:07:31 +0000 http://collaborator.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/the-pub-fingerprint-first-then-your-beer/#comment-16 In todays day and age a ban should be a ban for at least life. Screw second or third chances. Skip the finger printing...take a picture post it at the bar and never serve him/her again. The pub chains can get fancy by taking a digital picture and sending it to all their pubs. But keep the goverments fingers off my beer. They already have grimed up my glass with their taxes. In todays day and age a ban should be a ban for at least life. Screw second or third chances. Skip the finger printing…take a picture post it at the bar and never serve him/her again. The pub chains can get fancy by taking a digital picture and sending it to all their pubs. But keep the goverments fingers off my beer. They already have grimed up my glass with their taxes.

]]>