“Between April and November 2001, the BBC reports, ‘the number of murders in the [London] Metropolitan Police area committed with a firearm soared by almost 90% over the same period a year earlier’–notwithstanding Britain’s 1996 ban on handguns. Observes the BBC: ‘Although all privately-owned handguns in Britain are now officially illegal, the tightened rules seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld.’”
Gun control does not work.
Yes it does
Sorry if I offend anyone with my relentless viewpoints, you are all free to disagree as long as you do so politely. That said, it appears that gun control in the UK is in fact having the desired effect: Guns are taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, making them all the more dependant upon, and subject to, the government and law-enforcement agents. Call me paranoid.
-FJ
"Guns are taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, making them all the more dependant upon, and subject to, the government and law-enforcement agents. "
And the problem is that law enforcement is not there when you are attacked.
What a surprise! Are you telling me that CRIMINALS are disregarding the LAW? The laws being pushed down the “common” man’s throat would make a lot more sense if the lawmakers were forced to live within the same restrictions. For example, take away the guns used by the bodyguards/security protecting these “elite” individuals.
Um…I agree. 
Gun control works OK here.
Dumbf*cks is the catchword.
There’s nothing wrong with responsible and safety-conscious people owning guns.
Unfortunately, there aren’t too many of those who fit that definition out there.
Australia
Between 1980-1995, Australia’s firearm-related death rate was cut nearly in half and its firearm-related homicide rate nearly by two-thirds. (The former decreased 46%, from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 2.6; the latter decreased 63%, from eight per 100,000 to three). In 1995, the annual number of firearm-related deaths fell to its lowest point in the 16-year period.
Despite this real progress over a decade and a half, the demented acts of a lone gunman in Port Arthur, Tasmania, on a Sunday in April 1996 were used to launch a massive campaign against law-abiding Australian gun owners. Rather than acknowledging one man’s insanity, opportunistic gun control activists and scared politicians rushed to blame “loose gun laws.” It didn’t matter that those laws required any Tasmanian who wanted to own a firearm or even an air rifle to pass a gun handling course and carry a photo-bearing gun license that had to be produced prior to the purchase of any firearm or ammunition. The end result for all Australians was a government turn-in scheme and the follow-on destruction of more than 640,000 hunting rifles and shotguns.
Ban supporters, including gun prohibitionists in the U.S., are actively promoting the legislation’s alleged crime-fighting benefits. Crime statistics, however, contradict them. For example, from 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime, with the exception of murder, increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.
In a March 22, 2000, letter, Australia’s Attorney General Daryl Williams raised objections to an NRA video (www.nralive.com/gunban/gunban.cfm) which asserts that after the Australian government’s confiscation of hunting rifles and shotguns, armed robberies rose, assaults with guns rose, murders with guns rose and home invasions rose. Williams said NRA was using “misleading” statistics to make its case against gun control. He also claimed “the national firearms agreement has succeeded in removing more than 640,000 dangerous weapons from circulation in the community.” Would he call it “misleading” to say instead that “the national ban has led to the destruction of 640,000 commonplace semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns?”
If the Attorney General has a real problem with NRA’s video, his problem is much closer to home than NRA headquarters. The video shows real people protesting their loss of liberty and loss of the right to self-defense. Those people are Australians. And the statistics presented in the NRA video were reported in real newspapers–Australian newspapers. Here are several examples:
"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
–Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
“Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75.”
–“Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls,” Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.
“Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%.”
–“Gun crime soars,” Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
“Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started.”
–“Killings rise in gun hunt,” Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
“Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever.”
–Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.
“The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago.”
–South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
Attorney General Williams should look closer to home if he truly objects to “misleading” the public policy debate. In fact, he should look directly at the anti-gun group Gun Control Australia (GCA). When the Sporting Shooters Ass’n of Australia (SSAA) recently ran a TV campaign that promoted the shooting sports as activities for the whole family, GCA spokesman Randy Marshall said: “People should not be fooled by pretty images of family life enjoying shooting–shooting is about practising to kill–that’s why guns are manufactured. Every person who joins SSAA helps destroy the gun laws which protect Australians.”
story time
A friend of mine was in the special forces, while in Texas he came upon a “funny” incident.
In Texas you can bear firearms…keep this in mind.
An armed robber possessing a shotgun thought it would be to rob a Texas bar in the middle of the day. Walking in with his duster he opened it wide and started to demand money. 80 shots later from the patrons of the bar, the man landed a little bit of a distance away. The police said that most of the bullets did indead hit the would be robber. He didn’t even get a chance to fire off a shot and someone in the bar took the time to reload and keep firing.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say the bar has not been robbed…anytime.
Current gun control implementation is too ogreous, unwieldly, and just plain inefficient. While I’m for gun regulation, there has to be a better and simpler way to do it.
Gun control does not equate with crime control.
I’m not for the ban of guns outright, but rather moderate regulation and oversight. I mean, who really needs an AK-47 or M4A1 with 40mm 'nade launcher?
“I mean, who really needs an AK-47 or M4A1 with 40mm 'nade launcher?”
Why not? Why do you need a motorcycle that goes 185mph, the speed limit is 65.
Its not about what you need, how much crap is around your house that you dont need? Its about free rights to own what you want.
AK 47’s are produced in this country at about the same price as the imported ones. But they are not the choice of gangs.
Its not about what you need, how much crap is around your house that you dont need? Its about free rights to own what you want.
So if that guy down the street rambling about how McVeigh was a wimp, was buliding himself a fission bomb, he should be allowed to because it’s “what he want’s to own”?
The should sell rufies at the club your daughter likes to go dancing at it, in case the young men there “want to own” them?
On a side note:
Criminals prefer cheap handguns (usually .380 or 9mm junk guns like Lorcin, Bryco, Jennings, etc.) and submachineguns because of concealability and disposability. Most persons with carry permits also carry handguns, though usually higher quality ones. Allowing for the carry of handguns puts people on par with the criminals.
And while I am one to err on the side of freedoms, it’s all about “freedom” and not anarchy.
Getting back to Dark Knight’s point for just a bit. I’m friends with a few folks in the sheriff’s dept. for my area, they think anyone not owning a gun for home protection is pretty foolish. We have MAYBE 4 vehicles patrolling our county at a time…this includes the occasional state trooper. Most the time these guys stay in a central location (the only “town” in the county), and there are places that take about 40+/- minutes to reach at the edges of the county.
Do most gun control advocates live in major population centers, closer to those they feel will protect them?
Jerry Love, do you think those guys buying the rifles would use them if they KNEW there was a good chance someone would fire back at them? And if they DID snap and buy the guns…do you think (if many in the club were carrying) they’d do it more than once? If you check the statistics, violent crime decreased in the states that adopted concealed carry laws. That seems to indicate (to me) that criminals were thinking twice. “That old guy looks like an easy target…he’s BOUND to be carrying.” 
Everyone seems to think that criminals don’t think at all…they just DO it. Why? I think that when they ask them why they did it in prison, that’s what they tell them. What SHOULD they tell them? “Yeah, I realized the old couple wasn’t armed…snuck up on them, killed them and got caught. I’ve been considering doing this for a few weeks now, I’m pretty surprised I got caught and convicted. I’ll probably be out in less than five years since the system is clogged with people just like me.” NO. They say, “I don’t know why I did that. I just didn’t think. I’m SO sorry.” :rolleyes:
Just my opinion, worth about as much as you paid for it.
Gun Control…
3 rounds in the same hole.
Nuff said.
weapons
Guns do not kill people, People do. I believe that handguns should not be given to felons or convicted criminals. But civilians should be able to protect themselves if the deem necessary. Just my .02
johnny:D
ARGH!!
Thanks for the overdone witticism that’s no longer witty, Johnny. No they don’t kill people. They just make it incredibly easy. Nuclear weapons don’t kill people either, what’s your point? Oh right, the sound byte argument tactic. I bow before it.
Radhnoti and Dark Knight,
The only way that one can make assumptions about causation(well, accurate ones) is the existence of control groups. That means multiple systems alike in all cases except the tested causation. Ie. municipalities that are exactly alike in all aspects except for gun-control or concealed carry laws and tracking the crime rates across them. (In economics, we start every sentence with the phrase,“all else being equal”) Plus you need enough comparisons to overcome statistical irregularities.
Example: I have heard the concealed carry laws reducing crime rates argument before. Problem is the violent crime rates in the US are noticably lower than they were years ago(according to FBI stats) This in a time of more restrictive gun control nationally-Brady bill, background checks, waiting period, etc. So if the crime rate is falling everywhere and it falls in an area where there are concealed carry laws does it mean concealed carry works? Nope. Not implying it doesn’t just saying that statistics don’t automatically reveal causation.
Another example: people have quoted the failure of certain areas to lower crime rates through gun control. DC is given as a prime example. It’s true gun control doesn’t work in DC. Not because gun control doesn’t work but because it’s impossible to enforce it in the US. As long as DC borders the state which sat at the top of the ATF’s gun-running list for years, gun control can’t work. There are no checkpoints, no interior borders, no patrols in the US. And no, I don’t want them. But you can’t really pinpoint failures of local gunc ontrol in this country because it doesn’t exist. We have local gun control LAWS but not actual control.
I have seen stats that support both sides of this argument. Hell, compare the ****cide rates in western Europe to the US. That’s just scary. Would gun control ever work in the US? Probably not. Don’t know. The genie has been out of the bottle for an awful long time. Do concealed carry laws reduce crime? Don’t know. But if you really want to reduce crime, why not carry openly instead of concealed?
Also Darkknight, we clearly restrict the weapons people can own for the public safety and most people agree it’s necessary. They just differ as to how far. And please remember that some rights stop where others begin. You find a way to keep the bullets on your land and you’ll get no more complaints from me.
Radhnoti, why is you argument about what criminals think anymore valid? Sounds like baseless speculation to me. We can all come up with unsubstantiated theories. No, I don’t know what criminals are thinking at the moment . But again I think open carry laws would be the way to go.
Since someone is sure to lay into me:
I have personal feelings on guns based on the idiots I have seen handle them. Plus according to the statistics people seem to love so much, my children are more likely to be accidentally shot by a law-abiding moron than by someone with criminal intent. So I am in favor of more restrictive ownership laws. Don’t want them outlawed, just want them subject to some sort of safety regulation. There was a waiting period on my learner’s permit before I got a driver’s license and it has to be periodically renewed; I get my car inspected annually; every elevator I get on has been inspected; fire marshals come into businesses; building inspectors approve plans; health inspectors check restaurants. Why can’t we have people go through mandatory, periodic safety training? Why can’t we have a periodic inspection to insure that people store their guns safely. As your neighbor, I feel no need to prohibit you from owning an AK(just seems silly to me) but I would like to know that your 5yo can’t get to it. That’s all.
And before we go quoting the US constitution let me remind you that limitations exist on everything. Newspapers have been enjoinged from revealing details of military operations. Freedom of speech has been limited for a multitude of reasons. A constitutional right doesn’t mean that no limitations exist on that right. Again, I have no desire to outlaw gun-ownership. Just to require certain common-sense safety regulation.
Myosimka, I suspect that the stats you’re using to say your kids are more likely to be shot than a criminal is the same one widely protested by gun advocates. It counts anyone younger than 18 who gets shot as a child, including gang-members. I agree that statistics often reflect whatever “reality” the group touting them wants them to reflect.
Also, I agree my “argument” was speculative, but I was referring to other speculation, typically given by liberal pundits. I think we both agree that either point of view could be true, or not.
To my mind, the pro-gun arguement is one of common sense with an eye toward the lessons of history. It’s good that a criminal doesn’t know whether the person he’s about to accost is carrying a gun. It puts a bit of uncertainty into his “job”, makes his life a bit more stressful and ultimately might convince him to choose another career path.
I would point out (in reference to your response to DK) that the restrictions you say everyone agrees to be necessary don’t…or shouldn’t apply to law abiding citizens with no history of mental illness. Gun control groups seem to be SO certain that everyone, usually with the exception of themselves, is incompetent and child-like, and require “adult” (in other words, THEIR) supervision. It’s extremely arrogant to assume that you care more for your neighbor’s five year old than they do…or to assume that they’re too stupid to “Keep that AK out of the five year old’s hands.”
To be completely honest with you, I (personally) would have no problem with limited restrictions…even registration of every gun, if the gun control organizations (and history’s lessons) hadn’t made it clear that this was just the first step in a crusade to ban gun ownership. Also, this is where the “eye toward the lessons of history” comes into the typical gun advocate’s position. You simply can’t subjugate a well armed populace. My understanding is that Hitler HAD to ban guns to solidify his control. I’ve heard first hand accounts of the way Fidel Castro took the guns from those who had followed and trusted him. Gun registration is the first step in a gun ban. Requiring steps to allow gun ownership would imply that the government has the right to restrict that which should be and IS a right in our country.
There are only 3 types of lies: lies, d amned lies, and statistics.
If I can’t get a gun, I’ll hurt someone with a fork.
Just like you say that concealed carry may or may not reduce crime, gun control may or may not reduce crime.
So again, if the end result is so uncertain, why err on the side of restricting freedom?
I am for gun regulation, but one that is less “reactive,” tabloid, and aimed at appealing to the masses instead of actually being proactive and addressing the problem.
And just like people should be tested for driving, people should be tested for minimum competency for gun ownership. And just like 80 years shouldn’t be allowed to operate an automobile (even though they do in Florida), there has to be a cut-off for competency.
And if you want to argue statistics, here’s my favorite: In 1996 alone, handguns killed:
2 People in New Zealand
13 in Australia
15 in Japan
30 in Great Britain
106 in Canada
213 in Germany
and 9,390 in the United States.