reply to post by rusethorcain
You editted and added after my last post so I want to address somethings in your post. I'll start with the stuff from the gun control network.
They say that America leads the world in gun deaths. I love how they leave out all of the "non developed nations." If you look at over all murder rate
America is actually 49th behind many countrys with much stricter gun control regulations. Brazil limits hand gun sells to the police force. It has a
murder rate 400% higher than America. Venezuela has a very strict gun policy. Their murder rate is about 1000% higher than the United States of
This isn't just my opinion. The study, Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis
, by Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics,
Boston University, released in 2001 found that countries with stricter gun control laws had higher rates of murder. Murder is what really counts in
these comparisons. Murder is the non negligent taking of another person's life.
Suicides skew the results in an unrealistic way. Most suicides are planned and not spontaneous. They come at the end of stretches of depression,
medical issues, and similar circumstances. If some one wants to commit suicide they are going to do it. If all they have is a razor and a warm bath,
that is the way they will go.
John Lott, professor of law at Yale School of Law, released a study in 2000. The study followed the fifteen states that passed safe storage laws. Laws
that made it a requirement to lock away guns so that kids couldn't get hurt. His finding was, "The problem is, you see no decrease in either juvenile
accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an increase in crime rates." In other words the same number of kids took
their own life. Even though the access to firearms was limited they still found ways to end their lives. So, adding suicides to the "gun death"
statistics is a ploy to dishonestly skew results for their argument.
The gun control network says, "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the
percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
Well interestingly the study, "state-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership"
released by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2006 disagrees. Let us go beyond the studies done by Harvard academics. As I posted proof of
earlier the murder rate in America has dropped by around 9,000 deaths. Yet at the same time America has relaxed laws on concealed carry, has done away
with waiting periods in many places, and let the Clinton AWB lapse. Gun ownership has increased steadily. Yet, the murder rate keeps dropping. Violent
crime as a whole has decreased again from 2009 to 2010 in all but one portion of the country.
In the North East the rate of robbery, violent crime, murder, and rape continues to increase. What is the main difference between the North East and
most of the country? They continue to pass stricter gun laws. Philly, New York City, Boston, Camden New Jersey, and Baltimore all have extremely
strict gun laws. Yet they are considered some of the most dangerous citys in the country. They all also have a rising crime rate.
Now lets look at England. The Gun Control Network is proud that england took "more than 162,000" hand guns from the citizens. As I have posted
elsewhere in this thread the violent crime rate is now 300% higher than it was in 1997. That is according to the British Home Office. They are
responsible for compiling the nations statistics on crime. So, I would call them reputable.
The Gun Control Network mentions that thousands of Scottish citizens handed in their guns. According to the article, Scotland Tops List of World's
Most Violent Countries,
that ran in The Times on September 19, 2005, the UN declared Scotland the most violent country in the "developed" world.
They had a physical assault rate more than 250% higher than the USA. It seems that gun control helped make them all much much safer.
I am going to move on from the Gun Control Network's obviously iffy assertions. Before I do though I want to mention one little thing that I found
interesting. Since the Gun Control Network uses a lot of 1990s information, I thought I would go a little old school. In 1993 Dr. David Lawrence the
CEO of Kaiser Permanente (At the time one of the nations largest insurance companies) released a study that was startling. The study said that 400,000
people a year died from medical mistakes. That is roughly the same as three loaded 747s going down everyday. It was 286 times the rate of accidental
gun deaths that year.
Now on to assault weapons. Do you even know what an "assault weapon" is? I ask this over and over because most people don't. An assault weapon is a
weapon used against fortified enemy positions. You know things like missles and mortars and grenades. Those are actually assault weapons, or they
were. What happened was that a bunch of gun ban advocates figured out they were losing the fight to ban handguns. They thought if they could find a
boogie man in the gun world they could build support for a ban. So, they targeted "military rifles" (they were semi automatic rifles based on military
designs but incapable of full automatic fire) and called them "assault weapons." The approach was the adaptation of what Nelson T. Shields, the
chairman of Handgun Control Inc said in the New Yorker magazine in 1976.
We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to
strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take
time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and
ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.
That poposition proved to be unpopular. So, they took his advice to start modest and build. They went after "assault weapons." Assault weapons were
used in about 1.4% of crimes involving firearms, and 0.25% of violent firearm crimes, according to a study by Gary Kleck and Aldine Transaction that
studied gun crime in 48 major metro areas from 1980 through 1994. However, they looked a lot like the rifles in war movies so they were easy targets.
It didn't matter that functionally they were the same as any other hunting rifle.
It also didn't matter that S.C. Helsley, Assistant Director DOJ Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California said, “I surveyed the firearms used
in violent crimes...assault-type firearms were the least of our worries,” in 1988. The proponets also ignord the fact that in 1994, as they were
voting to "ban assault weapons," the FBI's Unified Criminal Report said that you were 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than killed with an
The "assault weapon ban" was a joke. Both the NRA and The Violence Policy Center (anti-gun) agreed that it was a law that effected cosmetics and
nothing of substance. Which according to Josh Sugarman of the New Right Watch (now with the Violence Policy Center) was the point. In the paper
Assault Weapons and Accesories in America Josh wrote, "The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic
machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the
chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
A Washington Post editorial from September 15, 1994 said "Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly
symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
So, please excuse me if I don't lament the ending of the Assault Weapons Ban. A law that banned nothing but accesories and cosmetics. Now the Brady
Campaign will tell you that the ban had a significant effect on crime bases on trace data. However, when asked by Torsten Ove for the article
“Assault Weapon Ban’s Effectiveness Debated,”
the ATF said it can not vouch for the validity of that claim. In fact the ATF has said
time and again that, "nott all firearms used in crimes are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime. Firearms selected for tracing aren't
chosen for purposes of determining which types, makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected don't constitute a
random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that
What am I trying to protect? My wife and kid. I have used my rifle to protect the well being of my family and my disabled neighbor. As a child my
father used his revolver to disuade a man threatening to kill my mother and myself with a 6" knife. He has also used it, in much older age and with
more physical limitations, to turn away a pair of criminals trying to rob him in his own front yard. In none of those cases did anyone get shot.
However, the gun turned the tide when life and safety was in danger.
There are wolves that will willingly prey on the good people of society. As long as they are out there I must play the role of the sheep dog to
protect my family. The SCOTUS has allready said that the police owe no person protection. Their obligation is to a community as a whole. That is why I
take responsibility for the safety of my family. I would hate to see my child die from violence. It would be like living in hell every day. However,
if my child died because I failed to take proper measures to keep her safe, life would be worthless. That is why I own a gun and why I keep it safely
I am not under the illusion that the general population could stand against the US Army. I have studied history. I understand that North Vietnam was
able to fight so well because China and Russia were funding the communist. I also understand that Iran and other countries have supplied men,
material, and money to fight the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I have no Rambo fantasies. I wish to live solely in peace. That does not mean I will not prepare for those criminals that may deny me that right.
ETA: I did not post the British home office figures for crime in 1997 versus 2009 as I said in the post. That inormation was actually in another
thread. I will post it here to clarify.
According to the British Home Office violent crime has increased despite banning guns. If you look at the reported number of "violent acts against the
person" the number was 492 per 100,000 people in 1997. In 2009-20010 the number was 1,574 per 100,000 people. That is more than a 300% increase in the
13 years following the banning and confiscation of guns.
edit on 24-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason
edit on 24-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)