Gun Controll question.

[yevkassem72]

Well, it makes a difference when there are protests in the streets. American crowds are not machine-gunned.

Very true. They can't do what the Syrians, Iraqis, and Israelis do on the streets....with rubber bullets and not-so-rubber ones. Not-so-many Molotov cocktails, but a civilian populace with guns tends to discourage machine guns used on the crowds.

 

[Weird Harold]

Which, of course, is biblically infallible. I'm not asking about the constitution. I'm askling about your opinion. Unless, of course your opinion is 'my Constitution right or wrong'.

Nope, not my contitution right or wrong, but it IS the "law of the land." If you want to impose "gun control" -- AKA ban guns completely as the ani-gun lobby ha repeatedly given as their ultimate goal -- then the first step is to change the Constitution.

If you think that driving should be a consitutional "right," then change the contitution.

Until then, a believe abiding by the Constitution is the only proper, "law-abiding" option available.

(FWIW, I don't consider my oath to "protect and defend the constitution" to have been vacated by my retirement.)

And niether should Gun Wielding License qualification be. Why do you assume there's a difference?

Because there is a demonstrated difference in concealed carry requirements that is directly related to the strength of anti-gun sentiment in any given jurisdiction. the requirements for "gun wielding licenses" are in fact being used differently from the requirements for drivers' licenses.

I say it's a different only in scale. It's easier to unintentionally injure and kill people with a car. (Or is it? See below.) It's certainly not risk free to take a loaded weapon out among people. I can only see that you draw that line in the sand where it's ideologically conveniant, not for pragmatic reasons.

Are you familiar with the concept of "fail-safe?"

To cause injury or death with a car, you only need to stop doing something.

To cause injury or death with a gun, you must start doing something.

I consider that to be a very fundamental difference in "failure modes" and a bit more tthan a "pragmatic line in the sand."

As for a matter of scale, I believe the record for the I-5 corridor in central california is a chain reaction accident involving over 200 vehicles and over 100 casualties (injured and dead). That kind of accident is caused by one fraction of a second's inattention in difficult driving conditions.

Germany's autobahn has a few similar chain reaction incidents, as does England's motorway system -- I'm not sure who holds the world record, though.

For a single gun carrying individual to cause that kind of carnage by accident, or even by deliberate, premeditated, action is so unlikely as to virtually impossible -- as much as the movies would like you to believe that a single well placed shot can destroy anything remotely flammable.

For a firearm to put more than one or two people a risk, it must be fired deliberately and purposely. Accidental discharge of a firearm is almost always only one bullet (the exceptions would involve guns it's already illegal to own) and it is a very rare case where a bullet passes through one person to injure a second and vanishingly rare for a third person to be injured by the same bullet.

So, from both magnitude of threat and from fail-safe/fail-hot perspectives, I'd rather be in a crowded stadium with 100,000 armed congential idiots than drive in the five-o'clock rush hour of any major city in the world.

 

[SeaCat]

Well here's a different idea, and one that will probably piss off a lot of people but is still more than workable.

Okay the right bear arms is a Cinstitutional Right, therefore it is a Federal Right. So let us take it out of the local arenas where many of the problems seem to arise. Make it a Federal Liscence. (Eek Gasp. Thi intrudes on States Rights, or does it?)

Make this Liscence a stepped liscence. Run it through the Bureau of Alchohol Tobacco and Firearms. Make the liscence stepped as in, Class one being the right to own and transport Long Arms. Class two being able to own and Transport Hanguns. Class Three being the carryin of Concealed Weapons.

Make the training and testing for these liscences a step by step process while allowing the majority of eople access to firearms. Make this testing the same nationwide.

I know the arguments against this. The removal of States Rights, the strengthening of the Nations Power over Gun owners etc. But what about the good points. The training and testing is made the same everywhere. The liscencing is taken out o the hands of the locals who may have their own political axes to grind. Being Nationalised the sme liscence you had in Florida is valid in Texs or New York.

Cat

 

[SlickTony]

Is it not true that home invasion robberies went way, way up after the populace was essentially disarmed?

We don't currently have a gun in my family, but if I should decide for whatever reason I need a gun, I think I should be able to buy one.

 

[SeaCat]

Is it not true that home invasion robberies went way, way up after the populace was essentially disarmed?

We don't currently have a gun in my family, but if I should decide for whatever reason I need a gun, I think I should be able to buy one.

Hey Slick, I don't know about the number of home invasions going up. I haben't seen the numbers.

However as has been mentioned above, owning a firearm doesn't magicaly protect you. You have to have the training to use the weapon.

My favorite weapons for home defense are a T-Ball Bat and a blade, not my handgun.

Cat

 

[Weird Harold]

Make it a Federal Liscence. (Eek Gasp. Thi intrudes on States Rights, or does it?)

Make this Liscence a stepped liscence. Run it through the Bureau of Alchohol Tobacco and Firearms. Make the liscence stepped as in, Class one being the right to own and transport Long Arms. Class two being able to own and Transport Hanguns. Class Three being the carryin of Concealed Weapons.

I think a federal licenses are a good idea, or a least mutual honoring of licenses issued anywhere, like drivers' licenses are good anywhere in the US.

However, I do NOT see any reason for licensing of any level other than concealed carry -- and I'm not real certain we need that.

The only reason I can see for pre-approval of concealed carry is to make a start on sorting the law-abiding from the scoff-laws in a situation where a weapons check is appropriate.

Licensing guns and placing restrictions on when, where and how they can be owned and/or carried is in direct conflict with the "Right ... shall not be infringed" wording of the law of the land.

If you want to infringe, restrict, regulate, or "control" guns -- or any other sort of "arms" -- you need to start with the underlying law of the land and repeal or change the second amendment.

In contexts other than US jurisdiction, I think it is counter-productive to legislate against things instead of actions, but it is not counter to the law of the land or historic legal precedent.

However, in the US, "Gun Control" is not just counter-productive, it is counter to both the specific wording of the existing law of the land and the general principles that law of the land is based on.

The presumed need for gun control pre-supposes incompetence, irresponsibility, lack of self control and violent tendencies on the part of anyone who wants to own or carry a gun. It may not be "guilty until proven innocent" but IMHO, it's as close to it as you can get.

The presumed need for gun control makes little or no distinction between a desire to own the newest and most modern handgun and the desire to own a piece of history or art (which just happens to be in the form of a firearm.)

"Gun control" is counter-productive in controlling crime and/or making the public safer because it targets the wrong people and it targets possession of things instead of actions by people.

Gun Control is something stupid politicians propose after things like the VT and Columbine shootings so they can be seen to be "doing something."

Gun Control is something proposed by people who don't trust other people to think for themselves or be responsible.

Gun Control is a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't really exist -- it isn't the guns that are a problem, it's the people who misuse them.

 

[oggbashan]

US gun control needs a change in attitude

My view is that there will be no substantial change in the laws that control the sale and ownership of guns in the US until the majority of US citizens want a change.

The ownership of guns is deep-rooted in the soul of parts of the US. Laws that are possible in other countries are not feasible in the US unless and until some event or something makes people reject guns by choice.

I can't see anything that is likely to make that choice happen. If the US's disproportionately massive number of deaths from gun shot by accident and crime hasn't started that change, what is likely to?

The number of deaths and injuries caused by automobiles in almost every country hasn't caused the automobile to be banned. The gun is as sacred to some people in the US as the car is there and elsewhere.

Og

 

[SeaCat]

I think a federal licenses are a good idea, or a least mutual honoring of licenses issued anywhere, like drivers' licenses are good anywhere in the US.

However, I do NOT see any reason for licensing of any level other than concealed carry -- and I'm not real certain we need that.

The only reason I can see for pre-approval of concealed carry is to make a start on sorting the law-abiding from the scoff-laws in a situation where a weapons check is appropriate.

Licensing guns and placing restrictions on when, where and how they can be owned and/or carried is in direct conflict with the "Right ... shall not be infringed" wording of the law of the land.

If you want to infringe, restrict, regulate, or "control" guns -- or any other sort of "arms" -- you need to start with the underlying law of the land and repeal or change the second amendment.

In contexts other than US jurisdiction, I think it is counter-productive to legislate against things instead of actions, but it is not counter to the law of the land or historic legal precedent.

However, in the US, "Gun Control" is not just counter-productive, it is counter to both the specific wording of the existing law of the land and the general principles that law of the land is based on.

The presumed need for gun control pre-supposes incompetence, irresponsibility, lack of self control and violent tendencies on the part of anyone who wants to own or carry a gun. It may not be "guilty until proven innocent" but IMHO, it's as close to it as you can get.

The presumed need for gun control makes little or no distinction between a desire to own the newest and most modern handgun and the desire to own a piece of history or art (which just happens to be in the form of a firearm.)

"Gun control" is counter-productive in controlling crime and/or making the public safer because it targets the wrong people and it targets possession of things instead of actions by people.

Gun Control is something stupid politicians propose after things like the VT and Columbine shootings so they can be seen to be "doing something."

Gun Control is something proposed by people who don't trust other people to think for themselves or be responsible.

Gun Control is a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't really exist -- it isn't the guns that are a problem, it's the people who misuse them.

Okay, I like this post.

Now let me explain my standing.

There is a reason I proposed the idea of sperate liscences. Each class of firearm has it's own danger points. For example a Rifle has greater penetration power and range than a shotgun. Therefore the person who wishes to own said class of firearm should learn the basics of sfe handling of this class. Once they can prove they have learned these basics then they get their ticket. (I have personaly seen a person who was a skilled Skeet Shooter put other peoples lives at risk because they forgot they were using a Rifle and Not a Shotgun. He did not understand the basics of rifles and treated them like his shotguns.)

My reasoning is again not to limit or stop people from owning or carying. It is to help the safety of the owner and the public. (Of the owner you ask? Yes of the owner. In our society of lawsuits anyone injured by accident is more than able to sue.)

As for those I do not wish to see owning a firearm? I limit these to those who have already shown they are willing to use violence in an anti-social nature. (No R. Richard I do not mean the Police. I mean those who have commited violent crimes.)

Another comment I often hear is the registration of firearms. This is something I do not agree with even though I do understand some of the reasons behind it. (For example the idea of each firearms being fired and a record of it's rifling chaachteristics being on file as a way of solving crimes.)

Cat

 

[Weird Harold]

There is a reason I proposed the idea of sperate liscences. Each class of firearm has it's own danger points. For example a Rifle has greater penetration power and range than a shotgun. Therefore the person who wishes to own said class of firearm should learn the basics of safe handling of this class.

There are ony minor variations in safety procedures from any one firearm to any other. The basic orinciples, "treat every gun as if it was loaded" and "don't point a gun at anything you dont intend to kill," are generally sufficient to insure safety of the owner and bystanders.
Every other weapon specific safety rule or procedure is simply an extension of those two principles.

(For example the idea of each firearms being fired and a record of it's rifling chaachteristics being on file as a way of solving crimes.)

Even a cursory understanding of ballistics matching should shoot that idea out of the water -- it requires a recent bullet to match ballistic markings to a specific weapon. I don't fancy saving a spent bullet every 25-50 rounds for the firearms registry, if they'd even accept my word for the bullet coming from a specific weapon and not require me to fire a new comparison bullet under supervision every time I go hunting or shooting.

I really don't have a problem with gun owners being trained and competent and/or under the mandatory "adult supervision" of a qualified -- and certified -- range officer at a well-designed firing range.

What I have a problem with is making qualification and/or registration a pre-requisite of ownership or use.

Being trained and competent is just common sense on the part of a responsible person. Making it mandatory is just an attempt to "legislate common sense."

Attempts to legislate "common sense" (or good manners) are fairly easy to find in almost any judicial code older than ten days or so. The comical, and someimes disastrous, results of such laws generally don't show up for a decade or so. Leave them alone and ignore them for a half century or so and they make good source material for collections of dumb laws.

I'm opposed to gun control because I'm opposed to ALL dumb laws that don't accomplish anything positive.

 

[cantdog]

My view is that there will be no substantial change in the laws that control the sale and ownership of guns in the US until the majority of US citizens want a change.

The ownership of guns is deep-rooted in the soul of parts of the US. Laws that are possible in other countries are not feasible in the US unless and until some event or something makes people reject guns by choice.

I can't see anything that is likely to make that choice happen. If the US's disproportionately massive number of deaths from gun shot by accident and crime hasn't started that change, what is likely to?

The number of deaths and injuries caused by automobiles in almost every country hasn't caused the automobile to be banned. The gun is as sacred to some people in the US as the car is there and elsewhere.

Og

The deep roots you speak of are the Scots and Irish..

There are a lot of Scots and Irish in the heritage, here. Scotch-Irish people believe in guns. Other sorts of people can be convinced.

 

[Pure]

query

WH
"Gun control" is counter-productive in controlling crime and/or making the public safer because it targets the wrong people and it targets possession of things instead of actions by people.

your entire post is unclear as to what 'gun control' might entail, which is any number of things from a ban, to a training req't.

but leaving that aside, is there any evidence for your assertion (just above)?

The presumed need for gun control pre-supposes incompetence, irresponsibility, lack of self control and violent tendencies on the part of anyone who wants to own or carry a gun. It may not be "guilty until proven innocent" but IMHO, it's as close to it as you can get.

i find this rhetorical and non empirical: it's an argument against traffic signals, poison legislation, doors on elevator shafts, or against laws about selling plutonium on the internet.'' indeed, your argument amounts to asserting no need for laws in general (since, according to you, it's best to assume almost all people are honest and responsible.) it's an empirical question how controls on something might work or not work; in SOME cases, e.g. alcoholic beverages, the attempt to legislate has not worked.


---
WH Licensing guns and placing restrictions on when, where and how they can be owned and/or carried is in direct conflict with the "Right ... shall not be infringed" wording of the law of the land.

This NRA reading of the second amendment has not been upheld or affirmed in US supreme court. Of course the bush appointees may soon take care of that. As you well know, the 2nd amendment ties a 'right to bear arms' to the states having well regulated militia. IOW, the alternate and better reading of this am't is that a militia member may have a gun pursuant to his duties in the militia.

 

[haldir]

Hey Cant - just dippin in for a bit but was intrigued by this thread. Got a few points to make here but let's start with your response to Ogg

1. I am a Scot (not americo-scot) and we really don't believe in guns. THAT'S why WE have a huge problem with knives and swords - we like to do it up close and personal.

2. The problem with legalised weapons (be they knives or guns) is that if you carry them then you WILL use them, eventually. I used to habitually carry a blade (as knives are called here) and eventually was in a position where i felt I had to use it. Fortunately I only hurt the guy but I could be inside now rather than tappin on ma keyboard.

3. Gun control does not have to mean that people cannot own guns - it means that the people that own guns are properly vetted as to their fitness to own a lethal weapon. That is why we (and I guess you, my trans-atlantic cousins) have a minimum age for being able to drive. The Columbine killers bought some of their guns at gun fairs where the rules dont apply? I cannot get my head round the fact that an event specifically centred on guns does not have to comply with the same rules as "your" local gunshop.

4. Why do US citizens still feel it their "right" to bear arms when you have an armed police force and you are a superpower. Who are you protecting youselves from? In reality it is from each other and if none of you had guns then the problem wouldnt be so great.

I guess enuf said from this hick Jock

 

[R. Richard]

4. Why do US citizens still feel it their "right" to bear arms when you have an armed police force and you are a superpower. Who are you protecting youselves from? In reality it is from each other and if none of you had guns then the problem wouldnt be so great.

I guess enuf said from this hick Jock

Haldir:
An armed citizen is a citizen. An unarmed citizen is a slave.

If no one in the US had a gun, then we might find ourselves in the same position that Britain did in WW II. Faced with an invasion across the channel, the British found themselves with a disarmed population. They asked for guns from the US [I can't find the reference right off.]

If no one in the US had a gun, we would have given up much of our heritage. The frontiersmen needed guns to hunt to put meat on the table. The [mostly German] gunsmiths in Pennsylvania responded with the [used in ] Kentucky long rifle. You in Britain might recall that the Americans developed a certain skill with their long rifles. That skill was developed to hunt for food, however, it translated well to the battlefield.

If no one in the US had a gun, then we might be safe until someone obtained a gun. Then we might well have a situation like Virginia Tech. One whacko with a gun kills many unarmed people. [What if they called for the scumbags? They did.]

If you don't trust your fellow citizens with a gun, you might take a look at the processes that are turning out said fellow citizens. I would rather see guns in the VERY capable hands of my redneck neighbors than in the hands of the scumbags.

JMHO.

 

[Liar]

If no one in the US had a gun, then we might be safe until someone obtained a gun. Then we might well have a situation like Virginia Tech. One whacko with a gun kills many unarmed people. [What if they called for the scumbags? They did.]

Nore to haldir: "Scumbag" is how RR spells the word "police". It can get a little confusing at times.

You're welcome.

/Liar

 

[Liar]

An armed citizen is a citizen. An unarmed citizen is a slave.

Pretty soundbite, but flawed. "Armed" is a relative term. If you have a gun and are up against ten people with bigger guns, you are just as unarmed as I with a pair of fists am against you with a gun.

If no one in the US had a gun, then we might find ourselves in the same position that Britain did in WW II. Faced with an invasion across the channel, the British found themselves with a disarmed population. They asked for guns from the US [I can't find the reference right off.]

If you don't mind, please do. Because just reading that, it sounds absolutely insane for one like me who have melery read what's in basic history books. I thought the UK needed help because they didn't have the badass military power they needed. Please enlighten me. In what possible way would personal guns in the hands of Londoners have helped against a massive aerial blitzkrieg?

 

[Weird Harold]

WH
"Gun control" is counter-productive in controlling crime and/or making the public safer because it targets the wrong people and it targets possession of things instead of actions by people.

your entire post is unclear as to what 'gun control' might entail, which is any number of things from a ban, to a training req't.

Which part of laws should target action and not things did you miss.


"gun" control is any proposal that targets the guns and not actions by people.

The rest of your "query is an ad absurdium argument and not worth responding to.

I thought the UK needed help because they didn't have the badass military power they needed. Please enlighten me. In what possible way would personal guns in the hands of Londoners have helped against a massive aerial blitzkrieg?

Among all of the requests for "badass military power" were requests for personal weapons to equip the Home Guard and general populace against the invasion force that was expected to follow the aerial blitz. Ater Dunkirk, the supply of personal weapons -- i.e. rifles and handguns -- was severely depleted; requests were made for anything that could shoot to fill the gap beween exiting supplies of military grade weapons and the acceleraed output of industry.

 

[ishtat]

???

Just acouple of observations.

1 It is easy in countries like Canada, Switzerland and Australia (even with their new restrictions) to obtain guns , In fact Canadians per capita have almost as many as US citizens . Yet they are much less likely to slaughter each other. Why is that?

2 I have pondered why ammunition is not taxed much more heavily.Whilst bullets may not be as dangerous as tobacco wouldn't higher taxation reduce deaths by making shooting more expensive?

 

[SlickTony]

In what possible way would personal guns in the hands of Londoners have helped against a massive aerial blitzkrieg?

They were no help against the blitzkrieg, although it might be noted that Iraqi dissidents got really bothersome shooting at our planes with small arms.

George Orwell, who was also a Scot, wrote an interesting article on the difference between democratic weapons and tyrannical weapons. A democratic weapon, he said, was one which could be handled by one person, was relatively inexpensive, and could be assembled quickly. He said that guns were democratic weapons. OTOH, such things as tanks, airplanes, and--at that time--the nuclear bomb were tyrannical weapons because they usually required the backing and support of the state to be operated. At least that's the gist of what he said--I've got all 4 of his books of essays kicking around somewhere and this stuck in my mind.

He was a socialist, so he found it desirable that the working classes should some day rise up in revolt against their rulers. He snarked about some bomb shelters which were built and then never used--he said they weren't much good as bomb shelters, but might be handy in urban warfare--when the time came for the higher-ups to crush the populace, they would find that they had provided them with a bunch of machine gun nests.

Remembering our revolution is an essential, inseparable part of American culture. A lot of Americans can see the sense in being on the alert in case they have to do it again.

 

[R. Richard]

Pretty soundbite, but flawed. "Armed" is a relative term. If you have a gun and are up against ten people with bigger guns, you are just as unarmed as I with a pair of fists am against you with a gun.

For many years, during my childhood, I carried a gun on a night by night basis. I sometimes had a lot more than 10 armed people looking for me. Sometimes they didn't find me. Sometimes I tricked them into shooting each other. [The scumbags have a slightly different version of that last.] Sometimes I used my gun on a last resort, personal defense basis. If I had not had the gun, I was dead.

If you don't mind, please do. Because just reading that, it sounds absolutely insane for one like me who have melery read what's in basic history books. I thought the UK needed help because they didn't have the badass military power they needed. Please enlighten me. In what possible way would personal guns in the hands of Londoners have helped against a massive aerial blitzkrieg?

The UK needed help because they had too many people who thought like Neville Chamberlain. Let us assume that Hitler turned loose his Luftwaffe and told them to reduce greater London to rubble. The Lufwaffe night have tried, but there was a group of really badass guys who called themselves the RAF. They had a type of gun called a Spitfire. If you wonder how a few badass RAF guys fared against the might of the Luftwaffe, either read history, read some of Winston Churchill's speeches or talk to a WW II German pilot.

Now, Hitler was insane, at least during his more lucid moments. However, not even Hitler was insane enough to want to reduce a valuable city area like greater London to rubble. Instead, what Hitler wanted to do was send in units of the German army to occupy the UK.

The Neville Chamberlin supporters wanted to surrender to the unstoppable German military machine.

However, a man named Winston Churchill said, "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."

The citizens of the UK listened to Churchill and they were ready and willing to fight. However, due to the very restrictive English gun laws, most of the English citizens did not really have the means to fight on the landing grounds, in the fields, in the streets and in the hills. I am reliably informed that the request was made of the US to basically send 'anything that will fire at the Germans and ammo to fire,' we will do the rest.

But wait! Why didn't Germany just send ships across the channel and overwhelm the ill armed English? Well, there was another group of rowdy lads who called themselves the Royal Navy and they just didn't think that Adolph and his boys were gonna use the English channel.

Small groups of German infantry could have probably been wet landed by U-boat, but then they would have had to face small groups of English, fronted by the few who had hunting weapons, fighting for their homes and families. The general situation is called supplying your enemies with army weapons and ammo. The Germans went back to the the biergarten or weinstube and had another round!

 

[Pure]

WH"Gun control" is counter-productive in controlling crime and/or making the public safer because it targets the wrong people and it targets possession of things instead of actions by people.

P: your entire post is unclear as to what 'gun control' might entail, which is any number of things from a ban, to a training req't.



WH new: Which part of laws should target action and not things did you miss.


"gun" control is any proposal that targets the guns and not actions by people.

OK, WH, let's look at this "argument." According to you, is it self evident that a law which aims at "possession" of something [e.g., something dangerous] CANNOT make the public safer?

Was this revealed to you by God? Is there any evidence? There are laws criminalizing possession of 1) pot, 2) narcotics, 3) prescription drugs, 4) (I think) anti tank guns, 5) small atomic devices, 6) child porn. There are also laws *controlling* possession of many of the above things, e.g., prescription drugs. The situation varies by country. But I think it's pretty clear that some "possession" laws "work"--possibly the 'child porn' case will serve as an example--, even though I grant you that things like booze and pot are too universally wanted for laws against them to work.

Your other point is an attempt to define your way to success in argument, since you equate "gun control" with "targeting" guns [by which you mean possession of guns].

OK, so here are the laws I propose; note that they do not constitute "gun control" under your definition, so may I assume they are fine with you? (IOW, note that they target actions by people.)

1. It will be illegal for anyone to purchase a semi automatic or automatic pistol or rifle, including assault rifles, except one welded inside so that it is merely a collector's piece.

2. It will be illegal for anyone, except the proper authorities to carry a gun in a public place or a private area not owned by that person, without a permit.

3. It will be illegal [[extra time]]for anyone to be carrying a weapon during commission of a crime.

4. Permits are issued only to those with proper training, and some special "need" for a gun.

5. It will be illegal to have a gun in one's home and to FAIL to safely store it, i.e, in a way making it difficult for a child or burglar to get at (steal) it.

6. Probably there should be some laws about buying or carrying or 'having handy' [failure to securely store], "saturday night specials," (small handguns), but i won't get into that right now.

 

[R. Richard]

Just acouple of observations.

1 It is easy in countries like Canada, Switzerland and Australia (even with their new restrictions) to obtain guns , In fact Canadians per capita have almost as many as US citizens . Yet they are much less likely to slaughter each other. Why is that?

If you visit, during the summer, a Swiss home where there are young men but no young children, you may well find a couple of assault rifles in the umbrella stand as the young men sneak back home from Swiss military training to get a home cooked meal from momma. The Swiss don't worry much about the Swiss, it is those godless, insane foreigners.

In the US, much of the gun based slaughter is between street gangs and drug gangs. The Canuks are not that well organized, with the exception of the French separatists.

2 I have pondered why ammunition is not taxed much more heavily.Whilst bullets may not be as dangerous as tobacco wouldn't higher taxation reduce deaths by making shooting more expensive? [/QUOTE]
What taxing ammo would do is make gun practice more expensive. If you are going to a public place, fire a hundred rounds at unarmed people and then commit suicide, the cost is really not a factor.

 

[Liar]

For many years, during my childhood, I carried a gun on a night by night basis. I sometimes had a lot more than 10 armed people looking for me. Sometimes they didn't find me. Sometimes I tricked them into shooting each other. [The scumbags have a slightly different version of that last.] Sometimes I used my gun on a last resort, personal defense basis. If I had not had the gun, I was dead.

Good for you, Rambo. And I've survived encounters with people who wanted to hurt me with knives, heavy sticks, guns and once a $2000 samurai sword replica with nothing but my brain and the clothes I wore. It doesn't change what I said. The comparison is still the same. Unarmed? Irrelevant. Outgunned? Yes, and relevant to the point in case. It doesn't make me more of a slave than you. It means you have a firearm while I don't, and that's the end of what it means.

 

[Liar]

Oh, and thanks for the historic input, rr and the rest who replied.

 

[Pure]

australia tightened its gun laws very recently, so its gun crime rates may be evidence of an impact; it's sharply debated.

prime minister Howard's recent remarks assserted his belief that Australia's clampdown after its massacre has been effective: no mass murders since.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/uscrimeshooting

an older report, emphasizing positive results is at:


http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws

[philip alpers]



February, 2000

Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws

Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.

Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.

Firearm-Related Homicide

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.

Homicide by Any Method

The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.
The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.

Gun-Related Death by Any Cause

The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.

"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia."

-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6 {end excerpt}

===
a paper arguing 'no effect' of the Australian buy back program, on gun related homicides {and INCREASE of some other crimes} is at

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

RESULTS OF THE AUSTRALIAN GUN
"BUYBACK" & NEW GUN LAWS

{Pure: as alpers points out, much of the 'negative' data is related to crimes such as simple assaults and even robberies which are often without guns.

It is common for the 'pro gun' analysts to look at the 'violent crimes' stats in Australia and Canada as a whole, rather than do the obvious 'break out' of the gun related violent crimes. For example, an increase in 'violent rapes' is NOT necessarily anything to do with guns.}

 

[cantdog]

No massacres since. Cool. So the anti terror campign is a success too. And the rhino repellent.