Gun Control- Just of interest

[Dark Knight]

"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.'"

- OpinionJournal.com, 1/7/02

Gun control does not work.

[fa_jing]

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

[Dark Knight]

"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.

[Radhnoti]

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.

[joedoe]

Gun control works OK here.

[Budokan]

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.

[Dark Knight]

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.

[Dark Knight]

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."

[Aramus]

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.

[fmann]

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?

[Dark Knight]

"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.

[JerryLove]

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?

[fmann]

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.

[Radhnoti]

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."
Just my opinion, worth about as much as you paid for it.

[jaz1069]

3 rounds in the same hole.

Nuff said.