Whither Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.

ALS

Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
1,862
Location
Pittsburgh
Whither Gun Control?

Saturday, May 22, 2004

By John R. Lott, Jr.

What is happening to the gun control (search) movement?

This month, the Million Mom March (search) in Washington drew an anemic showing of only 2,000 people, while this year, all of the Democratic presidential candidates— however unenthusiastically— spoke of Americans’ Second Amendment (search) right to own guns. These are just a few of the signs that the facts finally seem to be catching up to the movement. The future for the movement looks even worse.

Whether the subject is concealed handgun laws (search) or bans on semi-automatic so-called “assault weapons,” (search) gun control debates have been filled with apocalyptic claims about what will happen if gun control is not adopted. One common prediction is that laws allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon will result in crime waves, or permit holders shooting others. However, with 37 states now having right-to-carry laws (search), and another nine states letting some citizens carry, permit holders have continually shown themselves to be extremely law-abiding. It is becoming more and more difficult to attack those laws.

Disarray among gun controllers is becoming common, even on one cornerstone of the gun control movement — the semi-automatic gun ban. Take the statements made on National Public Radio by a representative of the Violence Policy Center (search) just one week after the assault weapon extension was defeated in the Senate this March.

NPR described the VPC as "one of the more aggressive gun groups in Washington." Yet the VPC's representative claimed: “If the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn’t pass, it doesn’t pass.”

The NPR reporter noted: "[the Violence Policy Center's representative] says that's all the [assault-weapons ban] brought about, minor changes in appearance that didn't alter the function of these weapons.”

Yet, before the Senate vote the VPC had long claimed that it was a "myth" that "assault weapons merely look different. The NRA and the gun industry today portray assault weapons as misunderstood ugly ducklings, no different from other semi-automatic guns. But while the actions, or internal mechanisms, of all semi-automatic guns are similar, the actions of assault weapons are part of a broader design package. The 'ugly' looks of the TEC-9, AR-15, AK-47 and similar guns reflect this package of features designed to kill people efficiently."

So why the sudden disarray after the Senate defeat? Simply, gun-control groups' credibility is on the line and they are getting cold feet. With no academic research showing the assault weapons ban reduces crime, gun control groups realize that soon it will be obvious to everyone that their predicted horror stories about "assault weapons" were completely wrong.

Internationally, dramatic gun control victories in countries such as England, Australia, and Canada are also unraveling.

— Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in January 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. Yet, serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29 percent higher than 1996; robbery was 24 percent higher; murders 27 percent higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

— Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar after its Port Arthur gun control measures (search) in late 1996. Violent crime rates averaged 32 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1996. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 45 percent.

— The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the most recent survey done, shows that the violent crime rate in England and Australia was twice the rate in the US.

— Canada has not gone anywhere near as far as the United Kingdom or Australia. Nevertheless, their gun registration system is costing roughly a thousand times more than promised and has grown to be extremely unpopular, with only 17 percent of Canadians in a poll release this week supporting the system. Nor does the system seem to be providing any protection. The Canadian government recently admitted that they could not identify even a single violent crime that had been solved by registration.

Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the laws and the criminals don’t, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. While the debate is hardly over, gun control is just another example of government planning that hasn’t lived up to its billing. And like other types of government planning, eventually its failures become too overwhelming to ignore.

John Lott, Jr., is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and is the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2004).

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frie...,120638,00.html
 
I am a member of the National Rifle Association and some of the finest people I know (and some of the most law abiding) are NRA members.

And no matter what an elitist says, if a criminal thinks there may be a gun in a house he wants to break into, that criminal may have second thoughts.

I would never want to shoot another human being unless I had to (in a just war defending the country or in self defense of myself or another).

I would not even shoot an animal unless it was hunting season and I had a hunting permit.

We need to defeat these elitist people who think they can think for the rest of us, have no respect for the common people, and want to take away whatever rights the people have based on whatever screwball concept is the 'in' idea at the time.
 
It's sort of safe to support gun control, the criminal might not hurt you... Seriously, gun control is one of those things that people need to think about with their minds, and not with their emotions. As the saying goes: If you ban guns, then only criminals will have them.
 
I love my high capacity magazines like everyone nothing says fun like a 30 rd clip full of ammo.

But logically, no one really needs a high capacity magazine for home defense.

Tell you what, more police officer have died becuase of high cap mags than homeowners who ran out off bullets.
 
Gun control is not the answer. It's in the genes ..not the modality of the acts. Laws only effect law abiding citizen ...criminals don't mind breaking them.

The young kids at Colembine violated about 25 weapons laws ...if you passed 45 more ..they would have violated 60.

The liberals want a disarmed population ...their into the pacification business.
 
quote:

Originally posted by goodoleboy:
I love my high capacity magazines like everyone nothing says fun like a 30 rd clip full of ammo.

But logically, no one really needs a high capacity magazine for home defense.

Tell you what, more police officer have died becuase of high cap mags than homeowners who ran out off bullets.


Goodoleboy, be careful what you tell people what they need and don't need! Who are you to tell me, my neighbor or joe blow the street that I don't need a hi cap mag? The "I don't like it so don't you do it" mentality is what got us in this gun controll problem in the 1st place. I'm a law abiding person and I want hi cap mags so I'm going to use them. Why should be denied them?
 
Remember the police usually only can "respond" after the crime. They can't protect you. They basically make out a report of the crime and draw a chalk line around your body. However the criminal has no problem with obtaining a gun. Where as you are denied your rights in the Constitution so as not to "harm" the miscreant and violate "his" rights as he kills you. Heaven forbid we should violate the rights of those "poor" misunderstood individuals "right" to kill at random. Plus the "proof is in the pudding" as they say. Where people are LEGALLY armed, crime is lower
grin.gif
.

Whimsey
 
quote:

Originally posted by Whimsey:
Remember the police usually only can "respond" after the crime. They can't protect you. They basically make out a report of the crime and draw a chalk line around your body. However the criminal has no problem with obtaining a gun. Where as you are denied your rights in the Constitution so as not to "harm" the miscreant and violate "his" rights as he kills you. Heaven forbid we should violate the rights of those "poor" misunderstood individuals "right" to kill at random. Plus the "proof is in the pudding" as they say. Where people are LEGALLY armed, crime is lower
grin.gif
.

Whimsey


They are only required under law to protect Elected officials, Judges and witnesses for the state. Period.
 
Chris B worte
Goodoleboy, be careful what you tell people what they need and don't need! Who are you to tell me, my neighbor or joe blow the street that I don't need a hi cap mag? The "I don't like it so don't you do it" mentality is what got us in this gun controll problem in the 1st place. I'm a law abiding person and I want hi cap mags so I'm going to use them. Why should be denied them?


ChrisB,


I am telling you what the majority beleives.
Society as whole (90%) belives we dont need high capactiy magazines.
To answer your other question? We should be deined hi cap mags becuase more Law enforcement have died than homeowners who ran out of ammo.

Your telling becuase we are law abiding that we deserve anything we want?
Are sayng since I want syrin or mustard gas that I should have becuase i am law abiding?
How bout, if i want a nuclear bomb? All the Famous Nuts like tim Mcveigh and the 9-11 hijackers were law abiding according to the police before there acts. of terror.
Well i can tell people i am law abiding all day but the majority of the people rule on this issue.
Sorry , but your idea does not hold water.

[ May 28, 2004, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: goodoleboy ]
 
High Capacity mags are like the "assault Weapons Ban".

It's a window dressing thing.

Banning guns because of how they look etc is the same as banning them because they were made on a Tuesday.

Makes some people look/feel good that they have made a difference.

Down here, we have people stating that "no true marksman needs more than a single shot", no-one needs a semi-auto etc etc.

Now, no kid will ever grow up to own a Ruger 10-22, Remchester pump shotgun etc etc, based on these fractionalising arguments.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Shannow:



Down here, we have people stating that "no true marksman needs more than a single shot", no-one needs a semi-auto etc etc.



I always wondered where our retired Military Trained Snipers settled in after a life of peace keeping
wink.gif


Seriously though , are those same people of the thinking that a 90hp - 2300lb car is enough car for everyone ?
 
quote:

Originally posted by Shannow:
Down here, we have people stating that "no true marksman needs more than a single shot", no-one needs a semi-auto etc etc.

I have all the fun stuff M1A's, HK-91, AR15's, which I bought in my 20's and 30's. As I passed into my 40's my favorite guns soon became my Tactical Sniper Rifles. The Thought of killing something at 200 or 300 yards is not as much fun as punching holes at 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 yards.
Taking out five 8" inch steel plates at 500 yards in under 11 seconds (10.8 to be exact)with a bolt action is when the real fun begins. Putting up a 2.25" five shot group at 700 yards, 3.5 inch group at 900 yards and 5 inch group at 1000 yards is an acomplishment and makes your day when shooting.
Just hitting a full size human target at 1000 yards is tough enough without a 15 to 20 mph gusting wind shifting from 3 Oclock to 5 Oclock. I was amazed I even hit the paper let alone all were solid hits. What was amazing was the 15 shooters on my line also put all 10 rounds into their targets.
I don't shoot off a bench I shoot in field conditions off a Bipod, sniper pack or an Alice pack. The only 100 yard shooting is done with my .357 Python or my .45 Winchester Magnum. Even with the semi-autos I shoot at 200,300 and 400 yards.
 
quote:

Society as whole (90%) belives we dont need high capactiy magazines.
To answer your other question? We should be deined hi cap mags becuase more Law enforcement have died than homeowners who ran out of ammo.

Society as a whole is ignorant of the most basic firearm knowledge and base their opinions on movies and 20 second news blurbs about everyone being able to buy machine guns at Kmart. Where do you get your information, by the way, about the number of police officers "killed" by high capacity magazines? Do you have studies that show scumbags often shoot over 10 rounds at an officer before he dies, so that round 13 is a problem but round 10 was not? I don't think that happens much. And how do you know how many homeowners have had to shoot over 10 rounds to protect themselves? I have not heard of any such study. And how do you think people in the L.A. riots protected themselves from mobs? With AR-15s and lots of mags.

The bottom line and beauty of the Second Amendment is this: we have an individual obligation to be prepared to defend our nation against enemies foreign and domestic. It has to be made very, very costly for a tyranny to establish itself in this country. The logical reading of the Second Amendment would allow at least individual small arms, even automatic ones, to be possessed by the people. It works in Switzerland just fine, every male is required to keep a full auto assault rifle at home. Last I heard you could get surplus 20mm AA guns there straight from the government as long as you kept the bolt in a safe deposit box.
 
Re "It works in Switzerland just fine, every male is required to keep a full auto assault rifle at home. Last I heard you could get surplus 20mm AA guns there straight from the government as long as you kept the bolt in a safe deposit box." This is utter drivel. You have not mentioned the fundamental issues: it is a requirement that relates only to those who have completed military service, thus weeding out some of the fantasists on here, the unfit, and the insane/unstable. The stringent recording of the weapons whereabouts, with penalties for non-compliance, is aeons away from the primitive, self deluding free-market chaos elsewhere.
 
Well I would not mind stringent paperwork if I could get 20mm AA guns from the government. The reason a lot of us question government involvement in the purchase of weapons is that time and again it has proven to be a prelude to confiscation by the Kerry & Co. mealy mouth types. As it stands here even a combat vet cannot get a new-built weapon for his personal use (or even a mag marked Law Enforcement only) that does not comply with the ridiculous Assault "Weapon" Ban. And since military service is mandatory in Switzerland, pretty much every male qualifies, yes? Where's the drivel? You like the all encompassing nanny state?
 
Oh, I did not notice that you are from the UK where nobody even has the right to self defense anymore. Next time you all get in a bind I assume you are for using your nukes instead of begging the US for their used private firearms as in WW2. You wouldn't want deluded, unstable fantasists fighting on the beaches and in the fields.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Motorbike:
Seriously though , are those same people of the thinking that a 90hp - 2300lb car is enough car for everyone ?

Motorbike,
you must be a mind reader (or we think somewhat similarly).

While the "debate" was raging, our city based colleagues would start with "no true marksman" rubbish.

So I started countering with "makes just as much sense as "no true driver needs an automatic", "SUVs are fine for people in the bush, but uneccessary for modern city life. They should be left at huge carparks at the edge of town, where you, as the SUV owner pay for the premesis, and the security guards 24/7."

(BTW, that last one almost came into being....guns were going to have to be locked up at the range, or huge armories at the edge of town).
 
quote:

Originally posted by ALS:
The Thought of killing something at 200 or 300 yards is not as much fun as punching holes at 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 yards.
Taking out five 8" inch steel plates at 500 yards in under 11 seconds (10.8 to be exact)with a bolt action is when the real fun begins. Putting up a 2.25" five shot group at 700 yards, 3.5 inch group at 900 yards and 5 inch group at 1000 yards is an acomplishment and makes your day when shooting.
Just hitting a full size human target at 1000 yards is tough enough without a 15 to 20 mph gusting wind shifting from 3 Oclock to 5 Oclock. I was amazed I even hit the paper let alone all were solid hits. What was amazing was the 15 shooters on my line also put all 10 rounds into their targets.


Uggghh, don't even go there.

Recently I have heard talking heads referring to scoped hunting rifles as "sniper rifles", and wondering why on Earth anyone could need a rifle that will work out to 600/700 yards when "a true hunter would be stalking their prey to get as close as possible."

Heck, my little CZ527 in .223 with a scope can hit a dinner plate 19 out of 20 times at the 600 yard line.

They use ridicule and fragmentation to achieve their agenda. Chuck in a fe slogans, and pice by piece, our sport disappears.

(They've just announce the new firearms licences as of July 1 are $200. In comparison, a Driver's licence is $75)
 
Shannow, here's one they can't answer. Ask them if they own a car. Then ask what the last number on their speedometer is. Then ask what the highest speed limit in the country is (doesnt work on Germans!). Then ask what the @%*& they are doing with a death-dealing weapon good only for running over school children at high speed. Nobody needs to go over the speed limit, right? Isn't that basically the car companies fomenting criminal behavior? Shouldn't they be sued? Or maybe a governor should be put on all cars, if you take it off it's 20 years in the box. Or maybe a little camera should be put in each car (paid by the driver, of course) so the government can see just how fast he is going. For the children, you know. But of course, it would be good for all concerned also because you would prevent all sorts of crime involving autos, no? Come on, don't you like children? It's for them! Then tell them they should immediately surrender their deathmobile to the government so it can be crushed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top