22,393,086 members doing good!
about our ads
get together & make a difference
 
 
This thread is displayed with the most recent posts first.
 One Word April 21, 2007 2:25 AM

Virginia 

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2007 12:21 AM

If the criminals were led to believe that 90 percent of people owned guns then the crime rate would probably drop.

You are assuming that criminals are rational. Most of them are just addicts.

Criminals do not gain their guns by legal means, so the law really doesn't affect them at all.

Yes it does. For starters criminals aren't going to carry the gun all the time in case they get done just for posession. So they are less likely to use it in opportunistic crime. Also, gun control will push up the price they have to pay to get guns. For an addict that is just out for their next fix, that may make the difference between buying a gun and selling one. This is a convenient myth that is spread by gun manufacturers on the basis that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.

If the Government can lie about important issues like "Global Warming" then why can't they claim greater gun ownerships, and possibly curb crime?

You think that would fool anyone?

I have to tell you though, I once got rid of a problem by showing a Samouri Sword, and I'm pretty proud of this.

You're lucky whoever it was didn't have a gun.

 [ send green star]
 
 February 01, 2007 12:15 AM

Gun control does not stop crime, but the idea of gun ownership does.

If the criminals were led to believe that 90 percent of people owned guns then the crime rate would probably drop.

Stricter laws do nothing for the common citizen other then to make them appear as helpless, especially if the criminal believes that your guns are locked up, and out of reach.

They'll break in to steal your guns, knowing that you cannot easily pull them. Competency and common sense should be the key.

Criminals do not gain their guns by legal means, so the law really doesn't affect them at all. It affects the honest citizen that tries to guard against them.

If the Government can lie about important issues like "Global Warming" then why can't they claim greater gun ownerships, and possibly curb crime?

I have to tell you though, I once got rid of a problem by showing a Samouri Sword, and I'm pretty proud of this.

Every weekend I would come home and within five minutes someone was outside of my house hiding behind my neighbors tree. This went on for quite some time. I was being stalked.

One night I was sick and tired of it so I opened the door and stepped out onto my front steps with the sword. 

 LOL...  Remember the Highlander..?

I stood on the steps and all I said was, "There can be only one...." LOL

No Laws were broken, and he never returned...

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 28, 2007 9:11 PM

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=1067&pst=840794  [ send green star]
 
A history of dubious claims? December 28, 2006 10:48 PM

I'm sorry but I just can't take that study by Alpers and Chapman seriously - when you google them you find out they've got affiliations with anti gun groups and a long history of making great claims that later turn out to be wrong.  I'll just take their latest claims with the grain of salt they deserve, I think!

This transcript is worth reading:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2006/1776336.htm

Especially some of Dr Weatherburn's comments about the earlier study that found NO effect of the gun buyback:

Don Weatherburn: I think it is reputable. I think it's well-conducted, it's perhaps not without fault, in the sense that one would hope to find a more powerful test, but that's no criticism of the authors, it's just that there's not a lot of data in the homicide series to play with. It's not the first, I think it's the third that I've seen, but they all point in the same direction; they show no acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide after the gun buyback and the tougher gun laws.

And about the authors of the latest study:

Don Weatherburn: Well points and crosses to both sides. I think firstly starting with Simon, he's being a little disingenuous here because he and Phillip Alpers wrote a piece for The Age on April 26 or 28, talking about the drop in mass shootings, but highlighting more than anything else, the drop in firearm homicide, who said the downward trend has been more dramatic, and he identified two periods and said it was now falling 70 times faster than after the gun laws than before. And I think there was a problem with that arithmetic, and I think it's been satisfactorily dealt with by Samara's work.

 

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 December 13, 2006 7:25 PM

Contrary to what the gun lobby has been claiming, tougher restriction in Australia have lead to a reduction in murders and suicides:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Gun-deaths-fell-faster-after-buyback/2006/12/14/1165685785146.html

The new University of Sydney report, published in the journal Injury Prevention, found not only had no large-scale massacres occurred since 1996, but the decline in gun deaths had accelerated at twice the rate as before the gun laws were changed.

Report authors Philip Alpers and Simon Chapman found the rates of firearm deaths per 100,000 population had fallen an average of three per cent a year from 1979 to 1996.

But from 1996 to 2003, that annual three per cent reduction in total gun deaths, including accidental shootings, doubled to six per cent.

The annual total number of gun deaths fell from 521 to 289.

And another 'only in America':

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Texas-lawmaker-aims-to-let-blind-hunting/2006/12/14/1165685795770.html

A Texas lawmaker is aiming to allow the blind to hunt.

Texas State Representative Edmund Kuempel has introduced a measure that would allow blind people to hunt any game that sighted people can currently pursue.

"A blind person can shoot a rifle by mounting an offset pistol scope on the side of the rifle instead of on top," said Terry Erwin, the Austin-based Hunter Education Coordinator with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

"This allows their companion behind them to peer over their shoulder and help them sight it, but the blind person can pull the trigger," he told Reuters.

 [ send green star]
 
98% shoot themselves or a loved one December 09, 2006 10:31 PM

Michael Moore, in Stupid White Men, p76, ch: Kill Whitey, survival tips for white America #3, Don't buy a handgun:

Among all the isntances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2% are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98% of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it.

Fewer than 1 out of 4 violent crimes is committed while the victim is at home.

 [ send green star]
 
only in America December 08, 2006 1:14 AM

This is one of the dumbest ideas I've seen:

smh

A tiny town in western Pennsylvania could ask all of its residents to own guns, if a proposal under consideration wins approval from local officials.

In written comments, Statkowski said homeowners have a right and a responsibility to defend against intruders rather than calling police and waiting for help to arrive.

 [ send green star]
 
 October 23, 2006 2:03 AM

smh

Australia's guns buyback has not reduced rates of gun murder or suicide, a new study says.

That contrasts with the views of other studies and Prime Minister John Howard, who say the guns buyback has made Australia safer.

But University of Sydney public health professor Simon Chapman attacked the report, complaining aspects were "verging on academic dishonesty".

The professor said the paper was based on "statistical smoke and mirrors".

 [ send green star]
 
(This is interesting-- pre-spokesman days) June 12, 2006 5:41 PM


TWO WEEKS AGO, ROBERT F. KENNEDY BECAME ONE OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS STRUCK DOWN BY AN ASSASSIN'S BULLET. SOMETIME TODAY, IN SOME CITY IN AMERICA, A GUN SHOT WILL RING OUT AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL FALL DEAD OR WOUNDED. THE VICTIM MAY BE A PUBLIC LEADER OR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, BUT, WHOEVER HE IS AND WHEREVER HE FALLS, HE IS NOT ONLY THE VICTIM OF THE GUNMAN....HE IS THE VICTIM OF INDIFFERENCE.

THE TRAGEDY IS STARK AND REAL. THE SCARS LAST FOREVER, AND THE ULTIMATE AND SENSELESS HORROR IS THAT SO MUCH OF THIS SLAUGHTER COULD BE PREVENTED. OUR GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON....THE MENTALLY ILL, THE CRIMINAL, THE BOY TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNING A DEADLY WEAPON.

THE SOUND OF THAT GUNFIRE WILL ECHO AGAIN...TOMARROW, THE DAY AFTER, AND ALL THE DAYS TO FOLLOW, UNLESS WE ACT!!! 6,300 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EVERY YEAR WITH FIRE- ARMS IN THESE UNITED STATES. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE AND WHEN IT IS COMPARED WITH THE FAR, FAR LOWER RATES IN OTHER FREE COUNTRIES, IT IS INTOLERABLE.

LIKE MOST AMERICANS, WE SHARE THE CONVICTION THAT STRONGER GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IS MANDATORY IN THIS TRAGIC SITUATION. WE DO NOT SPEAK FROM IGNORENCE OF FIREARMS. THE FIVE OF US COUNT OURSELVES AMONG THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO RESPECT THE PRIVILEGE OF OWNING GUNS AS SPORTSMEN OR AS PRIVATE COLLECTORS. WE HAVE USED GUNS ALL OUR LIVES BUT THE PROPER USE OF GUNS IN PRIVATE HANDS IS NOT TO KILL PEOPLE.

THE CONGRESS HAS RECENTLY GIVEN US SOME PROTECTION AGAINST PISTOLS IN THE WRONG HANDS. BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH....NOT NEARLY ENOUGH, THE CARNAGE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THERE IS EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE SALE OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS. PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.MEDGAR EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.NOT LONG AGO, A DEMENTED SNIPER PERCHED ON A TOWER AND KILLED FOURTEEN PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD......BY RIFLE.

FOR MANY LONG MONTHS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED THE CONGRESS TO PASS SUCH A LAW... BUT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT LISTEN UNLESS YOU, THE VOTER, SPEAKS OUT....UNLESS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY RISE UP AND DEMAND THAT THE CONGRESS GIVE US A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL LAW.

THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. IN THE SENATE, IT IS S-3633. IN THE HOUSE IT IS HR-)7735.

THIS BILL IS NO MYSTERY. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. IT'S PURPOSE IS SIMPLE AND DIRECT. IT IS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE SPORTSMAN OF HIS HUNTING GUN, THE MARKSMAN OF HIS TARGET RIFLE, NOR WOULD IT DENY TO ANY RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN HIS CONSTI- TUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. IT IS TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF AMERICANS. IT CONTAINS THREE SENSIBLE AND REALISTIC RULES.

FIRST, IT WILL OUTLAW THE MAIL ORDER SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES. IF THIS LAW WERE IN FORCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT MIGHT HAVE STOPPED LEE HARVEY OSWALD FROM BUYING THE HIGH-POWERED RIFLE HE USED TO MURDER PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY. EACH YEAR ONE MILLION RIFLES ARE SOLD THROUGH THE MAILS.

SECOND, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO MINORS - PEOPLE TOO YOUNG TO BEAR THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A GUN OWNER.

THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS. PEOPLE WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY. THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.

WE URGE YOU, AS A RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE AND CONCERNED CITIZEN, TO WRITE OR WIRE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IMMEDIATELY AND DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THESE BILLS. IN THE SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IT IS BILL HR-17735.

IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY....IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE....FOR THE COMMON SAFETY OF US ALL.... FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT....IT IS UP TO YOU...YOU ALONE AND THE TIME IS NOW.  -Charlton Heston 1968

http://www.slate.com/id/2143134/entry/0/?GT1=8295#ContinueArticle

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 June 12, 2006 5:36 PM

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous Glad the murder rate is dropping. May 25, 2006 6:49 AM

I am glad the murder rate is dropping.  The murder rate in many US cities has been dropping and you would think that is a good thing.  Be careful & check other statistics.  The number of shootings can be on the increase while actual deaths as a result of those shootings is declining.  The decline is attributed to advances in emergency medical treatment and the ability of doctors to save the lives of more gun shot wound victims.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 May 24, 2006 10:19 PM

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19252182-29277,00.html

THE nation's murder rate remains at an all-time low, while there has been a drop in the number of break-ins and car and other thefts in Australia.

Although there was no change from 2004, homicide and related offences were at their lowest level in 2005, with four victims a 100,000 people, the figures show.

"These figures continue to fall and are the lowest on record for these offences," the ABS said.

 [ send green star]
 
Gun control 'reduces shooting crimes' April 27, 2006 6:03 PM

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18956126-29277,00.html

THERE are fewer shootings because of tighter gun control laws introduced after the Port Arthur massacre but more could be done to improve public safety, Prime Minister John Howard said.

"Well look there are still problems, but the point I'm making is that if you look at all the gun-related murders, crimes, they have fallen," he told Channel 9.

 [ send green star]
 
 March 13, 2006 7:59 AM

Blaming social fracture on one dimensional notions of causality, when the complexity of social exclusion is the frame within which these situations (inhuman behaviour) occur, is simpleton stuff.

The dehumanising effects of social exclusion (which is a form of poverty) affects us all and is not just a turf war between debtor/competing  gangs, which are the most primitive form of government, within this process we call civilization.

So competition between us is good? I think it just generates stagnation and poverty and mercenary predation. The "necessity" for some to have a gun for the illusion of safety.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 
 March 13, 2006 7:19 AM

what are guns designed to do?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
It's like the statistics on cigarette smoking ...... March 09, 2006 1:43 AM


Cigarettes don't harm anyone - if you don't light them.

Except the poor children in third world countries who are in bondage rolling them to pay off the debts of their families to lone sharks. And They also absorb and breathe in the toxins in doing so.

WELL as far as i can see it's the same with Guns. It's a systemic problem.
If you don't acknowledge the harmful effects of even carrying them and portraying them as a legitimate weapon, even for self defense, you'll never be able to see any alternatives.

My opinion isn't worth much in this conversation because i live in  a country with strict gun controls. So no really extensive statistics to speak of.
When people commit murders here the generally do it in other ways (some of them do use guns, but i think that's just an effect of the international "entertainment" and News media).

One day it will probably be realised - like in the tobacco industry - that guns do actually cause injury and death to the innocent and guilty alike, but not always.
 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Knives now 'weapon of choice' March 08, 2006 6:15 PM

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18400200-29277,00.html

KNIVES are replacing guns as the weapon of choice of violent criminals, Victoria's top cop has said, as a fourth person was stabbed to death in Melbourne in less than a week.

Victoria Police Commissioner Christine Nixon said gun control measures such as buybacks had seen a reduction in the use of firearms in violent crimes.

"So now we are moving to the easiest, most accessible weapons people can find," she said on Southern Cross Broadcasting.

But Ms Nixon maintained that the recent spate of knife attacks was a "statistical blip", and violent incidents involving knives had actually fallen over the past 12 months, according to police statistics.

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous Freediver March 03, 2006 6:07 PM

Have to say the brawl sounded charming by American standards.Just this week we had two cars shooting at each other, it was apparently a drug money fued.  The chase & shootings ended in a car crash and it was discovered that the participants were wearing bullet proof vests.  Why are there so many violent crimes here in the U.S.?  My guess is drugs, lack of economic opportunity,lack of moral & religious upbringing and so forth.  In a free society, it is virtually a requirement that the individuals within it regulate their own behavior. Self regulated behavior of an individual is based on their moral and religious upbringing.  Far too many young people do not value others or themselves.  We, as a society, have failed to teach our youth how precious life is.   [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
50-strong brawl rocks community March 03, 2006 12:22 AM

How owuld this have ended in America?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18336534-29277,00.html

SIX people have been charged over a wild street brawl in a far north Queensland indigenous community.

Up to 50 people were involved in the fighting in Hope Vale – the home town of North Queensland Cowboys rugby league star Matt Bowen, police said.

Insp Swan said it was not known what sparked the brawl, but the fighters knew each other. There were no serious injuries, he said.

Six people were arrested on charges including public nuisance, drink driving and possession of liquor in a restricted area.

 [ send green star]
 
 March 02, 2006 3:38 PM

The big difference between guns and other weapons are that guns can be used by any junkie no matter how poor their state of mind or body is and it is easy for them to kill people. With other weapons skill plays a much bigger part.

 [ send green star]
 
people kill people March 01, 2006 10:23 PM

And it is easier for people with guns to kill people.

It is abhorrent how someone like Charlton Heston can support gun ownership.  American society is animalistic when it comes to guns.  The constitution is constantly being misinterpreted.  Guns should be allowed for everyone at times of war.  then again, GWB says he's in a constant war.

The more access to guns we have, the higher the crime rate.

If owning guns is so great, then why does the U.S> have such a high crime rate compare to other western countries?

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 28, 2006 7:33 PM

Those ABLE to understand are the only audience of any importance.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 
 February 28, 2006 4:56 PM

He's our PM, which is a bit like a president. It is very unusual for him to use terms like good and evil - that's something I associate with GWB. He's normally very careful with his words.  [ send green star]
 
That's funny Free February 28, 2006 4:55 PM

Is this guy a politician, or an evnangelist?

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
No US path on gun control: Howard February 28, 2006 4:30 PM

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18311205-29277,00.html

PRIME Minister John Howard tightened gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre because he did not want Australia going down the same path as the US, he said today.

"There are some things about America I admire and there are some things I don't.

"And one of the things I don't admire about America is their ... slavish love of guns. They're evil."

 [ send green star]
 
The Complex February 27, 2006 7:47 AM

You could put me into a room full of chemicals, sharp objects, guns and nuclear weapons and I would not harm myself or other with any of them.

It is the OUTCASTED and PERSECUTED who seek revenge against, and escape from, our civilization's insanity.

To escape the chaos and conflict between the teachings of local presidents and local priests, kids will seek and be issued alcohol, drugs and distractions to keep them disabled and prevent them from spreading their wisdom to the indoctrinated citizens of America.

I could have turned to drugs, instead I turned to FIGHT. I thank my excellent upbringing from a variety of nationalities and religious cult beliefs for discovering early that Humanity is not the problem. Recently fabricated borders and beliefs are the creators of our rebellious youth.

Directing their rebellion toward a worthy goal is our duty to Humanity and Life.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 
anonymous 12 Dead in Charlotte, Why? February 27, 2006 6:28 AM

It is outrageous that 12 people are dead in Charlotte and the murderers walked away in tact. I agree senseless deaths must end.  What was the true reason for the tragedy?  My guess is drugs, drug money and turf wars.  I think the ultimate cause is likely to be drugs.  Fill me in. 

Guns will always be used by drug dealers.  My solution, crack down on drugs.  I am sickened by all the suffering drugs cause:  overdoses, abuse and neglect of children, spouses, and the elderly, innocent victims of robberies and purse snatchings are frequently wounded emotionally, physically and sometimes they die, families are torn apart and are decimated financially.  Your friend that was afraid to get out of their car for fear of harm, ask them if the people they fear are motivated by drugs and the culture of drugs?

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 26, 2006 7:30 PM

12 people were shot in Charlotte North Carolina THIS WEEK.

They never had a chance to touch a gun and neither did anyone near them have a chance to reach for theirs.

All 12 shooter left the scene unharmed.

That is 12 out of 12, and it is a TYPICAL WEEK.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 
 February 26, 2006 7:26 PM

How often do robberies escalate to homicides of innocent bystanders because those bystanders pulled out a gun?  [ send green star]
 
 February 26, 2006 7:23 PM

Note also that when the conditions suggest that the victim might have a gun, then the attacker shoots first and the persues the goal of thier attack.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 
Attackers create defenders February 26, 2006 7:17 PM

The fear of bullets does cause many to purchase guns and bullets in the HOPE that they can be forewarned soon enough to reach their weapon and defend themselves from an attack. But surviving an attack is actually unlikely.

Bullets can not defend life, but only kill it. 

Just as we can walk into the street and kill the first person that we see, whether they are covered in pistols, rifles, handrenades, or not, so can any hate filled and confused Human do that to us.

Bullets are the cause of killing and not the means of saving.

Fear of reprisal by an armed police department is the closes thing to a deterant to the use of bullets.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 
 February 26, 2006 6:00 PM

I've been to the US. I've seen my American friends afraid to get out of the car because they might get shot. That's paranoid. Thought that doesn't mean there was no risk of getting shot.  [ send green star]
 
anonymous Terrorists? February 26, 2006 5:59 PM

We are not paranoid in the US; Nor are we in fear of our citizens.  However, on September 11th, two commercial airliners flew into the trade towers.  Apparently,  the passengers on board remained passive and did not try to stop the terrorist take over. A third airliner crashed in a field here in Pennsylvania.  Guess what?  They fought back!  The plane that hit the Pentagon, also had passengers that remained passive.  If the pilots on these planes had guns I am sure the mortality rate would have been lower.  So if you consider that a reduction in the crime rate, I would think gun ownership a crime reducer.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Freediver i agree with your statement. February 26, 2006 1:10 AM


What paranoid society needs someone to be constantly on guard against it's own citizens. Fear breeds insecurity. Insecurity breeds Paranoia. Paranoia breeds Fear.
 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 25, 2006 11:46 PM

Plenty of other countries without the right to bear arms have the same freedoms.  [ send green star]
 
anonymous Right to Bare Arms February 25, 2006 7:03 AM

I will stick with and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Civilians need to and should have the right to own firearms.  The discussions concerning criminal use of firearms seem to ignore the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. That an armed civilian militia is the best defense against  "criminal forms" of national governments that would seek to deny the Constitutional and Inalienable Rights of citizens.  If private citizens did not own firearms in our countries, you and I could not be holding this discussion in a public forum.  Why are there no Chinese citizens involved in this discussion?  In Tiananmen Square, the only way to stop a government owned tank is to stand in front of it and pray to God that international camera crews will be able to broadcast the image to the rest of the world and there by stop the tank because of the international political fallout that would erupt if an unarmed defenseless student were to be squashed like a bug on the world stage.

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 21, 2006 5:47 PM

Does anyone think it is odd that the people who claim that you can't prevent others from owning guns no matter what your laws are tend to be the same people who think it is simple to stop people buying recreational drugs by attacking the supply side?  [ send green star]
 
GUNS don't cause crimes People do February 11, 2006 12:12 AM

Still they're dangerous in the wrong hands.

In NZ there used-to-be a saying "Arm the Police and the Criminals will arm themselves"

Now the Police here don't "carry guns" as such but they've got access to them quickly.
But it seems that now also, so have the "crims".
And the rate of violent crimes has increased...........

MAKES YOU WONDER ????
 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 09, 2006 4:59 PM

I am in total agreement with Catherine!  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Small arms controls 'too weak' January 08, 2006 6:40 PM

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17768268-23109,00.html

EXISTING small arms trade controls have failed to protect innocent civilians and must be greatly tightened, according to three surveys on the human cost of arms transfers to Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Sierra Leone.

 [ send green star]
 
the u.s. December 28, 2005 11:14 AM

has the largest number of gun ownership in the world with the highest crime rates. why? because our society does not have the safeguards that would prevent hunger, homelessness, and high cost of medical assistance.

also, it doesn't matter what type of gun a person owns. any type of gun is used for whatever crime a person wants to commit.

address the societal ills and there will be a definite decrease in crime.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 December 21, 2005 7:08 PM

From a discussion in accoustic coffee house:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=1067&pst=407587

The idea that gun control won't affect the 'baddies' is absurd. That's like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because the people who speed will ignore them. I don't see anyone getting on a soapbox and complaining that all speed limits do it let speeders speed while good people go slowly. Why should it be the same with guns?

In Australia most 'armed' holdups do not involve firearms. The 'baddies' who you think will come by guns by any means instead use knives, machetes, syringes, spearguns etc. They are reported in the media, but I can't remember a single death occuring in such a holdup. Some guys recently tried to rob a bank with sledgehammers. The bank staff activiated the security screens. So they went to another bank where the same thing happened. Finally they went to a pub and stole a small amount of money. The truth is that most 'baddies' are rather stupid people and giving them guns is a bad idea.

Also, the fact that more robberies occur in America where there is stricter gun control does not mean that gun control does not work. It just means that non-uniform gun control does not work. Obviously they will go to a county where the citizens are less likely to be armed in order to hold up a bank. This is just as much the fault of the counties (or states) that allow citizens the guns as it is the foult of the counties with tighter gun laws.

Also, getting people to kill each other is not a reasonable way of reducing more petty crimes.

 [ send green star]
 
 September 14, 2005 10:08 PM

With the exception of the United states, there is no clear correlation between gun ownership and crime in first world countries. However, there may be a clearer correlation if you look at handgun ownership, handgun availability, attitudes towards gun use (a country may have high gun ownership, but if they keep them locked up they won't get used as often), frequency with which people carry guns outside of the home or gun prevalence in neighbouring countries. Also, there may be a clearer correlation if you zoom in on specific communities rather than looking at entire countries. 

For example, this site:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

compares gun ownership and gunshot death in Canadian provinces plus the US, Australia and England. The correlation is much stronger, but it isn't as meaningful if only gun deaths are included as it ignores substitution.

 [ send green star]
 
 September 11, 2005 5:26 PM

Those figure above (from 1999) paint the US in the best possible light.

From Deric:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=1047&pst=293960

Trends in Weapon Use

 [ send green star]
 
 September 11, 2005 4:31 PM

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Homicide rate per 100000 people


United States: 5.70 (1999)
England/Wales: 1.41
France 1.12
Japan 0.62
Germany 1.17
Canada 2.16
Australia 1.86
New Zealand 1.47

 [ send green star]
 
 September 11, 2005 4:22 PM

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/global/  [ send green star]
 
 July 09, 2005 9:47 PM

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15882625-29277,00.html

THE Victorian Government plans to introduce Australian-first restrictions on the sale of rifles that can use new high-capacity magazines.

Police and Emergency Services Minister Tim Holding said the firearms would be placed under a new classification, restricting their use to all but farmers and professional hunters.

"Manufacturers are now producing rifles that can be fitted with magazines capable of holding up to 30 bullets," he said today.

"These types of guns should not be in the hands of everyday sporting or recreational shooters, and their use should be restricted as soon as possible."

The Government is proposing to reclassify pump and lever-action centrefire rifles, which use a five-or-more shot magazine, from a Category B to Category C firearm.

The same will occur for bolt-action centrefire rifles, and pump or bolt-action rimfire rifles, that can use a 15-or-more shot magazines.

 [ send green star]
 
 June 23, 2005 8:21 PM

Also interesting is the strong relationship between drug addiction and property theft. I doubt gun ownership rates are going to rate highly in a junky's thoughts when they need to steal something for a fix.

There appears to be a consistent trend that gun control reduces the homicide rate but increases the assault rate.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15710046-2,00.html

THE number of people being murdered in Australia has fallen to its lowest level since national crime statistics were first recorded more than a decade ago.

But with assaults not falling in kind, Don Weatherburn, director of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, said yesterday that it appeared "serious attacks are not lethal as often any more".

A total of 256 murders were committed across the nation last year, a 15 per cent decline in 12 months and fewer than in any year since 1993, new crime figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed.

More sophisticated emergency medical procedures and a fall in the use of guns in serious attacks were among the theories that could explain the apparent contradiction in the figures, Dr Weatherburn said.

Assault and serious assault offences were not included in the ABS figures because some states were not recording all assaults.

"It's a national concern that two states, Victoria and Queensland, are not recording domestic assaults," he said.

"In 2003 we saw that the assault rate in NSW was three times higher than in Victoria.

"Now we know the reason is the Victorian and Queensland police are systematically under-recording domestic assault."

Australia's strong economy and the resulting drop in long-term unemployment has delivered an added bonus of a fall in property theft last year.

Like homicide rates, recorded victims of car theft and unlawful entry fell to their lowest level since national reporting began in 1993.

"For young people, whether they have a job is a big determinant of how much time they can spend dealing on the side or stealing on the side," Dr Weatherburn said.

The ABS figures revealed unlawful entry with intent dropped by 14 per cent over the year and car theft by 12per cent.

Dr Weatherburn said the fall in property crime was unsurprising as it stemmed from the heroin drought in early 2001 when heroin prices jumped 400 per cent.

This prompted an immediate drop in the number of fatal heroin overdoses and, evidence suggests, a similar decline in the consumption of the drug.

"Drug dependency dropped and, with it, property crime fell," he said.

 [ send green star]
 
 April 18, 2005 11:51 PM

Perhaps this explains why gun laws tend to be stricter in countries with no land borders (UK and Australia). It may mean that they are more effective as they stop the main source of gun imports. It also points to a possible strategy for countries such as America - perhaps international gun control agreements may be more effective at stopping gun crime than local ones.  [ send green star]
 
licensed guns April 18, 2005 11:46 PM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/New-call-for-ban-on-semiautomatic-gunss/2005/04/19/1113854185822.html

New call for ban on semi-automatic guns

April 19, 2005 - 1:54PM
A gun-control group has called for a total ban on semi-automatic handguns to prevent them falling into criminal hands with deadly consequences.

Speaking at the launch of a new national anti-handgun advertising campaign, National Coalition for Gun Control chair Sam Lee said the future looked bleak in relation to guns.

"What we are going to see in the future is more high-powered handguns on the streets because gun manufacturers are developing what are called quick-draws, which means they can be quickly grabbed and aimed at someone," Ms Lee said.

The campaign launch comes just days after the fatal drive-by shootings of two men at The Rocks in Sydney. "It is our belief that a handgun was used in this shooting and these lives could have been saved," Ms Lee said.

She is the author of a new research paper into handgun crime which found an estimated 291,273 handguns are in circulation in Australia.

The paper, called Tackling Handgun Crime in Australia, also found the majority of handguns move into the black market via theft from licensed gun owners.

The new print advertisement depicts a handgun with the trigger facing inwards, with the slogan: "The majority of guns stolen are taken from homes, increasing the change of the gun being turned against its owner".

Ms Lee said some 4,000 firearms are stolen every year in Australia adding: "What seems to happen is these guns move into criminal hands.

"What we're asking the government - both federal and state - is to ban all semi-automatic handguns."

Also speaking at the launch was 28-year-old Gareth Fulton, shot in the leg in a drive-by shooting outside a pub in the north Sydney suburb of Cremorne in January.

Mr Fulton said he and a friend were innocent bystanders who fell victim to a thoughtless crime.

"Neither my friend nor myself are criminals or associate with anyone of the criminal persuasion - I've noticed that seems to be the first label pegged to anyone involved in any aspect of a drive-by shooting," he said.

"(The people involved in drive-by shootings) play video games and now they have got real guns and have no concept of the power that they wield.

"We need to make handguns illegal - there is no reason for owning a handgun besides shooting a person, and who claims to have a human soul would want to do that?"

 [ send green star]
 
 February 03, 2005 5:21 PM

1. how many times has the person carrying a gun been able to pull it out when confronted with a perp using a gun? I dont the numbers but it has happened several times since Ohio passed its conceal carry laws.. 2. How many times was the person unable to use the gun they were carrying in a similar situation? Im sure that has happen too.. 3.how many times has a person been able to stand down the criminal without guns being fired? Stand down meaning what? To give into the criminals demands? 4. how many times has the presence of another gun escalated the situation to the point where the results were worse than if the individual did not have a gun? No way to tell... Even if a person pulls there gun and violence ensues there is no way of knowin what wiuld have happen if they wouldnt have pulled the gun. It could have been the same result. 5. how many times has having a gun resulted in the perp being prevented from carrying out the crime to success because they were shot and maimed or killed? Again Im not sure of the exact numbers but it has happen quite a bit. 6. Finally, not that most people would care, how many times has a perp who was caught been shot, either maimed or dead, even though they were not carrying a gun or other weapon? If someone comes in my house at 3 in the morning, Im not waiting to see if they are armed... Im shooting. I have a wife and 2 kids to protect... I also have what I call the 3 defense method... The first defense obviously is my locked door. Assuming someone gets in I then have 2 rottweilers. If they happen to get by the dogs(by killing them or whatever) thats when the third defense comes out. The third defense being my firearm. Now me personally would never pull my gun (I do have a conceal carry permit) because someone wants my wallet, or my car for that matter.. I dont carry enough money with me in my wallet to be worth getting in a gun fight over..And I have insruance for my car. I would only pull my weapon if I felt my life or the life of another was in danger... Also it is illegal in Ohio to shoot someone over property even if you have a permit.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2005 12:49 AM

For starters, accidental gun deaths or injury happen with gun ownership, I don't see how gun carry would affect this. Accidents happen with many of our freedoms, automobiles, ATVs, sports, drinking, common every day appliances in our homes, the list goes on but you get the general idea. In my home gun safety begins with educating my family. As far as use in self defense, I believe the best defense is criminals knowing that there are those around them armed to protect themselves, that if they want to commit a violent act against me then it will be at risk to their own life, If I am killed attempting to defend myself then that was a choice I willingly made. I shoot at least once a week at the range (if not more) to be very proficient with my firearm. Personal responsibility and education is what needs to be emphasized on, gun carry is a personal choice, if one doesn’t feel comfortable carrying for whatever reason then don't carry. But for me the bottom line should be personal responsibility just as with everything in life, if we want to take away everything in life that is abused or capable of causing injury then where do we draw the line?. One should always be held accountable for their actions, whether it is with an automobile or with a gun. For me it is simple, it's a right I have protected by the constitution that I choose to exercise.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Allen, you say January 31, 2005 11:44 PM

"the catch is that non law-abiding citizens will carry regardless, so in the end who does gun control hurt?" Let us assume gun control is not only about registering guns, but also about restrictions to carrying guns. Let us also assume that gun control hurts those who are deprived of carrying guns because they are law abiding citizens. How will it hurt them? In a real physical way, it would hurt them because they would not be able to protect themselves when confronted with someone else carrying a gun who is using it to commit a crime against that individual. So I then have to ask, in that kind of a situation: 1. how many times has the person carrying a gun been able to pull it out when confronted with a perp using a gun? 2. How many times was the person unable to use the gun they were carrying in a similar situation? 3.how many times has a person been able to stand down the criminal without guns being fired? 4. how many times has the presence of another gun escalated the situation to the point where the results were worse than if the individual did not have a gun? 5. how many times has having a gun resulted in the perp being prevented from carrying out the crime to success because they were shot and maimed or killed? 6. Finally, not that most people would care, how many times has a perp who was caught been shot, either maimed or dead, even though they were not carrying a gun or other weapon? Finally, if I were a legislator, once I would have the answers, to those types of questions, I would need to consider the converse. How will not having gun control hurt? That would then go primarily to the question of accidental maiming or deaths due to virtual unrestricted access to guns, realizing that, as with pet owners, there are those who deal responsibly with their pets as well as guns, and there are those who do not.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous One thing to keep in mind January 31, 2005 8:44 PM

is that in the United States we have always had the right to own guns so there really is no point in time in our country to compare to, gun ownership is the one part of the 2nd amendment that is not under much debate, where the big debate comes in is being able to carry our guns, to me it would be more prudent to ask whether in states where that right to carry is recognized has there been in “increase” in gun related crime, one can argue stats as to whether it decreases crime or not but to the best of my knowledge there has been “no” evidence in “any” state who recognizes the right to bear arms that crime rate has increased, at least none related to people legally carrying firearms, in each state when this comes up for debate states that already allow weapons carry is used as models in defense of the right to carry. In my state “any” felon or person convicted of a violent crime does not have a legal right to “own” or “carry” a firearm, that leaves only good law-abiding citizens that right, the catch is that non law-abiding citizens will carry regardless, so in the end who does gun control hurt?  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 January 28, 2005 6:14 PM

There are always people in the middle ground who may be swayed one way or the other. While there are a lot of people around who insist that gun ownership reduces the crime rate regardless of what the statistics show, if you can show that they don't in a simple manner and expose the people pulling the strings in the pro gun lobby (follow the money) then it is easy to sideline the people who hold on to a view in the face of overwhleming evidence to the contrary. There are more and more marine parks being planned and implimented in Asutralia despite a strong and vocal anti marine park lobby and even a new fishing party which opposes marine parks that got 1.5% of the QLD senate vote in its first election and helped deliver control of both houses of parliament to the conservative party.  [ send green star]
 
Freediver January 28, 2005 6:06 PM

I appreciate your sentiments ... However, one must contend with people who "think" as Mike does, so it becomes an exercise in futility. Who knows, Allen might understand. As I said before, it really does not matter anyway. One is not going to change anyone's mind here and even if one did, nothing in the bigger scheme of things will change. Both sides are just preaching to the converted.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Mike January 28, 2005 6:00 PM

While you are twiddling your thumbs .... year 2002 - 582 homicides in Canada ... http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030724/d030724a.htm year 2002 - 2,392 homicides in California ... http://justice.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us/cjsc_stats/prof03/00/1.htm That makes it 4.1 times as many in California as in Canada ... say 3.7 times as many to adjust for the population difference ... Which is about the same as the national differences between Canada and the USA on a rate per 100,000 basis .... Still game to compare Toronto and Houston? I will give you a heads up .. in 1998 there were 254 homicides in the city of houston (not metro) which had a population of 1,840,000 at the time .... so you may not want to go there .... even if the rate has dropped since then .... http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/crimeintexascities/Houston.pdf  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 28, 2005 5:53 PM

Joachim, I had a similar experience with marine parks. There was a lot of scientific evidence and a lot of opinions and disagreement and it didn't make a lot of sense. However it didn't take much effort to find out what was really going on. Maybe that example was a bit simpler because the benefit was clearer and I soon stumbled accross a statement of scientific consensus on marine parks. While this might be a bit more complicated, and there is more money behind the pro gun message, I don't think it is beyond the resources of a motivated intelligent person to get to the bottom of it.  [ send green star]
 
Mike.... January 28, 2005 5:14 PM

I did forget that.. you know why? Three reasons ... 1. metro Los Angeles has a population of about 17 million, which is about half teh population of Canada and is about about 3 times larger than our largest city, metro Toronto, which has a population of about 6 million. http://www.aviewoncities.com/toronto/torontofacts.htm 2. California is the size of Canada in terms of population. 3. We are not talking about a higher FINITE number of crimes, we are talking a higher RATE of crimes. That is comparing apples to apples. The number of hiomicides per 100,000 people, whether they live on the moon, mars, LA, TO chicago, or wherever. If you wish to talk about the total numbers, then go ahead, talk total numbers for California and total numbers for Canada. The urbanization rate in both countries, as well as in the State of California is also about the same, hovering around 80%. Or, if you want to compare rates of cities, because you might feel that the crime rates in large cities are higher than in smaller cities, then let us compare Toronto against any American city of comparable size, which, based on metropolitan population, appears to be Houston, the 4th largestr city in the USA with a metro population of around 5.2 million http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=101031 2003 estimate of california population 35,484,453 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html Canada's population is about 32,500,000 So, let us compare crime rates in Toronto versus Houston. I think that would be fair, since Houston epitomizes the psyche of the USA at this point in time and Toronto is the city which best represents the multi-ethnic population of Canada. You gather the info for Houston, and I will gather the info for Toronto.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 28, 2005 4:22 PM

Lets not forget that in terms of population Canada is about the size of the city of Los Angeles.... Of course we have a higher number of crimes here, of all types... We have a million times more people.. But dont try to give me this Canada is so safe and we are all just happy crap..... I aint buyin it...  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Freediver January 28, 2005 4:18 PM

"Sort it out pretty quickly" is an understatement of gargantuum proportions. I am sorry, but people spend full time researching this sort of data and coming up with various interpretations. It is hardly a flick of the switch matter. That is the problem I often find. People really are not interested in details. They have a particular opinion, they look for like opinions which have been stated by someone who is a supposed expert of sorts and they pick up on an executive summary if one is lucky, and more normally a couple of phrases which have been taken completely out of context. To prepare for administrative hearings of the type I am involved with takes 100's of hours of work. Environmental appeal hearings can easily take up to 100 hours of hearing in front of the panel. the material one has in front of them often constitutes 3 ring binders which take up 4 feet on a bookshelf, and you have to know where everything is. At one time I cross examined an engineering expert in air sheds for 10 hours. This is a site for people to express opinions. Unlike an environmental appeal, it is not going to change anything in real life whatsoever. Everyone will continue to believe as they did when they first posted here. I think any sort of back-up factual material is rather irrelvant for such BBs as this. State your opinion, and be done with it. A quick survey of opinon is all that one can really garner from this type of get together.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 28, 2005 3:59 PM

The rpoblem here is the quantity of data, and that most of the 'evidence' is just propaganda backed up with a few misleading statistics. I don't even have time to look at all the links right now. Someone who had a real interest and time to spend would sort it out pretty quickly.  [ send green star]
 
Freediver January 28, 2005 11:54 AM

You wanted to see how two people reach different conclusions from the same data ..... Voila!!!! ...  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Allen .. and others January 28, 2005 11:52 AM

Go to page 2 of the report by mauser ... you will see the viletn cirme rates comaparison between Canada and thae USA .. The USA rate is twice as high as Canada and there appears to be no increase in the Canadian rate over the past 5 years. Over the 20 year period shown there appears to be a slight increase in Canada and a slight decrease in the USA. In between, there was a lift in both countries. http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/forum/More-guns.pdf  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Allen January 28, 2005 11:43 AM

You stated that the following is fact: Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." ------------------------------- "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic" .... alright, let us say that it is. However, it does not say whether the USA is higher than Canada or the reverse. The next statement speaks about the rate change in Canada nad the USA. It sounds as if the rate of change has been an increse in Canada and a decrease in the USA with a considerable difference in the rate of change. We are given absolutely no hint as to the actual rates. That is left up to the imagination of the reader. The way it is written, I would say that most readers would come away with the impression that the violent crime rate in Canada is higher than in the USA. So, I decided to look up this Gary Mauser fellow. He has a page at: http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/index1.html SFU has a well respected School of Criminology whose webpage can be viewed at http://www.sfu.ca/criminology Gary Mauser is not in that School. He is in the Faculty of Business Administration. Business Admin does not typically deal with social surveys, as Criminology does. So, Mauser is dabbling in something he is likely not an expert in. The graph he shows at the top of his page is a classic, to say the least. In fact, I will be adding that to my list of deceptive graphical presentations of statistical information. When one first looks at it, it appears that over an 11 year period both the Canadian and USA homicide rates per 100,000 have been dropping, with two "blips" for each of the countries when the rates went up slightly. In addition, it appears that the rates in the two countries are about the same, and that in the last 5 years the rate in Canada is higher than that in the USA. That appears to be the case until one looks more closely at the graph. Then one may discover that the Canadian scale on the left, which ranges from 0 to 3.0 per 100,000, is actually being compared to the USA scale on the right which ranges from 0 to 12 per 100,000. Lo and behold, the scales are superimposed and we have a scale 4 x as great as another compared in such a way that the entire visual presentation is deceptive. Cute, but the guy's knuckles should be rapped. He must read USA TODAY. Here is a tabular presentation of the same raw data show on the graph. The rates shown under "can" and "usa" are homicides per year per 100,000 population. year can- usa-- can/usa 1990 2.40 10.00 24.0% 1991 2.50 10.50 23.8% 1992 2.60 10.00 26.0% 1993 2.20 10.10 21.8% 1994 2.05 09.60 21.4% 1995 2.00 08.70 23.0% 1996 2.10 07.90 26.6% 1997 1.95 07.40 26.4% 1998 1.82 06.80 26.8% 1999 1.80 06.20 29.0% 2000 1.80 06.10 29.5% We must keep in mind that this is a homicide rate comparison between the two countries, not violent crime rate. Two things, however. Homicide rates are indicators of violent crime rates. Mauser is deceptive in his presentastion of the homicide rates. Mauser is deceptive about the words used to describe violent crime rates in the two countries. Mauser is not a criminologist. There is abosolutely nothing that displays to me at this time that Mauser has any credibility with respect to this. In fact, quite the opposite. He has shown that he cannot be trusted. He blatently presents biased reports. Assuming that the base data he uses is correct, it is obvious that the USA has a long way to go to get the homicide rate in the country anywhere near the rate of Canada's. My bets are that nobody on this forum will see the day when the two rates will cross. I do not have time to deal with other points you present as "facts". The one on Canada interested me for obvious reasons. Hopefully others are a bit more honest in their presentation.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
So, Ummmm, where does it stand? January 28, 2005 2:47 AM

At this point in the discussion, does gun ownership reduce the crime rate?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 27, 2005 8:54 PM

I also heard on the news yesterday that we have the highest rate of car theft, but violent crime wasn't mentioned (or at least we weren't #1).  [ send green star]
 
Here is a power point January 27, 2005 8:52 PM

presentation with some intersting info ... primarily by conglomerate region http://www.icesi.org.mx/icesi-org-mx/xtra/Mexico_06_11_03_%20final.pdf  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Here is a set of stats January 27, 2005 8:45 PM

at a rate per 100,000 people ... the source from a USA University .... On the face of it, it looks like the type of impression people have when they say the USA is a violent place. I know that living in Canada we are not as violent as the USA. How much of a differnce there is, I do not know since I have yet to find a set of stats which I can say are reliable. Not that I make this topic a hobby of mine. I know my community, and I know the risk I am taking when I move around this community. I also know several communities in the USA - small town coastal Oregon and small town coastal California, for instance, and I feel just as safe there. However, I feel much safer in downtown Vancouver than I would in downtown Chicago once I am off the Lakeshore area there. I think the magnitude of the problem in the western world appears to be found primarily in the USA and if some of those living in the USA believe that it will be solved by arming everyone, so be it. I wish you good luck. I am not interested in debating the matter since it will get me exactly nowhere. Talk to those of us who live in countries where firearms are just about as ubiquitous in 10 more years because that is about the time that it will take to show up in the system more definitively attributable to some specific activity .... All I know is that it appears that the USA has a long way to go to catch up to some other countries as far as firearm deaths go..... As an aside, on a cultural basis, what I find interesting is that the rate of firearm deaths in the USA is about 5 times that in Canada for young males since both countries have similar history in a way and kids certainly watch the same stuff on TV and play the same video games, although many would disagree with me on that and quickly point out the considerable differences .... That particular rate difference is actually an interesting one since it can likely be used to show that what one watches on TV and plays on the computer is not a good indicator of resulting violence in youth - at least not the sort of violence which leads to firearm use since firearms are relatively easily available in Canada as well. http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html ---------------------------------------- Now, in case people think that that information is biased, which I think it could be, I will also link to soem other interesting sites. The question was: "Does gun ownership reduce the crime rate?" For some reason or other we seem to have gotten off the question a bit since most of the discussion has centred on gun control and death/injuries due to firearms .... Here is an interesting 4 year old article from the economist, which I have found to be a reasonably reliable source for other purposes. It shows that the violent crime rate in Australia is twice that of the USA. One thing which is noteworth is that whenever Japan shows up in a study, it is consitently low. Either they have a different reporting system, or the very nature of their culture is to be more respective of the collective society. I think the latter is the case. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=513031 As I said previously, if you want to back up your argument with statistics, you just have to go looking and you will be sure to find it .... if not, and you have some statistical background. you sometimes have to do a bit of out of the box thinking ..... ~smile~  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 27, 2005 7:02 PM

I understand what you are saying, I was just hoping to get people to acknowledge the down side.  [ send green star]
 
anonymous Freediver January 27, 2005 6:44 PM

Im one of the "good" and also armed, that makes me an armed "good" citizen, not only do I have the ability to defend myself but also other good citizens around me should the need ever arise, and I would hope if I were in need of assistance then another good armed citizen would be able to offer it to me as well. The one's who we need fear are the one's who will be armed regardless of gun laws, those with criminal intent, not the "good" citizens.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 January 27, 2005 6:31 PM

That doesn't mean that others don't live in fear. There are plenty of places where only the crims carry guns around and people from those places don't live in fear. I've only ever seen it in America.  [ send green star]
 
 January 27, 2005 6:16 PM

I dont live in fear... I would live in fear if only criminals had guns. Yes good people get shot by bad people all the time.... And there are some accidental shootings usually caused by some moron that doesnt keep his gun where the kids cant get it...Most gun owners have common sense...I dont know of anyone that doesnt practice gun safety first and foremost..  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 27, 2005 5:15 PM

Doesn't the presence of firearms everywhere also punish the good by making them live in fear? (yes I have seen this with my own eyes) You can't say that only bad people get shot.  [ send green star]
 
Joachim January 27, 2005 4:37 PM

Certainly someone like that would not be starting to think "hey man, I heard there are more dudes and dudettes out there carryin' heat so I better sit right here at home and relax and watch Jay Leno" Actually that is the case. Although here in Ohio there have been several crimes stopped by armed citizens, when criminals know that anyone could be armed they DO have to think twice before committing a crime.. In fact here in Ohio resteraunts etc.. are now taking down their signs that say "no firearms" because they found that criminals were looking for those signs so they knew which places were easier to rob. "A free people ought...to be armed..." --George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790. "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." --George Washington  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
not these days January 27, 2005 12:18 AM

90% of all teenage girls have tattoos is more like it ... LOL yes.. I know what you mean times change .... ~smile~  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Having more than one opinion January 27, 2005 12:16 AM

based on the same availale data set is more common than not. That is why one should get more than one medical opinion, engineering opinion, legal opinion, even accounting opinion .... in giving those opinions, each would typically have access to the same data, nothing is excluded by anyone. what is the variable, is the experience the people looking at the data bring with them ....these are honest people doing the best they can..... as far as a researcher creating raw data, such as a survey, let us say, and discarding those incidents which do not fit the expected outcome of the reasearch ... yes, that is dishonest ... but that is not what I was talking about ... someone like tht will soon be made a fool of if they publish anything important and would not last long in doctoral level research.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 27, 2005 12:12 AM

I don't see why they tried to find the source. It isn't surprising that doctors 'kill' more people in their line of work. another, perhaps simpler one: 90% of all prison inmates have tattoos so...if your sister's new boyfriend has a tattoo, that means there is a 90% chance he has been to jail...right?  [ send green star]
 
 January 27, 2005 12:02 AM

Sorry Joachim, I took it the wrong way. The rest of your post seems to be about academic dishonesty. I would include searching for data that supports your hypothesis as academically dishonest. We were taught to include all of your results even the ones that don't fit in. I think the same applie for a meta-analysis.  [ send green star]
 
Here is an example of January 27, 2005 12:00 AM

a false conclusion drawn from two sets of statistics which do not relate ..... http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/drguns.html I can guarantee you that the two profs I am thinking of would both agree with that. It is a no brainer for many people, yet there are still many out there who do not understand why the notion put forth is completely erroneous. And therein lies the problem. People typically make up their mind based on who they believe and what that person says, then, if they need to defend their postion, they grab at anything that can possibly help them, often not really understanding much of it. And these days there is tons of chit on the net they can grab onto.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 26, 2005 11:53 PM

I had intended the question in the broadest possible sense ie what level of gun control is in the best interest of society? taking into account accidental deaths, gun homicide and other crimes.  [ send green star]
 
Academic dishonesty???? January 26, 2005 11:52 PM

There is no academic dishonesty implied in my statement, nor do I even wish to go there, nor do I have to go there. People simply have different interpretations of the same thing. These things are not black and white issues.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
BTW January 26, 2005 11:49 PM

if there are any sticklers for staying on topic, gun control and gun ownership are not synonymous. You can have gun control wit hevery single person who is elligible in the country carrying a gun. I thought that the question was whether gun ownership reduces crime rate, not whether gun control reduced the crime rate. There is, of course an another interesting tangent to this. Does an increase in gun ownership increase the number of accidental deaths or injuries from guns?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 26, 2005 11:39 PM

There is such a thing as academic dishonesty. That is, we expect a higher standard from an academic (especially a government paid one) than a regular person. This means they should not deliberately misinterpret this kind of thing. If they do misinterpret something, it is assumed it is deliberate because they should know better. They should not put their opinions up for sale.  [ send green star]
 
For those who are unfamiliar January 26, 2005 11:34 PM

with the Fraser Institute, it is located right here in BC and is a conservative think tank. They do some good research, but one has to consider the source the same as one has to consider the source from a left wing think tank. Sort of like do you believe a report commissioned by the NRA. Spome of us automatically will, others automatically will not. Others will read it and make up their mind after they read it, although most will have that nagging pre-judgement in the back of their minds as they do so, no matter on what side that happens to be. University researchers are for hire. Publish or perish. You just have to figure out what position you need to defend, then look for the appropriate researchers. I was involved in a hearing once in which two Harvard PhDs with years of top-of-the-line experience were brought in and, using the same data set, one testified for one side of the argument, and the other one testified for the other side, and at the end of the day we all got together for a drink in the hotel lounge. It's a fun game of cat and mouse, and we pay for them to play it.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
If a larger gun ownership January 26, 2005 11:23 PM

is the cause of reduced number of violent crimes, it would stand to reason that we would see an increase in cases of attempted violent crimes which were stopped by people possessing guns by either intimidating the potential perpetrator, apprehending them, or shooting them to maim or kill. Can anyone point to an increase in such cases? I mean, someone intent on committing a crime typically thinks they can get away with it unless they are out of money and want to sit in jail at tax payers' expense. Certainly someone like that would not be starting to think "hey man, I heard there are more dudes and dudettes out there carryin' heat so I better sit right here at home and relax and watch Jay Leno" I could see it having an effect once there has been a consistent increase over an extended period of time of reports of how this burglar was gunned down, how the rapist was shot in the groin by the gal, etc. etc. Until that happens, there is very little evidence that as a result of action A, the corresponding event B was caused. Cause and effect are very difficult to determine in many cases. This is another classic example of that.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  January 24, 2005 3:52 PM

Here is the full artical on their findings: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  January 24, 2005 3:44 PM

The Fraser Institute  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  January 24, 2005 3:40 PM

All the sources are listed below the articals.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 January 24, 2005 3:36 PM

Allen that's the sort of information I'm looking for. Do you know where those stats on Australia came from?  [ send green star]
 
 January 24, 2005 1:00 PM

I think for most of us it is common sense that if you ban guns, the only people following that ban is law abiding citizens... The criminals dont follow laws. THATS WHY WE CALL THEM CRIMINALS. Banning guns only makes it easier for criminals to rob citizens...  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Freediver January 24, 2005 12:08 PM

I though you may find this portion of the artical especially interesting. * Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  January 22, 2005 2:04 PM

1Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154. 2Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today (May 9, 2002). See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley, "Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur," The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002). 3 Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604. 4"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998). 5"Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police," AFP News (August 3, 2001); "A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992. 6"Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says," Reuters (October 11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998). 7See BJS study, supra note 6 at iii. 8John van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, "Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Courtries: Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey," (2000). This study can be read at http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm. The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files. 9Ian Henry and Tim Reid, "Crime figures a sham, say police," The Electronic Telegraph (April 1, 1996). 10Tim Reid, "Police are accused of fiddling crime data," The Electronic Telegraph (May 4, 1997). 11John Steele, "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent," The Electronic Telegraph (July 13, 2000). 12See supra note (Crime figures a sham...) 13Ibid. 14Ibid. 15See supra note (fiddling). 16Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," NewsMax.com (March 22, 2001). 17The number of people killed by their own government in Europe averages about 400,000 for the last 70 years. This includes Hitler's extermination of Jews, gypsies and other peoples (20,946,000); Stalin's genocide against the Ukrainian kulaks (6,500,000); and more. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (2000), pp. 8 and 80. 18At our historic worst, murders in the United States approached 25,000 in 1993 -- or 23,180 to be exact. So even applying our highest single-year tally over the past 70 years would mean that Europeans have experienced 16 times as many murders as we have in the United States. 19THE FEDERALIST 46 (James Madison).  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  January 22, 2005 2:04 PM

Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries 1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1 2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions. * Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2 * Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3 * England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4 * Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5 3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States: * In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. * "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7 * The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8 4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics. * The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11 * British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data: a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12 b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13 c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14 * Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15 * Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16 5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. 6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe. * Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18 * Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.19 -------------------------------------------------  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  January 21, 2005 11:16 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology. Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188. Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997). As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate. 2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. 3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185. 4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185. 5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183. 6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148. 7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93. 8Id. at 164, 185. 9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime." br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000). 11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." 12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states. 13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002). 14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79. 15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003). 16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15. 17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chi  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  January 21, 2005 11:08 PM

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict * Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3 * As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4 * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 * Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7 * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials." B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime * Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9 * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11 * Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12 * Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14 * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. 1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin. 2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15 C. Criminals avoid armed citizens * Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16 * Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17 * Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes: * Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18 Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection * Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19 * Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20 Justice Department study: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21 * 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22 * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about poli  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
The Crime Rate January 21, 2005 10:47 PM

has gone down because of the change is demographics- there are less young people. If, in fact, there were the same or more young people the crime rate may actually could have increased. And the case for relaxed gun laws does not take into account the so-called 'Assault Rifle Ban' which came into affect just after the decline you state{'91} started. Well-regulated. Isn't it regulated by the People through the Government? The Government represents the People. For the People, by the People, of the People. And it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed'. It says regulate and right. So, I suppose one has a right to keep and bear arms, yet no without any restraint or reason. Doesn't it also imply that one has a certain duty or duties, certain responsibilities? The Government is elected and there is the recourse of the Supreme court. As well as revolution... "To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429 "It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. FE 7:4 "[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, VIII,c.3:] 'In the state of nature, indeed, all men are born equal; but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the laws.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book. "For the ordinary safety of the citizens of the several States, whether against dangers from within or without, reliance has been placed either on the domestic means of the individuals or on those provided by the respective States." --Thomas Jefferson to James Brown, 1808. "All... natural rights may be abridged or regulated in [their] exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:64 "Our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221 "Were [a right] to be refused, or to be so shackled by regulations, not necessary for... peace and safety... as to render its use impracticable,... it would then be an injury, of which we should be entitled to demand redress." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792. ME 3:178 "I had hoped that [nations were] familiarized to such a degree of liberty, that they might without difficulty or danger fill up the measure to its maximum; a term which, though in the insulated man, bounded only by his natural powers, must in society be so far restricted as to protect himself against the evil passions of his associates and consequently, them against him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois d'Ivernois, 1795. (*) ME 9:299 "Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:327 'What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.' —Thomas Jefferson on Shays’ Rebellion, 1787 http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/ http://rjohara.net/gen/wars/shays.html  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Freediver January 21, 2005 10:37 PM

The Gun Carry law in my state is still new and is currently on hold (temporary)for those who don't already have one because they included something else in the bill and should that should have been separate (a technicality), so in my state it is still too soon for statistics. Other then my personal belief I haven’t checked into statistics myself but I do know they used examples from other states when they got our new carry law passed.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 January 21, 2005 9:24 PM

Someone else raised Great Britain as an example because they have very strict gun laws. They claimed that this increased the crime rate. I followed it up and it wasn't true. I have never heard of anyone being killed during a robbery with a machete. Guns may be a deterrent, but the cure is worse then the disease. People keep saying these things about the conceal carry laws but they never back it up. I'm not going to go trawling through the statistics. The assertions mean nothing. From the few examples I have followed up, it seams that this myth that gun ownership reduces the crime rate is perpetuated by people continually insisting that it does.  [ send green star]
 
anonymous Freediver January 21, 2005 4:13 PM

I don't understand the relation with this story to gun ownership and crime rate. In our country the length of the blade would have made it illegal to carry, do you think he only would have used it had it been legal? Just like with guns, the criminals will carry them regardless of the law since they have no regards for the law in the first place, perhaps the store clerk should have been armed for protection. Id think twice about robbing anyone or anyplace where I thought a gun might be present, criminals always seem to prefer the defenseless with little to no risk to themselves. I think criminals would prefer to have gun carry outlawed, would make their work allot safer for them  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Freediver January 21, 2005 3:21 PM

I dont understand your obsession with Great Britain etc.. I am talking about the U.S.. It is very clear that EVERY state that has passed a conceal carry law has seen lower crime rates...  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 January 20, 2005 3:11 PM

I think your constitution goes far beyond basic human rights.  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  January 20, 2005 6:54 AM

Freediver, In the American constitution it is  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 January 16, 2005 9:16 PM

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11962825%255E1702,00.html Machete used in shop raid January 17, 2005 A 50-year-old newsagency employee was assaulted and threatened with a machete during a hold-up in Sydney. Three men entered the Casula store, in Sydney's southwest, and demanded money about 7am (AEDT) yesterday, police said. The male employee was then assaulted and threatened with a machete by two of the men while the third went behind the counter and stole a cash register. The three men escaped in a silver sedan and were last seen heading towards Glenfield on the M5.  [ send green star]
 
 December 19, 2004 9:02 PM

Allen "And I also believe in gun ownership (and carrying) for the simple fact that I as an American citizen I have a "human right" to protect myself and my family not just in my home but no matter where I am against anyone intending harm to my family or myself." Are you saying that gun ownership is a basic human right? Mike Absence of evidence does not eman evidence of absence. The figures you gave do not show a clear link between gun ownership and crime. Obviously there are plenty of confounding factors involved. The numbers from Great Britain and Australia that I looked into indicated that gun ownership increases the crime rate and the link was much clearer. Bill I don't know enough about this yet to write a summary. There seems to be a lot of propaganda coming out in support of gun ownership but the statistics it is based on are flimsy at best. When I actually looked into some previous examples for Great Britain and Australia the statistics actually showed the opposite of what the propagandists had concluded.  [ send green star]
 
Freediver December 17, 2004 10:07 PM

Please create a summary of what you have learned. Include a link to this group. Post it to http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Summary This is not a requirement, it is a request. This is good information and people should know. Bill  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Freediver December 17, 2004 3:29 PM

As you can see, its actually not the "petty crimes" that lower.... Its all cimes including violent crimes.... The only states where the crime rates went up were states WITHOUT right to carry laws.... It seems prety simple to me..... Criminals fear armed citizens....  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Freediver December 17, 2004 3:26 PM

Here is some info that demonstrates pretty clearly what I have been saying.... Nearly every site I went to saidthe same thing... Gun Ownership leads to lower crime rates.... Gun Ownership At All-Time High/Violent Crime At 22-Year Low 12/11/01 If anti-gun activists and anti-gun politicians share a common trait, it is their unwavering belief that gun ownership, and nothing else, automatically leads to crime. Cultural, economic, environmental, and policing factors--the things that sociologists, criminologists, and law enforcement professionals universally agree determine crime levels--are irrelevant, as far as anti-gunners are concerned. The flaw in anti-gun thinking is starkly demonstrated by a confluence of two trends. Simply stated, while guns have been going "up," crime has been going "down." The number of privately owned guns rises several million every year and is now at an all-time high. There are more of every kind of firearm today--big handguns, small handguns, semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and all the other kinds of guns that anti-gun groups and politicians single out in their various smear campaigns. There are more of every other kind of gun too. And there are more gun owners than ever before. First-time gun buyers, including people who used to support "gun control," are contributing to a significant increase in gun purchases following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The number of states that have Right to Carry laws is also at an all-time high--33, up from 10 states only 15 years ago. Today, 54% of the U.S. population, including 64% of handgun owners, live in Right-to-Carry states. According to anti-gun thinking, crime should be rising by leaps and bounds. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The nation`s violent crime rate (the number of crimes per 100,000 population) has declined every year since 1991 and is now at a 22-year low. And murder is at a 35-year low. (FBI, www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) The trends include the following highlights: Since 1991, the nation`s violent crime rates have all decreased substantially. Total violent crime (the aggregate of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), has decreased 33.2%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter has decreased 43.7%; rape has decreased 24.2%; robbery has decreased 46.9%; and aggravated assault has decreased 25.3%. National violent crime rates in 2000 were the lowest in years. Total violent crime, the lowest since 1978; murder, the lowest since 1965; rape, the lowest since 1978; robbery, the lowest since 1968; and aggravated assault, the lowest since 1985. Further demonstrating the irrelevance of "gun control" to crime rates, between 1991 (when violent crime started declining nationally) and 2000, states that had the greatest decreases in violent crime generally, and in murder in particular, included both those that have some of the nation`s least restrictive gun laws (such as Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, and West Virginia) and those that have some of the most restrictive (such as California, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut). In 2000, as in previous years, firearms were used in less than one-fourth of violent crimes. Most violent crimes were committed with hands and feet (32%), blunt objects and other weapons (28%), and knives (15%). In 2000, states that had Right-to-Carry laws had lower violent crime rates on average, compared to the rest of the country. Their total violent crime rate was 21.9% lower, murder was 28.4% lower, robbery was 37.7% lower, and aggravated assault was 16.5% lower. (Rape, the violent crime least likely to involve firearms, was 0.8% higher.) The only states that experienced increases in their murder rates between 1991 (when violent crime began declining) and 2000 were Rhode Island (16%), Nebraska (12%), Kansas (3%), and Minnesota (3%), all of which still do not have Right-to-Carry laws.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
It is not the gun that counts December 17, 2004 2:52 AM

It is the ability to use the gun. I have not read any of the previous points,... just responding to the title of the topic. Back when, people could have a quick draw. This liquidated a lot of bad guys. People could leave the door unlocked simply because they were allowed to shoot anyone invading their property, either in the leg if they were unarmed,... or shoot to kill if they had their own gun. Simply put, the price of crime was to high and very few would risk it. Now, if you shoot a gun in self defense you can do many years in prison and so crime is nearly legal. Our prisons are nearly filled because preserve the violent and punish the good. If we were to go back to the quick draw,... I would more then likely not carry a gun. However,... being a perfectionist that I am,... I would decrease crime many times over by liquidating many a violent person. I am generally affraid to own a gun. The terrorism of the police of today is to obvious and they would likely kill me without hesitation if I owned a gun. What bothers me worse is that if a police officer shoots a citizen,... not much happens. The citizens do not make a clear point that they approve of police shootings and juries have punished sooo many lower income people for defending themselves that the gun only protects the rich now. Every once in a while the rich decide to use their right to shoot as a way to enslave citizens,... and money is all it takes to get that right. Using a gun to obtain money usually produces the cash flow to do the enalaving. When Clinton was running for second term,... I looked at his 'hit list'. According to the web site, I found that nearly everyone willing to testify against him and nearly everybody willing to investigate him was found to have committed suiside. Most died from a gun shot to the head. He managed two terms. I guess using a gun 'properly' works, I really liked America when he was President! Bill  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  December 17, 2004 12:45 AM

And as far as terrorists attemting to over-throw our government, no group of people could ever over-throw our government without the overwhelming support of the American people in which case they wouldnt fit the profile of terrorists.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  December 17, 2004 12:19 AM

--I don't think your even allowed to have a militia any more.--- The problem with that is: Who is not allowing us to have a militia? No matter how I look at it I just can't see how anyone other then an American Majority could make any changes or regulations to such an amendment. And I also believe in gun ownership (and carrying) for the simple fact that I as an American citizen I have a "human right" to protect myself and my family not just in my home but no matter where I am against anyone intending harm to my family or myself. I have a carry permit to avoid problems with the law in my community but believe it is my right with or without permission from the state or federal government.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 December 16, 2004 11:56 PM

The thing is, a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to secure a free state. I don't think your even allowed to have a militia any more. What would happen if someone tried to form and armed (terrorist) group to overthrow the government? If you ever needed guns to use against your own government it would be pretty simple to get them from Mexico.  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  December 16, 2004 11:38 PM

Local government is regulated by state government and state government is regulated by the federal government. Im in the Minnesota National Guards yet I was ordered to active duty and deployed by the federal government on federal active duty status. The average American citizen would not become a member of a malitia formed against the government unless there became a need to do so, in the event that there was a need it would obviously take armed citizens to form such a militia, such citizens would already have to be armed prior to government attempted intervention to disarm the people. I just dont see how any other way could be effective or make any sense.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 December 16, 2004 10:53 PM

could you interpret that as saying that people can bear arms provided they belong to the state's milita, where each state has one militia regulated by the state government in order to protect the state from the federal government?  [ send green star]
 
anonymous Eli S. December 16, 2004 10:50 PM

I ask you... How possibly could or should the government be able to regulate an amendment that was designed to protect us against themselves? "A well regulated militia" - Regulated by who? Who forms these "well regulated militias"? The only reasonable answer is: "armed citizens" we the people, to have it regulated in any way whatsoever by the government defeats the purpose of the second amendment all together. It’s not the right to "own arms" it’s the right to "bear arms". So please tell me any other way to interpret it that makes sense?  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
the evidence December 16, 2004 6:19 PM

Please provide any evidence you have along with an explanation of it.  [ send green star]
 
 December 16, 2004 6:18 PM

This argument has been played out so many times already. No-one misunderstands you. It's just that you are only looking at half the picture. Not all homicides are committed by 'gun toting criminals.' A lot of them are crimes of passion where the presence of a gun makes the difference between someone getting beaten up and someone getting shot. I am prepared to accept that gun ownership probably reduces the petty crime rate, but it does increase the serious crime rate. Restricting gun ownership does prevent ciminals from getting their hands on guns. Here in Australia most store robberies are carried out with a bat, machete, syringe, speargun or something like that. I can't remeber the last time someone got killed in that situation.  [ send green star]
 
Freediver December 16, 2004 5:51 PM

What is so hard to understand about the fact that ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOLLOW THE LAW... You can have all the laws you want but criminals wont follow them.... I will find some info for you... Crime rates went down in EVERY state that has issued a conceal carry law.... Thats the ke Conceal carry.... When criminals dont know who is carrying they have to think twice before committing a crime... The thing criminals fear more than anything is an armed citizen...  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 December 16, 2004 3:35 PM

All the research I've seen that is pro-gun is either wrong (a lie about the stats) or it is simply drawing conclusions form insufficient data. Like in 30 states the crime rate went down after gun laws were relaxed. That doesn't mean anything. The crime rate probably went down in states where gun laws became tighter as well.  [ send green star]
 
freediver December 11, 2004 10:49 PM

Not accordingto research  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 December 11, 2004 10:27 PM

From what I've seen gun control does reduce the homicide rate. Not all homicides are premeditated. In fact few of them are, especially in the US. So restricting access to guns does help.  [ send green star]
 
Eli December 10, 2004 3:04 PM

Alot of research has beendone on this subject.... 41 states have a concel carry law.... In ALL 41 cases the crime rate dropped after passing the law.... Bottom line.....CRIMINALS DONT CARE ABOUT LAWS...YOU CAN BA ALL YOU WANT. All that does is make guns more valuable on the streets. You can pass all the registration laws you want.. The only ones that will register their gun are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.... A right to keep and bear arms is also to keep the government in check.... You can sit around and hope some cop is there to save you when you are in trouble if you want... I will protect myself....  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Bill of Rights December 10, 2004 12:16 PM

The 2nd Amendment has been misinterpetted by gun lobbyists and enthusiasts to support a conclusion that is incorrect. You do not have an unlimited right to bear arms in this country and it was never the intention of anyone to grant you that right. Please read the ENTIRE 2nd amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Of course, there are arguments about the militia issue, but at a base level, gun groups only focus on the part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It is a half truth and is really only a way to keep gun manufacturers in business. Fewer guns means fewer gun deaths. It's simple math. I lived in Japan, where the crime is incredibly low and there are strict restrictions on guns. You can still hunt though. I respect the rights of hunters since I grew up hunting. However, guns that are not needed for the sole purpose of hunting are a danger to our society. It's time to say no to gun extremists in this country who think they should own assualt rifles that end up eventually in the hands of criminals. You are helping the terrorists and criminals to be armed. At the same time, you are putting our law enforcement officers in greater danger. If you truly care about protection, you'll protect the rights of hunters to own guns for the purpose of hunting and work to ban all other types of guns or severely restrict them. Don't be a pawn for rich gun companies who do not care about you or your rights. They only care about profits and any way they can avoid responsibility for violent crime. At any rate, violent crime has been decreasing in this country over many years, but not because of guns being freely available. Better economies make safer people, not guns. Better opportunities to get an education, to be healthy, and to avoid discrimination make the US better and safer. Guns are not the answer. Is it a such a great price to pay that you can't have assault rifles and pistols so that we can all be safer and truly free? Personally, I think my fundamental rights are violated more by permitting dangerous, non-hunting guns on the streets because I am less safe to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Several things here November 23, 2004 12:06 PM

First this may get rotten garbage thrown at me from civil liberties commissions but WHEN YOU COMMITT A FELONY YOU ARE GIVING UP SOME OF YOUR RIGHTS. I think they should put out bumper stickers that say "Beat your girlfriend loose your gun!!!" The problem is not with the gun laws it is lack of enforcement. I feel that we have a right own and bear arms (and this may get the above mentioned garbage thrown at me from animal rights activists) and also to hunt for our food. I have a pistol and used to own a rifle. In the circle of life animals are on the chain. The rule we were taught is that if you kill it you clean and eat it. You respect the animal for giving you food to live. So here is my belief - LAW ABIDING CITIZENS have every right to own and carry weapons to defend themselves and hunt for their food.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Who has license to give license? November 18, 2004 2:20 PM

The rights listed in the Bill of Rights and those in the US Constitution,... are considered 'God Given' because there are no individuals,... or groups of individuals that are so superior to other individuals as to have the 'power over others' to take those rights away. So how does anyone or any group have the power to license others for anything? Have superior people taken over? Like perhaps Superior court? AAAAAAHHHHHhhh It is our lack of defending those rights that we have given them up. Ah heck,... we were not using them anyway! HHHHHHMMMmmmm now I understand! Bill  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Just a quick note November 18, 2004 2:11 PM

There was to much there for me to read and comprehend in the limited time I have for this issue. However,... Nearly every country that has or had a government that slautered their 'common' people,... tried first to get rid of private gun ownership. If you consider each person,... the multiple separate violations done to them till the final death of the victim,... I would say that there is no question that GUN OWNERSHIP DOES REDUCE THE CRIME RATE. Usually when the Government does the crime,... it is not listed as a crime,... so it really depends on what you consider to be a crime,... before we can determine a crime rate. Bill  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  October 31, 2004 5:12 PM

I believe the states that have adopted this law have done so in court challenges to the constitutional interpretation of the 2nd amendment  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  October 31, 2004 4:40 PM

Im not sure as to the political aspect of it but I know the NRA has been in strong support of this for a long time now. States that have adopted this law have used other states such as Texas as a model. Its more on the local level of government state by state.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 October 31, 2004 4:12 PM

that's pretty clear Is this a correction to licensing laws that came in some time ago, or is the political scene changing to be more 'pro gun.'  [ send green star]
 
anonymous Freediver October 31, 2004 2:43 PM

The "shall Issue" law is replacing the "may issue" law in many states. The difference being that in order to obtain a permit to carry under the "may issue" law one needs to show that they have a "specific" fear or need (usually guidelines) to warrant the Sheriff of that county issuing such license and is at the total discretion of that Sheriff. Under the "shall issue" law the only requirements are: -You have never been convicted of a felony or violent crime nor have been found guilty of violating a protection order against you. -You have successfully completed a firearms training and safety course. If any of the above applies after you already have a permit to carry then that permit becomes invalid and must be turned in. More simply, *"May issue”: you need to prove why you think you need to be able and carry a weapon. *"Shall issue: They need to prove why you shouldn’t be allowed. I don’t know if I have described it the best or worded it exactly the way it should be but thats the general idea behind it. Some states may differ slightly on its interpretation but if you type it into a search engine you can get pretty detailed explanations  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 October 31, 2004 2:13 PM

please explain the "shall issue" law?  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  October 29, 2004 11:53 PM

Sorry, To answer the question you asked at the begining of this thread I think the answer is yes, more so the "carry" laws then the ownership, criminals usually like to prey on those weaker then themselves or where the odds are in their favor, where "shall issue" laws are in effect they now have to consider that the one they are thinking about attacking may very well be armed.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  October 29, 2004 11:46 PM

I’m a law abiding citizen who legally carry's a firearm, my biggest concern with gun control is; Should those who the 2nd amendment was designed to protect us against be the very ones who are allowed to change it? I believe the key is to more strongly enforce the gun laws already in place as to affect the criminals and not the law-abiding citizens. I support the NRA not because I necessarily agree with them on every issue but strongly believe that they help to keep government on check with gun issue's and gun owner rights. The "shall issue" law I believe is In-line with the 2nd amendment right. Criminals with no regard for the laws have been carrying firearms all along and now as a Law abiding citizen I have the means to defend myself against them or even just the security in know that I can if needed. That’s how I view it anyhow.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 October 29, 2004 4:53 PM

Many people get raped by people that break into a house... I dont know how you figure they dont... Hardened criminals dont always win gun fights... I am a very good shot. I would put my skills agaisnt any criminal.... Sure if ugns didnt exist the world would be a better place.. Im sure we would all agree to that... But its not reality. The reality is guns are here and I dont want an unarmed citizenry and an armed criminal element... I carry a concealed weapon. If someone comes up and pulls a gun on me and says "give me your wallet" Im giving them my wallet. Im not going to get into a gun fight over my wallet. If someone pulls a gun to car jack me. Im giving them my car... But if I feel my life is in danger I want to be armed. If someone breaks into my house, I dont care what they intend to do, My family is in danger and I will use my gun... Period..... But as to your evidence or proof.. I will post some figures that show the crime rate dropped after the passing of the conceal carry law... More crimes have been avoided thanks to an armed citizen.... In parts of canada it is ilegal to even own a gun.. The crime rate is through the roof... The criminlas know everyone else is unarmed... Doesnt make much sense to me..  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 October 27, 2004 6:45 PM

Not many people break into a house to rape someone. Sure if you are being attacked then fight back, but getting into a fight with a stranger over material possessions isn't that wise. Most homicides are not committed by hardened criminals out to kill someone. They are 'crimes of passion' that may have been prevented if there weren't guns everywhere. Sure it would make things a bit easier for the hardened criminals, but if the homicide/suicide rate goes down then it is worth it. A gun is useless as defence against a hardened criminal. If you get into a gunfight with them they would win. Please keep in mind that there are an infinte number of scenearios where owning a gun would save or cost lives. What I really want is evidence showing what actually happens.  [ send green star]
 
 October 27, 2004 6:12 PM

I've always been told that if you are in serious danger the best thing to do is run away. WHat do you do if someone breaks into your house to rape your wife? Run away? Not me man.. The constitution gives me the right to keep and bear arms and Im gonna protect that right...  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 October 27, 2004 6:09 PM

In the United States there are now 32 states that have conceal carry handgun laws allowing law abiding citizens to carry a concealed handguns. All of them saw a drop in the crime rate after the laws were passed. A study in the prisons across the nation show that the thing criminals fear mopst is an armed public. Gun control laws DO NOT work. First you have to get criminals t obey the law before they will work. If criminals followed the law we wouldnt call them criminals.. You can pass all the laws you want. The only ones that will follow those laws are law abiding citizens. For instance, the gun registration laws. How many criminals do you think registered their guns? My guess would be zero..  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 October 27, 2004 5:59 PM

There is a lot of misinformation out there about this topic. I think it probably comes from the gun manufacturers (via the NRA?) They try to scare people into owning guns and say it is the only way to defend yourself. It's surprising how many people buy into this and think they are safer with guns everywhere. I've always been told that if you are in serious danger the best thing to do is run away.  [ send green star]
 
Other information October 27, 2004 11:38 AM

The only other information I have to share on this subject comes from one our local police chiefs. I set up women's self defense classes through my work. One of the local chief's of police instructs these classes for me. What he tells women is that having a gun is one of the worst things you can do to defend yourself. A few of the reasons he feels this way are: 1- By the time you can get to a gun you have in your home it is too late. People who break into your home or attack you in public do not give you that much warning. 2- A lot of victims have been killed or injured with a gun that they were trying to defend themselves with. Unless you are well trained on guns to where it is second nature the chances of you freezing instead of pulling the trigger are high. 3- The best weapons you have for self defense are ones available in your home or purse ie: sewing scissors, kitchen knives, a ball bat - but he says your mind and your own body (hands, feet) are the BEST way to defend yourself - you always have them and do not have to search for them.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 October 27, 2004 10:55 AM

I don't have the stats in front of me but I know that gun control laws that were enforced would show a decline in the number of domestic violence related deaths in our country. Again I don't have the stats in front of me but a large majority of domestic violence murders are committed with fire arms. Although we do have gun control our government does not enforce the ones we have. A large majority of intimate partner deaths are committed by guns. A lot of these are mulitiple murders (they not only kill the victim but others in the area including family members, friends, other employees and a lot of time even their own children. They might still kill them without the guns but the victims would at least have some chance of self defense. Also others in the area would not be killed. It is easy to walk into a victims home or place of employment and shoot numerous people before you are stopped without the gun they could not do this. I was reading an article about gun control and domestic violence just last week. What is happening is the system that is in place is not working. There is a laps between the time they send in the back ground check and by the time the gun shops get all the information the perps already have the gun in their possession. Also perps can buy from dealors at gun shows. Our laws, some federal and some state, say that people with domestic violence convictions or have a protecton order against them can not be in possession of fire arms. In this area local law enforcement will not take the guns. They tell us it is the juristiction of Tabacco and Fire Arms. No one from those agencies will come out here to do an investigation and/or seize illegal weapons. Our laws in this state just changed to say that local law enforcement can seize weapons during a domestic violence call (if they are in plain sight or during a consintual search). I am not sure yet how this will go. It is still up to law enforcement if they take them. So to answer your question I am not sure about general crime rates but I am certain that gun control laws that were inforced would save the lives of numerous women and children in our country.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 October 27, 2004 12:46 AM

There were 2,958 deaths in Victoria between 1979 and 2000, with the vast majority (2249 or 76 per cent) the result of suicides. Gun-related assaults accounted for 503 deaths (17 per cent) and the remaining 200 deaths are listed as unintentional or of undetermined intent. Researcher Stuart Newstead said a colleague witnessed the shooting deaths of two students at Monash's Clayton campus in October 2002 and many staff members and students were touched by the shooting. Huan Yun Xiang, 38, was found not guilty of murder because of mental impairment but was given a nominal sentence of 25 years in a psychiatric hospital. "Being good scientists, you can't let your personal opinions get in the way of good science and we have made every attempt in the study to do good science, but it shows its relevance," he said. AAP  [ send green star]
 
Law reforms cut gun deaths October 27, 2004 12:45 AM

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11202534%255E1702,00.html Law reforms cut gun deaths By Jamie Duncan October 27, 2004 GUN laws in Victoria had cut gun deaths in that state by 65 per cent over a 21 years, showing Victoria's approach to gun control was a model the whole world should adopt, researchers said today. The Melbourne researchers were commenting after the release today of a study, Firearm Related Deaths: the Impact of Regulatory Reform. The study, by the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), found Victorian gun law reforms had cut gun deaths in the state by 65 per cent from 1979 to 2000. And the researchers say gun deaths could be a thing of the past if trends continue. The study examined firearm-related deaths between 1979 and 2000 against gun law reforms in the wake of massacres in Hoddle and Queen streets in Melbourne and at Port Arthur in Tasmania. Before uniform gun laws were introduced across Australia in 1997, Victoria's firearms laws were already the nation's tightest. The annual average frequency of gun-related deaths dropped by 65 per cent from 1979 to 2000, the study showed, with suicide deaths down 54.5 per cent and deaths through gun assaults down 50 per cent. The study showed firearm deaths remained steady before the Hoddle and Queen street massacres, both in 1987, then dropped significantly in Victoria compared to the national average when the state adopted tighter laws in 1988. Gun deaths in Victoria and nationally fell to similar rates by 2000 after uniform gun laws were adopted following Port Arthur in 1996. MUARC Injury Prevention chairwoman Joan Ozanne-Smith said Victoria was a world leader in gun-law reform. The drop in gun deaths had continued in later figures from 2001 and 2002 not included in the study, Professor Ozanne-Smith said. "There's something like a 75 per cent reduction in firearm deaths since 1979 (up to 2002) which is quite remarkable and we think this is a model for the rest of the world," she said. "The rates of firearm deaths in the US, for example, is still 10 per 100,000 population, whereas in Victoria it's down to one in 100,000." Given present trends, it was conceivable that gun-related deaths could be eliminated in the future, Professor Ozanne-Smith said. "If the trends keep continuing in the way they are doing at the moment, that is a realistic prospect," she said. "In road safety we talk about 'vision zero' with a much higher baseline than we have for firearms. "The criminal element is a small proportion of all firearm-related deaths, and there has been a blip in Victoria in recent times, but it still makes up a small proportion of the total."  [ send green star]
 
 September 23, 2004 12:41 AM

Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates [Page 1444] of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States.' http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm  [ send green star]
 
Does gun ownership reduce the crime rate? September 23, 2004 12:40 AM

Please just stick to the statistics here. Here is a source that is pro-gun, yet calls into question the figures and studies you quote. http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=mission 'K-G derive their 2.5 million estimate from the fact that 1.33% of the individuals surveyed reported that they themselves used a gun in self-defense during the past year; [15] in other words, about 66 people out of 5000 reported such a use. Extrapolating the 1.33% figure to the entire population of almost 200 million adults gives 2.5 million uses. - The figure K-G are trying to determine is the true cumulative incidence of self-defense gun use over a period of one year, or (a + c)/(a + b + c + d). But the figure they present is the one derived by the survey, or (a + b)/(a + b + c + d). Should we expect the size of "b" and "c" to differ markedly in the K-G survey? We definitely should. A basic epidemiology text helps explain why: - The key point is that the K-G estimates are extremely sensitive to [Page 1437] miniscule changes in the Specificity rate. In Table 2B, it is assumed that 1.3% of respondents are randomly misclassified, which means there are still extremely high 98.7% Sensitivity and 98.7% Specificity rates. In that case the truth would be that just 0.04% of individuals actually used a gun in self-defense in the previous year, or about 76,000 uses per year for the entire adult population. This result comes very close to the NCVS estimate; the K-G figure of 2.5 million uses would be a thirty-three-fold overestimate! - Since fewer than half of U.S. households have a firearm of any kind and since the victims in two-thirds of occupied dwelling were asleep, the K-G result asks us to believe that burglary victims in gun owning households use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time, even though most were initially asleep. - Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. [60] -  [ send green star]
 
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct

 

This group:
International Politics
148 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences


Copyright © 2013 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved