Third Party & Independents Archives

Irony In Reaction to Court's D.C. Gun Ruling

Did anyone else notice the irony in the reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that struck down Washington, D.C.’s 32-year-old gun ban? George W. Bush, John McCain and Orrin Hatch, among others, lauded the Court’s decision as a landmark victory for a basic American right. Nothing surprising in that. But these same people have spent nearly twenty years decrying and seeking to overturn another landmark decision upholding a basic American right – the right to free speech.

The court’s gun ruling came nearly nineteen years to the day after it ruled that flag-desecration was protected speech under the First Amendment. That earlier ruling did not evoke the howls of joy we’ve seen these past few days. Instead, it led to numerous attempts to legally and legislatively bypass a decision some saw as a trampling of our sensibilities. (In another irony, the court seems to like to announce these decisions just prior to the 4th of July, where we can reflect on our newly-affirmed liberty by flying flags and sending untold tons of flaming gunpowder screaming into the sky, but I digress).

What I’d like to know is why the fear of burning flags, but not flying bullets? Clearly, the statistics since the court’s 1989 flag ruling paint a pretty stark picture. U.S. gun-related deaths: 567,020 (CDC numbers through 2005). Flag burning-related deaths: 0. To put those numbers into perspective, that’s about 138 private citizens killed for every U.S. soldier killed thus far in Iraq. In fact, it’s almost 150,000 more than we lost in all of WWII. I doubt the court’s loosening of gun restrictions will do much to improve those numbers.

I’d like to think the dichotomy of opinion arises from an understanding that the power of ideas, however repulsive, is greater than the power of brute force and therefore, more in need of suppression. Unfortunately, I think it’s just the opposite. The argument in favor of permitting undesirable speech requires an intellectually nuanced consideration that the argument in favor of guns does not. It’s a lot easier to understand the power of a gun.

That lack of nuance can manifest itself in self-destructive ways. It’s been said that when your only tool is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. Likewise, when your only weapon is a gun, every adversary becomes a target. We see it on the streets of our cities and in the halls of power. Instead of turning to violence only as a last resort, we seek the preemptive strike. Kids are shot down because they make the mistake of riding their bike into the wrong neighborhood. Bombs are launched in order to “get them before they get us” – even when we’re not quite sure they’re really trying to get us.

I’ve always believed the pen is mightier than the sword, which is why the pen has always been my weapon of choice. It might be nice if a few more people agreed. It would certainly be a lot less deadly.

Posted by Paul Szydlowski at June 27, 2008 12:20 PM
Comments
Comment #256915
I doubt the court’s loosening of gun restrictions will do much to improve those numbers.

Actually, statistics tell us that areas of the country with looser gun restrictions have less gun crime. So your belief there may not be accurate.

But personally, I am glad for both decisions, precisely why I am not a Democrat OR a Republican but a Libertarian who understand the need for personal liberty being upheld against governmental abuses.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 27, 2008 12:48 PM
Comment #256917

Guns don’t kill people. People do.
Pencilz dont mispel wordz. People do.
Spoons don’t make people fat. People do.
Cars don’t make people speed. People do.
Laws don’t make people break them. People do.

If we want to reduce violence, we’re going to need to look deeper.
Abuse leads to more abuse.
I think these 10+ abuses (lawlessness, corruption, legal plunder, and other manifestations of unchecked greed), and these 17+ consequences are what fuels violence.

Yes, there is hypocrisy, revealed by the selective enforcement of the Constitution. There are too many constitutional violations, lawlessness, and abuses, which are all likely to worsen as the economy worsens.

While I don’t want to burn a flag, free speech must be protected (and any behavior that does not harm others or violate their rights). Burning a flag is insulting, but being rude and insulting is not illegal. Otherwise, most of us would be in jail. For those with so much disdain for those buring a flag, they’d be wise to ignore it. Yet, the likes of McCain and many others (mostly Republicans) want to make flag burning illegal. They simply don’t get it. It’s not enough for them to disagree about others’ actions (actions that are not harming or violating others’ rights) … they want to force others to agree, and punish them for their insults. And if they were to go to court, what are their damages? Their feelings were hurt?

While it is disturbing to see people buring our flag, it is MORE disturbing to see people that think they have a right to force you to stop doing it (barring other violations such as being a fire hazard violation, or pollution violation … which may be valid arguments against flag burning, since such actions may endanger others or infringe upon others’ rights?).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 27, 2008 12:55 PM
Comment #256924

d.a.n. and Rhinehold.

Good points.

The D.C. gun ban decision also comes with limits, as expected. No sale of guns to felons or mentally handicapped people. No guns on school grounds. Background checks. All, in my opinion, good things.

Burning flags, while a valid political expression protected by the 1st Amendment, could (and maybe should) also have limits. No burning flags while pumping gas. No burning flags in a crowded theater…etc. Simply because it is your right to burn a flag, there are certain times when you just shouldn’t do it. And if you’re too stupid to know those times, maybe there needs to be laws.

Just remember…simply because you have the right to do something is no reason not to limit it. For example, the 1st Amendment does not allow you to say anything you want at any time you want. There are limits.

So while individual liberties guaranteed in the Constitution are your rights, they are contingent on good sense.

Posted by: Jim T at June 27, 2008 1:51 PM
Comment #256926

Lots of people owning guns? Well, there couldn’t possibly be any downside to that.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2008 2:04 PM
Comment #256929

I agree with many above. Gun violence is a symptom of a much more complex and deeply entrenched set of problems in America.

We could ban all guns and gun violence would certainly go down. But, murders would continue to take place, assaults of all kinds would continue, and anti-social behavior would continue unchecked and sanctioned by the marketplace.

We would fare better to address the underlying problems that motivate so many to reach for a gun solution, than to ignore these and just ban guns.

That said, I no longer have a problem with licensing gun ownership and denying such licenses as appropriate just as we do with the equally deadly automobile. Road rage is on the rise again. The vehicle is the weapon of choice.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #256930

Vehicles related deaths are higher than guns deaths every year, the #2 and #3 non-natural cause of death switch back and forth and they are Alchol related vehicle deaths and ALL firearm deaths, including but not limited to justified police shootings and suicide. Yes their are some searious issue we need to deal with in this country but guns are not one of them. Why is it that DC has had a total hand gun ban for 32 years but has been the to ten area for hand gun deaths for 20+ years.

Posted by: timesend at June 27, 2008 2:33 PM
Comment #256931

Who said “It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it” first? I remember it from True Romance, but I thought Tarentino got it from somebody else. Anyway, the NRA should have a program to provide handguns to the needy, so they can protect themselves from all the rest of our well-armed citizenry. I guess no one ever shot a Federal Supreme Court justice yet. Charles Voyde Harrelson shot at least one federal judge in Texas, and also JFK, according to conspiracy theorists.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 27, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #256933

david

“That said, I no longer have a problem with licensing gun ownership and denying such licenses as appropriate just as we do with the equally deadly automobile. Road rage is on the rise again. The vehicle is the weapon of choice.”

would you have no problem with having to aquire a license to exercise your right to free speech? remember david driving is a privilege, having the means to defend yourself is a right. the second amendment was put there to protect us from our gov’t should they ever decide to ignore the boundries set by the const. i’de also like to point out that criminals as far as i know don’t bother to get licenses, so it really serves no purpose other than to make sure that the gov’t knows exactly where all the guns are when they decide to confiscate them. i have no objection to a background check to prevent violent felons and mentally unstable people from buying guns, but thats as far as it goes. i’ll also have to agree with rhinehold on the fact that the place with least restrictive gun laws also tend to have lower rates of violent crime. those stats are even better in places that have shall issue ccw laws.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #256934

rhinehold -

A study last year by the University of Washington found that guns in the house are TWENTY-TWO times more likely to be used against a friend or a family member than in self-defense against an intruder.

As for my own views towards guns, I’m a bit of a hypocrite, because the day the country decided to ban all guns, I’d be first in line to get one legally or otherwise. It’s my constitutional right, just as much as it is my freedom-of-speech right to burn an American flag.

BUT what needs to be done is:
(1) background checks on everyone who wants to buy a gun,
(2) track every single gun so the ones who sell them illegally can be prosecuted,
(3) destroy every gun used in a violent crime,
(4) require training on gun operation and ownership (which can be a plum contract given to the NRA for all I care), and
(5) Liability insurance.

Is there anything here more restrictive than what we do for car ownership? No, except for #3. Cars will never be banned in America, and neither will guns - the Supreme Court has thankfully ensured that much.

The only problem with making the above happen are all the conservative pundits who will shout dire warnings to the rooftops that such regulations are a vast left-wing conspiracy, a sure sign that the G-men are a-comin’ to take their guns away….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 27, 2008 3:22 PM
Comment #256935
Jim T wrote: For example, the 1st Amendment does not allow you to say anything you want at any time you want.

That’s right. Screaming fire in a theatre shouldn’t be legal either.

And slander (if damages can be proven) are actionable.

The litmus test is whether it violates others’ rights, or causes unjustified damages to others (whether intentionally or negligently) to the extent that it is actionable.

The key word is unjustified, and that doesn’t necessarily apply to something that is legal or illegal either. After all, if John McCain and many other Republican politicians had their way, they would make it illegal, but not for fire-hazard, safety, and pollution reasons.

Buring garbage used to be permitted. Many communities across the nation have now banned it because of the fire hazard and pollution. Seems plausible that flag burning could be banned for those reasons. That wouldn’t prevent someone from burning a flag in their fireplace in their home, but that’s not likely since it defeats the purpose of doing it in public.

      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.

It’s a bit disturbing that the 2nd amemdment was upheld by only a margin of 1 vote (5-to-4 Supreme Court Justices)

Judges supporting the 2nd Amendment:

  • (1) Antonin Scalia

  • (2) John G. Roberts Jr.

  • (3) Samuel A. Alito Jr.

  • (4) Anthony M. Kennedy

  • (5) Clarence Thomas

Judges dissenting the right of citizens to bear arms:

  • (6) John Paul Stevens

  • (7) Stephen G. Breyer

  • (8) Ruth Bader Ginsburg

  • (9) David H. Souter

What part of that sentence was it that those 4 dissenting Supreme Court Justices don’t understand?
You’d think with all of their education, they’d be able to understand the obvious and literal meaning of that one simple sentence.
And if that were not enough, they could consider the spirit of the law; i.e. the intended meaning of the law (i.e. the right to self defense).
Who in the hell believes (in year 1791) that the 2nd amendment was intended to prohibit gun ownership by the people?
It is very doubtful that those 4 dissenting judges don’t understand the simple and literal meaning of the single sentence that is the 2nd amendment.
If so, they need to return to elementary school for some remedial reading and comprehension.
But that’s not the problem.
More likely, the 4 dissenting judges want to usurp the U.S. Constitution, and selectively enforce (or ignore) the parts they don’t like.
If true, are they fit to be Supreme Court justices?

Do those 4 dissenting judges not understand that the inherent right of self-defense is central to the 2nd amendment (especially when it was written in year 1791)? ! ?
So, if guns were suddenly banned, what’s next?

  • Knives?

  • Clubs?

  • Chains?

  • Spears and javelins?

  • Hatchets?

  • Bows and arrows?

  • Boomerangs?

  • Hammers?

  • Ice picks?

  • Rocks?
What else can be used as a weapon? Where does it end?

It’s yet another perfect example of some people who will try to flagrantly twist the obvious and literal meaning of just about any wording into something different.

Article V is another of several constitutional violations that demonstrates the twisting of the obvious and literal meaning of the Constitution.

At any rate, in a voting nation, and as long as voters can vote and get an accurate vote-count, the voters have the government that the voters elect.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 27, 2008 3:23 PM
Comment #256936

Glenn Contrarian

“A study last year by the University of Washington found that guns in the house are TWENTY-TWO times more likely to be used against a friend or a family member than in self-defense against an intruder.”

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2008 3:53 PM
Comment #256940

jim t

“Just remember…simply because you have the right to do something is no reason not to limit it. For example, the 1st Amendment does not allow you to say anything you want at any time you want. There are limits.”

i think a more accurate saying would be , just because it’s a right doesn’t absolve you of using good common sense, when exercising it. i don’t think there should be laws to limit rights, only punishment, and loss of those rights for abusing them. i’ve seen the saying , you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater. should we outlaw conversation in a theater because someone might yell fire ? i think not, but do it and cause panic that results in injury, and property damage and you should be punished.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #256942

dbs, Interesting article. Makes sense.

So, when law abiding people obey laws that ban owning or carrying weapons, who still has the guns? The criminals of course.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 27, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #256943


I think we are witnessing a remarkable event in our history. A one man Supreme Court determined to prevent the excessive assult on individual liberty by both the right and the left.

One of The main causes of gun violence in this country is the illegal drug trade. But the greatest cause of all is a failure of the government in addressing the poverty issue.

While both conservative and liberal politicians are to blame, I personally believe the liberals bear more guilt because they promote the idea that they represent these people, and they have refused to recognize that their policies are failing and not addressing the primary cause, poverty.

Soviet style public housing projects, welfare, the minimum wage, enterprise zones and poor education are all, for the most part, failed policies. Jobs with decent pay and the ability to get your children out of that environment would eliminate most if not all of the negative aspects associated with poverty.

A $200,000 per year labor tax on the wealthiest 1 million Americans would create 10 million $20,000 per year jobs for other Americans. While $20,000 per year would not lift families out of poverty, the government assistance needed to help them would be greatly reduced and the tax burden on many other Americans would be reduced as well. In addition, that $200 billion tax on the wealthy is just part of the Bush tax cuts and most of the money will filter back up through the economy, giving it a boost as well.

What kind of jobs would this produce? I really don’t know. But I do know that having people pick up trash along our highways is better than having them standing on a corner selling drugs or riding around inner city neighborhoods looking for someone to shoot.

Posted by: jlw at June 27, 2008 4:56 PM
Comment #256944

Jim T -

“Just remember…simply because you have the right to do something is no reason not to limit it. For example, the 1st Amendment does not allow you to say anything you want at any time you want. There are limits.

So while individual liberties guaranteed in the Constitution are your rights, they are contingent on good sense.”

Well said, bro - just as too little freedom is tyranny, there is such a thing as too much freedom, which of course is anarchy.

But that’s the neo-con mindset, isn’t it?

No oversight in Iraq.
No oversight of the Dept. of Justice.
Having the RNC run the White House e-mail servers (and ‘accidentally’ lose millions of e-mails)
No oversight of the banking industry
No oversight of the mortgage and lending industry
No oversight of the oil industry
…but they can perform search and seizure on and imprison even American citizens for years without a warrant, on suspicion alone.

It’s almost like, “We can search and imprison you at any time, just because we want to…but don’t you DARE question what we do.”

Funny - I thought that we were against such governments. We used to call them ‘communist’….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 27, 2008 4:57 PM
Comment #256945

dbs -

You should read my WHOLE post - I’m not against gun ownership at all.

And good ol’ boy Trent Lott, the one-time senator from my home state, correctly points out that there are many things at home that are more dangerous to children than guns - swimming pools, for one.

However, having no restrictions on gun ownership is NOT a reason for any drop in crime. If that were the case, then SUDAN, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND PAKISTAN would be very, very peaceful places indeed.

Want to know what’s behind the drop in crime rates nationwide? Read ‘Freakonomics’. The author points out that the first five states that showed a significant drop in violent crime back in the ’90s also happened to be the first five states that allowed abortion about seventeen years earlier….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 27, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #256946


Yes, I have a math error. $2 trillion, the entire Bush tax cut plus the farm bill. What is the saying, every dollar paid in wages passes through seven people on it’s way back to the top.

Posted by: jlw at June 27, 2008 5:09 PM
Comment #256955

Glenn

i actually did read your post. i just took exception to the study to which you were refering. if you check out the studies and analysis by professors john lott jr., and also dr gary kleck from the univ. of florida, both have written extensively on gun control, and have debunked many of the old statistics cited by the pro gun control crowd. i don’t object to prohibiting violent felons, and mentally ill people from possesing guns. i also don’t have a problem with background checks, but once finished, and cleared the record should be removed from the system so they can’t be used as a gun registry. you also have to consider that waiting periods are for the most part worthless, especially if the purchaser already owns a gun.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2008 6:08 PM
Comment #256957

Many may not realize that before and during Saddam Hussein’s reign, Iraqis had lots and lots of guns, but this failed to prevent the tyranny. Hmmm, perhaps that old conservative canard about individual guns protecting liberty is just that, a false belief.

I also believe that Scalia’s reasoning is faulty, and merely “acceptable” to the others because it has been so often repeated by the NRA and others who believe that the Constitution confers an individual right (as opposed to the people’s collective right) to carry a pistol in his or her belt. By dismissing the prefatory clauses, he wrongly argues that it has no modifying effect whatsoever on the main clause. So why would they put it there? Well, the amendment is a compromise based on the concerns of that time. There was some disagreement about how to ensure the defense of the country in light of a considerable sentiment of governmental mistrust (like today only worse). In that context, it hardly meant that each person had the right to carry a pistol around with them wherever they roamed. That’s a modern, gun-nut invention. Thanks, Antonin, we needed to support their delusions.

Posted by: mental wimp at June 27, 2008 6:24 PM
Comment #256963

“General George W. Wingate believed only through a well-armed and highly trained citizenry could the United States possible withstand agression and invasion from Europe. Holding a strong belief in this philosophy, Wingate convinced then Secretary of Education J. Walters Eislen to allow him to bring repeating rifles, boxes of ammo, and trained instructors to several public schools in his home state of Vermont.

Wingate’s report was tragically never completed however. In the second month of the experiment, a stray rifle bullet from high school sophmore Willis ‘Squeeker’ Barnstable penetrated the sternum of George W. Wingate, killing him. Witnesses say Wingate’s last words were; ‘It was that little bastard Squeeker, wasn’t it.’”

Posted by: ohrealy at June 27, 2008 7:23 PM
Comment #256968

dbs -

Are there any of these you cannot agree would make for safer and more responsible gun ownership?

(1) background checks on everyone who wants to buy a gun,
(2) track every single gun so the ones who sell them illegally can be prosecuted,
(3) destroy every gun used in a violent crime,
(4) require training on gun operation and ownership (which can be a plum contract given to the NRA for all I care), and
(5) Liability insurance for all gun owners.
and (thanks for reminding me):
(6) 3-day waiting period, and
(7) yearly firearms registration.

…and when it comes to a waiting period, on what do you base your claim that such is practically useless, since it is obviously targeted towards those (like myself) who do not already own a gun?

…and when it comes to your obvious fear that the g-man’s going to come take away your guns, on what do you base that fear? Do you REALLY think that the government’s going to try to track down two hundred million guns in tens of millions of American households? Sorry, dbs, but if you buy such a line, you’ve been listening to the fear-mongering (and gun-industry-subsidized) right-wing pundits for far too long.

…AND when you answer, please include your proof that the government intends to take away the guns from tens of millions of gun owners….

(and btw - if I understand it correctly, none of the above regulations were prohibited in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision :))

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 27, 2008 8:34 PM
Comment #256973

mental

“Many may not realize that before and during Saddam Hussein’s reign, Iraqis had lots and lots of guns, but this failed to prevent the tyranny. Hmmm, perhaps that old conservative canard about individual guns protecting liberty is just that, a false belief.”

nice try. not really a valid comparison though. the fact is that at least in the US more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less crime, thats the fact. like it or don’t, and with out them the possability of fighting back doesn’t exist.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2008 10:11 PM
Comment #256974

Glenn

“(4) require training on gun operation and ownership (which can be a plum contract given to the NRA for all I care), and
(5) Liability insurance for all gun owners.
and (thanks for reminding me):
(6) 3-day waiting period, and
(7) yearly firearms registration.”

sorry not going to agree with you on these.


“…and when it comes to your obvious fear that the g-man’s going to come take away your guns, on what do you base that fear? Do you REALLY think that the government’s going to try to track down two hundred million guns in tens of millions of American households? “

take a look at great britan, there’s a perfect example. no need to track anything down with a gun registration. it happened right here in california. ask any one who had thier AK or AR-15 confiscated. registration is always the needed fore runner to confiscation. the G-MAN eh. is that supposed to be funny, seems like cheap shot to me. i’ll show as much respect as you show me. i disagreed with you, but didn’t make any snyde remarks. i suggest you show me the same courtesy if you expect a response.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2008 10:28 PM
Comment #256976

like David R and d.a.n said gun Violence is complex and entrenched into the social fabric of America Taking our constitutional Rights away might help in the short term if any, there is a huge black market for firearms. I personally don’t see the need for a Ak 47 or a mini 14 to hunt with though.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 27, 2008 11:43 PM
Comment #256981

It’s about time the Supreme Court gets something right. Now if they can only keep it up.
While I don’t agree with the courts ruling on flag burning it’s not because I’m afraid of some nut case that wants to burn the flag. Burning a flag is an action and actions are not speech. They have no protection under the 1st Amendment freedom of speech clause. If they had ruled using some other amendment I’d most likely have no problem with it.

Glenn
Anyone that owns or uses a gun of any type has the responsibility to use it safely. Just like anyone that drives a car has the responsibility to drive it safely.
I have no problem with requiring a safety course for those wanting to buy a gun. They should have to pass a course in the particular type of gun they want to buy. This would include not only the basic common sense rules of handling it safely. But also how the thing works and how to properly maintain it. A poorly maintained gun is as dangerous as a poorly maintained car.
There’s already background checks on anyone that wants to buy a gun. There are also waiting periods before you can pick up the gun you buy. Most are 3 day periods but some place have a much as 15 day waiting periods.
Instead of yearly gun registration I would favor yearly qualification to make sure the person knows how to hit their target. The only problem here is not everyone that uses a gun owns one. It could get hard to make sure that every using the gun is qualified.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 28, 2008 12:57 AM
Comment #256988

Since when do you have to “qualify” to exercise a RIGHT? The high court of our land has upheld the ownership of firearms as a RIGHT. Not a PRIVLIDGE.

Posted by: BOHICA at June 28, 2008 6:21 AM
Comment #256995

BOHICA
You don’t have to qualify to own a car. But ya do to drive one.
Ya don’t have to qualify to own a gun. But maybe ya should have to to carry it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 28, 2008 11:34 AM
Comment #256997

dbs -

My apologies if you took offense. My post was not meant to be snide and I’m sorry you took it that way. I’ll be more careful.

I have no problem with gun ownership being a RIGHT. You can claim that the gun control groups’ stats have been refuted all you want, but for every stat you come up with that supports gun ownership without regulation (from reliable sources, of course), I’ll show you three that show otherwise.

But there’s a really easy way to find out whether regulation of gun ownership leads to tyranny or order: can you name a FREE country where gun ownership is NOT strictly regulated? Can you name even a single FREE country where gun ownership is even less regulated than our own?

On the other hand, it’s easy to find lots of examples of countries with no gun regulation…and I suspect you’ll find not a single one of them is free.

In other words, dbs, I would like for you to show me even one example of a free country that has little or no regulation of gun ownership.

Can you?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 28, 2008 12:34 PM
Comment #256999

Glenn I will help DBS out here.
Switzerland! any questions.

Posted by: timesend at June 28, 2008 12:43 PM
Comment #257003

nice try. not really a valid comparison though. the fact is that at least in the US more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less crime, thats the fact. like it or don’t, and with out them the possability of fighting back doesn’t exist.

No, sorry, there’s no peer-reviewed evidence of that, just some b.s. using invalid statistical methods and unvetted by any other scientists. All of the reliable evidence is overwhelmingly in support of guns creating deaths and injuries in proportion to their presence. Don’t just rely on what conservative websites point you to. They have a definite political ax to grind. Review the medical and public health literature on mortality and injury in relation to guns. There are hundreds of studies and they are pretty unanimous. Feel free to try to refute them as well. Some are certainly flawed. But it’s pretty hard to dismiss the whole literature based on the fatal flaw approach. The one un-reviewed paper that supports your statement is pretty easy to take apart (can you say “regression to the mean”?).

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 28, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment #257004

Glenn


“In other words, dbs, I would like for you to show me even one example of a free country that has little or no regulation of gun ownership.”

i think that is going to be tough comparison. you are correct that most other free countries have far more regulations on firearms. the problem is they are not the united states. this country IMO stands alone, and i would not want it to follow the leads of european nations which are for the most part are socialist leaning. i understand that your concern is one of saftey, but when you consider one statistic that says X ( don’t remember the exact amount) amount of children are killed every year by guns, gundeaths still rank very low compared to auto accidents, drowning, falls, poisoning, and so on. john lott go’s through these statitics in depth in both of his books. also when you break down this peticular statistic you’ll find that they include people up to the age of 21, gang members killing other gang members, minors shot by poplice while commiting felonies, and so on. if you consider just children under say 10 yrs of age who are accidentally killed by a gun the number is actually quite low. these are stats i remember from reading i’ve done 2 lott books “more guns less crime “, “the bias against guns”, and another ” the 10 myths of gun control”. the statistics you give are thoroughly anylized in these books. i’m not good at tracking down links on the internet so you can check these sources yourself if you choose. my point is that the gun problem is overblown by those who don’t like guns. i would ask you if gun control is such a great thing why do the cities with the strictest laws seem to have more violent crime. DC is a prime example.

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #257005

mental

“Don’t just rely on what conservative websites point you to.”

that link was a short interview with prof. lott, and that was all. read the entire book .many the of medical studies you speak of are adressed in depth.

“The one un-reviewed paper that supports your statement is pretty easy to take apart”

once again it’s not an unreviewed paper. the author is a professor that has done in depth research on the issue. the other noted prof. is gary kleck of florida state univ. there are plenty of reputable studies that support the argument against strict gun control. pick up a book by either of these authors at the library if don’t want to pay for them, you might be supprised.

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2008 2:20 PM
Comment #257006

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2008 2:23 PM
Comment #257023

d.a.n.

Just wanted to check, You think the founders had in mind your neighbor down the street buying SCUDS and Bill Gates building Nuclear missile silos on his place in Seattle?

Posted by: googlumpugus at June 28, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #257035

dbs -

I thought that would be how you would try to address my challenge.

You answered it that way because you know that there is NO human society or culture extant that has total freedom of gun ownership and also has a free, orderly, and safe society.

Furthermore, you categorize most European countries as being ‘socialist leaning’. That, sir, is an old conservative epithet that doesn’t have a lot of clout, especially since several European countries have a GREATER degree of democracy and freedom of speech than do we. If you wish to dispute that, try watching the English government in action or read their newspapers, and consider the freedom of movement between the countries that members of the EU have.

Little by little, dbs, people are beginning to see through the conservative arguments about how an ‘armed society is a polite society’…because they can see the worldwide trend that shows the greater the degree of gun ownership, the lesser the degree of freedom and safety.

With the exceptions of some small sections of cultures or societies that will NOT compare to humanity as a whole, you will not be able to prove otherwise.

‘Facts are stubborn things’. One of my favorite presidents said that….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 28, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #257038

Glenn

you need to check the violent crime statistics of countries like GB, and australia since the there guns have been confiscated you’ll find that your argument is hollow.

“Furthermore, you categorize most European countries as being ‘socialist leaning’. That, sir, is an old conservative epithet that doesn’t have a lot of clout,”

sorry sir, but that is a fact. look at the tax burden they carry, and that in many, germany for example the state runs, or has control of business. i would rather be free , and not have a pot to piss in, then be dependent on the gov’t for my very existence. cradle to grave entitlements, and relying on others for my protection is not my idea of freedom, nor was it of the founders.

“‘Facts are stubborn things’. One of my favorite presidents said that….”

yes they are, aren’t they ?

Posted by: dbs at June 29, 2008 12:12 AM
Comment #257041

timesend -

Check out the degree of REGULATION of those Swiss citizens - much greater than our own, and, IIRC (I could be wrong), semiautomatic handguns are forbidden there.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 29, 2008 1:13 AM
Comment #257042

timesend -

errata on Switzerland - semiauto handguns are allowed, but:

Weapons may be carried in public ONLY by those who:
- pass a background check.
- state “plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger”.
- passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon.

In order to transport a gun in public (as inside a vehicle):
* The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
* The transport has to be direct, ie:
o For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
o To an army warehouse and back,
o To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
o To and from a specific event, e.g. gun shows

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions. The participants in such a transaction are also required to write down a contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon’s type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller.

Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer’s name in a bound book.

So timesend - whose gun regulations are more restrictive? Peaceful Switzerland’s? Or the VAST majority of America’s (not counting the few cities whose bans just got overturned)?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 29, 2008 1:33 AM
Comment #257046

dbs - PLEASE check your sources.

According to the Australian Government Institute of Criminology (whose word I trust more than the NRA’s):
In 1996 (the year that semiauto guns (but NOT all guns) were banned) the homicide rate was slightly over 1.8 per 100,000. Now it’s about 1.4 per 100,000.
In 2007, researchers at the Australian National University reported “There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected,” There was a reduction in both murders and suicides.

So much for Australia. Now let’s look at England:

Man, but England really had a big spike in homicides after they banned semiauto guns, didn’t they? But how about let’s take a CLOSER look at those stats?

There was a slight increase in homicides in the three years after the ban took effect, but then there’s the spike, the one that would seem to surely bolster your case. Know what that spike’s from?

- The figures for 2000/01 include 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route to the UK. (which added about 6% to the total)

- Increases in homicides in recent years, and in particular 2002/03, have been influenced by the victims of Harold Shipman, whose deaths will have occurred some years prior to the period in which they were recorded. (215 murders(!), which in a normal year would account for more than a quarter of all murders in England)

- Data for the British Transport Police are included from 2002/03 onwards. (which were NOT added to the previous lows, remember)

- There were a total of 765 homicide offences recorded in 2005/06, a decrease of twelve per cent compared to the previous year. The figure of 765 includes 52 homicide victims of the 7 July London bombings.

So if one takes all these into account, there apparently has been a statistically significant decrease in the number of homicides in the UK since the semiautomatic weapons ban took effect.

NOT ONLY THAT, but the gun crime stats from 2005/6 includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 [involving imitation firearms] respectively in 1998/99.[25] Only those “firearms” positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers [of crimes with imitation firearms] are likely to be significantly higher.

dbs, just because the NRA posts some stats doesn’t make those stats true. All other things being equal, the degree of safety in free countries raises in DIRECT proportion to the degree of enforced regulation of the populations’ firearms.

And you can’t refute that. You’ve tried Australia and England, and timesend tried Switzerland…and I’ve shown you the errors in your claims.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 29, 2008 2:14 AM
Comment #257067
googlumpugus d.a.n. Just wanted to check, You think the founders had in mind your neighbor down the street buying SCUDS and Bill Gates building Nuclear missile silos on his place in Seattle?

googlumpugus, Perhaps you should examine these top 10 abuses of theory and logic (especially # (10) and #(02) below):

  • (10) IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS (apples to oranges):
      Example: $30 is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari.

  • (09) INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF FACT:
      Example: Your theory of gravity doesn’t address the question of why there are no unicorns, so your theory must be wrong.

  • (08) IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT GOOD REASON:
      Example: Sure the experts say you shouldn’t ride a bicycle in the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.

  • (07) REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION:
      Example: My car won’t start. I’m certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.

  • (06) OVER-APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR (which states that the simplest explanation must be correct):
      Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes.

  • (05) INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES AND EFFECTS:
      Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: they were good singers.

  • (04) JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF IT’S CHARACTERISTICS:
      Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore the planet would be better off without the sun.

  • (03) BLAMING THE TOOL:
      Example: I bought an encyclopedia but I’m still ignorant.

  • (02) TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
      Example: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know, he’ll be lopping your limbs off.

  • (01) PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE:
      Example: I’ve never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people.

Obviously, the threat level of a hand-gun and nuclear missiles are vastly different (a pitiful attempt to use an apples-to-oranges comparison; see #(10) above).
After all, a nuclear missile is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD), and poses a potential hazard to millions of people (possible planet-wide).

Neighbors are rarely endangered by their neighbors’ right to own a hand-gun or rifle.
However, a nuclear missile poses a serious risk to thousand (if not millions) of people; not only if detonated, but potential radiation hazards, etc.

Also, there’s an obvious mismatch.
A hand-gun may not be a very good defense against a nuclear missile or SCUD missile.

Despite the following:

  • Guns don’t kill people. People do.

  • Pencilz dont mispel wordz. People do.

  • Spoons don’t make people fat. People do.

  • Cars don’t make people speed. People do.

  • Laws don’t make people break them. People do.
… WMD is a significantly different matter and poses a MUCH larger threat.
No individuals (e.g. Bill Gates) needs a nuclear missle for self-defense.
And I also would not want my neighbor running a methamphetamine-lab next door either, due to the risk of explosion (aside from not being necessary for self-defense).

While I support 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, I’m not opposed to some regulation.

So, to answer your question: NO. I would not want my neighor to own a nuclear missile or SCUD missiles.

And I also don’t see why my neighbor should need explosives and bombs.
Certain rights are subject to constraints.
None of us should have the right to unnecessarily endanger others by potentially wide-spread and catastrophic weapons or activities.
However, we also can not deprive law-abiding citizens the right to self-defense, and banning hand-guns does that.
It is not only a constitutional violation, but morally wrong, since the police can not protect everyone.
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens also makes it easier for criminals to break the law.

Self defense is a right too.

For those that don’t like the 2nd Amendment, they should try to get the law changed.
But it won’t be easy.
Fortunately, even though 4 of 9 (44.4%) of the Supreme Court Justices need some remedial reading and comprehension, the vast majority of Americans get it …

    Do you believe the 2nd Amendment should protect an individual’s right to have a gun?
    • 5831 votes:

    • YES: 91.9%

    • NO: 8.1%
    Would you support legislation for stricter gun control in your state?
    • 5839 votes:

    • YES: 15.8%

    • NO: 84.2%
However, even if 34+ states wanted to amend the 2nd amendment, it won’t be easy since Congress has also chosen to violate Artcle V (denying states the right to propose amendments).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2008 11:52 AM
Comment #257068

glenn

we could probably do this till the cows come and niether of is going to have a change of heart.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm

http://www.rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://www.geocities.com/elvis_rambo/guns.html

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

you’ll really like this one. keep in mind the source of these statistics not who is presenting them. kinda throws a wrench in the assault weapons hype. maybe we should repeal the NFA of 1934.

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

Posted by: dbs at June 29, 2008 11:54 AM
Comment #257079

Kleck and Lott are hacks. I read drafts of their books before they came out and they don’t know what they are doing. One major indication of this is their use of regression ignoring the well known phenomenon of regression to the mean, which guarantees that high values measured with variability will regress to the mean when remeasured. And their dismissal of whole swaths of research by experienced epidemiologists betrays their ignorance of proper methodology. The only reason they are on the bookshelves is that they couldn’t get their crap published in a reputable journal. Pull your head out of the right wing echo chamber for a minute and you’ll find there is a whole world of rational, balanced research going on.

p.s. I love this cartoon. Dare you to click on it.

Posted by: mental wimp at June 29, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #257082

Some studies show (such as Australia which has a gun-ban that went into effect in 1997) that while firearm homicides fell slightly, and the total number of homicides increased slightly, and the homicide by other methods (e.g. knives) increased.

Also, assaults, sexual assaults, and non-motor vehicle thefts increased significantly (from 1997 to 2003).

Unlawful entries increased until 2001, and then started decreasing, but not vastly below 1997 levels. Also, firearm homicides were already falling (by about 10%) since year 1980, long before the gun-ban, but violent crimes increased slightly anyway. The assaults in Australia have been increasing about 6% per year since the gun-ban. Thus, there’s no proof that the gun-ban reduced crime or firearm violence, since violent crime rates are rising. Naturally, criminals simply ignore firearm laws, and law-abiding citizens are left with no self-defense.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2008 2:11 PM
Comment #257086

It’s quite a stretch of logic to believe that the 2nd Amendment was intended to only apply to the militia, when in the year 1791, when the 2nd amendment was ratified, gun ownership was vital to hunting, self-defense, and basic survival. To re-interpret the 2nd amendment any other way requires some rather ridiculous twisting and construction (see #(11) regarding rules of construction).

Here’s a better cartoon. : p

Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2008 2:50 PM
Comment #257098

d.a.n. -

Did you not read what I posted about Australia’s homicide stats? Check the sources I used - the Australian government - and then check your own.

SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons were banned in Australia - not single-fire…and when one reads the statistics PROPERLY from TRULY RELIABLE sources, then one sees their homicide rate has gone DOWN since the semiauto weapons ban took effect.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 29, 2008 3:48 PM
Comment #257101

dbs -

That’s the problem with going to unreliable websites using unreliable data. For instance, your first three sources discuss the rise in crime in England through 2003…but you apparently did not take into account the FACTS I posted WHY those stats seemed to be higher.

THEN you posted a link to a graph done by the International Crime Victims Survey. Taking ONE graph’s word without taking into account the context of the WHOLE document leads to false understanding. Here’s what the ICVS says as part of its summary: “…Australia shows the same trend as the European countries with an all time peak around 2000 for most types of crimes and a sharp drop thereafter”.

That’s what YOUR reference says, dbs.

If your other references were true, then the states and nations that have little or no gun regulation would be safe, orderly, and free.

Are there free, safe, and orderly states or nations that have a HIGH degree of gun ownership regulation?

Many.

Are there free, safe, and orderly states or nations that have LITTLE or NO gun ownership regulation?

Not a single one.

Feel free to try to prove otherwise.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 29, 2008 4:13 PM
Comment #257104

Glenn Contrarian, I stand corrected on the fact that not all types of guns were banned in Australia.

However, the article I cited was by the Australian government.

There is no convincing evidence that removing 640,000+ weapons reduced crime, since the Australian government’s own report (year 2004) shows that violent crimes increased (not decreased).

It’s unlikely the Australian government, who bought 640,000+ weapons for over $320 Million Australian dollars (in 1998), if they were going to lie, would lie such that it makes their plan look like a failure.

Also, if you look anywhere else, you can find conflicting reports about crime decreasing and increasing (most of them stating that crime rates increased). Therefore, the most credible report is the Australian government’s own report: www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/facts_and_figures_2004.pdf

Regardless of what happened in Australia, the 2nd Amendment is the law.
If people want it changed, then 34+ states should file Article V Applications requesting it.

That may be the only other route since the Supreme Court has setteld the matter for now.
Good luck, since the vast majority of Americans also agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling (www.latimes.com/news/la-na-scotus27-2008jun27,0,3423814.story?track=rss&vote40442808=1):

    Do you believe the 2nd Amendment should protect an individual’s right to have a gun?
    • 5831 votes:

    • YES: 91.9%

    • NO: 8.1%
    Would you support legislation for stricter gun control in your state?
    • 5839 votes:

    • YES: 15.8%

    • NO: 84.2%
However, even if 34+ states wanted to amend the 2nd amendment, that may not be very easy either, since Congress has also chosen to violate Artcle V (denying states the right to propose amendments).

Still, I’m not opposed to some regulations. Obviously, the public shouldn’t be allowed to carry weapons onto airlines, and other places where weapons are an unwise mix (e.g. bars, clubs, federal buildings, courts, public K-12 schools, etc.). But I believe people have a right to defend themselves.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2008 5:04 PM
Comment #257109

BRILLIANT, d.a.n. -

You used an UNSCIENTIFIC Java-script INTERNET POLL to bolster your belief. Try using Gallup or one of the REPUTABLE polling organizations and you’ll find a VERY different answer. Don’t get me wrong - I, like a _majority_ of Americans, believe that law-abiding citizens have a right to gun ownership…but there is NOTHING that states we have the right to semi-auto or automatic weapons.

AND did you actually READ the Australian government document that you referenced?

Look on page 17 - the homicide rate is now BELOW where it was when the semiauto weapons ban was enacted.

Look on page 25 - same story with armed robberies.

There WAS a peak in 2001, just as there was in Europe about the same time, possibly a year earlier. Seeing such a peak in both Australia AND Europe blows to smithereens any supposition that a ‘gun ban’ caused the homicide rate to go up…and by NO means provides evidence that the ban did not help to decrease the violent crime rate.

Why?

Because steering the ship of state is not that different from steering a ship - make the adjustment by turning the wheel…then wait for the desired effect to take place.

So how about you try comparing your belief to this observation:

How many free, safe, and orderly countries have a HIGH degree of firearm regulation?

Many.

How many free, safe, and orderly countries have LITTLE OR NO firearm regulation?

Not a single one.

Can you prove me wrong?

(‘timesend’ mentioned Switzerland…but I showed how they (like Israel) have a higher degree of firearm regulation than we do.)

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 29, 2008 5:38 PM
Comment #257120
…but there is NOTHING that states we have the right to semi-auto or automatic weapons.

There is nothing that says we don’t have the right to those weapons either!

Quit bickering.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 29, 2008 7:43 PM
Comment #257141

Weary Willie -

You stepped in, so the challenge applies to you as well:

How many free, safe, and orderly countries have a HIGH degree of firearm regulation?

Many.

How many free, safe, and orderly countries have LITTLE OR NO firearm regulation?

Not a single one.

Can you prove me wrong?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 30, 2008 6:41 AM
Comment #257147

glenn

“but there is NOTHING that states we have the right to semi-auto or automatic weapons.”

sorry, gotta side with willie on this one. BTW, do you or have you ever owned a gun, and just how much knowlege do you have of firearms, and how they function. you mention semi-auto weapons, so please do elaborate. be careful this is an area i’m fairly knowlegable in, having been around and owning guns all my life.

Posted by: dbs at June 30, 2008 8:17 AM
Comment #257156
Glenn Contrarian wrote: BRILLIANT, d.a.n. - You used an UNSCIENTIFIC Java-script INTERNET POLL to bolster your belief.
Thank you.

That was only one of numerous polls, and they all show that most Americans support the Supreme Court’s decision.

But that wasn’t the clincher.
I also used the Australian government’s own report that showed that violent crimes have actually increased.

Glenn Contrarian wrote: Try using Gallup or one of the REPUTABLE polling organizations and you’ll find a VERY different answer.
OK.

According to this GALLUP POLL, 73% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken 08-to-10-FEB-2008.

Anything else?

Glenn Contrarian wrote: Don’t get me wrong - I, like a _majority_ of Americans, believe that law-abiding citizens have a right to gun ownership…
Huh? You just said …
Glenn Contrarian wrote: Try using Gallup or one of the REPUTABLE polling organizations and you’ll find a VERY different answer.
So, which is it?
Glenn Contrarian wrote: but there is NOTHING that states we have the right to semi-auto or automatic weapons.
And in many states, there is nothing that bans semi-automatic weapons. I own a few myself.
Glenn Contrarian wrote: AND did you actually READ the Australian government document that you referenced?
Yes, I did. After looking at it again, it supports the fact that violent crimes rates increased.
Glenn Contrarian wrote: Look on page 17 - the homicide rate is now BELOW where it was when the semiauto weapons ban was enacted.
False.

Homicide rates remained about the same between 1997 and 2003 (see page 5):
______ Homicides in Australia increased slightly (1993 to 2003)_____:
375 |——————————
350 |—————-o————
325 |—-o————-o———
300 |o——o-o———-o-o-o
270 |-o———-o—————
250 |——————————
_____1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 YEAR
_____9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
_____9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
_____3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3

However, violent crime rates increased (see page 5) mainly due to violent assaults.
____ Homicide rate per 100,000 persons in Australia (1993 to 2003)_____:
900 |———————-
850 |———————-
800 |——————a-a
750 |————a-a——
700 |——a-a————
650 |—a——————
600 |a———————
550 |———————-
NNN |…………….
200 |———————-
150 |——r-r-r-r——
100 |rsrs-s-s-s-srsr
050 |———————-
000 |h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h
_____1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 YEAR
_____9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
_____9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
_____6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3

Where a = violent assualts (increased)
Where h = homicides (about the same)
Where s = sexual assaults (slight increase)
Where r = robberies (about the same; slightly higher for both armed and unarmed robberies; see below)

Glenn Contrarian wrote: Look on page 25 - same story with armed robberies.
False.

Robberies (both armed and unarmed increased slightly between 1995 and 2003 (see page 13):
____ Robbery victims in Australia (1995 to 2003)_____:
1700 |————————-
1600 |——————u——
1500 |——————-u—-
1400 |—————-u-u—-
1300 |—————u—-u—
1200 |——u-u-u——-u—
1100 |—-u———a—-u—
1000 |—-u——-a-a—-u-
0900 |—u—-a-a—a——u
0800 |u——a-a——a——
0700 |——a———-a——
0600 |—-a————-a-a-
0500 |—a——————-a
0400 |a————————
0300 |————————-
______1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 YEAR
______9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
______9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
______5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3

Where a = armed robbery (slightly higher)
Where u = unarmed robbery (slightly higher)

Glenn Contrarian wrote: There WAS a peak in 2001, just as there was in Europe about the same time, possibly a year earlier. Seeing such a peak in both Australia AND Europe blows to smithereens any supposition that a ‘gun ban’ caused the homicide rate to go up…and by NO means provides evidence that the ban did not help to decrease the violent crime rate.
The gun-ban did not decrease violent crime, assaults, sexual assaults, overall homicides, or robberies.
Glenn Contrarian wrote: So how about you try comparing your belief to this observation:
Glenn Contrarian (how apropos), the facts do not support your arguments, since violent crimes increased.
Glenn Contrarian wrote: How many free, safe, and orderly countries have a HIGH degree of firearm regulation? Many.
Non-sequitur.

The problem isn’t firearms.
It’s the people, and society.
Violence is not due to firearms.
It’s due to people.
Pencilz dont mispel wordz.
Spoons don’t make people fat.
Blaming the tool is a common mistake.
Removing (or reducing) people’s ability to defend themselves appears to in fact increase violent crime, based on Australia’s own government report.
It most certainly did NOT reduce violent crime in Australia (see chart below).

Glenn Contrarian wrote: How many free, safe, and orderly countries have LITTLE OR NO firearm regulation? Not a single one.
That proves nothing. Just becaues most governments want to ban or regulate guns doesn’t mean less guns results in less violence.

In fact, Australia’s government report shows that violent crimes increased, despite confiscating 640,000+ guns.

Read the Australian government’s report again.
You clearly misinterpreted the data.

Violent assaults have been steadily rising 6% per year since 1995.
____ Violent assaults in Australia (1995 to 2003)_____:
15000 |————————-
14000 |————————a
13000 |—————-a——-
12000 |———-a————-
11000 |—-a——————-
10000 |—a———————
09000 |-a———————-
08000 |a————————
07000 |————————-
______1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 YEAR
______9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
______9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
______5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3

Where a = violent assaults (increased 6% per year)

Glenn Contrarian wrote: Can you prove me wrong?
Just did.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at June 30, 2008 9:48 AM
    Comment #257196

    I live in Arizona, I don’t have any stats or numbers to post but I do know this; violent criminals in this state stand a very real chance of dying in the commission of a felony against a citizen here. I remember a few months ago a news report about a man who was woke up by someone stealing his truck from his driveway at 3am (short story) he shot and killed the thief and no charges were brought against him. In Texas it is lawful to defend your life AND your property even your neighbors property.
    In the ’20s alcohol was illegal, did that stop people from getting drunk? Drugs are illegal but they’re everywhere…(68% of the prison population in this country are doing time for NON-violent drug offenses). So any logical person could understand the idea that if you take guns away from law-abiding citizens then the only people that will have guns are the ones that shouldn’t.
    Here’s something that is going on right now, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (McCain voted in favor of it) and part of it is the Civil Assistance Plan, which gives the militaries of Mexico and Canada authority in the U.S. should they be needed…like in the event of martail law. KNOCK KNOCK, hello Mr. Citizen we’re here to confiscate your guns, step aside please.
    Here’s how WE can fix it:
    bobbarr2008.com
    tenurecorrupts.com
    termlimits.com
    voidnow.org

    And lastly I’d like to ask a question for everyone to think about and that is, What is a lawyer? The answer: A highly trained and practiced LIAR….VOTE THE LAWYERS OUT OF OFFICE

    Posted by: Michael Hahn at July 27, 2008 2:15 PM
    Post a comment