|
|
|
|
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/18/2008 5:14:08 PM | | WOW, I'm impressed..a state with a dumber law then New Jersey. Or as we like to call it, the Socialist State of New Jersey. Some gun laws are good, some are bad..and some just plain stupid! | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/18/2008 5:18:28 PM | Even as a gun control advocate, I do have to agree that such an view of the law is a bit silly.
It does make sense that someone might "unload" a gun when stopped by a policeman, so I do see a certain grey area. If one walked up to a car, found a revolver, and then six rounds on the car's floor - it might seem to indicate it was recently unloaded to avoid charges.  | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/18/2008 5:52:20 PM | As a former Police Officer, I cannot recall ever taking an empty gun, of any kind, out of a vehicle.
I worked in two different cities, in two different Counties, each of which seemed to have a very active drug, and gun, trade. These fine, upstanding citizens always had their guns loaded, and under, or between, the seats.
On the rare occasion, I had spoke with someone transporting a firearm legally, every one of these people told me there was a gun in the car, or truck, and exactly where it was; before I could introduce myself. As best I can recall, every one of these people were transporting their guns empty, and in locked cases. I don't recall asking any of them where the ammunition was; I presumed it would have been locked up with the guns.
That's a really bad interpretation by the Courts. It's really surprising that this interpretation of "unloaded" hasn't been overturned. I suspect that this interpretation will be taken up on appeal one of these days, and will likely be overturned.
I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on what types of guns someone may own, or who may own them. As has been stated before, the mentally infirm have no business with a firearm.
It's rather ironic, that a large numbe of gun control advocates are guarded by people carrying guns. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/18/2008 7:08:42 PM |
It's rather ironic, that a large numbe of gun control advocates are guarded by people carrying guns.
OK. I can't resist.
It's not ironic at all.
The people who are doing the guarding have sworn an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution. I have no problem with anyone who swears an oath bearing arms, because if they don't do it conscientiously then they open themselves up to a charge of treason or sedition.
We don't just need a check on the government, we also need a check on the power of neighbors who have guns. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/18/2008 7:22:06 PM |
It's rather ironic, that a large numbe of gun control advocates are guarded by people carrying guns.
OK. I can't resist.
It's not ironic at all.
The people who are doing the guarding have sworn an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution. I have no problem with anyone who swears an oath bearing arms, because if they don't do it conscientiously then they open themselves up to a charge of treason or sedition.
I believe lostcauz was commenting on the fact that the Sarah Brady's and Rosie O'Donnell's of the world use private armed security while spouting off about how firearms are destroying American society.
To my knowledge, bodyguards swear no allegiance and only have to pass a routine background check to obtain employment. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/18/2008 7:35:56 PM | Excellent Post Thank You and here's my addition in the Framers words themselves as to why we have the second amendement. I Posted this once before and not one single person addresed the quotes by MY forefathers here in America, all they wanted to do was try and flame ME from a foreign land LOL
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms…”
THOMAS JEFFERSON
“…The people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state…”
PENNSYLVANIA DECLARATION OF 1776
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
PATRICK HENRY
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people…To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them…”
GEORGE MASON
“Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed—unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms.”
JAMES MADISON
“…Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and
preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace.”
THOMAS PAINE
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States…”
NOAH WEBSTER
“Liberty and order will never be perfectly safe until a trespass on the Constitutional provisions for either, shall be felt with the same keenness that resents and invasion of the dearest rights…”
JAMES MADISON
“They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self defense.”
JOHN ADAMS
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
SAMUEL ADAMS
“Those who reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
THOMAS PAINE
THE END to why we have the right to bear Arms and not muskets and knives. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/18/2008 7:56:09 PM |
I believe lostcauz was commenting on the fact that the Sarah Brady's and Rosie O'Donnell's of the world use private armed security while spouting off about how firearms are destroying American society.
To my knowledge, bodyguards swear no allegiance and only have to pass a routine background check to obtain employment.
Ouch. My bad. That's pretty darned hypocritical! I'm not sure how they can justify that; I sure can't. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/18/2008 8:36:38 PM | | If you have a permit to carry a gun on your person you will not get into trouble with officers of the law if the gun is loaded. Why get a carry permit for an unloaded gun? What is the use of having an unloaded locked up gun? I am talking about protection. Naturally, we all should keep guns out of the way of children and out of sight. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 1:38:33 AM |
If you have a permit to carry a gun on your person you will not get into trouble with officers of the law if the gun is loaded. Why get a carry permit for an unloaded gun? What is the use of having an unloaded locked up gun? I am talking about protection. Naturally, we all should keep guns out of the way of children and out of sight.
The situation of the "loaded" gun that I described in Ohio, is for gun owners who do NOT have a license for concealed carry.
Other stupid examples from Ohio law...
You cant bring a gun onto a college campus unless as a concealed carry licensee, you are arriving in your vehicle, with your handgun on your person, in a holster as required by the car transport sections of the concealed carry law. The law then specifically allows you the opportunity to immediately lock your gun in the trunk. However... there is no provision for you to then get your gun out of the trunk upon your departure. Go to get your gun from the trunk, and you violate law.
The law disallows the presence of guns in a "school safety zone". On it's face, people may think this sounds "reasonable"... until you look at how the law defines the term "school safety zone" to include any "school activity" (among other things.) As an example, you cant pick up or drop off your own child at school... the act of doing so is a "school activity". (See http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfiles/Issue-School_Zone.pdf)
And finally, all the attempts to differentiate between who can transport a loaded gun, and who can transport an unloaded gun, have become so muddled in their wording, that technically, there is no way to transport a gun, loaded OR unloaded, without a concealed carry license. (See http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfiles/Issue-Unload_Transportation.pdf) | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 3:08:29 AM | Unfortunately, the example of Ohio pointed out, is not unique. Other states also have very strange provisions within their firearms regulations. For a very long time in Texas, no one, other than a licensed Peace Officer could carry a handgun, on or about their person, with some limited exceptions. One of those exceptions, was when a person was traveling.
However, the definition of traveling was, quite literally, a moving target. It seemed as if everyone had a different definition of what "traveling" meant, for the purposes of carrying a handgun. One of our instructors told us that any time he found a handgun in a car, if the person wasn't a licensed Peace Officer, he arrested them for Unlawful Carrying of a Handgun.
When it came to schools, no one was to carry a handgun onto an "Institution of Higher Learning." This put some Peace Officers into a real catch 22, as they were required to carry their gun, badge, and ID, at all times. What was an even better example of catch 22 was the Peace Officers who worked at the college, and took classes there. We always laughed at this provision, and figured it would get worked out one of these days.
I was, in fact, referring to Rosie O'Donnell, and her daughter, who, last I knew, were guarded by persons carrying handguns. No, these people guarding Ms. O'Donnell, and her daughter, are not Peace Officers.
While there need to be reasonable, and uniform, regulation of firearms, what we have to endure today, to buy a gun is quite ridiculous. Furthermore, I cannot see where these regulations on firearms purchases, including the ban on Class III weapons, has done anything to deter criminals.
I found it rather ironic that in the article quoted from Canada, that their database of registered gun owners could be hacked in 30 minutes. Then, after complying with the registration requirements, some of these collectors had been relieved of their collections, by criminals using the gun registry database as a shopping list. Unlike Canada, there are still a lot of machine guns in the hands of private collectors in the United States. These machine guns, are naturally kept behind substantial security, by collectors licensed to have them.
Wat kind of howling would we hear from the gun grabbers, if say, 10,000 fully functional, well maintained, machine guns suddenly hit the streets? For those who may not know, a private citizen can own a machine gun, in some states. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 3:48:08 AM | From an earlier post by "designingwoman"...
Smith and Wesson is on the cutting edge of training for gun users. The company has an excellent training facility in Springfield Mass.
I agree with her points about training. I've trained multiple times with John Farnam, and with John Benner of Ohio's own excellent Tactical Defense Institute (TDI). I would like next to attend either Massad Ayoob's Lethal Force Institute, or the SIG Academy, both in New Hampshire. However, in Massachusetts (where I was born), I find something very curious. I own a pair of Springfield Armory 1911's (my primary IDPA handgun of choice.) The two pistols, both in .45ACP, are identical in their configuration in every detail except one. That single minor difference makes one of them "an assault weapon" under Massachusetts law. Would anyone care to wager a guess as to what it is about that particular pistol that elevates it to the status of an "assault weapon"?
I'd love to attend Smith and Wesson's training some day, but some states are a little less ridiculous than others, in their laws. I'm not worried about the training facility. It's the driving through the state, the staying at the hotel, the commute back and forth between the hotel and the facility, and the fact that unless I rent a handgun from the facility, I'd have to pr-register my handgun with the state before entering the state, or face a mandatory one year prison sentence for having an unregistered handgun in Massachusetts.
The difference between my otherwise identical pistols that makes the one an "assault weapon" under Massachusetts law? It has an adjustable rear sight. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 3:53:45 AM |
You have already admitted on another thread that gun registry is a fiasco in your own country.
The US has a different consitution and a different set of demographics. A law that is acceptable by SOME of your own countrymen doesn't mean that it would be aceptanble by the majority of citizens of another country.
The gun registery isn't the primary means by which gun ownership is controled in our country. Once again your ignorance is shining through on this.
Handguns are simply much more difficult to purchase up here than they are down there, they're also much less commonly used in crimes. The two are in fact related.
Feel free to keep harping on the Canadian gun registry, something I've never actually brought up as an example of a good policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2] | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 9:34:18 AM | Charles you are the one that likes to compare the US crime rate to the Canadian crime rate. You attribute that to Canada's gun laws. Right?
Well registration is a large part of Canada's gun laws , as has been noted many times throughout this thread.
As has also been noted many of the law associations ( including those in Canada) do not agree with it. Primarily because they don't feel that gun control keeps the firearms out of the hands of criminals. (like that is a surprise)
Claiming that gun registration is not a primary part of Canada's gun laws is pure fallacy. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 9:44:32 AM |
The gun registery isn't the primary means by which gun ownership is controled in our country. . . ..
Handguns are simply much more difficult to purchase up here than they are down there, they're also much less commonly used in crimes. The two are in fact related.
Feel free to keep harping on the Canadian gun registry, something I've never actually brought up as an example of a good policy.
The fact that an issue, or point, has not been raised, does not negate the issue, nor the point, in any discussion.
Perhaps one of our neighbors from up North would be so kind as to enlighten us as to how Canadians are able to have "access to guns, including handguns", as well as under what circumstances any of these may be kept by the private citizens of Canada.
Rather enlightening that the good citizens of Canada to strictly comply with gun registration laws, and register all of their nail guns, staple guns, glue guns, and all of their other guns. Gee, I wonder if the gun regisrtation laws up there apply to squirt guns that children commonly use at play? After all, it is a gun. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 10:59:12 AM | Reason why Canada has a lower death rate caused by guns then the states is do to training. In Canada to get your PAL or POL license so you can have a gun we are trained to respect and understand the weapons. We are also further taught about proper storage when they are in your homes.
The gun registry has nothing to do with lowering the death in Canada. That is something the Canadian politicians are trying to portray to the public for there over expenditures of taxpayer money on the long gun registry. That money could have been used for other practical agendas.  | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 11:04:26 AM |
Reason why Canada has a lower death rate caused by guns then the states is do to training. In Canada to get your PAL or POL license so you can have a gun we are trained to respect and understand the weapons. We are also further taught about proper storage when they are in your homes.
The gun registry has nothing to do with lowering the death in Canada. That is something the Canadian politicians are trying to portray to the public for there over expenditures of taxpayer money on the long gun registry. That money could have been used for other practical agendas.
Huh?
Wouldn't reason(s) that Canada has less gun violence than the US be more likely due to:
1) A lower population
2) A better standard of living.
3) A different historical perspective than the US.
4) More draconian police controls than here.
5) Fewer major cities
And many more things....
Canada, is a different country than here.
What works there may not work here and vice-versa. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 4:14:03 PM | It says that 816 people — 767 males and 49 females — died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002, the most recent year examined in the study. This represented 2.6 deaths per 100,000 population, down from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1979, it said.
Guns seized by Toronto police in February 2005.
Among males, the 2002 rate was 4.9 deaths per 100,000, down from 10.6 in 1979. Among females, it was 0.3, down from 1.2.
In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females.
Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada's, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada.
Note: when comparing to the gun related deaths to the US it is done by ratios therefore the total population does not play a significant factor. It is a good representation of what is actually happening.
I also did not know that Canada had a better standard of living then the US.
Do not know how the history of the US would play a part of people using guns to kill each other? Believe drugs and poverty would play a bigger role than the history of the US. My own opinion.
Do not know enough of the effect of 4 & 5 to make an honest opinion.
Also note: that in 1979 a lot of Canadian gun owners would have there guns in gun racks or on end tables or standing in a corner of their bedrooms. Later in the mid 80's the guns were made to be stored in gun safes with trigger locks. Min would be a trigger lock with it in a case and out of sight. Notice with the change of proper storage there was also a change in the ratio of gun related deaths.
| |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 4:51:42 PM |
iamjumbo...i agree with u there. like anything else, once the mystery is taken out of it, kids are pretty safe with guns. at the right age, if you have firearms, the kids should be taught safety and how to use them. and if u have a gun for home protection, it doesnt do much use if its locked up and unloaded. but if not home, they should be secured. i am quite comfortable around firearms and been well trained on them. if i had one, it would be a M1911 .45cal, loaded and right next to my bed. prefer a Tommy gun, but cant own them...haha
absolutely. you don't hear about kids that have been taught gun safety since first or second grade having accidents with them
my ruger 9mm is fifteen years old, but a damn good gun. it is on the nightstand next to the bed, where i have a clear shot at the front door. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/19/2008 4:57:57 PM |
As far as kids go, what about some kid from the neighborhood? What about some kid off the street who heard you had a gun laying around from one of the other kids in the neighborhood? Don't be an idiot. Keep your gun stored properly or don't have one.
damn, you're daft. now you're talking about a kid burglarizing your house to get your gun? thirty years ago in a college debate against gun control, which obviously i won, i said that i would shoot a six year old running down the street with my tv. nothing has changed. since i don't live in texas, i can't do that if they're running away, but i damn sure can if he's breaking in. | |
|
| Interesting Statistics Canada v United States Gun Related Deaths
Posted: 2/19/2008 5:00:45 PM |
In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females.
Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada's, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada.
Doesn't the United States have approximately three times the population of Canada? Seems to me that someone pointed that out on this thread. Assuming the populations are substantially different, wouldn't the risks of any kind in the United States be exponentially higher than in Canada, simply because of the substantially larger population?
Note: when comparing to the gun related deaths to the US it is done by ratios therefore the total population does not play a significant factor. It is a good representation of what is actually happening.
The ratios used are blatantly skewed in favor of Canada, the author; perhaps even the Canadian governmental agency for which these quotes are taken. Given the huge cultural, and societal, difference in philosophy where firearms between Canada, and the United States; such ratio comparison falls far short of being objective on its face.
Moreover, the author fails to take into account that citizens of the United States has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to ". . . keep and bear Arms . . .."; whereas there is no such right in Canada.
I also did not know that Canada had a better standard of living then the US.
There are huge cultural, and societal, differences between Canada and the US; not the least of which is the standards of living for the majority of the respective populations.
Do not know how the history of the US would play a part of people using guns to kill each other? Believe drugs and poverty would play a bigger role than the history of the US. My own opinion.
All factors impacting any society, including its cultural history, will have an influence on that society's norms.
Do not know enough of the effect of 4 & 5 to make an honest opinion.
4) More draconian police controls than (the United States). Just the mere fact that Canadian Police run checks to see if there is a gun in the home, when they are dispatched to someone's home, supports the above quoted statement very clearly. 5) Fewer major cities (in Canada than the United States.) Just the difference in populations between Canada, and the United States, indicates there would be more major cities in the United States, than Canada. As has previously been stated in this thread, Canadians have a very different view of firearms, that Americans. A lady writes a letter to her local Mayor, stating her educated difference of opinion with the Mayor, where the banning of handguns is concerned, and the letter is forwarded to two different law enforcement agencies. This lady was a Canadian citizen, and posted in this thread, not long ago. Following her letter being received, she received a call from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the equivalent of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. Were this same lady a citizen of the United States, written the same letter, and the same things happened; she would likely be retiring in the very near future, because her Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech would have been violated, in addition to her right of privacy, as well as her civil rights. Canadians, in my humble opinion, have been socialized to believe that all guns, no matter what kind, are inherently evil. Whereas, in the United States, guns are just another part of every day life. No objective comparison of the two countries can be made, because there are far too many cultural factors to be weighed. While the Canadian model looks good on paper, when compared to the United States. It can hardly be supported by objective evidentiary facts, or logic. | |
|
| Interesting Statistics Canada v United States Gun Related Deaths
Posted: 2/19/2008 5:18:35 PM | The facts that I gave came from Stats Canada which is the government. Note that there would be a low probability of bias with the data given as it is just data. Now how you compare that data could be bias. Also, the fact that it is given in ratio such as a percentage would mean that the overall population was already taken into concideration. Therefore the overall population does not play a significant role.
Also note in Canada the long gun registration is fairly new. Stockwell Day has made comments about abandoning the long gun registration for the fact of the overwhelming cost to the tax payers. So as far as the cops would know who has guns in the house in the 90's would be as good of a guess as anyone could make. They just would not know. | |
|
| |
| Interesting Statistics Canada v United States Gun Related Deaths
Posted: 2/19/2008 6:00:08 PM | 5) Fewer major cities (in Canada than the United States.)
Found some date on that as well. According to Stats Canada being a major city does not have an effect. For example:
Toronto had 1.2 gun related death per 100 000 people
Vancouver had 1.52 gun related death per 100 000
Calgary had 2.1 gun related death per 100 000
Montreal had 2.14 gun related death per 100 000
Note: Toronto and Montreal have the biggest population. Also Toronto has China town as well. Therefore if being a major city played a role in gun related deaths why does Toronto has the lowest gun deaths. From that logic I would expect Toronto to be the highest. Also with more research into the stats I found out the most gun related death with suicides was Naunatuat. Which is a new province to Canada. Now as far as I know Naunatuat does not have major cites. So why are there gun related deaths so high compared to the rest. Note: most of their deaths is suicides. | |
|
| Interesting Statistics Canada v United States Gun Related Deaths
Posted: 2/19/2008 6:10:50 PM | Were this same lady a citizen of the United States, written the same letter, and the same things happened; she would likely be retiring in the very near future, because her Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech would have been violated, in addition to her right of privacy, as well as her civil rights.
I guess you live in a sad country when a citizen of your own country cannot voice an educated opinion to her elected person that goes against popular belief for the fact the topic is guns. When this letter did not even threaten anyone except to ask what their opinion on the gun issue is. You do live is a sad country if the women would loose her job on asking a simple question to her elected official. Guess if the women was a minority she would have been treated differently? | |
|
| Interesting Statistics Canada v United States Gun Related Deaths
Posted: 2/19/2008 6:42:17 PM | Gun Control Around the World:
Lessons to Learn
Adapted from my presentation at the 6th Annual Civitas Conference
Vancouver, BC
April 26-28, 2002
Dr. Gary A. Mauser
Professor
Faculty of Business Administration
Simon Fraser University
It’s time to pause and ask a few basic questions. If gun laws work to prevent criminal violence, why do these events keep
occurring? ..........
If gun control is supposed to reduce violent crime, then eventually this must be
demonstrated to be true, or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. However, most
criminologists admit (albeit reluctantly) that there is very little empirical support for the claim that laws designed to reduce general access to firearms reduce criminal violence
(eg, Kleck 1997). Frequently, assertions that gun laws work turn out to be bogus. In
Canada, the government uses the falling homicide rate as support for their claim that gun control laws are working. Unfortunately for this argument, the homicide rate has been falling even faster in the United States.
The drop in the criminal violence is much more dramatic in the US than it is in Canada
(Gannon 2001). Over the past decade, the Canadian homicide rate has declined about
25%, but the violent crime rate has not changed. In the US during the same time period,
both the homicide and the violent crime rates have plummeted by more than 40%. We
can’t credit gun laws entirely with this success. In both countries, the aging population
has helped bring down crime rates, and, in the US, long jail sentences for violent
criminals has also been effective.
The United States
Nevertheless, gun laws have played an important role in reducing crime rates in the US.
Since 1986, more than 25 states have passed new laws encouraging responsible citizens
to carry concealed handguns. As a result, the numbers of armed Americans in malls and in their cars has grown to almost 3 million men and women. As surprising as it is to the media, these new laws have caused violent crime rates to drop, including homicide rates.
In his scholarly book, More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John Lott shows how violent
crime has fallen faster in those states that have introduced concealed carry laws than in
the rest of the US (Lott 2000). His study is the most comprehensive analysis of American crime data ever completed. He shows that criminals are rational enough to fear being shot by armed civilians.
These graphs compare the relative drop in violent crimes in those states that recently
introduced concealed-handgun laws with those that did not. Since these laws were
introduced in various years, from 1986 to the 1990s, these changes are calculated from
the year the law was introduced (“0”). As can be seen, crime rates were increasing before the legislation was introduced, and the rates declined afterwards. Figure 4 examines the
impact upon violent crime in general, and Figure 5 looks at homicide specifically.
The drop in the US crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of
the world. In 18 of 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office violent crime
increased during the 1990s (Barclay et al, 1999). This contrast should provoke Canadians to wonder what happened in those countries where they believed that introducing more and more restrictive firearm laws would protect them from criminal violence.
Before we leap to the conclusion that our personal safety lies in making it ever more
difficult for average citizens to own and use firearms, we should look around the world to see what other countries have done and how successful these experiments have been.
Canadians are particularly interested in studying “English-style” firearm laws such as
followed by other countries in the British Commonwealth.
Despite the drop in rates of criminal violence in Canada, the gun law has little to do with it. In a study Professor Dennis Maki and I did recently, that will be published later this year by Applied Economics, we found that this legislation may even have caused an increase in armed robbery. In our study we evaluated 9 other factors in our model as “covariates.”
Once we factored out the effects of these other variables, the Canadian gun law
still had a significant effect. Unfortunately, this effect was positive, that is to say, the gun law actually acted to increase criminal violence.
---------------
Figure 6 – M&M t-test table
---------------
Great Britain.
The first country to consider is Britain, where they have endured a serious crime wave. In contrast to North America, where the homicide rate has been falling for over twenty years, the homicide rate in England and Wales has doubled over the past thirty years. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000 (British Home Office 2001).
In response to rising crime, British politicians, both Conservative and Labour, have
brought in laws that increasingly restricted firearms ownership by the general public.
Important changes to the firearm laws were made in 1988, and then again in 1992, before banning all handguns in 1997 (Greenwood 2001; Munday and Stevenson 1996). The Home Office has also tightened up on enforcement of regulations to such an extent that the firearm community has been virtually destroyed. Shotgun permits have fallen almost
30% since 1988 (Greenwood 2001). And the result of this Draconian gun control law in
Great Britain? It’s not pretty. No end appears in sight for the continuing crime wave.
Clearly, the firearm laws have not caused violent crime to fall, and the gun laws have
probably increased criminal violence by disarming the general public. Despite banning
and confiscating all handguns, violent crime, and firearm crime, continues to grow. The number of violent crimes involving handguns has increased from 2,600 in 1997/98 to 3,600 in 1999/00. And firearm crime has increased 200% in the past decade. The British Home Office admits that only one firearm in 10 used in homicide was legally held (British Home Office, 2001). But, the politicians continue their policy of disarming responsible citizens.
Australia
English-style gun laws have failed in Australia too. In 1997, the Australian federal
government panicked, following the horrific murders by a deranged man in 1996, and
banned and confiscated 600,000 semi-automatic “military style” firearms from their
licenced owners (Lawson 1999). The result? Violent crime continues to increase.
The destruction of the confiscated firearms cost Australian taxpayers an estimated $A
500 million, and there has been no visible impact on violent crime. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to escalate. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide --jumping from 30 per 100,000 in 1996 to 50 per 100,000 in 1999 (AIC, 2001). The homicide rate has not declined, and the share of firearm homicide involving handguns has doubled in the past five years (Mouzos 2001). As in Great Britain and Canada, few firearms used in homicide are legally held; in 99/00 only 12 out of 65 (18%) were identified as being misused by their legal owner (Mouzos 2001).
Conclusion
Gun laws may not reduce violent crime, but crime causes gun laws. The loser in this
drama is individual freedom. The winner is bureaucracy. Since it is a truism that only
law-abiding citizens obey gun laws, or any other kind of law for that matter, it is an
illusion that further tinkering with the law will protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive it is, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. There have always been criminals, and there have always been deranged people. Murder has been illegal for hundreds if not thousands of years. The truth is we live in a dangerous world, and the government can’t completely protect us.
This brief review of gun laws in the British Commonwealth suggests that English-style
gun laws have failed to reduce violent crime. However, more research needs to be done
before we can draw this conclusion with much confidence. All I’ve been able to do so far is to examine simple two-way analyses. Before we can have any confidence in our
conclusions, we need to conduct econometric studies in order to disentangle the complex events that occurred at the same time that new firearm laws were introduced.
Nevertheless, we can say that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country we’ve examined here: not Great Britain, not Canada, and not Australia. Only the United States has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence. One of the important reasons is that many states in the past two decades have encouraged
responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. Perhaps it is time criminologists
encouraged more individual self-reliance. | |
|
|
| Page 50 of 93
|
36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 |
|
Home
login 
