- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,097
- Reaction score
- 8,724
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
-
Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.
Popularity can't extend '94 assault weapon ban (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Schweddy
- Start date
LiberalFINGER
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 5
This is tripe. 9-11 and the assault ban are completely exclusive issues. These are the kinds of arguments commonly used by radicals and reactionaries who have failed to make valid arguments based on facts.
MSR
Member
This is a hard one.... I have no doubt that a ban on assault style weapons would prevent some deaths.. but the impact would be very small. Why? Because the kind of person that would use an assault rifle in a gun-fight with police is not interested in gun laws.
I am a strong advocate of the freedom to bare arms and I don't like to monkey with the constitution. However we do need laws that allow legal authorities the ability to protect society and themselves.
Perhaps laws limiting some types of weapons and explosives for non-US citizens and criminals convicted of violent crimes could be limited under the spirit of the constitution. In short, if you are not a US-citizen or if you use a weapon to commit a crime you lose your right to have certain classes of weapons.
Basically, we need laws that are tough on terrorists and criminals but are non-intrusive to law abiding citizens.
I am a strong advocate of the freedom to bare arms and I don't like to monkey with the constitution. However we do need laws that allow legal authorities the ability to protect society and themselves.
Perhaps laws limiting some types of weapons and explosives for non-US citizens and criminals convicted of violent crimes could be limited under the spirit of the constitution. In short, if you are not a US-citizen or if you use a weapon to commit a crime you lose your right to have certain classes of weapons.
Basically, we need laws that are tough on terrorists and criminals but are non-intrusive to law abiding citizens.
LiberalFINGER
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 5
MSR -
I agree. The only issue I really have with gun laws or lack thereof is where the line is drawn.
I have seen where some people feel it is perfectly acceptable for individuals to own machine guns and WMD. On the other hand, I'm sickened by people who think that we shouldn't even have hunting rifles.
I'm truly in the middle on this issue.
And just to add my own personal plight. . . My ability to carry my KABAR should be protected under the right to bare arms. If you can carry a .45, I should be allowed to carry a knife.
I agree. The only issue I really have with gun laws or lack thereof is where the line is drawn.
I have seen where some people feel it is perfectly acceptable for individuals to own machine guns and WMD. On the other hand, I'm sickened by people who think that we shouldn't even have hunting rifles.
I'm truly in the middle on this issue.
And just to add my own personal plight. . . My ability to carry my KABAR should be protected under the right to bare arms. If you can carry a .45, I should be allowed to carry a knife.
MSR
Member
It should be noted that making guns illegal doesn't reduce the level of violent crime or even murder. When I was in Great Britain a few years ago the newspapers are full of murders either by beatings or the use of knives.
However in this day and age we have to give the legal system that "we the people" have charged with our safety the ability to protect us. But we have to insist that they leave law abiding citizens alone.
However in this day and age we have to give the legal system that "we the people" have charged with our safety the ability to protect us. But we have to insist that they leave law abiding citizens alone.
LiberalFINGER
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 5
And in Japan, they don't use guns, they use nerve agents.
So, where should the line be drawn and what would be the reasoning behind the limit?
MSR
Member
That is the question isn't it.
I think the issue here is that most Americans do not understand the need for anyone to own fire-arms much-less automatic fire arms. The line will be drawn where the public allows it to be drawn.
But no-matter the law... the only ones who will follow the law are the ones who are least likely to present any kind of threat.
I think the issue here is that most Americans do not understand the need for anyone to own fire-arms much-less automatic fire arms. The line will be drawn where the public allows it to be drawn.
But no-matter the law... the only ones who will follow the law are the ones who are least likely to present any kind of threat.
The so called assault weapons ban was a pointless infringment on the second amendment IMO. The ban listed physical characteristics of the firearm to determine if it was legale or not. The news media as well as the liberal social groups continued to play up the signficance of the law expiring and how there would be mass murders in the street if the law expired. The weapons covered in the law are no different than several semi auto hunting rifles that have been used for many years with out the mass hysteria the media would like for you to belive. The guns are not fully automatic for those you must have a class 3 firearms license to own. It was and is ridiculous to burden law abiding citizens with laws that infringe on there right to protect and defend there homes, families, and country.
An armed society is a safe society.
An armed society is a safe society.
heyjoeo
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 1
The Assault Weapons ban really didn't effect much. It's main purpose was to prevent certain assault weapons from being legal because they had the purpose of being "Cop-Killers."
It is still extremely hard to legally own certain guns due to the National Firearms Act in 1934.
"Legal ownership of a machine gun requires an extensive federal background check, fingerprinting, signed clearance from the chief of local law enforcement (such as a county sheriff), a $200 excise tax , and weeks of paperwork. "
FactCheck.org
I don't believe a "BAN" on these weapons would solve anything. However I do support increased control over who owns those 19 said guns that were banned by the Assault Weapons ban that are similar to what you would normally have to go through to own an AK46 or M16 assault rifle.
It is still extremely hard to legally own certain guns due to the National Firearms Act in 1934.
"Legal ownership of a machine gun requires an extensive federal background check, fingerprinting, signed clearance from the chief of local law enforcement (such as a county sheriff), a $200 excise tax , and weeks of paperwork. "
FactCheck.org
I don't believe a "BAN" on these weapons would solve anything. However I do support increased control over who owns those 19 said guns that were banned by the Assault Weapons ban that are similar to what you would normally have to go through to own an AK46 or M16 assault rifle.
LiberalFINGER
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 5
I've always considered the question of arms to be one of practical use and safety.
I am relatively secure in the belief that a person owning what could be considered an assault rifle (ie AR-15) is not going to present much danger to himself or the public, however, I feel a belt-fed machine gun provides the too much potential for things going wrong.
We don't limit machine guns just because we don't want people to have them, we limit them because we don't want them being accessable to criminals. I'm sure that any one of us here would be able to handle an M-60, but how nervous would you be if you found your house broken into and your gunsafe missing. Would you want to be responsible for such a weapon being out on the black market? Keep in mind that the M-60 is a belt fed machinegun that fires a 7.62 NATO round designed to provide suppressive fire.
I am confident that anyone here can defend their homes without the use of such heavy fire power. Personally, I choose an axe. If our country were to be invaded, I assure you that with the firepower we currently have, we will be able to obtain additional weapons if needed.
To use home defense as a logic for having massive firepower in your home is like parking a fire truck in your driveway because you might have a grease fire in the kitchen.
I am relatively secure in the belief that a person owning what could be considered an assault rifle (ie AR-15) is not going to present much danger to himself or the public, however, I feel a belt-fed machine gun provides the too much potential for things going wrong.
We don't limit machine guns just because we don't want people to have them, we limit them because we don't want them being accessable to criminals. I'm sure that any one of us here would be able to handle an M-60, but how nervous would you be if you found your house broken into and your gunsafe missing. Would you want to be responsible for such a weapon being out on the black market? Keep in mind that the M-60 is a belt fed machinegun that fires a 7.62 NATO round designed to provide suppressive fire.
I am confident that anyone here can defend their homes without the use of such heavy fire power. Personally, I choose an axe. If our country were to be invaded, I assure you that with the firepower we currently have, we will be able to obtain additional weapons if needed.
To use home defense as a logic for having massive firepower in your home is like parking a fire truck in your driveway because you might have a grease fire in the kitchen.
Better to be prepared than caught wishing you were. I wish I could have a belt fed machine gun. Hell I'd like to have 1 mounted on my truck and one mounted in my living room. Why would I want such massive firepower? Because I beleive I have a right granted to me from god to protect myself and and my family from the evils that prey on society. This right is affirmed by the constitution of the united states. God gave me life as a gift and I have the right and the duty to protect it. I am unwilling to deal with paper work and the taxation of my rights so that is why I don't have a class 3 license and do not have a belt fed machine gun. However the discussion has gotten way off course. The assult weapons ban had nothing to do with machine guns, only semi auto rifles. And I thank god that the law has been removed and now all law abiding citizens can excersize there god given constitional rights to protect themselves and their families with appropriate firepower.
heyjoeo
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 1
That's absolutely ridiculous. Your selfish want to have the "ability to protect yourself" will just provide the weapons to the criminals so you HAVE to protect yourself. I don't understand that logic. Also, "God given" constititutional rights probably isn't good diction.
how is my want to protect myself going to provide weapons to criminals. If someone breaks in my house and I am home they will be shot. If I am not home all my weapons are locked in a safe that they could steal however they need to tear down my house to get it out. SO how am I providing weopons to criminals. Please explain your latest BS rant.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pacridge
DP Veteran
Well "by legalizing guns we make easy for criminals to get guns" that's usually the arguement. Though personally I think it's a complete load. And even if it were true isn't the Jeannie already out of the bottle now and the nation is loaded with guns? What are you going to do round' them all up? Hope ya get 'em all? Then the statement "then only the outlaws will have guns" would without a doubt be true.
And these arguements about other countries killing each other by beating and knives just not by guns is crap. There have been studies done for years that clearly show we American like nothing better than killing each other. Like no other nation on earth. Why? I have no idea. But for example in London, the largest city in the UK, the murder rate is 2.1 per 100,000 in pop. By contrast Washington D.C. our nations capitol logs 69.3 murders per 100,000 per year. Or roughly 30 times the number of London. We should be so proud. Let's be fair though, D.C. has become the murder capitol of the world. So let's look at other US cities Philly has 27.4 per 100,000 or 12 times that of London. Yeah, but that just London surely there must be other cites in the europe or the UK with higher rates right? Belfast the most dangerous city in the UK has a rate of 4.4. Still a fraction of that of any major US city. There is some hope though that we might not be killing each other faster than anybody else soon. The former Soviet Union's catching up, Moscow's rate has managed to climb to 18.1 this last year. So just because they don't have gun's doesn't mean they're not killing each other in other ways arguement doesn't hold water.
So if a country doesn't have guns they don't kill each right? Wrong again. Canada has a gun ownership at or above US levels. I'll say that again so you don't think I mis-typed it. They're a hunting, gun loving country. They're gun ownership is at or above US levels. This according to most sites I could find. So how many murder deaths to they record each year? About 1.73 per 100,000 of pop. So why do we kill each other when they don't? I think that's the $64,000 question isn't it? And let's be honest if I knew the answer or solution to that I wouldn't posting my mindless options on here, would I.
And these arguements about other countries killing each other by beating and knives just not by guns is crap. There have been studies done for years that clearly show we American like nothing better than killing each other. Like no other nation on earth. Why? I have no idea. But for example in London, the largest city in the UK, the murder rate is 2.1 per 100,000 in pop. By contrast Washington D.C. our nations capitol logs 69.3 murders per 100,000 per year. Or roughly 30 times the number of London. We should be so proud. Let's be fair though, D.C. has become the murder capitol of the world. So let's look at other US cities Philly has 27.4 per 100,000 or 12 times that of London. Yeah, but that just London surely there must be other cites in the europe or the UK with higher rates right? Belfast the most dangerous city in the UK has a rate of 4.4. Still a fraction of that of any major US city. There is some hope though that we might not be killing each other faster than anybody else soon. The former Soviet Union's catching up, Moscow's rate has managed to climb to 18.1 this last year. So just because they don't have gun's doesn't mean they're not killing each other in other ways arguement doesn't hold water.
So if a country doesn't have guns they don't kill each right? Wrong again. Canada has a gun ownership at or above US levels. I'll say that again so you don't think I mis-typed it. They're a hunting, gun loving country. They're gun ownership is at or above US levels. This according to most sites I could find. So how many murder deaths to they record each year? About 1.73 per 100,000 of pop. So why do we kill each other when they don't? I think that's the $64,000 question isn't it? And let's be honest if I knew the answer or solution to that I wouldn't posting my mindless options on here, would I.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,097
- Reaction score
- 8,724
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I agree with both you and CSA. I decided to slam the arugment with some good hard facts that gun control does not work! Let's just say, I was unable to find what I was looking for.
I remembered the Aussie gun control crap they have - not sure of you want to look at the statistics... or if you want to believe them.
Recorded crime in 2003
I remembered the Aussie gun control crap they have - not sure of you want to look at the statistics... or if you want to believe them.
Recorded crime in 2003
Does this prove that gun control works? Egads! I hope not.
Pacridge
DP Veteran
Well the numbers went down in this country after the '94 assault weapons ban went into effect. And as you point out the Aussies are expericing reduced numbers since they took the drastic steps they took. But let's be completely honest, you're never going to get anything like what Assuie's did to fly here State side. I mean the Aussies all but did gather every gun up. That ani't gonna happen here. First off no one I know would willingly hand one over. Second any politician that tried would have a better shot at building a ladder to outter space (something they are actually talking about.)
Pacridge
DP Veteran
Did you see the Aussie's murder rate per 100,000? 1.5 wonder what it was before the bans? I'd be willing to bet, and I have no idea here, that it was still closer to Canada's than ours. We just seem to love to kill one another. And I don't know why? Other than that Paris Hilton, she really bugs me. Her I could understand.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,097
- Reaction score
- 8,724
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
No way in hell are they taking my guns!
For the purposes of debate, the Aussie homicide drop is hard to rebut. It's a fact.
Unfortunatly, I cannot seem to find an up-to-date chart (there are '94-'98 charts everywhere) with comparisons of multiple countries.
So if a country doesn't have guns they don't kill each right? Wrong again. Canada has a gun ownership at or above US levels. I'll say that again so you don't think I mis-typed it. They're hunting, gun loving country. They're gun ownership is at or above US levels. This according to most sites I could find. So how many murder deaths to they record each year? About 1.73 per 100,000 of pop. So why do we kill each other when they don't? I think that's the $64,000 question isn't it?
Missed this earlier... damn fine argument.
For the purposes of debate, the Aussie homicide drop is hard to rebut. It's a fact.
Unfortunatly, I cannot seem to find an up-to-date chart (there are '94-'98 charts everywhere) with comparisons of multiple countries.
So if a country doesn't have guns they don't kill each right? Wrong again. Canada has a gun ownership at or above US levels. I'll say that again so you don't think I mis-typed it. They're hunting, gun loving country. They're gun ownership is at or above US levels. This according to most sites I could find. So how many murder deaths to they record each year? About 1.73 per 100,000 of pop. So why do we kill each other when they don't? I think that's the $64,000 question isn't it?
Missed this earlier... damn fine argument.
Pacridge
DP Veteran
Well one thing when you talk about violence in general and murder rates (and I know you Texan's are gonna love this one, cause as my buddie Ron White tells me: if you come to Texas and kill some one, we will kill you back!") Capital punishment sucks as a way to deter crime and murder. And I mean SUCKS with a capital S. When murder rates are compared between capital punishment states and those without those with always have higher rates, always. This last year you won out by a 69% higher number of murders. Last year it was only by a 36% higher number. But to be fair their were less executions carried out last year and studies show that the incidents for violence go up directly after an execution. But hey, keep executing people it's working well.
P.S. I don't actually know nor have I ever met Ron White, but he's welcome to come fishing anytime he'd like. Just no peeing in the canoe.
P.S. I don't actually know nor have I ever met Ron White, but he's welcome to come fishing anytime he'd like. Just no peeing in the canoe.
Last edited:
I think the reason DC has so many murders is because the citizens have been unarmed for years. No handguns allowed and all long arms must be stored disasembled with ammo in a seperate place. The law breakers know they are dealing with an unarmed society and it makes it that much easier to rob/kill.
I can't find the stat right now but I find it quite interesting how crime rates in general have dropped as more and more states have adopted concealed carry laws. I of course like the vermont style carry law due to my beleif in the second amendment however crime rates have dropped in all states that have inacted this type of sensible gun law:shoot
Pacridge
DP Veteran
Texan's for Gun Safety
I'm not sure what you're saying about carry laws and the crime rates stats. I suspect you'd like them to say that as states allow more people to carry more guns less crime occurs. However the numbers that the FBI compiles don't say that at all.
"According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports, from 1996 to 1997 the nation’s overall crime rate dropped 3.2%, from 5086.6 to 4922.7 crimes per 100,000 population. More telling, crime fell faster in states that have strict carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws or that don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all than in states which have lax CCW laws. This strongly suggests that, contrary to the arguments made by the National Rifle Association and others, states should not make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons in order to reduce crime.
In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997.
During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia withstrict carry laws or which don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns. The research is particularly
important for Missourians who face an April ballot initiative which would radically liberalize that state’s CCW system.
Furthermore, the rate of violent crime fell even faster in states with strict carry laws – falling 4.9% in restrictive states compared to 3.0% in lax states from 1996 to 1997. While the rate of violent crime is higher in strict CCW states, a look at the violent crime rates over a five-year period provides even more evidence that we don’t need lax gun laws to reduce crime. From 1992 to 1997, the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while the violent crime rate for the lax states dropped 11.4% (the national average is 19.4%). New York and California -- the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW licensing laws -- experienced dramatic decreases in violent crime over the five-year period. New York experienced a 38.6% decline and California experienced a 28.7% decline, both without putting more concealed handguns on their streets.
“These numbers demonstrate what we’ve been saying all along,” said Sarah Brady, chair of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and Handgun Control, Inc. “We don’t need to make it easier for just anyone to carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don’t get guns in the first place.”
Lax or “shall issue” CCW laws require law enforcement to issue CCW licenses to virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon. In these states, local law enforcement has almost no discretion in issuing these licenses and, in many cases, getting a license requires little or no safety training or even a demonstration that the applicant knows how to use a gun. States that give law enforcement discretion in issuing licenses (so-called “may issue” states) or which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons entirely have chosen other strategies to fight crime, resulting in the greatest decreases in crime over the past five years.
For several years now, the National Rifle Association and others have made it a priority to get state legislatures to pass lax CCW laws. They claim that putting more guns on our streets reduces crime, despite the fact that almost every major law enforcement organization in the country opposes lax CCW laws.
“Common sense and practical experience dictate that more concealed handguns in the hands of untrained persons do not reduce crime,” says Hazelwood, MO, Chief Carl R. Wolf, President-elect of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association. “Law enforcement has known this simple fact for years, and that’s why leading state and national police groups have fought against the gun lobby’s national push for lax laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns by private citizens. This study further
debunks the myth perpetuated by the gun lobby.”
On April 6, Missouri voters will vote on a state-wide referendum, sponsored by the NRA, that would allow virtually anyone to carry a loaded, concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state. Currently, Missouri does not allow the general public to carry concealed weapons outside of one’s private property. From 1992 to 1997, Missouri enjoyed a 22% drop in its violent crime rate -- almost double the drop of the lax CCW states. [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“These numbers should make everyone question the NRA’s campaign for lax CCW laws under the guise of fighting crime,” said Mrs. Brady. “If the gun lobby is truly interested in reducing crime, they should work for common sense measures like stopping criminals from getting guns at gun shows and limiting handgun sales to one per person per month to cut gun trafficking. Working with lawmakers, law enforcement, the public health community and civic leaders on proven crime-fighting strategies, we can make America safer for everyone.” [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I lifted this entire thing from a crime statistic site called "Texan's for Gun Safety." But you know those liberal gun hating Texan's though, they'll say anything.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/statsrefute.htm
[/font]
I'm not sure what you're saying about carry laws and the crime rates stats. I suspect you'd like them to say that as states allow more people to carry more guns less crime occurs. However the numbers that the FBI compiles don't say that at all.
"According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports, from 1996 to 1997 the nation’s overall crime rate dropped 3.2%, from 5086.6 to 4922.7 crimes per 100,000 population. More telling, crime fell faster in states that have strict carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws or that don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all than in states which have lax CCW laws. This strongly suggests that, contrary to the arguments made by the National Rifle Association and others, states should not make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons in order to reduce crime.
In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997.
During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia withstrict carry laws or which don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns. The research is particularly
important for Missourians who face an April ballot initiative which would radically liberalize that state’s CCW system.
Furthermore, the rate of violent crime fell even faster in states with strict carry laws – falling 4.9% in restrictive states compared to 3.0% in lax states from 1996 to 1997. While the rate of violent crime is higher in strict CCW states, a look at the violent crime rates over a five-year period provides even more evidence that we don’t need lax gun laws to reduce crime. From 1992 to 1997, the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while the violent crime rate for the lax states dropped 11.4% (the national average is 19.4%). New York and California -- the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW licensing laws -- experienced dramatic decreases in violent crime over the five-year period. New York experienced a 38.6% decline and California experienced a 28.7% decline, both without putting more concealed handguns on their streets.
“These numbers demonstrate what we’ve been saying all along,” said Sarah Brady, chair of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and Handgun Control, Inc. “We don’t need to make it easier for just anyone to carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don’t get guns in the first place.”
Lax or “shall issue” CCW laws require law enforcement to issue CCW licenses to virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon. In these states, local law enforcement has almost no discretion in issuing these licenses and, in many cases, getting a license requires little or no safety training or even a demonstration that the applicant knows how to use a gun. States that give law enforcement discretion in issuing licenses (so-called “may issue” states) or which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons entirely have chosen other strategies to fight crime, resulting in the greatest decreases in crime over the past five years.
For several years now, the National Rifle Association and others have made it a priority to get state legislatures to pass lax CCW laws. They claim that putting more guns on our streets reduces crime, despite the fact that almost every major law enforcement organization in the country opposes lax CCW laws.
“Common sense and practical experience dictate that more concealed handguns in the hands of untrained persons do not reduce crime,” says Hazelwood, MO, Chief Carl R. Wolf, President-elect of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association. “Law enforcement has known this simple fact for years, and that’s why leading state and national police groups have fought against the gun lobby’s national push for lax laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns by private citizens. This study further
debunks the myth perpetuated by the gun lobby.”
On April 6, Missouri voters will vote on a state-wide referendum, sponsored by the NRA, that would allow virtually anyone to carry a loaded, concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state. Currently, Missouri does not allow the general public to carry concealed weapons outside of one’s private property. From 1992 to 1997, Missouri enjoyed a 22% drop in its violent crime rate -- almost double the drop of the lax CCW states. [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“These numbers should make everyone question the NRA’s campaign for lax CCW laws under the guise of fighting crime,” said Mrs. Brady. “If the gun lobby is truly interested in reducing crime, they should work for common sense measures like stopping criminals from getting guns at gun shows and limiting handgun sales to one per person per month to cut gun trafficking. Working with lawmakers, law enforcement, the public health community and civic leaders on proven crime-fighting strategies, we can make America safer for everyone.” [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I lifted this entire thing from a crime statistic site called "Texan's for Gun Safety." But you know those liberal gun hating Texan's though, they'll say anything.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/statsrefute.htm
[/font]
Last edited:
Taken From http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=523002Downloaded From Stanford Law School
Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs
Abstract:
This paper investigates several contested issues over how concealed handguns affect crime. Whether accounting for robust errors with clustering or reducing measurement error in the crime rates, the results consistently show large drops in violent crime rates after right-to-carry laws are adopted. By six years after the law, murder rates have fallen by 9 percent, rape by 11 percent, and robbery by 7 percent.
Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs
Abstract:
This paper investigates several contested issues over how concealed handguns affect crime. Whether accounting for robust errors with clustering or reducing measurement error in the crime rates, the results consistently show large drops in violent crime rates after right-to-carry laws are adopted. By six years after the law, murder rates have fallen by 9 percent, rape by 11 percent, and robbery by 7 percent.
Source http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.
The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.
Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents. (Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council
Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates)[size=-1] (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)[/size]
Accident TypeAge0-45-1415-2425-4445-6465-7475+TotalAll Automobile9001,50010,50013,3009,2002,7004,90043,000Falls70702109501,9001,70011,30016,200Poisoning by solids, liquids60408006,8003,20030050011,700Pedestrian12503007501,3001,4004508505,300Drowning4503507001,2506502302703,900Fires, burns4002602407008005007003,600Suffocation by ingested object10020302504005002,1003,400Firearms20601501901103040600Poisoning by gases, vapors101070120804070400All other causes7004001,1003,0003,2001,6004,50014,500TOTAL2,7002,70013,80026,60019,5007,60024,40097,300
Fatal gun accidents often receive national attention. Subsequently politicians demand mandatory firearms safety classes for all gun owners, yet many more lives could be saved by randomly selecting and educating a group of drivers rather than gun owners, not to mention the populace at large regarding, administering first-aid, how to eat, and basic common sense safety habits. (It is not being suggested that such training be offered or mandated.)
A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.
The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.
Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents. (Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council
Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates)[size=-1] (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)[/size]
Accident TypeAge0-45-1415-2425-4445-6465-7475+TotalAll Automobile9001,50010,50013,3009,2002,7004,90043,000Falls70702109501,9001,70011,30016,200Poisoning by solids, liquids60408006,8003,20030050011,700Pedestrian12503007501,3001,4004508505,300Drowning4503507001,2506502302703,900Fires, burns4002602407008005007003,600Suffocation by ingested object10020302504005002,1003,400Firearms20601501901103040600Poisoning by gases, vapors101070120804070400All other causes7004001,1003,0003,2001,6004,50014,500TOTAL2,7002,70013,80026,60019,5007,60024,40097,300
Fatal gun accidents often receive national attention. Subsequently politicians demand mandatory firearms safety classes for all gun owners, yet many more lives could be saved by randomly selecting and educating a group of drivers rather than gun owners, not to mention the populace at large regarding, administering first-aid, how to eat, and basic common sense safety habits. (It is not being suggested that such training be offered or mandated.)
topgun146
New member
The legalization of semi-automatic weapons will not create an increase in criminal activity. This is logical considering several points:
1. Criminals will obtain guns, legal or illegal, if they really needed them.
2. Violent crimes can be commited with or without guns. A heavy hammer to the head will kill just as easily as a handgun.
3. The primary increase in semi-automatic gun ownership will be among law abiding citezens. As I said earlier, criminals already have these guns.
4. Criminals can quite easily be commited with conventionally available weapons, making semi-autos uneeded. From my personal ability, I can trap shoot triples using a pump-fed 12 ga with about 70% accuracy. For the sporting illiterate out there, that meand when 3 clay targets 4" in diameter are launched simultaneously from a thrower, I can hit all of them 70% of the time(do not confuse this with hitting 70% of the targets, it means hitting all 3 targets in the set 70% of sets.) Now, I just recently turned 15 and have only been shooting trap about a year. If I can hit 3 small targets flying through the air while pumping to reload every time, all in a second or twos time, what could a regularly practicing criminal do in a period of 10 seconds? Not to mention what he/she could do with a semi-automatic shotgun(which are currently legal).
1. Criminals will obtain guns, legal or illegal, if they really needed them.
2. Violent crimes can be commited with or without guns. A heavy hammer to the head will kill just as easily as a handgun.
3. The primary increase in semi-automatic gun ownership will be among law abiding citezens. As I said earlier, criminals already have these guns.
4. Criminals can quite easily be commited with conventionally available weapons, making semi-autos uneeded. From my personal ability, I can trap shoot triples using a pump-fed 12 ga with about 70% accuracy. For the sporting illiterate out there, that meand when 3 clay targets 4" in diameter are launched simultaneously from a thrower, I can hit all of them 70% of the time(do not confuse this with hitting 70% of the targets, it means hitting all 3 targets in the set 70% of sets.) Now, I just recently turned 15 and have only been shooting trap about a year. If I can hit 3 small targets flying through the air while pumping to reload every time, all in a second or twos time, what could a regularly practicing criminal do in a period of 10 seconds? Not to mention what he/she could do with a semi-automatic shotgun(which are currently legal).
rudy0908
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- st. louis
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
topgun146 said:
First off, hammers have an actual non-violent use, while guns are made to take down many targets, be it human or animal. Handguns also provide range for shooting that hammers don't. You can't really hold up several people with a hammer like you can with a handgun. A criminal with a hammer will not have the success that a gun-toting criminal will.
topgun146 said:
Have you heard about most of the school shootings in recent years? The students who carried out the attacks certainly didn't own guns, but their law abiding citizen parents did. Yes, the hard core criminals probably already own these guns illegally, but the legalization of them will make them far more plentiful around the country and much easier for anybody, be it law abiding citizen or criminal, to get their hands on.