Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits
BY Glen Tschirgi
12 years, 4 months ago
(H/T Instapundit)
Nothing original to add here, but this posting I picked up from Instapundit is well worth passing along, particularly in light of the typical, knee-jerk, Statist reactions to the horrific Aurora CO shootings:
Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Now all this statistical and factual information isn’t going to mean anything to Lefty’s and Statists, but it is always good to know that reality backs up the conservative position on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.
On July 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm, Burk said:
You got it.. the intended effects are broader than short-term crime drops. Apparently in Australia, most guns used to commit crimes were unregistered. This means that better ways to restrict guns from getting out into the unregistered pool of firearms would, over time, reduce this source of criminal power/violence. That means less gun sales from the US as well to countries like Mexico, incidentally.
Also, one has to ask why any firearm with semi or fully automatic fire (i.e. a machine gun) should be available for civilian use. These are weapons of warfare, and like other warfare weapons- artillary, mines, bombs, etc. should not be in the hands of civilians. I certainly don’t want them there.
Such bans are conducive to community safety, as are bans on open carry. Like the broken windows theory, a populace running around with weapons invites use of those weapons (for suicide, if nothing else, as the Australians document). As you folks document so extensively, even credentialled officers of the law have a hard enough time keeping their muzzles pointed in the right direction. We don’t need loose civilian cannons/shooters about.
I am sure you fantasize that the Aurora theater would have turned into a free fire zone with all the armed theater-goers unholstering their weapons and making free. I ask you.. what would the casualties have been then?
On June 18, 2014 at 1:54 pm, xBURNxFOREVERx said:
Did you even really read the article at all … if you enjoy those actions and laws so well then move over there and live happliy ever after; because apparently you DO NOT belong in America.
The guns are NOT going anywhere, ANYWHERE, they can try, n try, n try, n TRY, AND TRY … but my AR, AK, and Vepr are NOT going anywhere. Please don’t give me that crap about being a republican, gun nutt, or righty bullshit I am what you would consider a “classical liberal” when liberal actually stood for something (FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE, not just a few) BURK, you are a douche’ and you are WAY WRONG (or a troll, probably just a Troll) deal with it -xBURNx
On December 13, 2015 at 7:59 pm, eritas said:
Is there a name for your condition? Are you aware that semi automatic weapons have been around since at least 1840? One sees the vast increase in violence in the UK and Austrialia while the Marxists tell us thats the price you must pay. LOL.
They always seem to ignore those murder hot spots Switzerland, Norway and Finland that mandate that all males are armed with fully automatic weapons. We contrast this with those cathedral like cities where tough gun laws reaign, Detroit, NYC, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, Camden, Gary. Flint.
Remember gun free zones save lives. So you Burk, post it on your home, opennly and proudly.
On July 23, 2012 at 4:36 pm, Kursk said:
“I am sure you fantasize that the Aurora theater would have turned into a free fire zone with all the armed theater-goers unholstering their weapons and making free. I ask you.. what would the casualties have been then?”
..and I am sure you are completely unaware of this action..
http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?p=554159
in the exact same town, fairly recently, where an armed civilian prevented a greater tragedy by using his own firearm.
You may have your opinions on who should be allowed to own firearms, but I will remind you that they are a perfectly legal and safe tool in the vast majority of gun owner’s hands. You can fight your damnedest to ban them, but there are others who will fight for their rights to prevent your intrusion into their lives.
I also find it somewhat amusing that those who call for safer communities through prohibitions of firearms are generally o.k. with Liberal interpretations regarding the rights and treatment of criminals, and who are against any type of crackdown on gangs based on ethnic profiling.
Definitely not a great strategy for keeping my community safe, to be certain.
On May 7, 2014 at 10:47 pm, nutsinavice said:
The guy who stopped the shooting in Aurora was a cop. Off duty, but still trained and armed by the state. That’s not the same as arming the general populace to the teeth.
On May 8, 2014 at 9:22 pm, Josh said:
Yes it is. It’s the exact same thing.
On June 1, 2014 at 6:44 pm, Tabitha Bliss said:
Armed citizens in the US shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). Only 2% of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, is 11%, more than 5 times as high.
PoliceOne, whose 450,000 members make it the largest private organization of active and retired law-enforcement officers in the U.S. surveyed members last March asking, “What would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public?” The No. 1 answer was; “More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.” (Followed by “More aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons.”)
Another survey done by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of more than 20,000 chiefs of police and sheriffs found that 95% believed “any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense.” 77% believed CC permits issued in one state should be honored by other states “in the way that drivers’ licenses are recognized through the country”—and that making citizens’ permits portable would “facilitate the violent crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community.”
On October 22, 2015 at 6:37 pm, poontofview said:
Thank You for stating the “Facts” which dissolve the myths and opinions regarding the gun issue.
On July 24, 2012 at 8:15 am, TS Alfabet said:
Burk, your argument flies in the face of the facts in several respects.
First, fully auto weapons cannot be legally sold in the U.S. without special permits. The Captain wrote about this recently, I recall.
Second, the experience of both Australia and the UK demonstrates that violent crime dramatically *increased* following the ban on guns for law abiding citizens while it went down dramatically in the U.S. during the same period.
People who advocate banning guns never address the fact that criminals and lunatics will always find a way to get their hands on a gun. That’s as true in Australia and Britain as it is here. The only one who suffers from such bans are the law abiding citizens who become easy prey for the criminal and insane.
On July 24, 2012 at 8:42 am, geTaylor said:
Kursk:
Unfortunately, for the people who were there, you fail to notice that the ” the Aurora theater WAS turned into a free fire zone”; unfortunately, in my universe and maybe you count it as fortunate in yours, only the madman had the freedom to fire.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/17/video-excellent-concealed-carrier-stops-an-armed-robbery/
How does a person with your low opinion of your fellow citizens, drive at night or in the daylight, on undivided roads and streets?
On July 24, 2012 at 9:05 am, Herschel Smith said:
geTaylor,
You may have intended to address your comments to Burk rather than Kursk.
On July 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm, Burk said:
Hi, All-
More shootings in/near Aurora? Heavens!
I am all in favor of police officers carrying concealed firearms when off-duty, if they wish to continue serving in that way. We can assume they are continually trained in the many relevant operational and legal issues. This is quite different from allowing wider carrying and a culture of gun presence, gun display, and gun violence to take hold. Remember what every wild west town did when it got to some level of civilized behavior.. it banned guns.
Let me note that this issue carries alot of archetypal content, not to say Freudian. We should not allow male attachment to these power-projective devices blind us to their dangers to self, family members, and others. The sense of control is quite misleading- gun owners do stupid things just like the rest of us, but the penalty is higher.
On July 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Burk,
Let me be the first to say (in case no one has ever said it before) that I fully support your decision not to carry or even own a weapon of any sort. I also support your decision to depend fully on the police for all personal security issues, at home, in public places, and everywhere else at all times. I think you have made the right decision for you.
Don’t ever say that we have never agreed on anything.
On August 9, 2012 at 6:05 am, Terri said:
After reading Burk’s first comment, I wonder if he has a reading comprehension disorder… The article in no way advocated gun bans. Actually, it showed statistically the futility of doing such a thing. I agree! If they ever succeed in banning guns, the only ones who have arms will be the criminals!!! I truly believe they are using the recent deadly mass shootings to push their agenda. The people that do these sort of things are mentally ill. The government is CUTTING mental health care benefits for these people who need help and trying to put a bandaid over this gaping wound! Forget the gun ban because it only hurts law-abiding citizens; instead make health care more readily available!
On August 10, 2012 at 6:36 am, TS Alfabet said:
Good points, Terri.
In that vein, isn’t it interesting that the Leftist Media and politicians are always salivating at every shooting event like this in hope that it will turn out to be a Tea Party member, or at least a conservative of some stripe. If that can’t be fabricated, they always always resort to cynically exploiting the tragedy by trying to draw a link to the crime and gun control, relying almost exclusively on emotional appeals that defy facts and common sense.
If the Left is so keen on tracing cause and effect and trying to ban things, why don’t they turn their tyrannical gaze upon Hollywood? What about all the studies that have been done on the link between TV/Movie violence and violent/criminal behavior? (see a 2011 summary of the various studies here: http://www.cybercollege.com/violence.htm ). The Left doesn’t seem to care if there is actual scientific evidence before they start banning things (i.e., fracking, carbon emissions,… ), so it would seem an easy step for them to start calling for a ban on all violent content belching forth from Hollywood 24/7.
But that’s the Left’s hypocrisy. They are selective about their values and convictions. If their own fellow Leftists are the perpetrators, then mum’s the word.
On December 11, 2012 at 11:15 pm, Gerry Sorensen said:
This eamil goes with comment just sent about Australia/ 2nd ammendment
right
Thanks Gerry
On December 14, 2012 at 11:59 am, AT Rasheed said:
Sorry, but your assertions are just not true. I am undecided about the best way to deal with gun violence, but i think having the correct information is the best way for citizens to make an informed decision.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
On December 14, 2012 at 12:10 pm, Herschel Smith said:
AT Rasheed. It’s always good to have someone come in and say that we’re wrong, but that the objector doesn’t know what’s right.
Ah. The laws of logic. Not just for the little people. Oh, and I don’t give any credence to web sites like that.
On December 14, 2012 at 12:13 pm, Herschel Smith said:
For instance (I should add to what I said above), see my latest piece, where the WSJ cited doctors saying that gun violence is increasing in Baltimore, where the Baltimore Sun completely debunked that myth.
Read circumspectly, Rasheed.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/12/14/is-gun-violence-really-soaring/
I should also ask why it’s your duty to solve the problem of gun violence, any more than it’s your duty to solve the problem of auto accidents, or domestic abuse? What if (some of) those are moral choices and value judgments that are unaffected by laws and regulations?
On December 16, 2012 at 8:19 am, Matt Field said:
And I believe the last comment here was made on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, such a tragedy and one we all wish could’ve been prevented. Of course now anti-gun types are doing their best to bring up the issue of banning guns altogether once again. Also, I will bring up the point that laws do not exist in a vacuum. Although gun violence may be down in Australia a number of years after a gun ban was enacted, and may actually work in Australia to some degree if that factcheck.org site’s numbers are to be trusted, the same may not actually work for the US. Lest we forget that the US is bordered by both Canada and MEXICO. Guns that could be smuggled in from the south alone probably hint that banning them for law abiding citizens is not a good idea. So please tell me who borders Australia? And like Herschel said, why is it your duty to solve any of the problems in the US? Do you live here? You get to speak with your vote if you’re a citizen but don’t limit my rights if you don’t want yours limited.
On December 17, 2012 at 12:33 am, Herschel Smith said:
Yes, Matt. And take note of the bigotry and vitriol with which the anti-gun crowd is behaving:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/12/15/come-and-get-my-assault-weapons/
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/12/16/tinfoil-hat-bircher-nra-peckerwood-with-a-long-gun/
On December 17, 2012 at 3:16 pm, JOhn said:
I like this info that flies in the face of the truth. Violent crime has not increased in the U.K. or more importantly in Australia. In fact, homicides with firearms decreased to less than half pre-1996 levels. Unfortunately you can’t say the same about the U.S. Take a look at factcheck.com the nect time before you publish that type of garbage.
On December 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm, Lester M said:
I’m sure this will be viewed that I’m making an argument on one side or the other, but I’m actually just a fan of people having the facts.
Recent studies have shown that there has been a significant decrease in violent crime in Australia since most guns were banned at the beginning of 1997. However, there was an increase in violent crimes for the ten years immediately following the ban. The Australian government had predicted a possible increase in violent crime following the ban, but that increase went on for longer than government agencies had predicted. At the moment, an argument can be made that the Australian gun ban has increased crime. However, considering recent trends, the eventual impact of the ban should still be considered inconclusive. In other words, neither side of the gun laws issue should be pointing to Australia to prove its point at this time.
Here is a link to more recent Australian violent crime statistics.
http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2012/First%20quarter/4-March-2012—Crime-falling-across-Australia.aspx
On December 17, 2012 at 3:41 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Factcheck. Politifact.
BHahahahahahahahaha …..
No, really. Hahahahahaha …
That’s a good one. Citing either one of those is analogous to citing rags like Huffington Post or Mother Jones as an authoritative source.
On December 17, 2012 at 5:50 pm, Tim said:
factcheck.org is biased themselves, so naturally all of their references support their own point of view. So I for one will not be checking with them for anything when it comes to gun statistics.
On December 17, 2012 at 6:12 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Right Tim. And while readers are visiting, think hard about the moral necessity and imperative of defense of the family and what the proposed ban means for that.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/09/25/christians-the-second-amendment-and-the-duty-of-self-defense/
On December 17, 2012 at 7:08 pm, Susi Froggy said:
I agree with Terri that the mental health issue desperately needs to be looked at here but I also agree that these automatic weapons or assault weapons should not be available to every citizen that wants them. Most of these kinds of crimes usually stem from an emotional outburst even if planning was involved there is passion of some sort behind it. Guns are way too easy to get whether it’s from getting there own or acquired from another who didn’t have the sense to lock them up. A background check is not good enough. This guy in Conn had no prior criminal record. I bet though if he had to have references they might have picked something up. Hell you need them when adopting a pet, why not for own a weapon that’s main use is to keep people.
On December 17, 2012 at 7:14 pm, No One said:
AT Rasheed, try reading the sources factcheck. Their conclusion ignores this.
Australia’s Gun Laws: Little Effect: “But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were “all over the place,” says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer “is there in black and white,” she says. “The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.””
The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths:”Abstract:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.”
“Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings” — Look at the charts. All the firearm crimes were already trending down before the control took effect in 1996.
Most of the other links factcheck gives do not work.
On December 19, 2012 at 5:57 pm, Tom said:
Government fears two things above all others:
1. An informed and intelligent voting bloc
2. An armed populace.
On December 29, 2012 at 2:48 am, HBurger said:
If you don’t trust politifact or snopes, how about the Australia Bureau of Statistics? The majority of the stats in you article do not agree with the real stats – at least not according to Australia. http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf
On December 30, 2012 at 11:08 pm, Herschel Smith said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM
Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown,
Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective
treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called
gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.
We aren’t alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia,
for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both
countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred.
Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the
answer. Their experiences can be instructive.
In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of
Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and
wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was
unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours
with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a
firearm was able to come to the rescue.
Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be
mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town
of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded
10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a
certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon
and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of
“good reason” gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a
good reason for a permit.
After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles
and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased
with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place
for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a
third in the chamber.
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm
certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been
granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by
parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which
instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were
required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a
pistol is up to 10 years in prison.
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a
decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from
registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to
British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in
the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying
guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June
2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a
colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and
injuring 11 more before killing himself.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a
firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a
former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a
shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately
handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the
judge noted: “In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no
defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm
is irrelevant.” Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A
public outcry eventually won his release.
In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British
special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18
months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition.
Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces
he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and
returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to
organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr.
Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in
prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
***
Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an
Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a
Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He
killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.
At the time, Australia’s guns laws were stricter than the United
Kingdom’s. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for
permission to purchase a gun have a “good reason,” Australia required
a “genuine reason.” Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals
were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn’t.
With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the
National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and
semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive
licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a
forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private
hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government
purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost
of $500 million.
To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of
the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study
published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a
modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the
National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily
rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.
According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns
(rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun
homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms
Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but
suicides by other means went up. They reported “a modest reduction in
the severity” of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in
the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved
knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease
of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the
1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual
assaults.
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia
haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented
massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S.
don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our
problems.
Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School,
is the author of several books including “Guns and Violence: The
English Experience,” (Harvard, 2002).
On January 4, 2013 at 2:39 pm, Joe said:
It’s actually funny to read this stuff. Guns were owned for more than a century, mass shooters are a recent thing. All that changed is mass drugging of people with regular emotional upsets or slight study problems. Someone a bit stupid, they drug him. Someone has a bit of attention problem, they drug him. Someone sneezes, they drug him. ALMOST ALL of the shooters were on psychiatric drugs. If you remove the number of shooters which were on these medication the amount of cases is negligible. Especially considering that the remaining cases are just the cases which are closed and we don’t know if they were taking anything. Stop being idiots. The numbers are going up and the amount of guns has nothing to do with more and more shootings. Treat the cause, this is what psychiatrists (and doctors these days) almost never do and none of the people above seem to want to do either. And side effects of the said drugs include violence and other very horrible things. (I know, I worked taking people off these for several months, there is a rather small percentage of people who experiences no side effects when withdrawing or skipping a dosage, the latter being very easy to do, especially for a kid).
On January 8, 2013 at 3:32 pm, Donn said:
Seems the American President is He** Bent to force a historical change in our gun laws, in order to reduce mass murders. The evidence well described here, clearly does not support a new assault on our 2nd Amendment gun rights. In my humble opinion further limits on so called assault rifles, high capacity mags, more background checks and data base nonsense etc will be ineffective in curbing further mass killing rampages in this country.
Note the data cited, factually show there has been a dramatic decrease in homacides in the US, almost identical to that in Australia, 1995 to 2011. So obviously, new draconian gun laws have nothing to do with murder rates.
All we are going to get is more ineffective, expensive, beurocratic BULLS**T, as usual.
On January 8, 2013 at 4:13 pm, Robert said:
Leaving aside for the moment there is no such thing as the “Australian Bureau of Criminology,” there are so many different ways to analyse statistics that arguing them becomes a moot point. Crime has many complicated causes. Even as a pro-gun control advocate, I understand that even if every gun magically disappeared from the streets there would still be crime. The Australian statistics, when you cut through the BS on both sides show a slight decrease in crime. The open question is do the costs justify the results? Is there an answer that would get more “bang for the buck” than gun control?
So there it is, I am perfectly happy to give up advocating gun control if you can provide a cost effective way to decrease crime more?
On January 8, 2013 at 4:19 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I’m not interested in social engineering programs, Robert. I am interested in protecting myself and my family. I can best do that when nosey, meddling, know-it-alls like you leave me alone and I exercise my constitutional rights.
You have no right to regulate my rights away. They are non-negotiable, and you cannot touch them. They are not for your use in your experimentation with global statistics. You can use your own family for that (let your wife know that you have no intentions of protecting her), but not mine.
Crime in Aus. was and is going down anyway, just like crime is going down in the U.S. Aus. had a AWB, the U.S. didn’t. Crime is unrelated to bans. QED.
Crime in the U.K. is going up … and up … and up … in spite of the weapons ban.
On January 9, 2013 at 12:05 pm, bbert said:
crime and gun related homicides are going down in Australia . many of your discussions forget the effects of the availability of Guns especially on things like suicide and unintentionally deaths . facts are your 1100 times more likely to be killed through suicide or accident by having a gun in the house , then the rare case when 1 is actually use to deter a crime. the funny dichotomy is people that say they need guns for defense in the homes but also acknowledge they must be safely stored so children don’t get access to them . very seldom is a gun actually used in catching a criminal in the act and preventing injury. add in the safety for kids and its usefulness is laughable . can you imagine catching someone coming into your room and saying, “hold it right there , let me get my gun out of the lockbox in this standing next to me , and wait a little bit longer please because my bullets are stored over in the dresser” ……pplllleeeaaassse! and most of this questions h ere totally ignore all other industrialized nations with strict gun control or no access to guns . the overall statistics are clear that less guns involved less deaths and more importantly less of a mindset that we must violently protect our “stuff”.
Adjusting for population, the U.S. death rate by firearms — which includes homicides, suicide and accidents — was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, according to the Coalition for Gun Control. The closest developed country was Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people.
On January 9, 2013 at 1:45 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Well, it’s not my article, but it’s my web site so I’ll respond – yet again.
The statistics show that gun bans don’t reduce violent crime, and nothing you can do, nothing you can argue, nothng you can concoct, can change the facts. Comparing absolute rates of crimes of various types from country to country is invalid and irrelevant.
The U.S. has a gang problem, most European countries don’t. The U.S. doesn’t wish to secure its border, so we have an easy influx of drug and crime warlord fighters from South of the border. Change those two parts of the equation and the entire calculus changes and so would the absolute values of crime statistics. But it would still be irrelevant to compare any country against another. The point still is this: gun bans don’t work.
As for waiting to get access to a firearms in a home invasion, I won’t have that problem with mine hanging on my side the entire night.
As for you, bbert, I support your decision not to arm yourself. I do. I think you have chosen the best course of action for yourself. But you don’t have the right to legislative action because you don’t particularly happen to like whether my own home is safe in your estimation. That’s my business, not yours. It’s like I’ve observed before, though. Scratch a liberal and you find a Fascist. At its root, liberals aren’t liberal at all. Liberals are statists and control freaks and micromanagers who want to meddle in everyone else’s business.
One of my co-workers, who didn’t have ready access to firearms, was shot and killed, along with his wife, when two home invaders raped his (now) fatherless and motherless daughter. Your decision to refuse to protect your family is cowardly, immoral and reprehensible in the extreme.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/09/25/christians-the-second-amendment-and-the-duty-of-self-defense/
But since you’re giving the rest of us some unsollicted advice, I’ll give you some as well. You will want to discuss your plans with your family that you intend to allow your wife and daugher to be raped while you sit by, watch, and beg for mercy at the hands of your assailants. But hey! As long as you go unharmed, that’s the idea, right?
On June 14, 2014 at 1:41 am, kevin said:
Just look at the ban of fully auto weapons. It had no effect on violent crime numbers and almost no effect on gun violence. A gun is just a tool that is used in a crime not the cause!
On January 9, 2013 at 5:14 pm, a guy said:
Comparing country to country is hardly useful. Comparing what has taken place in the country, however, is. And the numbers above regarding the rise in violent crimes in Australia, to include rape and assaults, is as accurate as it gets. You can find the same exact numbers on Australia’s Institute of Criminology website: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html E.g. that is the raw source of the data as published but the government.
England and Whales data can be found via the Home Office: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/publications/statistical-publications/ England has 350% more violent crime per 100K people then does America. o_0 That’s crazy, either they calculate “violent crimes” differently or… oh no, they count rape, assaults, etc. the same way the USA does. Never mind. Well the good news is it is slightly down.
The data for the US is on the FBI’s website, Unified Crime Reports I think you want table 20.
Bottom line, violent crime is down in the USA by 50% since 1992. Firearms murders are down 54%. England and Australia can’t say the same thing. And while the USA has not only not enacted more gun control, they lifted the assault weapons ban and flooded the market with those evil black military-like rifles! EVIL! Oh wait, gang bangers don’t buy them because they cost too much and only 36 deaths in all of 2011 were from rifles, of which the AR-15 is a small percentage. Damn evil things that account for the deaths of just a very few people! Were they all murders? Oh damn foolish numbers collection and the fact that killing anyone for any reason is classified as a “homicide!”
The number of firearms purchased by private citizens has grown by over 200% and the number of firearms crimes has more than halved in the USA. Odd, right?! I mean as an industrialized country, the USA doesn’t even make the top 10 of industrialized counties in violent crimes. Yet Australia is #1, the UK is #3, Canada is #7 – you know what, all ten of them have banned firearms ownership by citizens. Yea, all ten of the top ten most violent industrialized countries in the world have one thing in common – they outlawed citizens being able to use firearms to defend themselves. How can this be?!
The issue for everyone, when you look at all the data and look at it as that country’s data not as an apples to apples comparison with another country, shows that banning and controlling firearms has the opposite effect on crimes then the governments, media, and super duper liberal mouth breathers (trust me the other side has them too) would have you believe. And when you compare the true raw data, it’s a mystery why anyone living in the top ten industrialized countries for violent crime aren’t screaming that they need to be more like America!
This isn’t a short term, they just banned things a few years ago so give it some time to kick-in kind of picture. This is for England decades, and for Australia over a decade worth of time. You see criminals emboldened. Firearms murders were more than replaced by murders using knives in England. Again, look at the data just in that one country, who cares if it is worse or better from country X to country Y. Just look at the numbers of “what happened after we took all the guns away.”
Simply put, you don’t replace human nature and bad people with laws that prevent good people from being anything other than victims. E.g. All you did was make the fruit tree grow more, much sweeter, easy to reach fruit.
On January 9, 2013 at 6:40 pm, Donn said:
We have armed air marshals in the air and everyone is fine with that.
We insist on armed guards protecting our money as a matter of routine.
We require armed officers beside our President and his family all hours of the day.
We pay for armed police patrolling every city, county, state and Federal buildings and property in the country at all hours. Legally armed citizens own 280 million firearms in our country. Where do the nut cases go to do their murderous acts? In the legally carved out kill zones of course – schools, theaters, churches, malls, sports events, generally where concentrations of unarmed, undefended people congregate and where there are signs announcing “GUN FREE ZONES”.
How many mass killings have ever occurred at a gun show? None.
Think about it. If signs could stop psychopathic killers then WWII could have been avoided with a few signs at the borders “No Invading Armies Allowed”.
Why do we call 911 when a shooting occurs? Duh, to get competent people with guns to take out the killer. Trouble is by the time they arrive it’s generally too late, the killing is over and all they do is arrest the killer if he hasn’t already killed himself, haul off the bodies and interview the survivors. This is a truly nutty situation. This system does not prevent mass killings at all or any killings for that matter. The only thing that has any chance of stopping a maniac with a gun is superior firepower, people already on the scene and ready at a moments notice.
Armed good men can stop armed bad men.
Folks, this is Really, really simple and really really cost effective.
Isreal has been forced to do it, so can we.
Armed employees, armed civilians, working, retired, trained, and willing to serve.
We have millions of people right now willing and able to truly protect our kids, friends and neighbors. All that’s needed is the stroke of a pen.
Washington, stay out of it.
Where am I wrong???
On January 11, 2013 at 5:44 am, bbert said:
P.S. sorry , didn’t have a lot of time to write these things and noticed that my voice recognition software is pretty bad
On January 11, 2013 at 6:07 am, bbert said:
A guy,
there is no way to relate violent crime to whether or whether not gonna order ship is available. each country have a different version of what a violent crime is . crime is often determined more by what the justice system is like , the economic well being of the country at that time , police per capita , and many other things . the only thing you can make a true correlation involving guns , is how many deaths, suicide, and accidental deaths are caused by guns. on this the statistics are clear that by number and by per capita we are by far the most violent . UK have a lot of crime but is probably related more to it lacks justice system , Japan have almost no gun deaths but yet the society has a mindset of Honor , and respect not seen in many other countries . funny thing is is even now that is changing and it’s being blamed a lot on our American lifestyle being emulated more and more by the youth . even if some other countries have higher crime rates, the percentage of those that are actually involved in a violent crime are miniscule per capita. even if I have a 1 in a 10000 chance of having a violent crime committed to me, I’d still take that percentage over a 1 in 20000 chance of being killed.
Donn said,
Folks, this is Really, really simple and really really cost effective. Isreal has been forced to do it, so can we. Armed employees, armed civilians, working, retired, trained, and willing to serve. We have millions of people right now willing and able to truly protect our kids, friends and neighbors. All that’s needed is the stroke of a pen. Washington, stay out of it. Where am I wrong???
when the Palestinians couldn’t use guns to liberate themselves do to Israel’s bast weapons superiority , they took to explosives and suicide vest . put all those arms Citizens out there especially those supposedly protecting schools , watching see what happens next . that’s assuming all these volunteers well actually do that job for an extended period of time . violence begets more violence and massive guns lead to more deaths .
On January 11, 2013 at 10:55 am, Herschel Smith said:
bert, as far as your response to “a guy,” I think you’re making his case for him. That’s what he said. And again, that’s what he said. And … what he said is absolute value of numbers is irrelevant (also a point I made). The issue is trend, and if this article gets a thousand comments it won’t change the fact that gun control DOES NOT REDUCE CRIME. The data doesn’t substantiate that assertion.
I’m nonplussed (or at least, ambivalent) at the notion of arming all teachers. The better option is to allow them to be armed if they go through the process for getting a concealed handgun permit, train themselves, go to the range frequently, and get weapon retention training.
On January 11, 2013 at 1:36 pm, bbert2 said:
let’s see if changing names keeps me from getting my posts wiped out .
Hersch you said,
One of my co-workers, who didn’t have ready access to firearms, was shot and killed, along with his wife, when two home invaders raped his (now) fatherless and motherless daughter. Your decision to refuse to protect your family is cowardly, immoral and reprehensible in the extreme.
my post that have been conveniently remove the dress is this issue . in the past 2 months are small town has had a gun related suicide , and an 8 year old girl killed when I fathers gun fell out of his pocket and discharged accidentally . if you go to the Justice Department you will see that the number of home invasions wear a gun was actually attributable to stopping the crime , the numbers are in the hundreds . accidental deaths , suicides and owners own gun being used against them are in the tens of thousands . you are statistically 1100 * more likely to be killed by a gun in your home , then they are . to protect you . I’m perfectly good with telling my wife and children , that on any given day I’ll take the 1 in 100000 chance you will be killeed or rapped by not having a gun in the house . Than the 1 in 1000 chance of accidental death or other gun related cause of death . if that makes me a coward and immoral then so be it . Scratch a staunch conservative , and you reveal hundreds of years of justified horrors in the name of religion economics , or false security . fact is most of the liberties and benefits we have today can be attributed to those that were called liberals in their day . hindsight is rairly 20/20, think on that for a while
On January 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm, Herschel Smith said:
bbert2,
I have no idea, absolutely none, what “post” you’re talking about. I don’t approve or disapprove each post. Since there have been more than 50,000 spam comments over my blogging history (have you ever operated a well-visited web site before?), I let Spam Karma 2 do the work for me. Occasionally I have to interact with the software to tweek it or recover a comment or delete a spam that got through. I dislike having to do this because it’s time consuming. I did not delete whatever comment you did or didn’t make.
Making comments is a privilege, not a right. Since you have accused me of something for which you have no proof, you’re forthwith banned from making further comments. I hope that fixes whatever issues you are having.
On January 25, 2013 at 2:21 pm, Walter Ring said:
More guns always means less overall crime. The United States has nearly more guns than the rest of the world combined but we do not have even close to the highest murder rate. In fact, we have one of the lowest murder rates in the world. If you break the crime rate down by race, blacks commit over half, eve though they are 13 percent of the population. Gun bans simply do not work in reducing crime.
On May 1, 2013 at 1:57 pm, Sheepdog42 said:
I can tell you all from firsthand experience (I am a professional law enforcement officer) that the absolute safest place to be is in the middle of a crowd of armed, skilled, informed, law abiding citizens. And – there is no one that can refute that. For the yahoo up top that said something about Aurora becoming a free for all wild west shootout (that was the implication if not the exact words)…no. Not likely. I know for a fact had I been there, the loss of life would have been GREATLY reduced. I am not arrogant enough to say that I could have stopped a mad man in full body armor intent on taking life without any casualty, but I AM confident enough to say that I would have stopped it long, long before it went where it did. Same holds true for any of the school shootings you can think of. Any of them. There may even be a few of those where I’d have been taken out if going at them alone – but I’d have damned sure stopped the bad guys before I bled out.
This is very obviously a sensitive subject for anyone, but please understand that I am not alone. ALL of my brothers and sisters that walk that thin blue line would (much) prefer an armed populous. We will ALL testify to the fact that armed neighborhoods have less of all types of crime.. less call volume overall.. neighborhoods that are more or less disarmed – where I live… are hands down the most dangerous areas for us, and I can actually think of a few that I won’t go into without another unit for backup… not because I am scared, believe me I am not.. but because you WILL be in a gunfight if you don’t. And you know what? There’s not a thing in the world that ‘gun control’ would do to fix that.
You want to fix the problem.. HERE is your solution: start by fixing the broken judiciary. I regularly pick up felons with illegally obtained weapons, who have previous charges for among other things, having illegally obtained weapons. Why are they walking around on the street? I pick up murderers… walking around on the street… I find people that have multiple violent offenses in their criminal history.. walking around – and all invariably doing the same things they already have an established history of. Here’s an example.. friend of mine arrested this jackleg thug on felony drug & weapons charges that should have put him away (per the criminal statutes) for a bare minimum of 15 years in the state prison.. this wasn’t an arrest of circumstantial evidence.. or the result of an investigation.. this was a veteran officer picking up a thug caught violating the law; e.g., crime in progress. The thug already had a long history of violent crime.. On said thug’s day in court, the DA accepted a plea to (a single!) lesser misdemeanor charges, and the judge sentenced him to time served and ONE RANDOM ACT OF KINDNESS. I s*** you not. Two years later, this POS breaks into the home of a single mom, kills the mom (shot her multiple times) in front of the 9 yo daughter, then shoots the little girl 6 times in the torso before absconding with a TV set. The little girl lived. Now, you tell me.. is the problem here the gun??!!! or the POS DA and spineless judge? The thug should NEVER have been on the street to begin with.
Cops are doing their jobs. I am DOING MY JOB.. putting the bad guys behind bars.. taking the illegal guns off the streets.. BUT YOUR JUDICIARY puts them RIGHT BACK, and they go right back out.. steal more guns.. kill more people. Eventually, we’ll stick them on death row here – but only after a long long long string of opportunities to stop the bleeding have gone to the wayside.
Beyond the broken judiciary, we live in a country where people refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions (of course, fixing the judiciary by and large fixes this problem too). We live in an era of bail outs, and cop outs, excuses, and a total lack of consequence. Where PTI (pre trial intervention) rules supreme.
All out little thug gang members here? They ALL root for gun control.
I may be in a bit of a different position than the average citizen, but I can tell you this, badge or not… I will be damned if I give up my guns while these thugs roam free, and armed to the teeth with stolen weapons.
I’d LOVE to live in a utopian society where violent crime is a thing of the past.. I’d love to jump into a star trek movie where back on Earth, bad guys seem to be a thing of the past – that place does not exist, and it never will.
Everyone talks about how peaceful and wonderful Switzerland is.. no crime.. literally, none (petty crime yes, almost a total lack of violent crime). Guess what? 1 in 2 citizens has at least one full auto rifle on the proverbial gun rack.. Israel.. within the bounds of all Israeli cities (i.e., no palestenians bombing or declaring jihad) – no violent crime. Literally everyone.. male.. female.. old .. young.. serves at least 2 years in the IDF, and a great many of them not only have M4’s, they walk around town with them slung over their shoulders. No violent crime. War? Yep – they’ve got that in spades on all sides of them, but within their borders. None.
ALL of this aside. All of it. It really should be MOOT. We have the declared Right to keep and bear arms… not the privilege. The Right.. and not the Right to bear arms for hunting, or even for self defense.. but the RIGHT to bear arms comparable to the local militia (and to the very first commenter? that means cannons.. jets.. etc. like it or not – of course, some concessions have been.. rightfully.. made there, but with regard to small arms? no. no concessions). The reason we have this right? Because we live in a free REPUBLIC, and to KEEP IT THAT WAY. For all you folks that may not know what that is? In a democracy, the majority rules.. in a republic the individual is PROTECTED FROM the majority.
We live in a land of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS.. THAT is what makes us different.. THAT is what makes us special. Give that up? And you have forfeited EVERYTHING that we have fought and died for all these hundreds of years.
It does come with a price though.. individual freedom comes with the steep price of individual responsibility – and it is expected the individual will understand cause / effect.. consequence.
The next 5 Congresses need to spend ALL their time, not passing new legislation.. but cleaning house, and repealing all the legislation in existence that is not in line with Constitutional values – And we need to ENFORCE the laws that DO exist that are consistent with the constitution. Not mercilessly.. but with the true blinders of JUSTICE. Adams believed in the rule of law.. so do I. We HAVE a solid framework.. it works.. It WILL work today. If we LET IT.
Finally; conversation with the other side. You liberals out there that latch onto this issue. Stop and think about this for a second. You do not have a 99% majority here. Individual liberty aside, we the People are split damn near right down the middle right now. You may be more vocal than we are.. you may even get more air time on the television, but voting numbers speak for themselves. There are at LEAST 50% of all Americans that believe in individual liberty. But we are so damned polarized right now, that almost no one on either side will budge one single inch. I can guarantee you all this.. if we don’t find some common ground – we are ALL going to lose.
I think .. I THINK that at the end of the day everyone – liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, libertarians, non-declared, I THINK we can all agree that free is better than not. Being able to buy a home and property is better than not. I think we’d all agree that being a strong country is better than being a weak one. I THINK we’d all agree that having the RIGHT to vote, and speak freely, and watch what we want when we want is good, and to be able to eat what we want..I am pretty sure that EVERYONE would agree that if there were a list of rights that kept the system in tact they should be untouchable.. I THINK that if you break it down, every American on all sides is going to agree that INDIVIDUAL liberty is preferable to all else. IF that is indeed the case.. Then we can therefore likely all agree that a free Republic is much (much) preferable to all other forms of Government.. including democracy. And if we can then agree that public servants should do the job they are paid to do, or be fired.. same as you or me.. then we not only have a solid foundation from which all other conversation can spring, we are back full circle at the beginning. We would have gone back to our roots if you will.
YES, we will ALWAYS have differences.. ideological.. political.. some easy to fix.. some which will always get us heated.. but that used to make us GREAT.. not weak as it is doing now. We CAN talk about issues, and make compromises on politics.. but destroy the republic in favor of an outright communist state, or even a socialistic democracy, and a lot of the conversation goes by the wayside.. hell, you may not even have that right anymore. Because I assure you,…you take one right away.. that whole house of cards comes tumbling down, and you are left with naught but privilege – which SEEMS like rights .. maybe even 99% of the time.. but that 1% when the ‘government’ decides they know better than you and removes your privilege – in THAT moment you will know the difference between right and privilege. In THAT moment if you are old enough to remember what rights were… you will pine for those days.
You all.. American Citizens.. (I don’t care one whit what anyone else reading this thinks.. if you are from somewhere else, you are.. as far as I am concerned, not a productive part of the conversation.. it is after all OUR destiny in the air. NOT yours).. anyhow, ALL of us Americans need to get past our differences and write our reps, and demand that they operate within the bounds of their oath of office.. demand that our Bill of Rights be resolute and concrete.. demand that the judiciary be fixed both federally and locally.. insist on the fair and impartial rule of law.. the equitable distribution of justice.. if we can do that? IF we will ALL write our reps to insist on those things? We will ALL win.. and we can work out the kinks later. United we CAN stand.. divided we will (all) surely fall. United we all win.. divided.. we ALL will lose.
On May 7, 2013 at 9:09 am, Jerry said:
The stats on assaults in Australia are pretty much irrelevant. A closer look reveals that most of the ‘victims’ of assaults were males 15-24 and that 60% of the time they knew the attacker before hand. In fact 27% of the time, the perp was a family member. Only 1/3 of assaults were committed by strangers. So what are these assaults we’re talking about? For the most part, it seems to be schoolyard fights, family squabbles, bar fights, fights between fans of rival sports teams, etc. I imagine much of the time the victim had a role in provoking the fight. If these were truly criminals preying on the defenseless, why did they target those most able to defend themselves (15-24 y.o. males)? The rate of assaults on the elderly was about 1/8th that of the young and able-bodied. These are situations where even if you had a gun, you should NOT use it, and if you did, YOU would likely be going to jail for excessive use of force. You and your brother or friend get into a fight, he punches you, and so you whip out a gun and shoot him? I don’t think so.
On July 25, 2014 at 9:04 pm, American said:
I sure wish I had the ability you have to fantasize about living in a euphoric society where all is bliss. Everyone loves one another and the lions lay down with the lambs and no one gets eaten. AHHHH. What a wonderfull dream land you must live in. Unfortunately there are and always have been BAD people, they are the lions, don’t know if you have ever watched any wildlife shows or anything, like wild kingdom or…… ( probably not because you are too squeamish ) but there are always lions after the sheep. The real root of the problem pretty much comes down to Dr. Spock and Liberalism. Since no parent can discipline their children without some do-gooder calling CPS on them, the NEW society we live in is filled with people who think there are no consequences for any action they choose to undertake. They don’t respect their parents, teachers, police, our laws or anyone’s property or rights. The Bible says if you spare the rod you spoil the child, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. When honest people cannot defend themselves against bullies or predators because insane laws and rules prevent it then what have we become as a society? Only the criminals have rights, we see that every day. He killed numerous people but we can’t execute them because it may be cruel and inhumane treatment. They did not care about the rights of the people they killed however cruelly or inhumanely they did it. SO, why is it so wrong in your opinion that ” WE The People ” should not be allowed to have a modern firearm (just as the criminals have) to defend ourselves? Our forefathers were a whole lot smarter than you and I. They lived through the same types of things we experience in our “Modern Society”. History always repeats itself in one way or another. Many philosophers have stated this. You probably have never read any of those either, just a guess. You and your ideas are novel (or you heard it from a liberal professor in college and are just a talking head repeating what you heard) in your own mind. Maybe between you and God you can solve all of our problems. Evidently you think you are that wise. Maybe God could learn a thing or two from someone as smart as you. I wish we could all be as sharp as you. You have obviously never been a victim of crime or anything, so you have had a euphoric life so far, I hope your luck holds. In the mean time how about you consider everyone else in the real world and let them have the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones against the bad guys. Why should the bad guys have the advantage? It is supposed to be the good guys always win. You probably never watched the old westerns either huh? Well, in closing I just want to say to you, when confronted with a bad person, tell them to hang on a minute because you need to call a cop to protect you, wait while I get my baseball bat, or my mace, or hit my car alarm panic button (someone is sure to come and rescue me because I can’t protect myself) or whatever else you euphoric people think is a good idea to defend yourselves and your family.
Have you ever played chess? I kind of doubt you have, based on your rhetoric. The best defense is a good offense, keep the other guy guessing, (hint for you: are they or aren’t they armed? That is the question a criminal has to ask himself. In a “gun free zone” he knows all law abiding people will oblige the sign. That makes it a killing zone. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist like you even to figure that one out. Any simpleton know law abiding citizens OBEY the law so they won’t take their guns there, that means I’m free to go in and shoot people with (you I hope guessed it) no consequences. No mass shootings have happened where citizens are allowed to carry weapons. They always go for gun free zones, DUH.
Bad people do bad things to innocent people, always has been, always will be. Don’t be a victim. Don’t let your child or your spouse or other family be a victim. PROTECT YOU AND YOUR’S!!!! I do. Tell your spouse and your children you can’t protect them and they will always live in fear. Guns save more lives each year than the news media will ever let you know about. Be an Ostrich, stick your head in the sand and it will all go away (euphoria, just as you have always dreamed of, your dream come true). DON’T BRING A KNIFE TO A GUN FIGHT!!!!!
On March 21, 2015 at 5:49 am, Matthew said:
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com Might want to read this since the US defines a lot less a violent crime than the USA which obviously skews statistics.
On March 21, 2015 at 5:51 am, Matthew said:
The UK*, apologies I’m still half asleep.
On March 16, 2016 at 2:44 am, David Platts said:
Long term impact of firearm regulation appears to be working well in Australia in terms of homicide (1.96 in 1996 to 1.04 in 2014; a 47% drop). The US rate dropped 32%, far less than Australia and sat at 4.96 (CDC) in 2014. That rate is 4 1/2 times the Australian rate. Robbery dropped from from 89.4 in 1996 to 41.8 in 2014. It is true that the rate rose until 2001 then the drop was precipitous. However, the overall drop was 53.2% while the US settled in at 102.2 while dropping a little less at 49.5%. The US robbery rate is about 2 1/2 times the Australia rate. The US categorizes only two more categories of violent crime. Until recently, one was penetrable rape while Australia categorizes all sexual assault. The NCVS categorizes sexual assault. Our rate was at 110 per 100,000 in 2014. Australia was at 87.5. The US is 26% higher in this category too. The last category of violent crime in the US is aggravated assault. Australia numbers for aggravated assault are difficult to draw out of the total assault category (including spitting, shoving, slapping, etc.). The US does not categorize the expanded category of total assault.
On March 16, 2016 at 9:06 am, Herschel Smith said:
For this data – if it’s correct and presented without bias – to mean anything, you would have had to demonstrate causation. You haven’t done that.