Does Gun Control Prevent Gun Crime?

[melensdad]

Pardon the interruption to the thread, but what does EQUAL RIGHTS have to do with the topic of Gun Control Preventing Crime?

The topic question asks how/does limiting guns from honest people prevent crime?

Can we revert to the topic or has it been soundly proven that gun control actually increases crime?

 

[goofyjim]

Pardon the interruption to the thread, but what does EQUAL RIGHTS have to do with the topic of Gun Control Preventing Crime?

The topic question asks how/does limiting guns from honest people prevent crime?

Can we revert to the topic or has it been soundly proven that gun control actually increases crime?

I don’t think there is any conclusive proof either way but I do want the right to protect myself with a gun.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Pardon the interruption to the thread, but what does EQUAL RIGHTS have to do with the topic of Gun Control Preventing Crime?

The topic question asks how/does limiting guns from honest people prevent crime?

Can we revert to the topic or has it been soundly proven that gun control actually increases crime?

You are absolutely correct. This is a case of “when all else fails, start a new argument”.

 

[goofyjim]

Or it’s a case of limited gun control.

 

[hosemonkey]

I don’t think there is any conclusive proof either way but I do want the right to protect myself with a gun.

Under the present circumstances, those who are impeded from gun ownership by various conditions(felony, spousal abuse issues, mental illness etc) are simply not going to be able to legally possess or carry a handgun. If this is of great concern to you, you need to approach your legislators and petition for change. Given the level of competence and concern for the rights of prospective gun owners by our (laugh) “lawmakers,” I wish you luck. Just as an aside, there is the story on the news today about a sniper shooting in Idaho. The shooter, according to the story, had “an automatic assault rifle”. A total of 30 rounds were fired over 4 hours, so I guess this shooter was very frugal with his ammo, or he did not possess “an automatic assault rifle”. Another example of media misinformation.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I don’t think there is any conclusive proof either way but I do want the right to protect myself with a gun.

Actually there is.

For one thing, take out a subscription and read “America’s First Freedom”. It presents case after case after case of effective self-protection using guns.

Here is a link:

nramagazines.org/americasfirstfreedom.html

Second, visit Amazon and buy the books by John Lott, who has written extensively on the subject of self-defense using guns.

 

[goofyjim]

Actually there is.

For one thing, take out a subscription and read “America’s First Freedom”. It presents case after case after case of effective self-protection using guns.

Here is a link:

nramagazines.org/americasfirstfreedom.html

Second, visit Amazon and buy the books by John Lott, who has written extensively on the subject of self-defense using guns.

I’m not going to bother reading if I am denied the same means of self defense.

 

[melensdad]

I’m not going to bother reading if I am denied the same means of self defense.

Well have you even checked your state laws? How do you know if you are barred in your state from having a gun unless you check? Gun rights are state rights issues under our legal system.

 

[goofyjim]

Well have you even checked your state laws? How do you know if you are barred in your state from having a gun unless you check? Gun rights are state rights issues under our legal system.

Thank you. I will check my state laws and if I see they need changing I will vote in that direction.

 

[melensdad]

I don’t think there is any conclusive proof either way

Click HERE the proof was provided, 6 times, in another thread. There is plenty of additional proof if you want more.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is where the lack of education on mental illness needs to be addressed. One never knows when it will hit. But if one is compliant with medical treatment they can stay just as stable as anyone else. Everyone is missing my point. Why do I not have the right to defend myself since it is my moral obligation to do such?

You have a good point, Jim.

On the one hand, it can be shown that certain mental problems carry a very high potential for violence. On the other, many a dictatorship has used “mental illness” to deprive people of their rights.

 

[PauloFreire2]

The crook who breaks into my house when we’re home will probably eat several bullets and die. Does that count as ‘stopping crime with a gun’?

 

[mgrobertson79]

You have a good point, Jim.

On the one hand, it can be shown that certain mental problems carry a very high potential for violence. On the other, many a dictatorship has used “mental illness” to deprive people of their rights.

This is why we use the institutionalization as a barrier and not just counseling or medication usage.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is why we use the institutionalization as a barrier and not just counseling or medication usage.

People who are institutionalized don’t get a jury trial.

Let’s remember that in this country people were ordered castrated or spayed by the court because they were diagnosed as “imbeciles” – the diagnosis being based on hearsay and junk science.

In the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of the state of Virginia to sterilize a mentally retarded woman against her will. Writing for the majority, Oliver Wendell Holmes said “Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough.”

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Hear, hear!

The Australian example is proof that gun laws reduce firearms related offences.

converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

Unfortunately, it led to an overall increase in violent crime following the enactment of the ban, to the point that the Australian government pulled the crime stats it initially released for the period following the enactment of then ban, then totally restructured how it classified and reported violent crime and re-released with a note on the pages of interest to the statisticians that the restructuring prevented before / after comparisons of other types of violent crime. (I saw that note posted on those pages personally before it was taken down as heat continued to mount regarding the controversy.)

Yes, reducing the number of guns dramaticially can reduce gun crime. However, increases in all other type of crime when the victim pool was disarmed rose at a proportion that nullified and overshadowed the gains in the narrow field of gun crimes.

All in all, the statistical cover-up the Australian government engaged in all but proves their pre-ban promise that collecting the guns would reduce violent crime in general (NOT just gun crime) was a such a decided failure that they didn’t dare let their citizens see an apples to apples before and after comparison of the effectiveness and had to resort to limit the scope to reducing gun crime to try to claim some success. Since they still have not come clean to allow a clear comparison of before and after crime rates by type, I have no reason to believe that there has been any later changes in the trends that were glaringly obvious in the suppressed figures.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

If mgrobertson79 was a member of a state militia he may have a point, but to suggest that gun ownership in and of itself is a fundamental right is a misguided interpritation of his own constitution.

As far as I can tell, this argument regarding the second amendment only applying to enlisted men is itself an attempt to misrepresent the historical workings of citizen militias. Their historical makeup was of whoever responded to a call to arms for a particular event that required attention, and to that end in many jurisdictions the local constable or sheriff can still temporarily deputize volunteers to help handle a situation. The original formation of the standing / at ready state level militias was originally to give the local volunteers infrastructure to plug into during times of widespread crisis, not to replace them…

 

[mgrobertson79]

Originally Posted by levi86
If mgrobertson79 was a member of a state militia he may have a point, but to suggest that gun ownership in and of itself is a fundamental right is a misguided interpritation of his own constitution.

Obviously the term militia has become skewed by an ever increasing liberal populace who desires a dictatorship such as that of Adolph Hitler or the more recent regimes in Darfur or Rwanda who were all disarmed prior to being massacred.

The term militia as used in the 2nd amendment is used in reference to every able bodied male not wearing the uniform of the United States and is of age to be enlisted.

I know full well what the constitution means and it is those from outside the US who needs to learn something from it. We do not need you from England and Australia telling us what we want or need. Your countries have tried and failed miserably at gun control and we don’t need it.

I’m tired of the “holier than thou” attitude of foreigners telling us how to live. We have managed this far we don’t need you or Hillary Clinton to tell us how to make freedom work.

Also, check your spelling. The queens English shouldn’t be butchered like that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Obviously the term militia has become skewed by an ever increasing liberal populace who desires a dictatorship such as that of Adolph Hitler or the more recent regimes in Darfur or Rwanda who were all disarmed prior to being massacred.

The term militia as used in the 2nd amendment is used in reference to every able bodied male not wearing the uniform of the United States and is of age to be enlisted.

I know full well what the constitution means and it is those from outside the US who needs to learn something from it. We do not need you from England and Australia telling us what we want or need. Your countries have tried and failed miserably at gun control and we don’t need it.

I’m tired of the “holier than thou” attitude of foreigners telling us how to live. We have managed this far we don’t need you or Hillary Clinton to tell us how to make freedom work.

“Who are the militia, Sir? All but a handful of public officials.”
– Tench Coxe

 

[hosemonkey]

As far as I can tell, this argument regarding the second amendment only applying to enlisted men is itself an attempt to misrepresent the historical workings of citizen militias. Their historical makeup was of whoever responded to a call to arms for a particular event that required attention, and to that end in many jurisdictions the local constable or sheriff can still temporarily deputize volunteers to help handle a situation. The original formation of the standing / at ready state level militias was originally to give the local volunteers infrastructure to plug into during times of widespread crisis, not to replace them…

The tortured attempts to “interpret” the 2nd amendment in order to deprive citizens of their right “to keep and bear arms” reminds me very much of the legal gymnastics and sleight-of-hand that was necessary for the Supreme Court to deprive the unborn of their rights as human beings in Roe v. Wade. Anti-gun people and Pro-choice(Pro-death) people are very similar in their attempts to “do-good” at the great expense of others. They are also very prone to lie in order to “justify” their positions.

 

[hosemonkey]

Obviously the term militia has become skewed by an ever increasing liberal populace who desires a dictatorship such as that of Adolph Hitler or the more recent regimes in Darfur or Rwanda who were all disarmed prior to being massacred.

The term militia as used in the 2nd amendment is used in reference to every able bodied male not wearing the uniform of the United States and is of age to be enlisted.

I know full well what the constitution means and it is those from outside the US who needs to learn something from it. We do not need you from England and Australia telling us what we want or need. Your countries have tried and failed miserably at gun control and we don’t need it.

I’m tired of the “holier than thou” attitude of foreigners telling us how to live. We have managed this far we don’t need you or Hillary Clinton to tell us how to make freedom work.

Also, check your spelling. The queens English shouldn’t be butchered like that.

Hear! Hear! Well said, Sir!