Gun control a waste of money


PDA






Desertdog
December 29, 2005, 11:07 AM
A perfect illustration of how gun laws have unintended consequences.

Gun control a waste of money
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1998&dept_id=460503&newsid=15831976&P

By Terry McGarvey

One of the tactics Paul Martin is employing in attempting to be re-elected as prime minister of this beautiful country is a blatant attempt to buy votes in the largest city in Canada.
I am referring to his statement that if he is re-elected, he will ban all handguns. Of course, this is optional for those provinces that don't want to institute the new ban. Albertan and Saskatchewan have already said they will not uphold this law if passed.


How ridiculous can that be? Handgun registry and control laws for legal handguns have been in effect in this country since 1934.

Martin obviously has not done his homework when it comes to gun owners in this country. He and his cohorts have squandered nearly $2 billion on a useless gun registry that was supposed to cost $1.5 million and has not done one thing to reduce gun crime in this country. During the institution of these gun control laws, people responsible for registering guns lost hundreds of thousands of these registrations, never to be recovered.

In spite of this registry, the use of guns to kill people goes unchecked.

The registrations were for guns in the possession of the law-abiding people of this country. I would suggest to Martin that very few, if any, registered guns have been used to kill people. His statement that the guns being used to kill people are being stolen from collectors is, to say the least, ridiculous.

If Martin and his government had chosen to spend the $2 billion to beef up control of the borders to choke off the illegal importation of guns to this country, we would have been a lot further ahead.

Martin said on television recently that guns kill people. Guns don't kill people, people do. That's like saying that eating utensils make people obese--ridiculous drivel.

As many people may know, nearly two years ago, Australia banned guns entirely within its borders. Here are a few first year statistics from Australia as published by Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.

* 640,381 guns were surrendered by the people of Australia, which were destroyed, costing taxpayers more than $500 million.

* Homicides are up 3.2 per cent.

* Assaults are up 8.6 per cent.

* Armed robberies are up 44 per cent.

* In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are up 300 per cent.

While figures in the last 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms, this has changed dramatically upward in the ensuing 12 months. These stupid laws have guaranteed the criminals unarmed prey.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense has been expended in "successfully" ridding Australian society of guns. This is sure to be repeated here in Canada if we don't stop these idiots from passing ridiculous laws that don't benefit anyone but the illegal element in our society.

Terry McGarvey would like people to consider Prime Minister Paul Martin's recent comments regarding Canada's gun laws when voting in the upcoming federal election.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun control a waste of money" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Janitor
December 29, 2005, 11:16 AM
"Just $1 billion more and we'll have it under control and be able to do away with gun crime. Really."

"Well ... maybe $2 billion. But that will _really_ be it!"
-

El Tejon
December 29, 2005, 11:25 AM
Australia banned guns? Mmm, better check that before publication.

Molon Labe
December 29, 2005, 12:18 PM
What if gun control was not a waste of money? Would it be O.K., then?

Lupinus
December 29, 2005, 12:31 PM
No, but it is just and extra scoop of ice cream on the pie

AF_INT1N0
December 29, 2005, 12:59 PM
What if gun control was not a waste of money? Would it be O.K., then?


If in some far out Dimension, guns truly were the problem and If the banning of them would truly make the world a violence free utopia, and If you could ensure that no one could ever past present or future have them (especially the governments). and IF banning guns would undo several thousand years of human nature. Then maybe...just maybe I could see enacting a ban.. :uhoh:

I wouldn't abide by it, but I could understand.

However just look at the genocide RWANDA, to see what people do with machetes, etc. when few or no guns are present..

Think of how many citizens you put thorugh a basic firearms course for $2 billion. You'd see crime go down ahelluvalot if all of a sudden the Christian woman you were trying to gang rape pulled out Glock 19 and started shooting.:fire: :fire:

MechAg94
December 29, 2005, 01:33 PM
I believe Australia banned all private ownership except for licensed people who can get licenses for certain purposes. Australia's crime rate was very low before all this and hasn't increased much at all. It was a waste of money.

Standing Wolf
December 29, 2005, 09:36 PM
The vast majority of government "programs" are a waste of money; many, in fact, not only waste money, but turn problems into disasters.

Skeptic
December 30, 2005, 10:25 AM
The vast majority of government "programs" are a waste of money; many, in fact, not only waste money, but turn problems into disasters.

+ 1

And, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

kage genin
December 30, 2005, 10:41 AM
The vast majority of government "programs" are a waste of money; many, in fact, not only waste money, but turn problems into disasters.
another +1

Gun control a waste of money
And they call that news??:confused: Well, at least it's the most truthful headline I've ever seen involving guns :)

shermacman
December 30, 2005, 10:42 AM
The three largest mass murders in American history were done with JetA fuel (9/11/01) Diesel fuel (Oklahoma City) and gasoline (NYC).

No guns were involved. How is getting rid of guns going to fix that?

Manedwolf
December 30, 2005, 11:14 AM
"Just $1 billion more and we'll have it under control and be able to do away with gun crime. Really."

"Well ... maybe $2 billion. But that will _really_ be it!"
-

Just like the "War on Drugs", the failure is simply a means of keeping thousands of court clerks, judges, bailiffs, jail guards, etc, etc, etc...in money-wasting government jobs.

The War on Drugs is a tremendous generator of revenue for the court system, and the War on Guns is apt to be the same.

Plus the brass gets to keep trophies from the turn-ins and seizures, and others vanish into the pockets of lower-level clerks to be sold wherever. I remember when I was in S. Florida, the police evidence room even "lost" a twin Browning 50-cal.

cbsbyte
December 30, 2005, 12:13 PM
I believe it has been proven in studies that gun control does not raise or lower crime rates. There are other factors that cause cime to rise, such as shifts in unemployment rates and the encomomy. The only effect Gun control has is to lower accidental shootings rates.

Warren
December 31, 2005, 02:44 AM
It is not actually a waste of money from the pro-control point of view.

It is not their money, it's yours and they don't care what happens to you or your wealth.

So they will spend as much of your money to control you as they can grab, as long as it makes you poorer, more dependant on government and mostly harmless it is money well spent.

Oleg Volk
December 31, 2005, 04:07 AM
The only effect Gun control has is to lower accidental shootings rates.

Doesn't even do that, because proper safety education is reduced by those laws.

Janitor
December 31, 2005, 08:30 AM
Doesn't even do that, because proper safety education is reduced by those laws.
+1

armoredman
December 31, 2005, 12:38 PM
Firearms accidents have steadily declined since 1914, when records started being kept.
Gun control, AKA personal disarmament, has never been about crime, but power. Nothing more, nothing less. Deluded fools who sign onto the campaign with signs and t-shirts, often believe the slogans and hype, but are willing pawns in a much larger chess game - the ridding of society of any independance and ability to control thier own lives.
Start with NFA 34 - tying all crimes in Chicago by Lucky Luciano and Al Capone to that law, is like banning the sale of aviation gasoline because of 9/11 - but there was no such thing as an informed public at the time. Eliminating suppressors and large caliber weapons, which are never used in crime, (when was the last time someone held up a bank with a German 75mm Pak40 anti tank gun, NFA Curio and Relic list), was never about crime, ever. When the GCA of 68 came out, with it's ridiculous "sporting purposes" clause, it was not about President Kennedy's assasination, but that certainly was a conveinent vehicle to hang it on! How did assigning arbitrary point systems to imported handguns, or banning the manufacture of more registered silencers, or so called "destructive devices" have ANYTHING to do with an old Italian Caracano rifle supposedly used in the assasination of a President?
How does Brady attach his name to laws banning rifles, when a 22 revolver weilded by a nutjob with no previous history of being any trouble was what hit him? Maybe he should have lobbied to ban nutjobs! Nope, can't ban Barbara Streisand or Jane Fonda....
Not one law, (including the infamous 1911 Sullivan Act registration law in NYC, which has solved 0 crimes) was ever about reducing crime. Every one has been about reducing power in the larger group, and increasing power in a smaller group, the absolute antithesis of the American dream.

Pardon the long windedness, had some vitriol to get rid of...

Janitor
December 31, 2005, 04:46 PM
How does Brady attach his name to laws banning rifles, when a 22 revolver weilded by a nutjob with no previous history of being any trouble was what hit him? Maybe he should have lobbied to ban nutjobs!
I believe that should be "her" rather than "his", but "him" is right. :)

IIRC, he was a 2nd ammendmant advocate.
-

SIGarmed
December 31, 2005, 05:01 PM
What if gun control was not a waste of money? Would it be O.K., then?

No, because it is immoral and unjust.

What is the definition of "not a waste of money"?

The marxists that propose these measures would consider anything they waste money on in that category.

jazurell
January 1, 2006, 03:07 PM
EXCELLENT, Armoredman, excellent!

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun control a waste of money" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!