Gun bans do not and cannot save lives - here's proof


PDA






progunner1957
October 17, 2006, 11:55 AM
Here is proof positive that gun bans do not and cannot save lives. In an attempt to curb gun violence, Great Britan has discovered that banning guns is an exercise in futility.

Why? Because criminal thugs do not turn in their guns.


Grasping at guns

Lorne Gunter
National Post

Almost a week after last month's tragic shooting at Montreal's Dawson College, the National Post ran a guest column by the mother of a Dawson student.

Beverly Akerman suggested a "simple" response to the crime: "no more guns. Because no one can accurately predict who among us will become unhinged enough to commit bloody slaughter, I believe guns shouldn't be available to the public."

We dubbed this a "mother's radical solution for gun crime."

But suggesting a ban on guns is hardly radical. Every time there is a Dawson-like tragedy, a chorus calls for a ban on guns.

Allan Rock, the former Liberal justice minister who was the legislative father of our current gun registry, admitted he came to office in Ottawa believing "only the police and the military should have firearms."

Since Ms. Akerman's commentary, this paper has run half a dozen letters (and received perhaps a dozen more) from professors, psychologists, health care workers and gun control advocates all calling for a gun ban, or at least wondering aloud why ordinary people should be permitted to own such destructive objects.

Banning guns is one of the most common solutions offered by urban professionals, bureaucrats and special interests in the face of each new high-profile shooting.

But consider this: A week after the Dawson shootings, Britain was transfixed by its own similar shooting. Two 17-year-olds were shot in a South London McDonald's for disrespecting their attacker during a conversation. The shooter used a semi-automatic handgun.

Yet, there were no calls for a ban on civilian ownership of handguns. Why? Because Britain had already banned civilian handguns nearly a decade ago.

In response to the horrific Dunblane, Scotland, school shootings in 1996, in which 16 five- and six-year-old children and one teacher were killed, the U.K. eliminated all civilian handgun ownership.

It's hard to call for a ban in response to a new newsworthy shooting when you already have a ban thanks to an old one.

Since 1997, it has not been legal for ordinary Britons to own a handgun. Yet since the ban, handgun homicides have gone up, not down. In the six years prior to the ban, there was an average of 33 handgun murders a year in Britain. Since then, there had been an average of nearly 43, an increase of 30% despite the ban.

In the years since the handgun ban, violent crime in Britain has spiked and the streets of the major cities are awash in illegal guns smuggled in from abroad. By Scotland Yard's estimate, as many as 4 million illegal handguns have entered the U.K. in the past nine years.

In Manchester, for example, police report an average of two firearms offences each day by 15- to 20-year-olds, alone. In most categories of firearms crimes other than murder, Britain is now more violent than the United States.

Australia has had a similar experience.

Following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, in which a crazed gunman killed 35 people at a Tasmanian resort, the Australian national government banned most semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. Nearly a million civilian guns were confiscated (with compensation) in the months after the shooting.

Yet, while gun crimes in Australia are now noticeably lower than in 1996, shooting incidents actually rose by more than two-thirds in the five years after the government-imposed gun "surrender."

The Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BCSR) credits the dramatic gun crime decline since 2001 not to the gun ban, but to increased police efforts to interdict illegal gun shipments and prosecute owners of illegal weapons, notably drug dealers. Don Weatherburn, the head of the BCSR, sees no evidence "to be able to say that gun laws have had any effect."

Indeed, lawful civilian gun ownership has jumped dramatically again in Australia since 2002, at precisely the same time as gun crime has been falling.

Once a disturbed individual has made up his mind to enter a school or hotel or other public building and commit mass murder, no civilian gun control -- neither a registry, nor a ban -- can stop him.

Grabbing guns is grasping at straws.

Outlawing civilian possession of firearms might give worried people the sense something is being done to make them safer. But that would just be a false sense of security.

Link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=791e1e82-80f7-4bdf-889d-894aa3017d43

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun bans do not and cannot save lives - here's proof" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zundfolge
October 17, 2006, 12:09 PM
Dude ... stop trying to confuse the issue with facts, reason and logic.

Guns are bad um-kay!

ZeSpectre
October 17, 2006, 12:20 PM
Beverly Akerman suggested a "simple" response to the crime: "no more guns. Because no one can accurately predict who among us will become unhinged enough to commit bloody slaughter, I believe guns shouldn't be available to the public."

I wonder what world she lives in that she believes anyone can make guns just "go away". Hell we can't even make the common cold go away and NOBODY wants that to stay.

Molon Labe
October 17, 2006, 12:23 PM
But what if the statistics proved the opposite? In other words, what if the statistics showed there was a decrease in gun-related crimes after the ban went into effect? Would you then agree banning guns is a good thing?

When you use crime statistics to justify the illogicalness of gun control, you are implying gun control is O.K. if the statistics proved the opposite. This is why you should never bring up crime statistics when arguing about the illogicalness of gun control.

When you're engaged in a gun control argument, you should say something to this effect:

"I really don't care if gun control increases or decreases crime. Crime statistics have absolutely nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms."

progunner1957
October 17, 2006, 12:25 PM
Dude ... stop trying to confuse the issue with facts, reason and logic.

Guns are bad um-kay!


You are right - what was I thinking? We certainly can't have facts muddy the waters on this issue!

I remember reading an account of a meeting between Diane Feinstein and a progun lobbyist, during which the lobbyist showed the good Senator undeniable evidence, researched and put together by John Lott that gun bans do not save lives - they actually increase violence, crime and murder.

Her response? "I will not be deterred by the facts."

progunner1957
October 17, 2006, 12:33 PM
In other words, what if the statistics showed there was a decrease in gun-related crimes after the ban went into effect? Would you then agree banning guns is a good thing?
Nope.

"The Government" does not have the authority to ban rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. That's why they are called rights.

Would the antigun bigots agree to "The Government" outlawing freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press and freedom from arbitrary hands-on searches in the streets by police? Yes they would - when Hell freezes over.

Then why should we agree to "The Government" outlawing our right to arms??
We shouldn't.

Rights are rights, period. There are no "good" rights and "bad" rights in our Bill of Rights.

Taipei Personality
October 17, 2006, 01:07 PM
Rights are rights, period. There are no "good" rights and "bad" rights in our Bill of Rights.

True, although the "our" in our Bill of Rights does not include the subject of this thread, Canada. Those of us who believe in natural rights agree that the right to keep and bear arms is a matter of the human condition and no government has the right to abridge it. However, Canadian law does not recognize such a right and to argue that the US Bill of Rights does is pointless to a Canadian.

Cromlech
October 17, 2006, 01:40 PM
Ah yes, the mention of my homeland once more. (Same story)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2390854,00.html

“The main reason I got a gun was for my own protection, the same as everyone else,” he told The Times. “Kids would rather not end up as victims themselves. It’s not as easy to get a gun as the media makes out, but if you know the right people you can get a gun. I know a 13-year-old who carries. He bought an 8mm pistol for £80. The Mac-10s and the machine pistols are only for the big boys.

Unless they are talking about the 7.65mm pistols (with them rounding up) they must surely be talking about semi-auto blankfirers, which mostly use 8mm blanks. :rolleyes:

Sistema1927
October 17, 2006, 02:25 PM
While the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution describes the right of the people of the US to keep and bear arms, it does not grant that right.

Since this is a "natural" right (whether acknowledged as coming from Deity or just from the nature of man), this right is one that belongs to all human beings, regardless of their domicile. For example, Polish Jews during WWII had the right to bear arms to defend themselves against Nazi genocide, but they had been denied that right. The people of England, Canada, New South Wales, or any other spot on the globe, have the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves against tyrants and other evil men. The fact that they don't exercise that right is sad, sad indeed.

progunner1957
October 17, 2006, 02:57 PM
the "our" in our Bill of Rights does not include the subject of this thread, Canada.True enough - the failure of gun bans to make the disarmed safe recognizes no national boundaries.

El Tejon
October 17, 2006, 02:58 PM
It's never about making anyone safer, it is about controlling those very same people.

TX1911fan
October 17, 2006, 03:06 PM
I agree that use of statistics to justify the RKBA may be dangerous, but I think it can be helpful in the debate, if used correctly. I approach it like this:

1. Strongly communicate that regardless, we have a God given right, guaranteed by our Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

2. We have the same right to not only protect ourselves our families and loved ones, by the most effective means possible, but to also protect our nation and our Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

3. I acknolwedge that the desire to ban guns is a reasonable response to tragedies involving crime, but that it is misplaced. It is not only illogical (given that there are no calls to ban cars, bicycles and swimming pools, although far, far more people are killed by these things than guns in the hands of civilians), but that it is completely ineffective, as proven time and again by the statitstics.

4. In fact, gun bans are not only ineffective, they actually result in more harm to the public, as is also proven by the statistics.

5. So, while the statistics don't grant us the RKBA (given that God gave us that right), the statistics do point out that there are far more effective ways to reduce crime and tragedies than a gun ban.

Taipei Personality
October 17, 2006, 03:18 PM
True enough - the failure of gun bans to make the disarmed safe recognizes no national boundaries.

Exactly.

Fosbery
October 17, 2006, 04:16 PM
You didn't know this already?

Using statistics can be good but I take the following approach:

I first point out that there are indeed statistics which can support gun control
I then point out that there are just as many, in fact more, statistics which prove the opposite.
However, both sets of statistics are completely irrelevent for two reasons:

1) It is impossible to pin down the exact cause of changes in crime levels. Just because handguns were banned and handgun crime fell, does not mean the ban was directly responsible for the fall. Equally, just because CCW was legalised, and handgun crime fell, does not mean that the legalisation was directly responsible for the fall. Social and economic changes have far more sway on such things in my opinion.

2) Even if gun ownership resulted in higher crime rates, which it does not, it does not matter. The right to arms is a universal human right. Perhaps fewer people would be murdered if we banned swearing, insults and arguments, but this would be a gross infringement upon our human rights. Same deal with arms.

Zundfolge
October 17, 2006, 04:19 PM
1. Strongly communicate that regardless, we have a God given right, guaranteed by our Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

The problem is that they have a ready made comeback:

You don't have the right to endanger the lives of other people.

Your right to hunt or engage in a shooting hobby is outweighed by the rights of others around you to be safe.

Even if gun ownership resulted in higher crime rates, which it does not, it does not matter. The right to arms is a universal human right. Perhaps fewer people would be murdered if we banned swearing, insults and arguments, but this would be a gross infringement upon our human rights. Same deal with arms.
The problem is that 1) Antis do not believe your right to arms (and even self defense) is a right and 2) these people honestly believe it is the job of government to make us all "better people". So believe me banning swearing, insults and arguments IS ON THEIR AGENDA (note all the "speech codes" on college campuses in the US and the laws against racial insults in the UK).


So thats why we use all these statistics; to prove that my exercising my right to keep and bear arms does NOT reduce the safety of others (and in fact may enhance it). Then they'll come around to the idea that its a basic human right.

Sistema1927
October 17, 2006, 04:47 PM
1. Strongly communicate that regardless, we have a God given right, guaranteed by our Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

I would make a suggested change to this sentence:

1. Strongly communicate that regardless, we have a God given right, enumerated in our Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution cannot guarantee anything. In fact, it needs constant defence so that those who would enslave us are checked. In 1980 I raised my right hand and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. This was an oath that has never been repealed, even though my military service ended in 1986, and it is just as binding on me today as it was way back then.

Only "We the People" can guarantee that the US Constitution is not gutted of its meaning, and sometimes it is a difficult and thankless task. There are still plenty of enemies, both foreign and domestic, and we need to be ever vigilant.

Murray B
October 20, 2006, 07:53 PM
Lorne Gunter is a well-known conservative and like most conservatives he is too willing to give so called 'liberals' the benifit of the doubt. This he has done for many years even years after no doubt should have remained.

Canadian gun laws make perfect sense it is just that he does not undertand what the liberal agenda really is.

Take a look at the Canadian constitution at <http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html>

Now note this clause:
"
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members. (80)
Continuation in special circumstances
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. (81)
"
Looks pretty good, Eh?

Now consider this excerpt, "In time of ... apprehended ... insurrection ... House of Commons may be continued beyond five years ... if not opposed by ... more than one-third of the members ..."

What the heck is an apprehended insurrection?
Note that it is not one-third of all the members but apparently only a quorum. Either way, it should not be too hard to prevent the opposition from voting. Also note that the government continues forever and this clause only needs to be invoked once.

Now the Canadian gun registry makes perfect sense, Eh?

DRMMR02
October 20, 2006, 08:28 PM
But what if the statistics proved the opposite? In other words, what if the statistics showed there was a decrease in gun-related crimes after the ban went into effect? Would you then agree banning guns is a good thing?

When you use crime statistics to justify the illogicalness of gun control, you are implying gun control is O.K. if the statistics proved the opposite. This is why you should never bring up crime statistics when arguing about the illogicalness of gun control.

When you're engaged in a gun control argument, you should say something to this effect:

"I really don't care if gun control increases or decreases crime. Crime statistics have absolutely nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms."

But that fact is already proven lost on the antis, or they wouldn't be antis in the first place. So it's pointless to say, no matter how correct it may be. Antis like to use a "less guns must = less crime" argument. The facts, like this article proven that wrong. I know that we have a Right regardless of statistics. You know it, and somewhere in their minds the antis "know" it. They just don't care. So pointing it out ot them makes no difference.

Sometimes ignoring them is the way to go. But other times you need to confront them and their argument head on.

KC&97TA
October 21, 2006, 01:15 AM
Dude ... stop trying to confuse the issue with facts, reason and logic.

Guns are bad um-kay!

Don't you guys know that guns are Dangerous and Comit Crimes, I guess you have to live in California to understand the Dangers of Guns and Gun Crime?... But all my guns are broke... they just put holes in paper, make funny noises on steel and break clay :uhoh: Ted Kennedy's Car has killed more people than all my guns ;)

I'm finding comedy in the California ban on .50 BMG and now we have the .50DTC. The caseing is what 1/8" shorter? But it's OK, cause it's not a "military assult weapon". Because so many people have been killed in liquer store hold-ups with 30lb Barret Sniper Rifles you know and Air Planes keep getting shot down with .50 BMG's every day, but only in California.

What I really find to be Commedy... California banning AR-15's but allowing AR-15's with 10 round fixed magazines... solution to this problem is to drill and tap a set screw into the magazine release and a 10 round mag becomes fixed, but it takes 2 seconds to remove the screw making it accept detachable 30 round mags again... You see the people that make these laws are so far detached from society, the really don't understand what they're voteing on.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun bans do not and cannot save lives - here's proof" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!