I'd like to share a post I used in another forum where gun control is routinely discussed. So far, I haven't had any gun control enthusiasts take this on. As the Cowardly Lion gushed in the Wizard of Oz afer he received his courage medal, "Gosh folks. I'm speechless." I don't think that most gun control enthusiasts suffer from an over abundance of courage.
Anyway, here's my post. Feel free to borrow, steal, or modify, all or any portions of it that you may find useful. This is nothing new or earth shattering. I just hope I phrased some questions in a way that make it very hard for the gun control enthusiasts to answer.
Feed back is encouraged as well. None of us extremely smart pro gun rights folks have all the answers. I freely admit that I don't. I do claim to be extremely smart, however. I don't know if the Mrs. would agree with that, but she's not here right now.
Good Luck!
I would like to see someone from the gun control enthusiasm side provide some facts for us. Before I ask for these specific facts, let me explain why I think they are important.
1. In light of the massacre at V-Tech, the gun control enthusiasts have claimed that we either need more gun control or a ban on handguns to prevent this sort of tragedy in the future.
2. Some gun control enthusiasts seem convinced that we need gun registration to reduce our violent crime rates.
3. Some gun control enthusiasts seem convinced that a ban on handguns is essential in reducing violent crime in the US.
4. Some gun control enthusiasts compare us to Canada and the UK in their attempt to demonstrate that our violent crime problem is directly tied to guns.
Ok, so here's the data I'd like to see to back up those claims.
1. In the UK, handguns had to be legally registered way back in the 30's.
a. I'd like to see the graph showing how their violent crime rates went down within a reasonable amount of time, lets say after two years and continued to decline or flattened out up until they enacted a handgun ban in the middle to late 90's.
b. If handgun registration was so effective, why did they then need to go further with an all out ban?
2. In the UK, after about 60 years of handgun registration, there was a horrific mass murder where a gunman opened fire on a bunch of school children. So the UK went all the way and banned all handguns for civilian possession. I'd like to see the graph showing how their violent crime rates went down starting two years after this ban.
3. Canada has had much stricter handgun controls than the US, including registration of handguns. In 1998, because of a rise in violent crimes, Canada decided to register ALL guns in Canada.
a. I would like to see the graph showing the reduction in violent crimes starting two years after this total registration was put in place.
b. If this has helped reduce violent crime, why has the mayor of Toronto demanded that Canada ban handguns all together because of the rise in violent crime in Canada's major cities?
c. If handgun registration was so effective, why did violent crime continue to increase so that they had to register "all guns"?
4. Washington, D.C. made it virtually impossible for it's residents to have handguns and any other guns (shotguns and rifles) had to be stored in a taken down condition, meaning you couldn't immediately use them. I want to see how this law made crime drop in Washington, D.C. starting two years after the ban was put in place.
5. The UK has banned "self defense" weapons from being carried on the street, as those weapons can also be used for offensive criminal attacks, according to the government officials there. This includes pocket knives, sticks, and other "weapons". I would like to see the graph showing how violent crime has been reduced as a result of this approach to crime, starting two years after the law was enacted.
6.
a. I'd like to have an explanation as to why a study between Vancouver, B.C. and Seattle, WA. showed that while Seattle had a higher rate of gun crimes than did Vancouver, if you took out the gun crimes committed by blacks in Seattle and Vancouver, which was heavily related to gang and drug warfare, the rest of the citizens in Seattle were actually less likely to commit a crime with guns than their counterparts in Vancouver.
b.That's not intended to be racist, but it demonstrates that gun crime is not necessarily related to the availability of guns. Otherwise, wouldn't it follow that the non gang members of Seattle would be more likely to commit crimes with handguns than their counterparts in Vancouver?
7. Lastly, I'd like to see how bad the violent crime rate is in Israel where Israelis routinely carry around full auto weapons in order to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists. This lack of gun control must mean that Israelis are shooting other Israelis ad nauseum every day in violent, criminal, and multiple victim attacks. They have a lot of firepower at their disposal.
Feel free to address any or all of those 7 items.
Anyway, here's my post. Feel free to borrow, steal, or modify, all or any portions of it that you may find useful. This is nothing new or earth shattering. I just hope I phrased some questions in a way that make it very hard for the gun control enthusiasts to answer.
Feed back is encouraged as well. None of us extremely smart pro gun rights folks have all the answers. I freely admit that I don't. I do claim to be extremely smart, however. I don't know if the Mrs. would agree with that, but she's not here right now.
Good Luck!
I would like to see someone from the gun control enthusiasm side provide some facts for us. Before I ask for these specific facts, let me explain why I think they are important.
1. In light of the massacre at V-Tech, the gun control enthusiasts have claimed that we either need more gun control or a ban on handguns to prevent this sort of tragedy in the future.
2. Some gun control enthusiasts seem convinced that we need gun registration to reduce our violent crime rates.
3. Some gun control enthusiasts seem convinced that a ban on handguns is essential in reducing violent crime in the US.
4. Some gun control enthusiasts compare us to Canada and the UK in their attempt to demonstrate that our violent crime problem is directly tied to guns.
Ok, so here's the data I'd like to see to back up those claims.
1. In the UK, handguns had to be legally registered way back in the 30's.
a. I'd like to see the graph showing how their violent crime rates went down within a reasonable amount of time, lets say after two years and continued to decline or flattened out up until they enacted a handgun ban in the middle to late 90's.
b. If handgun registration was so effective, why did they then need to go further with an all out ban?
2. In the UK, after about 60 years of handgun registration, there was a horrific mass murder where a gunman opened fire on a bunch of school children. So the UK went all the way and banned all handguns for civilian possession. I'd like to see the graph showing how their violent crime rates went down starting two years after this ban.
3. Canada has had much stricter handgun controls than the US, including registration of handguns. In 1998, because of a rise in violent crimes, Canada decided to register ALL guns in Canada.
a. I would like to see the graph showing the reduction in violent crimes starting two years after this total registration was put in place.
b. If this has helped reduce violent crime, why has the mayor of Toronto demanded that Canada ban handguns all together because of the rise in violent crime in Canada's major cities?
c. If handgun registration was so effective, why did violent crime continue to increase so that they had to register "all guns"?
4. Washington, D.C. made it virtually impossible for it's residents to have handguns and any other guns (shotguns and rifles) had to be stored in a taken down condition, meaning you couldn't immediately use them. I want to see how this law made crime drop in Washington, D.C. starting two years after the ban was put in place.
5. The UK has banned "self defense" weapons from being carried on the street, as those weapons can also be used for offensive criminal attacks, according to the government officials there. This includes pocket knives, sticks, and other "weapons". I would like to see the graph showing how violent crime has been reduced as a result of this approach to crime, starting two years after the law was enacted.
6.
a. I'd like to have an explanation as to why a study between Vancouver, B.C. and Seattle, WA. showed that while Seattle had a higher rate of gun crimes than did Vancouver, if you took out the gun crimes committed by blacks in Seattle and Vancouver, which was heavily related to gang and drug warfare, the rest of the citizens in Seattle were actually less likely to commit a crime with guns than their counterparts in Vancouver.
b.That's not intended to be racist, but it demonstrates that gun crime is not necessarily related to the availability of guns. Otherwise, wouldn't it follow that the non gang members of Seattle would be more likely to commit crimes with handguns than their counterparts in Vancouver?
7. Lastly, I'd like to see how bad the violent crime rate is in Israel where Israelis routinely carry around full auto weapons in order to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists. This lack of gun control must mean that Israelis are shooting other Israelis ad nauseum every day in violent, criminal, and multiple victim attacks. They have a lot of firepower at their disposal.
Feel free to address any or all of those 7 items.
