Gun Laws Not Effective??? Really??

[Kevin Mackie]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... gun_laws_5

ATLANTA - A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws — including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons — found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.

Proponents of gun control are herein quoted as saying that the laws work. What 51 studies later that show they have no effectiveness on reducing crime, and these people still insist that they work?? Based on what?

A spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the laws work, but it is nearly impossible to prove it because people can buy guns in one state and carry them into one of the handful of states with strong antigun measures.

"It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq

Talk about a nonsequitor. There are thousands of gun control laws in this country, and no democracy in Iraq.

And why would it be impossible to prove? Look at the increase in gun control legislation and the crime rate in the aggregate across the country and one could make the case that the laws don't work.

How about one simple gun law? " The use of a firearm for the purpose other than protecting life and property will be prosecuted according to laws governing the offense, e.g. assault with DW, homicide, etc." Or how about reckless endangerment in the case of ultra-liberal Sean Penn for leaving two loaded, unsecured handguns in his car to be stolen? Nevermind.

Millions of laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns. When will these people get it??? maybe they should should at the violent crime stats in areas where guns are readily available to the law-abiding public? Howard Dean is going around mentioning the low crime rate in his home state of Vermont.

And where does the CDC get off even studying this issue? Were they looking for a vaccine for lead? Recently a federal agency overstepped its bounds and a federal case was made of it, i.e. the FTC and the "Do-Not-Call" list.

Maybe they should get back into solving the AIDS, hepatitis, TB, and other politically sensitive diseases that have surged while they looked in the wrong direction at an issue that is not a disease.

I dunno, maybe I've had too much coffee this morning.

Kevin

[RACastanet]

Good thread. I read the report in the Richmond paper.

I take the stance that more guns in responsible citizen's hands = less crime.

Rich

[Twiggy]

Something I learned about in my karate class years ago - drawing a weapon immediately escalates a fight to a whole new level. For instance, if you are walking down the street and some jerk starts shoving you around, and then he pulls a knife, your sense of self-preservation is going to cause you to do whatever it takes to end the situation, be it fighting back, running away, or pulling your own weapon - which I'm getting to. If some jerk grabbed me on the street, and I was carrying a handgun in my purse and I whipped it out - suddenly the guy is not trying to lift my wallet or attack me for sexual gratification, he's fighting for his life. The capacity for one or both people ending up seriously injured or dead when both of them are trying to save their own lives while waving loaded pistols in the air would be quite high, I suspect.

Unless you're an off-duty cop, security officer or member of the armed forces, you have no business carrying a gun.

[flavor flav]

I can agree to that twiggy, most definitely.

[Guest]

If some jerk grabbed me on the street, and I was carrying a handgun in my purse and I whipped it out - suddenly the guy is not trying to lift my wallet or attack me for sexual gratification, he's fighting for his life.

No he should be dead, handguns are about lethal force. You don't pull them out of you purse and wave them about. You carry them in the event you might one day need to escalate to lethal force to preserve life. Handguns are not carried to intimidate the attacker they are carried to kill the attacker.

The capacity for one or both people ending up seriously injured or dead when both of them are trying to save their own lives while waving loaded pistols in the air would be quite high, I suspect.

The whole concept of the force continuum is to introduce an increased level of force until the threat is nullified. Pistols are not waved they are discharged.

Unless you're an off-duty cop, security officer or member of the armed forces, you have no business carrying a gun.

Really? Did you learn this in the dojo? Welcome to the forums BTW. Listen Twiggy, you may be anti gun and that’s fine. Many of us are not. I spent my childhood on a trap line. With out a firearms my family would have starved to death. Who are you to decides who lives and dies. If folks need to eat let them. If folks need to defend themselves let them. Your on an international forum, many of us will have different needs and realities than yours. Your "I don't need a gun" is cool for you but it will not work for all of us. Before you issue anymore edicts about who can own and carry you might wish to stand outside of your own shadow.

Laird

[Kevin Mackie]

Welcome to the forums, Twiggy. Your naivete' will hopefully evaporate over time as you read more of what is discussed here and in Sensei Canna's forum. Being so new here, there's no way for you to appreciate what is being said by many here. Hopefully dawn will break for you.

When I first started studying, (long before you were born, I suspect), I had a teacher who could and still can rip off someone's head and spit down their throat, who carried for protection. I was young and didn't quite understand why an expert at unarmed defense would need to carry a weapon. I do now.

Drawing a weapon cannot escalate a confrontation any higher. By the time you have to pull a gun, the conflict is at it's apex; you've but one choice; fight back with everything available to you, or risk serious injury or death.

As for there being no reason for anyone to carry a gun, tell that to the multitudes of people who protect the lives of their family and themselves every year that you don't read about in the press.

Laird couldn't have said it better than he did.

Cheers,

Kevin

[RACastanet]

'twiggy': There are roughly 35 states now that have 'shall issue' laws for concealed carry permits. Back in the late 1980s when Florida started this trend the critics predicted doom, gloom and gunfights that would result in a skyrocketing murder rate. Hmmmm. Guess what happened? Aftyer a few years, every state that passed such a law began to see a falling rate of violent crime. Why? Bad guys were afraid of getting shot!

Cities that have the toughest gun control laws also have the highest murder and violent crime rates. DC, Chicago, Baltimore, LA to name a few. Criminals there have little to fear from victims. Here in Richmond, which does have a murder problem between rival gangs, violent crimes against middle aged white men is essentially zero. Why? We are the demographic most likely to be carrying a firearm. It did not take the bad guys long to figure that out. Also, anyone in the presence of this person is also protected. Hence, wives and friends and family members of middle aged white men are also pretty safe. Neat huh?

As a group, anyone legally carrying a concealed firearm is the most law abiding citizen in the land. First, we must provide proof of firearm training. Second, we must submit fingerprints to the FBI and the State Police so we must be sure we are and have been law abiding. Also, we must continue to be law abiding as the permit will be revoked for a misdemeanor or a DUI or wreckless driving conviction. We know the law!

Last note, far left Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean has been stressing the low crime rate in his home state of Vermont during the candidate debates. Guess what... Vermont has no laws against law abiding citizens carrying concealed firearms. No training is required. No registering or fingerprinting. The population of that state has the best possible situation. And, criminals know it. No blood baths in Vermont that I know of.

Sorry you feel the way you do twiggy, but you have fallen prey to those who want to control our 'freedom'.

By the way, you fire a gun to stop the threat, not to kill someone.

Regards, Rich

[Arnisador84]

The way I see it, criminals will always have guns. It's just a matter of whether or not responsible people have the ability to shoot back at them. It's harder to vicitmize people who aren't ready to be victims.

Didn't we have a thread a little while back regarding the correlation between strict gun laws and rising crime rates in England, or somewhere else?

Andrew Heuett

[flavor flav]

very interesting.

[Kevin Mackie]

very interesting

Which part?

[Deep Sea]

Gun laws work? Oh yeah, right!

How about today's shooting ast a T station in Dorchester that left one dead and four others injures [I think I heard that one of the injured died earlier this evening to bump-up the count, but don't pin me to that statement]

One of the charges previously against the murderer was illegal possesion? Tell me how the gun laws work in his case. Or how many similar are accidents waiting to happen?

Gun laws work in the minds of liberals.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... s_station/

Dorchester must be a pretty hot town because I got a lot of URL links from a google search entitled "Dorchester Shooting."

[gmattson]

Lets enforce the ones already on the books and take away all the illegal weapons on the streets. When all the bad guys are weaponless, then I'll consider new laws.
=================

I remember how the local dog catcher was lobbying to make owning Pitbulls illegal in my town. At the hearing we asked him how many Pitbulls were registered in town. He said about 20. We asked him how many unregistered, illegal Pitbulls were in town. He said "hundreds"!

One of the town officials asked him "Why don't you take those illegal dogs off the street, since we already have laws covering unregistered dogs?"

He stated that he doesn't have the manpower or resources to do this.

So. . . he wanted to create another law that only the law abiding citizens would obey. . . taking 20 good natured pets off the street!

Town officials killed the recommendation.
=======================

Please substiture guns for Pitbulls and you will understand how illogical gun control is.

[Arnisador84]

Good story and a good metaphor.