However gun control did not work there. They had the same murder rate from before the ban. America is a violent nation, it has nothing to do with firearms, as I pointed out to you in another thread, our gun ownership is climbing through the roof and yet our murder rate continues to drasticaly fall. This counters your philosphy that guns cause crime and murder, if it were true, we wouldn't be at a 50 year low right now. Kinda pokes all kinds of holes in your little theory now, doesn't it?
Only if your statistics are valid - which I note you have not sourced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom See the REAL story is that England has firearm legislation going back to the 17th Century and recent acts have merely tightened what already was fairly tight legislation so really what you are creating is a straw man Yes there probably is a minimum murder rate and the UK seems to about sit at that point so perhaps the question should not be "why does gun control not lower the murder rate further in the UK but "What would the murder rate have been had not gun control been in place"? And I think a partial answer to the last is in the UK statistic where a third of gun crimes are committed with immitation firearms
I have already provided that link to you in the other thread where we were having this discussion, go and look. Again, you are saying they have low gun homicides, you should be worried about OVERALL homicides. UK's murder rate did not change as a result of them taking the 600,000 guns away. You say that there gun homicides went down, as if you are ok with people getting killed just as long as its not done with a gun, that is messed up.
Bowerbird, Did I "photoshop" my last picture? I'm glad you are showing your true colors and wanting to ban opinions with which you disagree. It's the socialist left that wants to ban our Constitutional Second Amendment rights - and ban alternate points of view! Not only that, but you don't even live here! Why do you feel so strongly a need to "fix" America - we actually don't need your help thank you very much. Is Australia really a utopia, so perfect you don't have any issues at home to work on? Take it from Bowerbird - ban all guns, ban opposing viewpoints, then tell the rest of the world YOU know best! I will gladly debate you on this issue any time. I don't need the NRA, Hollywood, or any armaments industry to do so. Would you like to point out some "lies" about all the dead people I pointed out earlier? The 6 million Jews, 40 million Russians, 60 million Chinese, 150,000+ Rwandans? Do they not count because their own governments did it? Like I said I'll take my chances with my neighbors owning guns. You want to do some good in the world? Go fix Syria, or Angola, or North Korea. Somehow I think you just like to meddle.
He said lower "rate." Rate means # per population (using rate instead of number adjusts for population size). In U.S. gun control argument rate is usually # murders per 100,000 population. England's murder rate (# murders per 100,000) is lower than ours and always has been. From what I can tell, the English murder rate hasn't changed much due to increased gun control. Our murder rate has halved since 1993.
Interesting that you accuse me of that as that is EXACTLY what the NRA has succeeded in doing!! http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
In the long term, yes. It may take years of gun amnesties and operations to seize illegal guns, but eventually it will be worth it. Like Australia.
It took guns to make this country and it took guns to keep it safe. The number of weapons in the hands of the civilian population is the reason the mainland of the U.S. has never been attacked by foreign or domestic forces!
Be honest, if you could wave a magic wand and do away with every weapon in the hands of law abiding citizens, how safe would you feel inside your home or walking down the street? Remember the crooks and the Govt are going to know your unarmed!
why do you still have 550,000 to 6,00,000 guns unregistered in your country? so much for your argument...... I wonder why that is..ya know, so many guns there that are not registered. Tell us why that is.
I have provided those links so many times in multiple gun threads, I won't do it again................go find it yourself here's a hint, IT COMES FROM YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!!!!
More like the reason is your bloated military and hundreds of overseas bases that you can use to play world-policeman.
Rubbish! The real reason is that you have a very large military and even despite that you WERE attacked - Pearl Harbour Interesting that so many Americans seem to forget Hawaii is actually part of the USA when they claim they have never been attacked - and it is because they use the old "Not the mainland" argument - but surely if the mainland has been protected by guns then why not Hawaii which was part of the USA?
Hawaii was not a state when Pearl Harbour was sneak attacked by the japanese while we were still supposedly talking peace!
The only time that Australia's rates fell was when the rest of the world fell, even place with no to lax control.
Here is my response to the politicians (That is who the Bill of Rights protects us AGAINST) As a parent, citizen, licensed professional engineer and Vietnam veteran I implore you to stand against any further additional gun regulations and infringement of the 2nd amendment. I do this, not on my behalf, nor on behalf of my children and grandchildren. I implore you on behalf of my great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren. I wish to draw attention to 3 words in the 1st and 2nd amendments of the Bill of Rights. The first word is people. I know of no legal document in the United States where a word can have 2 different meanings in the same document, unless so defined. Since people in the 1st amendment unequivocally means the individual citizen, then it MUST mean the individual citizen in the 2nd amendment also. The 2nd word is abridged. This word was chosen by the framers of the Bill of Rights when addressing the right to free speech and religion. It is an appropriate word to address the threat that the government poses to the citizens relating to their rights to free speech and religion. And we must remember that the entire Bill of Rights is based on establishing the rights of the citizens and against the government(s) of the United States. The 3rd word is the word that the framers of the Bill of Rights chose when addressing the most important right of the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is the right of the people to have the ability and resources to stand against the oppression of an international, or domestic, government. The 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting, nor is it about personal self-defense. It is solely and singularly about the ability of the citizens to defend against the standing army of the government of the United States of America. The 3rd word that was chosen was NOT the word abridged, but rather infringed. That is a very important fact. It was because the framers of the Bill of Rights fully understood the natural progression of governments and their natural inclination to slowly and incrementally absolve the freedoms until they were in a position of complete authority. The framers fully understood that the natural order of government would be to use whatever justifications were conveniently at hand to slowly and insidiously take away the ability of the citizens to stand. They also understood the natural order of individuals. The vast majority of individuals do not want to take risks, nor do they want to live in a world of risk. They understood also that it is the nature of people to trust their government. These two aspects of people set the stage for a natural progression of government to become the sole authority. Another fact of government was fully understood by the framers of the Bill of Rights. That is the natural tendency for individuals seeking power and authority to direct their efforts towards being in the government. While some of these people may be benevolent, the majority of them are not. Those individuals are devoid of concern for anyone except their own desires. This has been seen through our own founders, and builders, such as Rockefeller, Carnegie and many others. We see it today in our police force and armed forces. That is why it is necessary to have strict regulations and numerous investigations of entire police forces, such as New Orleans and even in Albuquerque. Since the signing of the Bill of Rights we have seen continued attacks on the 2nd amendment and continued efforts to circumvent it, ALWAYS by the government! It has been fully demonstrated and proven that additional gun control does not reduce violence. In fact, those cities and states with the most stringent laws against honest citizens owning guns have the highest crime rates. This, also, is a natural order. Those individuals with the highest desire to have someone else protect them are also the most willing to become victims. The current count for victims of gun control in the 20th century alone is 170,000,000. I highly encourage you to watch the documentary at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8qw3tEg9Vw. This gives an overview of not only the body count of gun control, but also the horrors that are enacted to generate that body count. To believe that the United Stated cannot degenerate to that level is irrational and unrealistic. The progression is the natural order of government. It goes through a process of regulation, restriction, and then confiscation (or mandated buyback). In order for that to transpire the majority have to accept the government as the ultimate authority and to be trusted totally. Those people then expose themselves to the slow degeneration of the government to it becoming more dictatorial and authoritative. This again, is the natural order as stronger and more violent individuals work their way into the government structure. One only has to look at the cartels of Mexico, or the government of Syria, Iran, Egypt, Mali, or numerous other countries where the citizens are disarmed to see the structure that develops. In order to see an ongoing episode, you merely need to look anywhere around the world. There is one thing in common in every country of upheaval and genocide. That is that the government and terrorists are armed and the common citizens are disarmed. That is the one common characteristic of every single country, and we can name at least a dozen right now with massive, and horrific, genocide of the common citizens. THAT is what WILL be the destiny of the United States, and my great-great grandchildren if the 2nd amendment is circumvented or infringed. If we abandon history we are committed to repeat it. The ONLY reason that countries such as the UK and Australia maintain any modicum of freedom is the United States standing as the example of freedom. Even now, in those countries it is beginning. One individual in the UK defended himself with a shotgun in his own home against 2 attackers attacking him with a crowbar. He was given life in prison for defending himself while the criminals did no time. That is the mentality that evolves with an unrealistic attitude towards firearms, and the inalienable right of self-defense. So, I go back to that word in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights; that word INFRINGED. It is a word carefully and intentionally chosen by the framers of the Constitution because they recognized that the greatest threat to the freedom of the people of the United States was the slow and progressive infringement of the citizens right to stand against the government of the United States. Not with BB guns, or sling shots, but with those arms that were comparable to the arms of the standing army of the United States. The same as the arms of the citizens of that time to stand against the arms of the government at that time. The reasons behind the ban against the so called assault rifle, and large capacity clips are unrealistic and unsupportable. There is already a ban against full automatic firearms. That was adopted when the government was afraid they could not control the Irish if the Irish could retain full automatic weapons. That was the first infringement. The government has found that full automatic weapons in the standard infantrymans firearm are not effective. That is the reason that they restricted the 5.56 caliber firearms to a 3 shot burst. They needed to have the 3 shots because they had adopted a caliber that was too small to be effective. Regarding the high capacity magazines, it is a simple process to extend a 3, or 5, shot clip to handle 30, or more, rounds. So, even if every clip/magazine of more than 10 rounds were confiscated and eliminated, those wishing so, would merely rebuild their 3 shot magazines to handle 30 rounds. At the present time there are an estimated 4,000,000 (that is FOUR MILLION) assault type weapons in the hands of honest citizens. How many of those 4,000,000 have been involved in mass shootings? I know of 3 instances. That is 3 in 4,000,000 or .00008% of them. How many high capacity magazines have been used in mass shootings? It is completely evident that the only reason that the government is attempting to pass additional regulations it to further disarm the public with disregard for the 2nd Amendment. It has been established that the previous ban had no impact on the crime rate. The current regulations, if implemented, will generate vastly more criminals as those recognizing the governments intent will willingly become criminals in order to avoid the alternative of a disarmed America. In 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Had they attacked the West Coast ports and disabled our ability to replenish the Pacific Theatre, the United States would have lost WWII. We almost did anyway. The Japanese stated that the only reason they did not was because they could not establish a beach head because every American had a gun. Few politicians will admit that now as they continue their efforts to disarm the citizens. Those armed citizens, and their willingness to stand, is the only thing that is standing against the number of countries where the current governments are massacring their citizens. The only reason they havent been successful is the United States standing against them, both militarily and politically. Take the United States out of the mix and every single one of them would have been settled almost immediately. Those citizens wishing security and safety held the United States from entering WWII long after it should have. That resulted in millions of unnecessary casualties. That is but one more example of many of the citizens to be willing to let anything happen as long as they feel safe. Well, the Jews felt safe after they had given up their arms to Hitler. That is, until after he had acquired total control. We must not lose sight that FREEDOM IS NOT SAFE. Freedom can never be safe. Because to limit everything that anyone could do to make you totally safe would totally destroy their freedom. We must be willing to accept not being safe in order to maintain our freedom. Most important we must not sell out all future freedom under the guise of some false safety promoted by a government that is trying to disarm us TODAY. There is NOTHING that is more dangerous than a government with total control. So, again, on behalf of my great grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren, I implore you to stand against any further gun regulations of any kind. I do that because their greatest threat is not the criminals of their time that may kill them. It is not the mentally impaired that might kill 5 or 26. It is not the terrorist that may kill 2,000. It is not even their government that might kill millions. Their greatest threat is the politicians of today that will sell them out for ignorance, misinformation, or for personal benefit! What is done today will have vastly more impact on my great-great grandchildren than it will on anyone today! Respectfully, Heres a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens: 1911 Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians. 1929 Russia disarmed its citizens, and between 1929 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians. 1935 China disarmed its citizens, and between 1948 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese. 1938 Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews. 1956 Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people. 1964 Guatamala disarmed its citizens, and between 1964 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians. 1970 Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
LOL, that's not how it works! You made an assertion - you provide the evidence backing up that assertion. It is unreasonable to expect your readers to trawl through every post you have made on the subject. So you will do it again, or your assertion remains unproven. And I expect you are extrapolating from unrelated statistics, as I frankly doubt there is a record of unregistered guns in Australia (or the UK). BTW, I assume you meant Australia when you wrote 'your own government'. For your information, I am a citizen of the UK, and my government is in Whitehall, not Canberra.
I support some kinds of gun control. This is the problem though. No one seems to want to put into specifics what they want to do, except for idiotic ideas like banning high capacity magazines, or assault rifles. Show me a piece of legislation that makes it more difficult to buy weapons from gun shows, and removes the legal road blocks that prevent law enforcement from tracking a weapon when used in a crime, and I think very few people would bat an eye. It is the non sensical solutions that have many people including myself with their hair on the back of their neck standing at attention.
