Make it Harder for Dangerous People to Get Dangerous Weapons
Written by Paul Helmke, President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
When I was 12, I earned an NRA Marksmanship badge at YMCA Camp. I enjoyed learning how to fire a gun at a target and worked at becoming better with practice. But I also took away a deep respect for how dangerous guns were.
Americans have a long history with guns. We used them to tame the frontier, and many Americans consider them important for hunting wildlife or managing pests. But Americans' views on guns often differ depending on where they live.
If you're in the bayous of Louisiana, or the plains of Montana, a gun can be your defense against predators. When the police are far away, you may feel strongly about needing a gun for self-defense. And if someone says we should restrict guns, you worry.
But in urban areas like Philadelphia or South Central Los Angeles or even my home town in Indiana, guns may be best known for injuring young people as a result of gang violence, or police officers at a traffic stop or domestic quarrel. But when you say "we need to controls the weapons available on the streets," other Americans misinterpret you as wanting to limit their rights.
This is why we've had a passionate debate about guns. Finding common ground may have been aided by the Supreme Court decision in June that Americans have a right to have a firearm in their home but that reasonable restrictions on gun access are also lawful.
Guns are always going to be available to law-abiding citizens. But we can take steps to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Aw, this was a very nice post. In concept I would like to put in writing like this moreover taking time and actual effort to make a very good article but what can I say I procrastinate alot and not at all appear to get one thing done. Erectalis greeter
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
-- U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS- TV 's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
Thank you for assembling those quotes. There's no arguing against their intent now.
And isn't it a testimony to the overwhelming patience and law-abiding nature of gun rights advocates that all those people are still walking around un-holed even after their treasonous attempts to do away with a large portion of the Bill of Rights?
Feinstein reserves for herself the POWER to carry a concealed handgun in Washington, D.C. and in the Capitol Building, making her an elite among elites.
Why would ANYONE with good intentions trust her on ANYTHING?
Yet that statement apply's to all law abiding citizens I know. The Brady Campaign gets folks on board with slogans like that, but if you go on their website you will see a big Starbucks intimidation Campaign, Where they want Starbucks to Kick out law abiding citizens.
These patriots are in no way causing harm, and I challenge the Brady campaign to Bring up one circumstance where a Open Carry event ended in shots fired . Furthermore the Brady Campaign accuses the Open Carry participants of intimidation, but fails to acknowledge the their tactics with Starbucks are one and the same.
Most people can agree that we need "reasonable restrictions," but that is not what the Brady Campaign promotes. I can not think of an area in which there are not already a myriad of these so-called "reasonable restrictions."
No amount of "reasonable restrictions" are ever going to stop criminals from obtaining weapons, Just look at our prison system. Even at the most highly secured facilities, drugs and weapons "magically" appear inside. "Reasonable restrictions" don't apply to criminals. They'll tell you that themselves if you ask.
Gun regulations target a non-threat, law abiding citizens. Under the guise of promoting security with unnecessary, ineffective regulations, organizations like the Brady Campaign institutionalize victimization and put citizens' lives in danger.
The numbers of guns in the United States vastly outnumber the population of the country (300 million). I am shocked to read news headlines mentioning the incidents involving young people and handguns. Nowadays it's not uncommon to read about teens killing other teens and adults in gang shootings, robberies gone bad, carjackings, or botched drug deals. The recent-history murders of church officials around the country and college -campus massacres of innocent people should serve as a reminder that gun violence in the hands of unstable people has gone too far, and government must do something to at least cut back on this pandemic before it consumes all of us. I believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not a carte blanche to allow anyone uncontrolled access and use to firearms , but rather is a protective measure to ensure the protection of citizens during times of war at home. In other words, I do not believe that the Constitution writers would have allowed unstable or questionable persons to have access to these weapons of mass destruction. And neither should we.
does Handgun Control continue to embarass themselves with a bunch of half-truths when everyone with just a little knowledge knows their real agenda?
Lets take a look, Paul;
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview
"The thought that average citizens will somehow be better able to successfully defend themselves more effectively than our nation's trained professionals is absurd."
Official Statement of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI)
"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.
"[NRA] claimed that they vigorously fought [the Brady bill] at every turn and every step...because it was the nose of the camel [under the tent]....Today we would like to tell you what the rest of the camel looks like."
HCI President Richard Aborn, Dec. 8, 1993
"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people."
William J. Clinton on "MTV" 1993
"We have a long way to go before we see a truly effective gun-control law in this country (the U.S.A.). But more and more, the lawmakers are understanding that the American people want change. The only people who still don't get it are the people over at the Evil Empire... the gun
lobby."
Jim Brady of Handgun Control, Inc., in The Ottawa Citizen, April 23, 1994
"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997
"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994
"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
Sarah Brady 7/1/88
"I don't care about crime , I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994
"No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!"
Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH) during Constitution Subcommittee 2/10/89
"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93
"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of
handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f
"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
The days of people truly needing guns in their everyday lives to protect themselves from predatory animals are gone, at least in the vast majority of the United States (even Montana) Predatory people, on the other hand, are something else entirely. Nowhere do law abiding citizens need guns more than in poor urban communities rocked by gang violence. Gangsters do not follow the laws, nor do they get their guns legally. Those who intend to use their guns for less-than-legal purposes will aquire them in less-than-legal ways. The only way to insure that the common man can bring the same firepower as a hardened ganster to the fight at his front door is to lift firearm restrictions. Gangsters are not the only predatory people out there, however. In the Declaration of Independence, it is written, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." The Second Amendment was written to insure that should this country come to such dire straits, the people would be able to fight back. It is for that reason that any and all restrictions on the Constitutional right to bear arms are unacceptable. It was the intention of the Founding Fathers for citizens to possess military-grade weapons to prevent the government from overstepping its bounds. The Supreme Court is NOT the last word against tyranny, it is an educated and well-armed populace. That is what firearms (and arms in general, as technology advances) mean in America.
You can count me in as one of the well-armed populace, and if the gun and ammo sales in the last 6-8 months is any indication there are a lot of us. More than 5 Billion rounds of ammunition sold, and more guns sold in the period since the election . That's more than was sold during the previous two years combined, if the gun blogs are accurate.
Talk about the intentions of the founding fathers is all very well. However, the collateral damage of American gun culture is such that reasonable people want to do something to reduce the damage. I am surprised that the idea of restricting firearms causes such anger.
M. Glass
I realize that you don't much care for the Constitution and the basis for American life over in Australia, but the question is about the USA, and they are an important part of what it means to be Free here. About the collateral damage, I don't see what you're talking about. Gang violence is an entirely different beast than the culture of armed, law-abiding citizens. True American gun culture puts a gun in the hand of a single mother defending her home from an intruder, in the hand of a young woman who would otherwise be raped, in the hands of a minority fending off an angry mob, and in the hands of freedom loving citizen standing in the face of tyranny. It is this group of gun owners that regulation will harm, not the horrific perversion of gangsters, drug lords, and the disturbed, who generally acquire their guns illegally anyway. Legal firearms are the best defense against these pervesions, not restrictions that will leave them easy prey.
It's one thing to fantasize about law abiding citizens holding back the threat of intruders, rapists, angry mobs and tyrants. it may be comforting to imagine that restrictions on guns will only inconvenience the law abiding. Even if all this is true, America appears to pay a heavy price for this position on guns.
Here are some comparative figures in gun-related deaths in various countries:
The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.
The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05
My source: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
Canada has less than a third of the per capita gun related deaths of the United States.
Australia has less than a fifth of the per capita gun related deaths of the United States.
England and Wales have less than a thirtieth of the per capita gun related deaths of the United States
So the United States bears a great burden from those extra gun related deaths
M. Glass
Sorry buddy. I googled your referance and found '0', nothing, nada, of your stats as stated. therefore what you say must be a lie. google GUN FACTS or GUN FACTS 4.0 or GUN FACTS 5.0 and get the REAL facts that are documented on every page. check these government sources out which are all public record. they disagree completely with everything you have put in your article. people if you want truth you must frequent where truth is told. Real! Honest! Proven! facts that are unimpeachable. anything else is a lie. the people who tell these lies are either BLANTANT DELIBERATE CRIMINALS WHO HAVE STOLEN THE TRUTH WHICH SHORT OF STEALING A LIFE IS THE WORST CRIME THAT CAN BE COMMITTED OR SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE MISTAKEN BRAINWASHED DUPES OF THE LIARS THEMSELVES. I am a sheep dog and proud of it. I am also a Christian and proud of it. unlike obummer i stood up and said i believe and was baptised. so i am not lying like his ilk and i do not pass the evil ones lies along. i fight those lies and i call the liars out. Christ has told me in the book that if I wish to protect myself and must kill to do so I am not a murderer. I am a sheep dog. I love my sheep. most of the people in the world are sheep. however there are also wolves. these wolves are the criminals who prey on my sheep. they are the criminals who kill my sheep. they are the criminals who maim and injure my sheep. they are the criminals who lie to my sheep in order to better prey on them. I do not like killing people and will not if i can get out of it. however if you prey on my sheep, I WILL KILL YOU IF, NECESSARY, TO MAKE YOU STOP. My dear sheep. Yes, I have fangs just like a wolf. Yes I am very capable of violence just like a wolf. However, just like you mr. or mrs. sheep, i cannot hurt a sheep except like you it is an accident. just like you an accident would devistate me. In reality I am a sheep with different abilities, some inherant and some acquired. I am a sheep dog both because i wish to be and because i cannot help myself. wolves are my enemy just as they are yours. i am your only defense. Do not pull my teeth. if you do we will all die. i will stilldo what i can to protect my sheep and indeed i will die doing just that just as many of us sheep dogs have died useing our teeth to protect you. without teeth we will just die trying and failing. get rid of the stupidity that the anti gun people have spoon fed you all these years. that stupidity will kill you.
WITH LOVE FROM YOUR LOCAL SHEEP DOG.
Apples and oranges. The US is a pretty diverse place. Gun violence here tends to be confined to specific cultural groups that flatly don't exist in most other places. How many inner city black gangs do you-all have in Australia?
E.g., roughly half of all US murders are committed by blacks, who represent 14% of the population. Of this, the predominant part is committed by inner minority city males between 17-35 years of age, about 4% of the population. Much is related to the drug trade.
Hispanics and rural white southerners are also disproportionately represented. The unifying factor seems to be an "Honor culture", where interpersonal disputes are traditionally resolved by violence. It is not particularly related to the presence or absence of firearms, which may actually be scarce overall in high crime areas.
If memory serves, the murder rates among Americans of European descent tends to resemble that of where their ancestors immigrated from.
You have made an interesting argument, but you haven't backed it up with any credible source. Remember that the US is not the only multicultural country. But let's say your figures were right, and 86% of the people were responsible for half the gun deaths. That still wouldn't bring down the non-black US gun death rate to the gun death rate of Northern Ireland. So even if your figures were right, and you have supplied no evidence to show that they are right, they don't explain away the statistics.
M. Glass
My favorite example of how murder rates are culturally-set is the six "Founding Fathers" pictured on US currency. As with inner city minorities now, they had a dueling culture.
Thus, ex-US vice president Aaron Burr killed ex US-treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton ($10 bill), in a duel. Similarly, US President Andrew Jackson ($20 bill ) killed at least one man in a duel, perhaps more. All with guns , naturally.
These days, high-level US politicians no longer kill each other. So there is hope for us all yet.
Look up "National crime report" on google. I don't have time or inclination to get them. But nobody seems to argue with them.
The average Brit (or aussie) being more civilized than us free-range Americans, the UK has always had a low murder rate, guns or not. In fact, around 1900, all you had to do was pay a 10 shilling tax to carry concealed.
Yet the murder rate was lower than now. The book "Against the Odds" (look it up) notes that even in the mid 1600's london had only a dozen murders or less a year, compared to one a day or so for Paris.
The sociologists tell us the the main varible in the white non-hispanic US murder rate is to be of southern US extraction, which I am, partly. Look up ( Virginia senator ) James Webb's book on us, aptly-entitled "Born fighting". An honor culture again. Don't mess with 'em.
OTOH, my Danish- immigrant ancestors up north universally own firearms . It's a farm tool like any other. Flatly-stated, they just don't shoot each other.
While examining these figures, one must not neglect to consider the unique demographics that we have in the United States. Please don't interpret this as racist . . . I'm just trying to make a point: If all black crimes were taken out of these figures then the United States would have one of the LOWEST rates of gun violence. Anyone who has studied statistics on even a master's level knows that you have to adjust for these things in order to formulate a conclusion so this point is very salient.
What evidence do you have that black crimes were taken out of the gun violence figures, the United States would have one of the lowest rates of gun violence? Here is evidence of gun deaths in a number of countries:
The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05
My source: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
Now where is your source to back up your claim?
M. Glass
There is a difference between a gun death and a gun crime. If an innocent woman is raped, there is neither gun death nor gun crime. If an innocent woman defends herself from a would-be rapist with a firearm, you have a gun death, but not a gun crime. If a gangbanger shoots somebody for their shoes, you now have a gun death and a gun crime. Gun deaths are not a good way to show the "collateral damage" of the evil "American gun culture," because, quite frankly, I don't care if a rapist gets shot. In fact, it makes me glad to know that he is not going to hurt anyone else. It would be interesting to see a similar study on gun crime, as opposed to gun deaths, and also on crime in general. There is not better reason not to break into a house than that the owner could be home and armed.
I checked out some comparative crime rates by country. In other crimes the United States didn't fare too well, but they were not as outstanding as they were with gun deaths. So it seems that only in gun deaths does the United States really stand out.
M. Glass
Australia banned firearms in March of 2000 and guess what happened crime went up. Weird. Here are the stats:
Crime rose after a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics show a dramatic increase in criminal activity.353354 In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%.
according to Australian Institute of Criminology, “Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002", April 2003
From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
• Gun murders up 19%
• Armed robbery up 69%
• Home invasions up 21%
The sad part is that in the 15 years before national gun confiscation:
• Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%.
• Firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
Gun crimes are rising throughout Australia after guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more in the previous year.
according to The Sydney Morning Herald, “Costa targets armed robbers”, April 4, 2002
A ten year study that concluded Australian firearm confiscation had no effect on crime rates.
According to "Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?", Dr. Jeanine Baker and Dr. Samara McPhedran, British Journal of Criminology, November 2006.
So as you can see we want to ban guns too because it worked out so well in Australia.
Also concerning your claim that there are 39892 gun deaths in the US in 1994 according to your 45% of the total stat. According to the FBI website there were only 16,305 murders in 1994. Wow that takes that number down quite a bit, the rest are suicides the estimate from the department of Justice is about 54% that's 21,541 so that leaves 2,046 deaths attributed to unintentional, and undetermined reasons. So taking out just suicides (studies have shown rates don't change with or without guns present so these people would kill themselves anyways), that leaves 18,351 gun deaths in 1994. That's brings it down to 6.55 per 100,000. We can even go lower also according to the FBI in the early 90's approximately 5,000 of the murders a year were committed by people on parole or had an early release for felonies that brings it down to 4.77 because as we all know it is illegal for felons to have guns and as they have proved before they always follow the law not to mention a lot of them got out early and committed another violent crime. Also according to the Department of Justice the homicide rate in 1994 for non-gun deaths was 3.1 wow that still puts us in the top ten on your chart. Also the US isn't even in the Top 10 for homicides in a country according to the UN Office on Drug and Crime from 1998-2000.
I could sit on here and give facts and stats all day long but I doubt that would ever change your mind. It all comes down to the fact that more people die from diseases, car wrecks from drunk driving incidents than are killed my guns in a year. Last I checked cancer doesn't save any lives so why not focus the money/time/effort on a bigger problem and leave our one true way to defend ourselves alone.
First, According to Medicine Net, Australia has less than a fifth of the per capita gun related deaths of the United States. My source: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
Secondly, gun related deaths in Australia have gone down since the firearm controls were enacted. My source: Jenny Mouzos and Catherine Rushforth, Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, no. 269 ISBN 0 642 53821 2 ; ISSN 0817-8542 Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, November 2003 http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html
The University of Utah has information on the collateral damage of the United States gun culture My source: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
In future, if you quote a source of information, please provide a link to it.
If you sit all day long and give facts and statistics, please be so kind as to give links to your sources of information.
M. Glass
Disregard the previous post it was accidentally submitted before it was completed or edited.
Will it really make that much of a difference if I add links? I had citations.
First I would like to agree with you that after the gun confiscation in Australia gun deaths went down. That would be expected if no law abiding citizens had firearms then accidents would not occur. But I would also like to point out that deaths by firearms was on a downward trend anyways according to Figure 1 from your cite. So to say that the gun confiscation was the direct result is a direct result is hard to believe specially since it began to level out after a year or two.
The reason that Australia has lower per capita gun deaths is a combination of: media misrepresentation of firearms, the shear abundance of firearms (600,000 vs. 300million, I’m not stupid the more firearms the more possibility of a firearm related accident), lack of proper education and respect for firearms; inside the United States. The key to driving gun deaths down is proper education on what guns are and how they operate. But instead of putting money into proper education and enforcing current gun laws (which has been proven that in the US most gun laws on the books are not properly enforced “Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check, only 6,700 people (1.25%) have been charged for these firearms violations. This includes 71% of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons.” ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/ffobcfpr.htm ) they would rather just attempt to ban all firearms which won’t work. Look at the war on drugs a lot of money put into a ban that obviously won’t work another good example is prohibition.
But what I was trying to show is that crime overall increased after the confiscation because law abiding citizens had no way to protect themselves from criminals who by definition don't follow the laws and didn't turn in their firearms. In the years after the gun confiscation robbery, assault, sexual assault, and unlawful entry with intent all rose, some dramatically. Why because law abiding citizens no longer had the means to protect themselves from criminals and what’s worse is criminals know that and take advantage of it. ( http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs @.nsf/Previousproducts/E93FA3CC3D9BC5C6CA256CAE001052A3?opendocument)
I have read the University of Utah study and I don't fully agree with all of it because it does not take into effect the estimated by the Department of Justice 2.5 million times a year a firearm is used in self defense of a law abiding citizen. Also the number from that study take into effect money lost from people killed in justified shootings and suicides. A study that takes all of that into account is Sterling Burnett, National Center for Policy Analysis, “Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health”, 1999 ( http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223.html #ex). This study that takes all costs into account and even using the most favorable to your side still deduces that the positive net effect of keeping guns and being able to use them defensively is anywhere from 90.7 million to 3.5 billion dollars a year. If you use more reasonable estimates that are more middle of the road, you come up with a final positive effect of 38.9 billion dollars a year.
I would like to state that you can throw around stats all day and so can I. We both can look at the same study and get different conclusions from it. I will add internet citations into all of my posts from now on if that is what you wish but I don’t believe it will make any difference in our overall discussion.
What I am getting too is that governments don’t ban firearms to reduce firearm related deaths. If that was their main purpose they would put more money into other areas that take may more lives than firearms, for example there are more drunk driving deaths in the US that firearm related homicides ( about 16,000 a year vs. about 14,000 a year according to http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html and http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html respectively) So why do governments ban firearms? Simple they ban firearms to make sure their government retains power. They wish to make citizens into subjects, a great example of this is the gun confiscation by Hitler before WW2, without arms no one could resist him. So if you wish to remain a subject, then fine relinquish your only means to defend yourself and congratulations you are now at the mercy of the government and criminals who no longer have anything to fear.
The Australian Institute of Criminology's website http://www.aic.gov.au/stats / gives statistics for various forms of crime in Australia. According to their statistics there has been a statistically significant downward trend in homicides in Australia 1989-90 to 2005-06. The proportion of firearms used in homicides between 1915 and 2003 trended upwards until the 1960s and then fell. It is now below 20% http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats /
The statistics for violent crime don't bear out your contention that crime increased because of the confiscation of guns. There is evidence that there was a peak in some crimes in 2001 but since then several crime indicators have fallen. See http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/stats /
Your contention is that citizens need guns to protect themselves from outlaws and even their government. My contention is that other countries manage to have both peace and democracy without the high level of gun deaths that the United States experiences. This does not mean that nothing can be done about it.
Here are some ideas that Australia has adopted to reduce gun deaths:
Strict laws on storing guns.
Laws to confiscate guns from those accused of domestic violence.
However, if Americans do not trust the government to enforce such laws, then perhaps they would not work. In that case, you might well be doomed to endure a terrible toll of gun deaths, punctuated by massacres.
M. Glass
Will it really make that much of a difference if I add links? I had citations.
First I would like to agree with you that after the gun confiscation in Australia gun deaths went down. That would be expected if no law abiding citizens had firearms then accidents would not occur. But I would also like to point out that deaths by firearms was on a downward trend anyways according to Figure 1 from your cite. So to say that the gun confiscation was the direct result is a direct result is hard to believe specially since it began to level out after a year or two.
But what I was trying to show is that crime overall increased after the confiscation because law abiding citizens had no way to protect themselves from criminals who by definition don't follow the laws and didn't turn in their firearms. In the years after the gun confiscation robbery, assault, sexual assault, and unlawful entry with intent all rose some dramtically. Why because law abiding citizens no longer had the means to protect themselves from criminals and whats worse is criminals know that and take advantage to it.( http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs @.nsf/Previousproducts/E93FA3CC3D9BC5C6CA256CAE001052A3?opendocument)
I have read the University of Utah study and I don't fully agree with all of it because it does not take into effect the estimated by the Department of Justice 2.5 millions times a year a firearm is used in self defense. Also the number from that study take into effect money lost from people killed in justified shootings and suicides. A study that takes all of that into account is Sterling Burnett, National Center for Policy Analysis, “Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health”, 1999( http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223.html #ex). This study that takes all costs into account and even using the most favorable to your side still deduces that the positive net effect of keeping guns and being able to use them defensively is anywhere from 90.7 million to 3.5 billion dollars a year. If you use more reasonable estimates that are more middle of the road you come up with a final positive effect of 38.9 billion dollars a year.
I'm am going to be insulting here, but some of these posts sound nuts. What possible motivation would the people at the Brady Campaign have for holding the views and goals that you are ascribing to them? It doesn't add up. You can disagree with their conclusions, refute their underlying premises, or propose alternate actions all without suggesting that they have non-sensical motivations or some kind of clinical delusion.
They disapprove of the ability to say "No" in any meaningful way. Then there's always the money. Colin Goddard, Virginia Tech survivor, is making a pretty good salary agitating for the 99% of gun owners who will never hurt anyone to lose their rights.
Need a motive-- Many of the antigunners have a frank clinical phobia about firearms in the same way others are phobic about heights, snakes, etc.. Difference is that the latter phobics would get laughed at for attempting to legislate their phobia.
You are making stuff up now. How convenient to ascribe a clinical mental illness to the people who disagree with you. I am now laughing at you.
I'm a physician. I know a phobia when I see one...
Merck Manual on-line:
" Phobic disorders consist of persistent, unreasonable, intense fears (phobias) of situations, circumstances, or objects. The fears provoke anxiety and avoidance."
" Specific phobias are the most common anxiety disorders......Specific phobias affect about 13% of women and 4% of men during any 12-mo period.... Phobia of blood (hemophobia), injections (trypanophobia), needles or other sharp objects (belonephobia), or injury (traumatophobia) occurs to some degree in at least 5% of the population. "
NB: I suspect many rabid antigunners have some variation of traumatophobia.
"The prognosis for specific phobias is more variable when untreated because it may be easy to avoid the situation or object that causes fear and anxiety.
Or alternately-- pass a law against it...
You know it when you see it! What a riot. How many of these "clinically ill" people have you actually examined? What percentage of the Brady Campaign directors does that include? What is your estimate of a statistically meaningful sample size in this case? What is the composition of your control group? Most medical curricula don't even require a mental health rotation. Do you have any experience with diagnosing mental illness?
Or are you suggesting that you can diagnose mental disorders by reading online blog posts? You should not have made this appeal to authority. Either you are lying, which is sad enough, or you are making a mockery of your hard-earned education, which is sad and embarrassing.
I am a supporter of gun rights. There are good rational reasons to defend the second amendment. It is small-minded and ultimately counter-productive to universally vilify well-intentioned, rational Americans who disagree with you. Wait until they say something truly irrational and stupid.
Most psych diagnoses are made on the basis of what you get told. I.e., strictly speaking you don't necessarily need to see the patient. The seemingly irrational behavior and pronouncments of many antigunners tells me plenty.
BTW, a phobia is a "neurosis", i.e., a fairly low-grade psych disorder.
Object phobias tend to develop to potentially harmful objects or situations. If people can develop phobias to stuff like heights, needles, knives, etc., it is reasonable they can develop them to firearms.
As noted above, object phobias are quite common. Are you asserting that antigunners are spared them? Anyway, a high incidence of object phobia to guns explains a lot. For one thing, it explains why we gunners keep making deals and then get screwed. A person with an object phobia may go to extraordinary lengths to abolish the object.
BTW, one source of object phobias is that the object reminds the phobic of unpleasant supressed thoughts and feelings. E.g., someone with difficulty handling aggressive impulses may develop an object phobia to knives, guns, etc. as a purely defensive measure. Same with people who have suicidal thoughts who develop a phobia to guns because of them. Winston Churchill had endogenous depression and admitted to a fear of heights because of it.
BTW, note I say only "some" antigunners have an object phobia to guns. Many of the rest are the usual busybody doo-gooders, friady-cats, and/or people on a mission from God.
Don't forget the ones trying to achieve closure. "My husband was killed by a madman with a gun, so I'm going to bring meaning to it by prohibiting guns", etc. Too bad if this means trampling on the rights of people who do no harm.
Similarly, an unknown number of antigunners are standard-issue racists who just want to keep firearms out of the hands of lesser, more highly-melanized breeds. Where our ancestors would just use the "N-word", these folks use euphonisms like "inner city" and "youth violence". But we all know what they mean.
If you do an internet search on the Brady Bunch you will find that they do advovate totally disarming the entire population. There are probably a number of reasons for this so just consider this one possibility: the belief in a utopian society. I am always concerned when people push Utopia. It is unattainable except at the cost of the people. I would not care to live in the sterile environment of such a society in which freedom lost is the cost. Further, consider who the allies of the Brady Bunch are: DiFi, Carolyn McCarthy, Chuck U Schumer, et al. Research their anti-gun positions.
Honestly, you expect me to consider your point when you can't even afford them common courtesy? I'm supposed to believe that your some proponent of rational informed discourse? When I do the search you suggest, I see a bunch of biased commentary saying that the Brady Campaign supports a disarmament or the repeal of the second amendment, but when I go to their site they say the opposite, quite clearly. Nobody is pushing a utopia. The people and organizations that you vilify are simply working for the good of the people as they see it. They are good Americans just like you.
Let me be brutally honest, I have no respect for anyone attempting to disarm the law-abiding population of this country. Further, I am not a proponent of rational informed discourse, at least not as you see it. I dispise these people. I will no longer tolerate compromise with them or anyone like them. My fight is for liberty and against tyranny. I cannot be courteous to the Brady Bunch (a term I coined, by the way. Arrogant, ain't I?). However, if you decide not to consider my arguement because you consider me to be discourteous that is up to you. The truth about the Brady Bunch is there for you to see. I have come to the conclusion that one cannot change another person's opinion or point of view if there are not open minded in the first place. But, I still feel compelled to set forth my position whether you are convinced or not.
The fact remains that these people are deceptive and are determined to disarm us incrementally. Check for yourself. Every time they manage to get some oppressive, Draconian anti-gun law passed, they always say that this is only a first step in removing firearms from private ownership. This must not be allowed to happen.
Try this: http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog /
O bama has not consistantly supported the Second Amendment. Look into his time in the Illinoise State Senate and you see that not to be true. Therefore, Paul Helmke of the Brady Bunch is lying. He is a liar. How can you ever trust anyone who lies?
Helmke says: "As Sen. Obama said in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."
The way they do this is to make semi-auto rifles illegal to own, possess, use, etc.
When millions of rational patriotic Americans appear to be confused or foolish, you should step back for a moment and consider an alternate possibility. There are many rational defenders of the second amendment. You are not one. Check for yourself.
Adam-
The reason we feel the Brady Campaign is pushing for total disarmament is this (forgive me I'm going to give a number of links and explanations):
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=sns
note the above first- the brady campaign seeker tighter regulation of the firearms industry with regards to safety. Outwardly it seems like a very reasonable policy, make safe tools for people to use safely. No one would be against such a thing.
However, these regulations are already in place, things like transfer bar safeties, drop test requirements, and a variety of other safety features are included in all firearms of modern manufacture.
the firearm described by the Brady campaign in that section, with shorter barrel lengths, is actually THE IDEAL handgun for self defense because they lend themselves to actually being carried. eliminating guns with barrel lengths under 3 in eliminates the compact auto and compact revolver market- driving several gun manufacturers completely out of business; despite the fact that their products are very accurate, safe, and useful.
I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear, but they are not pushing for the elimination of junk guns, but the total elimination of a style of extremely useful defensive gun utilized heavily by private citizens.
then lets look at the assault weapons ban
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb
besides a number of bans by name, the parameters for the ban eliminate a number of other guns as well. Handguns over 50 oz for instance eliminate a number of excellent hunting pistols (mine included) most importantly however, they ban a number of guns that really aren't used in crimes. In my original post some ways up the 1994 AWB stopped citizens from buying guns that were involved in less than 2% of gun related crimes. NONE of which are easily converted to full auto, despite what the Brady Campaign will say.
They also put up wildly inaccurate information. if you look under assault rifles vs hunting rifles, where 'assault rifles are meant to be spray fired from the hip' that is a totally made up assessment. No 'assault rifle' (which for the most part are not available to citizens because a true assault rifle is fully automatic, so already they are dishonest with their naming) is intended to be used in such an inaccurate manner. Ask any military friend what happened if they tried to fire their m16 from the hip. I bet their Drill Instructor gave them a verbal berating they wouldn't soon forget.
Also- the difference between a hunting rifle and a assault rifle by their definition, is the stock, magazine, and in some ways the barrel configuration. All of these are readily changeable parts on a firearm. This allows the Brady Campaign to ban hunting rifles just by saying they can be easily converted to assault rifles- allowing them to extend their ban to eliminate virtually all semi-automatic weapons.
People can talk about legitimate sporting purposes all they want, but the fact is, I own a number of military style weapons, both rifles and handguns, and am completely safe. To limit my rights on strawman arguments against crimes that frankly have not occurred is a complete disservice to me as a citizen.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=second
above note the dreaded 'gunshow' loophole.
I'll be brief with this section as it is so fraught with error it is insulting to have listed such a thing as fact. To say that a full quarter of gunshow tables do not have gun licenses may be accurate, simply because there are easily that many tables at a gun show NOT selling guns of any sort.
Private citizens can access the NICS background system if they are a firearms collector, and you can refuse sale to any private person if you have the slightest suspicion they are in anyway dishonest. I have done a number of these 'dastardly private transactions' and I can say with 100% certainty that in my experience, this 'loophole' is non-existent. records are still always kept by both sides, usually a copy of a drivers license at the minimum, and often, if one party has any kind of status to call in background checks they do so on behalf of both parties to keep everyone happy and safe.
Further- in many states the private sale of handguns is regulated so that even if you want to sell a firearm privately, you still must do so at the pistol licensing authority, in the local sheriff dept, transferring serial number locks, and other required bits of information. The Brady Campaign completely ignores that fact.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=licreg
this is a final point about registration. Much of what they propose already happens, and much of what the rest of they propose here is meant to increase the cost of firearm ownership to the point as to price much of the middle class out of the market. (the lower class, as a result of regulations like this have already been priced out in many areas)
The Brady Campaign has softened their outward exterior in an attempt to gain favor with the public. They were too extreme with their views in the 90s; however the people have not changed, nor has their mission. They just repackaged themselves in an attempt to confuse and mislead people into following their agenda.
sorry it took so long to respond, your arguments are valid and deserved an adequate response.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think it is strange that you would go to the trouble of providing links, but then misquote and misrepresent the information there. You appear to be guilty of the information tactics that you are accusing the Brady Campaign of using.
Your conclusion (that the Brady Campaign is intent on fully disarming American civilians) is not actually supported by the information that you provide, without including a set of assumptions about their hidden agenda. I remember when Jim Brady was shot, and over the years I have never seen the extremist views that you ascribe to him and his organization. As a result of this Opposingviews thread, I have read more of their literature (and the NRA's). I just don't see the radicalism that you are telling me to be concerned about. Both sides demonize the other as people who secretly desire some horrible outcome, but there is never a convincing explanation for what their motivation would be.
My gun bio:
I have fired rifles and handguns at targets (not a lot, ~750 rounds total). I have close friends and family who have ben police officers and soldiers. I have been robbed at gun point. I don't want to own a gun. I am a defender of our second amendment rights.
If I misquoted I apologize, but I don't think I did so on any of their material. However providing the links was part of my intention to help clarify my point.
My interpretation of the Brady Campaign's objective is that they are intent on disarming America via legislation that is at best unethical and ineffective and at worst against the intentions of the constitution.
If I misrepresented their information, I ask that you please show me where I did so. I want to learn from this as much as you do, and sometimes a fresh set of eyes allows for that to happen.
however I do ask that you consider that some of the Brady Campaign's statements border on rhetoric, especially with their descriptions of the use of particular weapons on which they have no credence. Particularly their discussion of "Saturday night specials" and Assault Weapons. Their descriptions of the intent of those firearms is sheer fallacy, and, in my opinion, has no business being presented as facts.
it has been my experience, that once a person has realized these initial fallacies, it becomes clear that much of their arguments are little more than fictional anecdotes that rely heavily on inaccurate information.
I cannot spare the time to go through each section. Here is one.
Consider the difference between your statement:
"They also put up wildly inaccurate information. if you look under assault rifles vs hunting rifles, where 'assault rifles are meant to be spray fired from the hip' that is a totally made up assessment. No 'assault rifle' (which for the most part are not available to citizens because a true assault rifle is fully automatic, so already they are dishonest with their naming) is intended to be used in such an inaccurate manner. Ask any military friend what happened if they tried to fire their m16 from the hip. I bet their Drill Instructor gave them a verbal berating they wouldn't soon forget."
And the relevant actual text (point number three of seven in their definition of a 'semi-automatic assault weapon'):
"A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed."
You start by calling them 'wildly inaccurate,' and then misquote them, and continue by suggesting that:
1) They made it up (actually, you did)
2) They are wrong and dishonest to be defining the term 'assault weapon' as anything other than full-auto.
3) They are risible for even thinking that people would use weapons in ways not approved by a drill sergeant.
What is the factual error that you are pointing to, and how do you justify the scale of your outrage? What do the opinions of military friends and drill sergeants have to do with this? Is the problem that their definition of a "semi-automatic assault weapon" is different from the NRA's "true assault rifle?"
Many of the statements on the Brady Campaign site are clearly rhetoric. No question. We can all hope that paid advocates refrain from using false appeals to authority, arguments premised by hypothetical or anecdotal situations, equivocal invocations of virtuous words, and ideologically reinterpreted study results. However, I can't point to a single good case. Rhetoric is regrettable, but not conclusive evidence of wicked intentions. I am failing to see the Brady Campaign as a dangerous, extreme organization.
"A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed."
as per their quote. I referenced the military because they totally invented a use for these weapons. stabalizing a weapon, while firing from the hip, one handed, is an all conflicting statement. there is no stable way to fire and control a weapon from that position, yet the Brady Campaign, but not suggesting an alternative, is implying this is the default manner in which these weapons are intended to be used.
The NRA definition of an assault rifle is moot- The word is a translation from the german word "sturmgewehr" which meant 'storm rifle'. as per the wording of the 1994 assault weapons ban, are selective fire weapons with the capability of fully automatic fire. AR-15s, civilian AKs and the like DO NOT qualify. The Brady campaign is presenting false information, then generating fictional uses for the different parts of a weapon.
at what point does their inaccurate information deserve the same scrutiny you gave mine? which I think, even after your explanation, my interpretation of their quote was accurate.
they said, facilitates fire from the hip. they say allow the shooter to 'spray fire the weapon' I said spray fired from the hip- I consolidated the two statements. I do not think I changed the intent of their meaning at all, therefore not 'making things up'. perhaps I should have said, to paraphrase the Brady Campaign statements.
My mistake.
as for the risible nature of people using weapons in manners not approved by a drill Sgt, now you sir are changing my meaning. They are mislabeling an entire class of weapons, generating false interpretations of their use, and then asking to ban the false interpretations of the mislabeled weapons class.
Thats like me asking to ban race cars from the street, then defining race cars to include, 'vehicles that can be shifted manually and can are made by honda, toyota, ford, gm, and buick'
I have taken a term that does not apply to a specific subset of devices, picked out an item that has no bearing on the device's potential to do something insidious, and asked for a ban.
I'm not asking you to run out and buy guns and talk about how great the second amendment is. I'm just asking that people stop trying to limit my civil rights based upon fictional arguments.
I think you did fundamentally change their statement when you paraphrased it. By adding the 'meant to be' phrase, it sounds like they believe that these weapons are designed for this use. That implication confirms your argument, but is not demonstrable from their actual statements. But this becomes a somewhat tangential matter of cascading interpreted meaning.
There seems to be a problem with definitions. The Brady Campaign is trying to define the weapons that they believe should be banned. If they called it "Category C Weapons" instead of using the word "assault" would that resolve some of the problem? My perception is that they are focussed on features that don't serve an important function in hunting but are desirable for someone contemplating a crime. A big part of criminal use is the appearance. Criminals want guns that look really bad ass. Since movies are their only training, I am sure they use them in the same ridiculous way.
Race cars should be banned from the street, and thus we need to define what a race car is. Do you just have a problem with the definition, or are you opposed to any ban at all? If it is the former, then we actually agree. Laws that limit our rights need to be especially carefully written, to minimize unintended and unnecessary consequences. This is the practical nitty gritty of governing and shows that our system is working. This is what I see the Brady Campaign and the NRA participating in.
The extreme positions of 'no regulations' or 'no guns' are not currently being advocated in any significant way. And yet, you continue to vilify the Brady Campaign as deeply dangerous. I believe that they are just a rational advocacy group that happens to disagree with you about where the lines should be.
if they labeled the weapons as you described, honestly that would make a difference for me. By using a label that is inappropriate I think they are intentionally trying to create a sense of fear in people. They could have used other labels if accuracy was not important to them, but they chose that one for a specific reason.
The movie statement- I agree to an extent, but much of what the brady campaign seeks to ban really does not come up in criminal activity often. Assault weapons especially. People are just not getting shot with AMD 65s, Ak-47s, Mak 90s, FALs, and AR-15s with the regularity that I feel is implied in their message.
As for the race car analogy- I disagree on both accounts- the definition and the ban itself. The definition is so vague and inaccurate as to allow for the inclusion of so many more firearms than are actually listed that I feel it borders on cynical intent.
I'll tell ya where my strong advocacy comes from- it was a series of studies. Forgive me if this comes out crude- I'm trying to cut and paste from a collection of studies in a web book I'll include the link to the book at the end of this post:
“ ... we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”56
The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness is automatically limited.
"The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”57
"The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”
"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, Syndicated Columnist, The Washington Post, April 5, 1996
58
"The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms”59
"The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law's implementation”60 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer "assault weapons" traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994”. However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.
56 “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003”, National Institute of Justice, June 2004
57 “Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.”, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
58 Ibid
59 Ibid
60 Ibid
61 Washington Post, May 2, 1992
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0 /GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf
sorry thats so ugly. I can't find the other study I wanted- but they did a survey of violent convicted felons with a reasonably large sample size. Most i think were lifers- they asked if the AWB of 94 had any impact on the availability of firearms to them. the majority said no, and a few said it became easier after the ban went into effect.
in my interpretation, the ban didn't help reduce crime at all, and we have hardened criminals who literally laughed when asked about its effectiveness. Bringing back a ban like that to me, shows disregard for the welfare of the general public.
I downloaded the pdf and I will look at it with interest, but this is clearly an argument from a biased individual, not a study. This wasn't put together to inform both sides of a debate, this was put together to strongly present one side.
Nevertheless, the argument - that assault rifles are such a small problem that there is no need to ban them - is important. Of course, there is disagreement on whether these crimes are below such a threshold. I see that if one was convinced that assault rifle violence is not a real problem, it could lead to ascribing hidden motives to a group that wanted to ban assault rifles.
When I read the biased arguments of the Brady Campaign and the NRA I would say that the former makes their case better - the crimes are rare but memorable and horrific. But, the counter argument is statistical and compelling. Therefore, the scale of the problem does seem legitimately debatable. It is believable that people support an assault weapons ban out of an overt desire to reduce deaths rather than a hidden desire to ban all weapons.
The effectiveness of their desired legislation is, of course, an important, separate issue. Believing that there is a problem is only a first step - laws need to address the problem or they are not worth having. Again the two sides debate. Good. Let them. This is how things should get decided.
Now ... how can lobbying for an assault weapon ban show disregard for the welfare of the general public? I understand the perspective that it may be unnecessary infringement of a constitutional right. But, are you suggesting that private ownership of these weapons is good for our welfare? Only nuts (or Columbian drug runners) think you need an AR-10SB for home protection.
OH I agree completely- gunfacts is definitely very pro gun slanted.
Your points regarding both sides are extremely well put. I find the brady campaigns argument to be more anecdotal (which does have a place) as opposed to the more statistical side, which I feel is more in line with the the pro gun people (not to say we don't have our share of anecdotes)
Disregard for the welfare of the general public- probably a strong statement by me, but I'll elaborate. I think that these a la carte style bans on weapons set a terrible precident with regards to the bill of rights. It takes a corner stone of our nation, and sets the stage for modification to the part that was most geared at protecting the people from the government.
I'm not an extremist who thinks that some big government coup is coming or the economy will collapse and their will be heavy rioting, but I think that rights forfeited are often nearly impossible to get back.
I look at gun control as sacrificing not just our rights, but that of future generations. In 50 years, what if the precedent that we set with gun control gets leveraged into free speech? double jeopardy? search and seizure?
sure my examples may seem outlandish, but none of us know the future. So if we can prevent some legislation now, that I have yet to see compelling evidence for it being helpful, then I say lets prevent it.
Also- as a nitpick, from a ballistics standpoint a 223 (or its military cousin 5.56x45) round will actually dissipate its energy faster than a 9mm or a 45 acp, or a 40sw. The smaller faster bullet dumps energy more quickly than a heavy slow one, which actually makes certain carbines safer and arguably more ideal for some defensive scenarios.
I just see so many countries with heavy restrictions on gun control, and I just feel they are so much more violent. Why did violent crime (not necessarily just gun crime) go up in Australia and England after they put massive bans on guns? South Africa is a bit of the wild west, but private ownership of guns is virtually illegal there.
I just am not seeing these safer societies that people talk about with the removal of guns, and then I think, why should we sacrifice this one style of firearm if the evidence is, in my opinion, inconclusive at best and disproved at worst.
Check gunfacts when you get a chance, it is definitely completely pro-gun slanted, but I still think it makes a few good points. Its pretty well researched, and though I'll admit some of their quote selection from the anti-gun crowd is extreme, I think they do so more for effect than anything.
We do need to vigilant against lost rights for the reasons you mention. My personal cause is a reduction of the vilification in public discourse. There is a natural tendency to have negative opinions of those who disagree with you, but this tendency gets dangerously amplified by mass media instruments and advocacy groups. I find that it is possible to have a reasonable discussion with just about any human being, but these discussions are hindered, rather than aided, by the rally-the-troops mentality of our political parties and the paid advocacy organizations that surround the most contentious issues.
I cannot imagine what their motives might be. Perhaps some are honestly fearful, but the sordid history of weapons control indicates that restricting weapons to some favored groups or to the state causes more bloodshed than it prevents.
Only the NRA is talking about restricting weapons to some favored group. They constantly argue against it. I couldn't agree more, but it is an easy argument to win, being a straw-man.
Given the history of tyrants in the past century, I would hesitate to restrict any citizen's ability to buy any weapon they can afford. Perhaps anti-armor rockets should have a unique identifier, but bad things happen when armed revolt is impossible.