The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
- Thread starter bluealberta
- Start date
Actually Colpy, I was asking in good faith. I'm on the fence about this issue. I've some experience with firearms and while I don't currently own one, I have hunted and own a valid FAC. My experience of the hunting community has been impressive in terms of the level of responsibility and respect for the safe storage and handling of firearms and the swift and merciless censure that falls on anyone exhibitng a cavalier attitude around weapons. (After all, the more time you spend around guns and ammo, the more likely it is that you'll get shot by an idiot).
On the other hand, these dreamers who think that they're going to forestall government repression with a gaggle of yahoos waving handguns in the face of a professional, State-equipped army are just the type I don't want to find myself downrange of when I'm sighting in my new rifle...
On the other hand, these dreamers who think that they're going to forestall government repression with a gaggle of yahoos waving handguns in the face of a professional, State-equipped army are just the type I don't want to find myself downrange of when I'm sighting in my new rifle...
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
Colpy said:pastafarian said:
Actually, most of the above stats are from an article in Guns and Ammo, so I imagine you aren't going to accept that as a source.
That's fine. Here is some reading from people not directly associated with the "gun lobby".
John Lott, who is a economics professor at the University of Chicago School of law, has done extensive research, written many articles, and two books on gun control.
http://www.tsra.com/Lott5.htm
Answer - excellent response Colpy. Good material.
In pastafarian's prompt though, an implication was made that validity lies in the source of the material.
That is absolutely true and bares reflection on both sides of the argument.
Unfortunately there are many ways in which statistics can be skewed by a group wishing to justify their position. The application of a specific set of analytical tools over others, the decision of the level of acceptable reliability scaling, the form of the question, the method of data collection, the population (number and type) being sampled, and the scariest part, which of the statistics are going to be choosen for inclusion in the report.
Have you ever pondered how many reports, once submitted to those who financed the report, have been BURIED by the sponsor. Drug companies, government agencies, anybody with a vested interest in a specific finding. I would not trust a statistic unless I had full disclosure of its genesis; from funding, through raw data tables, to the final conclusions.
Jay said:
Hmmm...gaping flaws in the study. Lott's excuse?
Ah, the modern version of, "The dog ate my homework."
pastafarian said:
Answer - obviously then, you have never had the experience. In many ways Canada is a country in a bubble, and we let our freedoms slip away with little protest or awareness of the process, but it would be good to be aware of the history of other nations
pastafarian said:
Here is a web site you might enjoy. It has a forum section in it, and many people in there are ethical hunters, some aren't. I thought I would share it incase you were interested, and I wasn't sure if it would be relevant to you if you live outside of Ontario. Thanks.
http://www.huntontario.com/
Ok PoisinPete2, I'll bite. Where and when has a purely indigenous (not already an established army) group with no outside source of weapons and/or fighters battled a State-backed force to defeat in service of other than criminal --I mean this in the narrow sense-- ends? To start, let's even say for ANY ends.
Switzerland - population 6 million
- # of publicly owned firearms - 2 million!
this includes approx. 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols;
- all men between the ages of 21-32 are given M57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammo by the government which they must keep at home;
- in addition there are few restrictions on buying guns;
- the government even sells off surplus firearms to citizens when new weapons are introduced;
- violent crime is very rare;
- there are minimal controls on public buildings;
- politicians rarely have police protection;
- gun crime is so low that statistics are not even kept.
+++++
Dated 2003. Recent firearms regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer either:
-The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again;
-Over the past 6 years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase; robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise with armed robbery increasing 166% nationwide.
In contrast, violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990’s.
+++++
A ban on all private ownership of handguns in Gresat Britain became law in November 1997. Based on factual research conducted in Great Britain since 1997, consider the following, all of which I have taken from the internet almost word for word. I take no credit for the hard work of others.
A study released in July 2001 by researchers at King’s College in London found “The use of handguns in crimes rose 40% in the 2 years after the weapons were banned.” The study also found that “It’s crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place. Policymakers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tightening laws, but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety. The study concluded that Britain’s experiment with gun prohibition has followed the same path as other government attempts at prohibition. Ever since guns were banned, every criminal has seen the merit of having one. In contrast, the U.S. has among the world’s lowest ‘hot’ burglary rates - defined as burglaries committed while people are in the building - at 13%. Compare that rate with GUN-FREE Great Britain’s rate, which is now up to 59%.
It’s logical. An American study showed that the #1 explanation from would-be burglars NOT to enter an occupied building was “I might get shot.”
“Criminals may be strolling down the road to Hell, but they’re not crazy enough to hurry the trip.”
“In June 2003 a CBS News report labelled Great Britain “one of the most violent urban societies in the western world”.
BBC News reported “a dramatic rise in violent crime in 1998 to the present (2001).” Statistics from the British Office of Home Affairs found that crime in Great Britain in 2001 was at epidemic levels, 60% higher per capita than in the U.S.”
Since the ban on all private ownership of handguns became law in 1997, handgun offences have risen each year since then. Overall, violent crime has spiked since that act of parliament.
A word of caution. It would be simplistic and dangerous to place all of the blame for this crime wave on the 1997 handgun ban. But it certainly has not “ended violent crime” as its supporters predicted. Illegal guns continue to flood the country. Young hoodlums and career criminals have no problem obtaining the firepower they need.
British social policy analyst, Michael S. Brown, O.D., sums up his government’s gun-ban implications for future generations of Britons. “It is no coincidence that crime typically goes up after a government enacts new gun restrictions. Several American researchers and criminologists have explored this effect. Whenever people give up their rights to self-defense in return for a promise of government protection, the results have been negative. No amount of social engineering will change this basic consequence of human nature. Unfortunately, the downward progression of gun control only goes on way. British subjects will never regain the basic human right of armed self defense.”
- # of publicly owned firearms - 2 million!
this includes approx. 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols;
- all men between the ages of 21-32 are given M57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammo by the government which they must keep at home;
- in addition there are few restrictions on buying guns;
- the government even sells off surplus firearms to citizens when new weapons are introduced;
- violent crime is very rare;
- there are minimal controls on public buildings;
- politicians rarely have police protection;
- gun crime is so low that statistics are not even kept.
+++++
Dated 2003. Recent firearms regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer either:
-The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again;
-Over the past 6 years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase; robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise with armed robbery increasing 166% nationwide.
In contrast, violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990’s.
+++++
A ban on all private ownership of handguns in Gresat Britain became law in November 1997. Based on factual research conducted in Great Britain since 1997, consider the following, all of which I have taken from the internet almost word for word. I take no credit for the hard work of others.
A study released in July 2001 by researchers at King’s College in London found “The use of handguns in crimes rose 40% in the 2 years after the weapons were banned.” The study also found that “It’s crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place. Policymakers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tightening laws, but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety. The study concluded that Britain’s experiment with gun prohibition has followed the same path as other government attempts at prohibition. Ever since guns were banned, every criminal has seen the merit of having one. In contrast, the U.S. has among the world’s lowest ‘hot’ burglary rates - defined as burglaries committed while people are in the building - at 13%. Compare that rate with GUN-FREE Great Britain’s rate, which is now up to 59%.
It’s logical. An American study showed that the #1 explanation from would-be burglars NOT to enter an occupied building was “I might get shot.”
“Criminals may be strolling down the road to Hell, but they’re not crazy enough to hurry the trip.”
“In June 2003 a CBS News report labelled Great Britain “one of the most violent urban societies in the western world”.
BBC News reported “a dramatic rise in violent crime in 1998 to the present (2001).” Statistics from the British Office of Home Affairs found that crime in Great Britain in 2001 was at epidemic levels, 60% higher per capita than in the U.S.”
Since the ban on all private ownership of handguns became law in 1997, handgun offences have risen each year since then. Overall, violent crime has spiked since that act of parliament.
A word of caution. It would be simplistic and dangerous to place all of the blame for this crime wave on the 1997 handgun ban. But it certainly has not “ended violent crime” as its supporters predicted. Illegal guns continue to flood the country. Young hoodlums and career criminals have no problem obtaining the firepower they need.
British social policy analyst, Michael S. Brown, O.D., sums up his government’s gun-ban implications for future generations of Britons. “It is no coincidence that crime typically goes up after a government enacts new gun restrictions. Several American researchers and criminologists have explored this effect. Whenever people give up their rights to self-defense in return for a promise of government protection, the results have been negative. No amount of social engineering will change this basic consequence of human nature. Unfortunately, the downward progression of gun control only goes on way. British subjects will never regain the basic human right of armed self defense.”
RE: The Gun Registry Must
There is nothing in any of those stories showing a direct correllation between gun ownership and a drop in crime, iamcanadian. To do so, you would have to show that there were no other factors, like increases/decreases in drug use; rises/drops in employment; cuts/rises in the availability of social programs etc. Even slight changes in demographics will skew statistics because most crimes are committed by people under thirty, so a drop in crime naturally accompanies and aging population.
There is nothing in any of those stories showing a direct correllation between gun ownership and a drop in crime, iamcanadian. To do so, you would have to show that there were no other factors, like increases/decreases in drug use; rises/drops in employment; cuts/rises in the availability of social programs etc. Even slight changes in demographics will skew statistics because most crimes are committed by people under thirty, so a drop in crime naturally accompanies and aging population.
Rev...The onus isn't on us to prove a thing. We aren't the ones trying to ban things.
I think the handgun ban proves there is a horrible, scary hidden agenda by the left to disarm the people....I wonder what you guys have planned for us? Maybe you can let us in on the secret….
I think the handgun ban proves there is a horrible, scary hidden agenda by the left to disarm the people....I wonder what you guys have planned for us? Maybe you can let us in on the secret….
The proclamation of the Hangun ban does baffle me though. There are probably many liberal supporters who collect, and legally use handguns. Martin is taking a very big risk of alienating these people. :lol: It's a risky move considering what's going on right now, do you think Martins is shooting himself in the foot with this one?
Reverend Blair said:
Tell you what.
You don't accept the NRA or Guns and Ammo magazine as a source, I don't accept the Brady Campaign as a source.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
There is an onus on you not present data that is crap though, Jay. Presenting op-ed columns as proof is silly.
I put up a link in which the co-author of one of your experts testified under oath that the study being quoted to justify your position was fixed. Pertinent data was ignored and not included because it didn't fit the conclusion your "expert" wanted to reach.
You ignored, or more likely didn't bother to read, the information in the link. Instead you tried to denigrate the source without presenting any information whatsoever. When I C&Ped the pertinent passages from the link, you ignored them, Jay.
Now when I question the op-ed crap that iamcanadian puts up because it looks only at gun ownership without taking other factors into consideration...basically doing the same thing that discredited John Lott...your response is that you don't have to prove anything.
Bullshit. You have to prove that your data is accurate and pertinent and that it can be used to prove what you claim it proves.
There is an onus on you not present data that is crap though, Jay. Presenting op-ed columns as proof is silly.
I put up a link in which the co-author of one of your experts testified under oath that the study being quoted to justify your position was fixed. Pertinent data was ignored and not included because it didn't fit the conclusion your "expert" wanted to reach.
You ignored, or more likely didn't bother to read, the information in the link. Instead you tried to denigrate the source without presenting any information whatsoever. When I C&Ped the pertinent passages from the link, you ignored them, Jay.
Now when I question the op-ed crap that iamcanadian puts up because it looks only at gun ownership without taking other factors into consideration...basically doing the same thing that discredited John Lott...your response is that you don't have to prove anything.
Bullshit. You have to prove that your data is accurate and pertinent and that it can be used to prove what you claim it proves.
Do you accept testimony under oath, Colpy?
You quoted an expert source who has been discredited by his co-author under oath.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
Reverend, you are asking the impossible.
There are so many variables at work that no one thing can be separated from all the others as a cause for a drop, or a rise in crime/murder/violence rates.
What the arguments DO show is that the prevalence of legally held firearms does not create a violent society, and may even be a deterent to violent crime.
What the arguments DO show is that the removal of legally held arms can not be shown to prevent violent crime, even that crime commited with guns.
Therefore a handgun ban is indefensible.
This is a free society. I thought.
The onus is on the government to prove any restriction of my freedom does reasonable good.
That is impossible, so they should "censored".
Reverend Blair said:
Reverend, you are asking the impossible.
There are so many variables at work that no one thing can be separated from all the others as a cause for a drop, or a rise in crime/murder/violence rates.
What the arguments DO show is that the prevalence of legally held firearms does not create a violent society, and may even be a deterent to violent crime.
What the arguments DO show is that the removal of legally held arms can not be shown to prevent violent crime, even that crime commited with guns.
Therefore a handgun ban is indefensible.
This is a free society. I thought.
The onus is on the government to prove any restriction of my freedom does reasonable good.
That is impossible, so they should "censored".
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
I didn't mean to get your knickers in a knot, Rev...sorry.
BTW, I did read the posts you made, I just don't know enough about the exact situation to comment on it. I don't take the Bradley Law BS with any seriousness though.
Reverend Blair said:
I didn't mean to get your knickers in a knot, Rev...sorry.
BTW, I did read the posts you made, I just don't know enough about the exact situation to comment on it. I don't take the Bradley Law BS with any seriousness though.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
Nonsense, Colpy. Your right to own a penis-extending toy does not trump the right of others to not be shot.
You want to keep a machine designed to kill people as easily accessible as possible. The onus is on you to show that it will not cause harm. You have failed to do so.
Nonsense, Colpy. Your right to own a penis-extending toy does not trump the right of others to not be shot.
You want to keep a machine designed to kill people as easily accessible as possible. The onus is on you to show that it will not cause harm. You have failed to do so.