JohnRich 4 #1 January 5, 2004 Yet another study has been published which demonstrates once again that gun control laws don't work! Title: "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales" Publication Date: November 2003 Author: Gary Mauser, Fraser Institute Executive Summary: "Widely televised firearm murders in many countries during the 20th Century have spurred politicians to introduce restrictive gun laws. The politicians then promise that the new restrictions will reduce criminal violence and 'create a safer society.' It is time to pause and ask if gun laws actually do reduce criminal violence. "Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns and, more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms. "In this study, the author examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations: i.e., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada. The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. Since firearms are only a small fraction of criminal violence, the public would not be safer if the new law could reduce firearm violence but had no effect on total criminal violence. "The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates because the criminal justice system there differs so drastically from those in Europe and the Commonwealth. Not only are criminal penalties typically more severe in the United States, often much more severe, but also conviction and incarceration rates are usually much higer. Perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the United States passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit. "The upshot is that 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 the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s. This contrast should provoke thinking people to wonder what happened in those countries where they introduced increasingly restrictive firearm laws. "Britain In the past 20 years, both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearm laws; even banning all handguns in 1997. Unfortunately, these Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed. The public is not any safer and may be less safe. Police statistics show that England and Wales are enduring a serious crime wave. In contrast to handgun-dense United States, where the homicide rate has been falling for over 20 years, the homicide rate in handgun-banning England and Wales has been growing. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and, in fact, since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States. The firearm laws may even have increased criminal violence by disarming the general public. Despite Britain’s banning and confiscating all handguns, violent crime, and firearm crime, continue to grow. "Australia Following shocking killings in 1996, the Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearm legislation in 1997. Unfortunately, the recent firearm regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer. The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. The decline in homicide rate in the gun-permissive United States stands out against the trend in Australia. The divergence between Australia and the United States is even more apparent with violent crime. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide. The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The costs of the police services bureaucracy, including the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997. And for what? There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or maybe even better equipment. Think of how many lives might have been saved. "Canada In the 1990s, sweeping changes were made to the firearms laws, first in 1991 and then again in 1995. Licensing and registration are still being phased in. The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The Canadian experiment with firearm regulation is moving to farce. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion. Taxpayers would do well to ask for independent cost-benefit studies on registration to see how much the gun registry is already costing. Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce violent crime in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure. Criminal violence has not decreased. Instead, it continues to increase. Unfortunately, policy dictates that the current directions will continue and, more importantly, it will not be examined critically. Only the United States has witnessed such a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade. Perhaps it is time politicians in the Commonwealth reviewed their traditional antipathy to lawfully owned firearms. It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?" Source and full report: Fraser Institute Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACMESkydiver 0 #2 January 5, 2004 That post made my eyes bleed...~Jaye Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #3 January 5, 2004 3 February 1990, Washington A man tried to commit a robbery in Renton, WA. This was probably his first attempt, as suggested by the fact that he had no previous record of violent crime, and by his terminally stupid choices as listed below: 1. The target was H&J Leather & Firearms, a gun shop. 2. The shop was full of customers, in a state where a substantial portion of the adult population is licensed to carry concealed handguns in public places. 3. To enter the shop, he had to step around a marked Police patrol car parked at the front door. 4. An officer in uniform was standing next to the counter, having coffee before reporting to duty. Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a holdup and fired a few wild shots. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, removing him from the gene pool. Several other customers also drew their guns, but didn't fire. No one else was hurt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DALAILAMA 0 #4 January 5, 2004 Ah yes, the thinning of the population. What a beautiful thing!"Dropzone.com, where uneducated people measuring penises, has become an art form" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #5 January 5, 2004 Nobody is that stupid. That sounds like a suicide by proxy to me. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #6 January 5, 2004 true story. he won a darwin award for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #7 January 5, 2004 QuoteNobody is that stupid. Contrary to your belief some people are indeed that stupid. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #8 January 5, 2004 Isn't the number of gun murders in the US like 11,000 per year while Canada's is pretty much always less than a few hundred? Even adjusting for population I'd say that says something about the effectiveness of gun control. I'm just loosely quoting Bowling For Columbine here... not particularly a Moore fan but the man makes a point.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #9 January 5, 2004 Nah, the Canadians are just more easy-going and tolerant than Americans. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #10 January 5, 2004 >Isn't the number of gun murders in the US like 11,000 per year >while Canada's is pretty much always less than a few hundred? Hmm. I wonder if there aren't a thousand conflicting reports, stories, statistics, examples, and interpretations of the constitution that could be used to turn this simple question into a contentious 600 post long thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #11 January 5, 2004 Quote>Isn't the number of gun murders in the US like 11,000 per year >while Canada's is pretty much always less than a few hundred? Hmm. I wonder if there aren't a thousand conflicting reports, stories, statistics, examples, and interpretations of the constitution that could be used to turn this simple question into a contentious 600 post long thread. Only if you're ignorant about simple facts and refuse to accept the truth that gun control laws don't reduce violent crime. (I wish there were a smiley face with tongue out, thumbs in ears, wiggling fingers.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #12 January 5, 2004 >>Hmm. I wonder if there aren't a thousand conflicting reports, stories, statistics, examples, and interpretations of the constitution that could be used to turn this simple question into a contentious 600 post long thread. << As a matter of fact, I believe there are. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #13 January 5, 2004 Quoteturn this simple question into a contentious 600 post long thread. It's good to exercize the server every once in a while, don't want the database getting fat on us. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #14 January 5, 2004 >As a matter of fact, I believe there are. You don't say! Where might one find such an extensive thread containing such a wealth of useful information if one were looking for it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #15 January 5, 2004 >>You don't say! Where might one find such an extensive thread containing such a wealth of useful information if one were looking for it? << Sadly, by searching for your posts or mine. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #16 January 5, 2004 A few democrats here eh? let me go vomit You want to control all of the guns, let the good citizens do their second amendment duties and focus on the criminals with guns. I would put all my money on 90 percent of those shootings are from illegal guns in operation by career criminals or people that just went haywire, in the mental case I agree they should not have a gun but who is to determine that? If they are minors and are known for violent behavior the parents should lock guns up. But if a person wants a gun they can GET a gun(Illegally) Which as I say again is not the legal gun owners fault. Your assault ban puts guns with bayonets and pistol grips in a that category. When is the last time you seen a drive by bayonetting? P.S. a pistol grip is not a magic word for infrared laser human seeking device it is a piece of plastic. There are 2 categories of guns in my book fully auto and semi-auto. Assault weapons fall into the semi-auto category as well as fully auto. The thing that gets me is you never complain about .22 caliber rifles or deer guns either. They kill you just as fast as your "assault rifle". The problem(shootings) lies in illegal guns not legal law abiding gun owners. I am not a redneck outlaw either I am a police officer. I see the problems first hand. Don't think it is all guns/people it is not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fudd 0 #17 January 6, 2004 One of the problems I see with the gun control debate is that it focused around 'Don't take away MY right to own a gun'. I'm all for gun control, but I know it's not the solution to the problem. It's more a treatment of the symptom. This might seem like a contradiction, but it's not. I ask you. What gives you the right to shoot and kill another person? What gives you the right to train for and get the means to do so? Why did you get upset with me for asking those two last questions? There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee03 0 #18 January 6, 2004 My definition of gun control: Gun control is being able to hit your target!-------- To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities. --Nevil Shute, Slide Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #19 January 6, 2004 QuoteI ask you. What gives you the right to shoot and kill another person? What gives you the right to train for and get the means to do so? a) If that person is threatening your life. b) For just such an occasion. Why did you ask such simple questions? FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #20 January 6, 2004 >Sadly, by searching for your posts or mine. Hmm! Perhaps that's an alternative to building another 600 post thread that covers exactly the same ground as the ones before it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #21 January 6, 2004 Quotelet the good citizens do their second amendment duties and focus on the criminals with guns. you should change that to "Let the good citizens do their second amendment duties and AIM at the criminals with guns." ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MichaelBess 0 #22 January 6, 2004 One reason that the law appears not to be working is because it is written way to complicated, and is easily misunderstood. Gun control laws should be easier to understand and simplified in my opinion. The new law should read: Gun Control = Using both hands! Then all would understand both the meaning and intent of the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #23 January 6, 2004 Actually the Canadian example in the article is perfectly true, it deals with bill C-46 I think. That little peice of legislation was a total fiasco because it regulated hunting rifles for the most part. I think it was a terrible idea and that the people responsible for letting it go a billion over-budget should be turned loose on my local shooting range to serve as animated targets. Using one single example like this doesn't mean that all of our gun laws are bad. The article is also extremely vague when it talks about crime rates rising and falling in Can vs US. Our per capita gun murder rate would still have to increase like 1000% to reach that of the US. This whole thread is ignorant in conception and not much good will come out of prolonging the agony, especially as it has already been talked to death in the Bowling for Columbine and other related threads. BTW the Darwin awards are worth a look, there are some real genius minds when it comes to stupidity.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #24 January 6, 2004 QuoteA few democrats here eh? let me go vomit You want to control all of the guns, There may be, fortunately for me, I'm not one of them. However, one of the biggest lefties I know, PhillyKev, has argued against gun control more often, and better than most, on this site. I support Kevin 100% in his arguments. Welcome to the party, the beer is in the corner. I'll be sitting in the big comfy chair over there watching the fun. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #25 January 6, 2004 And worse shots!!JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
