Like your guns?

[Force 10]

Then vote like it.

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 11, No. 20 05/21/04

CRIME IN ENGLAND: THE PRICE OF GUN CONTROL

In March of 1996, a deranged man walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland and killed sixteen children and one teacher. In the aftermath of this heinous tragedy, British politicians sought to reduce violent crime by enacting an injudicious ban on all handguns. Handgun owners were given a February 1998 deadline to turn in their firearms--and they did. The UK was supposed to become a much safer place--but it didn`t. Not by a long shot.

As reported in a May 14 article in the Edmonton Journal, England`s recently released gun-crime statistics for the first five years following the gun-ban indicate a very different outcome than that which was forecast. According to the article, "the incidence of gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled from 13,874 in 1998 to 24,070 in 2003. And the incidence of firearms murder, while thankfully still very small, has risen 65 per cent," (emphasis added).

The article details statistics from another report issued last year by Britain`s Home Office, which reveal that there has also been a dramatic increase in robberies in recent years. They report that robberies, "rose by 28 per cent in 2002 alone and, since 1998, there has been an increase in the annual average of muggings of more than 100,000. England alone has nearly 400,000 robberies each year, a rate nearly one-quarter higher per capita than that of the United States," (emphasis added).

Do gun bans serve to reduce violent crime? When law-abiding citizens are disarmed, is their society a safer one? England`s plight is just the latest example to show us, yet again, that the answer is "NO."

THE BRADY-KERRY CONNECTION

More rock-solid proof that Presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) is a bitter enemy of the Second Amendment surfaced in today`s USAToday. An article therein reported on a meeting of the recently formed liberal political strategy group "America Votes." The article disclosed that, during the meeting, the group discussed the latest polling data gathered by gun-ban groups. Pollster John Martilla, an adviser to NRA-PVF "F" rated Kerry, presented the results of a national survey that he conducted on behalf of the Brady Campaign!

The Brady Campaign, of course, steadfastly maintains that you have no individual right to own any firearm.

Kerry can`t hide from his past. His abysmal voting record on firearm-related issues, and his support of the Clinton gun ban, clearly show where he stands on our issue. Take some free advice from us, Mr. Kerry, and don`t try to pretend you support the Second Amendment.

Link here: http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=N...www.nraila.org

[MooseMan3000]

Um...

the incidence of gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled from 13,874 in 1998 to 24,070 in 2003.

Well, if guns were OUTLAWED in 1998, then of course gun crimes are going to go up. Because HAVING a gun is illegal. Fucking DUH.

I'm sorry, but that sentence alone forces me to discount the rest of the article. Even if there are a few semi-decent points in there, the fact that they use that statistic to bludgeon you into agreeing with them just makes the writer seem that much more vile.


Even if Kerry were to be elected, the idea of a gun ban in the United States currently is simply preposterous. Given the enormous lobby power of the NRA, and the very EXISTENCE of the ATF, gun owners don't have much to worry about. Restrictions and regulations will keep coming and going, but an all out gun ban won't happen any time soon. Despite what the propaganda machine that is the "Grassroots Alert" (put out by the NRA) will tell you.


Note that I don't have any anti gun sentiments. I enjoy them and I own a few. All I'm saying is that that article is complete crap. No offense.

[Force 10]

I'll agree with you that an all out gun ban is, at this point, not going to happen soon. But then again, soon is relative isn't it? However, the more legislation put forth to regulate arms, the closer we are to loosing [more of] them. This is the real point.

I didn't post this article to instill fear that Kerry is going to try to take all of our guns away but he sure as hell will try and take some of our gun rights away. That much I can guarantee you.

The bludgeoning you speak of doesn't come close to the everyday, 24/7 propaganda fucking bullshit I have to deal with from the overpowering tasteless liberal media.

To say this article is complete crap is hideous. Read between the lines.

[MrTuffPaws]

Sorry, but I would rather face gun restrictions that have Bush in office another four years. Plus, Bush him self stated that he would sign the AWB if it landed on his desk. Gun friendly my ass.

[MooseMan3000]

More rock-solid proof that Presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) is a bitter enemy of the Second Amendment surfaced in today`s USAToday. An article therein reported on a meeting of the recently formed liberal political strategy group "America Votes." The article disclosed that, during the meeting, the group discussed the latest polling data gathered by gun-ban groups. Pollster John Martilla, an adviser to NRA-PVF "F" rated Kerry, presented the results of a national survey that he conducted on behalf of the Brady Campaign!

Fine, I'm reading between the lines. I'm still not seeing much. To claim that he is a "bitter enemy of the Second Amendment" is totally unfair. Even if he is against private, individual gun ownership, he could still be for the Second Amendment.

Actual text of Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm still undecided on this matter myself, but it is entirely possible to read that amendment to mean that militias are allowed to keep and bear arms, without giving individuals the right to do so. Ever since the concept of Judicial Review was introduced, our Supreme Court has existed solely to try to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, because we DON'T know exactly what it means. In my opinion, this is one of the more ambiguous cases.

And the article that is mentioned from USAToday? According to this article, it says "America Votes discussed gun-ban legislation." I hardly see this as "rock-solid proof." First, it doesn't give any information on WHAT legislation exactly they reviewed OR what they said about it. And more importantly, America Votes is an INDEPENDENT organization. John Kerry is not affiliated with this organization. This NRA article is trying to make up opinions (again, they were never specifically cited... just alluded to) and pin them on John Kerry, when he is not involved with this organization.

Now what next...

Pollster John Martilla, an adviser to NRA-PVF "F" rated Kerry, presented the results of a national survey that he conducted on behalf of the Brady Campaign!

First things first. What exactly is that supposed to mean? I fail to see a complete sentence in that mess of words. If I understand it correctly, however, it SHOULD say something along the lines of "Pollster John Martilla, an adviser to the NRA-PVF, rated John Kerry an 'F' when presented with the results of a national survey that Kerry conducted on behalf of the Brady Campaign."

Well, ASSUMING that I got that right, let's decipher the MEANING behind it. He gave Kerry an "F." What did he give Kerry an "F" in? Was it his grammar? Was it his opinions on private gun ownership? Was it the way he conducted the survey? (Note that even if "John Kerry" conducted the survey, it wasn't actually him... just some organization affiliated with him) Was it the fact that it mentioned the Brady Campaign? Your article doesn't explain where that "F" came from, nor what it is about.

Edit: I forgot to mention this... if the sentence in the article I just mentioned is actually worded correctly, then it says "Pollster John Martilla presented the results of a national survey that he conducted on behalf of the Brady Campaign!" OK, good for John.




Alright, I'm done with that article. Now to my own opinions.

I will most likely vote for Kerry (I most certainly will NOT vote Bush) in the upcoming election, but it will have nothing to do with his gun legislation. In my opinion, there are much more important matters at hand today that need our attention.

I am pro private gun ownership, but I am ALSO pro more gun regulation. I might be called a "liberal redneck" as far as my opinions on firearms go. I like having a gun to go shoot beer bottles off a fence, but I think the idea of having a concealed carry permit for self protection is ludicrous. I don't really feel like going into my reasons right now.

[/POLITICAL RANT IN THE WRONG FORUM]

Yeah, this thread should probably have been in the politics forum, but it wasn't. I had to respond anyway. Sorry, mods.

And Ruprex, I'm sorry if I've come off too harsh. I didn't mean my replies to be attacks. I just honestly think that article means very little. I also think most of the stuff that comes out of organizations like "America Votes" and "moveon.org" is complete crap. It's just a different color crap. I will always be pro private gun ownership. I just don't want the NRA trying to twist my mind like that.

[MSD]

Bush has stated that he favors a ban on semiautomatic handguns. I see no reason to demonize Kerry when Bush supports the same proposals.

[NewBonk]

I'm a big believer in the "slippery slope" of government - when a special interest group can't get their way, they start small. Remove a freedom here. Add a restriction there. Sooner or later, they get their way.

Of course, this also holds true for policies I believe in (almost always the retraction of legislation), so I'm not bashing the process.

Gun ownership is one of my main topics of interest when researching political candidates. Kerry scares the heck out of me while Bush only disappoints me. If I was placing my vote solely on this issue (I'm not), I would have to pick the lesser of two evils.

Anywhoo, going back to the subject of the article that was posted, I believe the concept was when you take away firearms from law-abiding people, violent crimes increase in numbers because the criminals know there is very little risk. This is an assertion I support. As more and more states enact carry laws (not always requiring the firearm be concealed), violent crime has decreased. Property crime usually increases because criminals move onto less risky activities, such as stealing empty cars or business burglaries. While I might not be happy someone stole my car, it's better than having some guy point a gun at me and demand I turn over my keys.

[Lebell]

moved to Politics.

[ARTelevision]

"Show me who your friends are and I'll show you who you are." - Italian parental wisdom.

The assumed Democratic candidate's friends are worrisome in this regard. Seems to me he hangs around with the gun-unfriendly crowd. I could be wrong. But I don't think I am.

[Asuka{eve}]

I always get the feeling that politicians seems to suport gun control because it gets them popularity even if the thing they try make law is broke like for example the AWB.

[HarmlessRabbit]

There must be a half-dozen threads already in here on that study of England. I distinctly remember one with good old Food Eater Lad in it.

My only comment is to again point out that even the NRA wants gun control of some sort.

I'm always really amused when the debate is framed as "those who want to ban all guns from private ownership" against "those who want no rules or restrictions on gun ownership at all." The ugly truth is that most people are mostly in agreement on what a reasonable gun ownership policy would look like. But the NRA and Brady groups wouldn't get money unless they painted small issues like magazine size restrictions as a full-on constitutional assault.

[BlueMan]

I guess I should have quoted, but the rant was a reponse to the assertion (in this case Mooseman articulated it) that the 2nd can be read to say that only "the militia" (Which many try to define as the National Guard) has the right to keep and bear arms. It's not an argument I buy, and I guess it's a bit of a hot button.

I am perfectly aware that there must be some reasonable regulation, and in all actuality, a reading of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights says will show that -any- regulatory authority resides in the states.

Per the BoR Amendment X, the federal government is given no authority to regulate the ownership of firearms, save -perhaps- their trade between states under the interstate commerce clause. It's a power that is not enumerated to the Fed in the Constitution, and not denied the state.

The regulations I agree with include liscensing (basically a competence check, and to ensure training is provided, after all, the "militia" (defined, by the way, as "1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.") is to be "well-regulated", meaning trained and directed. So, I can agree with reasonably applied training requirement, and a liscence. I allow for the fact that minors should not be allowed to use firearms except under the supervision of an adult. I believe convicted felons (particularly those convicted of a violent crime) should forfeit their 2nd amendment right, as should those with a verifiable mental illness that would preclude them from responsible ownership. and I believe gun (and other weapons, as they are also "arms") crimes should be severly punished.

However, the states should prudently take a clue from Amenment 2. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear in itself. There is a fine line that must be walked between infringement and prudent regulation.

Now, realizing that the Founders had not concieved of Milspec weaponry such as tanks and nuclear weapons, the 2nd -can-, I think, be reasonably construed to be limited to personal arms. However, I don't agree with the so-called "assault weapons" ban, which really does nothing more than prohibit the sale of a few types of guns that look dangerous. If someone decides to purchase a semi-automatic, or even automatic rifle, I don't think that should to be regulated. Again, abuse of the right should be swiftly and severely dealt with. Concealed carry should be allowed. It has been shown to reduce the crime rate wherever it is applied. Violent crimes decrease when the predators don't know which prey might have teeth.

Some say "Let the police handle it". A number of police officers, even, will tell you that most of the time, they will arrive only in time to clean up the mess, question witnesses, and hopefully catch the criminal. Police can't be everywhere, and it is up to the citizen to take reasonable measures to protect him/herself.

Gun control laws serve no purpose except to remove the ability of the law abiding to even the score with those who do not obey said laws. Criminals, by definition, don't give a rip about gun control laws. They will have their guns anyway. The second amendment was enacted to protect the right of the PEOPLE to defend themselves against criminal elements and tyrants. It's not for hunting or recreational shooting, or whatever, although those are a convenient side benefit. But as long as those who would harm others have access to weaponry, so should the citizenry, and so "take their guns away" is the wrong answer. Well-trained, -responsible- gun ownership works far better, and is inline with the intent of the Founders.

I appear to have written a book. Sorry.

[Publius]

This topic always makes me laugh. Being from the mid-west originally I grew up in gun country where everyone from the age of 8 owned and operated a firearm. We have great slogans there like, “From my cold dead fingers!” But just for a minute I wish people would stop and think this one through. Sure I am all for gun ownership and all, but is it really necessary to have all sorts of assault rifles and handguns? I mean really, the 2nd amendment was adopted in part because our founders believed that it was necessary for the populace to be well armed in case they needed to overthrow a tyrannical government. Well we have a tyrannical government (at least by our founders standards) and I haven’t noticed anyone seriously attempting to overthrow it lately, at least not for the past 140 odd years. Does anyone out there really believe that gun ownership in America still protects us from a tyrannical government? Rhetorical question, sadly enough I already know the answer ... sigh.

[hrdwareguy]

Since we were getting off topic, I split the thread and the gun control debate it started can be found here

[cthulu23]

Originally posted by Asuka{eve}
I always get the feeling that politicians seems to suport gun control because it gets them popularity even if the thing they try make law is broke like for example the AWB.

What?! Supporting gun control is political suicide for politicians in most areas of this country. Just look at this thread....people don't like or "trust" Kerry because of the friends he keeps or for supporting even small pieces of regulation.

It's important to note that the majority of Americans are for some gun control, ie - assault weapon bans and waiting periods. However, once the NRA machine gets cranked up and the issue is framed as "NRA vs the Jack booted thugs coming to take your guns," people begin to hesitate.

Although I don't own any guns, I also don't believe that the government should be the only armed entity in the nation. However, I think that laws prohibiting my purchase of a rocket launcher / automatic weapon / explosive are a good thing. To those that speak out against any regulation at all, I ask where do you draw the line? What types of weapons should citizens be allowed to own? Flame throwers? Tanks? M-60s?

[Lebell]

Originally posted by cthulu23
It's important to note that the majority of Americans are for some gun control, ie - assault weapon bans and waiting periods.

Once people are educated on the "Assault Weapons Ban", they are much less likely to support it (just ask in here, for example).

As to the numbers, I don't know if it is the "majority" (a current CNN poll suggests it is the minority).

However, once the NRA machine gets cranked up and the issue is framed as "NRA vs the Jack booted thugs coming to take your guns," people begin to hesitate.

If you actually look at the people supporting these laws (Chuck Schumer, Richard Daley, Dianne Feinstein, etc.), they are on record as saying they want to ban ALL GUNS.

So yes, the "jack booted thugs" as you put it, really do want to come and take my guns away.

Although I don't own any guns, I also don't believe that the government should be the only armed entity in the nation. However, I also don't think that laws prohibiting my purchase of a rocket launceher / automatic weapon / explosive are a good thing. To those that speak out against any regulation at all, I ask where do you draw the line? What types of weapons should citizens be allowed to own? Flame throwers? Tanks? M-60s? [/B]

(I think you might have made a mistake in your sentence since it says one thing and then another.)

Anyway, you CAN own automatic weapons; it is just expensive and time consuming. You can also own a tank (you might not get a functioning gun however.)

But to answer your basic question, I personally would draw the line at explosives and crew served weapons.

In otherwords, I think that with proper regulation, most of what an infantry man has should be available to the average citizen.

[hrdwareguy]

Originally posted by Lebell
But to answer your basic question, I personally would draw the line at explosives and crew served weapons.

Just a note, currently explosives are legal with a Destructive Device Permit. That's how blasting companies get them.

[cthulu23]

Originally posted by Lebell
If you actually look at the people supporting these laws (Chuck Schumer, Richard Daley, Dianne Feinstein, etc.), they are on record as saying they want to ban ALL GUNS.

So yes, the "jack booted thugs" as you put it, really do want to come and take my guns away.

The term "jack booted thugs" comes from a specific piece of NRA marketing that caused the first President Bush to dissolve his membership with the group. The phrase is also a perfect example for how the NRA uses fear and overstatement to shout down any attempts at gun control while engendering paranoia in their rank and file.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the vast majority of Americans don't favor any sort of extreme gun control. In my opinion, the jack booted thugs (whoever they are) haven't been given the go ahead....I think that it's safe to put down the pistol and relax.

In otherwords, I think that with proper regulation, most of what an infantry man has should be available to the average citizen.

So what do you consider "proper regulation" for, say, a Squad Assault Weapon (it can be clip fed, so no crew is necessary)?
Would you favor a waiting period, background check, etc?

Although federal firearms licenses allow some individuals to own automatic weapons, they are out of the reach of most citizens, which I consider a good thing.

[hrdwareguy]

Originally posted by cthulu23 Although federal firearms licenses allow some individuals to own automatic weapons, they are out of the reach of most citizens, which I consider a good thing.

Wrong! Federal Fireams Licenses allow companies/individuals to buy and sell guns as a business. It has noting to do with everyday people owing guns. In order to own a fully automatic weapon you must get a tax stamp under the National Fireamrs Act of 1934. This is pricy and time consuming for both the buyer and seller. This is why they are out of the reach of most citizens.

Check out this thread to see what it takes to get full auto stuff.

[cthulu23]

Originally posted by hrdwareguy
Wrong! Federal Fireams Licenses allow companies/individuals to buy and sell guns as a business. It has noting to do with everyday people owing guns. In order to own a fully automatic weapon you must get a tax stamp under the National Fireamrs Act of 1934. This is pricy and time consuming for both the buyer and seller. This is why they are out of the reach of most citizens.

Ummm, ok.....regardless of the name of the regulations that deter private ownership of automatic weapons, I am glad that they exist. Thanks for the correction.

I'm still curious about what type of regulations you'd like to see on the infantry style weapons that you think are appropriate for private ownership. Traditionally, the gun lobby and there adherents seem to think that any regulations are too much. When I think of a flood of automatic weapons in the market, I keep getting flashes of that bloody West Hollywood bank robbery, but worse.

[cthulu23]

Here's a random thought that just struck me...
According to the NRA, if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. If we generalize that statement just a little bit, than it stands to reason that if grenade launchers are illegal, than only outlaws will have grenade launchers. When was the last time that you ever heard of a citizen being robbed at thumper point? Just a thought...

[DelayedReaction]

Originally posted by cthulu23
Here's a random thought that just struck me...
According to the NRA, if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. If we generalize that statement just a little bit, than it stands to reason that if grenade launchers are illegal, than only outlaws will have grenade launchers. When was the last time that you ever heard of a citizen being robbed at thumper point? Just a thought...

Grenade launchers are not designed for clandestine robberies; they are designed for war. Assuming you used it properly, you would have to have the person throw their wallet across the street to you. Otherwise if you fired the weapon you probably would kill yourself in the blast.

Ever seen a drive-by with a tank?

[cthulu23]

Originally posted by DelayedReaction
Grenade launchers are not designed for clandestine robberies; they are designed for war. Assuming you used it properly, you would have to have the person throw their wallet across the street to you. Otherwise if you fired the weapon you probably would kill yourself in the blast.

Ever seen a drive-by with a tank?

No, I've never seen a drive by with a tank...I tend to think, however, that the absence of tank assaults has more to do with the relative scarcity of black market tanks, not their impracticality in urban street crime.

Is it really easier to believe that criminals have deemed the grenade launcher an impractical combat tool rather than that they simply don't have access to them? Although Hollywood movies might teach you otherwise, not many street criminals have access to exotic military weaponry.
Of course, admitting that some American weapons aren't available to the general population is an admission that some weapon regulation works.

[DelayedReaction]

Look, you're arguing with the wrong person. I happen to agree that milspec weaponry should not be in the hands of civilians, and that some form of regulation is effective. But grenade launchers and handguns are totally different weapons with totally different purposes.

Of course, admitting that some American weapons aren't available to the general population is an admission that some weapon regulation works.

Could that statement be any more ambiguous? Yes, reducing access to milspec weaponry prevents general populace from owning it. But you can't possibly make a justification that because banning grenade launchers is effective we should start banning handguns.

[cthulu23]

Originally posted by DelayedReaction
Could that statement be any more ambiguous? Yes, reducing access to milspec weaponry prevents general populace from owning it. But you can't possibly make a justification that because banning grenade launchers is effective we should start banning handguns.

If you look at my posts earlier in this thread, you'll see that I don't advocate the seizure of American firearms. I was simply pointing out how the NRA's "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" syllogism falls apart if subjected to scrutiny. Doesn't the limited availability of many high-power weapons confirm this?

[DelayedReaction]

Originally posted by cthulu23
If you look at my posts earlier in this thread, you'll see that I don't advocate the seizure of American firearms. I was simply pointing out how the NRA's "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" syllogism falls apart if subjected to scrutiny. Doesn't the limited availability of many high-power weapons confirm this?

Sorry, I was addressing your point. It's nice to know that we agree.

The problem is twofold:
A) Milspec weaponry has been banned for 70 years.
B) Milspec weaponry wasn't all that prevalent with citizens to begin with.

The reason you don't seem criminals running around with grenade launchers is because they never had access to them; the weapons were never available legally. In contrast you can buy a handgun now, and there are a massive number of handguns in the world. The "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" statement applies small arms; this can be seen in places where guns are banned such as England.

[hrdwareguy]

Since this thread has now degredated twice from the topic I'm locking it. If you want to talk about gun control, bring up one of the previous gun control threads or start another one if you don't want to dig.