Our government wants to disarm all people!
dickweed
our government wants to do to us?
By disarming the population so no-one can fight back, they can do
almost anything to us.
Also, almost all gun related crimes are comitted with unlicenced
firearms, and almost no crime is committed by owners of licenced
firearms. Why do they want to control the legal guns, instead of
controlling crime?
Sabsy
disk...@i.dunno wrote:
> What better way to bully anyone if he cannot fight back? Is this what
> our government wants to do to us?
No
>
> By disarming the population so no-one can fight back, they can do
> almost anything to us.
No true. If you read the proposed law and the arguments, you would not
make this kind of silly assumption. I do encourage you to read more
about this.
>
> Also, almost all gun related crimes are comitted with unlicenced
> firearms, and almost no crime is committed by owners of licenced
> firearms.
This is not true, as you know. Licensed arms become unlicenced when
they get stolen from licensed owners, who often are irresponsible.
> they want to control the legal guns, instead of
> controlling crime?
Most crime is committed using GUNS.
Thought this was obvious
>
>
--
---------
"If it looks like shit, smells like shit, mail it to your enemy --
he'll know what to do with it."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
-
strongly support. It is difficult to weed out a very small percentage of
illegal arms from a mass of legal ones - it is a much easier task if
firearms are illegal. If you are stopped and are in possession of a firearm
and you are not a policeman or soldier, then you are arrested there and then
because your gun is illegal. No more worries about fake gun licenses which
fool police inspections. It will be a slow process to rid our society of
guns but I think people need to take a longer term view - things clearly
cannot carry on the way they are, and sure, there will be a period of
innocent people being unable to defend themselves against gun-toting
criminals. There will need to be some police / army backup to this plan.
There will need to be regular roadblocks (which we would all bitch about
anyway), regular raids etc to rid criminals of their weapons and to make
people realise that there is a good chance that if they're carrying a weapon
they will be discovered. As well as this, I believe citizens need to also
pull their weight - if you know your neighbour has a weapon then you should
be able to "split" on them. People need to understand that it's in their
interest to do so. This approach was implemented in the UK with respect to
people who were defrauding the Dole - if you knew your neighbour was on the
dole and that he was earning tax-free money on the sly, you could report
them. People were being reported and the state saved loads of money in
fraud. It shows that when society decide that something is wrong and not in
their interest they can actually do something about it.
"dickweed" <disk...@i.dunno> wrote in message
news:39C079F5...@i.dunno...
> What better way to bully anyone if he cannot fight back? Is this what
> our government wants to do to us?
>
> By disarming the population so no-one can fight back, they can do
> almost anything to us.
>
> Also, almost all gun related crimes are comitted with unlicenced
> firearms, and almost no crime is committed by owners of licenced
> firearms. Why do they want to control the legal guns, instead of
> controlling crime?
>
>
Anon
>
>There have been few moves by the ANC which I have agreed with but this one I
>strongly support. It is difficult to weed out a very small percentage of
>illegal arms from a mass of legal ones
Why? Other countries don't have this problem. It is difficult to weed out
criminals from the mass of people. That does not mean we should treat all
people like criminals. Just what do you think the function of the police is?
>- it is a much easier task if
>firearms are illegal.
They are if you do not have a licence.
>If you are stopped and are in possession of a firearm
>and you are not a policeman or soldier, then you are arrested there and then
>because your gun is illegal.
What is different? This is the law as it stands. You have read and do know
about the firearm and ammunition act 75 of 1969.
>No more worries about fake gun licenses which
>fool police inspections.
What percentage of licences are fake?
>It will be a slow process to rid our society of
>guns but I think people need to take a longer term view
You will never rid society of guns. A belief that somehow all ills are coupled
to guns is a sign of a sick mind unwilling to face reality.
> - things clearly
>cannot carry on the way they are, and sure, there will be a period of
>innocent people being unable to defend themselves against gun-toting
>criminals.
Criminal utopia is not where I want to live. Removal of guns = increase of
criminal activity. Give any reference you can where the reverse is true.
>There will need to be some police / army backup to this plan.
There always is. Nost people will not like what they get though.
>There will need to be regular roadblocks (which we would all bitch about
>anyway), regular raids etc to rid criminals of their weapons and to make
>people realise that there is a good chance that if they're carrying a weapon
>they will be discovered. As well as this, I believe citizens need to also
>pull their weight - if you know your neighbour has a weapon then you should
>be able to "split" on them. People need to understand that it's in their
>interest to do so. This approach was implemented in the UK with respect to
>people who were defrauding the Dole - if you knew your neighbour was on the
>dole and that he was earning tax-free money on the sly, you could report
>them. People were being reported and the state saved loads of money in
>fraud. It shows that when society decide that something is wrong and not in
>their interest they can actually do something about it.
And look at UKs idiotic following of gun control. More firearms in criminal
hands than ever before. A crime rate now higher than the US. And you want this
for South Africa.
Befor advocating gun control look at the blood on gun controls hands. Count the
millions of people in the world who have died or suffered because of idealistic
idiots.
Anon
Anon
>
>In article <39C079F5...@i.dunno>,
> disk...@i.dunno wrote:
>> our government wants to do to us?
>
How would you know?
>> By disarming the population so no-one can fight back, they can do
>> almost anything to us.
>
>No true. If you read the proposed law and the arguments, you would not
>make this kind of silly assumption. I do encourage you to read more
>about this.
I believe it is you who has not read or even understands the FCB.
When M E George confirms that criminals will not obey it. When M E
George states the intention is to make firearms ownership available
only to the responsible he is being economical with the truth.
0.05% of crime is committed by firearms owners who represent ~7% of
the population. Please show how much more responsible they must be
and why they should be more responsible than the average citizen.
When less than 1% of firearms owners firearms are stolen please show
how much more responsible they must be and why. When it is a fact that
loss by criminal action can not be blamed on the victim of the crime.
Are you sitting in judgement of these people without benifit of a fair
trial?
>> Also, almost all gun related crimes are comitted with unlicenced
>> firearms, and almost no crime is committed by owners of licenced
>> firearms.
>
>This is not true, as you know. Licensed arms become unlicenced when
>they get stolen from licensed owners, who often are irresponsible.
Are you sitting in judgement of people who have goods stolen and then
blaming them for the crime? At what point did you move from innocent
until proven guilty and where is your proof.
>> they want to control the legal guns, instead of
>> controlling crime?
>Most crime is committed using GUNS.
>Thought this was obvious
Bullshit facts and figures please.
Please also indicate what reduction in crime can be expected if it were
possible to remove all firearms. Proof of a casual relationship between
firearms and crime is also required.
Or eat your words.
---------
>"If it looks like shit, smells like shit, mail it to your enemy --
>he'll know what to do with it."
If it looks like a duck.....It must be a duck
Anon
Kevin Geasley
> be able to "split" on them. People need to understand that it's in their
> interest to do so. This approach was implemented in the UK with respect to
> people who were defrauding the Dole - if you knew your neighbour was on
the
> dole and that he was earning tax-free money on the sly, you could report
> them. People were being reported and the state saved loads of money in
> fraud. It shows that when society decide that something is wrong and not
in
> their interest they can actually do something about it.
This approach works very well in the UK, but there is a different ethos
among most UK people generally. Police in the UK are considered to be "..of
the people, by the people & for the people".
If a crime is committed, a notice board is put up at that crime scene,
giving details of the nature and time of the crime, and asking anyone who
was in the area at the time if they saw anything that could be helpful to
the investigation. This board is left up for a month or so.
In some neighbourhoods, and amongst some sectors of the community, the
police are still considered to be the enemy, and are considered to be "..out
to catch us..", these are the high crime neighbourhoods.
-
out
> criminals from the mass of people. That does not mean we should treat all
> people like criminals. Just what do you think the function of the police
is?
Some countries don't have this problem because of a different socio-economic
situation - you cannot compare England and us in terms of how to police
since we have more criminals, different criminals, more poverty, african
logic and high unemployment. The gun problem we have is quite the same in
other non-governable countries around the world - it would probably be more
apt to compare us with Nigeria.
>
> >- it is a much easier task if
> >firearms are illegal.
>
> They are if you do not have a licence.
When stopped by the police at a roadblock they look at your license and if
it looks OK then you're OK. There could quite possibly be fake licenses
floating around - the police are hardly getting more intelligent (you only
need to go to your local police station to see this), so wouldn't it be
easier for them if they spot a gun and the bearer is not a cop, he is
breaking the law?
> You will never rid society of guns. A belief that somehow all ills are
coupled
> to guns is a sign of a sick mind unwilling to face reality.
They pretty much did it in England. All you need to do is compare the US and
England in terms of armed assaults and the proof is plainly visible. It
doesn't mean you get rid of crime, only assaults with guns. I think South
Africans have been brainwashed into believing that you have to have a gun
for your own safety and are sadly blinkered into believing there is no other
alternative.
> Criminal utopia is not where I want to live. Removal of guns = increase
of
> criminal activity. Give any reference you can where the reverse is true.
England. Although I know I have stated that you can't really compare England
and us because situations are totally different, I think there must be
something we can learn from then because there law has definitely worked.
> >There will need to be some police / army backup to this plan.
>
> There always is. Nost people will not like what they get though.
People will never be happy. I'll wager that if martial law was implemented
with curfues people will bitch and moan, even though this would probably
mean we are safer and crime is reduced. The trouble with people is that they
want the best of both worlds and are not prepared to sacrifice something for
their ultimate goal (security).
> And look at UKs idiotic following of gun control. More firearms in
criminal
> hands than ever before. A crime rate now higher than the US. And you want
this
> for South Africa.
Utter crap. There may well be more firearms in criminal hands than ever
before but you'd expect that anywhere simply because of the proliferation of
guns elsewhere in the world - they are always going to be smuggled in but
never in the same league as countries where guns are legal and abound.
nospam
>> Why? Other countries don't have this problem. It is difficult to weed
>>out criminals from the mass of people. That does not mean we should treat all
>> people like criminals.
>Just what do you think the function of the police is?
>
>Some countries don't have this problem because of a different socio-economic
>situation - you cannot compare England and us in terms of how to police
>since we have more criminals, different criminals, more poverty, african
>logic and high unemployment. The gun problem we have is quite the same in
>other non-governable countries around the world - it would probably be more
>apt to compare us with Nigeria.
[One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils
in this world are to be cured by legislation.
~ ~ THOMAS B. REED (1886)]
We don't have a gun problem we have a gun control idiot problem.
The function of the police is to catch and process criminals. If they
fail to do that then no amount of gun control will make any difference
to the efficiency of the police. However if the ability of citizens
to protect themselves and property from criminal action is removed.
Crime increases. The criminal workplace is made safer for them.
Therefor gun control = criminals friends and allies.
[Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can
be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?
~ ~ HARLON CARTER]
[When the government fears the People, that is Liberty. When the
People fear the Government, that is tyranny.
~ ~ THOMAS JEFFERSON]
>> >- it is a much easier task if
>> >firearms are illegal.
>>
>> They are if you do not have a licence.
>
>When stopped by the police at a roadblock they look at your license and if
>it looks OK then you're OK. There could quite possibly be fake licenses
>floating around - the police are hardly getting more intelligent (you only
>need to go to your local police station to see this), so wouldn't it be
>easier for them if they spot a gun and the bearer is not a cop, he is
>breaking the law?
The police have radios and computers. They have an expensive Central
Firearms Registry. If they are not willing to do their job then it is
an indication that they believe it is of little use to them in
capturing criminals.
Produce some figures for your assertion. How many fake licences are
there in SA? Produce some valid reason and not just your beliefs for
a criminal even wanting one. I can't think of any country including
SA where fake firearms licences are a problem.
>> You will never rid society of guns. A belief that somehow all ills are
>>coupled to guns is a sign of a sick mind unwilling to face reality.
>
>They pretty much did it in England. All you need to do is compare the US and
>England in terms of armed assaults and the proof is plainly visible.
Are you ignorant or brainwashed filled with the lies of gun control?
Comparing countries is problematical because of differences but if you
do the result will show a significant correlation. Increased firearms
ownership = less crime.
They pretty much did it in England is very true. They removed
firearms from honest law abiding citizens but what they did is
increase crime beyond anything imagined. Go read the home office
statistics and read the crime reports for England. It might change
your mind, though I somewhat doubt it. The proof is plainly visible.
Gun control = more crime. The criminal workplace is made safer and
the risk to criminals is reduced. Thus the demand from criminals for
firearms increases because it is now a viable tool for them to use
without fear of the possibility of return fire.
> It doesn't mean you get rid of crime, only assaults with guns. I think South
Crap!!! Must we now expect that crime will increase but assaults with
guns will decrease. What are you smoking? Rolled up GFSA
publications? Even Tasmania which for a short period showed this
result has now fallen into line with the known results of gun control.
All crime increases and firearm related crimes as well. I can't think
of a more idiotic argument for the introduction of gun control.
Ideology and GFSA propaganda are firmly in control of your mind.
Grief For South Africa has yet to admit the complete and utter failure
of gun control to reduce crime. Each and ever failure of laws
implemented to reduce crime is greeted by "we did not go far enough".
"We have not examined all the complex influences". These animators of
metal and masters of lies would not know the truth if it bit them on
the rear end because they want to save lives. With such bloodstained
hands they offer bumper sticker solutions to crime. Expend vast
amounts in "research" and "education" producing some of the most
flawed and convoluted studies that this earth has ever seen. Each and
every statement is coupled to emotional "factoids" instead of reasoned
logic.
It is called propaganda. Something Adolf Hitler used very
successfully is now being applied by gun control organisations. Why
because facts, reality, reason and logic do not agree but there is a
very real desire by the public to be free of crime.
Crime is the governments responsibility. That they have failed to
deliver is a matter of record. That they are not interested in
reducing crime can be seen from the willingness to spend more than 1
Billion Rand on gun control. While the police suffer from poor pay,
poor training, lack of resources and racial ideology in the work
place. While incompetents are promoted and expertise is sidelined.
Laws are contemplated to make their job easy. Assumption of guilt,
warrentless searches and removal of basic rights. The constitution is
merely a hindrance to those that WILL remove our rights.
>Africans have been brainwashed into believing that you have to have a gun
>for your own safety and are sadly blinkered into believing there is no other
>alternative.
Brainwashing is something you should know about. Your inability to
look beyond and use reason is a good example. Gun control worked in
.... to reduce crime? There is not a single example in the whole
world. That should tell you something. However I am willing to bet
your will ignore it. Even if there is one what is its statistical
significance in the face of the many attempts at gun control to reduce
crime. Near zero.
Nobody has brainwashed people into believing they have to have a gun.
It is a right to be able to defend yourself as best you can with the
best tool for the job. This is a right of nature even down to the
lowest life form. Only human idiots believe that humans should not be
able to exercise it. It does not mean everybody should rush out and
buy one. It means they the right to chose.
>> Criminal utopia is not where I want to live. Removal of guns = increase
>>of criminal activity. Give any reference you can where the reverse is true.
>
>England.
With pleasure I will shoot down your example. Any other you name now
must have proof and references.
See British home office statistics. Which is what you should have
done before making a fool of yourself.
> Although I know I have stated that you can't really compare England
>and us because situations are totally different, I think there must be
>something we can learn from then because there law has definitely worked.
It worked? Where are the results you are quoting?
Worked to do what, increase crime. In particular firearm related
crime. Murder, killings, home invasions.........
We can learn from it DON'T REPEAT THE LESSON. STOP LISTENING TO THE
LIES OF GUN CONTROL. We do not need another proof of the failure of
gun control to reduce crime. We need to hold the raving lunatics who
promote it accountable for the results.
["This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised
nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our
police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the
future."
~ ~ ADOLF HITLER, 1935
'Berlin Daily' April 15th, 1935, page 3, article 2 by Einleitung Von
Eberhard Beckmann] not verified as records are lost.
>> >There will need to be some police / army backup to this plan.
>>
>> There always is. Most people will not like what they get though.
>
>People will never be happy. I'll wager that if martial law was implemented
>with curfues people will bitch and moan, even though this would probably
>mean we are safer and crime is reduced. The trouble with people is that they
>want the best of both worlds and are not prepared to sacrifice something for
>their ultimate goal (security).
So a police state offers security and that is what you want for South
Africa. I believe we have seen enough of this from the previous
government. Though the ANC seem to believe it is an answer as well.
Russian is a police state go live there if you want to be safe. It
might just pay to read up on the finer points of living there though.
Those that would sacrifice security for safety deserve neither.
The government can not offer safety to its citizens nor can it offer
security. It can only create an environment where both are satisfied
to a greater or lesser degree. It is an individuals responsibility to
secure his own safety. Giving either to a greedy power hungry
government is a folly with only one result and richly desered by those
who relinquished it.
>> And look at UKs idiotic following of gun control. More firearms in
>>criminal hands than ever before. A crime rate now higher than the US. And you want
>>this for South Africa.
>
>Utter crap. There may well be more firearms in criminal hands than ever
>before but you'd expect that anywhere simply because of the proliferation of
>guns elsewhere in the world - they are always going to be smuggled in but
>never in the same league as countries where guns are legal and abound.
Any time somebody uses "proliferation of guns" I know that the
propaganda has worked on them.
[And yet, crime has steadily risen in Britain in the last several
years. The U.S. Department of Justice says a person is nearly twice
as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain
as in the United States. Although the U.S. remains ahead of Britain
in rates of murder and rape, the gap is rapidly narrowing.]
As for "utter crap" I suggest that applies to your words or produce
the evidence of your claim. The "more firearms in criminal hands" has
only occurred after the people of England were disarmed. A point you
conveniently ignore. Now we get the excuses of why gun control failed
to deliver the promise made by gun control. How do you sleep at night
knowing that what you promote will result in the killing of people and
make their lives more miserable due to increased criminal activity?
I know. Gun control never looks at its blood soaked hands.
["The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by
men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding."
~ ~ LOUIS. D. BRANDEIS ]
Consider this report of how well gun control worked in UK There are
many others that I am sure you will ignore. Now what is the only
change to British legislation that this result can be related to?
Then look at your blood soaked hands.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killings Rise As 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain
By Jon Ungoed-Thomas
This Article Is From The Sunday Times--U.K.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UP TO 3m illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise
in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions, new figures have
revealed.
Police are concerned that the amnesty after the massacre of
schoolchildren in Dunblane in 1996, which led to 200,000 weapons being
handed in, has failed to dent the underworld's supply of pistols and
revolvers. Criminals have maintained a steady flow of smuggled guns
from eastern Europe, exhibition weapons reactivated in illegal
"factories" run by underworld dealers, and guns stolen from private
collections.
The estimate that 3m guns are illegally held in the UK - made by
researchers collecting evidence for a parliamentary inquiry into the
gun trade - is far higher than previously thought. The vast stockpiles
of weapons have fuelled the recent spate of shootings in cities
including London, Birmingham and Manchester, where a 17-year-old was
killed last week.
Research suggests that in some areas a third of young criminals,
classed as those aged 15 to 25 with convictions, own or have access to
guns ranging from Beretta sub-machineguns to Luger pistols, which can
be bought from underworld dealers for as little as £200.
"There is a move from the pistol and the shotgun to automatic
weapons," said Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson, of the national
crime squad. "We are recovering weapons that are relatively new - and
sometimes still in their boxes - from eastern European countries."
In London there were more than 20 fatal shootings last year allegedly
linked with the Yardies, gangsters who have their roots in Jamaica,
compared with nine killings in 1998. In one, Andy Balfour, 32, was
shot with a Mac 10 sub-machinegun, which can fire 20 rounds a second.
He was hit eight times. Last July Tim Westwood, a BBC hip-hop disc
jockey, was shot by a man who opened fire on the car in which he was
travelling in Kennington, south London.
Killings in Manchester included the death last week of Gabriel
Egharevba, 17, who was shot by a man on a motorbike in Longsight. It
was the eighth fatal shooting in the city in seven months.
In April 1998 two youths aged 14 and 17 were shot in the same area by
a gang with automatic machineguns. Detectives say modern weapons are
fast becoming fashion accessories among young drug dealers protecting
themselves and their territory. Unarmed officers say they risk
confronting teenagers on mountain bikes brandishing automatic weapons.
In Birmingham there have been about 100 crimes a month involving
firearms since last March, compared with 88 a month in the year ending
in April 1998. Two men were shot dead in Birmingham in separate
incidents at Christmas. Anti-gun campaigners hoped the handgun ban
after Dunblane - where Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 children and a
teacher - would reduce firearm crime. The latest figures, however,
show crime involving weapons is on the increase.
Home Office figures reveal that, overall, armed crime rose 10% in
1998. There were 13,671 armed offences compared with 12,410 the
previous year. Experts, however, believe that only half the weapons
used in armed incidents are genuine firearms, the others being
imitations.
Opponents of the handgun ban implemented after Dunblane say it has
failed to cut gun crime because of the multiple sources of weapons
available to the criminal underworld. Firearms experts say more
research is needed to assess the source of the weapons accurately.
Kate Broadhurst, a researcher at the Scarman Centre, said: "Controls
on legally held firearms are clearly unlikely to have much of an
impact." Customs officers do not believe smuggled guns account for the
bulk of criminal weapons. Criminals instead rely on reactivating
decommissioned guns, such as the 9mm Uzi or MAC 10, or supplies from
corrupt dealers. Home Office officials insist the legislation has cut
off an important supply of guns to the underworld. They say the
handgun ban was never intended to combat firearms-related crime, but
was a direct response to Dunblane, which involved legally held
handguns.
"It is lunatic that a handgun ban was imposed which even the Home
Office accepts won't reduce crimes involving firearms," said Chris
Price, chairman of the Gun Trader Association. "It's not the criminals
that have suffered, but legitimate gun users and gun traders."
-----------------------
Anon
nospam
>What better way to bully anyone if he cannot fight back? Is this what
>our government wants to do to us?
>
>By disarming the population so no-one can fight back, they can do
>almost anything to us.
>
>Also, almost all gun related crimes are comitted with unlicenced
>firearms, and almost no crime is committed by owners of licenced
>firearms. Why do they want to control the legal guns, instead of
>controlling crime?
Crime has nothing to do with firearms ownership. There is no evidence
of a casual relationship anywhere in the world. Beware the government
that tells you there is. That you should give up rights to gain
security or safety from criminals. It lies. Concern yourself more
with why it lies.
"Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty."
~ ~ V. I. LENIN
A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny
gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.
~ ~ VLADIMIR ILYICH LENIN
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." "The communist
party must control the guns."
~ ~ Chairman MAO TSE DUNG 1938
"Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the State."
~ ~ HEINRICH HIMMLER, 1935
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the
underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
let's not have any native militia or police."
~ ~ ADOLF HITLER Hitlers secret conversations 1941-1944. Farrar,
Straus and Young - 1953 Pg. 345
Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from
the subjects of it. The history of Liberty is a history of resistance.
The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of Governmental
power, NOT the increase of it.
~ ~ WOODROW WILSON
The result of stupidity of people and their inability to learn from
history. While idioits blined by there own vanity tell you it can
never happen here. Trust the government it has your best interests at
heart.
"Oh, sure, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely
true!" - ~ ~ HOMER SIMPSON
Anon
Sabsy
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:39c4fe5d...@news.saix.net...
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:10:45 +0200, dickweed <disk...@i.dunno> wrote:
> Crime has nothing to do with firearms ownership. There is no evidence
> of a casual relationship anywhere in the world.
Causal, you mean?
Fight Crime, Shoot back
The message below very true, and nobody can contest this. (not even Sabsy
:))
The truth of the matter is simply this:
If you remove firearm ownership from your citizens, crime will increase.
There are numerous documentation on this. This is because criminals
consider themselves to be above the law, and therefore does not care to use
an illegal firearm to commit a crime. Even if they cannot get a firearm to
commit a crime, simply knowing that people are unable to fight back easily,
gives them more freedom to commit violent crimes.
Some people would consider a woman more morally correct if she was raped
and did not resist, than a woman with a smoking barrel and a dead rapist at
her feet.
Remember, crime control is not gun control. Crime control means
controlling the criminal, and to attempt to change the mindset of the
potential criminal to use the law as a deterrent. However, in a country
such as ours where the legal system as well as the police are overworked,
under funded and understaffed, there is a huge possibility of not getting
caught. Even if you are caught, and cannot afford bail, you will be
released into society again. What example is our government setting to the
rest of the world? Makes me wonder why the Rand is doing so bad against
the Dollar.
Make no mistake ladies and gentlemen. I am a patriot and would like to see
our country with a strong economy and a zero crime rate, but it has been
proven that where guns are restricted or outlawed, crime increases.
Any further debate on this subject would be welcomed.
nospam wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:10:45 +0200, dickweed <disk...@i.dunno> wrote:
>
> >What better way to bully anyone if he cannot fight back? Is this what
> >our government wants to do to us?
> >
> >By disarming the population so no-one can fight back, they can do
> >almost anything to us.
> >
> >Also, almost all gun related crimes are comitted with unlicenced
> >firearms, and almost no crime is committed by owners of licenced
> >firearms. Why do they want to control the legal guns, instead of
> >controlling crime?
>
> Crime has nothing to do with firearms ownership. There is no evidence
Sabsy
"Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in message
news:39C52126...@me262.techpta.ac.za...
> Hi there everyone
> If you remove firearm ownership from your citizens, crime will increase.
Not true. However, feel free to produce evidence.
> There are numerous documentation on this.
Just show a few that we can all use to support your case.
> This is because criminals
> consider themselves to be above the law, and therefore does not care to
use
> an illegal firearm to commit a crime. Even if they cannot get a firearm
to
> commit a crime, simply knowing that people are unable to fight back
easily,
> gives them more freedom to commit violent crimes.
However, in cases where they assume that their victims are armed, they will
shoot first and ask later. Is this preferable?
I value my life more than my property. If someone wishes to rob me, I wish
to tell them that they do not need to carry a gun as I do not carry one.
Just make sure you are big enough though not to cause serious bodily harm to
yourself.
>
> Some people would consider a woman more morally correct if she was raped
> and did not resist, than a woman with a smoking barrel and a dead rapist
at
> her feet.
You missed another scenario.
A raped woman dead with her smoking barrel fleeing the scene to be later
used. This much more common, if you care to check out.
>
> Remember, crime control is not gun control.
Who said it was?
> Crime control means
> controlling the criminal, and to attempt to change the mindset of the
> potential criminal to use the law as a deterrent.
This is not true either. Crime control controls all. Potential victims and
potential criminals. Crime control means doing enough to prevent crime. This
could mean the safeguard of firearms to prevent them from going into the
wrong hands. That is crime control. It is measures intended to deter crime
and these could involve both criminals and law abiding citizens.
> However, in a country
> such as ours where the legal system as well as the police are overworked,
> under funded and understaffed, there is a huge possibility of not getting
> caught.
And that is the main problem.
> Even if you are caught, and cannot afford bail, you will be
> released into society again.
Bail has to be granted, 1st. It is not automatic. Your propaganda shows a
large amount of ignorance on your part. This is perhaps why you started out
by disuading debate.
> What example is our government setting to the
> rest of the world? Makes me wonder why the Rand is doing so bad against
> the Dollar.
Hey, I have an idea. Why not blame the fall of other currencies against the
dollar to the release of awaiting trial criminals in South Africa who were
granted bail and could not afford to pay it (less than R1000 in each case).
Yes, I am sure the Brazilians would like to believe that their loss of value
against the Dollar is due to their neighbors acros that big pond.
Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
>
> Make no mistake ladies and gentlemen. I am a patriot and would like to
see
> our country with a strong economy and a zero crime rate, but it has been
> proven that where guns are restricted or outlawed, crime increases.
Well, give us a few examples.
Fight Crime, Shoot back
Sabsy wrote:
> "Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in message
> news:39C52126...@me262.techpta.ac.za...
> > Hi there everyone
> > If you remove firearm ownership from your citizens, crime will increase.
>
> Not true. However, feel free to produce evidence.
Ok, here are a couple of sites to check out:
Let's use one of the most resent examples of the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F607000/607623.stm
Also, check out http://hematite.com/dragon/aussies.html
for information of how crime increased when firearms were banned from citizens.
>
>
> > There are numerous documentation on this.
>
> Just show a few that we can all use to support your case.
>
see above for some documentation
>
> > This is because criminals
> > consider themselves to be above the law, and therefore does not care to
> use
> > an illegal firearm to commit a crime. Even if they cannot get a firearm
> to
> > commit a crime, simply knowing that people are unable to fight back
> easily,
> > gives them more freedom to commit violent crimes.
>
> However, in cases where they assume that their victims are armed, they will
> shoot first and ask later. Is this preferable?
> I value my life more than my property. If someone wishes to rob me, I wish
> to tell them that they do not need to carry a gun as I do not carry one.
> Just make sure you are big enough though not to cause serious bodily harm to
> yourself.
>
What you are implying, is that no-one must resist against a criminal attack?
Interesting concept Sabsy. Why do you lock your door at night? Is it perhaps to
be a deterrent for a criminal?
If this is so, I shall immediately remove all burglar proofing and alarm
signs from my home, not wanting to invite the bad guys .That way I am sure
the house next -door, with the bars ,signs ,etc. will become the obvious
choice for invasion.
If they do decide to rob me, I won't have to replace anything like door locks
and / or glass, because they can simply walk into my home.
Knowing or in some cases not knowing whether someone is armed or not, will make
the criminal think twice about robbing anyone. If more people fight back
against crime, more criminals will either end up in jail, or the morgue. Now
I'm not saying shoot to kill, or even shoot at all, but there are numerous cases
where simply producing a firearm stopped an attack, and diffused the situation.
> >
> > Some people would consider a woman more morally correct if she was raped
> > and did not resist, than a woman with a smoking barrel and a dead rapist
> at
> > her feet.
>
> You missed another scenario.
> A raped woman dead with her smoking barrel fleeing the scene to be later
> used. This much more common, if you care to check out.
>
How many woman are raped in RSA? How many woman are arrested for killing a
rapist?
Facts please.
>
> >
> > Remember, crime control is not gun control.
>
> Who said it was?
>
> > Crime control means
> > controlling the criminal, and to attempt to change the mindset of the
> > potential criminal to use the law as a deterrent.
>
> This is not true either. Crime control controls all. Potential victims and
> potential criminals. Crime control means doing enough to prevent crime. This
> could mean the safeguard of firearms to prevent them from going into the
> wrong hands. That is crime control. It is measures intended to deter crime
> and these could involve both criminals and law abiding citizens.
>
In that case we should also outlaw all forms of alcohol, because I would be
willing to bet that more people are killed because of driving under the
influence of alcohol than are killed with LEGAL firearms for ILLEGAL purposes.
Next on the ban list should be Knives, Panga's, Knopkierie, Sticks, Bricks,
spears etc.
>
> > However, in a country
> > such as ours where the legal system as well as the police are overworked,
> > under funded and understaffed, there is a huge possibility of not getting
> > caught.
>
> And that is the main problem.
We can all agree on that :)
> >
> > Make no mistake ladies and gentlemen. I am a patriot and would like to
> see
> > our country with a strong economy and a zero crime rate, but it has been
> > proven that where guns are restricted or outlawed, crime increases.
>
> Well, give us a few examples.
See above text
Mel
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F607000/607623.stm
Quote from this site: 'He said: "The figures are the hard reality of fewer
police, underfunding and big increases in workloads."' Does not mention gun
control anywhere here.
> http://hematite.com/dragon/aussies.html
This one is boring and not well laid out. An unprofessional page. Therefore
I do not trust it as a source of information. Seems like a private
individual produced this site.
> What you are implying, is that no-one must resist against a criminal
attack?
> Interesting concept Sabsy. Why do you lock your door at night? Is it
perhaps to
> be a deterrent for a criminal?
Do not think you will get logical answers from Sabsy.
> We can all agree on that :)
And not much else, no doubt.
-------------- www.AdderleyStreet.co.za ---------------
The most happening spot on Cape Town's web scene!
Coming soon - Your...@AdderleyStreet.co.za - free!
Own a piece of Cape Town - get a Cape Town address.
Mighty Mel's new supersonic design
|
---oo-O-oo---
(Crash and burn!)
-------------------------------------------------------
Sabsy
"Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote:
attack?
>
> Interesting concept Sabsy. Why do you lock your door at night? Is it
perhaps to
> be a deterrent for a criminal?
>
>
> > >
like to
> > see
> > > our country with a strong economy and a zero crime rate, but it
has been
> > > proven that where guns are restricted or outlawed, crime
increases.
> >
> > Well, give us a few examples.
>
> See above text
>
>
--
---------
"If it looks like shit, smells like shit, mail it to your enemy --
he'll know what to do with it."
Robin Smith
can be accomplished through gun control , no wait , lets call spade a
spade , this is not gun control , it is civilian disarmament as a prelude
and facilitator of genocide.
Have a good long look you Neo-Nazi's and Anti-Semites (otherwise known as
gun control advocates) , who are you trying to fool ?
.............................quote from
site.....................................................................
The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of
April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected
German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street
fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners
and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did
not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest
criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.
The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when
they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited
registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were
not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had
only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.
In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928
law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership
was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.
The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On
November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS)
savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout
Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews
from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.
...........................................end
quote................................................................
Any thoughts as to why the Isreali civilain population is extremely
heavily armed. In fact about the only restriction concerning firearms as
that a person cannot practice reloading which is no great loss , IMI make
excellent ammunition.
I guess it is because the words "Never again" mean something to them.
Fight Crime, Shoot Back
http://www.self-gov.org/good/a0019.html (study by University of Chicago)
http://www.claremont.org/gsp/gsp60.cfm (study done by the Golden State
Center for Policy Studies, written by Glen Otero, PhD)
The following is a finding on guns used by citizens in the USA and can be
obtained at http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by
the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun
to defend themselves against criminals-or more than 6,500 people a day. This
means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect
the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women
defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves
every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to
scare off
their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or
wound his or her attacker.
This site contains information on the failure of gun control to reduce crime in
Australia. http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.aust-crime.html
Study Shows Women Safer Packing A Gun :
http://www.ponetwork.com/Info/WomenSafer.html
Hope this satisfies everybody. Just remember that nobody is as blind as the
person who does not want to see.
Mel wrote:
> "Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in message
-
fall of more than 10% from the previous year. A government statement said
the figures showed that putting more police on the streets and controlling
the availability of handguns had helped to create the safest America in a
generation."
I don't think gun control stops gun crimes but I feel it does decrease it. A
stat you will not find is the answer to the question, "how many gun-related
crimes would be commited in the UK if there was no gun control"? People who
always quote figures of gun-related crimes increasing never consider how bad
the figures would be if there was no gun control.
"A crime rate now higher than the US"??? What are you on about??
In 1998 there were 2.8 MILLION violent crimes in the States - could this
figure be lower if there was stricter gun control? In 1999 2.5 MILLION. In
the UK, the figure from 1997 is around 200000. This is violent crimes. And
the figure for violent crimes with guns....? Bear in mind that like you
said, comparing countries is difficult (although you have yourself done just
that). If you want to compare then there are about 12 million people in the
5 main cities of the UK and in the main US cities there are around 22
million in the 10 largest US cities (I am comparing 5 in the UK to 10 in the
US based on the number of large cities in each). It is well documented that
most of your violent crimes happen in the larger cities, the percentage of
violent crimes per capita in the 5 largest UK cities is 1.83 as compared to
12.7 in the US. Now I'm not saying my figures are 100% accurate since they
will change when you compare using a different number of cities etc but I
think they show that in the US there are definitely a higher proportion of
violent crimes than the UK. Both are first-world developed countries, both
have relatively low unemployment rates, so what differentiates the two?
In response to claims like yours that crime is higher in the US than the UK
(taken from a BBC report):
"But the Home Office dismissed the statistics as "absolute nonsense", saying
that the average American is seven times more likely to be murdered than
their British counterpart and 60 times more likely to be shot" - you told me
to look there!!
There are probably an equal number of people who say guns reduce gun-related
crime and those that disagree, and probably an equal amount of "evidence" to
support each claim. What amuses me though, is when people say that because
there is an increase in gun-related crime, hence regulation doesn't work.
The logic fails me.
Disarming [innocent] people is not the cure - it merely reduces the chances
of criminals getting access to firearms. Along with this we need to change
people's attitudes. As I mentioned previously, you will require more
policing efforts to enforce something. Most of you argument seems to be
around the fact that innocent people will not be protected hence they should
have guns - but you yourself have mentioned the answer - policing!! If you
get the policing right then this can work. But the reality of the situation
is: IT IS NOT WORKING NOW!!!!! Can't you see that legalised guns is not
working here, nor is it working in the states? It is possible to have legal
guns and low gnu-related crime but then you need to have the right
attitude - such as in Switzerland, but with the wrong attitude you have a
bunch of mavericks - such as in the US and SA.
I am keen to see the official stat of the number of crimes commited in SA
with guns versus the number of crimes pervented with guns. And then the
official number of legal guns stolen each year. And on top of that, if it
were possible, the stat on the number of people in SA who own guns and
actually are trained to use them and who go for regular shooting practise. I
think many of them are more of a danger to society and themselves.
You are "Americanised" into believing it is your right to protect yourself
by whatever means, but you are missing the bigger picture of how many people
are losing their lives by the same weapons which were legally introduced
into society. With South African and American attitudes that we should live
by the gun, we cannot possibly have legalised guns. We are not mature enough
as a nation, nor educated enough, to be allowed to be in possession of
guns.
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:39c50542...@news.saix.net...
Fight Crime, Shoot Back
- wrote:
> "Almost 30 million violent crimes and property crimes took place in 1999, a
> fall of more than 10% from the previous year. A government statement said
> the figures showed that putting more police on the streets and controlling
> the availability of handguns had helped to create the safest America in a
> generation."
Where did this statement come from?
>
> I don't think gun control stops gun crimes but I feel it does decrease it. A
> stat you will not find is the answer to the question, "how many gun-related
> crimes would be commited in the UK if there was no gun control"? People who
> always quote figures of gun-related crimes increasing never consider how bad
> the figures would be if there was no gun control.
Interesting to note that right after guns were banned, crime increases ... Must
be the people fighting crime using sticks and stones.
>
> There are probably an equal number of people who say guns reduce gun-related
> crime and those that disagree, and probably an equal amount of "evidence" to
> support each claim. What amuses me though, is when people say that because
> there is an increase in gun-related crime, hence regulation doesn't work.
> The logic fails me.
Nobody is as blind as the one who does not want to see.
>
> Disarming [innocent] people is not the cure - it merely reduces the chances
> of criminals getting access to firearms.
True to a VERY small degree. Most of the guns stolen are from the State. They
are the one who must clean up their act before moving towords "soft" civillian
targets.
> Along with this we need to change
> people's attitudes. As I mentioned previously, you will require more
> policing efforts to enforce something. Most of you argument seems to be
> around the fact that innocent people will not be protected hence they should
> have guns - but you yourself have mentioned the answer - policing!! If you
> get the policing right then this can work. But the reality of the situation
> is: IT IS NOT WORKING NOW!!!!!
Where is the money going to come from for more policing?
> Can't you see that legalised guns is not
> working here, nor is it working in the states? It is possible to have legal
> guns and low gnu-related crime but then you need to have the right
> attitude - such as in Switzerland, but with the wrong attitude you have a
> bunch of mavericks - such as in the US and SA.
Please explain why you state that gun owners in SA are mavericks? Personally I
feel that the more ordinary citizens fights back against crime, the less crime
we will have. I am not saying kill all criminals who lives, but simply to show
that people are becoming fed-up with crime. It is time to take action.You are
"Americanised" into believing it is your right to protect yourself
> by whatever means, but you are missing the bigger picture of how many people
> are losing their lives by the same weapons which were legally introduced
> into society. With South African and American attitudes that we should live
> by the gun, we cannot possibly have legalised guns. We are not mature enough
> as a nation, nor educated enough, to be allowed to be in possession of
> guns.
It is you are missing the big picture. Guns are not the problem. Crime is a
problem in SA. A firearm to me is a great equalizer. If someone tries to break
into my house, I have the right and the ability to defend my family, as well as
my property.
I will rather be judged by 12 people and live, than be carried by 6.
nospam
>"Almost 30 million violent crimes and property crimes took place in 1999, a
>fall of more than 10% from the previous year. A government statement said
>the figures showed that putting more police on the streets and controlling
>the availability of handguns had helped to create the safest America in a
>generation."
What actually happened and was not mentioned once again conveniently
because it does not suit you.
How many states introduced SHALL issue concealed carry permits?
Idiotic Gun Control has been reduced in many states to be replaced
with more reasonable legislation. The result, reduced crime.
Did the crime rate in Washington DC a gun free town fall? Where were
the greatest decreases in the crime rate? In those states that
changed to SHALL issue concealed carry permits.
>I don't think gun control stops gun crimes but I feel it does decrease it.
Then give one example of where it has occurred? Thus far you have not
been able to do so. Therefor what you feel is incorrect.
Gun control increases crime. This can not be a very good reason for
its introduction. Besides Gun Control zealots claim that it decreases
crime which is obviously a lie. Why lie?
>stat you will not find is the answer to the question, "how many gun-related
>crimes would be commited in the UK if there was no gun control"? People who
>always quote figures of gun-related crimes increasing never consider how bad
>the figures would be if there was no gun control.
What the hell are you talking about. This is mumbo jumbo. The crime
rate increased in UK absolutely no question about it. What was
changed. Laws relating to firearm ownership. What was the cause of
the increase of crime. Laws relating to firearm ownership. Did these
laws make ownership greater or less. They removed firearms from
citizens. Less firearms in citizen hands = more crime. Firearms
related crime has increased dramatically in UK.
A person killed by a knife is just as dead as one killed by a bullet.
A shop robbed at knife point is just as robbed at gun point.
A women raped at knife point is just as raped at gun point.
People who hate guns and are willing to seek this kind of argument are
sick. "Oh! crime will increase but gun related crime may drop, we
need to get rid of the evil guns." Animators of metal and masters of
lies.
Firearms owners have never indicated that there should be no control.
What they want is sensible control not influenced by crazy idiotic
zealots who have nothing but hate to contribute.
>"A crime rate now higher than the US"??? What are you on about??
>
>In 1998 there were 2.8 MILLION violent crimes in the States - could this
>figure be lower if there was stricter gun control?
Absolutely not. There is no recorded case where the introduction of
'gun control' reduced crime. No amount of ignoring it will change
that. Gun control has the blood of the increased victims on its
hands. Be happy look at your hands and see how many lives they saved.
It matters not if they were killed with a rock or gun.
> In 1999 2.5 MILLION. In
>the UK, the figure from 1997 is around 200000. This is violent crimes. And
>the figure for violent crimes with guns....? Bear in mind that like you
>said, comparing countries is difficult (although you have yourself done just
See UN survey of firearms ownership and homicide.
D. Yates study of countries, laws, firearms and crime.
In UK since 1920 every change to firearms legislation increasing
regulation has been greeted by an increase of crime. Each and every
change was made by stating crime would decrease.
The how do you explain these successes of gun control
Washington DC, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Jamaica
Now try to explain these failures of gun control
Vermont, Texas, Florida and most noteably Kenasaw, Georgia.
>There are probably an equal number of people who say guns reduce gun-related
>crime and those that disagree
Not so, the average SA citizen does not support gun control and every
media survey has shown this result. GFSA is funded entirely from
overseas sources. The number of people that support gun control in
the form of GFSA lunatics is incredibly small. By far these that do
are indoctrinated by GFSA propaganda and can not reason beyond what
has been instilled by GFSA. Every answer has a dead body or two or
some story of grief attached. A sure sign that their propaganda has
worked.
See if you can find a copy of the original Parliamentary Policy
document on Gun Control. Note the lack of calm reasoning and the
abundance of grief. I sure would like a copy of the slides. Pure
propaganda from the Department of Safety and Security and NCPS.
>, and probably an equal amount of "evidence" to
>support each claim.
Evidence is that which can stand up to examination. Try and refute
the results of the Lott Mustard report.
In South Africa we have the K McKenzie report (GFSA) that is so
problematical even the Portfolio Committee had difficulty with it. K.
McKenzie stated that the report was not all there was and that the
government should do its own investigation when cornered. See also
Richard Wessons report on this flawed piece of rubbish sponsored by
GFSA (Grief For South Africa)
> What amuses me though, is when people say that because
>there is an increase in gun-related crime, hence regulation doesn't work.
>The logic fails me.
Logic is not part of your thinking nor is reason. Cause and effect.
If crime increased what caused it to increase? What changes were
made? Are these changes responsible for the increase in crime.
Criminals by definition are not controlled by regulation. They are
criminals because they ignore regulation.
Therefor no amount of regulation will persuade criminals to give up
crime.
>Disarming [innocent] people is not the cure - it merely reduces the chances
>of criminals getting access to firearms.
Disarming law abiding citizens makes the criminals workplace safer.
Crime increases. Criminals will always have access to firearms.
Attempting to remove one channel will simply divert the trade to
another channel. The number of arms required to satisfy the criminal
market is small. In South Africa the STATE is the largest contributor
to the criminal arms pool. By your reasoning, disarming the police,
army and government will decrease gun related crime. That sounds like
a good idea because they can not be trusted with them or to look after
them. The government is irresponsible. Or is it just citizens that
should be disarmed and controlled?
> Along with this we need to change people's attitudes.
With that I could not agree more.
> As I mentioned previously, you will require more
>policing efforts to enforce something.
Criminals and crime is controlled by the ability of the criminal
justice system to capture, prosecute and incarcerate criminals. Not
by gun control laws. Gun control laws are a political distraction
designed to keep the public from seeing the true picture of failed
government policies.
Stupid laws can not be enforced. Nor will the police be willing to
waste time on laws which are simply a waste of their time.
>Most of you argument seems to be
>around the fact that innocent people will not be protected hence they should
>have guns - but you yourself have mentioned the answer - policing!!
Another fallacy of gun control.
Dial 911 and die. The police by definition investigate after the
fact. They can not prevent crime. Pizza is delivered faster than the
police get to a crime scene. Self protection is the responsibility of
the individual. Removal of the best means to do that is immoral and
unthinkable by normal people
> If you get the policing right then this can work.
Rubbish. It is an individual responsibility and the police have
absolutely no mandate to protect you. Nor can they know when to
protect you.
> But the reality of the situation is: IT IS NOT WORKING NOW!!!!!
No argument
How would you sabotage the police
Get rid of expertise
Don't hire new staff
Pay poor wages
Reduce the money available for resources.
Promote incompetence to replace the lost expertise
Which of these does not apply to the SAPS. The government does not
want the police to be successful. That way the people will ask for
something to be done and it can introduce all manner of
unconstitutional laws giving it greater power. This is happening
right now, rights are being eroded for the so-called good of the
people.
>Can't you see that legalised guns is not working here, nor is it working in the states?
What I can see is that each and every attempt to remove firearms from
citizens has been followed by an increase of crime. That your
assumption that gun control = crime control is totally without merit.
Your assumption that legal firearm owners are responsible for crime is
without merit. Your assumption that legal firearm owners are some
lesser form of life is reprehensible.
Every state in the USA that has introduced shall issue CCW has seen a
decrease in crime. Any city or state in the US that has reasonable
firearms legislation has a lower crime rate than gun free states or
cities. What I can see is that 'ban the gun' does not reduce crime
but increases it. Can you see that?
We must look for and understand the reason why crime is reduced and
apply these not the pipe dreams of zealots.
>It is possible to have legal
>guns and low gnu-related crime but then you need to have the right
>attitude - such as in Switzerland, but with the wrong attitude you have a
>bunch of mavericks - such as in the US and SA.
Crap!!! In SA 0.05% of crime is committed by licenced firearms owners
who represent ~7% of the population. A licenced firearm owner is more
than 60 yes SIXTY times less likely to commit crime than the
irresponsible crime prone non firearms owners. I submit that you and
similar people with your wrong attitude promoting hate of firearm
owners is the problem and reason that correct attention is not given
to crime and criminals.
>I am keen to see the official stat of the number of crimes commited in SA
>with guns versus the number of crimes pervented with guns.
While we would all like to see these statistics the police do not
keep records of prevented crimes. However an indication can be found
by looking at the Lott Mustard report for USA. I suggest you read it
to find the answer to your question.
> And then the
>official number of legal guns stolen each year.
Is less than 1% an astounding record in our crime ridden country.
Besides I know where you are going with this. When a motor vehicle is
stolen and used in a hi-jacking, bank robbery or any crime for that
matter we sensibly do not blame the vehicle owner for crime. Our law
and courts also take the same view. That the victim of a crime is not
responsible for the crime, nor are they responsible for the actions of
the criminal use of any goods they have been deprived of by criminal
action. Gun Control and government has mounted a propaganda campaign
seeking to blame firearms owners. Stupid people have been brainwashed
into this incorrect belief.
> And on top of that, if it
>were possible, the stat on the number of people in SA who own guns and
>actually are trained to use them and who go for regular shooting practise. I
>think many of them are more of a danger to society and themselves.
Once again the hysterical hate speech of Gun Control organisations.
The record of firearms owners stands as testament to their good
behaviour. A record far better than the average citizen. What more
do firearms owners have to do to convince people with hate filled
hearts of their good behaviour.
>You are "Americanised" into believing it is your right to protect yourself
>by whatever means,
Self protection is not the domain of Americans, though some may think
it. It is the right and instinct of every living creature on this
earth that you seek to remove. It is your responsibility to protect
yourself. Nobody else is going to do it. Abdicate it if you wish but
do not attempt to remove this right from others because you hate guns
or believe nobody should have one. Do not think that people not
willing to be helpless victims of crime should be deprived of the best
means of defence.
Consider the number of sports people and people who simple enjoy
firearm ownership.
Above all realise what the consequences of what you promote are.
Examine the results with an open mind.
> but you are missing the bigger picture of how many people
>are losing their lives by the same weapons which were legally introduced
>into society.
You really need to expand your reading and understanding. It is not
"weapons" that cause crime it is people. Removal of any "weapon" will
not change people nor will it reduce their want or willingness to
commit crime. Hate or fear of guns is based on propaganda. The
belief that guns cause crime is based on propaganda. It has no reason
or logic, you simply believe it. Therefor the removal of guns or any
other "weapon" will not satisfy reason or logic or produce the results
desired.
If we remove guns then knives will be used. If we remove knives,
hammers, axes, screwdrivers and sticks then rocks will be used. Crime
is not solved by the removal of the instruments of crime. It is
solved by removing the root causes of crime and making crime
unprofitable.
This is something our government does not understand or want to
understand. It is to expensive. It is far easier and cheaper to
blame it on the evil guns and bullshit gullible people that crime will
be reduced.
> With South African and American attitudes that we should live
>by the gun, we cannot possibly have legalised guns.
You either read to many comic books or GFSA publications. Do try to
expand your reading to the non fiction section.
Each year the US congress votes on lobby organisations supplying it
with information. The criteria is accuracy and truth. The NRA
features in the top every year. Gun Control organisations are at the
bottom of the list if they even make it on to the list. Simply
because they lie and continue to lie following the rules of
propaganda.
>We are not mature enough as a nation, nor educated enough, to be
>allowed to be in possession of guns.
You are entitled to your opinion. Just so long as you do not expect
me or others to abide or have your opinion forced upon us.
Firearms owners would like nothing better than to be left alone and to
be able to get on with their lives. That they have proved beyond
question they are responsible is not in doubt by any than those who
would rather be educated by the hysterical shrieks punctuated by
stories of death and misery of gun control organisations.
Here is a challenge for you.
Study propaganda. Pick any gun control publication or study you like
and note the techniques used.
If gun control is right. Why is it necessary that they use propaganda
techniques when reason and logic could easily prevail.
NoSpam
nospam
>"Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in message
>news:39C52126...@me262.techpta.ac.za...
>> Hi there everyone
>> If you remove firearm ownership from your citizens, crime will increase.
>
>Not true. However, feel free to produce evidence.
England and Australia crime stats for starters but then you know this.
>> There are numerous documentation on this.
>
>Just show a few that we can all use to support your case.
No you show any successful implementation of gun control that reduced
crime.
>You missed another scenario.
>A raped woman dead with her smoking barrel fleeing the scene to be later
>used. This much more common, if you care to check out.
Bullshit most rapes are not defended by firearms. There are no stats
on the success or otherwise of such defence.
Prove your statement giving the number of successful defences and
those that were not with firearms.
Lies, lies and more lies. Promoting GFSA propaganda again?
>> Remember, crime control is not gun control.
>
>Who said it was?
S. Tshwete. M E George for starters.
>This is not true either. Crime control controls all. Potential victims and
>potential criminals. Crime control means doing enough to prevent crime.
>This could mean the safeguard of firearms to prevent them from going into the
>wrong hands. That is crime control. It is measures intended to deter crime
>and these could involve both criminals and law abiding citizens.
What is the potential to prevent crime by the control of firearms?
What is the percentage decrease we could expect if all firearms were
removed from legal sources? What will it cost and will it be
efficient use of public funds?
Attempted removal of the tools of crime does not prevent or greatly
influence the rate of crime. Criminals will always have sources of
the needed tools. Removal of the tools of defence against criminals
does influence the rate of crime. Becuase they are held by people who
are not criminals and not willing to break the law.
>> However, in a country
>> such as ours where the legal system as well as the police are overworked,
>> under funded and understaffed, there is a huge possibility of not getting
>> caught.
>
>And that is the main problem.
Removal of firearms will not fix it. Control of firearms will not fix
it. Spending 1 Billion Rand on the police may help but wasting it on
gun control will not.
>Hey, I have an idea. Why not blame the fall of other currencies against the
>dollar to the release of awaiting trial criminals in South Africa who were
>granted bail and could not afford to pay it (less than R1000 in each case).
>Yes, I am sure the Brazilians would like to believe that their loss of value
>against the Dollar is due to their neighbors acros that big pond.
>Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
Crime and high rates of crime do not attract investment. I would have
thought a MBA knew that.
>> Make no mistake ladies and gentlemen. I am a patriot and would like to
>see
>> our country with a strong economy and a zero crime rate, but it has been
>> proven that where guns are restricted or outlawed, crime increases.
>
>Well, give us a few examples.
I did now give any example of the reverse.
NoSpam
nospam
>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:39c4fe5d...@news.saix.net...
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:10:45 +0200, dickweed <disk...@i.dunno> wrote:
>> Crime has nothing to do with firearms ownership. There is no evidence
>> of a casual relationship anywhere in the world.
>
>Causal, you mean?
Sure why ask, you knew it.
When the great protector of rights in particular criminal rights is
caught with is pants down and his ugly rear end exposed covered in the
stuff of his signature. The best he can do is find a spelling
mistake.
I am impressed. Now all I have to figure is, was the original hate
speach against firearms owners valid. It seems not. Then has Sabsy
eaten his words. Must have they weren't on the page.
Now if I could just remember how to spell hypocracy I'd use it. But
then why bother it would not be understood.
NoSpam
Sabsy
nos...@nospam.com (nospam) wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:57:52 +0200, "Sabsy" <sa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >"nospam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:39c4fe5d...@news.saix.net...
> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:10:45 +0200, dickweed <disk...@i.dunno>
wrote:
> >> Crime has nothing to do with firearms ownership. There is no
evidence
> >> of a casual relationship anywhere in the world.
> >
> >Causal, you mean?
>
> Sure why ask, you knew it.
I asked because I did not know it. That is why people NORMALLY ask
questions.
I see your level of contribution has not improved.
--
---------
"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you
can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it
can't be taken on its own merits."
- Dan Barker
Sabsy
nos...@nospam.com (nospam) wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:11:02 +0200, "Sabsy" <sa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >"Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in
message
> >news:39C52126...@me262.techpta.ac.za...
> >> Hi there everyone
> >> If you remove firearm ownership from your citizens, crime will
increase.
> >
> >Not true. However, feel free to produce evidence.
>
> England and Australia crime stats for starters but then you know this.
Yes I do know that Australia statistics show that crime declined after
gun control laws were put into place.
Perhaps you might do more than making unsubstantiated claims. Why not
produce something that is not sucked out of your thumbs?
>
> >> There are numerous documentation on this.
> >
> >Just show a few that we can all use to support your case.
>
> No you show any successful implementation of gun control that reduced
> crime.
Well, since your friend made a connection between gun control and
increased crime, it is Normal that your friend or anyone that supports
their stand to produce the evidence.
Since I am merely arguing against your assertion, I am not required to
produce proof until you do.
If you wish us to take your word as fact, then I think you have not
been listening carefully when people talk about debating.
You have the burden of proof.
Anyway, I have already posted statistics for Canada and Australia that
showed CLEARLY that crime was reduced after gun control.
Whether this is incidental or happened as a result of other
interventions is not the issue. Your problem is compounded by your
arguments that gun control has caused an increase in crime.
All you have to do is show this link anywhere in the world in the form
of published statistics, preferably the ones that caused you to argue
against gun control.
>
> >You missed another scenario.
> >A raped woman dead with her smoking barrel fleeing the scene to be
later
> >used. This much more common, if you care to check out.
>
> Bullshit most rapes are not defended by firearms. There are no stats
> on the success or otherwise of such defence.
I think you missed the point again. Perhaps you should talk to your
buddy who created the link between rape and guns.
>
> Prove your statement giving the number of successful defences and
> those that were not with firearms.
>
This is really scrapping the barrel of bullshit.
I have nothing to prove. I did not make the assertion that gun control
causes an increase in crime. Your gun nut friend did. So, it is up to
both of you to prove your assertions and my responsibility is to refute
them. If you ever produce any reliable evidence, then I will bring out
my own evidence that shows that your evidence is nothing more than
bullshit.
> Lies, lies and more lies. Promoting GFSA propaganda again?
>
> >> Remember, crime control is not gun control.
> >
> >Who said it was?
>
> S. Tshwete. M E George for starters.
Bullshit.
They never said that.
Sabsy
>
> >"Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in
message
> >news:39C52126...@me262.techpta.ac.za...
> >> Hi there everyone
> >> If you remove firearm ownership from your citizens, crime will
increase.
> >
> >Not true. However, feel free to produce evidence.
>
> England and Australia crime stats for starters but then you know this.
Yes I do know that Australia statistics show that crime declined after
gun control laws were put into place.
Perhaps you might do more than making unsubstantiated claims. Why not
produce something that is not sucked out of your thumbs?
>
> >> There are numerous documentation on this.
> >
> >Just show a few that we can all use to support your case.
>
> No you show any successful implementation of gun control that reduced
> crime.
Well, since your friend made a connection between gun control and
increased crime, it is Normal that your friend or anyone that supports
their stand to produce the evidence.
Since I am merely arguing against your assertion, I am not required to
produce proof until you do.
If you wish us to take your word as fact, then I think you have not
been listening carefully when people talk about debating.
You have the burden of proof.
Anyway, I have already posted statistics for Canada and Australia that
showed CLEARLY that crime was reduced after gun control.
Whether this is incidental or happened as a result of other
interventions is not the issue. Your problem is compounded by your
arguments that gun control has caused an increase in crime.
All you have to do is show this link anywhere in the world in the form
of published statistics, preferably the ones that caused you to argue
against gun control.
>
> >You missed another scenario.
> >A raped woman dead with her smoking barrel fleeing the scene to be
later
> >used. This much more common, if you care to check out.
>
> Bullshit most rapes are not defended by firearms. There are no stats
> on the success or otherwise of such defence.
I think you missed the point again. Perhaps you should talk to your
buddy who created the link between rape and guns.
>
> Prove your statement giving the number of successful defences and
> those that were not with firearms.
>
This is really scrapping the barrel of bullshit.
I have nothing to prove. I did not make the assertion that gun control
causes an increase in crime. Your gun nut friend did. So, it is up to
both of you to prove your assertions and my responsibility is to refute
them. If you ever produce any reliable evidence, then I will bring out
my own evidence that shows that your evidence is nothing more than
bullshit.
> Lies, lies and more lies. Promoting GFSA propaganda again?
>
> >> Remember, crime control is not gun control.
> >
> >Who said it was?
>
> S. Tshwete. M E George for starters.
Bullshit.
Fight Crime, Shoot Back
Sabsy wrote:
> In article <39c6a14f...@news.saix.net>,
> nos...@nospam.com (nospam) wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:11:02 +0200, "Sabsy" <sa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in
> message
> > >news:39C52126...@me262.techpta.ac.za...
> > >> Hi there everyone
> > >> If you remove firearm ownership from your citizens, crime will
> increase.
> > >
> > >Not true. However, feel free to produce evidence.
> >
> > England and Australia crime stats for starters but then you know this.
>
> Yes I do know that Australia statistics show that crime declined after
> gun control laws were put into place.
> Perhaps you might do more than making unsubstantiated claims. Why not
> produce something that is not sucked out of your thumbs?
If you know this, then prove it!
In case you missed my previous post, here it is again.
> This site contains information on the failure of gun control to reduce
> crime in
> Australia. http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.aust-crime.html
>
> Study Shows Women Safer Packing A Gun :
> http://www.ponetwork.com/Info/WomenSafer.html
>
> Hope this satisfies everybody. Just remember that nobody is as blind as
> the
> person who does not want to see.
>
>
Fight Crime, Shoot Back
Sabsy wrote:
>
> > >> There are numerous documentation on this.
> > >
> > >Just show a few that we can all use to support your case.
> >
> > No you show any successful implementation of gun control that reduced
> > crime.
>
> Well, since your friend made a connection between gun control and
> increased crime, it is Normal that your friend or anyone that supports
> their stand to produce the evidence.
> Since I am merely arguing against your assertion, I am not required to
> produce proof until you do.
I already have. TWICE.
>
> If you wish us to take your word as fact, then I think you have not
> been listening carefully when people talk about debating.
> You have the burden of proof.
Now it's your turn to prove me wrong.
>
> Anyway, I have already posted statistics for Canada and Australia that
> showed CLEARLY that crime was reduced after gun control.
I must have missed this. Can you please repost so I may take a look at it?
>
> Whether this is incidental or happened as a result of other
> interventions is not the issue. Your problem is compounded by your
> arguments that gun control has caused an increase in crime.
> All you have to do is show this link anywhere in the world in the form
> of published statistics, preferably the ones that caused you to argue
> against gun control.
>
> >
> > >You missed another scenario.
> > >A raped woman dead with her smoking barrel fleeing the scene to be
> later
> > >used. This much more common, if you care to check out.
> >
> > Bullshit most rapes are not defended by firearms. There are no stats
> > on the success or otherwise of such defence.
>
> I think you missed the point again. Perhaps you should talk to your
> buddy who created the link between rape and guns.
So you rather have woman raped than the ability to defend themselves?
Makes a lot of sense.
Sabsy
I have no such plans.
You made an allegation, you prove it.
I even posted some facts for you, which you obviously decided to ignore.
Fight Crime, Shoot Back
Sabsy wrote:
> In article <39C72A2D...@me262.techpta.ac.za>,
> "Fight Crime, Shoot Back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote:
> > If you know this, then prove it!
>
> I have no such plans.
> You made an allegation, you prove it.
Already done.
>
> I even posted some facts for you, which you obviously decided to ignore.
I really am not trying to be funny, but I seem to have missed that post. My
usenet server may not have forwarded it. If you want to, please Email me
directly.
-------------------------------------------
A Colt-45 in the hand is better than a policeman on the phone.
Fight Crime, Shoot Back
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an
unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than
an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
Doug.D...@eskom.co.za
licenced owners, are supplying the vast majority of "concealable weapons" to
the criminals (AKs etc., are a different issue) through robberies on houses
and even police stations, muggings, hijackings etc. If we didn't have guns,
criminals would have less of them.
On a personal level, I have felt exremely uneasy since my two 357s were
stolen, along with a hundred rounds of the best one-stop-kill ammo in the
world. I'm sure they are only going to use them for target
practice......NOT. How many deaths and survivor's tears have I inadvertently
contributed to through my previous "I don't want to have only my dick in my
hand when there's trouble" philosophy.
No thank you. I may live to regret it but when the insurance paid out, I
didn't replace them and have never called the police station to find out if
they've been found. I'm out of that spiral to hell for good.
Far better to get the country's justice system sorted out asap.
Fight Crime, Shoot Back wrote in message
<39C744DC...@me262.techpta.ac.za>...
-
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:57:17 +0200, "-" <-@-.-> wrote:
>
> >"Almost 30 million violent crimes and property crimes took place in 1999,
a
> >fall of more than 10% from the previous year. A government statement said
> >the figures showed that putting more police on the streets and
controlling
> >the availability of handguns had helped to create the safest America in a
> >generation."
>
> What actually happened and was not mentioned once again conveniently
> because it does not suit you.
And that was?
> How many states introduced SHALL issue concealed carry permits?
> Idiotic Gun Control has been reduced in many states to be replaced
> with more reasonable legislation. The result, reduced crime.
>
> Did the crime rate in Washington DC a gun free town fall? Where were
> the greatest decreases in the crime rate? In those states that
> changed to SHALL issue concealed carry permits.
Er, in english please?
>
> >I don't think gun control stops gun crimes but I feel it does decrease
it.
>
> Then give one example of where it has occurred? Thus far you have not
> been able to do so. Therefor what you feel is incorrect.
Which is why I also said that the kind of figures that would substantiate
this are not available. What you need to look at is how many crimes it
potentially stopped - a good indicator would be to trend the amount of
gun-related crimes in say the UK over the past 100 years. You should see a
definite trend and you should also be able to note events which have
affected the trend, such as gun-control laws, increased IRA activity etc.
Please quote some hard-proof instead of saying everyone else's view is
wrong.
> Gun control increases crime. This can not be a very good reason for
> its introduction. Besides Gun Control zealots claim that it decreases
> crime which is obviously a lie. Why lie?
Please prove that it is obviously a lie. I suppose this would be difficult
to prove since I don't think there are too many contries which have recently
changed their laws from being gun-friendly to gun-free.
> >stat you will not find is the answer to the question, "how many
gun-related
> >crimes would be commited in the UK if there was no gun control"? People
who
> >always quote figures of gun-related crimes increasing never consider how
bad
> >the figures would be if there was no gun control.
>
> What the hell are you talking about. This is mumbo jumbo. The crime
> rate increased in UK absolutely no question about it. What was
> changed. Laws relating to firearm ownership. What was the cause of
> the increase of crime. Laws relating to firearm ownership. Did these
> laws make ownership greater or less. They removed firearms from
> citizens. Less firearms in citizen hands = more crime. Firearms
> related crime has increased dramatically in UK.
Not mubo-jumbo at all. You would still expect to see the rate increase no
doubt, but if there is a continual increase of say 3% each year over a
period, you need to look at what the increase was after gun-control laws
were introduced to determine if they helped or hindered.
> A person killed by a knife is just as dead as one killed by a bullet.
Guns definitely give people more power and are far more dangerous so it's
unfair to compare the two.
> Absolutely not. There is no recorded case where the introduction of
> 'gun control' reduced crime. No amount of ignoring it will change
> that. Gun control has the blood of the increased victims on its
> hands. Be happy look at your hands and see how many lives they saved.
> It matters not if they were killed with a rock or gun.
And from the other side of the fence, look at the blood on your hands when
someone you are close to is shot and killed.
> Logic is not part of your thinking nor is reason. Cause and effect.
> If crime increased what caused it to increase? What changes were
> made? Are these changes responsible for the increase in crime.
> Criminals by definition are not controlled by regulation. They are
> criminals because they ignore regulation.
Crime will almost always increase, but one would hope by a lower percentage
than normal.
> Therefor no amount of regulation will persuade criminals to give up
> crime.
Which is why we need the extra policing and a change of attitude.
> Stupid laws can not be enforced. Nor will the police be willing to
> waste time on laws which are simply a waste of their time.
Can't agree more - you definitely require sounds politics and sound
policing. You need police who can enforce the laws, you need a legal system
which will punish offenders. You need a policeforce free from corruption.
> >Most of you argument seems to be
> >around the fact that innocent people will not be protected hence they
should
> >have guns - but you yourself have mentioned the answer - policing!!
>
> Another fallacy of gun control.
> Dial 911 and die. The police by definition investigate after the
> fact. They can not prevent crime. Pizza is delivered faster than the
> police get to a crime scene. Self protection is the responsibility of
> the individual. Removal of the best means to do that is immoral and
> unthinkable by normal people
Unfortunately people have shown they cannot simply protect themselves.
Citizens who feel they cannot rely on the government take the law into their
own hands and become vigilantes. This is not acceptable in a civilized
society. You have to tackle the problem and get the politics right. Get the
politics right and you can attempt to enforce a gun-free society.
> How would you sabotage the police
> Get rid of expertise
> Don't hire new staff
> Pay poor wages
> Reduce the money available for resources.
> Promote incompetence to replace the lost expertise
Unfortunately this is not only the case in terms of the police, it is
happening everywhere in SA and one hopes it will start to come right. I
cnanot condone people to take the law into their own hands since once people
get into that mode of thinking I doubt you'd be able to change their
attitude once thinks are "under control". Kind of like the ANC activists of
the "struggle era" who are the ciminals of today. If as a nation we feel so
strongly about our safety and the lack of policing etc that we want to
resort to taking the law into our own hands, why can't we all unite and use
our frustrations into forcing our government into doing something about it?
The people who are justifying guns for protection are mainly white south
africans, who are the same people who sit on their backsides shouting about
how the government is letting them down, yet do nothing to try and
pressurise the government into protecting them.
> Which of these does not apply to the SAPS. The government does not
> want the police to be successful. That way the people will ask for
> something to be done and it can introduce all manner of
> unconstitutional laws giving it greater power. This is happening
> right now, rights are being eroded for the so-called good of the
> people.
>
> >Can't you see that legalised guns is not working here, nor is it working
in the states?
>
> What I can see is that each and every attempt to remove firearms from
> citizens has been followed by an increase of crime. That your
> assumption that gun control = crime control is totally without merit.
> Your assumption that legal firearm owners are responsible for crime is
> without merit. Your assumption that legal firearm owners are some
> lesser form of life is reprehensible.
You assume incorrectly about my assumptions.
> Every state in the USA that has introduced shall issue CCW has seen a
> decrease in crime. Any city or state in the US that has reasonable
> firearms legislation has a lower crime rate than gun free states or
> cities. What I can see is that 'ban the gun' does not reduce crime
> but increases it. Can you see that?
Please quote some figures and trends for me to see.
> We must look for and understand the reason why crime is reduced and
> apply these not the pipe dreams of zealots.
I cannot agree more.
> >It is possible to have legal
> >guns and low gnu-related crime but then you need to have the right
> >attitude - such as in Switzerland, but with the wrong attitude you have a
> >bunch of mavericks - such as in the US and SA.
>
> Crap!!! In SA 0.05% of crime is committed by licenced firearms owners
> who represent ~7% of the population. A licenced firearm owner is more
> than 60 yes SIXTY times less likely to commit crime than the
> irresponsible crime prone non firearms owners. I submit that you and
> similar people with your wrong attitude promoting hate of firearm
> owners is the problem and reason that correct attention is not given
> to crime and criminals.
There are plenty of cases in SA of people carrying legal firearms pulling
their guns willy-nilly, shooting innocent people, shooting people they are
arguing with, pulling their guns while driving because someone cut them off
and in their rage they pulled their guns - the list is endless. I am scared
of many so-called "responsible" south african gun owners - because of the
mental strain that south africans in general are under I doubt if they can
be considered responsible.
> >I am keen to see the official stat of the number of crimes commited in SA
> >with guns versus the number of crimes pervented with guns.
>
> While we would all like to see these statistics the police do not
> keep records of prevented crimes. However an indication can be found
> by looking at the Lott Mustard report for USA. I suggest you read it
> to find the answer to your question.
Pls post a cpoy for all of us to read it.
> Is less than 1% an astounding record in our crime ridden country.
> Besides I know where you are going with this. When a motor vehicle is
> stolen and used in a hi-jacking, bank robbery or any crime for that
> matter we sensibly do not blame the vehicle owner for crime. Our law
> and courts also take the same view. That the victim of a crime is not
> responsible for the crime, nor are they responsible for the actions of
> the criminal use of any goods they have been deprived of by criminal
> action. Gun Control and government has mounted a propaganda campaign
> seeking to blame firearms owners. Stupid people have been brainwashed
> into this incorrect belief.
Stupid gun-owners who do not take the necessary precautions - hence are
irresponsible - they are most certainly to be blamed. People who walk around
armed to the teeth are to be blamed - in more cases than not they don;t have
time to draw their weapons and there weapons are removed from them. These
people are to be blamed. Very different to your the people in your analogy
who had their cars stolen.
> > And on top of that, if it
> >were possible, the stat on the number of people in SA who own guns and
> >actually are trained to use them and who go for regular shooting
practise. I
> >think many of them are more of a danger to society and themselves.
>
> Once again the hysterical hate speech of Gun Control organisations.
> The record of firearms owners stands as testament to their good
> behaviour. A record far better than the average citizen. What more
> do firearms owners have to do to convince people with hate filled
> hearts of their good behaviour.
Good intentions and good behaviour are not one and the same. I think south
africans are well intentioned but are far too reckless to be allowed to own
firearms, on the off-chance that they'll get to use their gnu to protect
someone.
> Self protection is not the domain of Americans, though some may think
> it. It is the right and instinct of every living creature on this
> earth that you seek to remove. It is your responsibility to protect
> yourself. Nobody else is going to do it. Abdicate it if you wish but
> do not attempt to remove this right from others because you hate guns
> or believe nobody should have one. Do not think that people not
> willing to be helpless victims of crime should be deprived of the best
> means of defence.
I am all for protecting myself but I can see the bigger picture in South
Africa. I would hate as much as anyone for something to happen to innocent
people. I would also love to see all criminals being puniched. I would love
to see people hang for murder, rape etc. I not not some gun-control "zealot"
as you may believe. I am a regular citizen, who happens to own a gun but
would happily trade it for a police force who can reduce crime in my
country.
> You really need to expand your reading and understanding. It is not
> "weapons" that cause crime it is people. Removal of any "weapon" will
> not change people nor will it reduce their want or willingness to
> commit crime. Hate or fear of guns is based on propaganda. The
> belief that guns cause crime is based on propaganda. It has no reason
> or logic, you simply believe it. Therefor the removal of guns or any
> other "weapon" will not satisfy reason or logic or produce the results
> desired.
I agree that the basis of crime reduction is a change in society's attitudes
and a removal of the criminal element. Something I doubt will happen in SA
in the near future.
> If we remove guns then knives will be used. If we remove knives,
> hammers, axes, screwdrivers and sticks then rocks will be used. Crime
> is not solved by the removal of the instruments of crime. It is
> solved by removing the root causes of crime and making crime
> unprofitable.
Agreed but you need to also concede that less people will die. Drive by
knifings are not common. Drive by screwings even less so. Guns are simply
too dangerous.
> This is something our government does not understand or want to
> understand. It is to expensive. It is far easier and cheaper to
> blame it on the evil guns and bullshit gullible people that crime will
> be reduced.
Of course they will never admit that the problem is more deeply rooted since
that's admitting that the problem is a direct result of their fight for
"freedom". But they are correct in saying that guns are a problem because
they are. Of course most of these guns are illegally obtained. "Bullshitting
gullible people" is a phrase gun-crazy people will use.
> >We are not mature enough as a nation, nor educated enough, to be
> >allowed to be in possession of guns.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion. Just so long as you do not expect
> me or others to abide or have your opinion forced upon us.
Thankyou. If we as a society, agree on gun control and you as an individual
refuse to accept this, then you are no better than a criminal and should be
treated as such. No single person is above society. If you want to be an
individual outside of our society's rules then you must leave our society
and go elsewhere.
nospam
<guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote:
Sabsy wrote:
>> > >You missed another scenario.
>> > >A raped woman dead with her smoking barrel fleeing the scene to be
>> later used. This much more common, if you care to check out.
SABSY clearly indicated that it was more likely that the firearm would
be taken from the victim rather that a successful defence.
NoSpam wrote
>> > Bullshit most rapes are not defended by firearms. There are no stats
>> > on the success or otherwise of such defence.
>>
>> I think you missed the point again. Perhaps you should talk to your
>> buddy who created the link between rape and guns.
The point Sabsy was not missed. Prove your point. Where are the
stats that allow you to make this unsubstantiated assertion that the
rape victim is more likely to fail in a defence with a firearm and
have it removed.
More rapes are prevented by fighting back with any means possible than
are prevented by meekly submitting. Sabsy and fellow clowns want
women to submit, fighting back might get an alleged criminal injured.
>So you rather have woman raped than the ability to defend themselves?
>Makes a lot of sense.
Not to 'gun control'
NoSpam
nospam
>In article <39c6aa94...@news.saix.net>,
> nos...@nospam.com (nospam) wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:57:52 +0200, "Sabsy" <sa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"nospam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:39c4fe5d...@news.saix.net...
>> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:10:45 +0200, dickweed <disk...@i.dunno>
>wrote:
>> >> Crime has nothing to do with firearms ownership. There is no
>evidence
>> >> of a casual relationship anywhere in the world.
>> >
>> >Causal, you mean?
>>
>> Sure why ask, you knew it.
>
>I asked because I did not know it. That is why people NORMALLY ask
>questions.
>I see your level of contribution has not improved.
I tried real hard to find any other word that may fit within the
meaning of the sentence and the misspelling. I failed.
I see your level of contribution has not improved either.
NoSpam
>---------
>"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you
>can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it
>can't be taken on its own merits."
>- Dan Barker
So true but have you applied it to yourself?
nospam
>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:39c66897...@news.saix.net...
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:57:17 +0200, "-" <-@-.-> wrote:
>>
>> >"Almost 30 million violent crimes and property crimes took place in 1999,
>a
>> >fall of more than 10% from the previous year. A government statement said
>> >the figures showed that putting more police on the streets and
>controlling
>> >the availability of handguns had helped to create the safest America in a
>> >generation."
>>
>> What actually happened and was not mentioned once again conveniently
>> because it does not suit you.
>
>And that was?
Hmm it is clear from this below.
>> How many states introduced SHALL issue concealed carry permits?
>> Idiotic Gun Control has been reduced in many states to be replaced
>> with more reasonable legislation. The result, reduced crime.
There were a number of states that by changing to shall issue CCW
permits increased the number of firearms carried by people. ie more
firearms on the streets in citizens hands.
Not as the news release indicated that gun control had reduced the
number of firearms. That is not true. More arms were available for
personal protection.
From memory it was 31 states.
>> Did the crime rate in Washington DC a gun free town fall? Where were
>> the greatest decreases in the crime rate? In those states that
>> changed to SHALL issue concealed carry permits.
Did the crime rate in Washington DC decrease for the period you
mentioned? Washington DC is a hand gun free city with the highest
crime rate in the US.
No points for guessing when the crime rate started to increase.
Where were the greatest increases of crime. Those cities or states
that implemented "gun control" or those that reduced "gun control"?
>Er, in english please?
It was.
>> >I don't think gun control stops gun crimes but I feel it does decrease
>it.
>>
>> Then give one example of where it has occurred? Thus far you have not
>> been able to do so. Therefor what you feel is incorrect.
>
>Which is why I also said that the kind of figures that would substantiate
>this are not available.
See crime stats for England, Australia, Brazil, Jamaica, Canada after
gun control was introduced. They will not be available on gun control
sites because they contradict gun control.
>What you need to look at is how many crimes it
>potentially stopped.
OK if crime increases and you admit this then how can it potentially
stop crime.
What has the potential to stop crime? Making the criminal work place
safer.
Criminals are cowards by nature. The prey on the old, weak and
defenceless. Making everyone defenceless will simply aid crime. Of
that there is no question.
> - a good indicator would be to trend the amount of
> gun-related crimes in say the UK over the past 100 years. You should see a
>definite trend and you should also be able to note events which have
>affected the trend, such as gun-control laws,
Crime has been increasing in UK since 1920. Each implementation of
gun control has produced an increase of crime.
See Australia as well.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/index.html
>> Gun control increases crime. This can not be a very good reason for
>> its introduction. Besides Gun Control zealots claim that it decreases
>> crime which is obviously a lie. Why lie?
>
>Please prove that it is obviously a lie. I suppose this would be difficult
>to prove since I don't think there are too many contries which have recently
>changed their laws from being gun-friendly to gun-free.
There are no gun free countries. Only contries that do not allow
citizens to own firearms. Criminals are not bothered by such laws.
Several countries have recently changed laws. They are there to study
if you want to find the results of increased gun control.
>> What the hell are you talking about. This is mumbo jumbo. The crime
>> rate increased in UK absolutely no question about it. What was
>> changed. Laws relating to firearm ownership. What was the cause of
>> the increase of crime. Laws relating to firearm ownership. Did these
>> laws make ownership greater or less. They removed firearms from
>> citizens. Less firearms in citizen hands = more crime. Firearms
>> related crime has increased dramatically in UK.
>
>Not mubo-jumbo at all. You would still expect to see the rate increase no
>doubt, but if there is a continual increase of say 3% each year over a
>period, you need to look at what the increase was after gun-control laws
>were introduced to determine if they helped or hindered.
He! He! I don't think the people of UK would agree that it is normal.
I think from the tone of the article posted that some outrage exists.
The home office in UK keeps the stats.
There are several sites with UK info. I don't have URLs handy.
>> A person killed by a knife is just as dead as one killed by a bullet.
>
>Guns definitely give people more power and are far more dangerous so it's
>unfair to compare the two.
Knife wounds are more fatal. Not fair you say.
>> Absolutely not. There is no recorded case where the introduction of
>> 'gun control' reduced crime. No amount of ignoring it will change
>> that. Gun control has the blood of the increased victims on its
>> hands. Be happy look at your hands and see how many lives they saved.
>> It matters not if they were killed with a rock or gun.
>
>And from the other side of the fence, look at the blood on your hands when
>someone you are close to is shot and killed.
I do not promote an increase in crime in fact I strongly suggest that
crime should be reduced. That criminals should be given everything
they deserve. And that the law should be suitable so that it is
possible. Wasting time, money and effort on what is provably the most
law abiding group of people, licenced firearm owners, is going to get
innocent people killed
>> Logic is not part of your thinking nor is reason. Cause and effect.
>> If crime increased what caused it to increase? What changes were
>> made? Are these changes responsible for the increase in crime.
>> Criminals by definition are not controlled by regulation. They are
>> criminals because they ignore regulation.
>
>Crime will almost always increase, but one would hope by a lower percentage
>than normal.
Australia had a decreasing crime rate. Now!!!!
>> Therefor no amount of regulation will persuade criminals to give up
>> crime.
>
>Which is why we need the extra policing and a change of attitude.
Which gun control is not part of nor does it suggest good policing.
Instead the hysterical hatred of guns is promoted.
>> Another fallacy of gun control.
>> Dial 911 and die. The police by definition investigate after the
>> fact. They can not prevent crime. Pizza is delivered faster than the
>> police get to a crime scene. Self protection is the responsibility of
>> the individual. Removal of the best means to do that is immoral and
>> unthinkable by normal people
>
>Unfortunately people have shown they cannot simply protect themselves.
>Citizens who feel they cannot rely on the government take the law into their
>own hands and become vigilantes.
Conjecture on your part. People are sick and tired of crime. Sick
and tired of a government filling the pockets of the new masters while
the people suffer. Crime pays, criminals escape, are never caught.
When jailed are subjected to a life better than they had on the
streets.
>This is not acceptable in a civilized
>society. You have to tackle the problem and get the politics right. Get the
>politics right and you can attempt to enforce a gun-free society.
What have you got against guns? What is a gun free society?
Guns are tools, knives are tools. Tools do not make crime. Tools do
not control people. Tools do not make people mad. Tools do not die.
Tools are not alive.
ENFORCE a gun free society??????????
= Criminal utopia
Animators of metal and masters of lies.
>> >Can't you see that legalised guns is not working here, nor is it working
>in the states?
>>Your assumption that legal firearm owners are some
>> lesser form of life is reprehensible.
>
>You assume incorrectly about my assumptions.
Hmmm did you mention irresponsible and a few other choice words
promoting ill feeling towards firearms owners?
>> Every state in the USA that has introduced shall issue CCW has seen a
>> decrease in crime. Any city or state in the US that has reasonable
>> firearms legislation has a lower crime rate than gun free states or
>> cities. What I can see is that 'ban the gun' does not reduce crime
>> but increases it. Can you see that?
>
>Please quote some figures and trends for me to see.
See Lott report
>> >It is possible to have legal
>> >guns and low gnu-related crime but then you need to have the right
>> >attitude - such as in Switzerland, but with the wrong attitude you have a
>> >bunch of mavericks - such as in the US and SA.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Crap!!! In SA 0.05% of crime is committed by licenced firearms owners
>> who represent ~7% of the population. A licenced firearm owner is more
>> than 60 yes SIXTY times less likely to commit crime than the
>> irresponsible crime prone non firearms owners. I submit that you and
>> similar people with your wrong attitude promoting hate of firearm
>> owners is the problem and reason that correct attention is not given
>> to crime and criminals.
Read it again you did not understand it.
>There are plenty of cases in SA of people carrying legal firearms pulling
>their guns willy-nilly, shooting innocent people, shooting people they are
>arguing with, pulling their guns while driving because someone cut them off
>and in their rage they pulled their guns - the list is endless. I am scared
>of many so-called "responsible" south african gun owners - because of the
>mental strain that south africans in general are under I doubt if they can
>be considered responsible.
Once again you lie simply to prove your point. There are no
statistics to prove your point and in fact they prove the opposite.
There are ~3Million licenced firearm owners in SA. What percentage do
these idiots form and why have the police not arrested them. All you
mentioned are crimes in terms of current legislation. The number of
prosecution for any of these crimes of licenced firearm owners is
insignificant. INSIGNIFICANT means way less than 1%
However you continue to ignore what is patently provably true in your
efforts to promote hate of legal firearms owners.
Such undeserved conjecture on your part without proof is not very
flattering of your mental ability or soundness of mind.
Society is not perfect and to expect perfection from one group is
totally unreasonable. That any group conforms to the norm is all that
is required. Thus you would state that motor vehicle drivers are all
irresponsible because of the number of people they kill. Swimming
pool owners are irresponsible because of the number of children
drowned in them. Ban swimming pools and save children's lives.
If legal firearms owners are responsible for 0.05% of crime people
such as yourself are responsible for the 99.95% remaining. You are
irresponsible and can not be trusted.
>> >I am keen to see the official stat of the number of crimes commited in SA
>> >with guns versus the number of crimes pervented with guns.
>>
>> While we would all like to see these statistics the police do not
>> keep records of prevented crimes. However an indication can be found
>> by looking at the Lott Mustard report for USA. I suggest you read it
>> to find the answer to your question.
>
>Pls post a cpoy for all of us to read it.
To long
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html
>> Is less than 1% an astounding record in our crime ridden country.
>> Besides I know where you are going with this. When a motor vehicle is
>> stolen and used in a hi-jacking, bank robbery or any crime for that
>> matter we sensibly do not blame the vehicle owner for crime. Our law
>> and courts also take the same view. That the victim of a crime is not
>> responsible for the crime, nor are they responsible for the actions of
>> the criminal use of any goods they have been deprived of by criminal
>> action. Gun Control and government has mounted a propaganda campaign
>> seeking to blame firearms owners. Stupid people have been brainwashed
>> into this incorrect belief.
>
>Stupid gun-owners who do not take the necessary precautions -
Even when presented with the facts you still label all firearms owners
stupid and irresponsible!!!! I see facts are simply a hindrance to
your beliefs that should be discarded so as not to influence the
brainwashing.
> hence are
>irresponsible - they are most certainly to be blamed. People who walk around
>armed to the teeth are to be blamed
You are but a match strike away from burning witches at the stake.
> - in more cases than not they don;t have
>time to draw their weapons and there weapons are removed from them.
Proof please. Do expand your reading beyond Grief For South Africa
publications.
More crimes are prevented without a shot being fired. The number lost
in defence is insignificant and a risk we all take. Criminals for the
most part also have the element of surprise. However to advocate that
firearms should not be carried because they might be removed by
criminals is a stupid suggestion that ignores the unreported high
number of successful prevention's of crime.
>These
>people are to be blamed. Very different to your the people in your analogy
>who had their cars stolen.
No there is no difference. Only in your mind. Please state the legal
principle where the victim of a crime is responsible for the crime.
Rape victims would love to hear your answer as well.
>> Once again the hysterical hate speech of Gun Control organisations.
>> The record of firearms owners stands as testament to their good
>> behaviour. A record far better than the average citizen. What more
>> do firearms owners have to do to convince people with hate filled
>> hearts of their good behaviour.
>
>Good intentions and good behaviour are not one and the same. I think south
>africans are well intentioned but are far too reckless to be allowed to own
>firearms, on the off-chance that they'll get to use their gnu to protect
>someone.
Who mentioned intentions. The good behaviour of firearms owners is a
matter of record. Provable, without question. Thank heavens your
thoughts and beliefs are not required by legislators.
>I am all for protecting myself but I can see the bigger picture in South
>Africa.
Your idea of protection from crime and what would you use?
A strong pair of knees?
I think your knees will be worn out begging for your life. Of course
you may have noticed that criminals shoot their victims more often
than not. What do you intend to use to protect you life from
criminals. Wave a copy of 'gun conrol' or a Grief For SA publication.
>I would hate as much as anyone for something to happen to innocent
>people.
Then why promote gun control. The surest fastest way to increase
crime.
>I would also love to see all criminals being puniched. I would love
>to see people hang for murder, rape etc.
Then promote criminological sound practices and not ideology.
> I not not some gun-control "zealot"
Yes you are.
>as you may believe. I am a regular citizen, who happens to own a gun but
>would happily trade it for a police force who can reduce crime in my
>country.
Sell it you do not believe that it can afford you any protection.
Protection is a state of mind, a state of readiness and a state of
practice. You do not have time to debate the issues with a criminal.
Or join a club and become reasonably proficient. A self protection
firearm locked up in a safe with the keys hidden is no protection at
all.
The police have no mandate to protect you or any other citizen unless
you can prove your life is in danger. Or you happen to be a ANC
member of government.
The police can not reduce crime if they have no funds, no well trained
staff and no resources. Nor will they ever get any while gun control
idiots persuade them that the quick fix is remove licenced firearms.
Right now the portfolio committee is willing to spend more than 1
Billion rand on gun control but does not have the money for salaries,
vehicles, training, resources.......
The 1 Billion does not include the compensation they are trying to
avoid paying for the forced removal of property. Make you think?
Another unconstitutional piece of legislation in the pipeline from our
unrespectful of constitutional rights government.
Proper policing is expensive. Government would rather throw your tax
money down bottomless pits than reduce crime. Besides there are not
so many chances to siphon money off.
>I agree that the basis of crime reduction is a change in society's attitudes
>and a removal of the criminal element. Something I doubt will happen in SA
>in the near future.
Not while people who should know better promote 'gun control' as an
alternative.
>> If we remove guns then knives will be used. If we remove knives,
>> hammers, axes, screwdrivers and sticks then rocks will be used. Crime
>> is not solved by the removal of the instruments of crime. It is
>> solved by removing the root causes of crime and making crime
>> unprofitable.
>
>Agreed but you need to also concede that less people will die. Drive by
>knifings are not common. Drive by screwings even less so. Guns are simply
>too dangerous.
Absolutely not. Knife wounds are more fatal than gun shots.
Taking firearms from licenced owners will not reduce the number of
guns in criminal hands. Gun control nowhere in the world has reduced
the supply of criminal guns. It is a myth that removal for licenced
firearms will reduce this. Criminals obtain the tools they need from
the easiest source. Remove one source and another will take its place
be it guns stolen from the military, police or smuggled in.
As in Australia some of the arms confiscated have found there way into
criminal hands. How? Can you trust the government and police to not
be corrupt?
For more on Australia.
http://www.ssaa.org.au/
>Of course they will never admit that the problem is more deeply rooted since
>that's admitting that the problem is a direct result of their fight for
>"freedom". But they are correct in saying that guns are a problem because
>they are. Of course most of these guns are illegally obtained. "Bullshitting
>gullible people" is a phrase gun-crazy people will use.
Bullshitting gulible people is telling them that control of licenced
firearms will reduce the supply of guns to criminals!!!!!!!! That
crime will be reduced when they know it will not. Control of legal
firearms is not control of illegal firearms. No measure of control
will stop criminals from obtaining something they want.
>> >We are not mature enough as a nation, nor educated enough, to be
>> >allowed to be in possession of guns.
>>
>> You are entitled to your opinion. Just so long as you do not expect
>> me or others to abide or have your opinion forced upon us.
>
>Thankyou. If we as a society, agree on gun control and you as an individual
>refuse to accept this, then you are no better than a criminal and should be
>treated as such. No single person is above society. If you want to be an
>individual outside of our society's rules then you must leave our society
>and go elsewhere.
When so-called members of society claim without proof that another
group are responsible for the ills of society, that is reprehensible.
Criminals are treated with the respect they deserve while firearm
owners are responsible for the ills of society.
Another person in another time would have been at the forefront of gun
control. Jews are evil, lets get rid of all Jews.
NoSpam
Sabsy
www.ministers.sa.gov.au/griffin/media/rp_pr_2000_0404.html ACTION ON
FALSE NRA CLAIMS
Tuesday April 4, 2000
Attorney General Trevor Griffin will today take action to try to stop
the United States National Rifle Association from continuing to
broadcast its offensive, false and misleading claims about South
Australia.
Mr Griffin has today called on the United States Federal Trade
Commission to consider issuing an order requiring the NRA to correct or
stop publishing its outrageous claims that national gun law reform has
resulted in an increasing level of crime.
He says the Federal Trade Commission can issue the order if it agrees
that the NRA claims constitute an unfair or deceptive act in violation
of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. If a respondent fails
to act on the order, the offender will face a fine of up to $11,000 for
each violation every day the offence continues.
"I am disgusted and totally reject the statements made by the NRA about
South Australia's crime level. It is reprehensible that the NRA is
promoting an unjustified fear of crime in our and their communities by
using statistics that are simply not supported by evidence," Mr Griffin
says. "The NRA video selectively quotes statistics, it takes events and
interviews out of context and falsely portrays a number of people as
holding views supporting the wide availability of guns.
"What is of great concern is NRA's plans to continue broadcasting this
misinformation. An infomercial on the NRA website demonstrates that it
intends to continue to show the video on US television on a high
rotation basis.
"I have today written to the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission,
Mr Robert Pitofsky, detailing the instances of deceptive and misleading
practice engaged in by the NRA. The information will also be sent to
the United States Congress and the Secretary of Trade.
"The NRA is a highly political lobby organisation which is seeking to
promote its own pro-gun agenda in the US to build on its membership
base," he says.
"It is patently clear to all but the NRA that an easy availability of
guns has a direct relationship to a high level of gun violence. No
democratic country has such a high level of gun violence in its
community as the United States. The fact that the NRA would wish the
same for Australia is an indication of the lengths it will go to
further its cause - which is not one I support."
Media Contact : Sascha Brooker
Phone : 8303 2500 0418 806 710
Gun Killings Down - Gun Control Success 20/12/1999
www.guncontrol.org.au/
The recently released ABS statistics show a dramatic drop in Australian
gun deaths for 1998. These figures are shown below. They exhibit the
same tendency to decline which was shown in the 1997 figures.
The continued reduction in the number of Australians being killed by
guns strongly suggests that the stricter gun laws which have been put
into place throughout Australia during the 1990's have saved many
hundred's of lives. A decade ago, in 1988, just before the stricter gun
laws started to operate, 696 people died from gun wounds. Last year,
1998, there were 327 gun deaths. Gun suicides and gun homicides have
been halved in the last ten years. In 1998 there were 21 deaths from
accidental or careless gun use. Although there has been a moderate
decline in the number of accidental gun deaths in the 1990's compared
with the 1980's there are still far too many dying from gun accidents.
The time has come for all eight Australian gun law jurisdictions to
develop a serious training and testing regime for all shooters. The
death near Warburton this year of Gary Patterson, at the hands of a
young deer shooter, is a tragic example of the weakness in Victoria's
Shooters Licence program. In February 2000 the police ministers will
start examining improvements to the training and testing programs for
shooters. Before them is a most inadequate and out of date proposal
made by a commercial organisation. It would be a tragedy if this
childish program serves as the basis for deciding who gets a gun.
Strict gun laws are helping to save thousands of Australian lives. We
need a thorough training and testing program for all shooters, not the
play-time ideas being presently proposed by a commercial organisation.
www.handguncontrol.org/research/studies/savinglives.asp
Saving Lives by Taking Guns Out of Crime: The Drop in Gun-Related Crime
Deaths Since Enactment of the Brady Law EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In their
book, Crime is Not the Problem (1997), Frank Zimring and Gordon Hawkins
identified the "use of firearms in assault and robbery as the single
environmental feature of American society that is most clearly linked
to the extraordinary death rate from interpersonal violence in the
United States." Their research led to the conclusion that, "without
strategies for the reduction of firearm use in assaults, no policy can
be accurately characterized as directed at the reduction of American
lethal violence." This study, Saving Lives by Taking Guns Out of Crime,
an analysis of FBI crime statistics, presents compelling evidence that
implementation of the Brady Law has led to a reduction in the use of
firearms in robberies and assaults, preventing thousands of deaths
since the law took effect. In November 1993, the Brady Bill was signed
into law and took effect on February 28, 1994. Prior to its passage, 32
states had no system of background checks for gun purchasers easing the
way for guns to be funneled into the illegal market. Before the law
took effect, a felon could walk into a gun store, sign a form stating
that he or she has never been convicted of a felony, and buy a gun. The
criminal's felony record would not be discovered because the form would
simply get filed away by the gun dealer. Brady closed the "lie and buy"
loophole and research has shown the law had an immediate, disruptive
impact on interstate gun trafficking affecting the supply of guns
available in the criminal market. Initially applying only to handgun
purchases, today the background check is conducted as part of all
retail gun purchases. For seven years, the National Rifle Association
led the opposition to the Brady Bill and continues to dismiss the
effectiveness of the Brady Law today. The background check and waiting
period were deemed too "inconvenient" for gun owners. This report
provides compelling evidence that this "inconvenience" has saved
thousands of lives and would have saved thousands more had the National
Rifle Association not fought passage of the Brady Bill - delaying
implementation by several years. It has long been known that assaults
and robberies committed with guns result in a much higher death rate
than similar crimes committed without firearms. Consequently, the
greater the proportion of violent crimes committed with guns - the
greater the number of deaths expected. By analyzing crime data from the
FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for 1990 through 1998, the Center
determined that the proportion of violent crimes committed with
firearms rose steadily through 1993 suggesting that more crime victims
were murdered than would have been predicted by changes in the crime
rate. In 1994, however, coinciding with the implementation of Brady,
the trend reversed and gun-related crime has been dropping faster than
the violent crime rate ever since. The Center used this information to
estimate the number of lives saved since Brady took effect - not
because the crime rate was falling, but because the percentage of
violent crimes committed with guns was falling. The results of this
analysis provide compelling evidence that the Brady Law is saving lives
by taking guns out of crime: from 1994 through 1998, an estimated 9,368
fewer people died than expected because the percentage of robberies and
assaults committed with firearms fell each year after reaching a peak
of 42.4% of robberies and 25.1% of aggravated assaults in 1993.
Furthermore, from 1991 through 1993, an estimated 3,105 more people
lost their lives in gun-related crime than expected because the
proportion of assaults and robberies that involved guns increased each
year from 1990 through 1993. At a news conference on March 2, 2000,
President Bill Clinton said, "The Brady Bill is saving people's lives
and keeping guns out of the wrong hands." Since the Brady Law was
enacted, the U.S. Department of Justice periodically releases the
number of prohibited purchasers who have been denied a gun thanks to
background checks. In the five years of Brady covered by this study,
that number was estimated to be 320,000 and has since grown to 500,000
denials. Clearly the Brady Law is keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
This report presents for the first time powerful evidence that the Law
is actually saving lives.
www.guncontrol.ca/Content/news.html#20/05/98
www.handguncontrol.org/press/release.asp?Record=5
www.handguncontrol.org/press/hci/051100.html
www.handguncontrol.org/press/cphv/033000.html
www.handguncontrol.org/press/cphv/031700.html
www.handguncontrol.org/facts/ib/prevent.asp
www.handguncontrol.org/facts/ib/australia.asp
Sabsy
>
> > In article <39C72A2D...@me262.techpta.ac.za>,
> >
> > I have no such plans.
> > You made an allegation, you prove it.
>
> Already done.
Are you familiar with this?
"Tuesday April 4, 2000
Attorney General Trevor Griffin will today take action to try to stop
the United States National Rifle Association from continuing to
broadcast its offensive, false and misleading claims about South
Australia.
Mr Griffin has today called on the United States Federal Trade
Commission to consider issuing an order requiring the NRA to correct or
stop publishing its outrageous claims that national gun law reform has
resulted in an increasing level of crime."
Perhaps your information is based on these misleading statistics by the
NRA? Why would they lie?
I even have a letter sent to Charlton Heston asking him to stop his
bloody lies
>
> >
> > I even posted some facts for you, which you obviously decided to
ignore.
>
> I really am not trying to be funny, but I seem to have missed that
post.
Cannot find them either.
my apologies
I have no idea what happened to them.
I notice that deja.news does not support postings that have http:// on
them
> My
> usenet server may not have forwarded it. If you want to, please
Email me
> directly.
>
will do.
Let me know if you received my latest contribution.
your comments would be welcome, indeed
> -------------------------------------------
> A Colt-45 in the hand is better than a policeman on the phone.
>
>
--
an...@nowhere.com
The biggest supplier of concealable weapons is the SAPS and the Defence Force
either by killing the owner or buying it from the corrupt. How can you attribute
weapons stolen from police stations to licenced firearm owners who have zero
control over them once handed to the cops ?
And are we also so naive to believe that AK47's were the only weapons smuggled
in during the apartheid era ?
South Africa's borders are so porous , banning private weapon licences is going
have one effect , to set up a profitable black market smuggling weapons into SA
as is happening right now.
You've lost your weapons and I'm sorry for your loss but don't support those who
would seek to render us defenceless.
Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons , from some dead cop's Z88 to a homemade zip
gun. I saw several of these in my tenure in the SADF and while they were single
shot and as rough as a badgers arse , they worked.
Fight Crime, Shoot Back
Sabsy wrote:
> In article <39C73FAC...@me262.techpta.ac.za>,
> "Fight Crime, Shoot Back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sabsy wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39C72A2D...@me262.techpta.ac.za>,
> > > "Fight Crime, Shoot Back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote:
> > > > If you know this, then prove it!
> > >
> > > I have no such plans.
> > > You made an allegation, you prove it.
> >
> > Already done.
>
> Are you familiar with this?
>
> "Tuesday April 4, 2000
> Attorney General Trevor Griffin will today take action to try to stop
> the United States National Rifle Association from continuing to
> broadcast its offensive, false and misleading claims about South
> Australia.
> Mr Griffin has today called on the United States Federal Trade
> Commission to consider issuing an order requiring the NRA to correct or
> stop publishing its outrageous claims that national gun law reform has
> resulted in an increasing level of crime."
>
> Perhaps your information is based on these misleading statistics by the
> NRA? Why would they lie?
> I even have a letter sent to Charlton Heston asking him to stop his
> bloody lies
I do know about it. The NRA used crime statistics which came from the
crime stats web site in Aus. These stats were also published in numerous
Aus news papers.
Take a look at http://206.97.103.69/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml
Here is a small piece of the text:
Between 1980-1995, Australia's firearm-related death rate was cut nearly in
half, and its firearm- related homicide rate nearly by two-thirds. (The
former
decreased 46%, from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 2.6; the latter
decreased 63%, from eight per 100,000 to three). In 1995, the annual number
of
firearm-related deaths fell to its lowest point in the 16-year period.
Ban supporters, including gun prohibitionists in the U.S., are actively
promoting the legislation's alleged crime-fighting benefits. Crime
statistics, however, contradict
them. For example, from 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased
in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all
robberies in 1997
to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all
individual categories of violent crime, with the exception of murder,
increased. In
addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in
1998.
The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27, 2000,
from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:
> > >
> > > I even posted some facts for you, which you obviously decided to
> ignore.
> >
> > I really am not trying to be funny, but I seem to have missed that
> post.
>
> Cannot find them either.
> my apologies
> I have no idea what happened to them.
>
No problem. Now the debate can continue :)
> I notice that deja.news does not support postings that have http:// on
> them
>
> > My
> > usenet server may not have forwarded it. If you want to, please
> Email me
> > directly.
> >
>
> will do.
> Let me know if you received my latest contribution.
> your comments would be welcome, indeed
Have done so. Thanks. Found your repost yesterday (Tuesday)
Fight Crime, Shoot Back
Doug.D...@eskom.co.za wrote:
> I don't know about the ultimate effect on the crime statistics but we, the
> licenced owners, are supplying the vast majority of "concealable weapons" to
> the criminals (AKs etc., are a different issue) through robberies on houses
> and even police stations, muggings, hijackings etc. If we didn't have guns,
> criminals would have less of them.
Not true. Most of the stolen guns came from government help places. Military,
Police etc. I personally feel that more crime is being prevented by citizens
owning firearms.
>
> On a personal level, I have felt exremely uneasy since my two 357s were
> stolen, along with a hundred rounds of the best one-stop-kill ammo in the
> world. I'm sure they are only going to use them for target
> practice......NOT. How many deaths and survivor's tears have I inadvertently
> contributed to through my previous "I don't want to have only my dick in my
> hand when there's trouble" philosophy.
Geez, I wonder how Albert Eintein must have felt for developing the Atomic
Bomb. I meen, he's responsible for killing millions of people in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Guns do not kill people. Criminals do.
Btw, were your guns locked up in a safe, were they on you as person, were you
hijacked? How did you loose your guns?
>
> No thank you. I may live to regret it but when the insurance paid out, I
> didn't replace them and have never called the police station to find out if
> they've been found. I'm out of that spiral to hell for good.
>
This is your personal choice. I know of many lives which were save because they
had a gun with them.
>
> Far better to get the country's justice system sorted out asap.
>
Everyone can agree to this.
Fight Crime, Shoot Back
Sabsy wrote:
> In article <39C73FAC...@me262.techpta.ac.za>,
> "Fight Crime, Shoot Back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sabsy wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39C72A2D...@me262.techpta.ac.za>,
> > > "Fight Crime, Shoot Back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote:
> > > > If you know this, then prove it!
> > >
> > > I have no such plans.
> > > You made an allegation, you prove it.
> >
> > Already done.
>
> Are you familiar with this?
>
> "Tuesday April 4, 2000
> Attorney General Trevor Griffin will today take action to try to stop
> the United States National Rifle Association from continuing to
> broadcast its offensive, false and misleading claims about South
> Australia.
> Mr Griffin has today called on the United States Federal Trade
> Commission to consider issuing an order requiring the NRA to correct or
> stop publishing its outrageous claims that national gun law reform has
> resulted in an increasing level of crime."
>
> Perhaps your information is based on these misleading statistics by the
> NRA? Why would they lie?
> I even have a letter sent to Charlton Heston asking him to stop his
> bloody lies
I am just wondering who's lying to who.
"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled
since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port
Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer
place. . . .
The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183,
according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving
guns rose
28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur
massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28,
1998.
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number
of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns
rose
28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the
buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms
from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after
the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996
before
the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its
lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.
"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time
ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The
Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
Jeandré
>obtained at http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm
>
>(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by
>the following:
> (A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun
>to defend themselves against criminals-or more than 6,500 people a day. This
> means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect
>the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
> (B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women
>defending themselves against sexual abuse.
> (C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves
>every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to
>scare off
> their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or
>wound his or her attacker.
From: /The New England Journal of Medicine/, /Scientific
American/, the CDC, and the USA Supreme Court.
Keeping a handgun in the home for self-defense places a gun owner and
his/her family in great jeopardy. Research indicates that residents of
homes where a gun is present are five times more likely to experience
a suicide [91] and three times more likely to experience a homicide
[92] than residents of homes without guns. Additionally, a gun kept in
the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or
friend, than an intruder.[93] In fact, research indicates that the use
of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the
victims risk of injury and death.[94]
In 1995, there were 21,597 people murdered, 12,066 with handguns, yet
only 179 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns.[96]
Children in the U.S. are 12 times more likely to die from firearm
injury than are children in other industrialized nations.[17]
A 1988 study appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine compares
the rates of firearm violence in Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver,
Canada, and demonstrates how a ban on handguns in the United States
would decrease death. These two cities are less than three hours apart
by car and are culturally similar. However, Vancouver regulates
handguns strictly. The two cities have similar rates of burglary,
robbery, and assault, but in Seattle there is an almost five times
greater risk of being murdered with a handgun than in Vancouver.[23]
The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S.
174, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second
Amendment unless it has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. The Supreme
Court has stated that today's militia is the National Guard. [88]
___
[17] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Rates of Homicide,
Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children--26 Industrialized
Countries," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 46, no. 5,
February 7, 1997, p. 103.
[23] John Henry Sloan, et. al., "A Tale of Two Cities," The New
England Journal of Medicine, vol. 319, November 10, 1988, p. 1256.
[88] Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968) appeal dismissed 394
U.S. 812 (1969).
[91] Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH;
Grant Somes, PhD; Donald T. Reay, MD; Jerry Francisco, MD; Joyce
Gillentine Banton, MS; Janice Prodzinski, BA; Corinne Fligner, MD; and
Bela B. Hackman, MD, "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun
Ownership," The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7,
August 13, 1992, pp. 467-472.
[92] Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH;
Norman B. Rushforth, PhD; Joyce G. Banton, MS; Donald T. Reay, MD;
Jerry T. Francisco, MD; Ana B. Locci, PhD;
[93] Janice Prodzinski, BA; Bela B. Hackman, MD; and Grant Somes, PhD,
"Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New
England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 329, No. 15, October 7, 1993, pp.
1084-1001.
[94] Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An
Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home." The New England
Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.
[96] FE Zimring, "Firearms, Violence, and Public Policy," Scientific
American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48
--
/`\ Jeandré
\ / jea...@techie.com
X
/ \ Text ribbon campaign for HTML free e-mail and Usenet posts
nospam
>In article <39c6a14f...@news.saix.net>,
> nos...@nospam.com (nospam) wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:11:02 +0200, "Sabsy" <sa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in
>message
>> >news:39C52126...@me262.techpta.ac.za...
>> >Not true. However, feel free to produce evidence.
>>
>> England and Australia crime stats for starters but then you know this.
>
>Yes I do know that Australia statistics show that crime declined after
>gun control laws were put into place.
>Perhaps you might do more than making unsubstantiated claims. Why not
>produce something that is not sucked out of your thumbs?
Gosh the Australian government lies and Sabsy tells the truth. Now
there is a turn for the books.
Please quote an Australian government source for your claim of reduced
CRIME.
>> >> There are numerous documentation on this.
>> >
>> >Just show a few that we can all use to support your case.
>>
>> No you show any successful implementation of gun control that reduced
>> crime.
There is no respectable Australian government official that will agree
that crime throughout Australia has decrease since the buy back.
The Australian crime stats are available. Please quote government
sources.
>> Lies, lies and more lies. Promoting GFSA propaganda again?
>>
>> >> Remember, crime control is not gun control.
>> >Who said it was?
>> S. Tshwete. M E George for starters.
>Bullshit.
>They never said that.
Of couse you have every word ever said by these recorded. When will
you stop your bullshit?
Spier wine estate propaganda workshop address: S Tshwete. "As soon as
this bill [firearms control bill] is introduced we will begin rounding
up criminals" Reported by SABC TV introduction shown on TV.
Clearly indicates Steves belief that only this bill (gun control)
will allow him or the police to round up criminals. It is also a
flawed belief just as your is.
Portfolio committee meeting 5/9/2000
Mr Booi (ANC) disagreed with this. He said that the availability of
firearms has contributed to crime.
Once again an assertion that Mr Booi has no hope of proving but just
like you continues to make this propaganda statement.
Briefing the National Assembly's safety and security committee, Selebi
said the bill will result in fewer guns ending up in the wrong hands.
How? Criminals have many channels for illegal goods. Plug one hole
and onother opens up. Drugs are a good example that it is impossible
to control the drug trade or any other criminal trade by legislation
concentrating on legal sources like chemists. Laws need to be made
but the trade is only held in check by the capture, prosecution and
incarcration of criminals to the extent that crime does not pay. And
addressing the root causes of crime which is not guns or drugs.
Mr Maziya (ANC) said the Bill would reduce the number of illegal
firearms
How? If criminals currently souce most from the state. But also have
other channels and will always have other channels.
The Chairperson [M E George] then reminded Committee members that they
have a fundamental and important responsibility to the country. Crime
is a big threat that must be addressed. He wants to see the Bill [FCB]
implemented as soon as it is passed and asserted that the Bill can be
implemented.
The implication is clear.
There is no doubt that the easy availability of guns:
Is a major contributor to the frequency of violent crime
Is a major contributor to how lethal gun violence is
NCPS B. Fanaroff Portfolio Committee "briefing"
Eating crow again?
NoSpam
Faith in ideology
Belief of propaganda
Both are needed to believe that gun control = crime control.
That crime will be reduced or the supply of arms to criminals will be
reduced.
nospam
>In article <39c6a14f...@news.saix.net>,
> nos...@nospam.com (nospam) wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:11:02 +0200, "Sabsy" <sa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in
>message
>> >news:39C52126...@me262.techpta.ac.za...
>> >Not true. However, feel free to produce evidence.
>>
>> England and Australia crime stats for starters but then you know this.
>
>Yes I do know that Australia statistics show that crime declined after
>gun control laws were put into place.
>Perhaps you might do more than making unsubstantiated claims. Why not
>produce something that is not sucked out of your thumbs?
Gosh the Australian government lies and Sabsy tells the truth. Now
there is a turn for the books.
Please quote an Australian government source for your claim of reduced
CRIME.
>> >> There are numerous documentation on this.
>> >
>> >Just show a few that we can all use to support your case.
>>
>> No you show any successful implementation of gun control that reduced
>> crime.
There is no respectable Australian government official that will agree
that crime throughout Australia has decrease since the buy back.
The Australian crime stats are available. Please quote government
sources.
>> Lies, lies and more lies. Promoting GFSA propaganda again?
>>
>> >> Remember, crime control is not gun control.
>> >Who said it was?
>> S. Tshwete. M E George for starters.
>Bullshit.
>They never said that.
Of couse you have every word ever said by these recorded. When will
an...@nowhere.com
to be used against your own family than a criminal.
This "fact" is simply wrong. Guns of any type, including handguns, do not make it 43
times more likely you or your family will be injured. In fact, the opposite is true.
Guns make us all safer. Here's why:
This so-called study was conducted by Arthur L. Kellermann, an anti-self defense
lobbyist with an axe to grind. The "study" was designed to produce a pre-determined
result. The "study" is pure "junk science."
A flawed study: At the end of his report, Kellermann acknowledged his study did "not
include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the
use or display of a firearm." He also admitted his study did not look at situations
in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed."
In other words, Kellermann ignored the vast majority of situations in which legally
armed citizens frightened away intruders simply by displaying a firearm! What
Kellermann did was like conducting a study on the percentage of drunk drivers on the
road by counting the number of drunks locked up in jail at 2 a.m. on a Saturday
morning. Obviously, you would incorrectly think that everyone on the road was drunk.
Further, Kellermann also acknowledged that of the 43 deaths for every intruder
killed, 37 were suicides. This is significant since ample research, and the
situation in Japan, shows that merely removing firearms from a society does not
reduce the suicide rate..
The facts: By carefully examining facts and statistics from the Department of
Justice, the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies, Prof. Gary Kleck from the
School of Criminology, Florida State University, discovered Americans use firearms
to prevent crimes approximately 1 to 1.5 million times per year. These are the very
cases Kellermann chose to ignore. Had Kellermann considered these facts, he would
have had to conclude a firearm in the home makes a family safer.
More importantly, Prof. Kleck also discovered that robbery victims who defended
themselves with a gun suffered lower rates of injury than did those who resisted
without a gun, or even those who did not resist at all and instead complied with the
violent criminal's demands. In short, Prof. Kleck concluded the private ownership of
firearms deters criminal behavior.
an...@nowhere.com
That claim is an outright fraud perpetrated by Handgun Control, Inc. According to
HCI's own documents, the "13 kids a day" figure includes people "ages 19 and
under." This means adults ages 18 and 19 are misleadingly counted as "kids." And,
unfortunately, adults in the 18-19 year age range are unusually prone to violent
behavior which significantly skews the numbers.
In reality, among persons aged 0-17 ( the maximum age most would consider to be
"children"), there were 2,284 firearms deaths (from all causes) in 1997. That works
out to about 6 deaths per day. While that is still a very sobering number, it is
far lower than the "13 kids per day" claimed by Pres. Clinton.
What's more, if "children" are more realistically considered to be 15 and younger,
there were 972 deaths (including suicide, murder and accidents), which is 2.66 per
day. For that same age group, there were 172 accidental deaths, which is less than
.5 per day.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, gun-related death among
children 5 and young is extremely rare. Of the 32,436 firearms-related deaths in
America in 1997 (a majority of which were suicides), there were 9 victims under one
year of age, 75 victims between one and four years of age, and 546 victims between
five and fourteen years of age. These figures correspond to 0.03%, 0.23%, and 1.6%,
respectively. According to the F.B.I. as reported in the Uniform Crime Reports,
juvenile murder is even more rare than claimed by the NCHS.
What these facts show is that as tragic as the death of any child is, the actual
rate of firearms-related death among children is very low, and well below the 13 per
day claimed by Pres. Clinton and Handgun Control, Inc.
an...@nowhere.com
There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and
Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder
rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than
Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very
similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a
murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than
just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between
gun ownership and murder.
Answer by Prof. John R. Lott, Jr.
an...@nowhere.com
Department of Justice data show those areas of the country where firearms are more
readily available have a lower violent crime rate than areas of minimal firearm
ownership.
University of Chicago Professors John Lott and David Mustard examined the
correlation between guns and crime in over 3,000 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 in
their landmark 1996 study, "Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed
Handguns." They discovered liberalized concealed-carry laws reduced murders by 8.5
percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.
New York City and Washington, D.C., have very restrictive laws regarding gun
ownership, yet they have higher violent crime rates than neighboring areas where it
is easier to obtain firearms.
Nationwide, firearm ownership increased between 1993 and 1997. According to the U.S.
News & World Report [May 25, 1998, citing FBI statistics], the homicide rate
decreased 29 percent during that same period. This conclusively shows firearms do
not lead to higher homicide rates.
an...@nowhere.com
The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed
by either relatives or acquaintances
and 2) anyone could be a murderer.
With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime
Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what
is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing
drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other
gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city,
Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between
1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends,
neighbors and/or roommates.
Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult
murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are
overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along
with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed
against blacks and by blacks.
Answer by John R. Lott, Jr.
an...@nowhere.com
self-defense.
The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used
in the killing. Instead, if a
household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was
shot to death while in the home,
the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these
studies were committed by guns brought
in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to
the homeowner's gun. The very fact
that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why
they owned guns in the first place and
whether they had sufficient protection.
How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims
owning a gun? My own research
finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally,
unambiguously deter murders, robbery,
and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that
criminals prefer attacking victims that they
consider weak.
These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy
debate. We must not lose sight of
the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives?
The evidence strongly indicates that
it does.
an...@nowhere.com
The Truth About the Kellermann Study claiming firearms increase your chances of
being murdered by a factor of 43 Arthur L. Kellermann is an anti-self defense
lobbyist with an axe to grind. The "study" was designed to produce a pre-determined
result. The "study" is pure "junk science."
Specifically, Kellermann claimed that "for every case of self-protection homicide
involving a firearm kept in the home, there
were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides and 37 suicides involving
firearms." (That adds up to 43.) Did you spot the
gimmick?
At the end of his report, Kellermann stated his study did "not include cases in
which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of
a firearm." Kellermann considered only homicides. The "study" conveniently ignored
all instances of home defense in which an intruder was not killed. If a would-be
victim scared the intruder away with a firearm, that did not count. If the would-be
victim wounded the criminal, that did not count, either. To count, someone had to be
killed. This is dangerously misleading because if the victims were disarmed and
unable to scare off intruders, most or all of the violent crimes would be completed,
drastically increasing the incidence of rape, robbery and murder.
Further, 37 of the 43 deaths noted in the "study" were suicides. As the data above
show (regarding the suicide rate in Japan, where firearms are virtually
non-existent), a person who is intent on killing him- or herself will do it, with or
without
firearms.
Kellermann also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders
"purposely avoided a home known to be
armed."
In short, Kellermann ignored the vast majority of situations in which legally armed
citizens frightened away intruders simply
by displaying a firearm.
[Source: "Protected or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home" by
Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay]
...........................................
Go to http://www.guntruths.com for all of the above myths and their answers
Sabsy
"Fight Crime, Shoot Back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in message
news:39C87B82...@me262.techpta.ac.za...
> I am just wondering who's lying to who.
Very good question
Sabsy
> Not true. Most of the stolen guns came from government help places.
Military,
> Police etc. I personally feel that more crime is being prevented by
citizens
> owning firearms.
I personally do not agree. People tend to be careless and lose their
firearms. No amount of training will make them any less careless.
One old guy was being robbed in Mowbray about 2 years ago. He produced his
gun to scare the orbber away. Neither the robber was scared nor was the gun
anyhelp. He got shot in the face with his own gun and is nowhere to be seen.
Same goes for all these wonderful gun owners.
They cannot get to their guns when they are needed.
If a crook comes in at 4AM and is now standing there aiming a gun at you,
how do you get your secured gun?
an...@nowhere.com
are missing from stores etc. If I remember correctly the Auditor General's
office said that it would take anywhere from 6 months to a year to fully audit
the SAPS's and SANDF's weapons and find out what is missing. On a personal note
I was based in Lohatla (61 Mech.) and it was rumoured (very possibly true) that
the army had lost a Ratel APC. They stumbled upon it a year later by accident.
Before that they lost a tank down a mineshaft (Lohatla is covered with them).
While the death of a person should not be taken lightly , very possibly the old
man wanted to scare the robber away without the use of force ,but there comes a
time when the threat must be carried out. Personally , I regard 5m from me as
no-go zone , someone gets closer than that , I will not hesitate to shoot
regardless of if I have had time to issue a warning or not. Considering that a
man can cover 5m in a little over 1s the chances are the old man allowed the
robber to get too close and could not react in time.
My weapon , if it is not on me or in my safe , it is on the floor next to my bed
covered with a magazine. This is a common misconception: By law the weapon has
to be under your direct control if it is not in the safe. By direct control , it
can be next to you on a table or in a holster, so long as you can exercise
direct control , you are not breaking the law. All I have to do is drop my hand
and there it is. Obviously if they got the drop on me , I would surrender , I'm
no John Wayne.
nospam
>In article <39c6a14f...@news.saix.net>,
> nos...@nospam.com (nospam) wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:11:02 +0200, "Sabsy" <sa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Fight Crime, Shoot back" <guns...@me262.techpta.ac.za> wrote in
>message
Bob Dubery
nospam
>I don't know about the ultimate effect on the crime statistics but we, the
>licenced owners, are supplying the vast majority of "concealable weapons" to
>the criminals (AKs etc., are a different issue) through robberies on houses
>and even police stations, muggings, hijackings etc. If we didn't have guns,
>criminals would have less of them.
Let us for one moment examine your statement in light of reason and
logic rather that the emotional appeal from whence this idea comes.
Is it reasonable to blame the victim of a crime for the crime? Women
have been fighting this stone age thinking for more years than most
care to remember. Do rape victims invite rape and are they
responsible in any way for the actions of the rapist?
Do motor vehicle owners invite theft and are they responsible in any
way for the actions of criminals using the stolen vehicle to commit
other crimes?
If the answers to the above questions is no, as it should be, why then
should firearms owners suddenly become responsible for the actions of
criminals. This is a serious delusion of the mentally challenged and
morally sick gun control organisation and government. Government
who's responsibility is in the first place to control criminals.
Abdicates its responsibility and seeks to draw attention away from its
failure and failed policies by placing the blame for crime on the
victims of crime. This is known as the policy of distraction. It is
implemented by the use of propaganda techniques. Emotional appeals,
repetition of the same old lies and the use of disparaging labels.
Notice how government and gun control always use labels in referring
to firearms owners. Notice how gun control presents its emotional
appeals mainly devoid of data that can be checked. Notice how gun
controls "facts" appeals are always sprinkled with a dead body or two
and a tale of misery.
The simple truth is that logic and reason are not part of gun control.
However emotional arguments are presented as logic and reason.
The state is the largest contributor to the criminal arms pool. Not
only that they have absolutely no idea of the full extent of their
firearms losses. Now they wish to punish licenced firearms owners for
crimes they did not commit and place the blame for crime on them in
the same way rape victims are blamed for rape. And we have so-called
sensible people believing this rubbish.
>On a personal level, I have felt exremely uneasy since my two 357s were
>stolen, along with a hundred rounds of the best one-stop-kill ammo in the
>world. I'm sure they are only going to use them for target
>practice......NOT. How many deaths and survivor's tears have I inadvertently
>contributed to through my previous "I don't want to have only my dick in my
>hand when there's trouble" philosophy.
The vast majority of stolen firearms are not used to commit other
crimes but are illegally held by people who need them for
self-defence.
They are stolen because there is a ready sale for them. The number of
firearms required to supply criminals who will use them in other
crimes is small and very easily supplied by many other sources.
>No thank you. I may live to regret it but when the insurance paid out, I
>didn't replace them and have never called the police station to find out if
>they've been found. I'm out of that spiral to hell for good.
You are entitled to your opinion. Just so long as you do not attempt
to force your opinion on others who realise the value of firearms in
sport, recreation and self-defence.
>Far better to get the country's justice system sorted out asap.
How can this be possible when an idealistic government which has
deliberately sabotaged the police is willing to spend much needed
funds on gun control. Rather than paying a decent salary to police.
Upgrading their training and supplying them with the resources they
need to capture, prosecute and incarcerate criminals.
More than I Billion rand is the figure that is estimated by the police
to implement the Firearms Control Bill. And this is thought by many
to be an underestimate. The Canadian registration has exceeded budget
by more than a factor four. This 1 Billion rand was admitted in the
portfolio committees deliberations and not the 217 Million quoted by
government and police liars. This figure does not include any
compensation that will have to be paid in terms of the constitution
for property confiscated by government because they think that they
can get away with such unconstitutional removals of property without
compensation. L. Kok estimates that more then 500,000 firearms will
be confiscated. 500,000 x R2000 = 1 Billion rands. Therefor more
than 2 Billion of your TAX rands will be wasted on a measure the
government has failed to give any verifable estimates of any crime
reduction expected. That at the very best if it works and it will not
can only reduce crime by way less than 1%.
Can you or anyone think of better ways to combat crime with 2 Billion
Rand. Our government can't. They sure need help.
How any person could think that this rabidly mad, power hungry
government intent on removing constitutional rights is doing a great
job is a wonder in itself. Voting for the ANC is like a chicken
rooting for Colonel Sanders.
NoSpam
nospam
>In article <39c6a14f...@news.saix.net>,
> nos...@nospam.com (nospam) wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:11:02 +0200, "Sabsy" <sa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> England and Australia crime stats for starters but then you know this.
>
>Yes I do know that Australia statistics show that crime declined after
>gun control laws were put into place.
>Perhaps you might do more than making unsubstantiated claims. Why not
>produce something that is not sucked out of your thumbs?
Produce the stastistics or eat it. Crime in Australia has increased
since the buy back from a declining crime trend. Thumb sucking is
what you are doing by repeating without evidence the lies of gun
control.
See Australian Gov crime stats.
The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27,
2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:
VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND
Murder 321 284 -11.5%
Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%
Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%
Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%
Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%
Kidnapping/abduction 562 662 +17.8%
Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%
Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%
TOTAL 161,398 172,690 +7.0%
Tony Thompson
Sunday September 3, 2000
UK
One in three criminals under the age of 25 owns or has access to a
firearm, the Government's researchers have discovered.
A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing number of black
market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million
illegally held firearms in circulation - double the number believed to
have been held 10 years ago - and that criminals are more willing than
ever to use them.
Now the day I see Sabsy say he was wrong and in this instance is so
wrong I will believe that he may know what he is talking about.
Instead all he can do is repeat the propaganda of gun control.
>> >> There are numerous documentation on this.
>> >
>> >Just show a few that we can all use to support your case.
I have but if you spent more time checking the lies of gun control you
might even know that there is no successful implementation of gun
control to reduce either crime or the supply of firearms to criminals.
When are you going to use this to support the case or are you going to
close your eyes and mind?
>> No you show any successful implementation of gun control that reduced
>> crime.
**Right To Carry laws reduce crime. In their landmark study, Prof.
John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, of the University of Chicago,
found that "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters
violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental
deaths. If those states which did not have Right To Carry concealed
gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders;
4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been
avoided yearly.... (T)he estimated annual gain from allowing concealed
handguns is at least $6.214 billion....(W)hen state concealed handgun
laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and
rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent."3 ("Crime,
Deterrence, and Right To Carry Concealed Handguns," 1996. See also
Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998.)
**Right To Carry states have lower violent crime rates. On average,
they have 26% less total violent crime, 20% less homicide, 2% less
rape, 39% less robbery, and 22% less aggravated assault, compared to
the rest of the U.S. Eight of the 10 states with the lowest violent
crime rates are Right To Carry states. (Data: FBI)
** Restrictive carry laws have never reduced crime. Of the five major
U.S. cities with the highest homicide rates, two (Detroit and
Baltimore) severely restrict carrying; two (D.C. and Chicago) have
banned handguns.
**Violent crime has been decreasing since 1992, but not because of
restrictive carry laws or other "gun control (such as the Brady and
"assault weapons" laws which took effect two years after crime began
decreasing). In fact, since the late 1990s, 22 states have adopted
Right To Carry;1 no state has made its carry law more restrictive. The
N.Y.P.D. reduced crime by cracking down on criminals. Texas built
prisons and many states increased incarceration rates. In Richmond,
Va., U.S. Attorneys launched "Project Exile," to prosecute illegal gun
possession, a plan since adopted in other cities.
**Carry permit holders are much more law-abiding than the rest of the
public. Only a minuscule percentage of permit holders commit firearm
crimes. (See state-by-state statistics on page 2.)
Carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public
David Kopel has noted, "Whenever a state legislature first considers a
concealed- carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible
consequences. Permit-holders will slaughter each other in traffic
disputes, while would-be Rambos shoot bystanders in incompetent
attempts to thwart crime. But within a year of passage, the issue
usually drops off the news media's radar screen, while gun-control
advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn't so bad after
all." ("The Untold Triumph of Concealed-Carry Permits," Policy Review,
July-August 1996, p. 9.) The following state reports speak volumes:
** Florida: Less than 0.02% of licenses issued (122 of 629,719) from
10/1/87 (inception date) through 11/30/99 have been revoked due to
firearm crimes by licensees. (Dept. of State,
http://licgweb.dos.state.fl.us/stats/index.html) In a 3/15/95 official
correspondence to the governor and other state officials, Dept. of Law
Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, "From a law enforcement
perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems in the
community from people arming themselves with concealed weapons."
** Idaho: 0.6% of permits issued (195 of 30,777) through Feb. 1, 2000
have been revoked for any reason. (State Police)
** Kentucky: 53,842 permits issued from 10/1/96 (inception) through
1/25/00. (State Police) Information on revocations unavailable until
March 2000.
** Louisiana: 0.3% of permits issued (39 of 12,348) through 1/24/00
revoked for any reason. (State Police)
** Oklahoma: 0.1% of permits issued (33 of 27,278) through 1/00
revoked for any reason. (State Bureau of Investigation)
** North Carolina: 0.4% of permits issued (152 of 43,210) from 12/1/95
through 1/5/00 revoked for any reason. (State Bureau of Investigation,
http://sbi.jus.state.nc.us/crimstat/conceal/chp012000.pdf)
** South Carolina: 0.4% of permits issued (91 of 23,756) from 8/96
through 1/24/00 revoked for any reason. (State Law Enforcement
Division)
** Texas: 0.4% of carry permits issued (1,005 of 227,457) from 1/1/96
through 2/3/00 revoked for any reason. (Dept. of Public Safety,
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm)
Then-DPS Director Col. James Wilson said "it has impressed me how
remarkably responsible the permit holders have been." (Bruce Tomaso,
"Gun law's record impresses official," Dallas Morning News, 6/11/96.)
** Tennessee: 1% of permits issued (1,176 of 90,939) issued through
12/31/99 (including 6,607 isued prior to new law's inception in 12/96)
revoked for any reason. (Dept. of Public Safety,
http://www.state.tn.us/safety/handguns.html)
** Utah: 0.6% of permits issued (195 of 30,639) from 5/95 through
12/31/99 revoked for any reason. (Dept. of Public Safety)
** Virginia: 0.1% of permits issued (175 of 144,445) from 7/1/95
through 1/19/2000 revoked for any reason. (State Police) Public Safety
Secretary Jerry Kilgore said, "Virginia has not turned into Dodge
City. We have not seen a problem."
** Wyoming: only 0.3% of permits issued (17 of 6,192 from 10/1/94
through 1/28/00 have been revoked for any reason. (Attorney General's
Office, Dept. of Criminal Investigation)
From the inception of Florida's RTC law through 1991, Florida's
homicide rate decreased 20%, while the U.S. rate increased 15%.
Beginning in 1992, homicide began decreasing nationally while
continuing to decrease in Florida. Only 0.02% of Florida carry permits
are revoked because of firearm crimes committed by license holders.
Florida Licensing Division Director, John Russi, said, "When you
compare that to the number of licenses that were issued, that's very
small." The gun crime rate among permit holders is a fraction of the
rate for the state as a whole. (FBI) Additionally, Director Russi
stated that there was "no record of any accidents or incidents from a
lack of training" and that "Florida's concealed weapon law has been
very successful.
>Well, since your friend made a connection between gun control and
>increased crime, it is Normal that your friend or anyone that supports
>their stand to produce the evidence.
In the first year after the surrender of civilian handguns, armed
crime in Britain rose 10 per cent. It went up, not down. And just as
important, its composition is changing. Where as in the early 1990s,
one-third of gun murders in Britain were committed with handguns, now
nearly two-thirds are. (There has been a similar change in Canada,
too. Handguns were used until recently in about one-third of murders,
but are now used in nearly 60 per cent.) A buy-back of firearms in
Australia the same year had the same effect as Britain's hand-in: Gun
crimes soared in the 12 months that followed, including in categories
of crime that had been declining for two decades.
The most drastic gun control possible - outright confiscation - could
not reduce crime or improve public safety, as its advocates had
promised, because, as gun owners had predicted, criminals refused to
participate in it. Indeed, the controls might even have emboldened
criminals to commit more crimes. Why not? If they could count on their
victims being unarmed, the risk inherent in their "work" went down
while the potential rewards went up. Has any of this deterred
Britain's anti-gun politicians or special interest groups? Of course
not. There was never any logic in their arguments, just a black mix of
snobbery, ignorance, emotion, fear and irrationality.
>Since I am merely arguing against your assertion, I am not required to
>produce proof until you do.
You do not have any proof. Therefor it can not be produced.
>If you wish us to take your word as fact, then I think you have not
>been listening carefully when people talk about debating.
>You have the burden of proof.
>Anyway, I have already posted statistics for Canada and Australia that
>showed CLEARLY that crime was reduced after gun control.
Ho! Ho! Ho! I have refuted those claims.
>Whether this is incidental or happened as a result of other
>interventions is not the issue. Your problem is compounded by your
>arguments that gun control has caused an increase in crime.
>All you have to do is show this link anywhere in the world in the form
>of published statistics, preferably the ones that caused you to argue
>against gun control.
Consider the following gun control failures in the US.
Unless otherwise noted, crime data are from the FBI Uniform Crime
Reports.
Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the
1990s the city's homicide rate had tripled. During the years following
the ban, most murders, and all firearm murders, in the city were
committed with handguns.1
Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and homicides with
handguns continued to rise. Chicago imposed a D.C.-style handgun ban
in 1982 and over the next decade the annual number of handgun-related
homicides doubled.2
California increased its waiting period on retail and private sales of
handguns from five to 15 days in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1996),
outlawed "assault weapons" in 1989, and subjected rifles and shotguns
to the waiting period in 1990. Yet since 1975, the state's annual
homicide rate has averaged 34% higher than the rate for the rest of
the country.
Maryland has imposed a waiting period and a gun purchase limit, banned
several small handguns, restricted "assault weapons," and regulated
private transfers of firearms even between family members and friends,
yet its homicide rate is 46% higher than the rate for the rest of the
country.
The overall homicide rate in the jurisdictions that have the most
severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership California,
Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. is 23%
higher than the rate for the rest of the country.
New York has had a handgun licensing law since 1911, yet until the New
York City Police Department began a massive crackdown on crime in the
mid-1990s, New York City's violent crime rate was among the highest of
U.S. cities.
The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions
relating to firearms, nationwide. Yet, compared to the five years
before the law, the national homicide rate averaged 50% higher during
the five years after the law, 75% higher during the next five years,
and 81% higher during the five years after that.
The record is clear: gun control primarily impacts upon upstanding
citizens, not criminals. Crime is reduced by holding criminals
accountable for their actions.
1. Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia.
2. Chicago Homicide Dataset.
>> Prove your statement giving the number of successful defences and
>> those that were not with firearms.
>
>This is really scrapping the barrel of bullshit.
>I have nothing to prove. I did not make the assertion that gun control
>causes an increase in crime. Your gun nut friend did. So, it is up to
>both of you to prove your assertions and my responsibility is to refute
>them. If you ever produce any reliable evidence, then I will bring out
>my own evidence that shows that your evidence is nothing more than
>bullshit.
You would have to refute the study of John Lott and Mustard. Thus far
nobody has done that. You would have to refute the growing mountain
of evidence that confirms gun control increases crime. You would have
to do that in an open manner and supply your data set for others to
examine.
Lott examined, with an economist's eye, a Mount Everest of data,
ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of
the nation's 3,045 counties over an 18-year period. He included in his
analysis many variables that might explain the level of crime factors
such as income, poverty, unemployment, population density, arrest
rates, conviction rates and length of prison sentences.
With 54,000 observations and hundreds of variables available over the
1977 to 1994 period, Lott's research amounts to the largest data set
that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for
the study of gun control. And, unlike many gun control advocates who
masquerade as researchers, Lott willingly made his complete data set
available to any academic who requested it.
Lott's research shows that states with the largest increases in gun
ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is
high-crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority
populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime
when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.
Lott found "a strong negative relationship between the number of
law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rateÐas more people
obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates."
Further, he found that the value of carry laws increases over time.
"For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect
the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by over 2%,"
Lott writes.
"Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry
concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for
women," Lott notes. "An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun
reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more
than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder
rate for men."
While right-to-carry laws lead to fewer people being murdered (Lott
finds an equal deterrent effect for murders committed with and without
guns), the increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise
the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."
The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry
them. Others "get a 'free ride' from the crime fighting efforts of
their fellow citizens," Lott finds. And the benefits are "not limited
to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns."
The most obvious example of what Lott calls this "halo" effect, is
"the drop in murders of children following the adoption of
nondiscretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct
protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the
area."
How compelling is John Lott's message? How threatening is his research
to those who would disarm the American people? He devotes an entire
chapter of More Guns, Less Crime rebutting attacks leveled at his
research and at him personally. He recalls how Susan Glick, of the
anti-gun Violence Policy Center, publicly denounced his research as
"flawed" without reading the first word of it.
This type of unfounded and unethical attack unfortunately is not
uncommon. Criminologist Gary Kleck explains why: "Battered by a decade
of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun
control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively
on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one's targets into
submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible
evidence."1
Law professor and firearms issue researcher David Kopel notes,
"Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed-carry bill,
opponents typically warn of horrible consequences. Permit-holders will
slaughter each other in traffic disputes, while would-be Rambos shoot
bystanders in incompetent attempts to thwart crime. But within a year
of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media's radar screen,
while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law
wasn't so bad after all."2
Thus far all gun control has shown is an ability to lie at every
opportunity in their ideological quest to remove guns at any cost.
That cost I am afraid is in human lives that have been sacrificed on
the alter of gun control.
>---------
>"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you
>can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it
>can't be taken on its own merits."
>- Dan Barker
An adaptation of an article by Michael Z. Williamson of the USA, by B
Black
It's Amazing What One Has To Believe...To Believe In Gun Control
That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.
That a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and his 300 lb buddy,
has the "right" to kill them in self defence, provided she uses her
bare hands.
That we should create gun free zones so that criminals cannot attack
us in these areas.
That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
attributable to the lack of gun control.
That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but
if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat
to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with
nuclear weapons.
That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against
guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.
That a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need
larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals
alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
That we should re-licence guns every few years and make it more
expensive to possess legal firearms because it's not fair that poor
people have access to guns too.
That when the state confiscates your legal possessions without
compensation and uses it for themselves, that is not theft.
That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering
butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice
about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on
heart surgery.
That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a
computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Adele Kirsten for firearms
expertise.
That it is reasonable to have a 2 year sentence for not advising the
Registrar of Firearms of your change of address, and reasonable to
give a suspended sentence for assaulting and raping a woman.
That it is reasonable to jail people for buying too much ammunition
for their licensed guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing
dagga.
That searches for drugs without a warrant is a gross violation of
civil rights and a sign of fascism, but searches for guns without a
warrant is a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of
such a lunatic is paranoid.
That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the
Constitution has internal safeguards, and we should ban and seize all
guns, therefore violating our rights to ‘life and bodily integrity’
contained in our Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive
government which does not respect the Constitution.
That guns are an ineffective means of self defence for rational
adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to
the fabric of society.
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to
use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at
gun shops and shooting ranges.
That guns aren't necessary for self-defence, which is why all police
and soldiers carry them.
That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns and can
confiscate them, thereby violating the Constitution.
That one should ignore politicians who confirm that lying is
acceptable for a politician, but listen sagely to politicians who says
South Africa will be a safer place without legal gun owners
That one should listen sagely to politicians who says South Africa
will be a safer place without legal gun owners, but insist on having
armed bodyguards for themselves, their family and their home
NoSpam
Ron McGregor
nospam <nos...@nospam.com> wrote
(snip)
> The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27,
> 2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:
>
> VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND
> Murder 321 284 -11.5%
> Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%
> Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%
> Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%
> Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%
> Kidnapping/abduction 562 662 +17.8%
> Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%
> Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%
> TOTAL 161,398 172,690 +7.0%
In a nation with some fifteen million people (or more), to have only plus or
minus 300 murders in a year sounds unbelievable. No wonder people say that
Australia is so law abiding it's boring.
Anyway, the only way to interpret such a statistic is to say that murder
(and also attempted murder) in Australia is negligible. As a percentage of
the population it is zero to the nearest four decimal places. In other
words, with guns or without, Australians don't kill each other, so the
country cannot be used as an example when it comes to whether or not gun
control has any bearing on this particular crime.
However, on the subject of gun control, it is self evident that depriving
law-abiding gun-owners of their weapons has nothing whatsoever to do with
the criminals. If they cannot get guns one way, they will surely get them
another.
Next year: A super anti AIDS plan from Thabo Mbeki. Unable to persuade ANC
supporters to desist from promiscuity, he will legislate that DP supporters
give up sex instead.
That won't stop Philemon from getting AIDS, any more than banning licenced
gun ownership will make him an honest man.
nospam
<ron...@iafrica.com> wrote:
>nospam <nos...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>(snip)
>
>> The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27,
>> 2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:
>>
>> VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND
>> Murder 321 284 -11.5%
>> Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%
>> Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%
>> Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%
>> Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%
>> Kidnapping/abduction 562 662 +17.8%
>> Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%
>> Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%
>> TOTAL 161,398 172,690 +7.0%
>
>In a nation with some fifteen million people (or more), to have only plus or
>minus 300 murders in a year sounds unbelievable. No wonder people say that
>Australia is so law abiding it's boring.
There are many other countries with similar or even lower crime rates.
>Anyway, the only way to interpret such a statistic is to say that murder
>(and also attempted murder) in Australia is negligible. As a percentage of
>the population it is zero to the nearest four decimal places. In other
>words, with guns or without, Australians don't kill each other, so the
>country cannot be used as an example when it comes to whether or not gun
>control has any bearing on this particular crime.
While crime is low it is not insignificant to the victims of crime.
No matter how one looks at it any contributory factors to an increase
in crime should be avoided like the plague. Or at least one would
expect that it would be so.
The results of gun control are easily determined from the before and
after comparison of crime which the promoters of gun control claimed
would decrease. I believe only the foolish and weak of mind would
claim that in Australia crime has decreased. I also believe that if
it had decreased gun control would have claimed it as a success.
Therefor I have no problem in claiming it a failure of gun control.
>However, on the subject of gun control, it is self evident that depriving
>law-abiding gun-owners of their weapons has nothing whatsoever to do with
>the criminals. If they cannot get guns one way, they will surely get them
>another.
Then almost 100% of ANC ministers on the portfolio committee for
Safety and Security and the department of Safety and Security must not
be able to see what is self evident. Or they do know what is self
evident but have some other plan of which the Firearms Control Bill
plays a critical part.
>Next year: A super anti AIDS plan from Thabo Mbeki. Unable to persuade ANC
>supporters to desist from promiscuity, he will legislate that DP supporters
>give up sex instead.
The ANC simply does not want to throw money at a problem they have no
hope of controlling. Whereas they are willing to throw more than 1
Billion Rand at licenced firearms owners to gain police power and
chisel away at constitutional rights. If nothing else tells you of
the direction of the ANC ideology, then take this as a good indicator
of how much they care about the man in the street.
>That won't stop Philemon from getting AIDS, any more than banning licenced
>gun ownership will make him an honest man.
<Sigh> Nor will it stop them from implementing it. Being right when
the government is wrong is not a situation conducive to health. I
wonder how long it will be before the jack boots of the ANC emulate
the government they claim to despise.
Right now racial hate speech seems to be the order of the day. Racial
legislation already on the books with no measure and no end to it.
Legislation poised to be implemented to disarm the law abiding and a
KGB implemented.
Voting for the ANC is like a chicken rooting for Colonel Saunders.
NoSpam