House Votes To Repeal D.C. Gun Control Laws.

Cool Looks like other places are finally learning from Kennesaw's gun law

 

We have an experiment under way. Let's see how the murder rate responds.

One year from the date it is implemented, we should have some good data.

 

This is good news. It's about time that people wake up and realize that having laws against guns is #1 unconstitutional, and #2 increases crime as ONLY CRIMINALS will have guns. You see, criminals don't follow the law anyway - a gun control law only keeps those who are law abiding from having guns. Those who wish to break the law are going to find ways of getting guns (just like those who wish to use drugs will find ways of getting drugs, for example).

Let me give you an example - my father lived in Anchorage Alaska in the 70's. He was in the Service and stationed there. It was (and still is in many areas) common knowledge that all people should carry firearms (with a high minimum caliber) on their persons at all times if they were going to be out and about. The reason being that there were many wild animals that could potentially hurt a person. My dad always told us about how little violent crime occured there compared to other cities (such as Minneapolis, for example) because everyone knew that everyone else was carrying a gun. You didn't have convenience store hold ups, or gang shootings or the like. Why? Because anyone who intended to do harm knew full well that as soon as they pull a weapon, they would be matched by everyone in the room.

In our cities today, an assailent can pull a gun on a store full of people and do it with impunity because they KNOW that all law abiding people have been banned from carrying a gun.

We recently passed concealed and carry laws here in Minnesota, making it the law that anyone who applies for a concealed carrying license (and meets criteria such as not being a felon and passing a safety/legal course) is issued a concealed carry license. In the two years since passing that law, not a single violent crime has been committed by a person with a concealed carry license. Why is that? It's because law abiding citizens (those that go through the process of getting a licnese to carry) don't commit crimes. It's people who are breaking the law anyway that don't bother to get a carry license that commit crime.

 

There were 10,567 handgun homicides in the U.S. in 1990. There were 91 in Switzerland, 87 in Japan, 68 in Canada, 22 in Great Britain, 13 in Sweden, and 10 in Australia.

In Washington in 1992, handguns were used in 118 homicides, more than the combined total of Canada and Great Britain, which have a combined population 13 times that of that state.

Nationwide, more than 60,000 people died from gunshots in 1991-92 - more than who died in during the Vietnam War era. Handguns are used in three-fourths of U.S. firearm homicides.

In Washington, firearms were used in 1,300 suicides from 1989-91. Nationwide, handguns were used in 12,600 suicides and caused about 1,000 accidental deaths in 1991.

In urban homes, three out of four homicide victims were killed by relatives or people they knew. Half died in arguments or love triangles.

Nationwide, 70 percent of police officers killed while on the job in 1991 were shot with handguns.

The South, where states have relatively lax gun-control laws, has an annual homicide rate of 13 people per 100,000. The Northeast, where states have stricter handgun laws, has an annual homicide rate of 8 people per 100,000.

Doctors at Harborview Medical Center's emergency room see four gunshot victims a day. They saw one a day 20 years ago.

In 1985, stray bullets killed four New Yorkers. In 1990, they killed 40.

http://www.washingtonfreepress.org//07/Guns9.html
--------------

So, are we as Americans just more homocidal than other nations?

 

You should get some updated statistics, yours are almost 15 years old. Countries like Australia have since banned guns and have seen their violent crime rates have almost trippled since the ban.

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"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.

"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

Violent crimes in America have actually gone down since 1990, and have dropped drastically in states that have passed "concealed carry laws". Vermont, which ranks near the bottom in violent crime rates year-in and year-out, allows firearms to be carried concealed without a permit.

"Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense".
--FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992

 

Quote from Kennesaw link I posted above:

"The City's most famous ordinance adopted in March 1982 reads as follows. Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

Kennesaw Police Department Statistics

"Guns kill"?

 

The Galatian said:

I would say that the experiment has been under way for many years in the District of Columbia. It has been a failure and we are finally stopping it. DC has stricter gun laws than any city in the United States, and one of the highest crime rates.

 

From less than a month ago:

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=50073

MA has the lowest gun death rate in the country and has some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the country, including a permanent state ban on assault weapons.

One must also wonder how those gun laws were enforced before one can conclude that the laws were or were not worthless.

 

From 2000-2001, crime rose throughout the Commonwealth

* Statewide: Murder +18%, robbery +7%, rape +3%

* Boston: Murder +67%, rape and attempted rape +17% (www.cityofboston.com)

* Brockton: Murder +150%, rape 49%

* Lowell: Aggravated assault + 24%

* Holyoke: Rape +64%, robbery +33%, and aggravated assault +25%

* Lawrence: Rape +140%

* Methuen: Aggravated assault +40%

(Massachusetts State Police Uniform Crime Reports http://www.ucrstats.com and http://db.state.ma.us/msp/select.asp)

 

Old data - the ones I provided were from last month.

 

I went and looked at ScottEmerson and Jgrubbs statistics. Kind of vague and confusing if you ask me. Numbers can be manipulated to say anything. Gun deaths or total crime, I am just not sure we are comparing similar numbers. Are we talking city limits or metropolitan areas. Why are violent crimes committed without guns better?

This is the thing, I am not ready to admit that gun control equals low crime. I don't believe it does. But even if it did that does not make it right. It still taking away a guaranteed constitutional right. If I recall it was Patrick Henry who asked

I am not willing to give up my freedom for the sake of safety. If taking my guns away (or just my assault rifles or pistols) makes me safer so what. I want to keep them and the constitution of the United States says I can. I know crime rates may be lower in other countries. They don't have our constitution and our freedom. If you want to give up your freedom you are welcome to leave.

Those of you from other countries than the United States may have different opinions but you come from a different background than we Americans. That probably has something to do with why we are so loved around the world.

 

Barbarian on loosening gun laws in D.C.:
We have an experiment under way. Let's see how the murder rate responds.

One year from the date it is implemented, we should have some good data.

Well, now we will know. Let's see how it goes in a year.

I, BTW, prefer fewer gun laws, on Constitutional grounds. But the question of whether or not such laws work is another issue.

 

I am not opposed to most current laws on handguns. They, as have been pointed out, are used 75% of the time in firearm fatalities.

Rifles and larger such guns on the other hand are used for a variety of different purposes and are harder for a criminal to conceal. Plus, being that they are larger, they are not as easily handled and you are probably less likely to be killed by a robber wielding a long barrel rifle, which he has only nominal control over, than a small and easily handled handgun.

In my opinion, what we need are a few more federal restrictions on handguns, and maintain current laws regarding long barrel weapons.

What's wrong with instant background checks at gun shows??? I have always wondered why anyone would oppose such precautions when only those who are not legally allowed to purchase guns in the first place would be affected. That is a great law which has my full support. Not so on the trigger locks though. What's the point in keeping a gun in the house for safety if you can't get to it and use it when the time arises.

I tell you, there's a rather long story about my grandparents, which I will shorten, in which many years ago a drunk man, a college football player, kicked down the door to their home, thinking it was someone else's home, and yelling that he was going to kill them. Papaw, who was a Military Policeman and a Sharpshooter in WWII, had his .22 rifle and shot the man three times in the chest. The man did not have a gun, but he was 6'5" tall and weighed over 300 lbs. Without that gun, my 5'6", 120 lb. Grandfather and Grandmother would likely have been killed by that monster. And some will say that guns can only do harm? I am so glad they didn't live in Australia.

As for the statistics listed above, self-defense gun killings are also ruled homicides by the Medical Examiner. How many of those killings were the result of self-defense I wonder???

 

Amendment II

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

------------------------

The Supreme Court has already stated that there are certain cases in which the keeping and bearing of arms can be infringed (such as to felons). (Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980); Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976); Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977); United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971).)

In 1943, the court said, "Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

Former Supreme Court Justice Powell once said, "[w]ith respect to handguns," in contrast "to sporting rifles and shotguns, it is not easy to understand why the Second Amendment, or the notation of liberty, should be viewed as creating a right to own and carry a weapon that contributes so directly to the shocking number of murders in our society."

As soon as someone shows me what kind of militia we need, and what someone has to be to be part of that militia, I may understand it more. As it is, I understand the Second Amendment to refer more to a militia more than the right to bear automatic assault rifles and other types of weapons. I mean, honestly, what is the social advantage to a person being able to carry around and use assault rifles and handguns? It would seem that there is an extraordinary social cost to them, instead of a gain for society.

Look at the statistics anyway you'd like, and you'll see that America is by far and away the leader in gun deaths, homicides, and so on and so forth. Is it worth giving up guns for me to feel safer? Absolutely.

For those who disagree that gun control causes fewer gun crimes, the question remains:

So are we as Americans just more homocidal than other countries such as Canada, Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc.?

 

Huh? That statement is not supported by the constitution.

 

So are we as Americans just more homocidal than other countries such as Canada, Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc.?

Well to be flippant...yes we are. We are not them and we defend ourselves here. Gun control is not much of an issue in TX and well if it were it wouldn't be TX anymore.

Parents and gun education play a *very very* important role in how a gun is treated and handled. Control all the guns and *some* parents need not teach their children about gun safety, the govt will.

There are so many people out there that are just so turned off by guns that they won't even learn about them, and learn how to use them properly or be able to pass that information on to their children. My dad was asking me a gun qt once and w/out thinking I blurted out the most natural answer "always check the chamber" and he said hey that's great, but that wasn't the question I was answering. This shows you how drilled I have been in gun safety. I have been working with them in one form or another since 13-14 and have always been taught safety. Period.

I believe that the people that get the concealed permits know that if a time ever comes where they would potentially have to use the gun they will not hesitate. A concealed permit is not just something a person gets on a whim. A gun is a machine/tool. It is up to the user to treat it responsibly.

Okie I'm off my soapbox now. I may be wishy-washy and a flip-flopper about lots of stuff, but this is one issue I have a firm belief on.

azwyld
<*}}}><

 

Scott

As far as what the militia is I think you will find two distinct opinions. Those who seek to control fire arms would say the militia is the national guard or any police force under local (not national) control. Those who seek freedom would say that it is all people. In the days that the constitution was written it probably meant all white adult males.

What you need to remember when looking at the second amendment is that the framers had just won a war of independence with England. They held as sacred the right of the people to rise up in arms and overthrow any government that they deemed to oppressive. Considering that, it would seem that the second amendment should be applied specifically to military, not sporting arms. There is nothing in the constitution that says I have a right to hunt anything. A literal interpretation of the second amendment would mean that we have a right to machine guns, tanks, rocket grenades or F-16's if we can afford them.

Of course this right had its trial by fire a few years later during the American Civil war and those who believed that people do not have a right to separate from the oppressive government won. It's all been downhill since then.

As far as your question

Yea, I think we are. If you want safety over freedom go live in one of those countries. I would rather stay here and clean my guns.

 

Huh? That statement is not supported by the constitution. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me quote Scott:

The 2nd ammendment clearly states that we have the right to bear arms - keep in mind that a malitia is NOT the Army, nor any Federal Armed Forces - it is normal citizens organizing militarily.