This is an unbiased review of an international study comparing Murder/suicide rates V.S. gun control and its effectiveness in the real world from nation to nation. The results of this study, as expressed in this review, are very interesting--that is why I have chosen to post it here in 2 or 3 parts. Some people, even here at the Firing Line, have expressed views that reflect some of the arguments of the Brady campaign regarding "AW" in our society, I submit this thread to inform those of the bias and uninformed arguments posed by those who support gun control legislation:
(PLEASE SUBMIT ALL COMMENTS IN PT. 3 SO IT MAY BE VIEWED BY EVERYONE)
The New Assault Weapons Ban 2009: A View From Both Sides.
From International Studies-To The Second Amendment--To The Brady Campaign
We live in a day and age that history will remember as being both unique and defining. The United States Constitution has guided us through other hard times in history and so it shall again, however, when an era warrants the rethinking of the basic and self evident truths in which all of us hold so dear, it is necessary to step back for a moment and both seriously and objectively consider the views of both sides of the argument before we step into uncharted waters--however good our intentions may be.
If you are reading this entry then you more than likely already know what an AWB is, you have a strongly held opinion regarding guns and gun control that is firmly set in the foundations of your own convictions, and you have already heard a great deal of both sides of the arguments in question. Thus this site will not restate all of the same basic points and arguments for that would be mostly a waste of time. If you have not heard of it I suggest you Google AWB and observe both sides of the argument so you may come to a a truly informed decision. The truth is that whether you are a gun owner or not, ANY law that may represent a deviation or change from the great letter of the Constitution which founded this noble country does effect every single American citizen. This newly proposed Assault Weapons Ban does constituted a significant deviation from the Second Amendment which has guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to bear arms and was one of the very foundations of our freedoms at the birth of our country. If ANY OF US are going to support such a proposed new law, or any other law like it for that matter that could possibly stand in the face of even a single sentence of the The United States Constitution, it is utterly imperative that we fully understand both why and what it is that such a law is expected to accomplish . . . I don't think anyone from either side of this argument could argue with that.
THE ARGUMENTS
The advocates of the Ban state that a ban on "Assault-type" weapons would most defiantly lower crime rates, the NRA, as well as all informed opposer's of the ban, say that it will not. If you really look, and use the awesome information tool that is the Google search engine to fully explore BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT you will find websites that BOTH state facts and statistics demonstrating how the previous ban signed by Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994 BOTH did and DID NOT significantly affect violent crime rate. Both OBVIOUSLY cannot be true . . . It is an unfortunate reality that those who support any given side of any argument can often times interpret the same exact information in a manner that best serves their own side.
What's the truth? Does anyone have it? Is there any independent and unbiased review or study on this subject?
Well, how about this link for starters: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
It is an entirely unbiased international review of whether or not banning firearms reduce the murder and suicide rates. I suggest you take the time to read it all the way through from top to bottom. All its sources are sited and it is about as reputable and unbiased as is humanly possible. (being that access to this pdf file may come up as forbidden to some I will post its general content and sited sources in another entry)
FOR STARTERS THE UNITED STATES HAS NEITHER THE HIGHEST GUN AVAILABILITY NOR THE HIGHEST VIOLENT CRIME RATES IN THE WORLD
Quotes from the study above:
"There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so."
"Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world's highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates. 2 Since well before that date, the Soviet Union by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. 4 So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them. 5 Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. 6 In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet Union's murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of "gun‐ridden" America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States."
This is by no means just a quality of communist Russia:
"In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities. Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban's ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate . . . far surpassing even the United States."
Now please keep in mind that the author of this site has not yet stated his opinion on whether or not he supports or opposes gun control legislation. I am in fact, as of yet, only stating the facts of one of the most conclusive and unbiased international studies to date. These are not facts that either side is readily including in their arguments FOR or AGAINST gun control legislation. . . so I submit only this: how are we supposed to make an informed decision if we are not readily supplied with such fair and unbiased data?
END OF PT 1.
(PLEASE SUBMIT ALL COMMENTS IN PT. 3 SO IT MAY BE VIEWED BY EVERYONE)
The New Assault Weapons Ban 2009: A View From Both Sides.
From International Studies-To The Second Amendment--To The Brady Campaign
We live in a day and age that history will remember as being both unique and defining. The United States Constitution has guided us through other hard times in history and so it shall again, however, when an era warrants the rethinking of the basic and self evident truths in which all of us hold so dear, it is necessary to step back for a moment and both seriously and objectively consider the views of both sides of the argument before we step into uncharted waters--however good our intentions may be.
If you are reading this entry then you more than likely already know what an AWB is, you have a strongly held opinion regarding guns and gun control that is firmly set in the foundations of your own convictions, and you have already heard a great deal of both sides of the arguments in question. Thus this site will not restate all of the same basic points and arguments for that would be mostly a waste of time. If you have not heard of it I suggest you Google AWB and observe both sides of the argument so you may come to a a truly informed decision. The truth is that whether you are a gun owner or not, ANY law that may represent a deviation or change from the great letter of the Constitution which founded this noble country does effect every single American citizen. This newly proposed Assault Weapons Ban does constituted a significant deviation from the Second Amendment which has guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to bear arms and was one of the very foundations of our freedoms at the birth of our country. If ANY OF US are going to support such a proposed new law, or any other law like it for that matter that could possibly stand in the face of even a single sentence of the The United States Constitution, it is utterly imperative that we fully understand both why and what it is that such a law is expected to accomplish . . . I don't think anyone from either side of this argument could argue with that.
THE ARGUMENTS
The advocates of the Ban state that a ban on "Assault-type" weapons would most defiantly lower crime rates, the NRA, as well as all informed opposer's of the ban, say that it will not. If you really look, and use the awesome information tool that is the Google search engine to fully explore BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT you will find websites that BOTH state facts and statistics demonstrating how the previous ban signed by Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994 BOTH did and DID NOT significantly affect violent crime rate. Both OBVIOUSLY cannot be true . . . It is an unfortunate reality that those who support any given side of any argument can often times interpret the same exact information in a manner that best serves their own side.
What's the truth? Does anyone have it? Is there any independent and unbiased review or study on this subject?
Well, how about this link for starters: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
It is an entirely unbiased international review of whether or not banning firearms reduce the murder and suicide rates. I suggest you take the time to read it all the way through from top to bottom. All its sources are sited and it is about as reputable and unbiased as is humanly possible. (being that access to this pdf file may come up as forbidden to some I will post its general content and sited sources in another entry)
FOR STARTERS THE UNITED STATES HAS NEITHER THE HIGHEST GUN AVAILABILITY NOR THE HIGHEST VIOLENT CRIME RATES IN THE WORLD
Quotes from the study above:
"There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so."
"Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world's highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates. 2 Since well before that date, the Soviet Union by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. 4 So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them. 5 Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. 6 In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet Union's murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of "gun‐ridden" America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States."
This is by no means just a quality of communist Russia:
"In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities. Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban's ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate . . . far surpassing even the United States."
Now please keep in mind that the author of this site has not yet stated his opinion on whether or not he supports or opposes gun control legislation. I am in fact, as of yet, only stating the facts of one of the most conclusive and unbiased international studies to date. These are not facts that either side is readily including in their arguments FOR or AGAINST gun control legislation. . . so I submit only this: how are we supposed to make an informed decision if we are not readily supplied with such fair and unbiased data?
END OF PT 1.
