According to this same study (true as of 2003) the table below represents the rates per 100,000 people and is arranged in descending order. (Look to the link itself for the complete table.) For whatever the reason might be, firearm ownership rates internationally exhibit a visible and significant NEGATIVE correlation to murder rates (that means statistically the higher the firearm ownership rates the lower the over all murder rates nation wide).
Nation Murder Rate Rate Vs Gun Ownership
Murder Rates And Year V.S. Gun Ownership Rates
Russia 20.54 [2002] 4,000
Luxembourg 9.01 [2002] c. 0
Hungary 2.22 [2003] 2,000
Finland 1.98 [2004] 39,000
Sweden 1.87 [2001] 24,000
Poland 1.79 [2003] 1,500
France 1.65 [2003] 30,000
Denmark 1.21 [2003] 19,000
Greece 1.12 [2003] 11,000
Switzerland 0.99 [2003] 16,000
Germany 0.93 [2003] 30,000
Norway 0.81 [2001] 36,000
Austria 0.80 [2002] 17,000
It is obvious that this independent study blatantly displays the fact that the cause and effects of gun controls of any kind, are in factuality, just not that plain and simple of an issue as some people may lead us to believe.
I myself, more than anything else greatly resent being denied such unbiased information when being called upon to make an INFORMED decision that will decide the fate of this nation. Why aren't we seeing facts like this stated in people arguments?
Facts about the prior "Assault Weapons" Ban.
Absolutely not . . . the sky did not fall when the first, less restrictive, AWB was signed by Bill Clinton. However, Bill Clinton has gone on the record in saying it may have been one of the single most deciding factors in the Democrat's loosing the majority vote. And accordingly, none of the democratic candidates have even touched upon the concept as of yet due to the present political environment. A lot of decent, voting Americans support their rights to bear arms in this country, and so gun control legislation will in fact always be an important and very touchy political subject. We will be told by gun control activists that the previous ban did in fact result in lowering of crime rates nation wide, though in reality during that time it was a marginally and fairly minuscule amount and there is no real conclusive evidence that the ban itself was at all responsible for this marginal decline. This may be where the previously described "duality" in terms of interpreting the statistical data could be coming from.
90% . . . .that's 90% of all people who committed violent crimes with firearms are people who have committed multiple felonies in their adult lives. That is a huge amount considering that by the letter of our present law a felon is unable to own or have access to a firearm of any kind. There lies a HUGE problem that desperately needs to be solved that is nowhere near even being addressed. Statistics have in fact also conclusively showed that people who commit violent crimes are not ordinary average people who became enraged one day and happened to have access to a firearm. They are in fact repeat felons who have a history of violent crimes that by law should not have had access to guns in the first place. Also, there are a huge prevalence of underage youth in this country who own firearms, who by law should not be. ( And I'm not speaking to firearms that are not appropriately locked up by there parents. I am speaking of the actual handguns in which they themselves illegally own.) And much like alcohol and cigarettes, for whatever the reason may be, we collectively as a nation have displayed a tremendous incompetence in keeping handguns out of the hands of our underage youth in accordance with our presently existing laws. Combine these two concepts and it is easy to see why the first AWB ban, as well as much of gun restrictions in general, has had such a minuscule overall effect. Our laws as they already are, are presently not being appropriately and effectively enforced and so it easy for people to be swayed to the opinion that we needed more.
MAKING A STRONG CASE FOR THE BAN--FOLLOWED BY A QUICK REBUTTAL:
The strongest and most convincing argument I have ever heard supporting the AWB ban, or any gun control legislation for that matter, has been from those in law enforcement. It has been said that in SOME cities (I say some because it is a growing problem in some not ALL) law enforcement has been encountering more drug dealers that are beginning to use firearms that would have other wise been banned. They say that "they feel as though they could eventually become 'out gunned'". This is an impossible stance to ignore and it must be given its fair due by both sides of the argument in question. Once again however. . . there is a very important question to be asking here (and a very important point to make): How did these people get those firearms in the first place? Is the drug dealer in that meth house that might be sporting an Ak-47 an otherwise reputable member of society? Seriously . . . would any of those drug dealers be able to walk into a gun store, shown there ID, go through a background check and purchase a firearm of any kind considering their background and history? Where and how did they actually get these firearms in the first place? And would a ban of any kind stop them from possessing these firearms, being that as felons they should not have access to ANY firearm type in the first place?
END OF PT 2.
Nation Murder Rate Rate Vs Gun Ownership
Murder Rates And Year V.S. Gun Ownership Rates
Russia 20.54 [2002] 4,000
Luxembourg 9.01 [2002] c. 0
Hungary 2.22 [2003] 2,000
Finland 1.98 [2004] 39,000
Sweden 1.87 [2001] 24,000
Poland 1.79 [2003] 1,500
France 1.65 [2003] 30,000
Denmark 1.21 [2003] 19,000
Greece 1.12 [2003] 11,000
Switzerland 0.99 [2003] 16,000
Germany 0.93 [2003] 30,000
Norway 0.81 [2001] 36,000
Austria 0.80 [2002] 17,000
It is obvious that this independent study blatantly displays the fact that the cause and effects of gun controls of any kind, are in factuality, just not that plain and simple of an issue as some people may lead us to believe.
I myself, more than anything else greatly resent being denied such unbiased information when being called upon to make an INFORMED decision that will decide the fate of this nation. Why aren't we seeing facts like this stated in people arguments?
Facts about the prior "Assault Weapons" Ban.
Absolutely not . . . the sky did not fall when the first, less restrictive, AWB was signed by Bill Clinton. However, Bill Clinton has gone on the record in saying it may have been one of the single most deciding factors in the Democrat's loosing the majority vote. And accordingly, none of the democratic candidates have even touched upon the concept as of yet due to the present political environment. A lot of decent, voting Americans support their rights to bear arms in this country, and so gun control legislation will in fact always be an important and very touchy political subject. We will be told by gun control activists that the previous ban did in fact result in lowering of crime rates nation wide, though in reality during that time it was a marginally and fairly minuscule amount and there is no real conclusive evidence that the ban itself was at all responsible for this marginal decline. This may be where the previously described "duality" in terms of interpreting the statistical data could be coming from.
90% . . . .that's 90% of all people who committed violent crimes with firearms are people who have committed multiple felonies in their adult lives. That is a huge amount considering that by the letter of our present law a felon is unable to own or have access to a firearm of any kind. There lies a HUGE problem that desperately needs to be solved that is nowhere near even being addressed. Statistics have in fact also conclusively showed that people who commit violent crimes are not ordinary average people who became enraged one day and happened to have access to a firearm. They are in fact repeat felons who have a history of violent crimes that by law should not have had access to guns in the first place. Also, there are a huge prevalence of underage youth in this country who own firearms, who by law should not be. ( And I'm not speaking to firearms that are not appropriately locked up by there parents. I am speaking of the actual handguns in which they themselves illegally own.) And much like alcohol and cigarettes, for whatever the reason may be, we collectively as a nation have displayed a tremendous incompetence in keeping handguns out of the hands of our underage youth in accordance with our presently existing laws. Combine these two concepts and it is easy to see why the first AWB ban, as well as much of gun restrictions in general, has had such a minuscule overall effect. Our laws as they already are, are presently not being appropriately and effectively enforced and so it easy for people to be swayed to the opinion that we needed more.
MAKING A STRONG CASE FOR THE BAN--FOLLOWED BY A QUICK REBUTTAL:
The strongest and most convincing argument I have ever heard supporting the AWB ban, or any gun control legislation for that matter, has been from those in law enforcement. It has been said that in SOME cities (I say some because it is a growing problem in some not ALL) law enforcement has been encountering more drug dealers that are beginning to use firearms that would have other wise been banned. They say that "they feel as though they could eventually become 'out gunned'". This is an impossible stance to ignore and it must be given its fair due by both sides of the argument in question. Once again however. . . there is a very important question to be asking here (and a very important point to make): How did these people get those firearms in the first place? Is the drug dealer in that meth house that might be sporting an Ak-47 an otherwise reputable member of society? Seriously . . . would any of those drug dealers be able to walk into a gun store, shown there ID, go through a background check and purchase a firearm of any kind considering their background and history? Where and how did they actually get these firearms in the first place? And would a ban of any kind stop them from possessing these firearms, being that as felons they should not have access to ANY firearm type in the first place?
END OF PT 2.