Gun Control Is A Failure

B

BillCA

New member
Gun Control Is A Failure

I'm no longer arguing that we have rights guaranteed under the Constitution or that some new law is not needed.

I'm now arguing that gun control is a complete failure.

Why am I doing this? Because it's true.

All one has to do is compare the number and types of crimes since 1968, when the Gun Control Act originated, to those prior to 1968. Not only that, with each new law, politicians have promised us that the new law would "reduce crimes with guns" and would make life safer for all of us. But, like campaign promises, it hasn't happened. I think forty years is enough time for us to say unequivocally gun control doesn't work.

Since passing the sweeping 1968 Gun Control act, under public pressure after the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Congress has layered ever-increasing restrictions on the manufacture, distribution, sale, ownership and use of firearms.

Among the laws peddled by the anti-rights Gun-Control Lobby have been age limitations, ammo restrictions, waiting periods, zoning restrictions, special security requirements, the banning of the mythical "assault weapon", limits on magazine capacities, limits on exercising your rights to once-a-month, gun-free zones, gun licensing, owner licensing, gun registration, outright bans and others.

None of these restrictive laws, individually or collectively, have shown any significant impact on crimes committed against people or even crimes committed with guns.

A government report showed that the so-called "Brady Bill", touted as a "significant step" in reducing gun crimes, had no measurable effect on crime. We have also seen how so called gun free zones have turned school campuses into defenseless victim killing zones.

"Yes, but..." begin the anti-rights crowd when they go on the defensive. They will tell you that existing laws didn't go far enough or that the laws were compromised in legislative sessions. They'll tell you that if only they could enact comprehensive control (read as either an outright ban or piles of red tape) the numbers would show they are right. Really?

Great Britain has, since 1997, had a defacto ban on almost all firearms, especially handguns. Yet, as the 20th Century closed, the UK quietly began arming it's famous "Bobbies" with guns for the first time in over 100 years. One story in the British media described the "gun problem" by saying that in the last ten years there have been more reported gun crimes than in the thirty years before the ban. So much for a utopian gun control example.

Only one set of laws shows any appreciable statistical impact on personal crimes. Not too surprisingly, these laws are not restrictive, but liberally permissive in the classical sense. These laws allow citizens with clean records to legally carry concealed firearms after taking the state mandated training. While restrictive laws do little or nothing to impact crimes against people, these "shall-issue" concealed carry laws can be shown reduce crimes against people.

Why? Because criminals are no longer sure their victims are defenseless. A victim who fights back is fighting for their life, which the criminal threatens in robbery, rape and other crimes. And they fight to win. Because of this, it is the criminal who is at a disadvantage, not the citizenry.

So, what should we be asking our legislators to do? We should be tell them to focus on controlling criminal behavior instead of trying to control access to inanimate objects.

We should also make it clear that criminals can not profit from their illegal actions should they be injured during a crime. If they step "outside the law" by instigating the crime, they waive their rights to civil suits against their victims.

To further discourage repeat offenders we should implement three-strikes laws for felony convictions to keep the serious criminals off the street. Three-strikes laws have been remarkably effective in reducing crime because repeat offenders are most likely to commit multiple crimes before being caught.

The Gun-Control Lobby continues to push against a door marked "pull", never quite realizing that even after 40 years, pushing just isn't going to open the door. At least, not until they realize they have been pushing in the wrong direction.
 
Back when you could buy them at the hardware store. I don't recall reading of too many school rampages.

cowboy.gif


And also, when these were sold as "The gentleman's way to shoot"

maxshush.jpg
 
What bothers me is that while those who advocate gun control are pushing a pull door, the door isn't hitting them in the face hard enough. I for one am outrightly disgusted that they get elected and have potential to harm our way of life, rather than their stance making their careers end abruptly. They can make us gone but we're not doing nearly good enough job of making them gone.
 
Gun control is not about guns but about people control. The "what ever you want to call them" are about making people dependant on the system for everything in life. They want a socialist state without people knowing they are made surfs of the gov't. They want people to react with emotion instead of reason, then offer a hand out to bring in the people. They use saying like" for the children, to fight crime, to make you safer, you deserve, you have the right to..." all the right phrase to make people feel like some one cares for thier plight. The end goal is to strip away the Consistution and the Bill of Rights.
 
I have recently come into more contact then usual with the anti gun crowd.

Those people who are anti gun, have those beliefs because they are misinformed, they are not evil or stupid ( ok some are just stupid). They just don’t know what they are talking about. And to them it does not really matter if they are wrong, because if guns get banned who cares, they don’t spend the vast amounts of time and money like we do on guns.

example...my political science teacher thinks all assault weapons are fully automatic, and therfore their only purpose is for killing people. he is a smart guy, he just realy doesnt know what hes talking about when it comes to guns.
 
Wild,

I'm talking about "gun control as we know it" today, as defined by the Feinsteins, Schumers, Kennedy's, McCarthy's, Metzenbaums (remember him?) ad nauseum.

BillCAhandingWAsomewindextoseeifhebecomesclear.
 
You haven't convinced me Bill. Where are your numbers per capita? Do numbers even exist for violent crimes per capita for 1967 anywhere in the US?
 
Well Bill, I and others kind of like the "no gunnnies to felons and the insane" rules, among others.

Are you contending those are a "failure"?

WildandhowwouldweknowAlaska TM
 
I would. Felons & the insane should be locked up away from society or executed. Most criminals are regurgitated back onto the street as soon as the state is done making money off of them. Instead of taking guns off the street they should be taking guilty persons off the street. But then we wouldn't need big brother restricting our freedoms more to keep us safe. Gun control is not working for us, but it is working for them. The more sheeplish and lesser armed the populace, the more the predator criminal is encouraged, the more crime goes up, the more they sensationalize it, the more gun control they say we need. Bill's right.

.02 worth of tinfoil.:D
 
You haven't convinced me Bill. Where are your numbers per capita? Do numbers even exist for violent crimes per capita for 1967 anywhere in the US?
Click to expand...

Oh, thank you, HuntAndFish. I was hoping someone would bring up this point.

When was the last time you heard the Brady bunch or VPC argue with hard statistics? [insert:soundOfCrickets.wav]

I'm taking a page out of their playbook -- appeal to the listener's emotions, reference "numbers" or "facts" without revealing the methodology and phrase your statements as factual.

Statistics? They're a matter of record you can see for yourself. What's really important is that gun control doesn't work and we need to focus on controlling criminal behavior.

(See how this works? I deflected your query for stats and essentially challenge you to do the work to prove me wrong. Even if you try, there are arguments to devalue them. The Brady's favorite is referring to some study as "discredited by bona fide researchers".)

Well Bill, I and others kind of like the "no gunnnies to felons and the insane" rules, among others.
Click to expand...

Well, me too, Wild. I'm not saying every single law is a failure. I'm saying the concept of controlling guns to control crime and/or criminal behavior is a complete failure. Gun control doesn't live up to the promises made for each new law, either individually or collectively. How many laws have been passed to "make our streets safer", yet failed to lower crime or even crimes involving guns? Wasn't that the purpose of the 68 GCA? The Brady Bill? The AWB? And myriad state and local laws in between?

Oh..wait...before you say it, let me note that laws which aren't enforced or can't be enforced (for whatever reason) weaken the respect for all other laws. So "enforce the laws we already have" sounds good, but the reality is that trials cost money and if the suspect pleads to one felony, DAs won't push it and Federal agencies see it as a waste of time and money when most judges will make the time concurrent with another sentence.
 
Felons & the insane should be locked up away from society or executed.
Click to expand...

:eek::eek::eek:

Those people who are anti gun, have those beliefs because they are misinformed, they are not evil or stupid
Click to expand...

I think that people here would do well to remember that. All too often there seems to be a touch of quasi-religious zealotry among the progun advocates that is more noxious and alienating than beneficial. This does not mean that similar sentiments exist "on the other side", for they surely do among some. However, statements like that quoted above all too often result from or are related to this same zealotry and drive off those who might not quite share the righteous indignation of those who consider themselves the "rightly-guided ones." I offer into evidence the great number of misjudgments and misrepresentations of Muslims on this board as one example.
 
Gun control is NOT about controlling people. It is about tactics. Think about it like this; if you can disarm your opposition BEFORE the war, you make it easier for your side to have utter and complete control after your sudden and main thrust for power. This technique is common for socialist dictators who come to power. Prior to a socialist group of politicians comingto power look for several things to happen.

1. Intense gun control laws will be inacted in spite of its proven failure to control crime and violence.

2. Before the major push, members of the socialist movements/political groups will align themselves with the criminal element by a variety of methods.

A. They will be part of the legal defense groups or teams that protect and defend those who had violated the laws of a state or nation.

B. Members of the political group will have been in trouble and survive potentially being sent to prison or being forced away from their elected position.

C. Members of a political group will look overseas for ideas, laws and concepts that can be used to control the masses and eliminate private ownership of property and/or guns. One good example of this is when Thomas Dodd, D-Conn. had the pre-WW2 Nazi anti-gun laws translated from German into English and then tried to introduce those SAME LAWS into effect over here.

D. Look for strange alliances or weird mergers of different governments and/or candidates to pop up.
Sort of like Barack Obama and David Duke teaming up to run as President/Vice President on a 3rd party ticket.

E. Look for excessive inflation and money devaluation to occur. This one issue that socialist dictators ALWAYS need to help them get elected. In other words, "I will fix the run-away economy and get everybody back to work...."
 
Thus understood, why is it that we make so little progress towards eradicating anti gun attempts rather than merely trying to stymie or merely slow them?
 
Those people who are anti gun, have those beliefs because they are misinformed, they are not evil or stupid ( ok some are just stupid). They just don’t know what they are talking about. And to them it does not really matter if they are wrong, because if guns get banned who cares, they don’t spend the vast amounts of time and money like we do on guns.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Most people don't have any experience with, or knowledge about guns except that they are dangerous. So naturally they are nervous about them. IMO, the bast thing to do is talk to them about the good things that guns can be used for (sport, and self defense for law abiding citizens) and hope that you can get their views to slowly shift.
 
Well Bill, I and others kind of like the "no gunnnies to felons and the insane" rules, among others.

Are you contending those are a "failure"?
Click to expand...

Yeah - you like them - as do your other anti gun croonies.
 
gun control legislation

The one good thing about controlling civilian gun ownership is that for those who are undecided, it makes sense that less guns make society safer. The way to sell this is to use incidents where citizens have used guns in mass killings to leverage the laws. This is precisely what happened here in Australia. The Howard government used the mass killing in Tasmania to justify sweeping gun control legislation and also green light the two gun "buyback" schemes. In addition, the strictness of the laws have lowered the participation rate in both sporting and hunting uses of firearms. All of this made sense to the non-owning public, many of whom are scared of firearms and naturally mistrust anyone who owns/uses one. As Mr Howard proved, it's a great vote winner in a safe, wealthy country like ours. The fact that this legislation and the huge cost of the gun buybacks has had little influence on gun crime is something that the government chooses to ignore. In fact the price of illegal handguns and the demand for same has never been higher. Personally I think the possibility of wide-ranging restrictions on firearm ownership in the US are unlikely. Individual states have made their own parochial laws but the 2nd still holds. It's only in a "democracy" like mine that a piece of "crisis" legislation can be foisted on a nation without due process. Thank you Jackboot Johnny.
 
Yeah - you like them - as do your other anti gun croonies.
Click to expand...

While I am reluctant to speak for others, I hardly think that supporting current restrictions concerning convicted felons and those suffering from severe mental illness to such a degree that they require mandated institutionalization constitutes an "anti" position, especially when it comes from somebody who makes his living selling firearms, including a lot of the ostensibly "evil" ones. It strikes me more as prudent than hostile.

Of course, some people will never be satisfied with anything less than total devotion to the cause as they perceive it. Rather sad, really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top