Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Gun Control (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Gun Control
peace
Knowflake

Posts: 35
From: Las Vegas,NV
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 09, 2007 09:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for peace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Actually it's a combination of of John Lennon's death and Gun Control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50lvrEQRU2E&mode=related&search=

IP: Logged

yourfriendinspirit
unregistered
posted September 09, 2007 09:50 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
sad really...

This was filmed more than 25 years ago yet the cycle still continues.

Thank you for another enlightening post Peace.

------------------
Sendin' love your way,
"your friend in spirit"

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted September 09, 2007 10:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Maybe if John or Yoko (or the doorman, or one of a number of people who were at the scene) had carried a gun, they could have killed Mark David Chapman before he got off the fatal shot...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 10, 2007 12:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's laughable isn't it that those who screech, shriek and whine about civil and individual rights are perfectly willing to take US citizens 2nd Amendment rights off the Bill of Rights.

I agree with Isis. Robbers, rapists and murderers are a hell of a lot more cautious when they think their intended victim might pull a Glock, H&K, Sig, SW, Colt or other handgun and blow their heads off...or some bystander might.

There's always some in every gathering who just don't get it. We call them the 10%.

IP: Logged

BlueRoamer
Knowflake

Posts: 95
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 10, 2007 02:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BlueRoamer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with Isis, everyone should carry guns, it will definitely decrease the number of people murdered.

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted September 10, 2007 03:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh, I guess we should take guns away from everyone. That way, only the government and criminals have guns...

Cause we all know that when they make guns illegal, the criminals are going to be the first to line up to turn theirs in, right?

IP: Logged

Johnny
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Egypt
Registered: Apr 2010

posted September 10, 2007 06:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Johnny     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
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 ultimate check and balance.

IP: Logged

yourfriendinspirit
unregistered
posted September 12, 2007 01:49 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That 10% is also known as the "EDUCATED", LOL!

"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".

Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa

"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."

International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.


Some Statistics from the USA

In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

Between 1993-1999, gun deaths in the United States have declined 27%. (SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm, WISQARS, National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, accessed March, 2002.)

In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides. (SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

Of all suicides, 57% occurred by firearm (SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, accessed March, 2002.)

In 2000, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries. (SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States: Crime in the United States 2000: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice; 2001.)

Firearms Amnesty
During the month long firearms amnesty in April 2003, over 43,000 guns were surrendered in England and Wales and 3393 in Scotland.

Handguns
The two 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts resulted in the prohibition of the vast majority of handguns in Great Britain. As a result of the prohibition and the surrender exercise, more than 162,000 handguns were handed in to local police forces.

Handgun Surrender and Compensation. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General NAO, 1999.


Gun Crime in Great Britain

The official figures for gun crime in England and Wales in 2002/03 were announced in January 2004. There were a total of 24,070 firearm offences of which 57% (13,822) involved air weapons, the highest number of offences ever. The largest increase in offences was seen with imitation firearms for which there was an annual increase of 46% to 1815 offences.

The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death.

Criminal statistics England and Wales 2002/2003. Supplementary Volume 1. Homicide and Gun Crime (edited by David Povey). National Statistics. January 2004

Recorded Crimes and Offences involving Firearms, Scotland, 2003. Scottish Executive National Statistical Bulletin. October 2004


Further Reading:

Massacres and Legally-Held Firearms
Worldwide, the majority of recent shooting massacres have been committed with legally-held weapons.

Firearms Incidents
Behind all the statistics are the actual incidents that result in the suffering of innocent people and animals. These lists reveal the consequence of the continued misuse of firearms.

Guns and Suicide
Data on suicide and firearms from other countries can be viewed as a warning to the UK of some of the effects of firearm possession. Most articles show that the storage of a firearm in the home predicts an increased rate of a violent death. The articles have been referenced so that those interested can obtain further information.

------------------
Sendin' love your way,
"your friend in spirit"

IP: Logged

yourfriendinspirit
unregistered
posted September 12, 2007 01:56 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
*SPECIAL SECTION*

MYTH: Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.
TRUTH: Obviously, self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide. Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source) . Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.

MYTH: Guns don't kill.
TRUTH: Guns make it easier to kill people. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source). Guns simply make it easier to kill. Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." (source- PDF File).

MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.
TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other (source). So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns? The answer is obvious.

MYTH: Gun ownership is a protection against political tyranny.
TRUTH: Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime (source).It certainly didn't protect the Iraqi people against political tyranny. Gun ownership was legalized in Germany in 1928, five years before Hitler rose to power. Despite the claims of pro-gun activists, gun ownership did nothing to stop a tyrant like Hitler from seizing power. In 1938, Germany's gun laws were relaxed except in the case of Jews. Although the gun lobby has tried to associate racism with gun control, white supremacists have often praised the Nazis for being pro-gun and have opposed gun control. An example of that is this quote: "If you register your gun with anybody, you're a nut! When the conspiracy comes for your firearm, give it to 'em like this grand dragon is going to - right between the eyes." -Klu Klux Klan (Richmond Times- Dispatch, July 5, 1967)

The Second Amendment [Reality Check] Truth and Myth :
JUST CLICK HERE

and for those who learn visually...
Welcome To America "Land Of The Desensitized"
PICTURE
-*Caution only click if you are not easily offended and over the age of 18 years

------------------
Sendin' love your way,
"your friend in spirit"

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 12, 2007 09:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I guess the rest of us "uneducated" folk just like our Constitution the way it is, thank you. And we could all interpret anything any way we'd like ... wouldn't make us all right.

quote:
Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US.

I can't speak for the UK or Australia but, living in Japan, the truth is that government bodies and criminals are the only ones that have guns. Sure, there are less gun crime rates ... because nobody here is stupid enough to go up unarmed against the Yakuza.

"Yakuza, also known as gokudô, are members of traditional organized crime groups in Japan. Outside of Japan, the term also refers to traditional Japanese organized crime in general. Today, the Yakuza are one of the largest crime organizations in the world. Nationwide, there were some 84,700 known members of Yakuza.[1] In Japanese legal terminology, yakuza organizations are referred to as bôryokudan, literally "violence groups" -- and is considered an insult to Yakuza members as it can be applied to any violent criminal. Often as a misnomer in Western press, Yakuza groups are referred to as the "Japanese mafia" with reference to Italian-Sicilian organized crime."


You don't even speak the word in public. I know because somebody did once and the silence was as instant as the fear was tangible. Nobody, nobody, nobody messes with them. Even the government/police is hard pressed to deal with them. You know who they are by their vehicles, clothing, tattoos, mannerisms, etc. And if you're unfortunate to cross their path, you just try to make yourself invisible until you're out of their way. Don't know about you, but it doesn't seem to me to be a truly peaceful way to live at all ... I also don't count living in fear as being free, either.

And, frankly, I'm pretty sure that if people didn't have guns, they'd sure as heck find another way to kill each other or themselves. It isn't as though the world was perfectly peaceful until guns were invented, you know. Sure, guns may make suicide attempts more often successful ... but it doesn't mean that taking guns away will make less people want to kill themselves.

It's that kind of faulty logic that makes me very wary of these "here's the truth" campaigns.

That said, while I think people should have the right to keep and bear arms, I'm not really advocating that everybody in the world have a gun. In the states, I think it should continue to be an option for people who desire to own a gun to do so. It would be nice if guns weren't desired by anyone at all but taking a weapon away won't magically make people less hateful or evil in the end.

IP: Logged

SolarJustice
unregistered
posted September 12, 2007 11:47 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
while this is very sensitive subject, being as new as i am perhaps not the best place to be. though i do feel strongly about this.

the question is not whether to change our constitution it is actually about getting control of the hand gun usage, theories, ideas, and mentalities in the u.s.

so many people get riled up over this issue when it's pretty flippin obvious there is a real problem with the way things are now. teenagers are posing for thier 'myspace' pages 'guns in mouth', babies handeling guns are perceived as 'cute'
this is NOT ok, i repeat; THIS IS NOT OK.

our society in it's great ignorance and fear has convinced people that it's one way or the other; all or nothing.
the issue really is as peace and friendinspirit stated above a need for gun control. no one mentioned banning guns, no one mentioned taking our rights away, they are just trying to educate people to the atrocities going on in todays america. we should all recognise a need for change!
imo anyways.
i for one appreciate the wake up.

-kyle
------------------
yes, im new -please be kind.

IP: Logged

yourfriendinspirit
unregistered
posted September 12, 2007 04:02 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
EXACTLY!
Thank you Solar Justice for that direct and to the point explaination.


------------------
Sendin' love your way,
"your friend in spirit"

IP: Logged

Johnny
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Egypt
Registered: Apr 2010

posted September 12, 2007 04:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Johnny     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
this is NOT ok, i repeat; THIS IS NOT OK.

You're overblowing the problem rather dramatically, I think. The majority of gun-owners I know are intelligent, responsible, and realize that it is their civic duty to be capable of defending themselves and their families. Of course there are stupid people out there, but I see little evidence to support your apparent position that crazy morons with guns are pandemic in the US.

Very rarely is increased government regulation beneficial for the people, and that applies most especially to instances of weapon regulation. Look at history; unarmed populations are pretty much always enslaved.

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2007 01:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nine myths of gun control

* Myth #1 "Guns are only used for killing"
Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives. [2]
Back to the top

* Myth #2 "Guns are dangerous when used for protection"
US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all. [3] The myth that "guns are only used for killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us examine the other common myths.
Back to the top

* Myth #3 "There is an epidemic of gun violence"
Even their claim of an "epidemic of violence is false. That claim, like so many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data. Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control. [2]

The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for those with no hope of decent job opportunities. [4]
Back to the top

* Myth #4 "Guns cause violence"
Homicide
For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average! [5] The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average. [6]

If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one- ninth of DC's overall homicide rate of 80.6? [7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)? [7] The "guns- cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership.

Accidents
National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of "thousands of innocent children. [8]

Suicide
Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates. [3] People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?
Back to the top

* Myth #5 The "Friends and Family fallacy"

It is common for the public health advocates of gun bans to claim that most murders are of "friends and family". The medical literature includes many such false claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger" [9]and "most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection." [10]

Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a minority of homicides, [11] but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to the decedent. That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them "friends". Over three- quarters of murderers have long histories of violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but also against their relatives. [12,13,14,15] Oddly, medical authors have no difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic is not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor of violence." [16] The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of "friends and family" murdering each other in fits of passion simply because a gun was present "in the home."
Back to the top

* Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.

Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19]
Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.
Back to the top

* Myth #7 "The costs of gun violence are high"

The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately $1.5-billion per year [20]- less than 0.2% of America's $800-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of "lost lifetime earnings" or "years of productive life lost" - assuming that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims of $20-billion or more in "costs." [20] One recent study went so far as to claim the "costs" of work lost because workers might gossip about gun violence. [21]

What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or their customers. [22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses. [23] These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison. [24] Because the anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of "costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns.

Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a substantial net benefit to our society. Other benefits, such as the feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research that suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult (whether by bureaucratic "red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence. It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs more - not fewer - lives.
Back to the top

* Myth #8 "Gun control will keep guns off the street' "

Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor additional gun laws.

Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police state tactics cannot effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.[25]

Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good people who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing further impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm those good people - especially disarming good, poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk.

If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.

What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally competent, law- abiding citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection - guns. [26,27]

Brady I and Brady II

The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential felons" [28] [emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in the first month of the Brady Law. Several jurisdictions have reviewed the preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal [29] of the "success" of the Brady Law.

The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those "potential" felons were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many were innocents whose names were similar to felons. Misdemeanor traffic convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer tag that labeled the others as "potential" felons. [30] In transparent "governmentese," BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don't have a whole lot of numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect." [31]

Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about 6.3% of retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with repeated studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions. A minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by Brady Law background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable to identify even one prosecution of those felons. [32 ] In such circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that very few crime guns are purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are obtained as black market, stolen guns, or from similar non retail sources. [28] Since none of Handgun Control Inc.'s Brady I or Brady II suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their symbolic nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence.

Residential gun dealers

The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers, pejoratively named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the source of a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all. [33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. Prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does not have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created. Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure that guns are more expensive - unaffordable to the poor who are at greatest risk from violence, ensuring that gun ownership becomes a privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent.

Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not more reasonable - though admittedly more difficult - to target the real source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on targeting the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our society.
Back to the top

* Myth #9 "Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection"

Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better safety record than the police. [3] About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.

We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true.

"Treat cars like guns"

Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or registration is needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property. No proof of "need" is required for automobile registration or drivers' licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and credit" by other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and misuse - that is regulated.

Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no "arsenal permit" equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or motorcycle racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that automobile manufacturers be sued when automobiles are frequently misused by criminals in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of crime and terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because they "might" be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the national speed limit? "But cars have good uses" is the usual response. So too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many as 2.5-million good Americans every year.

Progressive reform

Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and enhance public safety. Reasonable compromise on licensing and training is possible. Where state laws have been reformed to license and train good citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence and homicide have fallen. [11,26,27] Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in advance who is carrying a concealed weapon.

Fear mongering and the gun control lobby

In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to self- protection, the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform would cause blood to run in the streets, that inconsequential family arguments would turn into murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities would collapse, and that many innocent people would be killed [26,27] In Florida, the anti- self-defense lobby claimed that blood would run in the streets of "Dodge City East," the "Gunshine State" --- but we do not have to rely on irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery, or political histrionics. We can examine the data.

Data, not histrionics

One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed laws to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves outside their homes. [26,27] In those states crime rates are lower for every category of crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. [11] Homicide, assault, and overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10% lower. [11] The reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of the mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defense lobby. In fact, the data suggest that, providing they are in the hands of good citizens, more guns "on the street" offer a considerable benefit to society - saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct to the concept of community policing.

As of 12/31/94, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent person had been killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years post-reform. Of the 188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for misuse of the firearm. Not one of those revocations were associated with any injury whatsoever. [27] In opposing reform, fear is often expressed that "everyone would be packing guns," but, after reform, most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%) of qualified citizens. [27]

Notwithstanding gun control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they fear apprehension by police [34] or fear our timid and porous criminal justice system. It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by predators - predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens, tourists are unarmed.

Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals "if it saves only one life." There have been matched state pair analyses, crime trend studies, and California county- by-county research [27] demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent adults to carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes saves many lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving lives is truly their motivation.

The right

Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail to note that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let there be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an individual right to keep and bear arms. [35] It is specifically the "weapons of war" - militia weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to arms, a citizen militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal government. That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to African Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment?

Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, there are Ninth, [36] Tenth, [35] and Fourteenth Amendment, [37] as well as "natural right" [38] guarantees to self-protection.

Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five support the individual right view and only four support the "collective right only" view [39] (and three of these four are authored or co-authored by employees of the anti-selfdefense lobby). One would never guess such a legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their "collective right only" theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century "gun control" debate - a concept of which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling.

California and Concealed Weapons

California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have the lowest rates of murder. [27]

It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from violence.

Conclusion

The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do not schedule their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the predators.

There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and crime trend studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens to protect themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives. The anti-self defense lobby advances many proposals in hopes that it will "save only one life." Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that saves many lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun control lobby, if saving lives is really their interest.


Nine Myths of Gun Control

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 14, 2007 12:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Very good points Eleanore. The gun control nuts publish a lot of BS but when it's examined, it cannot stand up to facts.

These nuts also include armed robbers, rapists, burglars and murderers who were killed by police or armed citizens in defense of their lives and property when they publish their numbers showing or purporting to show how many were killed or injured by firearms.

Their real goal is to disarm Americans and it's not going to happen. Those who do not wish to protect and defend themselves with a firearm are free to submit to whatever criminals...or government have planned for them. But please don't attempt to cram your beliefs down the throats of the rest of us...who will not submit to robbery, rape, assault or murder by criminals...or tyranny by government.

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted September 14, 2007 01:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Those who do not wish to protect and defend themselves with a firearm are free to submit to whatever criminals...or government have planned for them. But please don't attempt to cram your beliefs down the throats of the rest of us...who will not submit to robbery, rape, assault or murder by criminals...or tyranny by government.

My sentiments exactly.

IP: Logged

Johnny
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Egypt
Registered: Apr 2010

posted September 14, 2007 10:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Johnny     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Their real goal is to disarm Americans and it's not going to happen. Those who do not wish to protect and defend themselves with a firearm are free to submit to whatever criminals...or government have planned for them. But please don't attempt to cram your beliefs down the throats of the rest of us...who will not submit to robbery, rape, assault or murder by criminals...or tyranny by government.

Tyranny by the government you say? Disarming the American people?

Maybe you need a tin-hat, Jwhop? I have a few in my closet, if you want one!

Stops CIA mind-control. Yep.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 15, 2007 01:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yep, an armed citizenery was to be the last line of defense against the overthrow of the US government and the institution of a tyranny in America.

But wait one...all those who insist Bush is establishing a police state...or wants to do so.

It is absolutely necessary to first disarm the citizenery of a nation so they can't fight back. No tyrant wants to get his or her ass shot off attempting to overthrow the duly elected government.

So, how do you account for Bush...through the Solicitor General and John Ashcroft marching into federal courts and declaring the administrations position on the 2nd Amendment is that "the people (individuals) have the right to keep and bear arms" and that right goes beyond and is not limited to the use of arms by a duly constituted state militia...like the state National Guard?

Yeah, how do you account for that since every dictator and prospective dictator knows and have known through history that the first order of business is to disarm citizens...before you attempt a takeover.

IP: Logged

Dervish
Knowflake

Posts: 625
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted September 16, 2007 07:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dervish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
First, I wanted to share this in regards to what has been posted so far:

As for the YT vid on John Lennon…do you really believe that had his assassin not been able to get a gun, that John Lennon would still be alive?

The report on “no guns” in England is not true. Unless I am strongly mixing this up with the UK in general, there were many guns in use in society until legislation that came up after the Dunblane massacre in the 90s.

Also, a hundred years ago there were almost no real differences between the US and England in guns and gun laws, and yet England remained much less violence. It’s also worth pointing out, IMO, that according to Scotland Yard and the NSWBoS in Australia, violence has increased since the draconian gun bans went into effect. While murder and robbery and the like have tapered off after a few years (not so with home invasions, IIRC), they still remain higher than before the gun bans, and violence against women continue to skyrocket.

Pause, and imagine if violent America were to also do the same thing as the UK and Australia and experience the same surge in violence. Especially violence against women (and probably the elderly and disabled).

If that’s not enough, then the most violent areas in the USA are areas with draconian gun control. Eg, in Chicago it’s a felony to even own a revolver, yet the homicide rate (including by gun) is among the highest in the nation. Washington DC, until recently at least, had THE most draconian gun laws on the books and yet it was also the nation’s murder capital, outdoing the ENTIRE STATE of VA combined (including the urban areas of VA). In contrast, Vermont has a rate of violence comparable to the UK and Canada and yet anyone of age can buy a gun and carry it concealed without a permit. To me, that's a powerful indication that guns aren't the problem. Though gun control itself may be.

Now some say that’s because the criminals and felons of Chicago and Washington DC get their guns by going out of town, to a city where gun ownership is legal, purchasing there, and then returning to their violent homes. But if this is the case, why aren’t the cities with legal gun ownership, where the criminals go to buy their guns, also violent? After all, by their argument, the presence of guns causes violence.

It seems more likely that it is the presence of the gun control laws that causes the violence.

Btw, how many massacres and shooting over parking spaces have you heard of at a NRA convention, gun show, police station, cowboy action shoots, and the like?


Anyway, can you understand why I find that report extremely doubtful?

Btw, a huge problem I have with many stats and reports following are they focus on crimes and suicides done with a gun. However, there’s a big difference between being against violence and being against guns. Just because suicides by gun goes down does not mean that suicides themselves are down. In fact, in Canada, when suicide by gun went down, suicide by hanging—a far, far worse way to off one’s self—went up, went up more than suicide by gun went down.

Btw, school and daycare massacres still happen in places like China and Japan. Examples, off the top of my head:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,129899,00.html
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=1979

Note that both of those school massacres using a knife succeeded in killing more kids than the vast majority of those who used a gun. Possibly because many shooters who shoot up a gun free zone aren't that skilled in using a gun and miss many times they shoot. (Btw, poisoning is normally preferred in that part of the world, including poisoning school cafeterias.)

It should also be pointed out that school shootings were very rare until the late 90s, and seem more linked to the increase in psychiatric medications (this also seems to have increased parents, especially mothers, who kill all their children, too). This is rare enough that I'm not saying that these pills should be banned, only that people need to be better educated in the risks of taking them and what to do, as the pharma companies and FDA and the like aren't going to do it for us.

In any case, the Brady Bill has passed, metal detectors went into most schools, schools were made into Gun Free Zones...and yet school shootings have increased exponentially. Certainly this is an indicator that gun control is not the cure?


As for “gun myths.” The Kellerman study that showed that guns were far more likely to kill the owner than an intruder has long been debunked. The most obvious fallacy is that it ONLY counted cases that resulted in death. So for self-defense, ONLY if someone was KILLED and it declared justified was it counted. But the 98% of the cases that a gun is used in self-defense and not even fired are not counted. Not even those injured. See another thing is when someone shoots someone in self-defense, they call 911 (if they haven’t already) and help gets there, thus preventing the one shot from dying, which is very different from what criminals with a gun are likely to do.

Furthermore, Kellerman was debunked by none other than Gary Kleck, who not only debunked many pro-gun control studies, but showed how guns reduced violence. But he’s no NRA nut. When he first started, he'd meant to show the opposite, and he's also a Democrat, member of the ACLU and Amnesty International, and even hates the NRA. Plus, his studies have been peer reviewed, and very few could find faults in his studies (Kellerman is the only one that I can recall who claimed to have debunked his work, I suppose in repayment of Kleck debunking Kellerman’s work, but the peer review leans toward supporting Kleck.)

In addition, some sources that don't even look at guns also lean toward supporting the pro-2nd side. Like one reported overall drops in violence--but greater in areas where one can legally carry concealed, and the few exceptions where draconian gun laws exist (not that they pointed any of this out)--and gives reason why they believe it's attributed to the last of the boomer males getting older than 30 (ie, less testosterone and less fighting over drug turf and the like).

This brief segment also deals with many of the "gun myths" that have been brought up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

(Started off with the myth that guns cause violence, and points out how the murder rate dropped in America with the exception of places that had the most draconian gun laws and there their murder rates went up. This includes an area in Georgia where gun ownership was MANDATORY--something I don't agree with, btw--there was a decrease in all crimes, and a sharp reduction in violent crimes. As one supporter of the law there said there, "This is a very peaceful place to be." It goes on to quote the National Academy of Sciences on hundreds of studies that say that "gun control" is very different from "crime control.")

And criminals usually get them from the same source as crack and meth. I speak from experience here. When I was a 15-year-old runaway, I was part of a "krew" that dabbled in many crimes. Short and sweet, what I learned is that: criminals prefer unarmed victims; drug dealers are also illegal gun (and illegal ammo) dealers; and while some illegal guns are stolen from lawful owners, many come from police and military sources, and many come from other countries, like China and Russia (I first learned about the black market for weapons from Russia when I was 17).

(Btw, that first vid I linked to is a video response to another vid that interviews felons bragging that they get their guns from their "source," not from Wal-Mart. Likewise, as heavily as the ATF monitors gun sales, including at gun shows, a criminal is pretty stupid even if they try to get someone without a criminal record to buy a gun for them.)

To see more about the illegal gun trade in the US, and how criminals use international gangsters over Wal-Mart (and even buying subs with nukes and the like), you can see this special (even in Part 1 that I link to here, they go into it enough to sum it up short and sweet):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOcAEY4Kdmo


Also, the Warsaw ghetto uprising, showing what Jews could do with a handful of home owned guns against the military armed to the teeth does give one pause to consider what those same Jews could’ve done had they had access to more powerful guns, or even simply more guns than what they had.

Another fallacy listed above, or at least implied, is that we, as individuals, would have to have everything the US Government commands in order to resist it. However, if this was true, the USA would've won Vietnam, and the US Revolution (and arguably the French and Russian Revolution) would never have happened.

Though point taken on many white supremacists and the like being against gun control. An ironic turn of events given that the Ku Klux Klan were among the first to establish gun control (and anyone recall the infamous Dredd Scott case?). I expect their position will remain so as long as they feel disenfranchised from the system. Of course, many white supremacists are also believing that Wal-Mart operates unethically, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong simply because most people disagree with their other premises.

IP: Logged

Dervish
Knowflake

Posts: 625
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted September 16, 2007 08:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dervish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Now more for my personal sentiments.

As for a culture of violence and militant supremacy, the USA does seem to be particularly toxic in this regard. Though I should point out, I know many gun owners, but none that would find a pic of a baby sucking on a gun cute. The pic being posted wasn’t meant to be cute, I’m sure, but to offend. That is, it’s the opposite of desensitization. But as for education (gun safety, other ways to handle conflict, etc), I’m all for, and so are many gun owners. Though all the same, I also support various self-defense programs and educational efforts, such as this:
http://www.aware.org/index.shtml

Certain things should be kept in mind on why guns can be important and have their place in society. I personally know people who would not be alive today if it had not been for a gun they owned. Even CNN realizes this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kUIPRFgRE8

For an article that I think does a pretty good overview of the USA "gun culture" (legal only, doesn't include criminals and the like):
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28017.html


I'd also like to point out it’s not just conservatives or rednecks or whatever that support the 2nd. Plenty of people who don’t own guns also support the 2nd, while those who do own guns sometimes won’t have anything to do with the NRA and may be strong advocates of gun control. And there is a growing number of gays and feminists that are embracing guns as a mean of self-defense in a violent world. There are even liberals with guns:
http://www.liberalswithguns.com/
http://www.paladin-press.com/authormo_0705.aspx

I especially like Cindy Hill's call to have liberals and conservatives work together in defending ALL of the Bill of Rights. Conservative Aaron Zelman (of the JPFO) has also made similar offers.


My final sentiment is that the idea of trying to stop violence in the USA by banning guns strikes me as foolish as trying to stop AIDS by banning condoms.

IP: Logged

Johnny
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Egypt
Registered: Apr 2010

posted September 16, 2007 09:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Johnny     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
So, how do you account for Bush...through the Solicitor Genereal and John Ashcroft marching into federal courts and declaring the administrations position on the 2nd Amendment is that "the people (individuals) have the right to keep and bear arms" and that right goes beyond and is not limited to the use of arms by a duly constituted state militia...like the state National Guard?

Yeah, how do you account for that since every dictator and prospective dictator knows and have known through history that the first order of business is to disarm citizens...before you attempt a takeover.



In response to that, I'd say that FEMA illegally confiscated guns from law-abiding owners in the wake of Katrina, and provisions for martial law have been put firmly in place with the dissolution of the Posse Comitatus act.

Check this out, if you're so certain our government would never try to disarm us. Compilation of recent mainstream news clips.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gfzE0FnVWCg

IP: Logged

Dervish
Knowflake

Posts: 625
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted September 16, 2007 11:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dervish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That post-Katrina vid was so sad.

On a gun board with cops on it, after the cops got talking about how unappreciated they are until someone needs them, I pointed out about how they were needed in post-Katrina New Orleans, but no one appreciated them then, either, and for good reason. And after that debacle, I'd consider them armed and deadly enemies and act as if they were a sociopathic mob or hostile invaders from another country and encourage others to see them the same way if I ever found myself in that sitch. They at least got apologetic about that and said they didn't agree with what happened there, but when I asked them if they'd follow the orders to act the same way if ordered to do so by the government not a single cop would answer me.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 17, 2007 12:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Let me suggest your facts are wrong Johnny. FEMA did not issue orders to confiscate guns from New Orleans residents.

The mayor, Ray Nagin did and that order was carried out by New Orleans police officers, State police, National Guard members and in at least one instance, the BATF at an airport.

The police commissioner relayed the Mayors order and made it official policy.

The NRA sued the hell out of the city and presumably, the police commissioner, the state and perhaps the Governor.

Katrina Educates World On Need For Owning Guns
by Erich Pratt
"All our operators are busy right now. Please remain on the line and an operator will be with you shortly. Your call is important to us."

Can you imagine any words more horrifying after dialing 9-1-1? Your life's in danger, but there's no one available to help you.

For several days in September, life was absolutely terrifying for many New Orleans residents who got stranded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. There were no operators... there were no phone calls being handled.

Heck, there was no 9-1-1. Even if the phone lines had been working, there were no police officers waiting to be dispatched.

Hundreds of New Orleans police officers had fled the city. Some took their badges and threw them out the windows of their cars as they sped away. Others participated in the looting of the city.

While there were many officers who acted honorably -- even apprehending dangerous thugs while grieving the loss of their own family members -- most residents were forced to fend for themselves.

Many did so successfully, using their own firearms, until New Orleans Police Commissioner Edwin Compass III issued the order to confiscate their guns.

Anti-gun zealots confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens
On September 8, several news outlets began reporting that officials in New Orleans were confiscating firearms... not from looters, but from law-abiding citizens who legally owned firearms!

"No one will be able to be armed," said Deputy Chief Warren Riley. "We are going to take all the weapons."

It was like a scene out of the former Soviet Union or Communist China.

The Associated Press quoted Compass, the police commissioner, as saying, "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons."

Well, there you have it. Given the chance, gun control advocates will always implement their real agenda -- confiscation of firearms from everyone... except the police!

ABC News video on September 8 showed National Guard troops going house-to-house, smashing down doors, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Every victim of disarmament was clearly not a thug or looter, but a decent resident wanting to defend his or her home.

Many of the troops were clearly conflicted by their orders. "It is surreal," said one member of the Oklahoma National Guard who was going door-to-door in New Orleans. "You never expect to do this in your own country."

Many never would have expected it -- confiscating firearms from decent people who were relying on those firearms to protect themselves from the looters.

It was an outrageous order -- one that should not have been obeyed. There was no constitutional authority for the directive, and it ignored the fact that many good people had already used firearms to successfully defend their lives and property.

Guns were saving lives and protecting property prior to the confiscation order
As flood waters started rising in New Orleans, a wave of violence rolled through the city.

"It was pandemonium for a couple of nights," said Charlie Hackett, a New Orleans resident. "We just felt that when [looters] got done with the stores, they’d come to the homes."

Hackett was right... which is why he and his neighbor, John Carolan, stood guard over their homes to ward off looters who, rummaging through the neighborhoods, were smashing windows and ransacking stores.

Armed looters did eventually come to Carolan's house and demanded his generator. But Carolan showed them his gun and they left.

No wonder then that gun stores, which weren't under water, were selling firearms at a record pace to people looking to defend themselves. "I've got people like you wouldn't believe, lots of people, coming in and buying handguns," said Briley Reed, the assistant manager of the E-Z Pawn store in Baton Rouge.

"I've even had soldiers coming in here buying guns," Reed said.

Makeshift militias patrol neighborhoods
In the Algiers neighborhood of New Orleans, dozens of neighbors banded together to protect their neighborhood.

"There's about 20 or 30 guys in addition to us. We know all of them and where they are," Gregg Harris said. "People armed themselves so quickly, rallying together. I think it's why [our] neighborhood survived."

Harris isn't joking about the armaments. A gun battle erupted one afternoon between armed neighbors and looters. Two of the thugs were shot.

Since then, no more looters have bothered the neighborhood. But the neighbors aren't letting their guard down. They all take their turn keeping watch.

Gareth Stubbs sits in a rocking chair on his front porch, holding his shotgun and a bottle of bug spray.

In another home, a 74-year old mother keeps the following near the bed: her rosary, a shotgun and a 38-caliber pistol.

Vinnie Pervel and two other volunteers man a balcony-turned-watchtower with five borrowed shotguns, a pistol, a flare gun, and old AK-47 and loads of ammunition.

To be sure, many of the weapons were borrowed from neighbors who fled before the storm hit. Pervel and Harris did not have any working firearms themselves in the aftermath of the storm. But because Pervel had been keeping in contact (via phone) with neighbors who had already evacuated, he got permission to go into the vacant homes and get his neighbors' weapons.

"I never thought I'd be going into my neighbor's house and taking their guns," Pervel said. "We wrote down what gun came from what house so we can return them when they get back."

Firearms were a hot commodity
It would be an understatement to say that firearms were the hottest commodity in the days following the massive destruction. In Gulf Port, Mississippi, Ron Roland, 51, lost everything -- three homes, four cars, a bait-and-tackle shop and a boat. It was all destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

Nevertheless, Roland was determined to salvage what he could amidst the rubble -- with or without police protection. And it's a good thing, too, because there would be no such thing as "police protection" in the days following the storm.

Standing guard over one of his homes with a handgun in his waistband, Roland used his firearm to stop looters from rummaging through his storm-damaged property.

Roland and his son even performed a citizen's arrest on one plunderer and then warned future thieves by posting the following message in his yard: "NO TRESPASSERS! ARMED HOMEOWNERS."

Signs like this were common throughout the Gulf Coast region in the days following Katrina.

Unfortunately, some people had to learn the hard way about the utility of keeping firearms for protection.

Water, food... but what about guns?
The managers at the Covenant Home nursing center in New Orleans were more than prepared to ride out the hurricane. They had food and supplies to last the 80 residents for more than ten days.

They had planned for every contingency... or so they thought.

"We had excellent plans. We had enough food for 10 days," said Peggy Hoffman, the home's Executive Director.

But they had no firearms. So when carjackers hijacked the home's bus and drove by the center shouting "Get out!" to the residents, they were completely helpless.

All of the residents, most of them in wheelchairs, were evacuated to other nursing homes in the state.

Hoffman says she has now learned her lesson.

Next time, "We'll have to equip our department heads with guns and teach them how to shoot," she said.

Thank goodness someone is learning from their mistakes.

Does anyone remember Los Angeles?
We should have learned this lesson more than ten years ago when the entire country saw horrifying images coming out of Los Angeles.

If the riots of 1992 taught us anything, it is that the police can't always be there to protect us.

For several days, that city was in complete turmoil as stores were looted and burned. Motorists were dragged from their cars and beaten.

Further aggravating the situation, police were very slow in responding to the crisis. Many Guardsmen, after being mobilized to the affected areas, sat by and watched the violence because their rifles were low on ammunition.

But not everybody in Los Angeles suffered. In some of the hot spots, Korean merchants were able to successfully protect their stores with semi-automatic firearms.

In areas where armed citizens banded together for self-protection, their businesses were spared while others (which were left unprotected) burned to the ground.

The pictures of Korean merchants defending their stores left quite an impression on one group of people living in Los Angeles: those who had previously identified themselves as gun control advocates.

Press reports described how life-long gun control supporters were even running to gun stores to buy an item they never thought they would need -- a gun. Tragically, they were surprised (and outraged!) to learn there was a 15-day waiting period upon firearms.

Confiscating guns puts people at risk
Fast forward more than a decade, it seems that many folks still haven't learned the lessons from previous tragedies. If the Mayor and his cronies really wanted to help the decent citizens of New Orleans, they would have been issuing people firearms instead of taking them away.

These guns were the only thing that prevented many good folks from becoming victims in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Now that residents are disarmed, will the Mayor provide 24-hour, round-the-clock protection for each of these disarmed families? Will he make himself personally liable for anyone who is injured or killed as a result of being prevented from defending himself or his family?

When your life is in danger, you don't want to rely on a police force that is stretched way too thin. And the last thing you want to hear when you call 9-1-1 is, "All our operators are busy right now...."

That might just be the last thing you ever hear.
http://www.gunowners.org/no02.htm

http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/09/new-orleans-gun-grab-saga.html

So Johnny, it would appear your attempt to connect Bush with a gun grab in New Orleans is a big fat zip, nada, zilch.

Sending the Solicitor General and John Ashcroft into federal courts in defense of citizens 2nd Amendment rights is a very clear indication of the Presidents opinion on the 2nd Amendment...as opposed to the opinion of the gun grabbing attempts under Commander Corruption, aka, Bill Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and other leftist morons.

IP: Logged

Johnny
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Egypt
Registered: Apr 2010

posted September 17, 2007 07:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Johnny     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Let me suggest your facts are wrong Johnny. FEMA did not issue orders to confiscate guns from New Orleans residents.

Hmm, you may be right. I've heard a lot about how FEMA was involved, but apparently they were just illegally banning guns in shelter facilities they set up. But, to their credit, they lifted the ban when challenged legally. Mixed up the agencies, there. Sorry.

quote:
So Johnny, it would appear your attempt to connect Bush with a gun grab in New Orleans is a big fat zip, nada, zilch.

You almost sound pleased!

quote:
Sending the Solicitor General and John Ashcroft into federal courts in defense of citizens 2nd Amendment rights is a very clear indication of the Presidents opinion on the 2nd Amendment...as opposed to the opinion of the gun grabbing attempts under Commander Corruption, aka, Bill Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and other leftist morons.

I hope that's true. I find it ominous, though, that efforts to send relief were so poor and efforts to seize weapons were apparently so efficient. Maybe this has something to do, like you suggest, with differences between state and federal control... but I keep hearing about prominent military officials and others stating that, if another 9/11 happens, the country is going to be under martial law lockdown. And then you have Bush signing the Defense Authorization Act (2006) that gives him the power to declare martial law in the event of a lapse in 'public order.'

But, hope for the best, I guess.

IP: Logged

Dervish
Knowflake

Posts: 625
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted September 17, 2007 08:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dervish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The gun grab was efficient because no one expected the government to act with such malice against people who were not looters. Plenty who were victimized had welcomed the cops into their homes, not knowing how evil they were going to be. They did not expect to be disarmed and left to the mercy of gators and rapists. The very thought that the "good guys" could be so vicious and evil...it did not occur to them. In the past, government officials are supposed to leave the guns to help cow the looters and if that's not enough, then DEPUTIZE armed civilians to help restore order, they don't treat good citizens like dangerous thugs--or more importantly, act like dangerous thugs to good citizens as the law did in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Even the BBC recognizes the good of an armed populace after a disaster:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4359822.stm

quote:
Looting was reported in the chaos following the quake but, in a part of the world where many people keep rifles in their houses, there have been few reports of violent crime.

I myself am VERY cynical about the government, in both the intelligence and goodwill practiced by those who operate it, and even I was utterly shocked by what was done in New Orleans.

That vid you left shows that, too. As someone once said, no one expects the Inquisition.

Hopefully the legal challenge brought by the NRA and other groups will keep that from happening again. But if that's just a feel good measure (ie, the government says, "Sure, sure whatever" and then tries the very same tactic again after the next disaster), I'll be interested to see if they're anywhere as efficient. And if they find their job that much more dangerous. Next time, the snipers taking out cops that turned out to be false in post-Katrina New Orleans might actually be real in the next city, and the cops and guard will likely find a lot less sympathy from the public when it happens. It's what happens when the good guys make a habit of acting like bad guys.

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a