Ammo against anti's

D

divemedic

New member
Are you tired of the "guns cause crimes" canard? The UK has an almost complete ban, and Canada has very restrictive gun laws. Let's take a look at violent crime rates, shall we?

Current 2007/2008 violent crime rates

USA: 466/100,000
Canada: 900/100,000
U.K.: 3580/100,000

Sources

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080717/dq080717b-eng.htm
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

If you notice, the US shows a 40% drop in violent crime and a 43% drop in murder, from 1991 to 2007, despite firearms ownership going up, along with Concealed Handgun Permits at an all time high. In the UK, homicides are up 3% for 2008 over 2007.

Since the UK passed the Firearms Act #2 in 1997, violent crime rates have risen slightly. To be fair, gun crime rates have fallen, but violent crimes using other weapons (clubs, knives) have risen.

Throughout the 1990's, the UK boasted of fairly low violent crime rates, but this was mainly due to reporting procedures. For example, any violent crime that involved multiple victims was counted as one crime instead of multiple. So a mass shooting would be counted as one homicide for statistical purposes. Another oddity about the statistical rules in the UK prior to 1998 was that an assault that only resulted in a slight injury, or no injury was excluded for statistical purposes. This resulted in artificially low violent crime rates for the UK. That has been corrected.
 
J

jgcoastie

New member
I'll add this extract from an email I sent to various senators/representatives/governors/mayors/and a few guys at fox news. Beware, it's kind of a long read.

"I am disgusted. I am enraged. I am deeply offended at the current state of our Great Union on so many levels. The issue that is most important to me is the right of the people specific to the 2nd Amendment, which has been subject to more criticism and legislation in the past 15 years than ever before. For a 2nd Amendment history/origin reference, I’ll include the following quote: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

I am currently stationed in Alaska, a state where gun owners’ rights are protected, perhaps more so than in any other state in the Union. I take great pride in the ability to legally carry a firearm for the protection of myself and my young family and it is something that I take very seriously. What I fail to understand is how people really believe that overly restrictive gun laws prevent crime in any way. Have we forgotten the catastrophes of Australia following their mandatory firearm “buy-back”? A simple search on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website shows a 64% increase in robberies from 1995-2001, an increase in assaults by 39% in the same time period. What about England’s Firearms Amendment #2 Act of 1997? A quick Google search turned up the following results (quoted from a January 12, 2002 article by David Bamber for Telegraph, U.K.) “During the period 1998-2000, Britain went from fifth to fourth worst in the world league table. An analysis of total recorded crime figures before 1998 also suggests that England and Wales have moved sharply up the league table since Labour came to power in 1997. Crimes fell from 5.5 million in 1993 to 4.5 million in 1997. By 1999, total crimes had risen again to 5.3 million.”

Now let’s take a look at crime rates in a European country with vastly different gun laws; Switzerland. Switzerland has taken a much different stance on gun control, they simply don’t have much of it. Nearly every male in Switzerland age 18 to around 35 keep their military service issued weapon (usually a fully-automatic “assault rifle”) in their home, resulting in one of the highest gun-ownership rates per capita in the world. However, Switzerland citizens enjoy a remarkably low crime rate. According to dev.prenhall.com, there are only about 2 homicides annually per 100,000 citizens. How can this be? Guns make people do bad things, right? No. Take a look in Washington D.C., where the 2nd Amendment, long violated by their heinous ban, is slowly making a comeback after the recent D.C vs. Heller decision. In 2006, the number of homicides per 100,000 citizens in Washington D.C. was 29.1, more than doubling that of Louisiana, which came in second at 12.4 homicides per 100,000 citizens. Compare D.C. to these states’ data for the same year: Vermont (1.9), South Dakota (1.2), Iowa (1.8), and so on… Guns make people do bad things? Right, and Halloween costume angel wings make pigs fly.

Let’s touch on “gun-free zones” that are found in every state in the Union. Gun-free zones give criminals a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. What better way to advertise to evil-doers than to say “Hey, we don’t allow guns here.”, which they will understand to mean “Every law abiding citizen who could have stopped you from doing harm to others had to leave their gun in the car, so do as you please.”. Who do politicians think restrictions such as these really affect? Do they really think that criminals will say to themselves: “Well, I was gonna go in this bank/school/college/etc and rob/rape/kill people, but since I can’t legally have a gun in there, I’ll just move along…”? I mean, really?!?! They have already made the decision to do harm to others, why not empower citizens to protect themselves? This is the type of stuff that happens when we have too many dad-blamed lawyers and blue-hearted liberals running around with nothing to do.

I have a great solution to the crime rates in this country; have a shall-issue federal concealed carry permit which requires a felony free criminal record, firearms training course or law enforcement/active duty military/retired military status (with proof of weapons training), and a valid driver’s license/state ID card. Then abolish all gun-free zones, owners of private businesses would obviously be able to hang a “No Guns Allowed” sign on their door as it is their property. Then sit back and watch crime rates drop. See the article at the following link to find out why. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117
 
Last edited:
U

Uncle Buck

New member
I wonder if anyone has ever done a comparison of crime inside a "gun-free" zone against a similiar place in a non-gun free zone? I think it would be very interesting to see the results.
I do not know how to search and compile the data.
 
M

MikeGoob

New member
Good info, thanks! I have a feeling I'll be needing to dig up these facts for people sometime in the next year.
 
F

FireForged

New member
Its not about winning a debate or argument with most of these people. They just have a different idea of what they want America to be.
 
D

Dannyl

New member
Uncle Buck,
Just for interest sake I will answer your question with recent information from my side of the woods;
In the past 6 months BGs have cottoned on the lovely idea that most shopping malls are Gun-Free Zones (not by law, but by signs posted by the owners, so you wont be arrested if you are found carrying one, but you will be asked to leave, shich causes a lot of people not to be armed whgen going there) the result is that malls are being targeted by robbers, who in some casses only use a bunch of hammers to commit their crime (lates was a robbery in a jewelry store) although in a few incidents these were ared-robberies that resulted in loss of life when the BGs opened up for no good reason (there was not a single armed person to confront them, including the useless security guards, which are also unarmed). On average, there is a robbery in a mall on a every week, sometimes several times in the same week.

Gun-Free ( as is the case with all legislation) zones are only respected by the good guys.

Also, there is no record of even one single incident of a person being injured (never mind loss of life) as result of a law-abiding citizen being armed in a shopping mall.

Brgds,

Danny
 
Last edited:
U

Uncle Buck

New member
So, if I understand correctly what you are saying, the POSSIBILITY of an armed person being present, actually discourages crime? (At least where you are.) Thanks Dannyl, I am going to try to use that as an example the next time this subject comes up with my "But we should all just sing kum-by-ya and hug a tree" friends. :)

Sometimes I think we have an UPTR&MBG (Union of Professional Thieves, Robbers and Miscellaneous Bag Guys) here in the states and they are secretly lobbying our (their) representatives for better laws in which their union members can work.

The problem I see with a lot of the anti's is when you give them facts like this they come back with the retort: "Yeah, but that is another country and culture, it does not apply here in the U.S."

I wonder if the anti's find me just as annoying as I find them?
 
D

divemedic

New member
The problem I see with a lot of the anti's is when you give them facts like this they come back with the retort: "Yeah, but that is another country and culture, it does not apply here in the U.S."
Click to expand...

But that kind of sinks the argument that we should be like Europe in our gun laws, free health care, etc, etc
 
D

Dannyl

New member
Hi Uncle Buck,
I am a member of SAGA (the local version of the NRA) and we can provide verified information to substantiate what I wrote.

And it is a definite yes, So called "gun-free" places are crime-magnets.
More than that, at least here the BGs have become so violent that submision is in no way a guarantee that you will not be harmed. On the other hand, the presence of firearms is certainly a deterrent.


As an example, last Friday a young wife and husbands were murdered (head shots = calculated) in the course of a robbery in their home. The robbers got away with the couple's DVD player. Seeing that the perpetrators and victims were from the same population group this is not a racially motovated attack, but a sensless murder of helpless victims. On the other hand, there are countless examples of people who fought back, and kept their lives as reward for their bravery and determination.

As for the possible rejection of this info by the Anti's, you are absolutely correct; unfortunately the anti-gun crowd will use any possible excuse to divert attention from valid information and re-focus it on their rethoric. Here they do the same when one points out that coutries that have all but banned private gun ownership have seen sharp increases in crime, so I guess the Anti crowd in the US will use the same tactics.



This does not mean that what happen in the US and what happens here is different, it all boils down to the fact that criminals (being that by definition)
Will not cease to have firearms just because a law is passed to make it illegal to have them, and neither will they heed a sign on the wall that says "gun free zone".

Most criminals ( with soem exceptions for very stupid ones or when they are on some stuff or another) have a good instinct for self preservation, which causes them to choose soft targets primarily. This applies to human beings, regardless of their nationality.

A good example I can think for someone who claims that the presence of guns does not deterr criminals is to ask them if they had ever heard of a Somali Pirate-Boat attacking a navy destroyer?
Other than the dull colour and the fact that Navy chaps dont have to pay to travel around, the most significant difference between them and a cargo ship is the fact that they have weapons, and they know how to use them.

That is in my opinion the reason that responsible (and legal) gun owners should never back off just because the Anti's keep arguing their stories.

Brgds,

Danny
 
Last edited:
S

Skans

Active member
I think we (as 2nd Amendment advocates) should be careful basing our "right to own firearms" argument on crime statistics. When we recite these statistics it's like peeing in the wind. The minute the antis can show that the statistics work in their favor, we're going to get soaked.
 
D

Dannyl

New member
Skans,
You have a good point there.
I guess the reason I never though of it this way is that
the US is the only nation that has that in its constitution.

Brgds,
Danny
 
N

NGIB

New member
It's very simple folks, you will not convince an anti that guns are not evil.

The only true anti's I've ever seen "converted" were the ones that had a life changing experience - like being a victim of a violent crime...
 
M

markj

New member
Ammo against anti's
Click to expand...

Is none, they need to have a BG expirience that they hopefully survive. Then they may see the need to be able to protect themselves against BGs instead of waiting for the police to come and save their rear ends.


A few years ago a group tried to stop the prairie dog shooting competition in Co. A granny was there cheering on her grandson and the tv gal asked her what they would shoot if the antis got their way and stopped this. She looked right into the camera and said "we will shoot antis" sure made my day.
 
R

raftman

New member
If I someone gives me antigun arguments, I just go down a list and make a comparison.

In California, one is limited to buying 1 handgun a month, here you're not.
In California, one can't have "assault weapons," here, you can.
California is a "may issue" state, we are a "shall issue" state.
In California, magazines with a capacity exceeding 10 are illegal, here they're legal.
California requires microstamping, here, we don't.
California requires a 10-day waiting period on all gun purchases, we do not.
California has registration, we don't.
And that's not all.


California is known for many things, but being a crime-free paradise is not among them. If anti-gun logic held true, California would be as peaceful and crime free a place as can be imagined, and here we'd overrun with violence and shootings, yet you're literally about twice as likely to be the victim of murder, rape, or robbery in California than you do in Oregon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top