I recently bought an "ugly" Arsenal SSR56-2 (AK47 type rifle) in deference to the question which Sen. Edwards pondered why I need to own one...It's simple... I have this right as a firearm enthusiast and cherish that right as I have one now thanks in part to his thinking... Yes, I intend to own an AR15 with a flashhider after the ban...Yes, I want to get an M4 carbine with a telescoping stock...and this fact is basically the cosmetics which enhance the allure of the gun...As a law-abiding citizen I embrace the wave of good news which point to the fulfillment of all of our rights...This article is a step...preservation of private rights is the goal! In honor of this coMing, I will note the weekly countdown in my .357 sig.... Whither Gun Control? Sunday, May 23, 2004 By John R. Lott, Jr. What is happening to the gun control (search) movement? This month, the Million Mom March (search) in Washington drew an anemic showing of only 2,000 people, while this year, all of the Democratic presidential candidates— however unenthusiastically— spoke of Americans’ Second Amendment (search) right to own guns. These are just a few of the signs that the facts finally seem to be catching up to the movement. The future for the movement looks even worse. Whether the subject is concealed handgun laws (search) or bans on semi-automatic so-called “assault weapons,” (search) gun control debates have been filled with apocalyptic claims about what will happen if gun control is not adopted. One common prediction is that laws allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon will result in crime waves, or permit holders shooting others. However, with 37 states now having right-to-carry laws (search), and another nine states letting some citizens carry, permit holders have continually shown themselves to be extremely law-abiding. It is becoming more and more difficult to attack those laws. Disarray among gun controllers is becoming common, even on one cornerstone of the gun control movement — the semi-automatic gun ban. Take the statements made on National Public Radio by a representative of the Violence Policy Center (search) just one week after the assault weapon extension was defeated in the Senate this March. NPR described the VPC as "one of the more aggressive gun groups in Washington." Yet the VPC's representative claimed: “If the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn’t pass, it doesn’t pass.” The NPR reporter noted: "[the Violence Policy Center's representative] says that's all the [assault-weapons ban] brought about, minor changes in appearance that didn't alter the function of these weapons.” Yet, before the Senate vote the VPC had long claimed that it was a "myth" that "assault weapons merely look different. The NRA and the gun industry today portray assault weapons as misunderstood ugly ducklings, no different from other semi-automatic guns. But while the actions, or internal mechanisms, of all semi-automatic guns are similar, the actions of assault weapons are part of a broader design package. The 'ugly' looks of the TEC-9, AR-15, AK-47 and similar guns reflect this package of features designed to kill people efficiently." So why the sudden disarray after the Senate defeat? Simply, gun-control groups' credibility is on the line and they are getting cold feet. With no academic research showing the assault weapons ban reduces crime, gun control groups realize that soon it will be obvious to everyone that their predicted horror stories about "assault weapons" were completely wrong. Internationally, dramatic gun control victories in countries such as England, Australia, and Canada are also unraveling. — Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in January 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. Yet, serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29 percent higher than 1996; robbery was 24 percent higher; murders 27 percent higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. — Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar after its Port Arthur gun control measures (search) in late 1996. Violent crime rates averaged 32 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1996. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 45 percent. — The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the most recent survey done, shows that the violent crime rate in England and Australia was twice the rate in the US. — Canada has not gone anywhere near as far as the United Kingdom or Australia. Nevertheless, their gun registration system is costing roughly a thousand times more than promised and has grown to be extremely unpopular, with only 17 percent of Canadians in a poll release this week supporting the system. Nor does the system seem to be providing any protection. The Canadian government recently admitted that they could not identify even a single violent crime that had been solved by registration. Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the laws and the criminals don’t, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. While the debate is hardly over, gun control is just another example of government planning that hasn’t lived up to its billing. And like other types of government planning, eventually its failures become too overwhelming to ignore.
I do agree with you that guns should remain legal, but for different reasons. Where do you draw the line on what weapons should be legal and why?
Wow, I'm surprised that John Lott (full disclosure, my former next door neighbor, which somewhat colors my views) and his "statistics" are still being taken seriously, what with the academic scandals and such.
That is a good question, the line has to drawn somewhere..."arms" could range from sticks to nuclear missles...Because of the rationale of the 2nd admendment, this deals with firearms (either hand fired, or shoulder fired)... You try to be reasonable... and I feel the National firearms Act of 1934 (or was it 1935?) does this well...It disallows automatic firearms for private citizens, limits the bore size to .50 or less (except shotguns)...and regarding shotguns, the barrel cannot be less than 18 inches...rifles can't be less than 16 inches (even though I wish they would allow shotguns to be 14 inches - better for home defense) I believe in proper balance, and this enables citizens as enthusiasts to enjoy the exciting function and capabilty of nearly all hand or shoulder-fired firearms in existance,...while properly restricting firearms with shortened barrels and advantageous selective fire to police or military...
ya know...i used to trumpet the 2nd amendment like crazy. but i'm less certain of that dogmatic viewpoint i used to have...i'm thinking my right to own a gun doesn't trump society's issues with gun violence. if the numbers posted about europe are correct, than that concern isn't as legitimate. but if they're just part of the "lies, damn lies and statistics" equation, then i'm not so sure. the kids at columbine went to a gun show...some other kids pulled guns out of daddy's locked cabinet....and on and on. the point is, they're inherently dangerous, and no safeguard is 100% effective. if i lost my son to some sort of jackass school shooting where people started trumpeting, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" i would not be pleased. the second amendment would be about as worthwhile to me as a roll of toilet paper...and i'd probably feel they have similar functions. as eddie izzard says, "guns may not kill people...but they do make it a helluva lot easier, don't they?" just another function of changed perspectives after becoming a father, i guess.
I agree with the second amendment, but I also agree that there should be reasonable limitations on the types of guns that average citizens should own. I guess it goes along with my belief in compromise and meeting the needs of the greatest number of people.
Eddie Izzard is funny. Will Durst once said... "Guns don't kill people, they just help people put lots of holes in other people that the blood leaks out of REALLY fast."
Guns are placebos for men with hamster penises. Fortunately, I am hung like a Sequoia tree. I have never owned or pulled the trigger on a gun in my life.
i was talking about this with a friend of mine the other day. i shot a bird with a bee-bee gun when i was a kid and i felt so bad afterwards, i haven't shot at a living creature since. i did shoot skeet at a friend's hunting lease once, but i don't think those things are endangered anymore, anyway.
interesting . . . .. limits? Like drugs. . . . the regulation should be on the user . . correct? Rocket River
Not really sure what your point is here. I believe that the regulation should be on the distribution side, just as it should be for drugs. Did that answer your question?
yes How every I still beleive that restrictions on hand guns Is used like Pohibition . . .except . . I dunno if the result is the same. . . the Gun Underground does not get half the press that drug dealers do etc. . Are you Pro - 7 day rule? Also - Should Felons be allowed to buy them legally? Rocket River
I think the gun control movement has "whithered on the vine" because of the shills that were trumpeting it. I think most moderate-leaning folks were quite turned off by the behavior of most of these gun-grabbers. Who wants to be on the same side of any issue with that gasbag Rosie O'Donnell, who is protected by gun-wielding bodyguards? Besides, the assault weapons ban was probably the most stupid piece of legislation ever proposed. Rather than eliminating a type of action in a weapon, Democrat staffers went through arms catalogues and found ones that "looked" like assault rifles.
I do believe that a cooling off period (7 day rule) is a good way to keep people from acquiring and using a gun in the "heat of the moment." It seems like it would be much easier to get a conviction for murder if the wife caught her cheating husband and had to wait a few days to get the gun before shooting him as opposed to her being able to walk into a sporting goods store and walk out the same day with a firearm. IMO, felons who have been involved in violent activites should be banned from legally purchasing firearms.
I would assume that this type of ban is in effect, but I am not an expert on gun policy. Ask me about the specifics of drug policy and I will probably have an answer, just ask me in another thread.
Supposedly, I'm an "expert" in this area...I will say with 99.45% certainty that the ATF 4473 form call-in will absolutely decline felons...
You are right about the gun control extremists...and us Left Leaning "moderates" are turned off by the NRA holding a ralley in Colorado after a bunch of teenagers were gunned down by Tek 9's--a weapon that is good for NOTHING except to kill people. I am an AVID firearm owner, hunter and collector. I have a class three, collector of curio and relic Federal Firearms Liscense and own many WWII fire arms and a couple of assault rifles. However, the NRA is JUST as bad as those who want guns taken away. I'm sorry folks...but the second amendment wasn't intended for every citizen to be packin' heat while in City Hall or during sunday morning services at the Church of Christ! A "well regulated militia" was for rasing an army when needed--we have a PROFFESSIONAL army. You being allowed to carry your Sig .45 ACP into the hospital is NOT going to protect you from an "evil" nazi government bent on taking you rights and throwing you into PC slavery. I am apalled by a good majority of the "gun nuts" out there--and I am not accusing ROXRAN or Bamma--as I matter of fact, we need to get together for a good day at the Range These guys are wanan be Rambo's, for the most part, and not what I would call "stable"--It's THOOSE guys that I don't like having a concealed carry liscense...Anyway, my pitiful rant is finished, I am a contradiction myself!
