10th Anniversary of Dunblane and Results of Gun Control

[kach22i]

Originally posted by red-beard
No mistype. It was a legal gun owner. He had mental issues and the police knew about him and the firearms. They refused to remove the firearms from him. That was the real failure.

Did the police have the authority to remove the firearms?

What legal action would have to be taken for them to do so? An order from a judge or something?

[kach22i]

Originally posted by red-beard
I couldn't agree more! Everyone should be able to exercise thier right to self defense. And this is the basis of converting permitting from "may issue" to "shall issue".

The examples I had in mind may not of caused civil unrest, but did lead to slaughter in civil war. What I think I should of clarified is that third world countries are a special case and different issue than the debate we probably want to take on and have been talking about.

However at some point, worlds shall meet, just a rural gun ownership trickled into cities over a century ago via the Industrial Revolution.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by kach22i
Did you mean to type illegal, Joeaksa?

Hey, it's early here too - the coffee is just kicking in.

Kach,

No, he was a legal gun owner. That said, he did have some mental problems and has "smoozed" up to the police to legally own weapons if my memory is correct.

Joe A

[red-beard]

The third world example is a "Prime Directive" issue. We shouldn't give technology to people who aren't ready for it.

The majority of Gun Control in the 19th century was directed towards keeping slaves and former slaves from owning guns. These laws were then extended to cover the immigrant community.

Guns were everywhere, including in the cities. Direct robbery was a way of life in most cities, and there were no credit card or checks. You needed to buy something, you had cash.

The NY Sullivan act, one of the first sweeping gun control bills, was directed against immigrants, specifically Italians. The fact that Sullivan was involved in organized crime and this was a means to secure his own people and to arrest opponents, shouldn't be taken too lightly.

January 27, 1905 New York Times Editorial -


[The proposed gun control] measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community.

Full Article

http://www.gunlawnews.org/sullivan.html

Also read:

"NEVER INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO THE WHITE
POPULATION": FIREARMS REGULATION AND
RACIAL DISPARITY—THE REDEEMED
SOUTH'S LEGACY
TO A NATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE?*
ROBERT J. COTTROL** AND RAYMOND T. DIAMOND***

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/11cd-reg.pdf

[kach22i]

Originally posted by red-beard
The NY Sullivan act, one of the first sweeping gun control bills, was directed against immigrants, specifically Italians. The fact that Sullivan was involved in organized crime and this was a means to secure his own people and to arrest opponents, shouldn't be taken too lightly.

It's always a case of "follow the money", or more recently follow the election money to find out the who, what, when, where and why.

Good stuff or bad stuff ( NY Sullivan act), I did not know this before anyway.

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by TheMentat
I agree with alot of what has been said thus far... Gun control has a weak, if not non-existent, correlation with violent crime.

Perhaps the violent crime rate is more negatively correlated with the degree of socialism of that country?

agree on both counts.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by kach22i
The introduction of guns into Africa, Indonesia, Central America and other previously gun free societies, no matter what century you want to talk about has been a disaster for the population.

That's not true. You're speaking of the introduction of government guns into a population that formerly didn't have anyone, government or otherwise, armed with guns. That's hardly a valid comparison. Further, if a government armed with guns has been subduing a population that becomes armed after decades of being terrorized and begins to fight back, that's not a disaster.

Lets not make broad sweeping generalizations. Pick an example and examine all the factors giving them the consideration they deserve.

I have examined all the factors, otherwise I'd not make the statement. There has never been a country on this planet that has reduced the death rate within its' borders with gun confiscation or gun control. There are no exceptions.

One generalization which I may harbor myself, is that guns in the hands of one segment of the population and not the other will shift the balance of power.

That's true, but it doesn't have to be guns, if any group with a counry or region is armed and another one is not, you can have monstrous consequences. Rwanda is an unfortunate example, wherein more than 800,000 people were murdered in just over 100 days, but very few with guns, most by machete or spear.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by kach22i
It's always a case of "follow the money", or more recently follow the election money to find out the who, what, when, where and why.

Good stuff or bad stuff ( NY Sullivan act), I did not know this before anyway.

There's additional reading on the effects of the introduction of relatively low cost guns into Britain, and the effects of gun control which came in the early 20th century.

It's Guns and Violence : The English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm, Dr. Malcolm is a Professor of History who has written extensively on this subject.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by fastpat That's true, but it doesn't have to be guns, if any group with a counry or region is armed and another one is not, you can have monstrous consequences. Rwanda is an unfortunate example, wherein more than 800,000 people were murdered in just over 100 days, but very few with guns, most by machete or spear.

Also mentioned in the reports I saw in England this past week were those showing that even though the rate of crimes using weapons were the same if not higher than 10 years ago, as well the rate of crimes involving knives and other weapons were higher.

If you take a gun away from a law abiding citizen, the criminal will either find a gun or other weapon to commit a crime. Taking a legal weapon away from a law abiding citizen turns that person into a ready made victim IMHO. Both the facts in England and Australia prove this.

Joe

[Jim Richards]

crime is more related to social conditions than to gun ownership (or the lack thereof).

[legion]

I'm so glad I live in Illinois, the state with the most restrictive gun-ownership laws...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by legion
I'm so glad I live in Illinois, the state with the most restrictive gun-ownership laws...

Vote with your feet.

[legion]

I'd love to. Texas is really the ideal state to live in, IMO.

Unfortunately, I'm tethered with "golden handcuffs" to a good job in a good area.

[gaijindabe]

January 27, 1905 New York Times Editorial -

[The proposed gun control] measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community.

Hahahahhaha.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
crime is more related to social conditions than to gun ownership (or the lack thereof).

True.

Everyone knows or should know that crime goes up when the economy takes a tumble. That goes for violent crimes with guns too.

[legion]

I love it when a group with a cause uses a weak correlation between two factors with no cause-effect relationship as a rationale for a misguided law.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by fastpat
Gun bans or controls have never reduced the murder rate in any country that has tried doing so, not once, ever.

Further, since the correlation exists cross culturally and in different nations, it strongly indicates that gun bans do increase both crime rates and murder rates.

Got any real data to support your supposed correlation? And any real analysis? Or could I just as easily make a correlation to gay rights and the murder rates in those countries?

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by legion
I love it when a group with a cause uses a weak correlation between two factors with no cause-effect relationship as a rationale for a misguided law.

I think this applies to both pro-gun and anti-gun crowds.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by legion
I love it when a group with a cause uses a weak correlation between two factors with no cause-effect relationship as a rationale for a misguided law.

Is this directed to anyone in the forum?

As for myself, I'm part of no such group. I have however seen average or good people do stupid things (criminal like stuff) because they were broke and desperate or just bored and stupid.

Then again it may be a fine line between golden opportunity, aggressive entrepeneurialship and crime. Just ask Jack Abramoff.

[pbs911]

Originally posted by legion
I'd love to. Texas is really the ideal state to live in, IMO.

Unfortunately, I'm tethered with "golden handcuffs" to a good job in a good area.

Sorry, your statement coupled with your aviator brings this to mind:

It would be nice to have that kind of job security.