I seriously have great job security at the moment. Any change in jobs would probably be much less secure.

Come to Texas. Enjoy your stay. Now go home!

But seriously, Houston has one of the Highest Salary to Cost of Living Ratios around.

Re: 10th Anniversary of Dunblane and Results of Gun Control
 

Yes, both the book by Joyce Lee Malcolm I linked above, and the study by John Lott and David Mustard published in 1997. There are quite a few more, which I'll list if you need them. There are no scientific studies supporting the opposite view.

That brings me to this axiom. The right to be armed is intrinsic to human existence; and as a right it is not subject to arguments of utility nor to the the democratic process. I present such arguments to you for your own enlightenment, not to justify individual gun ownership, it needs no justification of any kind.

Re: Re: 10th Anniversary of Dunblane and Results of Gun Control
 

Exactly. Too many today believe our Constitution "grants" rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, to U.S. citizens. It does no such thing. It simply enumerates intrinsic rights that all men hold. Such rights certainly require no justification. A governemt can not "grant" them, although many have denied them to their citizens.

Yes, while goverment really can not grant rights, it can and does legislate your ability to function such rights and it is well within the purview of government to do so.

Re: Re: 10th Anniversary of Dunblane and Results of Gun Control
 

Thanks. So did you see this one.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi116.html

Re: Re: Re: 10th Anniversary of Dunblane and Results of Gun Control
 

From the abstract:
"Despite this, however, Mouzos concludes it is too soon to determine definitively whether Australia's uniform firearms laws have achieved their aim in reducing firearm related violence and misuse."

This was published in 1999. I believe, although I'm not certain, that data collected since then points to an increase in violent crime. I seem to recall seeing a reference to this just recently. Can anyone help?

The Brady Campaign, formerly known as Handgun Control Incorporated. Sorry Steve, you will have to find a less biased source for anyone to take this seriously. Sarah Brady and her organization are well known as the most vehemently anti-gun group in the country. They have been caught twisting the facts to suit their agenda far too many times to have any hint of credibility whatsoever.

The homicide rate was 1.91 in 1996 and was at its highest in 1999 at 2.04 per 100,000, before dropping to 1.7 in 2003.
Published in
Australian crime : facts and figures 2004 (Recorded crime) as referenced in the doc I referenced above.

Nice little drop but there is no data to say it would have been better or worse without AU gun law.

Yep, except where the people, or the tool of the people (i.e., the Constitution) forbids the government from infringing on enumerated rights.

Looking solely at the homicide rate does not tell the whole story. I believe other violent crime is up significantly.

Matt has it right on our Constitution. It serves as a safeguard of our intrinsic rights against a government that would otherwise take them away. They keep trying anyway; it would be far easier if we didn't have such a document. Witness what happened in England, the topic of this thread.

That is what happens when a government, and the people it governs, agree that the government "can and does legislate your ability to function such rights and it is well within the purview of government to do so". No one can ever be free in such a system.

I was just reading the below news report about the sooting at a California Denny's:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-03-15T231546Z_01_N15412984_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-SHOOTING.xml

and I still have to agree with many others that gun control will do very little to keep guns out of the hands of professional criminals (ie. drug dealers, bank robbers, gangsters etc.).

However you've gotta admit that it would make it more difficult for some crazy to spontaneously go on a shooting spree...

Mentat,

The ability to prevent someone who wouldn't or hasn't otherwise sent up flags that would prevent him/her from owning firearms just can't really exist in a free society. Unfortunately, shy of Big Brother observing our every move, we can only do simple things like background checks at point of sale (the only form of 'gun control' I support). No free society will ever be completely safe. No completely safe society will ever be free.

Unfortunate for inhabitants of England, but thank God for citizens of the USA. If England hadn't been governed in such tyranny, our Founding Fathers would have had no reason to put these intrinsic rights into the Constitution. We also have to thank those states who demanded the Bill of Rights be drafted or they would not join the union. If the latter would not have occured, we may be in the same position as England today.

Re: Re: Re: 10th Anniversary of Dunblane and Results of Gun Control
 

I have not, but it's irrelevant in any case. Further, you'd have to have access to the data and run the tests or have them run by peers of those obtaining the data and performing the specified analysis to see if results can be verified. In Australia this result would be suspect because the gun confiscation lobby and organizations are attempting, under severe scrutiny, to obtain results to justify actions they've already taken, when the murder rate in Australian was already extremely low. Also, you'd need to demonstrate that murders overall have declined, and that would take at least 20 years of intense observation, and the current gun laws in Australia aren't that old, yet.


Firearms access and ownership is an intrinsic right. There is no justification for interference with it, of it, or in it.

Ever.

No, there is no legitimate government interference with a right. It appears you're speaking about privileges, not rights.

Voting is a privilege. Weapons ownership is a right.

No, unfortunately, there's absolutely no evidence to support your theory. A California motorcycle cop was killed in the mid-90's by man who'd been in and out of mental institutions for years. This man had assembled his own AR-15 rifle from parts. Crazy doesn't necessarily mean stupid.

There is knowledge of guns, unless you outlaw knowledge itself, guns can and will be available to commit crimes. In point of fact, a submachine gun is simpler and easier to manufacture than almost any high quality semi-automatic pistol. I could make one from a junk Ford car in a weekend with hand tools.

In no case do the activities of criminals or the mentally incompetent justify abrogating a right.