Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Dark_Gnat
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 484
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:03 pm 
 

Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study

From: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsande ... /3958.aspx


Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,” says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.
_________________
FYI: 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot - including this one - which proves my point.

Top
 Profile  
thomash
Metal Philosopher

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:31 pm
Posts: 1855
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:09 pm 
 

Not exactly an objective source...

Although I agree with the sentiment, I think this study needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I wonder if a liberal think-tank's results would have been the same.

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2240
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:21 pm 
 

thomash wrote:
Not exactly an objective source...

Although I agree with the sentiment, I think this study needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I wonder if a liberal think-tank's results would have been the same.


What makes anything that a biased liberal think-tank puts out any more objective or honest than a biased right-wing site?
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
Star-Gazer
Trust and you'll be trusted

Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:21 pm
Posts: 2489
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:59 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
What makes anything that a biased liberal think-tank puts out any more objective or honest than a biased right-wing site?
I don't think he was trying to say that at all, just pointing out the source may be perceived as less than objective

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2240
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:12 pm 
 

einvolk wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
What makes anything that a biased liberal think-tank puts out any more objective or honest than a biased right-wing site?
I don't think he was trying to say that at all, just pointing out the source may be perceived as less than objective


I understand, but I'm trying to figure out what the basis of comparison is that would make the study non-legitimate. The mention of a liberal think tank threw me a little bit because it looked like a suggestion that they would have more accurate information, which I highly doubt since most liberal think tanks I'm aware of have problems telling the truth, not to say that their right-wing equivalents don't lie for their own ends.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
josephus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:04 am
Posts: 1288
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:01 pm 
 

On both sides of the argument it's amazing what can be shown if you cherry-pick your figures.
_________________
Carrying Concealed

Top
 Profile  
thomash
Metal Philosopher

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:31 pm
Posts: 1855
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:20 pm 
 

hells_unicorn wrote:
einvolk wrote:
hells_unicorn wrote:
What makes anything that a biased liberal think-tank puts out any more objective or honest than a biased right-wing site?

I don't think he was trying to say that at all, just pointing out the source may be perceived as less than objective

I understand, but I'm trying to figure out what the basis of comparison is that would make the study non-legitimate. The mention of a liberal think tank threw me a little bit because it looked like a suggestion that they would have more accurate information, which I highly doubt since most liberal think tanks I'm aware of have problems telling the truth, not to say that their right-wing equivalents don't lie for their own ends.

All I'm trying to say is that conservative studies always seem to show that restrictions on gun ownership are ineffective and, I imagine, liberal studies would show the opposite. I don't think that one is more objective than the other at all, I only meant to speculate that the difference between a conservative and liberal study would be dramatic.

Top
 Profile  
Earthcubed
Peregrinus sine aetate

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 2235
Location: Orocarni
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:40 pm 
 

To add to the earlier post about common confusion regarding actual assault weapons and guns that just look like assault weapons, it's worth noting that such confusion does not just appear in Hollywood and disinformation campaigns run by anti-gun interest groups; such confusion also has appeared in federal law. The much-toted Federal Assault Weapons Ban of the early 90's, for example, made virtually no distinction between a fully-automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic (meaning you have to pull the trigger for each shot fired) rifle made to look like an assault rifle. Basically, if a gun had any visual, cosmetic resemblance to an assault weapon, it was considered an assault weapon. This includes guns specifically made for civilians who want replicas for collecting purposes without wanting a burst-fire or fully automatic gun.


The bill had no legal effect on actual assault weapons, since there were already laws made about those. It was merely an attempt to re-define assault weapons in federal law in a way favorable to gun control activists. Many such activists have publicly admitted that the best way to enact their overarching agenda of a complete gun ban is a divide-and-conquer strategy based on drawing up arbitrary categories for guns and demonizing them in the popular consciousness. The FAWB was their greatest success. So yes, you should be very wary when you hear about crimes committed with "assault weapons" or how easy it is to legally or illegally obtain an "assault weapon;" most of the time, it's just the media incorrectly using the term for whatever reason.



"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

---Gun control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988.
_________________
conquer__all wrote:
I personally hate when breeders bring their fuck trophies were their not wanted. Once this low life couple brought their bastard to a rated "R" movie and it cried the whole time, I was like what the fuck is this shit I paid twelve bucks for this?!

Top
 Profile  
josephus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:04 am
Posts: 1288
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:09 pm 
 

I am 90%+ sure that the confusion that you speak of was all part of the plan, when it came to new legislation that they wanted to (or did) get put through.
_________________
Carrying Concealed

Top
 Profile  
Earthcubed
Peregrinus sine aetate

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 2235
Location: Orocarni
PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:35 pm 
 

Well, yes, I think it would be obvious to anyone familiar with the situation. The sad thing is that many gun control supporters don't seem to realize the bullshit their activists throw at them. Most gun control supporters don't want to ban guns; most of their gun control advocacy groups do.


The real way to get rid of gun violence is easy, and requires no new strict gun laws. The U.S.' absurd and openly sociopathic drug laws are what causes a lot (most, if I'm not mistaken) gun violence, either directly (through illicit drugs deals gone awry) or indirectly (through gang violence from gangs who's entire budget comes from drug sales). Imagine if every currently illegal drug was only legal to buy in a Wal Mart; gangs and drug dealers would have no budget because nobody would bother buying from them. Gun violence would plummet.

Nobody advocates that because Republicans have taken up the mantle of constitutionality on the issue of guns (and the party has been hijacked by drug-hating religious fundamentalists) and because Democrats are taking it up the ass from gun control groups who want guns banned, not violence reduced.
_________________
conquer__all wrote:
I personally hate when breeders bring their fuck trophies were their not wanted. Once this low life couple brought their bastard to a rated "R" movie and it cried the whole time, I was like what the fuck is this shit I paid twelve bucks for this?!

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:49 pm 
 

Speaking of the Assault Weapon Ban:

"After being elected as President, Obama announced that he favors measures that respect Second Amendment rights, while at the same time keeping guns away from children and criminals. He further stated that he wants to close the gun-show loophole and make guns childproof, and that he supports reinstating the expired Assault Weapons Ban.[247]"

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/


While normally I do not care for Petitions I would ask anyone who recognizes how ridiculous the first "Assault Weapon" ban was to sign it. AR-15s and similar rifles are currently months in back order because people are afraid they are going to go away. These are not big scary automatic weapons but regular ol semi auto rifles that share appearance with "real" assault weapons.

Anyways the Petition:

The attempt to renew and augment the expired federal "assault weapons ban", HR 1022, will not be tolerated.


This is NOT the cosmetic bill from the Clinton era and does NOT include
a sunset expiration, this one DOES ban many more guns, not just
features, going so far as to ban WWII era rifles such as the M1 Garand
and semi-automatic shotguns. Do your homework, learn about the details and contact your representative, act locally, raise awareness.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348

44,945 signatures so far and counting. I am not sure what good it will do but I am trying to spread the word. Banning M1 Garands? I mean really come on.

Also it should be noted no one is sure if this will get passed or not, we are still watching and waiting. The fact Obama listed it on his website of something he supports after he was elected tho makes things look grim.

edit: earlier in this thread I posted a youtube video on the England gun ban. That one was fine but the one I was actually thinking about was this one: http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. ... ge=1&wh=wh

I could not recall the address but a friend on myspace just posted it and I ripped it off her :P. Interesting watch for those who care about the right to own firearms.

Top
 Profile  
Morbidreich
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 267
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:24 pm 
 

Gun control solves nothing. Taking guns from law abiding citizens, while criminals can easily obtain any weapons they want through illegal means is wrong. The 2nd amendment isn't taken seriously by a lot of people in this country, and a nation's citizens have a right to bear arms.

The government has, for years, tried to slowly chip away at the 2nd amendment, and continual gun control continues this. A lot of people don't undestand the extent of a lot of these proposed bans. Also it is hard for some people who are not gun owners to understand why this is such an important right. I was brought up around enjoying shooting and guns, and not everyone is happy with just owning a single shot shotgun or whatever the government may deem as an appropraiate firearm for civilians to be able to own.
History has, as others I'm sure have brought up, shown that gun control really does not put a astop to gun violence or crime, it is a way of keeping guns away from people who need them and have a right to own them.

Top
 Profile  
Dark_Gnat
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 484
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:15 pm 
 

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."

--Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.
_________________
FYI: 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot - including this one - which proves my point.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:25 pm 
 

I thought some might get a kick out of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

These are the kind of people who are making decisions on what types of fire arms Americans should be allowed to own. She does not even know what is in her own legislation.

Top
 Profile  
Trevor
Niggers and beaners and kikes, oh my!

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:24 am
Posts: 289
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:56 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
CountBlagorath wrote:
If somebody want's to own a anti-tank gun or a AK-47, then god bless them. It's America and they have a right to own one.


Image

America, Fuck Yeah!


wow what's this gun ? anybody knows?


Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#Hurricane_Katrina

"Additionally it has been reported that armed contractors from Blackwater USA assisted in policing the city."

interesting: 20,000 troops will be deployed on american soil for security purposes

Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security

http://www.washingtonpost.com/_CLICK-LONGURL**



I wonder how many Blackwater mercenaries it will include or if there are some of them already working right now in the US


josephus wrote:
I am 90%+ sure that the confusion that you speak of was all part of the plan, when it came to new legislation that they wanted to (or did) get put through.

'automatic weapons' doesn't sound as mean as 'assault weapons' so it's easier to sell to the public when you say 'assault weapons' and having a vague definition of the 'assault' category opens up opportunities for the Feds to file new charges against people they don't like, e.g. the crime John Doe is accused of is said to be worse because he had an 'assault weapon' at home and the likes. They're always looking for some extras.
_________________
Whoever becomes a sheep will find a wolf to eat him.
* * * *
folk recommendations thread :
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/vie ... hp?t=18983

Top
 Profile  
Earthcubed
Peregrinus sine aetate

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 2235
Location: Orocarni
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:26 am 
 

T51b wrote:
I thought some might get a kick out of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

These are the kind of people who are making decisions on what types of fire arms Americans should be allowed to own. She does not even know what is in her own legislation.



I remember a few years ago there was some state congresswoman trying to pass a law banning silencers in her state, and when asked she couldn't say what a silencer was (it's in the name you dumb cunt :lol:). It's funny when gun control supporters try to portray gun owners as ignorant backwoods hicks living in the past when they are totally ignorant of what their activists are trying to ban.
_________________
conquer__all wrote:
I personally hate when breeders bring their fuck trophies were their not wanted. Once this low life couple brought their bastard to a rated "R" movie and it cried the whole time, I was like what the fuck is this shit I paid twelve bucks for this?!

Top
 Profile  
josephus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:04 am
Posts: 1288
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:21 am 
 

Sound supressors are VERY useful tools, it is another layer of protection (such as ear defenders) that will keep your hearing intact when shooting on/in a range. Indoor ranges would benefit from this a LOT.
_________________
Carrying Concealed

Top
 Profile  
AnthologyMetal
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 18
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:58 pm 
 

Our Founding Father wrote the constituion saying that we had the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. They did not specifically say what kind of guns we should own, but I say you can have any weapon you want.

Top
 Profile  
Dark_Gnat
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 484
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:40 pm 
 

Trevor wrote:
[Image

wow what's this gun ? anybody knows?


Lahti Model L-39. 20mm semi-automatic anti-tank rifle, used in WWII, designed by Aimo Johannes Lahti, from Finland.
_________________
FYI: 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot - including this one - which proves my point.

Top
 Profile  
Star-Gazer
Trust and you'll be trusted

Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:21 pm
Posts: 2489
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:54 pm 
 

- the most basic human right is the right to self-defense (despite the feminization of the Western male, self-preservation is still the highest law)
- stay alert - if you look like food you will be eaten - there are no victims, only volunteers
- in the dance of death one leads and other follows, in other words every fight is WIN or LOSE - the only dirty fight is the one you lose
- less-than-lethal weapons combined with hand-to-hand combat should be employed should the need arise (never ONLY carry a firearm)
- a gun provides the last line of defense, and should only be deployed when there is no other choice
- that gun should ideally only be in the hands of someone who has at a minimum taken a weekend course on gun handling and safety (but the government has no right to restrict ownership of those who haven't)
- a good man with fair equipment will beat a fair man with great equipment - so get to the range often as shot placement is the most important part of defending yourself with a firearm
- remember, only slaves are forbidden from owning firearms

Top
 Profile  
antzology
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:24 am
Posts: 129
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:34 am 
 

einvolk wrote:
- the most basic human right is the right to self-defense (despite the feminization of the Western male, self-preservation is still the highest law)
- stay alert - if you look like food you will be eaten - there are no victims, only volunteers
- in the dance of death one leads and other follows, in other words every fight is WIN or LOSE - the only dirty fight is the one you lose
- less-than-lethal weapons combined with hand-to-hand combat should be employed should the need arise (never ONLY carry a firearm)
- a gun provides the last line of defense, and should only be deployed when there is no other choice
- that gun should ideally only be in the hands of someone who has at a minimum taken a weekend course on gun handling and safety (but the government has no right to restrict ownership of those who haven't)
- a good man with fair equipment will beat a fair man with great equipment - so get to the range often as shot placement is the most important part of defending yourself with a firearm
- remember, only slaves are forbidden from owning firearms


Are slaves the only ones forbidden from owning narcotics?

Serious question, just wanting to see where you're coming from.

Top
 Profile  
Star-Gazer
Trust and you'll be trusted

Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:21 pm
Posts: 2489
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:17 am 
 

antzology wrote:
Are slaves the only ones forbidden from owning narcotics?

Serious question, just wanting to see where you're coming from.
fair enough
but no, as the answer lies in my first point - the basic right as an individual to defend one's life by any means necessary

as Jeff Cooper wrote in The Art of The Rifle, "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen."

(also, I do want narcotics legalized)

Top
 Profile  
antzology
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:24 am
Posts: 129
Location: New Zealand
PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:28 pm 
 

einvolk wrote:
antzology wrote:
Are slaves the only ones forbidden from owning narcotics?

Serious question, just wanting to see where you're coming from.
fair enough
but no, as the answer lies in my first point - the basic right as an individual to defend one's life by any means necessary

as Jeff Cooper wrote in The Art of The Rifle, "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen."

(also, I do want narcotics legalized)


I understand that, I compltely support legally owning rifles but I am no fan of people carrying (hidden) pistols around. If our police carried handguns I would definitely support people legally carrying concealed handguns to protect themselves.

Different countries with different cultures... Different laws are needed, if I lived in the USA and the laws were the same as they are now, I wouldn't carry one but I'd support people in doing so.

Btw, also in favor of legalising everything but the sale of narcotics (except some which should be completely legal).

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wrathchild_88 and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group