Actually, if you remember when Florida had all the problems with the thugs
robbing, shooting, and killing tourists, it was caused by liberalization of
Florida's concealed carry, and liability laws.
It wasn't safe for the thieves to random pick a Florida resident as a
victim, because suddenly they tended to be armed. So, they started preying
on the tourists, because they knew they wouldn't be armed.
As to rates of homicide, and gun ownership in the "Old West", there aren't
any good statistics, but it should be remembered that a large portion of the
adult male population were veterans of the civil war, and were not only
armed but trained, and veterans of some of the bloodiest fighting ever seen.
I doubt any of them took much guff from anyone, or allowed bullies to exist
with impunity. The movie scenes where the "bad guys" ride into town, and
terrorize the populace just didn't happen. They would have been cut down in
This is a poll as to whether or not we believe guns should be banned after
this shooting. Hit it, we are barely winning. Anytime one of these polls
comes up anywhere in the nation there should be emails sent to every member
of the NRA and anyone who doesn't want their constitutional rights stepped
And a word from Down Under:
Australian Gun Law Update
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts . ...
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the now
available data from Down Under.
It has now been one year (12 months) since gun owners in Australia were
forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed
by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
The first year results are now available:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent);
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent as compared with the last one year period when private ownership of
a firearm was legal.
(NOTE: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the
criminal element did not and thus criminals in Australia still possess their
While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately owned
guns showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has
changed drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals now are
assured their victims will be unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.'
This story of well-intentioned government intervention in the rights of
lawful individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the
mainstream US media or on the American evening news. Senator Obama who
advocates a similar confiscation in the US will not be reporting any of this
But, the Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of
honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect
only the law-abiding citizens. Americans may want to take note before it's
It does not seem clear to you that putting up some little hurdles to legal
gun ownership would prevent a lot of illegal gun trading?
How else are you going to discourage illegal gun ownership/usage?
Issue guns to everyone and let them have it out?
Has it ever done so anywhere? Iraq is under military occupation and
martial law and yet the criminals seem to be having little difficulty
obtaining weapons that pose a threat to armored vehicles.
The UK has an outright ban on handguns. That hasn't prevented their
use in crime.
Please tell us of ONE place where there was a decrease in the use of
firearms in crime subsequent to the implementation of the restrictions
If your "little hurdles" were likely to accomplish anything other than
annoy the law abiding it would be one thing, but they have not proven
to be effective so why continue to waste time and effort implementing
How about we arrest people who illegally own or use guns and put them
in jail? Or is that too old fashioned for you? Was tried under
Reagan, seemed to be having an effect, but Clinton decided to
discontinue the program. IIRC Janet Reno wanted to continue it. The
deal was that any criminal caught with a firearm went directly to
Federal court, did not pass go, did not collect 200 dollars, and did
not get out of jail until his sentence under Federal firearms charges
was up, at which time he could _then_ begin serving his state sentence
for whatever other crime he committed.
Please explain how making the law abiding jump through hoops
That seems indeed like a good idea. Let's all support that. In the mean
time let's also prosecute and jail those that sell illegally, and include
those manufacturers that look away when they sense illegal distribution.
Very good. Perhaps you should join the NRA, as the NRA did and does
Certainly. The trouble is catching them.
Which manufacturers "look away when they sense illegal distribution"?
How do they "sense" this distribution? Certainly if a manufacturer is
colluding in unlawful activities action should be taken against them,
however firearms manufacturers in general sell only to the government
and to companies and individuals who hold Federal Firearms Licenses,
so they have precious little room for "illegal distribution". If
those licensees are violating the law, it is the responsibility of the
government and not the firearms manufacturers to police them.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:02:29 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:
Oh please... more of the manufacturer's responsiblity gibberish. Ok...
something to back up this notion that manufacturers are "looking the other
way" when they "sense illegal distribution". The problem with your
proposals is that they can often sound like they hold a certain
resonableness - but they don't once you realize they are based on
You make a good point. Since they made a law against robbery, not a single
gas station or store has been robbed. Banks lo longer need vaults.
There are plenty of hurdles. Law abiding people abide by them, others won't
no matter how many or how high they are. Passing laws does not prevent
crime, it only prescribes the punishment. Responsible gun owners seek
training and learn how to use them properly.
There are sufficient laws in place that if folks followed them there
would be very little to complain of.
Hence, it's clear adding laws isn't the solution.
Enforcement is an issue primarily of criminals exist by evading arrest
else they're not particularly effective in their chosen endeavor.
Beyond that it's one of sufficient resources primarily. What percentage
is owing to graft, etc., that would seem to be your above target is,
while not zero, a minute fraction of the total problem overall albeit it
may be a significant issue in certain specific jurisdictions.
The upshot is that more laws don't fix problems once a minimum number
are in place. Those who advocate them as a solution simply are wishing
for something that can't and won't happen.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:10:56 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:
Not only does it not seem clear, it has never worked. In part, it won't
work because the amount of guns stolen from legal ownership is not as high
as you might believe in order to formulate your hypothesis that you can
curb illegal use by controlling legal use.
Why not address the underlying problem instead of the symptom?
Therein lies the problem. Nobody has been able to determine why
people in the US are more likely to kill each other than are people in
other countries. But even if you deduct all deaths involving firearms
from the total, the US still has a much higher homocide rate than the
UK or Japan or many other nations.
Whatever the problem is, "too many guns of questionable ownership"
doesn't seem to be it. The main effect of firearms regulations seems
to be to waste police time on matters peripheral to the real issue.
It doesn't help that the agency charged with enforcing the Federal
laws has a cowboy mentality.
Actually the US ranks very low in the violent crime rates, as compared to
other industrialized nations, and since their weapons ban, the rate in
Australia, has shot up considerably. Check out this link:
Bullies tend to be cowards, and attack those less likely to defend
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:00:31 +0000, J. Clarke wrote
Many of us see this as a charter to arm criminals against a background of now
more vulnerable disarmed citizenry. It seems to be very effective in this
regard. Of course the real reason for the legislation is that an oppressive /
occupying force / police state can only function if there is no chance of
effective revolution... think back to why the US constitution has the
"bearing arms" subject matter raised at all. Fear of Redcoats etc.
Gotta go.. the Bluecoats are coming..........
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.