Registration leads to confiscation.

Forum Sponsor
I can understand much of what you're saying, though I personally find the statistics don't bear that out I do respect your opinion. I was however asking if you could elaborate on the statement regarding the laws.
 
Well, the state of California is a good example. All firearms must be sold through dealers, even privately. Not so in Canada. All sales are recorded, unlike here, with the long gun registry gone. There is a mandatory 10 day waiting period before you can receive your new firearm in CA; not here. Californians must complete exams in order to be allowed to purchase a firearm, much like here. Also much like here, they have a long list of prohibited firearms; but unlike here, they pretty much can't own any long gun with a short barrel... whereas we can buy shotguns with barrels as short as several inches. We can also buy semi-auto rifles with barrels as short as 7.5" (and less!), granted they're restricted, but that's still more elastic than California. And finally, they have many arbitrary rules about very specific features a guns can or can't have. In this matter, our laws are also more lax.

That's just one state's example, but California has a larger population than Canada, so their laws affect a huge number of Americans. Coincidentally, their homicide rate is massively larger than ours- but going back to my previous post, I simply don't connect the two together.
 
Last edited:
mmmnaked said:
Well, the state of California is a good example. All firearms must be sold through dealers, even privately. Not so in Canada. All sales are recorded, unlike here, with the long gun registry gone. There is a mandatory 10 day waiting period before you can receive your new firearm in CA; not here. Californians must complete exams in order to be allowed to purchase a firearm, much like here. Also much like here, they have a long list of prohibited firearms; but unlike here, they pretty much can't own any long gun with a short barrel... whereas we can buy shotguns with barrels as short as several inches. We can also buy semi-auto rifles with barrels as short as 7.5" (and less!), granted they're restricted, but that's still more elastic than California. And finally, they have many arbitrary rules about very specific features a guns can or can't have. In this matter, our laws are also more lax.

That's just one state's example, but California has a larger population than Canada, so their laws affect a huge number of Americans. Coincidentally, their homicide rate is massively larger than ours- but going back to my previous post, I simply don't connect the two together.
Click to expand...

That is actually rather interesting. I wonder if the number of guns and related crimes has something to do with the more detailed laws regarding the type and features.... thanks for that

As for the firearms you mention which can be purchased here but are restricted, it is the restriction that is the key factor for me. The penalties and general public's positions with regards to carrying, transporting, or possessing these firearms are far tighter then most american states which IMO is what makes Canadian Gun control work to the extent it does.

An example would be handguns. ALL handguns are restricted, I can't just roll around with one in my leathers "just in case"

That is what I connect with difference in the firearm related homicide rate.
 
For what its worth, California is a 'may issue' state... in other words, it's very tough to get a CCW permit, almost impossible in many jurisdictions.

Actually this is changing as we speak, but that's not relevant to the argument I guess.
 
mmmnaked said:
For what its worth, California is a 'may issue' state... in other words, it's very tough to get a CCW permit, almost impossible in many jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

Also quite interesting... the States is almost a Pandora's Box scenario. How do you go about regulating handguns in the way Canada does when the number of guns and people who feel it's their god given right to carry those guns everywhere they go is so indoctrinated into the fabric of the culture.

I mean, bring up this subject on the Buell forum and you will get told, and I'm paraphrasing at best here "shut up or I'll shot you. it's my 2nd amendment right!" or "come down here and say that to me and my colt" etc etc. which does tend to agree with what you've said on the cultural issues (though I'm not sold on the socioeconomic aspect, at least in relation to homicide)

But i digress.. how does a culture so set on intimidating each other with firearms go back? and when they try, how do they control the apparent initial increase in violent crime?
 
The US have a culture built on intimidation period. Also they became a country because a bunch of locals picked up their guns and told the Crown to take a hike. That's why personal gun ownership is enshrined in their constitution.

As for the information you asked for.. Info on guns per capita can be found here http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/year_b_pdf/2007/CH2 Stockpiles.pdf Cliffs: US is #1 at 89 guns per 100 people, Serbia is second at 58, followed closely by Yemen at 55ish, then there's a pack of about 15 countries that Canada is in, ranging from 30-45, many of them Scandinavian, some from the rest of Western Europe and a couple more Arab nations. In general, it's affluent countries with a relatively high degree of civil liberties.

The source for homicide rates is http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls UNDOC's homicide stats for 2012. Some highlights:
Canada - 30.8 guns per 100 people, 1.6 homicides per 100,000 people
Serbia - 58 guns per 100 people, 1.2 homicides per 100,000 people (almost twice as many guns and only 3/4 of the homicides that we have here, in an economically depressed country that was involved in multiple civil wars in recent past)
Switzerland - 45.7 guns per 100 people, 0.7 homicides per 100,000 people (1.5 times as many guns as Canada, less than half of our homicide rate)
Scandinavia seems to be "murder happy" and in that general region firearm ownership rates don't seem to affect homicide rates.. For example: Finland 45.3/2.2, Norway 31.3/2.3 so 50% difference in gun ownership rates in very similar socialist states but homicide rates stay stable. Iceland is weird as they're a socialist Scandinavian offshoot, have the same gun ownership rate as Norway or Canada (30.3) but sitting at only 1/7th of the Norwegian homicide rate and 1/5th of our homicide rate (0.3 per 100,000)
Uruguay has pretty much the same gun ownership rate as Finland (31.8 ) but almost 3 times the homicide rate (5.9), while United States have almost 3 times the guns per capita as Uruguay (89/100) but about 20% lower homicide rate (4.7)
Our oil rich Saudi friends have about 10% more guns than we do (35/100), but only 2/3 of the homicides (1 per 100,000), while Austrians are similar in numbers to us (30.4) but the homicide rate is less than half of ours (0.6 per 100,000)
Yemen has a high gun ownership rate (54.8 ) and a high homicide rate (4.2), but among the top 15 gun-toting countries, that seems to be more of an occasional exception than a rule.

When you look at all these numbers the only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that homicide rate is socioeconomic and cultural and not a function of gun ownership rate.
 
Last edited:
Good reading so far, much better then the eaglerising.com ******** and youtube testimonials!. I will need time to digest much of that, though i did read chapter 9 which focuses on regulation primarily. My Personal favorite.

Interestingly only in the USA and Yemen do civilians have the basic right to own firearms, and as you pointed out in 2009 the rate for Yemen was 4.2, rather high, but on par with the USA at 5.0 (think you said 4.7, maybe typo)
I feel it's possibly more then a simple "occasional exception" as you put it.

Also curious about Switzerland and Finland, 2 of your gun happy counties, I found that on page 22, the Section that address' types of licensing, you will find they both have two-tiered licencing requirements which could just as reasonably explain how so many people own guns with relatively low homicide rates by comparison. still have much to analyze there.

Again I will have to point out I can bring myself to live with a well restricted ownership system, I can see the appeal for sportsmen etc. But I am sorry to say that is much different than what you seem to be arguing for. If i'm wrong in that statement I apologize
 
Just depends on what your view of a 'well restricted' system is...
 
Some more reading:

The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime

By JOHN R. LOTT JR.

Warning about "weapons designed for the theater of war," President Obama on Wednesday called for immediate action on a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He said that "more of our fellow Americans might still be alive" if the original assault weapons ban, passed in 1994, had not expired in 2004. Last month, in the wake of the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) promised to introduce an updated version of the ban. She too warned of the threat posed by "military weapons."

After the nightmare of Newtown, their concern is understandable. Yet despite being at the center of the gun-control debate for decades, neither President Obama nor Ms. Feinstein (the author of the 1994 legislation) seems to understand the leading research on the effects of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In addition, they continue to mislabel the weapons they seek to ban.

Ms. Feinstein points to two studies by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth for the National Institute of Justice to back up her contention that the ban reduced crime. She claims that their first study in 1997 showed that the ban decreased "total gun murders." In fact, the authors wrote: "the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero)."

Messrs. Koper and Roth suggested that after the ban had been in effect for more years it might be possible to find a benefit. Seven years later, in 2004, they published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice with fellow criminologist Dan Woods that concluded, "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

Moreover, none of the weapons banned under the 1994 legislation or the updated version are "military" weapons. The killer in Newtown used a Bushmaster .223. This weapon bears a cosmetic resemblance to the M-16, which has been used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam War. The call has frequently been made that there is "no reason" for such "military-style weapons" to be available to civilians.

Yes, the Bushmaster and the AK-47 are "military-style weapons." But the key word is "style"—they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns.

The civilian version of the Bushmaster uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet—.30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. No self-respecting military in the world would use the civilian version of these guns.

A common question is: "Why do people need a semiautomatic Bushmaster to go out and kill deer?" The answer is simple: It is a hunting rifle. It has just been made to look like a military weapon.

But the point isn't to help hunters. Semiautomatic weapons also protect people and save lives. Single-shot rifles that require you to physically reload the gun may not do people a lot of good when they are facing multiple criminals or when their first shot misses or fails to stop an attacker.

Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report. By 2011, the murder rate fell to 4.7 per 100,000 people. One should also bear in mind that just 2.6% of all murders are committed using any type of rifle.

The large-capacity ammunition magazines used by some of these killers are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates.

Ms. Feinstein's new proposal also calls for gun registration, and the reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but in reality it hardly ever works that way. Guns are very rarely left behind at a crime scene. When they are, they're usually stolen or unregistered. Criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind guns that are registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered guns are left at crime scenes, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Canada recently got rid of its costly "long-gun" registry for rifles in part because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police could not provide a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a gun murder.

If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it's time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. Had some citizens been armed, they might have been able to stop the killings before the police got to the scene. In the Newtown attack, it took police 20 minutes to arrive at the school after the first calls for help.

The Bushmaster, like any gun, is indeed very dangerous, but it is not a weapon "designed for the theater of war." Banning assault weapons will not make Americans safer.

Mr. Lott is a former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, third edition, 2010).
Click to expand...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...604578245803845796068.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 
What's this? Non gun owners homicide rates in Canada are 3 times higher than that of gun owners? How's this possible if gun ownership is the problem and therefore more restriction is required????

January 9, 2014
Canada
By Dennis R. Young

Why does Prime Minister Harper treat innocent hunters, farmers and sports shooters worse than criminals just because they own guns? He has repeatedly promised the Conservatives would get tough on criminals - not decent, law-abiding Canadians.

And so, why are licensed gun owners, who have done nothing wrong in their whole lives, subject to a penalty of up to two years in jail simply for failing to report their change of address to police while those convicted of violent crimes are not? Why are licensed firearms owners required to open their homes for inspection by the police without having been accused of any crime while those prohibited from owning firearms by the courts are not?

Ten years ago, Member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville, Garry Breitkreuz was asking these same questions of then Prime Minister Paul Martin in his Draft Plan to Register Criminals - Not Duck Hunters (see link below). At the time Breitkreuz was the Official Opposition Critic for Firearms and Property Rights. Consequently, it’s a mystery to most hunters, sport shooters and gun collectors why we are still asking these same questions of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

This mystery is even more compelling for two reasons, one, that during his run for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party in January of 2002, Stephen Harper promised to fulfil the promise of his former boss Preston Manning, to repeal a “bad law” known as Bill C-68 (see link below), and two, in the fifteen years since Bill C-68, the Firearms Act came into effect, all the evidence proves that law-abiding gun owners are some of the safest citizens of Canada.

Some of this evidence supporting better control of the Bad Guys was documented in a recent proposal to reform the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) system by Professor Emeritus Gary Mauser .

The Bad Guys

- In a study of federal offenders the reconviction rate was over 40% within three years after release. Approximately 13% of these reconvictions involved violent offences.”
- Virtually all crimes committed with firearms involve illegally possessed firearms.

-- Reforming CPIC, Some Thoughts, Gary Mauser - 15 August 2012

The Good Guys

- Despite lurid media accounts of murders involving firearms, law-abiding gun owners (i.e., those with valid licences) do not threaten public safety. Canadians who have a firearms licence are less than one-third as likely to commit murder as other Canadians. Statistics Canada data show that licensed gun owners had a homicide rate of 0.60 per 100,000 licensed gun owners between 1997 and 2010. Over the same period, the average national homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000.

-- Reforming CPIC, Some Thoughts, Gary Mauser - 15 August 2012

Additionally, McMaster University Dr. Caillin Langmann’s groundbreaking analysis, Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008 concluded: “This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.”—Caillin Langmann, MD, PhD - McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada - February 10, 2012

In light of this and other published evidence (see links below) it is bewildering why the Conservatives continue to support and implement almost all of the previous Liberal government’s gun control legislation including tracking the the daily whereabouts of about two million licensed gun owners. All the while more than 300,000 convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning firearms by the courts are free to move anywhere they want in Canada without notifying the police. This wrong-headed approach wastes tens of millions of dollars each year and does next to nothing to improve public safety or police safety. This needs to be corrected.

To conclude with a plea to Prime Minister Harper: it’s time to keep your promises. It’s time to stop treating law-abiding hunters, farmers and sports shooters worse than criminals. The very least you should do to improve public and police safety is to start requiring convicted violent criminals to keep their addresses current with police in the same manner that the Criminal Code treats innocent gun owners.



BACKGROUND INFORMATION

GARRY BREITKREUZ, MP, YORKTON-MELVILLE, SASKATCHEWAN
Excerpts from a speech given to the Canadian Shooting Sports Association Nov 25, 2006

NEWS RELEASE - February 25, 2004
BREITKREUZ RELEASES DRAFT PLAN TO REGISTER CRIMINALS – NOT DUCK HUNTERS
“Statistics Canada data proves that criminals are the problem – not law-abiding gun owners.”

Gary Mauser. Professor emeritus, Simon Fraser University.
Reforming CPIC, Some Thoughts - 15 August 2012

Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008 and here
Caillin Langmann, MD, PhD - McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Dennis R. Young is an ex-member of the RCMP and retired after working thirteen years on Parliament Hill. He is currently a Director for Canada’s National Firearms Association for Alberta, NWT and International.

0 Comments

hxxp://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60369#.UtBosGeA0Ss
Click to expand...
 
The sinister reality of the true agenda of gun control....

THE LEFT IS RIGHT; GUN CONTROL WORKS

So often I see conservatives arguing about the abject failure of gun control, citing cities like Chicago, DC, and so many others with very strict gun control and high incidents of gun violence. And then leftists inevitably respond that this is because gun control laws are not universal; if they were, of course there would magically be no more violence. This is a useless and never ending cycle of increasingly boring debate.

Here’s the thing, and it’s a frustration I have with the Right in most policy debates. We have to stop projecting our integrity onto our opponents. This is an almost impossible concept for conservatives to grasp and yet it is of vital importance. The simple fact is, gun control is working brilliantly for the Left because it’s accomplishing the opposite of its stated objective. The Left wants their gun control half measures to fail.

It isn’t news to the Left that their love affair with gun control is oppressive, anti-freedom, anti-constitutional, and ineffective. That’s how they designed it. Tyranny always happens by a slow fade and it always begins with creating an easily controlled, vulnerable populace. The reason the Left ghoulishly celebrates mass shootings like Columbine, Newtown, Navy Yard, and so many others is because they see their plan working. They know that a public justifiably heartbroken over horrific events such as these can be more easily manipulated in accepting their agenda because people want to do something. Leftists are counting on people not analyzing too carefully what that “something” is, and the fact is many don’t.

It is in this way the Left intends to accomplish their true objective, a complete nationwide gun ban that will not only render citizens completely vulnerable but also entirely reliant upon an ever growing centralized government. This is a goal they will never admit to, yet we see clearly it’s what they’re working toward not just with gun control, but with Obamacare, the public school system, ever increasing regulations on small business, and the like.

The Left has mastered the art of selling symbolism over substance that hides an evil agenda. They have mastered the art of manipulating emotions, substituting feelings for reality, and convincing an alarming number of people to act and vote against their own self interest.

The “it’s my right as an American according to the Second Amendment” argument is factually sound yet woefully ineffective at appealing to anyone other than conservatives. In times such as these where we’re literally watching our rights slip away from us, where we’re raising our children in a vastly different America from the one we grew up in, the time for preaching to the choir is over. The way to win this argument is to meet people where they’re at. We must beat the Left at their own game of appealing to people’s emotions.

When leftists pretend they want gun control to “protect the children”, we must counter with the fact that they are advocating the complete inability of children to be protected from madmen. We must ask them, “why do you want children to die?” When leftists pretend to be the “party of women” we must ask them why they want women to be defenseless, why they feel a woman raped and then strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to one standing over her would be attacker with a smoking pistol in her hand. We must ask them why they’re “anti-choice” when it comes to a woman’s right to defend her own body. We must ask these emasculated leftist “men” what trauma they suffered as children to make them wet their pants over a tool made of iron and wood.

Leftists aren’t that smart. It is so simple to beat them at their own game if we finally start fighting fire with fire.
Click to expand...
 
Please note this is a CNN (who are quite the group of leftists) article:

Editor's note: LZ Granderson is a CNN contributor who writes a weekly column for CNN.com. The former Hechinger Institute fellow has had his commentary recognized by the Online News Association, the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. He is also a senior writer for ESPN. Follow him on Twitter @locs_n_laughs.

(CNN) -- Another day, another mass shooting in America.

More blood, more tears, more knee-jerk rhetoric about finding a solution for a bunch of different problems.

Those who knew Aaron Alexis -- the shooter who killed 12 and injured eight more at the Washington Navy Yard this week -- said he was a quiet, shy man.

At one point he was studying Buddhism and meditated often.

A little more digging, and we find he had several gun-related arrests and a pattern of misconduct in the Navy, but he was honorably discharged.

Pieces of a puzzle we may never fully put together.

But the fact that there is still so much we don't know about Alexis -- or the motive behind the shootings -- won't detour gun-control advocates from lumping his story in with that of Adam Lanza, the man police say is responsible for the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, along with the victims from gang- and drug-related shootings.

This is why after the tears have dried and the blood washes away, little, if anything, will change.

And because gun-control advocates so often try to cobble together every distinct narrative involving guns into a one-size-fits-all conversation, they are as much to blame for this merry-go-round as the gun lobbyists against whom they fight.

Gun shops are illegal in Chicago.

The city has bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And yet each week people continue to die in the streets from gunshot wounds.

This conundrum is just one example why making note that more Americans have died from gun violence here at home since Newtown than in the nine years fighting a war in Iraq is the kind of factoid that grabs our attention but undermines the true goal: curtailing the violence.

Not all deaths involving guns are the same -- therefore trying to address each incident from the same point of view is futile. Until we learn more about Alexis -- the events leading up to the shootings and the motive -- the tragedy in Washington should not be used as catalyst for a conversation about gun control.

Instead, we should mourn and wait for more information.

Far too often assumptions surrounding the details of tragedies such as the one in Washington are made, and well-intentioned stances fall apart when additional facts come to light.

The guns James Holmes was charged with using in Aurora were purchased legally. Beyond the presence of a gun, the crimes committed in the movie theater are not at all similar to what happens in the streets of our large cities. And each time a politician or gun-control advocate tries to use these two very different examples interchangeably, the entire conversation and argument are compromised.

This happened after Newtown.

It happened after Aurora.

And it will keep continue to happen until the advocates accept that ridding the country of guns is a hopeless -- and unconstitutional mission -- and that the real goal should be addressing the factors that lead to the various forms of gun violence: factors such as poverty, mental health and failing schools.

Last month the nation breathed a sigh of relief after Antoinette Tuff, a bookkeeper in an elementary school in suburban Atlanta, prevented a man with an AK-47-type weapon and nearly 500 rounds of ammunition from hurting anyone.

It was not the time to talk generally about gun violence in this country. It was the time to discuss specifics such as cuts to mental health and its impact on services, given that the suspect, 20-year-old Michael Brandon Hill, has a long history of mental disorders. Hill's storyline is similar to that of Lanza, and there are questions whether Holmes, the admitted shooter in the Aurora movie theater, is insane.
The folks spraying our cities with bullets are not NRA members or even legal gun owners.

Public debates with Wayne LaPierre and attacks on the National Rifle Association have proven to be an ineffective way to prevent gun violence. In the wake of the Washington Navy Yard killings, perhaps a new strategy, one that doesn't involve playing on the nation's emotions or challenging the relevance of the Second Amendment, should be employed. That's not saying the NRA has won -- in fact, I think LaPierre should step down because each time he opens his mouth, he steps in it -- but at the end of the day the organization is more of an agitator than the enemy.

There is no one enemy.

Thus there is no one solution.

Because like it or not, the folks spraying our cities with bullets are not NRA members or legal gun owners. And despite the tendency to tie it all together, they have nothing to do with the Adam Lanzas of the world.

And it's too early to know how Alexis fits in the conversation.

According to a count by USA Today, more than 900 people have been killed in mass shootings since 2006. The thousands of other victims of gun violence over the past seven years died from many different circumstances, requiring different conversations.

This is why gun-control advocates need to abandon the routine of using mass shootings to turn law-abiding citizens into social pariahs and instead focus on something that could work.
Click to expand...
 
read this one very closely (I bolded a particular part )

TUCSON, Ariz.,#Sept. 4, 2013#/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --#

Organized medicine, especially the AMA and the American College of Physicians (ACP), is joining with the Obama Administration in calling for more gun control measures, but there is no "evidence-based" support for this, states Jane M. Orient, M.D., in the#fall 2013 issue#of the#Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Universal background checks seem to be the favorite suggestion, although the limited available before-and-after evidence showed only a possible decrease in suicides in persons over 55 after background checks were implemented, she writes. Instead of evidence, proponents cite a public opinion survey of low-information respondents in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings.

A much-cited study in#JAMA#purports to show that there is less "gun violence" in states with more gun laws. However, the effect disappears if one looks only at homicides, instead of the combination of homicides and suicides. Orient notes. Moreover, the study's authors acknowledge that no cause-and-effect conclusions could be drawn from an ecological study like this one.

Contrary to assertions by gun control advocates, the U.S. is far from the world's most violent nation. Although in the top ranking for gun ownership (more than 75 guns per 100 persons), the U.S. is in the lowest band for homicides (0-5 per 100,000 persons).

Canada, where registration of all handguns has been required since 1934, does have fewer gun homicides than the U.S., Orient notes, but the rate of violent assaults and total homicide rates are about the same. Apparently, Canadians are able to substitute other lethal means for guns.

Organized medicine calls for restoration of funding for gun research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Orient reviews the reasons why Congress cut the funding. Not only was the research flawed and "result-oriented," but funding was used for political advocacy.

Gun-related deaths are falling, Orient notes, although gun ownership is increasing. Several reasons are suggested, all unrelated to gun control. In fact, the landmark studies by#John Lott#are unrefuted. They show that more guns, especially concealed-carry laws, mean less crime, including homicide.

Orient concludes: "Organized medicine's decades-long campaign to have firearm-related fatalities considered as a public health rather than a criminal justice issue is not evidence-based. Its reliance on weak, even tainted evidence and spurious reasoning, and its attempts to suppress or discredit contrary evidence, is consistent with a political agenda of incremental civilian disarmament."

The#Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons#is published by the#Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a national organization representing physicians in all specialties, founded in 1943. Dr. Orient serves as executive director.

SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
Click to expand...
 
you mean criminals won't follow the laws?

Gun control’ no solution against criminals with ‘total disregard of life



Two women have been brutally gang raped “by a group of 10 to 12 black male juveniles” in a Wilmington, Del. park, CBS Philly reported yesterday. “According to police, the suspects, who range in age from 12 to 17-years-old, remain on the loose.”

Councilmember-at-large Maria Cabrera was quick to size up the content of their character and state the obvious.

“The new criminal we’re seeing, they’re bold, they’re brazen, and they have a total disregard for life,” Cabrera admitted.

So with this pack of bold, brazen, feral sociopaths with a total disregard for life still on the loose and menacing the public, and with police demonstrably unable -- and not legally responsible -- to prevent future attacks, what does Cabrera propose that her constituents do to stop the violence?

“The only way that we are going to overcome the problems that exist in our community is by working together, hand-in-hand with the churches,” she advocates. “Because what we need more than anything is the healing. And that’s not going to come from government.”

There’s actually much truth in that, particularly in the part about government “solutions” being useless. The problem is, it’s inconsistent with that church and state “wall of separation” that “progressives” demand, and a committed “progressive” Cabrera is, as evidenced by her Change.org profile. Curiously, rather than looking to churches, she’s come down on the side of coercive government mandates that work against the right of her constituents to defend themselves, by endorsing petitions like “Change for Trayvon: Stand Your Ground laws must be reviewed,” and “U.S. Congress: We Demand Action to End Gun Violence.”

With that in mind, what is Cabrera’s response to this latest savage attack?

Per her Facebook page, she intends to join with fellow council member Sherry Dorsey at an event “to stand together against the violence that has taken over our city!”

That would be the same Sherry Dorsey [-Walker] who asked a rhetorical question of the thug rapists.

“Who told you that it was ok to mistreat women to this magnitude?” she angrily demanded.

Talk about a loaded question, on so many levels. Where to begin…? Perhaps with what magnitude she finds acceptable and who and what she thinks the primary templates for and enablers of that assumption are…?

“And what do you need from society so that you can make better choices?” Dorsey followed up.

Typical collectivist. And they say there are no stupid questions.

That’s hardly surprising considering we’re dealing with a political creature with no real answers, and especially when you understand that Wilmington’s crime index rivals Detroit’s. So it’s also no wonder the best Mayor Dennis Williams can offer is to posture for the media about schemes he shares with others in power to expand citizen disarmament, and make it even more difficult for good people to defend themselves against “bold [and] brazen criminals [who] have a total disregard for life.”
Click to expand...
 
Commiefornia:

Follow the Money: Idealogical Hype Hides True Fiscal Impact of Gun Control Bills



Amid the rush to gun control in the months following last year’s tragedy at Sandy Hook, legislatures across America returned to session this year intent on pushing stringent gun control bills. This we know just by opening the newspaper each day. What you may not know, however, is that amongst all the ideological hype surrounding such gun bills, is a dire fiscal impact to everyday taxpayers.

Take for example Assemblyman Anthony Rendon’s AB711 which bans lead ammunition. Peel away the ideological veneer and you will find a core revenue and funding bill. The concern taxpayers and government bureaucrats alike share is that when a bucket of revenue is taken away, there will be a push to find new money to replace it.

This year, we have more than a few bills cloaked in ideology yet significantly impacting state coffers. At first glance, the following bills seem to be merely benign ideological stances, but a more in-depth look gives you their actual cost from a fiscal perspective:

AB 711: The “Lead Ban” Bill

AB 711 is a particularly onerous piece of legislation that seeks to ban the use of lead in traditional ammunition. The rationale for this, so say the author and bill proponents, is that wildlife, particularly the California Condor, may be ingesting lead fragments from bullets left in the wild (never mind that traditional lead ammunition has been banned in Condor territory in California for years.)

A 1930s federal law ties much of California’s conservation funding to ammunition purchases – 95% of which is traditional lead.

What it costs: Millions of dollars in losses to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which will then, of course, need to be replaced from somewhere else (aka the taxman cometh). The idea of banning hunting is absurd, and the fiscal economic impact of banning hunting is truly astronomical. In the analysis of AB 711 by the Governor’s Department of Finance, it was estimated that there would be approximately $9 million in decreased revenues to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), nearly a $14 million decrease per year in Wildlife Restoration grants from the Federal government (which is based off of ammunition sales), and a cost of up to $11 million each year for the DFW to establish a process to provide hunters with non-lead ammunition at a reduced or no charge.

That’s not even touching on the nearly $3.5 billion a year of economic activity that the hunting and ammunition industries provide and the millions of dollars in taxes they generate.

SB 53: The Ammunition Licensing Bill

This bill would require a separate license and background check system for anyone purchasing ammunition, all of which must be set up by the Department of Justice.

What it costs: Nearly $30 million in set up costs with almost $4.5 million in ongoing costs.

This includes millions of dollars in set up costs for the DOJ to upgrade computer systems, hire and train staff, and implement the regulations. The costs also include a decrease in annual tax revenue of $3.6 million per every 10% in decreased ammunition sales. No realistic economic model projecting ammunition purchases (especially if the lead ban is in effect) is credible unless it assumes a significant decrease in purchases due to the new regulation. If the market responded with a 30% decrease in sales, which is completely reasonable, the decreased revenue to the state would total in excess of $10.8 million.

SB 475: Ban Gun Shows at the Cow

Palace Senator Mark Leno has introduced a bill to ban gun shows at the Cow Palace without prior approval from both the San Francisco and San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. His reasoning is that the surrounding neighborhood has experienced high gun crimes so it’s insensitive to have a gun show there. What it costs: At least $150,000-$180,000 in tax revenues and much more in loss to local business. The Governor’s Department of Finance issued an analysis of the bill that firmly criticized the bill’s effects. Gun shows at the Cow Palace generate anywhere from $150,000 to $180,000 a year in tax revenue which will disappear if this bill passes. They also opposed the bill for establishing a contradictory precedent as to how localities are treated in regards to event approvals since the bill only deals with the Cow Palace and not all state owned properties.

Furthermore, this bill is even opposed by the California Police Chiefs who argue that outlawing Northern California’s largest and most well-regulated gun shows will simply force some purchasers to Nevada or the so-called “gray” market. It all comes down to dollars and cents.

Even if you aren’t a hunter, sport shooter, collector or gun owner - but just a concerned taxpayer, these pieces of legislation will cost you and California a pretty penny.

Source: http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/201...control-bills/
Click to expand...
 
Say it ain't so:

Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong

August 24, 2013 by Joe Saunders


Will a Harvard man listen to Harvard research?

Probably not, if the Harvard man is Barack Obama, and what Harvard’s saying flies in the face of liberal pieties – and misconceptions and lies – about gun ownership, gun violence and gun control in the United States.

gunstudyLike the recently reported CDC study about gun violence Obama commissioned himself, the message to gun grabbers is clear:

They’re wrong.

A Harvard study released in the spring – to virtually no media attention – focused on the prevalence of gun ownership in the United States versus those strict gun-control countries in Europe the left is so fond of talking about.

It was called, with disarming bluntness, “Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?”

Its answer was: “No.”

Looking at historical patterns in the United States from the colonial and post-colonial days, and in Europe going back to the time before guns were even invented, two Harvard researchers came to a clear conclusion:

“Nations with higher gun ownership rates … do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership.”

That’s just a fact, even in those European countries the U.S. left is so fond of citing.

Heavily armed Norwegians, where gun ownership is highest in Western Europe, have the continent’s lowest homicide rate, researchers Don Kates and Gary Mauser wrote.

Russia, where the civilian population was virtually disarmed by the communist government for 80 years, has one of the highest homicide rates in Europe – and one four times higher than in the United States.

In the United States, homicide rates were relatively low, despite periods when firearms were widely available – the colonial era, when Americans were the world’s most heavily armed population, the post-Civil War years, when the country was awash in surplus guns and filled with men trained to use them.

Homicide rates in the United States didn’t increase dramatically until the 1960s and ‘70s, which correlated with a rise in gun purchases, but Kates and Mauser point out that fear of crime could just as easily have sparked a rise in gun purchases, rather than more guns causing more crime.

And today?

Communities where gun-ownership rates are highest are where the homicide rates are lowest, Kates and Mauser wrote:

“Where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

That’s not what the gun grabbers want to hear.

And the two researchers know it. In their conclusion, they launched a pre-emptive defense, quoting another researcher who found similarly unwelcome (to the left) results when he studied crime in the United States versus gun-restrictive Canada:

“If you are surprised by [our] finding, so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to ‘exonerate’ hand‐ guns, but there it is — a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.”

The study takes up 45 pages in the spring issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

This description of it takes up up 541 words.

But when it comes to gun-grabbers, the whole thing can be summed up in two:

You’re. Wrong.
Click to expand...

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/24/harvard-study-proves-gun-grabbers-argument-dead-wrong-82127
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom