Phædrus
03-31-2008, 09:21 PM
Here is a compilation of firearm facts, statistics, and arguments that support gun ownership. These have all been posted elsewhere on other forums and are consolidated here for your convenience. The anti-gun side is welcome to do the exact same thing for their arguments. You are encouraged to debate or expand upon this if you wish.
I admit that many of these arguments are ones that I posted, but that's because I generally know what threads and pages they were on, while I don't know with all of the posts made by other posters.
These are maps I created using statistics from two separate websites, one pro-gun control, the other a neutral government database. I have not made any interpretations of these as of yet, but keep an eye on Quebec. You'll see an interesting anomaly.
Percentage of households with firearms:
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs23/f/2008/010/6/c/Firearm_Ownership_in_Canada_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg
Percentage of firearm bearing households with rifles:
http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs22/f/2008/010/b/9/Rifle_Ownership_in_Canada_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg
Percentage of firearm bearing households with handguns:
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs23/f/2008/010/6/0/Handgun_Ownership_in_Canada_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg
Number of firearm related homicides per 1000 people:
http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs22/f/2008/010/d/b/Firearm_Homicides_in_Canada_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg
I left out suicides and accidents because a.) guns are merely a convenient way to suicide and do not reflect any inherent gun danger, and b.) accidents happen with everything. More people die, by an order of magnitude, from car accidents each year than from gun accidents.
If you're wondering why I chose Canada, well, 12 provinces vs. 50 states: which do you think is easier to compile?
Sources:
COALITION for Gun Control - The Case For Gun Control (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html)
Technical Document Firearm Ownership In Canada (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/1990-95/angus_rpt_e.asp)
Map:
http://www.lessontutor.com/OhCanada5.jpg
This shows that there is no solid, cut-and-dried correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, at least in Canada, which has a gun culture similar to that of the US.
Gun bans don't prevent gun-related crime. Austrailia is a prime example of a huge gun-control failure
Quote:
Because of the changes made to the gun control laws in 1997, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in. After 12 months of banning firearms:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).
* Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).
* In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.
Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." Their response has been to "wait longer".
Their suggestion to citizens has been to build a fortified room in their house, so that when a burglar enters their home, the homeowners may lock themselves in that room while the burglar takes what he wants from their house.
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."
It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws.
There was a direct correlation between the banning and removal of firearms in Australia and its increased crime rates.
A fully automatic firearm is no more dangerous than a semi-automatic. I mean it. They're actually less effective at killing. "But-wha?" you say? Think about it. Fully automatic weapons burn up ammo like mad. You can empty a thirty round AK-47 magazine in about ten seconds. While that will certainly chew up the person it's pointed at, you only need one bullet to kill someone. Even if you're a bad shot, one round from a 9mm can easily send someone into shock, even if it wouldn't otherwise be a fatal wound. People have gone into shock from being shot with BB pellets (psychosomatics), though I'm not sure if any have died from it.
An automatic wastes ammunition. Even if you the person using it doesn't care about cost, think about it: Why use ten rounds per person with an FA when you can get one or two rounds per person with SA? Any criminal with an ounce of firearm knowledge will figure that out, and if you don't have enough knowledge to know that you'd hurt yourself the first time you fired it, anyway.
Don't let the movies fool you. The main purpose for FA is covering fire, flushing out enemies, and blind firefights where you can't aim. All strictly military purposes. FA makes a terrible murder weapon.
"But why," you ask, "do you need/want one then?" Because they're fun to shoot. Seriously. That's why people go shooting. It's fun.
Anticipated response: "well we shudnt let ppl get kiled cuz of sum rednecks wantin 2 hav fun!!!!" Admit it, that's what you were thinking (though not necessarily with the bad spelling/grammar).
Well, since FA is no more dangerous than SA, if you want to ban FA you must ban SA as well. Why would I need a vz. 82? It's a military pistol. Why do you need it? BAN. M1 Garand? Why do you want it? It's a military rifle, designed for military use. BAN. Soon we'd have nothing left but .22LR, and that would be in jeopardy as well. And that would be a violation of Second Amendment rights.
And since I and others have shown that banning guns does not reduce crime and in many (not all, but many) cases increases violent crime, you have no viable grounds to repeal the Second Amendment. QED
Also, on the subject of large bore guns. Usually, when people see this (the one on the left):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg
They go, "OMG BAN!!!" This, of course, is ridiculous. Criminals almost never use large bore guns, like .50 BMG, because they just aren't practical. Why?
A.) Large bore weapons, like .50 BMG rifles and .50 AE pistols (ie, the .50 AE Desert Eagle) are heavy, bulky, and hard to conceal. I mean, someone walking down the street with a four foot long, forty pound sniper rifle is going to raise some alarms, no?
B.) They are expensive. A .50 BMG cartridge alone will cost you a buck a shot at the least, whereas even the manly .30-06 is about $0.36 a shot, 9x19mm is about $0.20~ a shot, and .22LR is ten bucks for fifty rounds. Not to mention that a .32ACP pistol costs between $200 and $500, depending on quality, and that a .50 BMG rifle costs upwards of a thousand dollars.
C.) Overkill. You can kill someone with a .22 LR to the back of the head. There was a kid who became a quadriplegic when his friend shot him in the neck with a BB gun. You don't need a gun that can blow a three inch hole all the way through you to kill someone.
D.) Recoil. I've never fired .50 BMG, but it's supposed to be a doozy. And .50 AE, the .50 cal pistol round, has crippling recoil. If you don't hold it right it can sprain your wrist. It also has a good deal of torque and a blinding flash.
There's one lobby out there that seeks to ban .50 BMG rifles because it claims they can shoot down planes. This is false. .50 BMG can cripple a plane on the ground, true, but you can't shoot down a passenger airliner with it. A .50 BMG round can destroy an engine, but most jets have two or more engines. Furthermore, do you think someone can accurately hit a plane's engine when it's 10,000 ft in the air and moving 400 mph? If so, I want to talk to the doctor that gave you your lobotomy. If you had a .50 BMG machine gun with a radar assisted aiming system, it might be possible, but a human couldn't do it. A human could hit the plane as it was taking off, but unless he can hit all of the engines before the plane makes an emergency landing, I don't think we have to worry about that.
A.) There is no positive correlation between strong anti-gun laws and lowered firearm homicide rates, lowered gun crime rates, or lowered crime rates in general. In other words, strong anti-gun laws have little effect on crime. In fact, when Australia banned guns, crime went up sharply, including a 300% rise in armed robberies. Last I heard they were banning swords.
See the Canada maps and Australia statistics provided earlier in the thread.
B.) Accidental firearm deaths can be prevented with firearm education. Current federal firearm safety courses focus more on all the ways you're responsible if your gun is used in a crime, at least the Maryland one is that way. The NRA has a good, solid program, but it isn't a federally approved firearm education course, so it doesn't count.
90% of firearm accidents can be prevented with firearm education.
C.) Firearm suicides are irrelevant. Firearms are merely a convenient way to suicide. They are not an intrinsic danger. If someone plans to suicide, they'll do it whatever way is convenient or appeals to them.
D.) Out of 200,000,000 firearms in the United States, only 11,000 are used in crimes. That's less than a percentage point. No reason to penalize the majority for the actions of a tiny minority.
E.) The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. This does not mean the right to have two upper limbs, or furry arms, but the right to own devices of war. The militia portion of the sentence is a separate grammatical clause, and "the people" refers to individual citizens of the US. There is therefore a de jure right to own firearms in the United States.
F.) Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Owning a gun will not make you go out and kill people. People can kill without guns. Guns are merely convenient.
G.) Self-defense. Guns level the playing field and allow those who would otherwise be helpless defend themselves. There are dozens of stories, many true, about little old ladies being mugged who saved their property and possibly their lives by having a .32 handgun in their purse. Oftentimes it isn't even necessary to discharge the weapon; just brandishing it is enough to scare many criminals off.
H.) Restrictions on bore size serve no purpose, as criminals use the most common and practical caliber weapons, namely handguns of calibers between .32 and .45, and sometimes magnum rounds. This includes .32 ACP, 9x19mm, .38, .45, .357, and .44. Large bore weapons are impractical for crime.
The myth of shooting down airplanes with .50 BMG sniper rifles was disproven by me a couple pages ago.
I.) Banning full auto firearms serves no purpose, as any criminal who knows jack **** about firearms knows that full auto is impractical for most any purpose a criminal could use it for. A criminal that doesn't know this is likely to hurt himself firing the weapon, maybe fatally, thus solving the problem.
J.) Banning certain types of ammunition serves no purpose, as specialized ammo is just that - specialized.
FMJ/TMJ - standard ball ammunition. Depending on specific ammunition may penetrate body armor at close to medium range.
JHP - hollow point rounds. Essential to hunting, as they ensure a clean kill against large game. Only mildly more deadly against humans than FMJ. Will not pierce armor except at close ranges.
AP - armor piercing rounds. Many people think you need these to get through body armor. That turns out not to be the case. 7.62x39mm FMJ ammo will penetrate a Kevlar vest at 150 yards, no problem. AP is only needed against high-tech ceramic armors and steel plate.
Tracers - the rounds that glow in the dark. All they do is help you see where you're shooting when it's dark. There's a chance they can start a fire if they hit something flammable at close range, but there's no reason to ban them.
HE/Inc - explosive and incendiary rounds. No point in banning them as they're impractical, expensive, and almost impossible to find.
K.) Hunting. There is a significant hunting culture in the US, and firearms are central to that. It may not seem important, but it's a hobby for many people. The morality of hunting belongs in another thread, though.
L.) Target shooting and collecting are major hobbies for many people (including me and my own father). The firearm sports are benevolent and collecting harms no one. No reason to disrupt that.
M.) Most people have a distorted view of firearms due to TV, movies, and anti-gun campaigns. It is rational and imperative to treat firearms with respect, but for many people it's more of a paranoia or phobia. Most of the people who oppose guns have misconceptions about what guns can do or what they are used for. This is fueled by anti-gun propaganda, and leads people to spread the idea that guns are evil, creating a positive-feedback cycle. Education is key.
N.) The economy. I understand that the anti-gun people consider it a necessary price, or just something of no importance, that the economy will suffer if firearms are outright banned. Guns and ammunition made for civilian hunting, target shooting, and the like make a multi-million dollar business, maybe even multi-billion. Banning guns will destroy these industries and in doing so punch the economy in its metaphorical gut.
O.) History. Many guns are historic. Bill Clinton ordered the destruction of thousands of M1 Garand rifles that saw service in WWII. These are a part of our history - not necessarily the best part, but history nonetheless. Destroying them is needless and paranoid.
I made a thread on that, it is an individual right. That was shown in this thread. I also started a thread of an unbiased English experts view.
"After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?;
and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
"http://www.politicalfever.org/forums/civil-liberties-civil-rights/1685-second-ammendment-expert-englishs-view.html
This argument destroys the claim that the second amendment of the United States Constitution protects only the rights of the militia or army to own weapons.
Banning Guns decreases crime.
False:
Examples:
Washington DC
Crime Data Underscore Limits Of D.C. Gun Ban's Effectiveness (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818_pf.html)
Australia
NRA-ILA :: Fact Sheets (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=30&issue=015)
VIOLENT CRIME ________1997 1998 TREND
Murder _______________321 284 -11.5%
Attempted Murder ______318 382 +20.1%
Manslaughter __________39 49 +25.6%
Assault _______________124,500 132,967 +6.8%
Sexual Assault ________14,353 14,568 +1.5%
Kidnaping/abduction ___562 662 +17.8%
Armed Robbery ________9,054 10,850 +19.8%
Unarmed Robbery _______12,251 12,928 +5.5%
TOTAL ________________161,398 172,690 +7.0%
In a March 22, 2000, letter, Australia`s Attorney General Daryl Williams raised objections to an NRA video (http://www.nralive.com/gunban/gunban.cfm) which asserts that after the Australian government`s confiscation of hunting rifles and shotguns, armed robberies rose, assaults with guns rose, murders with guns rose and home invasions rose. Williams said NRA was using "misleading" statistics to make its case against gun control. He also claimed "the national firearms agreement has succeeded in removing more than 640,000 dangerous weapons from circulation in the community." Would he call it "misleading" to say instead that "the national ban has led to the destruction of 640,000 commonplace semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns?"
If the Attorney General has a real problem with NRA`s video, his problem is much closer to home than NRA headquarters. The video shows real people protesting their loss of liberty and loss of the right to self-defense. Those people are Australians. And the statistics presented in the NRA video were reported in real newspapers--Australian newspapers. Here are several examples:
• "The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
• "Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.
• "Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
• "Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
• "Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.
• "The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
General Examples
Just For Skeptics: Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries (http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm) (see link for detailed citation)
1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1
2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2
* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3
* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4
* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5
3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:
* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8
4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.
* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11
* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:
a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12
b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13
c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14
* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15
* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16
5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:
High Gun Ownership Countries
Country_________ Suicide Homicide Total*
Switzerland _____21.4 2.7 24.1
U.S. ___________11.6 7.4 19.0
Israel __________6.5 1.4 7.9
Low Gun Ownership Countries
Country Suicide Homicide Total*
Denmark 22.3 4.9 27.2
France 20.8 1.1 21.9
Japan** 16.7 0.6 17.3
* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides.
Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (1998), cited at America: The Most Violent Nation? (http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html).
6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.
* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18
Myth: Automatic Weapons are more dangerous than any other weapon
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf
In 1995 240k Automatic weapons were registered in the US. (note: No new automatic weapons are allowed for sale in the US and those that are sold generally go for the 3K an up range and are VERY closely monitored by the government, meaning they know exactly who legally owns what, and when it is stolen) As up 1995 7,700 reports of stolen automatic weapons have been filed with the ATF.
From 1985 to 1994 the ATF reported an average of 240k stolen guns a year. That is over 2.1 million stolen guns during that time frame, of which only 7,700 were full auto machines guns. That is .0036% of stolen guns were fully automatic.
What guns are the most frequently traced?
The most frequently traced guns vary from year to year. The ATF publishes a list of the 10 specific guns most frequently traced annually. The total number of traced guns on the top 10 list was 18% of the total traced from 1991 to 1994. Most of the top 10 guns were pistols (over 30% were .25 caliber pistols), although a number of revolvers and a few shotguns and rifles were also included. The most frequently traced gun was a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver in 1990, the Raven Arms P25 (a .25 caliber pistol) from 1991through 1993, and the Lorcin P25 in 1994.
10 most frequently traced guns in 1994
Rank
Manufacturer
Model
Caliber
Type
Number traced
1
Lorcin
P25
.25
Pistol
3,223
2
Davis Industries
P380
.38
Pistol
2,454
3
Raven Arms
MP25
.25
Pistol
2,107
4
Lorcin
L25
.25
Pistol
1,258
5
Mossburg
500
12G
Shotgun
1,015
6
Phoenix Arms
Raven
.25
Pistol
959
7
Jennings
J22
.22
Pistol
929
8
Ruger
P89
9 mm
Pistol
895
9
Glock
17
9 mm
Pistol
843
10
Bryco
38
.38
Pistol
820
Source: ATF, May 1995.
Assault weapons and homicide
A New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services study of homicides in 1993 in New York City found that assault weapons were involved in 16% of the homicides studied. The definition of assault weapons used was from proposed but not enacted State legislation that was more expansive than the Federal legislation. By matching ballistics records and homicide files, the study found information on 366 firearms recovered in the homicides of 271 victims. Assault weapons were linked to the deaths of 43 victims (16% of those studied). A study by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services reviewed the files of 600 firearm murders that occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989 to 1991. The study found that handguns were used in 72% of the murders (431 murders). Ten guns were identified as assault weapons, including five pistols, four rifles, and one shotgun. [NOTE: Assault Weapon does not mean fully auto machine gun!]
Assault weapons and offenders
In the 1991 BJS Survey of State Inmates, about 8% of the inmates reported that they had owned a military-type weapon, such as an Uzi, AK-47, AR-15, or M-16. Less than 1% said that they carried such a weapon when they committed the incident for which they were incarcerated. A Virginia inmate survey conducted between November 1992 and May 1993 found similar results: About 10% of the adult inmates reported that they had ever possessed an assault rifle, but none had carried it at the scene of a crime.
Two studies indicate higher proportions of juvenile offenders reporting possession and use of assault rifles. The Virginia inmate survey also covered 192 juvenile offenders. About 20% reported that they had possessed an assault rifle and 1% said that they had carried it at the scene of a crime. In 1991, Sheley and Wright surveyed 835 serious juvenile offenders incarcerated in 6 facilities in 4 States. In the Sheley and Wright study, 35% of the juvenile inmates reported that they had owned a military-style automatic or semiautomatic rifle just prior to confinement.
More General Myths.
Top Ten "Gun-Control" Myths (http://www.tincher.to/myths.htm) (see link for detailed citation)
MYTH: Most gun deaths are caused by accidents or by crazed madmen.
FACT: More than two out of every three gun deaths are either suicides or drug-related murders.
Source: Centers For Disease Control - Deaths 1998 (625KB document!) and U.S. Department Of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics
MYTH: Twelve children are killed with guns each day.
FACT: Half of the people that politicians count as "children killed with guns" were actually legally adults. The gun murder rate started falling when crack cocaine started going out of style in 1990. In 1997, 2284 children aged 0-17 years were killed with guns, most of them teenagers. That is 6 per day. In 1998, the number dropped to 1971, still mostly teenagers. That is 5 per day. The age distribution of child gun deaths tracks the age distribution of child drug dealers.
Source: Centers For Disease Control
MYTH: The best way to protect children from guns is to keep children ignorant about them.
FACT: The best way to protect children from guns is to teach them gun safety and lock up guns whenever it is practical to do so. "Ignorance is best" is the old argument against sex-education, reworded by the same people who ridiculed it when it was used by sex-education opponents. With more than 250 million guns in the USA, children will encounter one sooner or later, especially if they live around police, security guards, hunters, or the military.
MYTH: Trigger locks are the best protection against unauthorized gun use.
FACT: The best protection against unauthorized gun use is to keep guns in a child-proof burglar-proof safe whenever they are not being used for hunting, self-protection, or target-shooting. Trigger locks do not protect guns from being stolen, and an improperly-installed trigger lock can cause a gun to fire accidentally, especially if the gun is dropped.
MYTH: The politicians who talk loudest about "gun-control" work hard to prevent gun violence.
FACT: After demanding passage of the Brady Law, the Clinton-Gore administration prosecuted fewer than 5 out of every 100 convicted felons who violated the law. In 1998 only 102 out of 90,000 were federally prosecuted.
Source: U.S. Department Of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics, courtesy of US Congressman John Dingell
MYTH: If guns were illegal, criminals would not have guns.
FACT: Guns are readily available in China, Eastern Europe, and illegal-drug-producing countries such as Mexico and Columbia. Criminals smuggled 690,000 pounds of cocaine into the USA in the first 6 months of 2000. Thousands of guns can be hidden in 690,000 pounds of cocaine.
Source: USA Today newspaper, 28 September 2000, page 3A
MYTH: Mandatory gun registration means all guns must be registered.
FACT: Because it is already illegal for convicted felons to own guns, the Fifth Amendment protects felons from being forced to incriminate themselves by registering their guns. Any criminal can easily avoid gun registration by committing a felony and getting probation, or by storing his guns at the home of a convicted felon. If his existing guns are confiscated, he can buy more from any drug dealer.
Source: Fifth Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States and the US Supreme Court ruling Haynes Versus United States
MYTH: "Gun-control" organizations are run by dedicated volunteers.
FACT: The president of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) makes more than $150,000 per year from gun violence.
Source: HCI financial filings
MYTH: The National Rifle Association (NRA) is evil.
FACT: For several decades the NRA has been working to reduce gun deaths. Their "Eddie Eagle" videos teach young children that when they encounter a gun they should: "Stop! Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." The NRA's magazines are full of advertisements for child-proof burglar-proof gun safes. The NRA-supported Project Exile has reduced gun deaths in Richmond, Virginia by strongly punishing criminals who use guns in crimes. The NRA has selfish reasons to fight gun violence: More gun deaths means more votes for anti-gun politicians and more money for multi-million-dollar "gun-control" businesses such as Handgun Control Incorporated.
Source: NRA "Eddie Eagle" videotape and American Rifleman magazine
MYTH: "Gun-control" laws worked in England.
FACT: After more than fifty years of "sensible gun-control laws," English criminals have more than three million illegal guns, twice as many as ten years ago.
Source: The Sunday Times newspaper, 16 January 2000, Killings rise as 3m illegal guns flood Britain and The Guardian newspaper, 23 October 2000, US-style gun law comes to Britain
This is meant to be an easy reference for the arguments supporting the pro-gun position. Feel free to debate the points here, but this is mainly meant to be used to provide some quick facts and statistics to be linked to in firearms debates.
I admit that many of these arguments are ones that I posted, but that's because I generally know what threads and pages they were on, while I don't know with all of the posts made by other posters.
These are maps I created using statistics from two separate websites, one pro-gun control, the other a neutral government database. I have not made any interpretations of these as of yet, but keep an eye on Quebec. You'll see an interesting anomaly.
Percentage of households with firearms:
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs23/f/2008/010/6/c/Firearm_Ownership_in_Canada_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg
Percentage of firearm bearing households with rifles:
http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs22/f/2008/010/b/9/Rifle_Ownership_in_Canada_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg
Percentage of firearm bearing households with handguns:
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs23/f/2008/010/6/0/Handgun_Ownership_in_Canada_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg
Number of firearm related homicides per 1000 people:
http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs22/f/2008/010/d/b/Firearm_Homicides_in_Canada_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg
I left out suicides and accidents because a.) guns are merely a convenient way to suicide and do not reflect any inherent gun danger, and b.) accidents happen with everything. More people die, by an order of magnitude, from car accidents each year than from gun accidents.
If you're wondering why I chose Canada, well, 12 provinces vs. 50 states: which do you think is easier to compile?
Sources:
COALITION for Gun Control - The Case For Gun Control (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html)
Technical Document Firearm Ownership In Canada (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/1990-95/angus_rpt_e.asp)
Map:
http://www.lessontutor.com/OhCanada5.jpg
This shows that there is no solid, cut-and-dried correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, at least in Canada, which has a gun culture similar to that of the US.
Gun bans don't prevent gun-related crime. Austrailia is a prime example of a huge gun-control failure
Quote:
Because of the changes made to the gun control laws in 1997, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in. After 12 months of banning firearms:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).
* Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).
* In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.
Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." Their response has been to "wait longer".
Their suggestion to citizens has been to build a fortified room in their house, so that when a burglar enters their home, the homeowners may lock themselves in that room while the burglar takes what he wants from their house.
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."
It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws.
There was a direct correlation between the banning and removal of firearms in Australia and its increased crime rates.
A fully automatic firearm is no more dangerous than a semi-automatic. I mean it. They're actually less effective at killing. "But-wha?" you say? Think about it. Fully automatic weapons burn up ammo like mad. You can empty a thirty round AK-47 magazine in about ten seconds. While that will certainly chew up the person it's pointed at, you only need one bullet to kill someone. Even if you're a bad shot, one round from a 9mm can easily send someone into shock, even if it wouldn't otherwise be a fatal wound. People have gone into shock from being shot with BB pellets (psychosomatics), though I'm not sure if any have died from it.
An automatic wastes ammunition. Even if you the person using it doesn't care about cost, think about it: Why use ten rounds per person with an FA when you can get one or two rounds per person with SA? Any criminal with an ounce of firearm knowledge will figure that out, and if you don't have enough knowledge to know that you'd hurt yourself the first time you fired it, anyway.
Don't let the movies fool you. The main purpose for FA is covering fire, flushing out enemies, and blind firefights where you can't aim. All strictly military purposes. FA makes a terrible murder weapon.
"But why," you ask, "do you need/want one then?" Because they're fun to shoot. Seriously. That's why people go shooting. It's fun.
Anticipated response: "well we shudnt let ppl get kiled cuz of sum rednecks wantin 2 hav fun!!!!" Admit it, that's what you were thinking (though not necessarily with the bad spelling/grammar).
Well, since FA is no more dangerous than SA, if you want to ban FA you must ban SA as well. Why would I need a vz. 82? It's a military pistol. Why do you need it? BAN. M1 Garand? Why do you want it? It's a military rifle, designed for military use. BAN. Soon we'd have nothing left but .22LR, and that would be in jeopardy as well. And that would be a violation of Second Amendment rights.
And since I and others have shown that banning guns does not reduce crime and in many (not all, but many) cases increases violent crime, you have no viable grounds to repeal the Second Amendment. QED
Also, on the subject of large bore guns. Usually, when people see this (the one on the left):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg
They go, "OMG BAN!!!" This, of course, is ridiculous. Criminals almost never use large bore guns, like .50 BMG, because they just aren't practical. Why?
A.) Large bore weapons, like .50 BMG rifles and .50 AE pistols (ie, the .50 AE Desert Eagle) are heavy, bulky, and hard to conceal. I mean, someone walking down the street with a four foot long, forty pound sniper rifle is going to raise some alarms, no?
B.) They are expensive. A .50 BMG cartridge alone will cost you a buck a shot at the least, whereas even the manly .30-06 is about $0.36 a shot, 9x19mm is about $0.20~ a shot, and .22LR is ten bucks for fifty rounds. Not to mention that a .32ACP pistol costs between $200 and $500, depending on quality, and that a .50 BMG rifle costs upwards of a thousand dollars.
C.) Overkill. You can kill someone with a .22 LR to the back of the head. There was a kid who became a quadriplegic when his friend shot him in the neck with a BB gun. You don't need a gun that can blow a three inch hole all the way through you to kill someone.
D.) Recoil. I've never fired .50 BMG, but it's supposed to be a doozy. And .50 AE, the .50 cal pistol round, has crippling recoil. If you don't hold it right it can sprain your wrist. It also has a good deal of torque and a blinding flash.
There's one lobby out there that seeks to ban .50 BMG rifles because it claims they can shoot down planes. This is false. .50 BMG can cripple a plane on the ground, true, but you can't shoot down a passenger airliner with it. A .50 BMG round can destroy an engine, but most jets have two or more engines. Furthermore, do you think someone can accurately hit a plane's engine when it's 10,000 ft in the air and moving 400 mph? If so, I want to talk to the doctor that gave you your lobotomy. If you had a .50 BMG machine gun with a radar assisted aiming system, it might be possible, but a human couldn't do it. A human could hit the plane as it was taking off, but unless he can hit all of the engines before the plane makes an emergency landing, I don't think we have to worry about that.
A.) There is no positive correlation between strong anti-gun laws and lowered firearm homicide rates, lowered gun crime rates, or lowered crime rates in general. In other words, strong anti-gun laws have little effect on crime. In fact, when Australia banned guns, crime went up sharply, including a 300% rise in armed robberies. Last I heard they were banning swords.
See the Canada maps and Australia statistics provided earlier in the thread.
B.) Accidental firearm deaths can be prevented with firearm education. Current federal firearm safety courses focus more on all the ways you're responsible if your gun is used in a crime, at least the Maryland one is that way. The NRA has a good, solid program, but it isn't a federally approved firearm education course, so it doesn't count.
90% of firearm accidents can be prevented with firearm education.
C.) Firearm suicides are irrelevant. Firearms are merely a convenient way to suicide. They are not an intrinsic danger. If someone plans to suicide, they'll do it whatever way is convenient or appeals to them.
D.) Out of 200,000,000 firearms in the United States, only 11,000 are used in crimes. That's less than a percentage point. No reason to penalize the majority for the actions of a tiny minority.
E.) The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. This does not mean the right to have two upper limbs, or furry arms, but the right to own devices of war. The militia portion of the sentence is a separate grammatical clause, and "the people" refers to individual citizens of the US. There is therefore a de jure right to own firearms in the United States.
F.) Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Owning a gun will not make you go out and kill people. People can kill without guns. Guns are merely convenient.
G.) Self-defense. Guns level the playing field and allow those who would otherwise be helpless defend themselves. There are dozens of stories, many true, about little old ladies being mugged who saved their property and possibly their lives by having a .32 handgun in their purse. Oftentimes it isn't even necessary to discharge the weapon; just brandishing it is enough to scare many criminals off.
H.) Restrictions on bore size serve no purpose, as criminals use the most common and practical caliber weapons, namely handguns of calibers between .32 and .45, and sometimes magnum rounds. This includes .32 ACP, 9x19mm, .38, .45, .357, and .44. Large bore weapons are impractical for crime.
The myth of shooting down airplanes with .50 BMG sniper rifles was disproven by me a couple pages ago.
I.) Banning full auto firearms serves no purpose, as any criminal who knows jack **** about firearms knows that full auto is impractical for most any purpose a criminal could use it for. A criminal that doesn't know this is likely to hurt himself firing the weapon, maybe fatally, thus solving the problem.
J.) Banning certain types of ammunition serves no purpose, as specialized ammo is just that - specialized.
FMJ/TMJ - standard ball ammunition. Depending on specific ammunition may penetrate body armor at close to medium range.
JHP - hollow point rounds. Essential to hunting, as they ensure a clean kill against large game. Only mildly more deadly against humans than FMJ. Will not pierce armor except at close ranges.
AP - armor piercing rounds. Many people think you need these to get through body armor. That turns out not to be the case. 7.62x39mm FMJ ammo will penetrate a Kevlar vest at 150 yards, no problem. AP is only needed against high-tech ceramic armors and steel plate.
Tracers - the rounds that glow in the dark. All they do is help you see where you're shooting when it's dark. There's a chance they can start a fire if they hit something flammable at close range, but there's no reason to ban them.
HE/Inc - explosive and incendiary rounds. No point in banning them as they're impractical, expensive, and almost impossible to find.
K.) Hunting. There is a significant hunting culture in the US, and firearms are central to that. It may not seem important, but it's a hobby for many people. The morality of hunting belongs in another thread, though.
L.) Target shooting and collecting are major hobbies for many people (including me and my own father). The firearm sports are benevolent and collecting harms no one. No reason to disrupt that.
M.) Most people have a distorted view of firearms due to TV, movies, and anti-gun campaigns. It is rational and imperative to treat firearms with respect, but for many people it's more of a paranoia or phobia. Most of the people who oppose guns have misconceptions about what guns can do or what they are used for. This is fueled by anti-gun propaganda, and leads people to spread the idea that guns are evil, creating a positive-feedback cycle. Education is key.
N.) The economy. I understand that the anti-gun people consider it a necessary price, or just something of no importance, that the economy will suffer if firearms are outright banned. Guns and ammunition made for civilian hunting, target shooting, and the like make a multi-million dollar business, maybe even multi-billion. Banning guns will destroy these industries and in doing so punch the economy in its metaphorical gut.
O.) History. Many guns are historic. Bill Clinton ordered the destruction of thousands of M1 Garand rifles that saw service in WWII. These are a part of our history - not necessarily the best part, but history nonetheless. Destroying them is needless and paranoid.
I made a thread on that, it is an individual right. That was shown in this thread. I also started a thread of an unbiased English experts view.
"After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?;
and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
"http://www.politicalfever.org/forums/civil-liberties-civil-rights/1685-second-ammendment-expert-englishs-view.html
This argument destroys the claim that the second amendment of the United States Constitution protects only the rights of the militia or army to own weapons.
Banning Guns decreases crime.
False:
Examples:
Washington DC
Crime Data Underscore Limits Of D.C. Gun Ban's Effectiveness (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818_pf.html)
Australia
NRA-ILA :: Fact Sheets (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=30&issue=015)
VIOLENT CRIME ________1997 1998 TREND
Murder _______________321 284 -11.5%
Attempted Murder ______318 382 +20.1%
Manslaughter __________39 49 +25.6%
Assault _______________124,500 132,967 +6.8%
Sexual Assault ________14,353 14,568 +1.5%
Kidnaping/abduction ___562 662 +17.8%
Armed Robbery ________9,054 10,850 +19.8%
Unarmed Robbery _______12,251 12,928 +5.5%
TOTAL ________________161,398 172,690 +7.0%
In a March 22, 2000, letter, Australia`s Attorney General Daryl Williams raised objections to an NRA video (http://www.nralive.com/gunban/gunban.cfm) which asserts that after the Australian government`s confiscation of hunting rifles and shotguns, armed robberies rose, assaults with guns rose, murders with guns rose and home invasions rose. Williams said NRA was using "misleading" statistics to make its case against gun control. He also claimed "the national firearms agreement has succeeded in removing more than 640,000 dangerous weapons from circulation in the community." Would he call it "misleading" to say instead that "the national ban has led to the destruction of 640,000 commonplace semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns?"
If the Attorney General has a real problem with NRA`s video, his problem is much closer to home than NRA headquarters. The video shows real people protesting their loss of liberty and loss of the right to self-defense. Those people are Australians. And the statistics presented in the NRA video were reported in real newspapers--Australian newspapers. Here are several examples:
• "The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
• "Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.
• "Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
• "Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
• "Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.
• "The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
General Examples
Just For Skeptics: Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries (http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm) (see link for detailed citation)
1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1
2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2
* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3
* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4
* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5
3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:
* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8
4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.
* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11
* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:
a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12
b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13
c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14
* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15
* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16
5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:
High Gun Ownership Countries
Country_________ Suicide Homicide Total*
Switzerland _____21.4 2.7 24.1
U.S. ___________11.6 7.4 19.0
Israel __________6.5 1.4 7.9
Low Gun Ownership Countries
Country Suicide Homicide Total*
Denmark 22.3 4.9 27.2
France 20.8 1.1 21.9
Japan** 16.7 0.6 17.3
* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides.
Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (1998), cited at America: The Most Violent Nation? (http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html).
6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.
* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18
Myth: Automatic Weapons are more dangerous than any other weapon
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf
In 1995 240k Automatic weapons were registered in the US. (note: No new automatic weapons are allowed for sale in the US and those that are sold generally go for the 3K an up range and are VERY closely monitored by the government, meaning they know exactly who legally owns what, and when it is stolen) As up 1995 7,700 reports of stolen automatic weapons have been filed with the ATF.
From 1985 to 1994 the ATF reported an average of 240k stolen guns a year. That is over 2.1 million stolen guns during that time frame, of which only 7,700 were full auto machines guns. That is .0036% of stolen guns were fully automatic.
What guns are the most frequently traced?
The most frequently traced guns vary from year to year. The ATF publishes a list of the 10 specific guns most frequently traced annually. The total number of traced guns on the top 10 list was 18% of the total traced from 1991 to 1994. Most of the top 10 guns were pistols (over 30% were .25 caliber pistols), although a number of revolvers and a few shotguns and rifles were also included. The most frequently traced gun was a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver in 1990, the Raven Arms P25 (a .25 caliber pistol) from 1991through 1993, and the Lorcin P25 in 1994.
10 most frequently traced guns in 1994
Rank
Manufacturer
Model
Caliber
Type
Number traced
1
Lorcin
P25
.25
Pistol
3,223
2
Davis Industries
P380
.38
Pistol
2,454
3
Raven Arms
MP25
.25
Pistol
2,107
4
Lorcin
L25
.25
Pistol
1,258
5
Mossburg
500
12G
Shotgun
1,015
6
Phoenix Arms
Raven
.25
Pistol
959
7
Jennings
J22
.22
Pistol
929
8
Ruger
P89
9 mm
Pistol
895
9
Glock
17
9 mm
Pistol
843
10
Bryco
38
.38
Pistol
820
Source: ATF, May 1995.
Assault weapons and homicide
A New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services study of homicides in 1993 in New York City found that assault weapons were involved in 16% of the homicides studied. The definition of assault weapons used was from proposed but not enacted State legislation that was more expansive than the Federal legislation. By matching ballistics records and homicide files, the study found information on 366 firearms recovered in the homicides of 271 victims. Assault weapons were linked to the deaths of 43 victims (16% of those studied). A study by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services reviewed the files of 600 firearm murders that occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989 to 1991. The study found that handguns were used in 72% of the murders (431 murders). Ten guns were identified as assault weapons, including five pistols, four rifles, and one shotgun. [NOTE: Assault Weapon does not mean fully auto machine gun!]
Assault weapons and offenders
In the 1991 BJS Survey of State Inmates, about 8% of the inmates reported that they had owned a military-type weapon, such as an Uzi, AK-47, AR-15, or M-16. Less than 1% said that they carried such a weapon when they committed the incident for which they were incarcerated. A Virginia inmate survey conducted between November 1992 and May 1993 found similar results: About 10% of the adult inmates reported that they had ever possessed an assault rifle, but none had carried it at the scene of a crime.
Two studies indicate higher proportions of juvenile offenders reporting possession and use of assault rifles. The Virginia inmate survey also covered 192 juvenile offenders. About 20% reported that they had possessed an assault rifle and 1% said that they had carried it at the scene of a crime. In 1991, Sheley and Wright surveyed 835 serious juvenile offenders incarcerated in 6 facilities in 4 States. In the Sheley and Wright study, 35% of the juvenile inmates reported that they had owned a military-style automatic or semiautomatic rifle just prior to confinement.
More General Myths.
Top Ten "Gun-Control" Myths (http://www.tincher.to/myths.htm) (see link for detailed citation)
MYTH: Most gun deaths are caused by accidents or by crazed madmen.
FACT: More than two out of every three gun deaths are either suicides or drug-related murders.
Source: Centers For Disease Control - Deaths 1998 (625KB document!) and U.S. Department Of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics
MYTH: Twelve children are killed with guns each day.
FACT: Half of the people that politicians count as "children killed with guns" were actually legally adults. The gun murder rate started falling when crack cocaine started going out of style in 1990. In 1997, 2284 children aged 0-17 years were killed with guns, most of them teenagers. That is 6 per day. In 1998, the number dropped to 1971, still mostly teenagers. That is 5 per day. The age distribution of child gun deaths tracks the age distribution of child drug dealers.
Source: Centers For Disease Control
MYTH: The best way to protect children from guns is to keep children ignorant about them.
FACT: The best way to protect children from guns is to teach them gun safety and lock up guns whenever it is practical to do so. "Ignorance is best" is the old argument against sex-education, reworded by the same people who ridiculed it when it was used by sex-education opponents. With more than 250 million guns in the USA, children will encounter one sooner or later, especially if they live around police, security guards, hunters, or the military.
MYTH: Trigger locks are the best protection against unauthorized gun use.
FACT: The best protection against unauthorized gun use is to keep guns in a child-proof burglar-proof safe whenever they are not being used for hunting, self-protection, or target-shooting. Trigger locks do not protect guns from being stolen, and an improperly-installed trigger lock can cause a gun to fire accidentally, especially if the gun is dropped.
MYTH: The politicians who talk loudest about "gun-control" work hard to prevent gun violence.
FACT: After demanding passage of the Brady Law, the Clinton-Gore administration prosecuted fewer than 5 out of every 100 convicted felons who violated the law. In 1998 only 102 out of 90,000 were federally prosecuted.
Source: U.S. Department Of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics, courtesy of US Congressman John Dingell
MYTH: If guns were illegal, criminals would not have guns.
FACT: Guns are readily available in China, Eastern Europe, and illegal-drug-producing countries such as Mexico and Columbia. Criminals smuggled 690,000 pounds of cocaine into the USA in the first 6 months of 2000. Thousands of guns can be hidden in 690,000 pounds of cocaine.
Source: USA Today newspaper, 28 September 2000, page 3A
MYTH: Mandatory gun registration means all guns must be registered.
FACT: Because it is already illegal for convicted felons to own guns, the Fifth Amendment protects felons from being forced to incriminate themselves by registering their guns. Any criminal can easily avoid gun registration by committing a felony and getting probation, or by storing his guns at the home of a convicted felon. If his existing guns are confiscated, he can buy more from any drug dealer.
Source: Fifth Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States and the US Supreme Court ruling Haynes Versus United States
MYTH: "Gun-control" organizations are run by dedicated volunteers.
FACT: The president of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) makes more than $150,000 per year from gun violence.
Source: HCI financial filings
MYTH: The National Rifle Association (NRA) is evil.
FACT: For several decades the NRA has been working to reduce gun deaths. Their "Eddie Eagle" videos teach young children that when they encounter a gun they should: "Stop! Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." The NRA's magazines are full of advertisements for child-proof burglar-proof gun safes. The NRA-supported Project Exile has reduced gun deaths in Richmond, Virginia by strongly punishing criminals who use guns in crimes. The NRA has selfish reasons to fight gun violence: More gun deaths means more votes for anti-gun politicians and more money for multi-million-dollar "gun-control" businesses such as Handgun Control Incorporated.
Source: NRA "Eddie Eagle" videotape and American Rifleman magazine
MYTH: "Gun-control" laws worked in England.
FACT: After more than fifty years of "sensible gun-control laws," English criminals have more than three million illegal guns, twice as many as ten years ago.
Source: The Sunday Times newspaper, 16 January 2000, Killings rise as 3m illegal guns flood Britain and The Guardian newspaper, 23 October 2000, US-style gun law comes to Britain
This is meant to be an easy reference for the arguments supporting the pro-gun position. Feel free to debate the points here, but this is mainly meant to be used to provide some quick facts and statistics to be linked to in firearms debates.