Oh well.

It has been proven that restriction on lawful ownership increases crime.

The FBI proved it, there is a big write up by two scholars that proved it by an exhastive research study.
All the articles are on the NRA wbsites.

Look at Great Britain, heck, not only did violent armed crime increase due to restrictions, but the poor saps who protect their home and property are considered the criminals when they harm the bad guys and do long jail sentences while the criminals go home with a slap on the wrist.
No freaking joke.

Look the district of columbia with the highest crime rate in the nation.
The good guys are disarmed and the bad guys have free reign.

You watch how quickly that crap stops if the CCW laws ever get passed.

Go look the articles up on the NRA websites, they are very informative and written by some pretty smart guys. I don't have the time to feed you the articles myself, but you naysayers always want proof, but when presented with it, you still deny it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3CEKPvzFeHsC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=legal+ownership+of+firearms+and+crime+rates&source=web&ots=TC7ZFBPtfA&sig=UUtd8VrrdVpTEA0gYkIoKTVgs1Y#PPA203,M1

"The aggregate level analysis of violent crime rates indicated that the net impact of all the various individual effects of gun possession, was not significantly different from zero."

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=98
"The empirical evidence as to the success of the Washington, DC, handgun ban is mixed. Loftin et al. (1991) used an interrupted-time-series methodology to analyze homicides and suicides in Washington, DC, and the surrounding areas of Maryland and Virginia before and after the introduction of the ban. They included the suburban areas around Washington, DC, as a control group, since the law does not directly affect these areas. Using a sample window of 1968-1987, they report a 25 percent reduction in gun-related homicides in the District of Columbia after the handgun ban and a 23 percent reduction in gun-related suicides. In contrast, the surrounding areas of Maryland and Virginia show no consistent patterns, suggesting a possible causal link between the handgun ban and the declines in gun-related homicide and suicide. In addition, Loftin et al. (1991) report that nongun-related homicides and suicides declined only slightly after the handgun ban, arguing that this is evidence against substitution away from guns toward other weapons.
Britt et al. (1996), however, demonstrate that the earlier conclusions of Loftin et al. (1991) are sensitive to a number of modeling choices. They demonstrate that the same handgun-related homicide declines observed in Washington, DC, also occurred in Baltimore, even though Baltimore did not experience any change in handgun laws.7 Thus, if Baltimore is used as a control group rather than the suburban areas surrounding DC, the conclusion that the handgun law lowered homicide and suicide rates does not hold. Britt et al. (1996) also found that extending the sample frame an additional two years (1968-1989) eliminated any measured impact of the handgun ban in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, Jones (1981) discusses a number of contemporaneous policy interventions that took place around the time of the Washington, DC, gun ban, which further call into question a causal interpretation of the results.
In summary, the District of Columbia handgun ban yields no conclusive evidence with respect to the impact of such bans on crime and violence."

I think it's telling that there is a study entitled, "More Guns More Crime", M. Duggan and a study entitled, "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott.

__________________
1984 300TD

If there is no difference between handgun ownership and non-ownership then wouldn't it make sense to you that gov should err on the side of liberty?

I don't think (and neither have I ever said) the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, no. i don't think handguns should be banned either. Somewhere in this or the other thread, I wrote what regulations I think should be in place. They are not much different from current rules regarding vehicle operation, except background checks and a waiting period.

__________________
1984 300TD

Chuck says "Quit whining and let the big boys take care of business."

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e53/clownzilla/Bronson.jpg

Tankdriver,
My apologies. I did re-read your posts and you are correct. I was incorrect in categorizing you with DA. Your posts do have far more merit however I became a little caught up in the moment.

DieselAddict,
The problem with the statistics provided by Zeus/Canada is that they are firearm related only. Quite obviously the US will have higher rates of all crime involving firearms as they are far more abundant here. What has not been factored, and I have not seen evidence presented to the contrary: After Canada, Britain and Australia passed firearm bans and severe restrictions their crime rates increased. That is an undisputed fact. This may not be directly related to the passage of said laws as correlation is not causation as Bot has pointed out. The US has a violent society, we have major drug and gang problems. Our crime rates will likely be much higher than any of the countries listed simply due to that fact. Again, I ask for proof that gun restrictions actually REDUCED crime. Not crime with guns, crime overall. The distinction is important. Reducing firearm related crime while maintaining the same over all crime percentages does nothing. Except trample my rights. RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K

Show me evidence that shows crime increased after the gun ban in Canada, Britain and Australia. What gun ban are we talking about anyway? The following stats from 2007 still show pretty significant gun ownership in Canada and to some extent Australia too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

The murder rate that I listed was total murders per capita, not just gun homicides. Here's the link again.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

I'm not aware of any solid proof that gun restrictions reduce crime or that legalizing guns reduces crime. However, background checks make sense and I hope you can at least agree there. I think that's pretty much a no brainer. Even the NRA mostly supports them. Ironically though, that's a form of gun control. Aren't we violating the constitution by not allowing convicts to bear arms?

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Hey RT -

Just to clarify - the stats I provided do focus on firearms, but overall the entire homicide rate in Canada is lower than the US. This includes all homicides, independent of what weapon(s) was used. This is per capita data.

"Rates for all homicides are 3.8 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average homicide rate was 8.8 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 2.3 per 100,000 in Canada."

Canada's gun laws have been in place a long time. There wasn't really a sudden 'clamp' down on laws, so to say. Handguns have been restricted for a very long time and as noted, rifle ownership remains high. We had a small arsenal up at our farm for a while - shotguns, 308, M1, 22, etc.

Overall crime rates have dropped slightly in the past 10 years.

__________________
Chris
2007 E550 4Matic - 61,000 Km - Iridium Silver, black leather, Sport package, Premium 2 package
2007 GL450 4Matic - 62,000 Km - Obsidian Black Metallic, black leather, all options
1998 E430 - sold
1989 300E - 333,000 Km - sold
1977 280E - sold
1971 250 - retired

"And a frign hat. They gave me a hat at the annual benefits meeting. I said. how does this benefit me. I dont have anything from the company.. So they gave me a hat." - TheDon

Cars kill more people every year than guns...so lets ban all cars.

The problem I have with most of these stats is that there is only information about homicides/crimes. What you don't see in the stats are the number of homicides/crimes thwarted everyday because the Good Guy had a gun.

I will have to do some research but I believe one study done said something to the effect guns are used to stop 600,000 crimes every year as opposed to the 30,000 gun related crimes every year. Unfortunately, I think my memory is a little off on the numbers and from what I recall, the study may not have been comparing apples to apples.

I will have to find it. I do believe though that guns are used more often to stop crimes than they are used to commit crimes.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDNIUGunFreeZone022508.html

By John R. Lott, Jr.:As Northern Illinois University restarts classes this week, one thing is clear: Six minutes proved too long. It took six minutes before the police were able to enter the classroom that horrible Thursday, and in that short time five people were murdered, 16 wounded.

Six minutes is actually record-breaking speed for the police arriving at such an attack, but it was simply not fast enough. Still, the police were much faster than at the Virginia Tech attack last year.

The previous Thursday, five people were killed in the city council chambers in Kirkwood, Mo. There was even a police officer already there when the attack occurred.

But, as happens time after time in these attacks when uniformed police are there, the killers either wait for the police to leave the area or they are the first people killed. In Kirkwood, the police officer was killed immediately when the attack started. People cowered or were reduced to futilely throwing chairs at the killer.

Just like attacks last year at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb., the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City and the recent attack at the Tinley Park Mall in Illinois, or all the public school attacks, they had one thing in common: They took place in "gun-free zones," where private citizens were not allowed to carry their guns with them.

The malls in Omaha and Salt Lake City were in states that let people carry concealed handguns, but private property owners are allowed to post signs that ban guns; those malls were among the few places in their states that chose such a ban.

In the Trolley Square attack, an off-duty police officer fortunately violated the ban and stopped the attack. The attack at Virginia Tech or the other public school attacks occur in some of the few areas within their states that people are not allowed to carry concealed handguns.

It is not just recent killings that are occurring in these gun-free zones. The Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead in 1984.

Nor are these horrible incidents limited to just gun-free zones in the U.S. In 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries — including France, Germany and Switzerland — have experienced multiple-victim shootings. The worst in Germany resulted in 17 deaths; in Switzerland, one attack claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators.

At some point you would think the media would notice that something is going on here, that these murderers aren't just picking their targets at random. And this pattern isn't really too surprising. Most people understand that guns deter criminals.

If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This home is a gun-free zone"? But that is what all these places did.

Even when attacks occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun.

In cases from the Colorado Springs church shooting last December, in which a parishioner who was given permission by the minister to carry her concealed gun into the church quickly stopped the murder, to an attack last year in downtown Memphis to the Appalachian Law School to high schools in such places as Pearl, Miss., concealed handgun permit holders have stopped attacks well before uniformed police could possibly have arrived. Just a few weeks ago, Israeli teachers stopped a terrorist attack at a school in their country.

Indeed, despite the fears being discussed about the risks of concealed handgun permit holders, I haven't found one of these multiple-victim public shootings where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.

With about 5 million Americans currently with concealed handgun permits in the U.S., and with states starting to have right-to-carry laws for as long as 80 years, we have a lot of experience with these laws and one thing is very clear: Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Those who lose their permits for any gun-related violation are measured in the hundredths or thousandths of a percentage point.

We also have a lot of experience with permitted concealed handguns in schools. Prior to the 1995 Safe School Zone Act, states with right-to-carry laws let teachers or others carry concealed handguns at school. There is not a single instance that I or others have found where this produced a single problem.

Though in a minority, a number of universities — from large public schools such as Colorado State and the University of Utah to small private schools such as Hamline in Minnesota — let students carry concealed handguns on school property.

Many more schools, from Dartmouth College to Boise State University, let professors carry concealed handguns. Again, with no evidence of problems.

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was closely following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill. With all the media coverage of the types of guns used and how the criminal obtained the gun, at some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: They keep occurring in gun-free zones.

Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks.

*John Lott is the author of the book, Freedomnomics upon which this piece is based and is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland.

I totally agree and have said so many times. To have loose background checks and guns plentiful and easy to get everywhere except in localized "gun-free" zones is the worst possible combination.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I have no problem with the statistics you provided, I think they are quite clear. Americans like to kill each other far more than Canadians. Regarding the gun bans/restrictions in Canada specifically I would like to know if crime was reduced/increased/static after the bans. From what I understand Canada implemented a country-wide gun registration program that has ended up costing 100times more than expected, has been widely ignored by rural areas, and had no effect on crime either way. Do you know anything about this?

It was my understanding that violent crime like assault, mugging, rape, etc. was in the rise in Britain and Australia's cities. So much so that NYC is far safer than Sydney or London. I can't find the stats on that right now but is it true? Apparently murder rates have not risen as sharply.
RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K

I'd have to check but IIRC convicted felons lose some of their rights. I have no issue with background checks. I would like public access to the NICS system so that sellers making a private sale could be more at ease with it. would also like the reporting mechanism to the NICS really improved/enhanced. Most of the shootings we are all worked up about would not have happened if people with mental disease had been added into the system in a timely manner.

Regarding the current state of availability of firearms. I would keep it exactly as it is. Most anything you could want is available and well controlled. No rocket launchers, grenades, etc. which would seem prudent. There are over 20,000 firearm laws already written. There is a law for every possible offense. I would like to see aggressive use of the existing laws with maximum sentences for the problems. Drug dealers with guns, illegal firearm dealers, etc. I would also like to see a voluntary national campaign for firearms safety and training. Its a fairly simple thing to make firearm safety fashionable, look at the results with AIDS, smoking, seat belt, etc. awareness.

No one should be "afraid" of guns and everyone should know how they function and how to safely handle them. Think of it this way a gun is simply a tool, an inanimate object. There are quite a few of them around. It would make sense to educate people to respect them and how to handle them safely. Even if you don't like them you should be able to at least know how to unload one and what not to do.

RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K