Congress Shafts Second Amendment... Again

[MadMike]

Excerpts from NRA-ILA (bold added by me).

Yours, Mike


12 LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (latest data)

ALL CAUSES 2,169,518

Heart Disease 720,862
Cancers 514,657
Strokes 143,481
ACCIDENTS 89,347
Motor Vehicle 43,536
Falls 12,662
Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas) 6,434
Drowning (incl. water transport drownings) 4,685
Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion) 4,195
Fires and flames 4,120
Surgical/Medical misadventures* 2,473
Other Transportation (excl. drownings) 2,086
Natural/Environmental factors 1,453
Firearms 1,441
Chronic pulmonary diseases 90,650
Pneumonia and influenza 77,860
Diabetes 48,951
Suicide** 30,810
HIV Infections (AIDS) 29,555
Homicide and legal intervention*** 26,513
Cirrhosis and other liver diseases 25,429

* A Harvard University study suggests 93,000 deaths annually related to medical negligence, excluding tens of thousands more deaths from non- hospital medical office/lab mistakes and thousands of hospital caused infections.

** Approximately 60% involve firearms.


*** Approximately 60% involve firearms. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates 1,500-2,800 self-defense and justifiable homicides by civilians and 300-600 by police annually.

* In 1990, the Supreme Court observed in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, that the right to keep and bear arms, like rights protected by the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, is an individual right held by "the people," which the court defined as all "persons who are a part of a national community."

U.S. COMPARED WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES
* All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. (James D. Wright, et. al ., Under the Gun, 1983) "Gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.... Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America; not only does it depend on search and seizure too intrusive for American standards, it postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individual, egalitarian . . . American ethos." (David Kopel, "Foreign Gun Control in American Eyes," 1987)


* Gun laws and firearms availability are unrelated to homicide or suicide rates. Most states bordering Canada have homicide rates similar to their northern neighbors, despite much higher rates of firearms availability. While the American homicide rate is higher than most European nations, and firearms are frequently involved in American homicides, America's violent crime rates are even higher for crimes where guns are less often (robbery) or infrequently (rape) involved. The difference is violence, not firearms, and America's system of revolving door justice.

* England now has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its repressive laws, yet its politicians have responded to rising crime by further restricting rifles and shotguns. During the past dozen years, handgun-related robbery has risen 200% in Britain, five times as fast as the rise in the U.S.

* Japan's low homicide rate is accompanied by a suicide rate much higher than that of the United States, despite Japan's virtual gun ban. And Japan's low crime rate is attributable to police-state type law enforcement which would be opposed by Americans.

NRA Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia
22030

[Enigma]

Probably higher in the US but it's immaterial. Whether it's a gun, knife, baseball bat or handy open high rise window anyone intending to commit murder is going to find a way.

Soooo....people should be able to freely provide the easiest means? A nice M-60 or perhaps a shoulder launched missile? If your 21, of course...

It's true that people who want to kill, will kill. But I suspect murderers are somewhat a minority in this country, so I think i'd prefer to let those of us not interested in killing people regulate weapons that are designed simply for the purpose of killing, and not let the "Well, I'll find a way to kill anyway so please just make the weapon I wish to use legal and convenient" crowd write the law....no? :hmm:

Perhaps what we should be looking at is how many lives are saved because of private ownership of fire arms.

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

* Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.

* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."

* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.

* More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.

* CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws."

* Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that "less than two percent [of criminals] reported obtaining [firearms] from a gun show."10 And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows.

* Several polls show that Americans are very pro-gun. Several scientific polls indicate that the right to keep and bear arms is still revered—and gun control disdained—by a majority of Americans today. To mention just a few recent polls:

* In 2002, an ABC News poll found that almost three-fourths of the American public believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own guns.

* Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns."

* A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" to stop a school massacre.

* A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.15 More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in the flawed study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim's home."

* In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household."
* Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. 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 1997.18 And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.



http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

[Enigma]

Respectfully, Mike, you forgot this statistic about your source....

* The National Rifle Association is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States.

You'll forgive me if I dont put too much stock in what they publish. that would be like me telling you to take this to heart.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/The...trol.html#intl

[Enigma]

And as I said in the 2nd post of this thread....

Again, a can of worms that devides alot of Americans.

It's a to each his own issue. I'm pretty sure we know where I stand on it. I think we could paste each other silly with stastics all day.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Perhaps what we should be looking at is how many lives are saved because of private ownership of fire arms.

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

This carries the blatant assumption that the citizens life was in danger, and the gun saved them. Most criminals would not be prepared to kill. Warding off a mugger with a handgun is NOT saving your life.

* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."

Of course. Registering guns and making people wait for them doesnt stop guns getting into their hands.

* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.

I really dont mean to be pithy here, but how the hell is this relevant?

* Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns."

That's a ridiculous poll. It creates a false choice. Cant America have both?

* A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.15 More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie:

Again, this postulates that the criminal was ready and willing to kill, and would have definitely done so. Thazt kind of asssumption is dangerous, because we dont know what would have happened.

[August]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Soooo....people should be able to freely provide the easiest means? A nice M-60 or perhaps a shoulder launched missile? If your 21, of course...

It's true that people who want to kill, will kill. But I suspect murderers are somewhat a minority in this country, so I think i'd prefer to let those of us not interested in killing people regulate weapons that are designed simply for the purpose of killing, and not let the "Well, I'll find a way to kill anyway so please just make the weapon I wish to use legal and convenient" crowd write the law....no? :hmm:

Well shucks dude, why not add tactical nukes and death stars to your reducto ad absurdum argument? First off missles aren't firearms. Secondly people that own M60s legally do not tend to use them to cap convenience store clerks.

As for the rest. I legally own several firearms. The last person I want regulating them is someone like you who implies that anyone who owns one is interested in killing people with it.

Finally, the basic flaw with any gun control legislation is that it ONLY affects those who abide by the law. Criminals by definition do not therefore the only people prevented from obtaining firearms by your constitution violating regulations are potential victims. So go ahead take that gun out of Grannys hands. That way its all the more easier to victimize her....no? :hmm:

[MadMike]

Enigma,
The facts come directly from the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics and other government sources. :hmm:

Yours, Mike

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Again, this postulates that the criminal was ready and willing to kill, and would have definitely done so. Thazt kind of asssumption is dangerous, because we dont know what would have happened.

Not any more dangerous than assuming a person who breaks into an occupied house will not attempt to hurt those inside. You're betting someone elses life on the harmless intentions of a criminal. Talk about dangerous assumptions.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

Not any more dangerous than assuming a person who breaks into an occupied house will not attempt to hurt those inside. You're betting someone elses life on the harmless intentions of a criminal. Talk about dangerous assumptions.

No, you're missing my point. Saying that 2.5m firearms used in self-defense "saved lives", like waste_gate did, is misleading, because unless every single occurrence was an attempted murder, then thats simply not the case. It's a dangerous assumption that leads to bad use of statistics.
I'm talking about statistics, which obviously happen after the fact. I'm not betting anyones life

[nightdagger]

Originally Posted by U-533

There are at least 300 weapon owners that I know, including yours truly,
if they come to get our weapons the morgue and the local football stadium wont be big enough to hold the bodies.

Maybe after all us "Good ol Boys" are dead and gone they can play that sh**.

I don't even think there will be anything in existence to hold the bodies.

In any case, I would love to see how many crimes are committed with firearms compared to how many are committed with other weapons. If someone wants to commit a crime, it's going to happen and the person you take a gun away from might've been there to stop the crime.

[Enigma]

As for the rest. I legally own several firearms. The last person I want regulating them is someone like you who implies that anyone who owns one is interested in killing people with it.

If you read carefully enough, you would have seen that I was referring to the fact that you implied that people will kill any damn way, (which is also disputable), so what, we shouldnt regulate weapons? this also explains why I picked the absurd weapons I mentioned. The argument that "people will kill anyway" for relaxed gun control in a country with an obvious problem with gun related murder simply isnt good enough. At least by my standards, apparently. And, I legally own 3 guns, for the record.

Crazy, ....huh?:hmm:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

This carries the blatant assumption that the citizens life was in danger, and the gun saved them. Most criminals would not be prepared to kill. Warding off a mugger with a handgun is NOT saving your life.

Of course. Registering guns and making people wait for them doesnt stop guns getting into their hands.

I really dont mean to be pithy here, but how the hell is this relevant?

That's a ridiculous poll. It creates a false choice. Cant America have both?

Again, this postulates that the criminal was ready and willing to kill, and would have definitely done so. Thazt kind of asssumption is dangerous, because we dont know what would have happened.

The major problem I have with your argument is that you think all questioning is designed to favor a particular argument. You haven't met a statistict you didn't like, unless it supported your position.

Secondly, by your own logic, how is a reasonable indivilual to know if the mugger isn't out to do you serious or deadly bodily harm?
better to meet the mugger with undeniably greater force. The situation ends and the law abiding gun owner reports the occurance to the proper authoriy.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by waste gate

The major problem I have with your argument is that you think all questioning is designed to favor a particular argument. You haven't met a statistict you didn't like, unless it supported your position.

I'm pointing out flaws I see in the statistics that people post, I'm more or less blind as regards politics. Most statistics that we hear are slanted or skewed, thats an unfortunate given.

Secondly, by your own logic, how is a reasonable indivilual to know if the mugger isn't out to do you serious or deadly bodily harm?
better to meet the mugger with undeniably greater force. The situation ends and the law abiding gun owner reports the occurance to the proper authoriy.

Don't say "by your own logic" when you havent understood what I've said. I'm talking about the statistics, not the actual crimes. If a firearm is used in self-defence during a mugging, it dodn't save your life. Thats all I was pointing out. The Zogby poll is insane, it asks you to choose between punishing criminals, and gun laws. No citizen has to make this decision, and no policy-maker has to either.

[Yahoshua]

Isnt it about keeping dangerouw weapons out of the hands of minors? I would have thought so.


Criminals will find ways to get weapons, whether they kill someone, steal it from a car, or even a LEO, it is impossible to stop this in its' entirety.

(btw, I'm seeing more news reports of firearms being stolen from LEOs' than I hear of gunsops and gunshows being loopholes for criminals, an example is shown below)

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/200...3020-3000r.htm

http://www.officer.com/article/artic...&siteSection=1

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1027458&nid=25

Congress can pass legislation saying that no minor will ever touch a gun for fear of them injuring themselves doesn't mean that a minor somehow, somewhere won't end up injuring or killing themselves. Preventing the deaths of minors is best done through education, not legislation.