Someone please explain to me how you think you only need your martial arts training f

Kind of a dated article, but good read nonetheless:

Gun Control: Myths and Realities | David Lampo | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

Gun Control: Myths and Realities

by David Lampo

David Lampo is the publications director at the Cato Institute.

Added to cato.org on May 13, 2000

This article appeared on cato.org on May 13, 2000.

The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a "Million Mom March" to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother's Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it's easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case.

Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.

I wonder when this will be moved to the War Room?
 

Right. And everything in this article supports the conclusion that gun laws aren't the root of the problem, because people don't follow them anyway. The root of the problem is the widespread availability of guns to those who do NOT follow the law and those who do alike.

There are undoubtedly a myriad of other factors, such as multi-generational poverty, drug policy, and income gap, but I believe that the widespread presence of guns exacerbates an area's homicide rate. Period.
 
Id rather train for something that i will have with me at all times.

People with CCW permits should have their guns with them at all times anyways (and most do). You'd be surprised at the advances manufacturers have made with concealable handguns.

317205275.jpg


Split_Holster_2.jpg
 
Right. And everything in this article supports the conclusion that gun laws aren't the root of the problem, because people don't follow them anyway. The root of the problem is the widespread availability of guns to those who do NOT follow the law and those who do alike.

The widespread presence of guns exacerbates an area's homicide rate. Period.



What is the rate of gun ownership in Charleston, West Virginia?

Compare to the rate of gun ownership in New York City, New York...


Adjusted for population, which has the most crime per capita?



What is the rate of gun ownership in Huntsville, Alabama?

Compare to the rate of gun ownership in Chicago, Illinois...


Adjusted for population, which has the most crime per capita?




The locations with the highest crime tend to have the most restrictive gun laws.
 
If you have a problem with the DailyMail's numbers then you are free to show where/how they are wrong.

I don't have a problem with their numbers... their numbers show that while Britain has a high violent crime rate, it has a low homicide rate.

You are the one saying their numbers are not from the "notorious" government, so I am asking you where they are from then.
 
Right. And everything in this article supports the conclusion that gun laws aren't the root of the problem, because people don't follow them anyway. The root of the problem is the widespread availability of guns to those who do NOT follow the law and those who do alike.

The widespread presence of guns exacerbates an area's homicide rate. Period.

So how do you solve the problem then, "uninvent" the gun? Crime happens, legislation cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even then they'll just use something else. The best option is to give regular citizens the ability to defend themselves.
 
What is the rate of gun ownership in Charleston, West Virginia?

Compare to the rate of gun ownership in New York City, New York...


Adjusted for population, which has the most crime per capita?



What is the rate of gun ownership in Huntsville, Alabama?

Compare to the rate of gun ownership in Chicago, Illinois...


Adjusted for population, which has the most crime per capita?




The locations with the highest crime tend to have the most restrictive gun laws.


How does one determine accurate numbers of gun ownership when such a big part of the problem is that so many guns, especially in areas with high homicide rates, are illegally owned?
 
So how do you solve the problem then, "uninvent" the gun? Crime happens, legislation cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even then they'll just use something else. The best option is to give regular citizens the ability to defend themselves.

But that "something else" has a much less likely chance of delivering lethal force. Read the excellent book "On Killing" by Dave Grossman.

It is more difficult both physically, but especially psychologically, to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.

Armies spend billions of dollars trying to depersonalize the killing process to make people more efficient at it, and even violent criminals are still people. I'm not saying they are good people, but if you give a bad person a gun - or a drunk person, or a distraught person - then yes, I believe he is more likely to commit a murder than if he doesn't have one.
 
How does one determine accurate numbers of gun ownership when such a big part of the problem is that so many guns, especially in areas with high homicide rates, are illegally owned?



You could ask the rapists, robbers, and killers, really nicely, with a friendly tone of voice, to please obey the law and give up their illegal guns.

You might want to have a SWAT team backing you up when you approach the Crips HQ and ask them to turn their stuff in.
 
But that "something else" has a much less likely chance of delivering lethal force. Read the excellent book "On Killing" by Dave Grossman.

It is more difficult both physically, but especially psychologically, to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.

Armies spend billions of dollars trying to depersonalize the killing process to make people more efficient at it, and even violent criminals are still people. I'm not saying they are good people, but if you give a bad person a gun, yes, I believe he is more likely to commit a murder than if he doesn't have one.

I don't doubt it, especially with the advancements in modern ballistic technology, but a victim who can resist is more of a deterrent than ill-equipped bad guy. There also aren't many solid statistics regarding legal gun ownership and self defense. An estimated 40% of Americans own guns and there are self defense cases where no shots were fired but crime was averted, which went unreported. No system is foolproof, gun owners seems to already know that, but the antis somehow believe that they can create one. Personally, if I had to choose between less freedom and more freedom, I would chose the latter.
 
But that "something else" has a much less likely chance of delivering lethal force. Read the excellent book "On Killing" by Dave Grossman.

It is more difficult both physically, but especially psychologically, to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.

Armies spend billions of dollars trying to depersonalize the killing process to make people more efficient at it, and even violent criminals are still people. I'm not saying they are good people, but if you give a bad person a gun - or a drunk person, or a distraught person - then yes, I believe he is more likely to commit a murder than if he doesn't have one.




There is a difference between soldiers who come from stable backgrounds and decent families, who need to be conditioned to take life, because it goes against the grain of their existence and everything they've been taught all their life, and the street thug who grew up on the streets and will decapitate you for your cell-phone without a second of hesitation.


Some people will rip out your entrails, while laughing, just because you looked at them the wrong way.
 
At the end of the day, responsible gun owners are generally part of the solution, not the problem. All gun control will do is whittle down that number and give "bad guys" more opportunities and breathing room.
 
Where are you getting this information? Are you just making this up? The U.K. has fewer homicides per capita that the US (by far), Australia and Canada.

Countires with the highest homicide rate per capita:
1. Columbia
2. South Africa
3. Jamaica
4. Venuzula
5. Russia
24. United States
46. United Kingdom

Murders (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Here is another source:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the most recent statistics in 2008, the UK had 2.03 homicides per 100,000 compared with 5.40 in the US, 36 in Columbia, 37 in South Africa and 58 in Honduras, the most dangerous country in the world in 2008.

By the way, 10 out of the 20 countries with the highest murder rates are south or central American countries. Go war on drugs!

I'm glad you brought this up. You found that the UK has 2.03 homicides per 100,000 in 2002, which is 20.03 per 1 million inhabitants.

Look at this document and search for the UK homicide trend chart:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

It shows that from 1900 the homicide rate has steadily increased to 14.1 per 1 million in 1997. In 1997, the UK passed the Firearms Act of 1997, effectively banning all handguns. 5 years later in 2002, the homicide rate INCREASED to 20.03 per 1 million.

If these numbers are correct, it doesn't prove either way if guns lead to more homicides or less homicides, but that firearms is not the overall major cause of homicides. You can make all sorts of conjecture on what the effect of firearms in a society is or for that matter any inanimate object like knives, cars, power tools and etc. , but the fact of the matter is that firearms or any tools of homicides are not the major catalysts. Therefore why make it an issue?
 


I respect many of the posts made in this thread, however, that article is completely condescending, arrogant and asinine.

This author actually states that not allowing someone to carry a gun to a public event is the logical equivalent of banning blacks, gays or some other minority.

To quote George Carlin, "That is what is known as being stunningly and embarassingly full of shit."
 
You mean, kinda like the assumption that gun owners are insecure, paranoid, fear mongers?
 
Back
Top