Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

The numbers don’t lie: banning guns means more crime

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’

This 3 part series is from last year...it documents the increasing gun crime in Australia...

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.

----

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

-------------

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

------------

Gun crime soars
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:

• There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
• Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
• The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
• Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
• Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts

In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.
============
The second part of the series....
Gun city: Gunslingers of the North West


========================
'Thousands' of illegal guns tipped to be handed over in firearms amnesty

Asked roughly how many he expected to be handed in, Mr Keenan said: "Look I certainly think the number will be in the thousands."

The Australian Crime Commission estimated in 2012 there were at least 250,000 illegal guns in Australia. But a Senate report noted last year it was impossible to estimate how many illicit weapons are out there.

But....military weapons?

And despite Australia's strict border controls, the smuggling of high-powered military-style firearms is also a growing problem.

View attachment 121826

Posting charts without opinion is a waste of time.

The chart speaks for itself. Sorry about your hearing disabilities.

That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.

What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

View attachment 121826

Those words gun buyback cracks me up. Like the guns belonged to the government originally and now they want them back.

Or that people had the choice of whether to sell them their gun or not.

But right after they banned the guns, look at the chart when robberies took a huge hike. The criminals didn't sell their guns to the government. They kept their guns and the citizens became easy targets.

Even though armed robberies declined through the years, after almost two decades, the level only returned back to where it was before the ban took place.

Or lower, as in the chart you presented shows that they are LOWER, murders are LOWER, robberies are LOWER.

No, the chart shows the same level. Need me to post it again? And the chart I posted was armed robberies, but if you push it, I'll dig up more for robberies of all kinds and murders.

Ah, yes, because you posted a chart that stopped 7 years ago.

4510.0 - Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia, 2015

"The number of Robbery victims has decreased by 39% since the beginning of the time series in 2010."

And so, in 20 years, the number of robberies has dropped to BELOW what it was, the number of murders has dropped BELOW what it was. But as long as you keep using convenient statistics, you can show whatever you like, right?

I thought we were talking about firearm robberies!

 

[frigidweirdo]

This 3 part series is from last year...it documents the increasing gun crime in Australia...

Gun city: Young, dumb and armed

The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

These are just a handful of the thousands of illicit guns fuelling a wave of violent crime in the world’s most liveable city.

----

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five year

-----------

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

-------------

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing - unprovoked.”

------------

Gun crime soars
In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence.

The investigation has found:

• There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months - more than one incident a week since January 2015
• Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
• The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
• Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
• Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts

In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.
============
The second part of the series....
Gun city: Gunslingers of the North West


========================
'Thousands' of illegal guns tipped to be handed over in firearms amnesty

Asked roughly how many he expected to be handed in, Mr Keenan said: "Look I certainly think the number will be in the thousands."

The Australian Crime Commission estimated in 2012 there were at least 250,000 illegal guns in Australia. But a Senate report noted last year it was impossible to estimate how many illicit weapons are out there.

But....military weapons?

And despite Australia's strict border controls, the smuggling of high-powered military-style firearms is also a growing problem.

View attachment 121826

Posting charts without opinion is a waste of time.

The chart speaks for itself. Sorry about your hearing disabilities.

That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.

What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?

Do I really need to explain this?

Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.

For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.

With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Those words gun buyback cracks me up. Like the guns belonged to the government originally and now they want them back.

Or that people had the choice of whether to sell them their gun or not.

But right after they banned the guns, look at the chart when robberies took a huge hike. The criminals didn't sell their guns to the government. They kept their guns and the citizens became easy targets.

Even though armed robberies declined through the years, after almost two decades, the level only returned back to where it was before the ban took place.

Or lower, as in the chart you presented shows that they are LOWER, murders are LOWER, robberies are LOWER.

No, the chart shows the same level. Need me to post it again? And the chart I posted was armed robberies, but if you push it, I'll dig up more for robberies of all kinds and murders.

Ah, yes, because you posted a chart that stopped 7 years ago.

4510.0 - Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia, 2015

"The number of Robbery victims has decreased by 39% since the beginning of the time series in 2010."

And so, in 20 years, the number of robberies has dropped to BELOW what it was, the number of murders has dropped BELOW what it was. But as long as you keep using convenient statistics, you can show whatever you like, right?

I thought we were talking about firearm robberies!

I thought we were talking about the impact of gun control, and talking about 1997 to 2017...

Victims of violent crime (n per year)

But hey, if you want armed robberies... I can do up to 2013

Armed robberies in 1997 = 9054
Armed robberies in 2013 = 5628

Now, there's a drop

Unarmed robbery dropped by about 50%

Murder dropped by 50 per year from 320.

Yep, the Australians are less safe now than in 1997.... not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

View attachment 121826

Posting charts without opinion is a waste of time.

The chart speaks for itself. Sorry about your hearing disabilities.

That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.

What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?

Do I really need to explain this?

Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.

For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.

With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.

As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.

Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.

For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.

Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.

So the question is, what was actually accomplished?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Posting charts without opinion is a waste of time.

The chart speaks for itself. Sorry about your hearing disabilities.

That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.

What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?

Do I really need to explain this?

Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.

For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.

With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.

As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.

Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.

For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.

Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.

So the question is, what was actually accomplished?

Ah, so if there is a gun ban, and crime rises straight away, it's proof the gun ban is bad. But if after 20 years crime is reduced, it proves nothing? Oh, come off it. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

Sexual assaults is a difficult one, because you really have to know what was going on in sexual assault laws at the time. It could merely be that they're getting more women to report sexual assault, it doesn't necessarily mean there was more sexual assault.

But then again the sexual assault capital of the US is Alaska, a state with lots of guns to people ratio. So, guns don't save people from sexual assault, they're more likely to be used to commit the act.

The assault weapon ban would more likely be designed to impact mass killings, rather than day to day killings. Has it had an impact? probably not, an assault rifle ban just means someone who wants to commit a mass killing will do so with other guns. However in the UK people would find it much harder to get guns, and so less likely to see a mass killing.

 

[yiostheoy]

Since Hillary is not POTUS there won't be any assault weapons ban.

Assault weapons are safe for a while.

 

[yiostheoy]

Ladies and women need to each pack a handgun in their purses.

No doubt no diggity.

 

[yiostheoy]

I thought we were talking about firearm robberies!

I thought we were talking about Peruta.

 

[yiostheoy]

In Peruta, I expect the SCOTUS to overturn either the California ban on open carry or the California de facto ban on concealed carry.

I expect the ruling to be narrowly construed to California only, just as Heller was construed to DC only.

One very big surprise however could be a complete affirmation of the 9th Circuit in Peruta, since as Scalia points out in Heller, the States retain the right to regulate public carry of firearms outside the home.

Anything can happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In Peruta, I expect the SCOTUS to overturn either the California ban on open carry or the California de facto ban on concealed carry.

I expect the ruling to be narrowly construed to California only, just as Heller was construed to DC only.

One very big surprise however could be a complete affirmation of the 9th Circuit in Peruta, since as Scalia points out in Heller, the States retain the right to regulate public carry of firearms outside the home.

Anything can happen.

I expect them to ignore the case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ladies and women need to each pack a handgun in their purses.

No doubt no diggity.

That was the shocker here. After our carry program was out for a couple of years, they reported having more women applicants than men.

20 years ago we used to go to the range, walk right in and grab a booth. There was only one gun range in the area at the time. Sometimes the entire place was yours, other times maybe two or three booths were taken. The guys would be firing their weapons and the women would sit behind the glass reading books or watching their boyfriends and husbands.

Today it's entirely different at the range. You walk in and it's usually about an hours wait to get a booth unless you have a membership. More than half of the people on the range are females. Not to mention that we now have several ranges in the area.

It's a fast growing trend, but more so with women if anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The chart speaks for itself. Sorry about your hearing disabilities.

That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.

What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?

Do I really need to explain this?

Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.

For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.

With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.

As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.

Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.

For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.

Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.

So the question is, what was actually accomplished?

Ah, so if there is a gun ban, and crime rises straight away, it's proof the gun ban is bad. But if after 20 years crime is reduced, it proves nothing? Oh, come off it. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

Sexual assaults is a difficult one, because you really have to know what was going on in sexual assault laws at the time. It could merely be that they're getting more women to report sexual assault, it doesn't necessarily mean there was more sexual assault.

But then again the sexual assault capital of the US is Alaska, a state with lots of guns to people ratio. So, guns don't save people from sexual assault, they're more likely to be used to commit the act.

The assault weapon ban would more likely be designed to impact mass killings, rather than day to day killings. Has it had an impact? probably not, an assault rifle ban just means someone who wants to commit a mass killing will do so with other guns. However in the UK people would find it much harder to get guns, and so less likely to see a mass killing.

Yes indeed. Now they are using trucks for their mass killings.

Yes I can have it both ways. There was an immediate reaction to the gun ban after it started. It was six years later after it's peak before it started to go down, and 15 years later until it almost was down to the point before the ban.

Crime rates will always go up and down. There are many factors to crime. The economy is one thing. The less people working, the more crime you usually have. How many people being prosecuted and jailed is another. If a city or town hires more police officers, that helps as well. Harsher penalties for violent crime is a deterrent too.

The bottom line is if there is any evidence that gun bans have an effect, it's negative. It's not worth having them because it's not worth the time, money and effort. We don't even have to look overseas either. Just read Chicago news where guns are the most regulated in the country. It just doesn't work.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.

What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?

Do I really need to explain this?

Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.

For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.

With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.

As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.

Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.

For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.

Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.

So the question is, what was actually accomplished?

Ah, so if there is a gun ban, and crime rises straight away, it's proof the gun ban is bad. But if after 20 years crime is reduced, it proves nothing? Oh, come off it. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

Sexual assaults is a difficult one, because you really have to know what was going on in sexual assault laws at the time. It could merely be that they're getting more women to report sexual assault, it doesn't necessarily mean there was more sexual assault.

But then again the sexual assault capital of the US is Alaska, a state with lots of guns to people ratio. So, guns don't save people from sexual assault, they're more likely to be used to commit the act.

The assault weapon ban would more likely be designed to impact mass killings, rather than day to day killings. Has it had an impact? probably not, an assault rifle ban just means someone who wants to commit a mass killing will do so with other guns. However in the UK people would find it much harder to get guns, and so less likely to see a mass killing.

Yes indeed. Now they are using trucks for their mass killings.

Yes I can have it both ways. There was an immediate reaction to the gun ban after it started. It was six years later after it's peak before it started to go down, and 15 years later until it almost was down to the point before the ban.

Crime rates will always go up and down. There are many factors to crime. The economy is one thing. The less people working, the more crime you usually have. How many people being prosecuted and jailed is another. If a city or town hires more police officers, that helps as well. Harsher penalties for violent crime is a deterrent too.

The bottom line is if there is any evidence that gun bans have an effect, it's negative. It's not worth having them because it's not worth the time, money and effort. We don't even have to look overseas either. Just read Chicago news where guns are the most regulated in the country. It just doesn't work.

Or perhaps the only evidence you will accept is that evidence which goes your way.

Look, the UK and Australia have always had less guns. The gun bans in these countries weren't anything like a gun ban in the US because of the actual lack of guns in the first place. The UK gun ban wasn't even designed to prevent day to day killings with guns, because there weren't many in the first place.

But the simple facts are the number of murders in Australia and the UK are 4 times lower than the US.


Regulation of guns within a part of the country where guns are easily available in another part of the country is never going to be that effective either, it has to be nationwide to have a inpact.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?

Do I really need to explain this?

Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.

For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.

With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.

As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.

Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.

For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.

Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.

So the question is, what was actually accomplished?

Ah, so if there is a gun ban, and crime rises straight away, it's proof the gun ban is bad. But if after 20 years crime is reduced, it proves nothing? Oh, come off it. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

Sexual assaults is a difficult one, because you really have to know what was going on in sexual assault laws at the time. It could merely be that they're getting more women to report sexual assault, it doesn't necessarily mean there was more sexual assault.

But then again the sexual assault capital of the US is Alaska, a state with lots of guns to people ratio. So, guns don't save people from sexual assault, they're more likely to be used to commit the act.

The assault weapon ban would more likely be designed to impact mass killings, rather than day to day killings. Has it had an impact? probably not, an assault rifle ban just means someone who wants to commit a mass killing will do so with other guns. However in the UK people would find it much harder to get guns, and so less likely to see a mass killing.

Yes indeed. Now they are using trucks for their mass killings.

Yes I can have it both ways. There was an immediate reaction to the gun ban after it started. It was six years later after it's peak before it started to go down, and 15 years later until it almost was down to the point before the ban.

Crime rates will always go up and down. There are many factors to crime. The economy is one thing. The less people working, the more crime you usually have. How many people being prosecuted and jailed is another. If a city or town hires more police officers, that helps as well. Harsher penalties for violent crime is a deterrent too.

The bottom line is if there is any evidence that gun bans have an effect, it's negative. It's not worth having them because it's not worth the time, money and effort. We don't even have to look overseas either. Just read Chicago news where guns are the most regulated in the country. It just doesn't work.

Or perhaps the only evidence you will accept is that evidence which goes your way.

Look, the UK and Australia have always had less guns. The gun bans in these countries weren't anything like a gun ban in the US because of the actual lack of guns in the first place. The UK gun ban wasn't even designed to prevent day to day killings with guns, because there weren't many in the first place.

But the simple facts are the number of murders in Australia and the UK are 4 times lower than the US.


Regulation of guns within a part of the country where guns are easily available in another part of the country is never going to be that effective either, it has to be nationwide to have a inpact.

Oh, you mean like with recreational narcotics? The same narcotics responsible for record overdose deaths in our country?

Guns are not the problem--people are the problem. You're never going to get rid of guns because criminals will always have guns. Unlike other countries, we are vary diverse, and some groups are much more violent than others.

If criminals are assaulting and killing people with guns, and you can't remove the guns from the criminal, the only logical thing to do is arm the victims.

 

[Iceweasel]

Those words gun buyback cracks me up. Like the guns belonged to the government originally and now they want them back.

It's also how some people get rid of stolen or crime involved firearms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those words gun buyback cracks me up. Like the guns belonged to the government originally and now they want them back.

It's also how some people get rid of stolen or crime involved firearms.

Yep. They do that here every now and then. A friend of mine worked at the steel mills, and he was in charge of melting down all those guns. Murder weapons disappearing into blocks of metal.

 

[2aguy]

What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?

Do I really need to explain this?

Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.

For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.

With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.

As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.

Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.

For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.

Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.

So the question is, what was actually accomplished?

Ah, so if there is a gun ban, and crime rises straight away, it's proof the gun ban is bad. But if after 20 years crime is reduced, it proves nothing? Oh, come off it. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

Sexual assaults is a difficult one, because you really have to know what was going on in sexual assault laws at the time. It could merely be that they're getting more women to report sexual assault, it doesn't necessarily mean there was more sexual assault.

But then again the sexual assault capital of the US is Alaska, a state with lots of guns to people ratio. So, guns don't save people from sexual assault, they're more likely to be used to commit the act.

The assault weapon ban would more likely be designed to impact mass killings, rather than day to day killings. Has it had an impact? probably not, an assault rifle ban just means someone who wants to commit a mass killing will do so with other guns. However in the UK people would find it much harder to get guns, and so less likely to see a mass killing.

Yes indeed. Now they are using trucks for their mass killings.

Yes I can have it both ways. There was an immediate reaction to the gun ban after it started. It was six years later after it's peak before it started to go down, and 15 years later until it almost was down to the point before the ban.

Crime rates will always go up and down. There are many factors to crime. The economy is one thing. The less people working, the more crime you usually have. How many people being prosecuted and jailed is another. If a city or town hires more police officers, that helps as well. Harsher penalties for violent crime is a deterrent too.

The bottom line is if there is any evidence that gun bans have an effect, it's negative. It's not worth having them because it's not worth the time, money and effort. We don't even have to look overseas either. Just read Chicago news where guns are the most regulated in the country. It just doesn't work.

Or perhaps the only evidence you will accept is that evidence which goes your way.

Look, the UK and Australia have always had less guns. The gun bans in these countries weren't anything like a gun ban in the US because of the actual lack of guns in the first place. The UK gun ban wasn't even designed to prevent day to day killings with guns, because there weren't many in the first place.

But the simple facts are the number of murders in Australia and the UK are 4 times lower than the US.


Regulation of guns within a part of the country where guns are easily available in another part of the country is never going to be that effective either, it has to be nationwide to have a inpact.

And the low gun murder rate has nothing to do with access, or lack of access to guns...since after the ban the gun murder rate and the gun crime rate stayed the same...then went up....then returned to the same level it was at...until now...now, the gun crime rate in London is up42%......and the gun crime rate in other major cities is up 10%....as is violent crime up 24%....

Gun bans for law abiding citizens doesn't do anything to lower the crime rate or the gun crime rate.

Australia, dittos.....their gun crime rate is now going up....

Their culture kept their murder rate low....

 

[2aguy]

Posting charts without opinion is a waste of time.

The chart speaks for itself. Sorry about your hearing disabilities.

That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.

What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?

Do I really need to explain this?

Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.

For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.

With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.

As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.

Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.

For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.

Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.

So the question is, what was actually accomplished?

Except gun crime didn't really go down in Britain...it spiked after the ban and simply returned to it's pre ban levels...that isn't going down, that is no effect....and now...gun crime in London is up 42%....

 

[2aguy]

In Peruta, I expect the SCOTUS to overturn either the California ban on open carry or the California de facto ban on concealed carry.

I expect the ruling to be narrowly construed to California only, just as Heller was construed to DC only.

One very big surprise however could be a complete affirmation of the 9th Circuit in Peruta, since as Scalia points out in Heller, the States retain the right to regulate public carry of firearms outside the home.

Anything can happen.

But they can't completely ban carrying guns...which is what they have done.