Cold Hard Facts On Gun Bans

[MKS]

Cold Hard Facts On Gun Bans: “The Cost Of Liberty Can Be Measured In the Loss of Life”
Mac Slavo
August 3rd, 2012
SHTFplan.com


“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”

Thomas Jefferson

While anti-gun advocates put forth every argument under the sun for why you should not be able to own a “high capacity” magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, or that you shouldn’t be able to buy ammunition online, or that police should stop going to work until guns have been completely banned, the evidence for disarmament of law abiding citizens as a failed policy is overwhelming.

In Chicago, where guns have essentially been banned for personal defense, the murder of innocents has risen so sharply in recent months that Mayor Rahm Emanual has been left with no other option but to call on criminals to look to their morals and values to stop the carnage. Washington D.C., which bans the carrying of concealed weapons, has maintained one of the highest gun crime murder rates in the country for over three decades – since the legislation was passed in 1975. As the Washington Post notes, the disarming of local residents has been wholly ineffective noting that the “guns kept coming, and bodies kept falling.”

These localized examples of the detrimental effects of restrictive gun policies are nothing, however, when compared to what’s happened in Australia, where the government implemented a “buy back” program in 1997 that completely banned gun ownership for the general population. While Australia’s politician promised a lower crime rate once the ban was in place, the disarming of its citizens has led to exactly the opposite effect.

A right stolen by their government, promising safety in return for its gun ban. But now citizens know the frightening truth. The cost of lost liberty can be measured in the loss of life.

“It’s become very, very obvious… that the expenditure of half a billion dollars has done absolutely nothing to reduce crime.”

“It certainly didn’t do what the government touted it would do, which was to reduce crime. It hasn’t done that at all. In fact, there has been more.”

…

“What’s happening today is that the offender, the bad buys, are happy to break into somebody’s house. They’re not frightened to break into somebody’s house while they’re at home.”

…

“It’s very bad at the moment. It’s never been worse.“

Here are the cold hard facts from Australia that anti-gun forces can no longer escape:

Armed Robberies are UP 69%

Assaults Involving Guns are UP 28%

Gun Murders are UP 19%

Home Invasions – a crime for which Australia didn’t even have laws before the gun ban because it never happened – are UP 21%



Like Chicago and Washington D.C., Australia’s gun laws have back fired. The statistics above are rarely if ever reported by mainline news channels in America because the evidence is clear: If you take away guns from law abiding citizens, the only people with guns will be the criminals.

Not only is the evidence regularly buried, but harrowing stories of self defense where individuals have taken it upon themselves to protect their lives and property are often downplayed. When a 65 year old jewelry shop owner took matters into her own hands and opened fire on five gun-toting armed robbers recently, what did the local CBS affiliate mention repeatedly in their report?

“As much as those cops like seeing bad guys having the tables turned on them, they still caution everybody that down-range, beyond the target, there’s often an innocent bystander.”

Video via The Daily Sheeple:


There is always a risk of an innocent bystander being hit by a rogue bullet, but not one example of such an outcome is ever identified by news reporters citing such information. More often than not, it’s the criminals who shoot indiscriminately that maim or kill a child or other innocent passer-by.

Explaining to the anti-gun activists that the benefits far outweigh the risks is like pulling teeth. But, as the 65 year old jewelry store owner, or the patron of an internet cafe, or the mom who acted to save her kids by shooting an armed intruder show, one person with a gun is all it takes to prevent scores of others from being hurt or killed.

We can continue down this road of stripping Americans of their liberty and right to defend themselves, and we can be assured that we’ll continue to measure the subsequent fallout by counting it in the loss of innocent life. Or, we can put the power back into the hands of the people and send a message to those who would do harm to others. In Australia, criminals are more empowered than ever before when they see statistics like armed robberies being up 69% or murders being up 21%, because they know the people have no ability to defend themselves.

But what if the statistics reported by the media were more like those of Detroit, where self defense killings have jumped 2200% and justifiable homicide is up 79% year-over-year?

If local and national news agencies were reporting that crime was falling and more would-be criminals were ending up taking celestial dirt naps when engaged in violent criminal activity, the psychological effects of being aware of these statistics would be a very powerful deterrent indeed.

The American people are perfectly capable of defending themselves, they need only to have the boot removed from their throats and be allowed to breathe.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...-life_08032012

[searcher]

Every homeowner should have a means of defending his/her castle.

[Lore]

I used to be vehemently anti-gun -- Canadian social programming -- until I experienced robbery at gunpoint first-hand. THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO.

Maybe you need to experience that feeling of helplessness in order to get clear. I dunno.

[Marthor]

In Switzerland, every man does a short required tour serving in their national military. When they are done with their service, they all get to keep their weapon. The result of this is that every man is trained with guns (including safety training) and every man is armed which results in nearly 100% household gun ownership. The side effect of training and arming everyone with a gun is Switzerland has lowest crime rate in the world.

Proof of gun control causing higher crime and proof of arming everyone lowers crime.

[TomD]

Gun control has nothing to do with crime. It is about power.

If you examine all of the policies pushed by "progressives", you will find that every last stinking one of them have one thing in common: the elevation of government power and a ruling elite.

[searcher]

Gun control has nothing to do with crime. It is about power.

If you examine all of the policies pushed by "progressives", you will find that every last stinking one of them have one thing in common: the elevation of government power and a ruling elite.

All power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believe our ruling elite are so corrupt that "things" are beyond repair at this point.

[~BS]

In Switzerland, every man does a short required tour serving in their national military. When they are done with their service, they all get to keep their weapon. The result of this is that every man is trained with guns (including safety training) and every man is armed which results in nearly 100% household gun ownership. The side effect of training and arming everyone with a gun is Switzerland has lowest crime rate in the world.

Proof of gun control causing higher crime and proof of arming everyone lowers crime.

Also part of the reason why swtizerland was never invaded. Good luck fighting againt a country where just about every able bodied male is armed and will be using guerilla tactics in the mountains.

I dont doubt germany in wwii would have eventually won in an invasion against the swiss, but they would have pay dearly for it.

[searcher]

We could take a lesson from Switzerland. Unfortunately...........if these insane shootings continue a lot of people will be screaming for a ban on guns.

[Goldhedge]

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

I've heard it said that, if you take a walk around Waikiki, it's only a matter of time until someone hands you a flyer of scantily clad women clutching handguns, overlaid with English and maybe Japanese text advertising one of the many local shooting ranges. The city's largest, the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club, advertises instructors fluent in Japanese, which is also the default language of its website. For years, this peculiar Hawaiian industry has explicitly targeted Japanese tourists, drawing them away from beaches and resorts into shopping malls, to do things that are forbidden in their own country.

Waikiki's Japanese-filled ranges are the sort of quirk you might find in any major tourist town, but they're also an intersection of two societies with wildly different approaches to guns and their role in society. Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.

But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan -- one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it's not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel's landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan's approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America's. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that "No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords," later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.

Of course, Japan and the U.S. are separated by a number of cultural and historical difference much wider than their gun policies. Kopel explains that, for whatever reason, Japanese tend to be more tolerant of the broad search and seizure police powers necessary to enforce the ban. "Japanese, both criminals and ordinary citizens, are much more willing than their American counterparts to consent to searches and to answer questions from the police," he writes. But even the police did not carry firearms themselves until, in 1946, the American occupation authority ordered them to. Now, Japanese police receive more hours of training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty, and invest hours in studying martial arts in part because they "are expected to use [firearms] in only the rarest of circumstances," according to Kopel.

The Japanese and American ways of thinking about crime, privacy, and police powers are so different -- and Japan is such a generally peaceful country -- that it's functionally impossible to fully isolate and compare the two gun control regiments. It's not much easier to balance the costs and benefits of Japan's unusual approach, which helps keep its murder rate at the second-lowest in the world, though at the cost of restrictions that Kopel calls a "police state," a worrying suggestion that it hands the government too much power over its citizens. After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...deaths/260189/

[Buck]

I was trying to find the part where the Japanese Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths but I must have missed it...

Japan is a country with more people than land.

Japan is a country with a homogenous people.

Japan has one of the highest debt loads in the world.

Japan...I have NO interest in becoming like Japan.

Give me Liberty
or
Give me Death

That is what I want to maintain!!!

Not interested in becoming equal to anyone else.

EDIT:
Just ranting

[Apocalypto]

Every homeowner should have a means of defending his/her castle.

As long as they don't kill people for saying hello. Gun ownership is great, but it has to come with good judgment.
This cop is a good example of the kind of pathetic, paranoid a-hole who gives gun rights a bad name.


Lakritz: Kalamazoo police officer's letter to editor about handguns points to cultural divide

By Naomi Lakritz, August 8, 2012

Yes, Walt Wawra is a real person. No, the letter we published from him Tuesday, about the “confrontation” he and his wife had with two Calgarians in Nose Hill Park, was not a hoax. The fact that so many readers have written in, or posted comments online, wondering if it was for real, speaks volumes about the cultural differences between Canadians and Americans. It gives the lie to those who say that Canadians are no different than Americans.

Wawra, who lives in Kalamazoo, Mich., is a police officer. While on a recent visit to Calgary, he and his wife, Debbie, were approached by two young men on a pathway in Nose Hill Park, who asked the Wawras if they had been to the Stampede yet. When they asked the question a second time, Wawra moved between the men and his wife and told them he had no need to talk to them. He said they looked “bewildered.” The parties then went their separate ways.

In his letter, Wawra said it felt strange not to carry his off-duty handgun in Canada and added that he thanked the Lord they didn’t pull a weapon on him. No benefit of the doubt given the young men, no thought that they might have just been trying to be friendly.

He also complained about Canadian gun laws, saying that in Canada, only the police and criminals carry handguns. Yes, that’s true, and it’s probably one of the reasons when there’s a dispute over a parking space in Canada, nobody dies from bullet wounds as a result.

Wawra’s mindset is what America’s gun mania has produced. How paranoid and how very sad.

Wawra wrote that he speculated the men did not have good intentions. He claims the men spoke in an “aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner.” Menacing? A question about the Stampede is construed as a menace? Or, as someone commented on the Herald’s website: “... for asking if you had been to the Stampede? Since when is that grounds to be dead?” Another commenter wrote: “I can see why they were frightened. If you rearrange the letters in ‘been to Stampede yet?’ you get “a beset potted enemy’.”

Most likely, the men noticed something about the Wawras that indicated they were tourists, and were trying to make conversation. Maybe they themselves were enjoying the Stampede’s centennial celebration and wanted to let these tourists know that their visit to Calgary wouldn’t be complete without a day at the Stampede. The fact that the young men looked bewildered by Wawra’s response indicates that their intentions were indeed friendly ones and that they were quite puzzled at being rebuffed.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/s...tml?id=7054368

[citizenkane]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-australia/

o what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.

The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn’t statistically significant.

What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size. This is even higher than the overall decline in the suicide rate, because the gun buybacks’ speed varied from state to state. In states with quick buybacks, the fall in the suicide rate far exceeded the fall in states with slower buybacks

[searcher]

As long as they don't kill people for saying hello. Gun ownership is great, but it has to come with good judgment.
This cop is a good example of the kind of pathetic, paranoid a-hole who gives gun rights a bad name.


Lakritz: Kalamazoo police officer's letter to editor about handguns points to cultural divide

By Naomi Lakritz, August 8, 2012

Yes, Walt Wawra is a real person. No, the letter we published from him Tuesday, about the “confrontation” he and his wife had with two Calgarians in Nose Hill Park, was not a hoax. The fact that so many readers have written in, or posted comments online, wondering if it was for real, speaks volumes about the cultural differences between Canadians and Americans. It gives the lie to those who say that Canadians are no different than Americans.

Wawra, who lives in Kalamazoo, Mich., is a police officer. While on a recent visit to Calgary, he and his wife, Debbie, were approached by two young men on a pathway in Nose Hill Park, who asked the Wawras if they had been to the Stampede yet. When they asked the question a second time, Wawra moved between the men and his wife and told them he had no need to talk to them. He said they looked “bewildered.” The parties then went their separate ways.

In his letter, Wawra said it felt strange not to carry his off-duty handgun in Canada and added that he thanked the Lord they didn’t pull a weapon on him. No benefit of the doubt given the young men, no thought that they might have just been trying to be friendly.

He also complained about Canadian gun laws, saying that in Canada, only the police and criminals carry handguns. Yes, that’s true, and it’s probably one of the reasons when there’s a dispute over a parking space in Canada, nobody dies from bullet wounds as a result.

Wawra’s mindset is what America’s gun mania has produced. How paranoid and how very sad.

Wawra wrote that he speculated the men did not have good intentions. He claims the men spoke in an “aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner.” Menacing? A question about the Stampede is construed as a menace? Or, as someone commented on the Herald’s website: “... for asking if you had been to the Stampede? Since when is that grounds to be dead?” Another commenter wrote: “I can see why they were frightened. If you rearrange the letters in ‘been to Stampede yet?’ you get “a beset potted enemy’.”

Most likely, the men noticed something about the Wawras that indicated they were tourists, and were trying to make conversation. Maybe they themselves were enjoying the Stampede’s centennial celebration and wanted to let these tourists know that their visit to Calgary wouldn’t be complete without a day at the Stampede. The fact that the young men looked bewildered by Wawra’s response indicates that their intentions were indeed friendly ones and that they were quite puzzled at being rebuffed.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/s...tml?id=7054368

That's not typical American mentality..............it's typical cop mentality. In the cops mind he probably felt naked with out a gun (taser, peper spray and handcuffs) and couldn't believe someone would dare ask him a question............when HE ASKS THE QUESTIONS. He may also have been thinking "are they here to exact revenge on me for something wrong I did to them in the past"???

[Unca Walt]

That's not typical American mentality..............it's typical cop mentality. In the cops mind he probably felt naked with out a gun (taser, peper spray and handcuffs) and couldn't believe someone would dare ask him a question............when HE ASKS THE QUESTIONS. He may also have been thinking "are they here to exact revenge on me for something wrong I did to them in the past"???

Spot on.

Apocalypto: Bro, yer barkin' up the wrong tree.

That cop's thinking is NOT American.

It is cop. Any country.

[Sport]

American sheeple for the most part want to have someone else take care of them. Those that want guns banned believe that the criminals will also have their guns taken away and then criminals will not hurt so many people. This is victim mentality and criminals will prey on it. People lately seem to want to be in their own world and not have to take time to remain aware of what is going on around them. Most Americans don't realize that if they used their best weapon (their brain) they could minimize placing themselves in harms way. No one can every completely shield themselves from crime, but you can make the odds more in your favor.

[Mr Paradise]

. I dont doubt germany in wwii would have eventually won in an invasion against the swiss, but they would have pay dearly for it.

You get your credit line from the bank. You don't invade it.

[searcher]

Also part of the reason why swtizerland was never invaded. Good luck fighting againt a country where just about every able bodied male is armed and will be using guerilla tactics in the mountains.

I dont doubt germany in wwii would have eventually won in an invasion against the swiss, but they would have pay dearly for it.

I think the Germans would have had a very hard time with the Swiss.

[wallew]

Regarding the Swiss.

One German high command officer once asked a Swiss official, "How would the Swiss, with 250,000 people in their country, react to when a half million man army invade their country?"

The Swiss answered, "Shoot twice and go home for lunch"

ALSO, the US has the LARGEST STANDING ARMY.

Well over 20 million men. They go out and practice their shooting skills at LEAST once every year. Some go out much more often. And even with all those folks out, firing their weapons IN THE FIELD you rarely hear of ANY OF THEM SHOOTING ANYONE.

Who are they?

US HUNTERS. And you will RARELY hear of them shooting ANYTHING but what they aim at. And they are self sufficient, self armed and they go out each year and harvest enough wild game to feed their families. Some of them feed their families with the meat they harvest for the whole year.

And WITHOUT those hunters out there taking these harvest, THOUSAND UPON THOUSANDS of animals would die of starvation, because of an exploding animal population. So those hunters are very effective at controlling the population of wild animals. SOMETHING EVERY LIBERAL JUST HATES.