Zach LarkinsGUNS
S L Bradish, in the wake of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, wrote about guns and whether or not teachers should be able to carry them in a classroom. As always, this has created some controversy and so it should. Bradish's point is that guns should be permitted to be carried by teachers and if it were allowed, perhaps the death toll would have been a lot lower.
This whole story is still unfolding, so it is impossible to say just what should have been done to prevent the whole mess. Monday morning quarterbacks are all over themselves on both sides of the coin. Yes, teachers should carry weapons vs no, teachers can go off just the same as their students. With the jury still out on this one, let's take a look at some facts.
In the states that allow owning a gun, crime is down. This makes sense as a criminal will likely think twice before inflicting him/herself upon an unsuspecting victim, knowing he/she might get blown away in the process. Countries that have imposed strict gun control laws have seen their crime rate increase. Bradish is absolutely right when she says, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." It seems a no-brainer. Canada has tried a gun registry that did nothing but make criminals out of target shooters and hunters who did not register their weapons by a certain date. A proposed 2 million dollar scheme has, so far, ballooned into a 2 billion dollar boondoggle. Simply stated, a criminal is not going to register his gun. This is hard for liberals to come to grips with, but it is a fact.
Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Armed robbery rates increased 74%. According to the International Crime Victimization Survey, Australia's violent crime rate is also now double that of the USA. The British government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998 to 2003. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%. According to the International Crime Victimization Survey, the violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the USA. A figure published in the Economist Magazine last year clearly illustrates how armed robberies were changing in Britain before and after their January 1997 handgun ban. Prior to the ban, armed robberies were falling dramatically. After the ban, armed robberies stopped falling and started rising.
The other day, the mayor of Nagasaki was assassinated. It's not much of a surprise that a gangster was arrested for the attack. In a country where regular citizens face strict gun laws, the mob does most of the shooting. "This murder, which took place in the middle of an election campaign, is a threat to democracy," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said. "We must eradicate violence firmly." The reason for the killing? Tetsuya Shiroo demanded the city compensate him for car damage caused by a pothole. Real serious stuff there, but the point is it was a gangster who did the shooting. A thug who found no reason to register his weapon like all the rest of us are supposed to. A murderer who, what, oh I've got it, didn't think laws applied to him and knew no one was going to shoot back.
Bradish writes, "Bad guys can get weapons whenever they want. Kip Kinkle attacked his school a few years ago. He killed his parents first and then went on a shooting spree at school until two boys who were familiar with guns stopped him. One of the boys was wounded when Kinkle stopped firing to reload. The young hero and his brother jumped on him and disarmed him. Suppose neither of the boys knew about weapons? How many more would have died that day?" She is making sense. While we all agree that the Amish will never take up arms, what about the teachers at Colombine, the Universite de Polytecnique, or Dawson College? One teacher could have stopped this madness way before it got out of hand.
There are those who will disparage the NRA and even the Americans right to bear arms. Sorry, I'm not one of them. In a letter to the editor, Bruce Mills, from Dundas, Ontario writes, " Virginia Tech was an official "gun-free zone." Now we have seen just how well that worked out. Just a few months ago, the Virginia state Assembly tried to pass a bill that would have overruled this nonsensical policy, but it was voted down in subcommittee. Virginia Tech's spokesman, Larry Hincker, responded to that result, saying, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." If only one person at that entire school had been allowed to carry a firearm, maybe this deranged murderer could have been stopped before he killed 32 people. I hope Mr. Hincker has the decency to hang his head in shame."
For those who think the NRA is a bunch of crazies, consider what Christian Aasland of Red Wing, Manitoba wrote. "Re: Buying a gun in Virginia, April 17. At the end of this informational sidebar, it is stated that there are "no restrictions on sale or possession of military style semi- automatic assault weapons, such as the AK-47 and Uzi. They are as easy to buy as hunting rifles." This is incorrect. Uzis and AK- 47's are automatic weapons (which fire more than one round per trigger pull) and are thus restricted from general ownership by the U.S. National Firearms Act of 1934. Anti-gun groups have been associating "assault weapons" with automatic weapons in attempts to mislead the public. These groups blur the lines between weapons that look like military-style weapons (like the unrestricted Colt AR-15, SKS) and those that function like military-style weapons (the restricted Colt M16 and AK-47).Thus, the "assault weapons ban" that expired in 2003 was nicknamed the "ugly gun ban," because it attempted to ban weapons based on appearance, not function. This resulted in many believing that true assault-style weapons are readily available in the United States, when in fact they are heavily regulated."
Bradish made a good point. It is worth serious consideration.
This whole story is still unfolding, so it is impossible to say just what should have been done to prevent the whole mess. Monday morning quarterbacks are all over themselves on both sides of the coin. Yes, teachers should carry weapons vs no, teachers can go off just the same as their students. With the jury still out on this one, let's take a look at some facts.
In the states that allow owning a gun, crime is down. This makes sense as a criminal will likely think twice before inflicting him/herself upon an unsuspecting victim, knowing he/she might get blown away in the process. Countries that have imposed strict gun control laws have seen their crime rate increase. Bradish is absolutely right when she says, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." It seems a no-brainer. Canada has tried a gun registry that did nothing but make criminals out of target shooters and hunters who did not register their weapons by a certain date. A proposed 2 million dollar scheme has, so far, ballooned into a 2 billion dollar boondoggle. Simply stated, a criminal is not going to register his gun. This is hard for liberals to come to grips with, but it is a fact.
Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Armed robbery rates increased 74%. According to the International Crime Victimization Survey, Australia's violent crime rate is also now double that of the USA. The British government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998 to 2003. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%. According to the International Crime Victimization Survey, the violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the USA. A figure published in the Economist Magazine last year clearly illustrates how armed robberies were changing in Britain before and after their January 1997 handgun ban. Prior to the ban, armed robberies were falling dramatically. After the ban, armed robberies stopped falling and started rising.
The other day, the mayor of Nagasaki was assassinated. It's not much of a surprise that a gangster was arrested for the attack. In a country where regular citizens face strict gun laws, the mob does most of the shooting. "This murder, which took place in the middle of an election campaign, is a threat to democracy," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said. "We must eradicate violence firmly." The reason for the killing? Tetsuya Shiroo demanded the city compensate him for car damage caused by a pothole. Real serious stuff there, but the point is it was a gangster who did the shooting. A thug who found no reason to register his weapon like all the rest of us are supposed to. A murderer who, what, oh I've got it, didn't think laws applied to him and knew no one was going to shoot back.
Bradish writes, "Bad guys can get weapons whenever they want. Kip Kinkle attacked his school a few years ago. He killed his parents first and then went on a shooting spree at school until two boys who were familiar with guns stopped him. One of the boys was wounded when Kinkle stopped firing to reload. The young hero and his brother jumped on him and disarmed him. Suppose neither of the boys knew about weapons? How many more would have died that day?" She is making sense. While we all agree that the Amish will never take up arms, what about the teachers at Colombine, the Universite de Polytecnique, or Dawson College? One teacher could have stopped this madness way before it got out of hand.
There are those who will disparage the NRA and even the Americans right to bear arms. Sorry, I'm not one of them. In a letter to the editor, Bruce Mills, from Dundas, Ontario writes, " Virginia Tech was an official "gun-free zone." Now we have seen just how well that worked out. Just a few months ago, the Virginia state Assembly tried to pass a bill that would have overruled this nonsensical policy, but it was voted down in subcommittee. Virginia Tech's spokesman, Larry Hincker, responded to that result, saying, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." If only one person at that entire school had been allowed to carry a firearm, maybe this deranged murderer could have been stopped before he killed 32 people. I hope Mr. Hincker has the decency to hang his head in shame."
For those who think the NRA is a bunch of crazies, consider what Christian Aasland of Red Wing, Manitoba wrote. "Re: Buying a gun in Virginia, April 17. At the end of this informational sidebar, it is stated that there are "no restrictions on sale or possession of military style semi- automatic assault weapons, such as the AK-47 and Uzi. They are as easy to buy as hunting rifles." This is incorrect. Uzis and AK- 47's are automatic weapons (which fire more than one round per trigger pull) and are thus restricted from general ownership by the U.S. National Firearms Act of 1934. Anti-gun groups have been associating "assault weapons" with automatic weapons in attempts to mislead the public. These groups blur the lines between weapons that look like military-style weapons (like the unrestricted Colt AR-15, SKS) and those that function like military-style weapons (the restricted Colt M16 and AK-47).Thus, the "assault weapons ban" that expired in 2003 was nicknamed the "ugly gun ban," because it attempted to ban weapons based on appearance, not function. This resulted in many believing that true assault-style weapons are readily available in the United States, when in fact they are heavily regulated."
Bradish made a good point. It is worth serious consideration.
The Political Brief
The Political Brief
The Political Brief
Mum's Word
I find your stats on Australia quite alarming. So I decided to look into that.
This is contradictory to what you have said.
From what I could see Australia didn't participate in the 1996 survey.
Also I looked into homicide rates for both Australia and US.
Australia in 2004 had 305 homicides 1.5 people per every 100,000 - Of those, 53 (17%) were gun related.
In the US in 2004 there were 16,138 homicides. 5.4 people per every 100,000. Of those, 10,654 (66%) were gun related.
Not only is the US homicide rate is higher than Australia but the likely use of a gun is higher.
Even when I looked into armed robberies here in Australia, only about 10% of armed robberies of service stations, corner stores, on the street robberies used guns. Knives are predominantly used.
The claim that Australia's crime rate is double of the US I find very difficult to believe.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
The Political Brief
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Way back when, actually it was in 2006, the mayor of Toronto said that we are much safer here in Canada than we would be if we were in the USA. The mainstream media agreed with him as he spouted the following: "Chicago - 445 homicides, Washington D.C. - 195 homicides, Baltimore - 268 homicides, Toronto - 78 homicides." Makes one feel pretty safe and secure, doesn't it? What he failed to mention was that America's crime problem has decreased while Canada's has increased.
The mayor insists that Canada's crime problem is traceable to the USA. This is true up to a point, given the porosity of our border. But even if we take it as completely true, let's look at some other facts. The 78 Toronto homicides represent a 28% increase over the 61 recorded in 1995. And that is in Toronto alone. For our purposes, we will focus on Toronto alone and forget the rest of the nation. Why not? The Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Paul Martin, bought into the idea that the world revolves around Hogtown, so why shouldn't we? The three cities cited by Toronto's mayor actually achieved a decrease in homicides. Chicago was down by 46% from 823, Washington was down 46% from 365, and Baltimore was down 17% from 322. Still feeling safe and snug? Consider that Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than that of the USA. Incredible but true, you are safer walking the streets of New York then you are in Toronto. When, if ever, did we think we'd hear those words? You are now more likely to be mugged in Toronto than in New York City. The crime rate in the USA is becoming more concentrated due to a number of ideological changes. Criminals hide in large cities, hoping to disappear into the crowds that populate these places. Those states that have loosened their gun control laws have seen a decrease in crime for a simple reason. If the criminal doesn't know who might shoot back at them, they move on to the next target. Felons are, after all, cowards who prey on those least likely to fight back. Since the early 1990's, Americans are living in safer places than one can find in Canada. The crime rate has dropped in 48 of the 50 states and by 80% in their cities. In that same period, crime rates in Canada have risen in 6 of the 10 provinces and in 7 of our 10 largest cities. But former Liberal Prime Minister Martin and Mayor Miller would have you believe the opposite is true.
Obviously the politicians can put any spin on it the way they want. It doesn't change the truth. On a per capita basis, the US is getting safer while we are going in the opposite direction. I do thank you for your input. Hopefully I'll have the pleasure of reading more of your comments. They are always insightful and informative.
Mum's Word
I’m just curious where you got the info from. Was it the ICVS? Because it doesn’t make sense. Like I said, from what I could see Australia didn’t participate in the 1996 survey and the next survey was in 2000; the survey after that was 2004.
Your information is dated six years leading to 2002. This is where I’m getting confused – the dates for the survey don’t match up.
If what you say is true and Australia’s and Canada’s crime rates went up but the US rates went down, you say that you would feel safer in the US because of that. Well I look at it like this: more people are still being murdered per 100,000 people in the US than in Australia. More of those murders are gun related.
In Australia, guns were third on the list after knives, and physical beatings in causes of death. 17% murders versus 66% in the US is a big difference.
In the 2005, the homicides in Australia actually went down by 38 (2004 – 305 murders; 2005 – 267 murders). That’s a decrease of 12.5% in overall murders.
The other reason I’m curious to find out where you read those stats is because they are alarming. I live in Australia and I haven’t seen a dramatic increase in crime around me. 32% increase in violent crimes and 74% armed robbery rates is huge. I just think that I would have seen a societal change or a perception change or something. Does that make sense? I’m also curious to see the actual numbers, not percentages, of the crimes.
And like I said in my previous comments, the ICVS says the opposite – crime is down and fear is down.
In Australia we just don’t have the relationship with guns and gun ownership that the US does. It is frightening to me that universities have to even consider whether or not to make the campus a “gun free zone”. Here in Australia it is just a given. And for that I feel safer. You may not understand that.
I can't debate you about Canada because after all you're the one that lives there not me. I was just stunned about the stats re Australia.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Mum's Word
If your project gets published I'd like to read it.
I'd like to ask your opinion on something. Like I mentioned before, Australia just doesn't have the relationship with guns and gun ownership that the US. It has never really been a part of our history.
I understand that 'the right bear arms' is long steeped in US history and tradition.
Does Canada have that sort of history? Does Canada have a 'right to bear arms' type of deal?
Love & stuff
Mrs M
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
1) I don't know if this project will be published. It is part of something I am doing on another's behalf. When it is finished, I have told her that I will run it by her first for approval. After that, I will be able to send it to you, whether she nay's or yea's it.
2) I take things I've either read or heard and do articles on them. Once I've written the piece, I erase it from my computer so I must apologize for not being able to give you all the many sources I took the information from.
3) No, we don't have the right to bear arms enshrined in our constitution. We do have a ridiculous gun registry that is a money pit for the government. Our new leaders are working on eliminating this farce (thank God), but they have a long row to hoe in front of them. We've had gun registration since the 1930's and it worked just fine until the Liberal's got this brain drizzle. Law abiding citizens register their guns, outlaws don't. The gun registry made criminals out of law abiding citizens when they couldn't meet gov't requirements, even though the gov't said it was they, not the gun owners, who screwed up.
4) there is controversy in the US about the right to bear arms. It was initially enacted for the colonies to form militias for protection against whatever threat they saw coming. The NRA has taken it to a new level, however, they do realize that hunters and target shooters do not need Uzi's or AK-47's to shoot quail. It is the rabid gun fans who fall back on the 'right to bear arms' argument and say any thing is fair and proper. Those are the nuts you have to watch out for.
Thank you again for your comments. It's not often I get someone with intelligence to talk to. Whether you agree with me or not, the whole point of these articles is to generate debate.
Mum's Word
I'm also glad that this has remained a decent intelligent debate and hasn't spiraled into an insult throwing bash fest.
I'm not well versed in the ins and outs of owning a gun here in Australia but I do know that the laws are stringent. You need to hold a gun licence and you need to go every year or 2 years to a shooting range to have your licence validated/ renewed.
When our government introduced the new guns laws after the Port Arthur massacre, the were a lot of grumblings by those who owned firearms but pretty much everyone handed in their weapons. They banned semi automatic rifles which is what Martin Bryant used in Port Arthur.
I see your point of view that criminals wouldn't hand in their weapons.
Reading the stats on Australia I found last night, guns were not generally the weapon in robberies, muggings etc. Guns were used high end robberies likes banks where there is a lot of money to steal.
I also hear your argument that if criminals knew that the petrol station owner is likely to own a gun would they hold it up in the first place? I'm thinking that the answer might be yes because if you are that desperate for money to hold someone up, then you are likely to take the risk on whether the owner has a gun or not.
That's what I think too. The impression I get here in Australia about the US is the second anyone mentions gun control they jump and down that they do not want their rights, their freedoms taken away. But is it unreasonable to regulate say AK47's? Is the US really that closed off to the debate?
I've also learnt that the gun lobby has an influence on government in the US so the government of the day is hesitant to rock the boat.
In Canada, you mention that citizens need to register their weapons. As a concept that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. But you indicate that there's more to it than simply informing the government of the weapons you own.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
While I have shot guns in the past, I don't own one. I am not sure of the regulations today, whether you have to re-register every 2 years or so, but I can find that out. Suffice it to say that handguns are basically banned unless you can prove you're a target shooter. Our gun registry targeted long guns, not the weapon of choice of most criminals, and thus hunters, target shooters and farmers were automatically criminals if they didn't register them. They were registered. In the early 1930's Canada required you to get a firearm licence, receive training in the use of any firearm, register the serial number of any firearm you possessed, show that registration number to anyone you were buying ammo from, have a police check to make sure you weren't some physco and wait for at least 2 weeks before all the approvals went through.Then when you get the gun, it has to be stored in a secure locker, unloaded, because the ammo has to be in a different place. And the fed's can check you at any time because they know you own a gun. Without a warrant. Buy a new gun? Go through the whole process again. Criminals seem to think this is too much trouble and so circumvent the laws.
An AK-47 is an automatic weapon ( I will look up how many rounds it fires per minute) and is fine if you're in a war. A semi-automatic weapon fires one round at a time without the operator having to re-cock, as was the case with Lee Harvery Oswald when he shot Kennedy. Every pull of the trigger fires a round.
The NRA is a huge lobby in the USA and they do influence votes. However, like Bradish said, what is wrong with knowing how to use, or perhaps more importantly, when to use, a weapon. If I'm living out in Bugstool, Saskachewan and a coyote is eating my sheep, I'll take a shot at him. Also, if anyone threatens my family, he's fair game. I'll deal with the consequences later.