- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I notice they don't have the UK, Canada or a lot of the rest of the developed world in there, mostly 3rd world....
The Great Gun Control Debate
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
A
aesop081
Guest
M16 said:
NO..numbers do not speak for themselves......Using your numbers ( to illustrate my point), somepone with any sort of debating skills could use them to make you beleive that there actualy is a santa clause !!! Numbers are very routinely twsited around.....i'm with Ex-D on this one
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Yes .. that article while decently written and worded didn't include countries like Canada, UK, Japan, Korea, China or any other developed nation. It focused on Brazil, Russia and other messed up countries like Tobago. I don't know what the latters deal is, but Brazil has never really been "developed" and Russia hasn't been the same since the fall of the Soviet Union. I bet if you included the aforementioned developed countries into this equation things would look a bit more balanced.
That being said, once again I still think our registration is utterly stupid. There must be something better than what we are doing now, and I still insist it would be some sort of hybrid between the American system and our own. I feel the US is a bit too gun crazy and liberal with whomever gets to have a gun, but we (as it always seems to be) appear to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. I wish both countries would collaborate to introduce a system combining the best of both worlds and impose it on the entirety of North America, it would reduce crime and keep guns in the hands of the rightful owners. Of course, the odds of that happening are roughly the same as seeing North and South Koreans dancing happily with linked hands under a rainbow.
Wes: Unfortunately I didn't check out that Armalite 180 close enough to remember the serial number
there was a fantastic gunshow in the Keystone Centre in Brandon and Wolverine Supplies had a gigantic and probably most impressive site set up. They had their .50 cal sniper rifle on display (that sucker is huge, more than I imagined and only a measly 4 grand!) as well as several carbines and other assault rifles. They had the C7 and C8 and some assault rifles that looked like something out of a Terminator movie, and the AR180 was there but I could not pick it up
All in all ... if I had the money, I would have purchased the Desert Eagle off of them, I had never seen one up close and now I am blown away by it. Although, I did walk away with a Cossack type Mosin Nagant
However, the gun was labelled as "used" who knows ..... it may have been that very one!
That being said, once again I still think our registration is utterly stupid. There must be something better than what we are doing now, and I still insist it would be some sort of hybrid between the American system and our own. I feel the US is a bit too gun crazy and liberal with whomever gets to have a gun, but we (as it always seems to be) appear to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. I wish both countries would collaborate to introduce a system combining the best of both worlds and impose it on the entirety of North America, it would reduce crime and keep guns in the hands of the rightful owners. Of course, the odds of that happening are roughly the same as seeing North and South Koreans dancing happily with linked hands under a rainbow.
Wes: Unfortunately I didn't check out that Armalite 180 close enough to remember the serial number
there was a fantastic gunshow in the Keystone Centre in Brandon and Wolverine Supplies had a gigantic and probably most impressive site set up. They had their .50 cal sniper rifle on display (that sucker is huge, more than I imagined and only a measly 4 grand!) as well as several carbines and other assault rifles. They had the C7 and C8 and some assault rifles that looked like something out of a Terminator movie, and the AR180 was there but I could not pick it up All in all ... if I had the money, I would have purchased the Desert Eagle off of them, I had never seen one up close and now I am blown away by it. Although, I did walk away with a Cossack type Mosin Nagant
However, the gun was labelled as "used" who knows ..... it may have been that very one!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Wesley H. Allen said:
What, am I an 'idiot' for suggesting the above quote? Or am I reading something wrong here?
The current gun registry is a disgrace, and there was nothing wrong with how things were pre 1990.
I love Canada, but don't trust the governemnt, after all they are trying to discourage gunowners like there are doing here in Australia. Only the hardcore are left now.
I have owned firearms since 1971, and I have seen a lot of changes over the years with the introduction of the FAC in Jan 78, to the most idiotic (knee jerk reaction to Marc Lepine) changes by Rock in the early 1990s, to the present foolishness now ( CA's now grandfathered, etc).
Highlights were in the early 1980s when the PCs de-registered the AR-15 (now since restricted again), and the lows were too, when the FN FAL went restricted in 1983, all because of an influx of Aussie L1A1 SLRs which came into Alan Lever's hands in Vancover. Lever Arms was a great place.
L
Limpy
Guest
Steve said:
I don't think there is anything wrong with being to gun happy, some people are car nuts or golfing nuts. I do believe the problem here stems from the fact that many States allow you to buy firearms without proper instruction or education. Besides a believe that the State gov. not the Federal makes most of the decisions in terms of firearm laws for that particular state.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Oh don't get me wrong, I don't find anything wrong with being gun happy either. Hell, I only own 3 rifles now, but I honestly plan on buying at least one gun every 2 months once I'm in the Reg Force. I enjoy everything about firearms.
What I was trying to say by saying they are too gun crazy is that they seem to like their guns a little too much, to the point of resolving issues with it, and how it goes along with the American ideology about everything being a fight of sorts. I know some of you may bring up Bowling for Columbine in reference to this but I do think the movie touched upon a prevelent attitude in America. And once again to cover my ass, I know that not everyone in America is like this - just that it seems to be above the few rotten bananas who tend to ruin it for others.
What I was trying to say by saying they are too gun crazy is that they seem to like their guns a little too much, to the point of resolving issues with it, and how it goes along with the American ideology about everything being a fight of sorts. I know some of you may bring up Bowling for Columbine in reference to this but I do think the movie touched upon a prevelent attitude in America. And once again to cover my ass, I know that not everyone in America is like this - just that it seems to be above the few rotten bananas who tend to ruin it for others.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I don't know man, I've met hundreds of americans during my time with the CF and gotten into heated disagreements with a number of them. I can't recall any of them trying to settle the dispute with a gun. Nor did they have an "ideology" about everything being a fight. The vast majority of them seemed mainly interested in making some money, drinking a lot of beer, and scr....seing a lot of women. It's funny, if I didn't know they were such violent bastards I'd almost say they were just like Canadians.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
48Highlander said:
I agree on this.
Here 48, the common denominator, is young professional solders, no matter where they are from.
A while back I watched BHD in a group of about 50 soldiers, from 10 different nations. The only thing different was the cams, boots, and accents. Being there with those guys was better than the movie! French Marines with Royal Marines, with US Marines, along side Australians, Canadians, US Army, East Timorese, Fijians and the rest. All watching the movie while swilling their favourite adopted Aussie grog, swaping tactics, and talking shop.
Regards,
Wes
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
I can't find the articel anymore (pity), but I have read Canada's murder rate has actually increased since the introduction of the Gun Registry. I suppose siphoning a billion dollars from actual policing might have something to do with this (sigh).
If anyone can come up with the citation, I would be very interested to see it posted.
If anyone can come up with the citation, I would be very interested to see it posted.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
One thing that needs to be mentioned M16, is that while there are some numbers to indicate that murder (ie people dying) is being reduced, gun laws or the lack thereof are not repsponsible for this. The reason is improved Emergency Medical care over the last 20 years, both pre-hospital (Ambulances) and the instituition of dedicated Trauma Centres, which are equipped to deal with things like gunshot victims. People who would have died 5-10-15 years ago, are saved. The numbers I am interested are attempted-murder rates using firearms. If I can find them I will post them. I am willing to bet those numbers have been increase in Canada and the US.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aGEsdK7xB3M8&refer=canada
Actually this news source states that last years murder rate was the lowest in three decades. I've also heard that police check the registry on average 2000 times a day.
Actually this news source states that last years murder rate was the lowest in three decades. I've also heard that police check the registry on average 2000 times a day.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Hearing and knowing are two different things, please try and deal with facts.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Now this is an interesting thread. I've been a collector (more than 10 firearms, PAL with 12(3), 12(5) OiC 13, 12(6) handgun, non-restricted and restricted since I was 18. I've been tested, certified, registered and record checked.
There are sites out there with the information that people are seeking. You may wish to check out:
www.nfa.ca (Canada's National Firearms Association - go to links and check out Garry Breitkreuz's information - lot's of verified stats)
www.CanadianGunnutz.com (Discussion group - some great info, some dubious, just like any other)
www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/ (This is the federal government's web site - Canadian Firearms Centre)
As to my opinion, registering firearms is a tremendous waste of money. Handguns have been required to be registered in Canada since 1935, all firearms were required to be registered during WW2. The resounding failure of the WW2 registration led to that programme being dropped in the early 1950s. About 7 years ago I met an older gentleman who assured me that his rifle and handgun were registered and then proudly produced his 1942 - dated registration certificates. They were long not valid, but they were what he had. Registering those firearms has not prevented any crime. The handgun registration fiasco is another matter entirely, the problems with that are explained at length on the sites I have provided above. And, quite frankly, I know of no sound argument for registering handguns and not registering anything else. All firearms shoot, and they are remarkably simple technology - all you need is a projectile, a propellant and a strong tube plugged at one end. The argument that handguns are more dangerous because they are easily concealed doesn't sell with me - I heard that one from a fellow that I was golfing with. My response to him was: "What's in my gold bag?" He responded "Golf Clubs?" and I said "Can you tell, by looking at that zipped up bag, that the bag doesn't contain a high powered rifle, or for that matter any sort of firearm?" "Ok, I see your point" was his acknowledgement. There is no value to registering any firearm unless there is an intention to take it away.
The only thing registration has done in my experience is create a list for the authorities to use on confiscation day, and yes, firearms have been confiscated from Canadians in this country for no other reason than the firearm became prohibited by Order-in-Council with no grandfathering provision (ie. if you have one you can keep it.) In one case that I am personally aware of the woman (competitive shooter) who was ordered to turn in her 9mm Calico Carbine (expensive) smashed it to pieces with a sledge hammer before handing it in to the mounties. Neither her nor her firearm were at all likely to be involved in any crime; no, the crime was created for her by the federal government. The same thing happened to some folks who owned many other firearms that had been restricted and thus registered and then by government decree became prohibited with no grandfathering. There were some prohibited with grandfathering.
As to the registration system being useful to police, consider this scenario - Police officer called to scene of domestic dispute, checks occupants on computer to see if they are listed as having a firearms license and registered firearms. Computer comes back negative. Is the officer going to walk into that house now with his alertness any lower or higher as a result? There are certainly lots of firearms in Canadian home without licenses or registration attached to them. Consider the opposite result, yes there is a firearms owner with registered firearms at that house - how does the officer's reaction change - would she or he perhaps be a little more nervous or excitable than otherwise - perhaps something that may otherwise be minor might become a major problem? How exactly is that computer check useful to the officer or the occupants? Anyone checking on a domestic dispute should always assume that there may be weapons of whatever kind present and conduct themselves carefully. Something to think about.
In every country in the world where registration of firearms has been brought in, the goal has clearly not been reduction of crime, but in fact, reduction of civilian ownership of firearms. One classic example is the registration laws enacted by the German government of the Weimar Republic in 1928, later used from 1938 on by a nastier government to selectively limit ownership and confiscate firearms from particular groups and ultimately all civilians not connected with a government party organization. There are other examples.
How would you spend 1.5 billion dollars? I bet you wouldn't waste it registering firearms and their owners.
Anyway that's probably enough out of me on this one - there are many sources for opinions and information on this topic.
There are sites out there with the information that people are seeking. You may wish to check out:
www.nfa.ca (Canada's National Firearms Association - go to links and check out Garry Breitkreuz's information - lot's of verified stats)
www.CanadianGunnutz.com (Discussion group - some great info, some dubious, just like any other)
www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/ (This is the federal government's web site - Canadian Firearms Centre)
As to my opinion, registering firearms is a tremendous waste of money. Handguns have been required to be registered in Canada since 1935, all firearms were required to be registered during WW2. The resounding failure of the WW2 registration led to that programme being dropped in the early 1950s. About 7 years ago I met an older gentleman who assured me that his rifle and handgun were registered and then proudly produced his 1942 - dated registration certificates. They were long not valid, but they were what he had. Registering those firearms has not prevented any crime. The handgun registration fiasco is another matter entirely, the problems with that are explained at length on the sites I have provided above. And, quite frankly, I know of no sound argument for registering handguns and not registering anything else. All firearms shoot, and they are remarkably simple technology - all you need is a projectile, a propellant and a strong tube plugged at one end. The argument that handguns are more dangerous because they are easily concealed doesn't sell with me - I heard that one from a fellow that I was golfing with. My response to him was: "What's in my gold bag?" He responded "Golf Clubs?" and I said "Can you tell, by looking at that zipped up bag, that the bag doesn't contain a high powered rifle, or for that matter any sort of firearm?" "Ok, I see your point" was his acknowledgement. There is no value to registering any firearm unless there is an intention to take it away.
The only thing registration has done in my experience is create a list for the authorities to use on confiscation day, and yes, firearms have been confiscated from Canadians in this country for no other reason than the firearm became prohibited by Order-in-Council with no grandfathering provision (ie. if you have one you can keep it.) In one case that I am personally aware of the woman (competitive shooter) who was ordered to turn in her 9mm Calico Carbine (expensive) smashed it to pieces with a sledge hammer before handing it in to the mounties. Neither her nor her firearm were at all likely to be involved in any crime; no, the crime was created for her by the federal government. The same thing happened to some folks who owned many other firearms that had been restricted and thus registered and then by government decree became prohibited with no grandfathering. There were some prohibited with grandfathering.
As to the registration system being useful to police, consider this scenario - Police officer called to scene of domestic dispute, checks occupants on computer to see if they are listed as having a firearms license and registered firearms. Computer comes back negative. Is the officer going to walk into that house now with his alertness any lower or higher as a result? There are certainly lots of firearms in Canadian home without licenses or registration attached to them. Consider the opposite result, yes there is a firearms owner with registered firearms at that house - how does the officer's reaction change - would she or he perhaps be a little more nervous or excitable than otherwise - perhaps something that may otherwise be minor might become a major problem? How exactly is that computer check useful to the officer or the occupants? Anyone checking on a domestic dispute should always assume that there may be weapons of whatever kind present and conduct themselves carefully. Something to think about.
In every country in the world where registration of firearms has been brought in, the goal has clearly not been reduction of crime, but in fact, reduction of civilian ownership of firearms. One classic example is the registration laws enacted by the German government of the Weimar Republic in 1928, later used from 1938 on by a nastier government to selectively limit ownership and confiscate firearms from particular groups and ultimately all civilians not connected with a government party organization. There are other examples.
How would you spend 1.5 billion dollars? I bet you wouldn't waste it registering firearms and their owners.
Anyway that's probably enough out of me on this one - there are many sources for opinions and information on this topic.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
redleafjumper said:
Yip, I was about to loose a French semi-auto FAMAS ($1,500) because it went totally prohibited with no grandfathering. However I did not let the Feds have it. I simply sold it to another FAC holder (by law at the time), and since it was not yet prohibited, it was legal. Now I do believe that FAMAS went south of the boder, and did not come back to Canada after that 8).
So, my crime? Owning a firearms which the government deemed to be a 'bad' gun. My penalty? A loss of well over $1,000. I traded it for a used home alarm system, and a used electric garage door opener. Was I bitter? I still am!
Regards,
Wes
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
My little number 9 mm is registered....
The core policies of the Firearms Program, including universal licensing of owners and registration of firearms, will be retained to continue to build on the success of the program. More than 90 per cent of firearms owners in Canada have complied with licensing requirements, with almost 2 million licensed owners to date. To ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of those who should not have them, more than 12,000 licenses have been revoked or refused.
The Firearms Information System is a successful police investigative tool. Police make more than 13,000 queries each week. Over 3 million queries have been made in total since the Program was first implemented in December 1998. About 6,000 firearms have been traced in gun-crime and firearm-trafficking cases within Canada and internationally. More than 900 affidavits are produced each year by the Canada Firearms Centre to support prosecutions of gun-related crimes across the country.
How the system is performing http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/news/20040520_e.asp
Registration is too difficult for you? - see you local cops as registration is very simple.
It seems that knives and beatings are the real killers --- a link PDF on Family Violence in Canada from STATS CANADA http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE00002.pdf
Here's how we like to beat the crap out of each other - and the Liberals will have you believe we are so peace loving --- http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm and! http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal04a.htm --- no wonder the Mountie I once met quit the force - he had no knuckles left!
An interesting link - http://www.spruce.ca/gunctrl.htm
Toronto Police - Guns are off the streets and here come the stabbing wounds! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041214/SPATE14/National/Idx
And now the good stuff! .... At least as many murders are committed with knives as guns in Canada and in
Australia twice as many murders involve knives as guns ........... 80% of gun deaths in Canada are suicides,
See The Failed Experiment, Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales
Gary A. Mauser Number 71 / November 2003 a paper produced by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver here http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf --- in short - how to detect trouble? Look for the 2 x 4 in the back of the truck or the rowdy person's purse / back pocket
More glorious stuff
Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study
Contact(s):
Gary Mauser, Professor
Simon Fraser University, Tel (604) 291-3652
Email: mauser@sfu.ca
His interest in firearms and â Å“gun controlâ ? grew out of his research in political marketing. He has published two books, Political Marketing, and Manipulating Public Opinion and more than 20 articles. For the past 15 years, Professor Mauser has conducted research on the politics of gun control, the effectiveness of gun control laws, and the use of firearms in self defense. He purchased his first firearm after moving to Canada and conducting research into firearm legislation. He is a member of the Board of Directors of British Columbia Wildlife Federation and the President of Barnet Rifle Club.
Release Date: November 27, 2003 (its the link you see above)
Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.
â Å“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,â ? says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.
This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.
The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade â “ for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world â “ in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.
The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.
Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:
England and Wales
Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.
Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.
Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.
Australia
The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise â “ for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.
â Å“And for what?â ? asks Mauser. â Å“There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers' money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.â ?
Canada
The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.
The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.
â Å“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?â ? says Mauser.
GUn Control is not Crime Control http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1995/gun/
Seems there is lots of stuff out there - draw you own conclusions - if the government is doing it - seems safe to say there is money available to do it ------ to protect you or to grow the size of government? I lean to the second idea.
The core policies of the Firearms Program, including universal licensing of owners and registration of firearms, will be retained to continue to build on the success of the program. More than 90 per cent of firearms owners in Canada have complied with licensing requirements, with almost 2 million licensed owners to date. To ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of those who should not have them, more than 12,000 licenses have been revoked or refused.
The Firearms Information System is a successful police investigative tool. Police make more than 13,000 queries each week. Over 3 million queries have been made in total since the Program was first implemented in December 1998. About 6,000 firearms have been traced in gun-crime and firearm-trafficking cases within Canada and internationally. More than 900 affidavits are produced each year by the Canada Firearms Centre to support prosecutions of gun-related crimes across the country.
How the system is performing http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/news/20040520_e.asp
Registration is too difficult for you? - see you local cops as registration is very simple.
It seems that knives and beatings are the real killers --- a link PDF on Family Violence in Canada from STATS CANADA http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE00002.pdf
Here's how we like to beat the crap out of each other - and the Liberals will have you believe we are so peace loving --- http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm and! http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal04a.htm --- no wonder the Mountie I once met quit the force - he had no knuckles left!
An interesting link - http://www.spruce.ca/gunctrl.htm
Toronto Police - Guns are off the streets and here come the stabbing wounds! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041214/SPATE14/National/Idx
And now the good stuff! .... At least as many murders are committed with knives as guns in Canada and in
Australia twice as many murders involve knives as guns ........... 80% of gun deaths in Canada are suicides,
See The Failed Experiment, Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales
Gary A. Mauser Number 71 / November 2003 a paper produced by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver here http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf --- in short - how to detect trouble? Look for the 2 x 4 in the back of the truck or the rowdy person's purse / back pocket
More glorious stuff
Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study
Contact(s):
Gary Mauser, Professor
Simon Fraser University, Tel (604) 291-3652
Email: mauser@sfu.ca
His interest in firearms and â Å“gun controlâ ? grew out of his research in political marketing. He has published two books, Political Marketing, and Manipulating Public Opinion and more than 20 articles. For the past 15 years, Professor Mauser has conducted research on the politics of gun control, the effectiveness of gun control laws, and the use of firearms in self defense. He purchased his first firearm after moving to Canada and conducting research into firearm legislation. He is a member of the Board of Directors of British Columbia Wildlife Federation and the President of Barnet Rifle Club.
Release Date: November 27, 2003 (its the link you see above)
Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.
â Å“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,â ? says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.
This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.
The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade â “ for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world â “ in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.
The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.
Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:
England and Wales
Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.
Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.
Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.
Australia
The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise â “ for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.
â Å“And for what?â ? asks Mauser. â Å“There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers' money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.â ?
Canada
The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.
The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.
â Å“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?â ? says Mauser.
GUn Control is not Crime Control http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1995/gun/
Seems there is lots of stuff out there - draw you own conclusions - if the government is doing it - seems safe to say there is money available to do it ------ to protect you or to grow the size of government? I lean to the second idea.
M
M16
Guest
54/102 CEF said:
I agree with those points. Statistics show that new introductions of gun laws increase deaths with firearms. If they put billions of dollars into police funding instead of gun control then we get actual criminals instead of law - abiding citizens.
Steve said:
Doubt it.
L
Limpy
Guest
54/102 CEF said:
I cannot agree with any statement about the registry that states "how many". Here's my example why.
At the end of the Great War imagine that somebody returned to Saskatchewan to raise a family on a homestead and farm. Let's pretend he bought an Iver Johnson in .32 short to dispatch cows and such. Years pass. The revolver is passed down to from generation to generation. Now it's the years of this gun registry. The pistols barrel is under 105mm and the caliber is now illegal. But, it's a family heirloom. 3 generations. This family doesn't think it owes Gun Control the sweat off they're nuts. Are they going to register the revolver?
But they registered all the long arms? So it looks like they are all nice and legal.
Thats why I don't agree with those types of statements.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
54/102 CEF said:
Ha, the program is a success in which reality? Yes while you mention and provided links for the stats on weapons used in homicides and it turns out knives and firearms are used pretty equally, what you fail to mention is that most firearms used in homicides are HANDGUNS. Since those have had registration requirements dating back 70 years, I fail to see how a long-gun registry will help reduce that number. What redleafjumper said about rifles just easly being concealed is ridiculus. Sure you can stick a rifle into a bag of golf clubs or similar item, but I would love to see you try and conceal it on your person and then try and walk into a club. Handguns are the favoured weapon, simply because they are easier to keep on your body than a rifle, period. So the CFC denied/revoked licences to 12000 people, I don't see how it is going to prevent them from getting a gun. As many people in large citys like Toronto know, getting a gun is not difficult if you really want one. I am sure all the gangbanger/drug dealers/thugs etc. in Regent Park, Jane/Finch, Malvern, Parkdale et al are really concerned that they need to get their PAL and the appropriate registration papers.
- Status
Similar threads
