Is there any shred of proof that "gun control" works?
100296
An article titled, "The 7 Myths of Gun Control" addresses this topic. It's in the magazine, "America's Freedom 1st", put out by the NRA. The issue of the article is December 2001, written by Richard Poe.\n\nThe myths addressed in this article are as follows:\n1- "guns increase violent crime"\n\n2- "pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal"\n3- "guns pose a special threat to children"\n4- "the 2nd Amendment applies only to militiamen"\n5- "the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era"\n6- "we should treat guns the same way we treat cars, requiring licenses for all users"\n7- "reasonable gun control measures are no threat to law-abiding gun owners".\n\nAbout myth #7, all one has to do is check out how home invasion robberies have sky-rocketed in England & Australia, since the implentation of their respctive gun control policies.  In England, a citizen is required to flee the house during a break in, rather than defend the home, or face criminal charges if the burglar is harmed. How messed up is that?\n\nAnd, in states that have passed 'right-to-carry' laws, the spokespeople for the Brady bill, and other anti-gun entities have predicted there would be "blood in the streets" after these laws are passed.  Each time, they've been proven wrong.\nAfter Florida had passed their own "right to defend yourself" law, again, these people predicted that motorists will be shooting each other in mass road-rage incidents.  Again, they've been wrong.
95505
I believe it does, because most criminals do not buy there guns legally. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, by gun control you just take them away from the people who are defending their homes. Look at Australia for example, gun related violence as went through the rood since they banned guns!
251956
Not that I know of.  They say killing is to control population!!
1159593
Absolutely not.  My favorite, if not the best, example would be the thousands of gun control laws on the books.  These are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment which states quite clearly (in easy-to-understand, one- and two-syllable English words) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\n\nAnother example is the way the "necessary and proper" clause has come to mean "convenient."  When the Supreme Court can re-define words in the Constitution to mean whatever they want, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?\n\nThe interstate commerce clause has been stretched to absurd proportions so that Congress can now regulate anything that it wants based on the fact that somebody, somewhere might have once traded with someone in another state.\n\nDoes anyone remember the 9th and 10th Amendments, which tell us that the federal government is only allowed to do those few things which are specifically stated in the Constitution?  And yet there are volumes upon volumes of federal statutes that micromanage our lives.\n\nThe American people, through ignorance and apathy, have allowed their government to get by with this.  I know of no solution.  If the people have more faith in legal interpretations and judges' rulings than in their own ability to understand the simple words written down where all can see, then they deserve the tyrannical, authoritarian state that they are destined to get.\n\nFinally, I want to add that I once took a college course called "Constitutional Rights and Liberties."  But the curriculum was focused not around what those rights and liberties are, but on what judges have said about them.  It was a study in case law.  When people are taught that case law is more important than what the Constitution actually says, the outcome is predictable.  We come to depend on the government to interpret for us the document that is supposed to limit its scope of power.  Isn't this like signing a lease with a landlord that says the landlord gets to decide at any point on any question what the lease says?  Isn't re-defining "necessary" to mean "convenient" analogous to re-defining "$400 per month" to mean "$600 per month?"
810049
My definition of gun control is to stop Hillary and the other liberals from altering the Second Amendment.\n\nIn our research we should both find that it's from the left that the most stringent (infringement) controls arise.
379024
Yes.  I don't want to hit something I'm not aiming at.  According to the constitution it's the only gun control that's allowed in the US.
1057569
Not every state is backwards and forces their citizens to register their firearms like New York does.  How it compares with other countries is really hard to tell because I've heard stories about people in England loosing firearms before they were banned there.  There are places that the USSR sold weapons to during the cold war (and we did to).  While there is official numbers no one really knows how many firearms there are, the same as not everyone knows how many knives there are.
109290
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf is Gun Facts 3.2.  It answers alot of questions about gun control  and why it does not work.
282487
Louisana Purchase was a pretty successful move.\nI'm not sure if it rates as a failure, but the vice president shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Thank goodness they don't turn VPs loose with guns anymore.
239012
I would like to know the source of your information since the bullet RESISTANT vests (IBA) were tested with everything up to .308CAL rounds.  This is how they achieve Level IV certification for bullet resistance.  As police also use these vests, the testing was done to very strict standards.\n\nThe vests also work well, but there are holes in the protection, just like any armor has holes.  For the IBA, these holes are around the arms and that wierd necessity humans have where our heads stick out.  The vests work extremely well and the reduction in casualties are amazing.  Unfortunatly, we are seeing an increase in leg and arm shots as a result... such is the armor vs anti-armor saga from the 5th century BC Chinese to today.\n\nSome equipment has been junk.  The (in)famous, and cancelled, SGT York Mobile AA gun being one.  Some might argue the M-16 was initially a POS.  The problems here occur when requirments are not stated clearly and/or change constantly and a devotion to getting the item to work which leads people to not want it to fail or be cancelled.  Congressional pressure for a success in their district is also, unfortunatly, a factor at times.\n\nWe do have checks and balances: Congress, the Inspector General's Offices, the sometimes dubious "watchdog groups", and several other internal checks.  Do they always work?  No, nothing humans do ever always works, but the system is very good.\n\nAlso, one thing to note is many of these projects are meant to "push the envelope" of science.  BTW, you are using the results of this pushing as you read this post over the internet on your computers.  Ever been air-medivac'd in a helicopter?  Ever had surgery?  Ever used the new clotting powder which stops bleeding instantly?  Ever used GPS?  The list of achievments is long for this R&D.  Much, much longer than the failures.
705656
Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot all loved gun control. It's easier to slaughter millions of your own people when they have no means to fight back.\n\nAnyone that supports gun control in the US is either a fool who has failed to learn from history or agrees with the tyrants listed above.
762831
Some people seem to go by the theory that if a lie gets repeated enough, people will believe it.  I think it works.\n\nI have been around here long enough to see moderates get far right or far left, so I am sure that is your theory at work.\n\nStill, what is the cure?  If you put my theory with yours, isn't it compelling that we continue to defend our positions?\n\nMany people may not change their views one iota.  What about the ones who may?
279423
http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm\nCONCEALED CARRY\nFacts & Statistics\n \nToday, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system.  \n\nStates with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) \n\nRight-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:  \n\n• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.  \n\n• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.  \n\n• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.  \n\n• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.  \n\n• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.  \n\n• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.  \n\n• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.  \n\n• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.  \n\n• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."
900686
No.  The incidence of crime can be studied from many angles.  You can count the number of occurrences in a time period.  You can count the number of occurrences in a time period divided by the current population.  In general, a very small population has less crime than a very large population.  A medium sized population will have more crime than a large population simply because of opportunity.  Gun's are tools.  They have little influence on the amount of crime.  They only influence the means of committing crimes.\nAnother idea.  If everyone were trained and equipped with guns, would you be very quick to pull a gun?  The idea has been suggested that if everyone could be trusted with such responsibility, that no one would risk having a multitude of guns pointed at him because he got mad or wanted to commit a crime.  If you are the only one with a gun, it is easy to pull it out and threaten others from a safety point of view.  Down-side; I don't trust everyone with a gun.
882664
I live in the United States and the 2nd Amendment grants each citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  In the recent past, there have been attempts by Democrats to misinterpret our constitution and claim that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the military.  Well, they are wrong and I'd be very surprised if they ever succeed in taking away our 2nd Amendment right (please research the Emerson case for more specifics on what I'm referring to).\n\nPrivate citizens need guns for many purposes.  Hunting for sport and meat has been and continues to be a right exercised by millions of law abiding Americans.  Some of us collect guns because we simply enjoy the fine craftsmanship of a well made firearm.  Some of us shoot for sport and target practice as a form of recreation and honing our skills.  As for using firearms as weapons against people, there is much evidence to indicate that a criminal will be quite reluctant to attack a person if there is a possibilty that that person is armed.  I feel quite confident that my  parents, wife, children, and numerous other friends and relatives are well equipped with the proper skills and weapons to defend themselves if they should ever be attacked by a life-threatening criminal.  If more people practiced their skills, and responsibly carried firearms, there would be a much reduced threat of criminal attack.  Once a person has been convicted of a violent crime, his 2nd Amendment right should be taken from him.  Those of us who enjoy guns in a responible manner, however, should be allowed to pursue our hobby in whatever way we wish, without the threat of uninformed people threatening to take away our rights.  Guns are dangerous weapons at times, but in the right hands they can be used responsibly and are an integral part of how this country came to be in the first place.  Before anyone spouts off about gun lovers who are hiding in bunkers, harboring irrational fears, and making ready to commit mass killings, you should consider the fact that most gun owners are not weirdos who want to kill you.  Our guns are much less dangerous to society that your teenage kids, riding around drunk in their new sports cars that you bought for them......\n\nFor Bob D.:  "A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  I expected someone to try to misinterpret this again.....it keeps happening and we keep proving you wrong.  As I said, please research the Emerson case to see what the Courts have to say about this.  And, Bob, please cover up your bare arms!  The correct word is BEAR.
502593
There are tables for this check Gun Digest and other literature of that ilk it's information readily available in the library or you could just google your question.\n\nShe says as she backs slowly away... hummm interesting question.  Bye!!
773016
No, the only chance it would work is if the militia had enough sympathy from the Federal forces and they refused to fight their own citizens. God help us all if we ever deteriorate to that end.