The Illegalization of guns in America--tracking the new bill

[jonesthecurl]

I do think that the love-affair with the private motor is almost over - by 2040 there will be less private motors than in 1940.

[James Vazquez]

this is a load of crap.... promoted by the gun industry to further promote "panic" purchases. Ammo has skyrocketed ridiculously since the election and right before. There is no way in hell you can ban guns in this country. That being said, I'm a gun lovin democrat!! yea eat me repubs just becuase i dont vote republican doesnt mean i dont love my guns. I hunt I target shoot, and if needed would defend my property and country with whatever arms i have.

Do i think everyone should have guns hell no!!!! If you have felonies, violent misdemenors, sever mental illness, you should not be allowed to own a gun. I live in NY pretty strict gun laws. NO Auto fire weapons allowed. County applied pistol permits and a federal background check for longguns. Even with all that I can still walk in a gun shop and walk out with with whatever i need, same day barring fullautos. I can pull my trigger fast enough and full auto's are a waist of ammo. after the second round its spray and pray. If you need an auto to hit a target you shouldnt be shooting any gun at all.

So shut the hell up about "the sky is falling" This is a free ad for gun and ammo manufacturers plain and simple!

[herschal]

What is wrong with banning guns?

[FabledIntegral]

I would completely support this.

Are you serious? Are you a traitor? This takes away your 2nd Amendment right and turns it into a priviledge! This will instantly take the right to own guns away from over a million Americans!!! People who have never been convicted of a crime! They are just put on a list. Ever wonder who decides who goes on the list? How many rights is that infringing upon???

No, they are merely regulating what NEW guns have come out. And the Bill of Rights shouldn't extend to everyone. If you've ever committed a felony or something of that sort (depending on the felony as going 100+ mph is a felony in many places), I believe that you should have less rights than if you didn't as a person. I don't think Americans should have the right to own ANY gun they want, rather the right to own a personal firearm.

And veterans who have had PTSD or ever taken medication will not be allowed to own a gun. Again, without any type of trial or conviction. Does that make sense to you?

Yes.

The Attorny General has the right to ban any gun at will? At will?
All guns with pistol grip will be considered illegal. Do you even know what pistol grip means?
Everyone who owns a gun must get a license from the Federal Government?
All gun transfers must go through a dealer?
You have to submit a thumbprint and pass a test to even own a gun?
Did you miss this;

In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

Who decides that? Who invented the term "sporting purpose?"

Yes, I want people to have to get a license to own a gun. Yes, I want all transfers to go through a dealer. Yes, I want it to be regulated by thumbprint. Yes, I want you to have to pass a test to acquire one. Yes, I don't think guns for sporting purposes should be permitted on the sole bases they are suitable for sporting events.

You're looking at the list of guns being banned, and not the fine print. Which is kinda silly anyway. Know how many Americans every year that get killed by a Bushman rifle?

Then post the fine print. Whatever they said in that article is FINE. And no, I don't.

They reserve the right to ban any gun. And because of the tracking clause, they'll know where each one is. They do not need a court to take your guns. The attorny General can take them, or just add you to the "no fly" list so that you can't buy them.

GOOD. You think they shouldn't know where teh guns are? I do.

They are taking away your Constitutional Rights. And I'm not using that as a catchphrase, they seriously are taking your rights. They are taking guns away.

They aren't taking away the rights, they are regulating them... just like the right to free speech --> still can't scream fire in a movie theater.

In the very least you should be against this bunch of gun legislation because it will kill hundreds if not thousands of people who dare to try to enforce it, and resist it.

Because people don't like a law and would resist, we shouldn't do it? Worst argument in here...

And add this piece of info with HR 605 and 245 and PDD 51, and the Homeland Tours....
Those who don't know their rights don't have any rights.

Whatever


I reanswered it as I was more awake now reading this than after 4-5 hours of sleep, yet I still maintain the same general reasons... anyways to your response.

Hilarious. You ask if I'm a traitor because I think that people should not have a natural right to possess any firearm they want?

f*ck the second amendment,

Were you in office, that would actually be treason.

1. I'm not in office.
2. I'm voicing that I dislike how the amendment is being interpreted as. I'm saying it's a shitty amendment how people have interpreted it to be. The sentence was a very brief summary of how I felt about it.

We're not talking philosophy, we're talking tyrrany. Mankind isn't endowed with anything, rights and privledges are something that we made up. So your view on these things is irrelevent. What is relevent is what that paper says. If you want to change it, pass an amendment. But until that day happens you'll do exactly what that paper says.

I disagree with that notion as there are many "unalienable" or "absolutes" generally considered by society. In terms of our society, I'm merely saying that we were granted something we never should have been and now we're trying to say it. If your entire argument relies on the fact that regulation somehow makes it unconstitutional, although I disagree with it, I can buy it for what it's worth and accept your viewpoint. I wasn't aware that was how you felt.

If our Constitution gave us the right to rape children would you want to keep it? Christ that's a shitty argument.

No, that is. Lets not argue blindly.

Completely relevant.

Do I think that right needs to be monitored strictly? Yes.

This isn't about monitering them, this is about taking them away from anyone who disagrees with you. At least from the Attorny General/DHS's point of view.

Taking SOME guns off the market, even MOST (which is what I'm aware, it's MOST, not all, correct? If it is all then I feel like a blundering idiot and will agree with you). Not taking all. Our right to bear arms does not give us the right to bear ANY arms. Just to have the basics. <--- my point of view.

You're basically trying to say "omg, do you really think guns should be regulated?"

Again, this has nothing to do with gun regulation. That's the trick. It's about taking all guns away. You're getting caught up in the "People can't have machine guns, this bill is the best way to stop that." That's the trick to fool people into giving their support. And I'm not even talking about the obvious violation of the 2nd Amendment. Or how many people will probably die directly from such legislation, if it's passed.

So it is taking all guns away? I don't give a shit how many people would die from the legislation, I don't think that's even slightly relevant. I was thinking that it was taking all guns ON THAT LIST away, and then making everything else be regulated?

They are taking away outdated and poorly phrased Constitutional rights that were never intended to serve this purpose in teh first place.

WTF? This is exactly why we have this right! To replace the government and protect our person.

As if. Like we need that anymore. Whatever. I don't think the argument holds any grounds anymore in modern society. The purpose was personal protection from the government. Not to possess your own mini arsenal of guns that can tear through god knows what. I'm talking about a personal firearm.

Like I said, should we allow a gun that fires bullets that cause mini nuclear explosions upon impact? Eh, sure, it's our rights to have one, right?

You're completely off topic and I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. Try re-reading my post. I'm not argueing firepower or anything. I don't even own a gun.

It's a fucking hypothetical situation that's completely relevant because it addresses the different amount of power guns have. Yes, my situation used firepower rather than the gun itself, but it's the exact same fucking point.

FabledIntegral......A "semi-automatic machine gun" is completely meaningless....an oxymoron.....doubly redundant...... there is no such animal - you dont know what you are talking about.

Reading your posts was so painful, I think it gave me cancer. Do you know where to buy nuclear bullets? I dont. You are going to legislate guns by how many walls they can pierce? Rice paper walls, like in China? Concrete walls like in a basement? This thread is done for me ;o(

I suggest doing some research or simply putting together a logical statement next time you decide to bless us fearsome gun-toters with your brilliance.

Yes I was wrong. I meant assault rifles, I know only some of the VERY basics of firearms yet still knew that prior, my mistake. I don't know much else at all. Afaik fully automatic weapons aren't even allowed, but I haven't looked into it. Nuclear bullets however are a hypothetical situation when arguing the permissibility of an action, apparently you aren't very well versed with debating on certain premises. Thanks for the condescending attitude though, it makes pointing out your own flaws in the debate that much more enjoyable.

Know how many Americans every year that get killed by a Bushman rifle?

No where near as many people that get killed by cars. Maybe we should only have public transportation too

Which is exactly why it's regulated by the government and you need a license to drive a car... you also can't drive any car unless you get a specific license which enables you to drive a specific type (sedan vs motorcycle vs semi). People can still die from guns when being regulated, yet I'm against forbidding them. Just regulation.

[Martin Ronne]

All I can say is that every one better be ready for the crime to sky rocket once this bill passes. We are now living in an Obamanation.

[JACKAZZTJM]

I would completely support this. Should we be allowed to by a basic firearm? Yes. Should we be able to purchase ANY new gun that comes out on teh market? f*ck no. Technology has changed, if we come out with guns that fire bullets that upon impact create a mini nuclear explosion should it still be legal? Common fucking sense. The amendment is for basic protection, not to serve in your interest of whatever hobby you might possess. I don't give a rats fucking ass if having some big-ass gun gives you pleasure, just as I don't give a rats ass if some pedophile gets turned on by child porn - it should be illegal.

A gun is for one thing and one thing only......kill.... the ultimate protection no matter what the bullet does. Im all for guns.

[FabledIntegral]

All I can say is that every one better be ready for the crime to sky rocket once this bill passes. We are now living in an Obamanation.

Care to enlighten us with your logic here? Unless you're referring to people resisting the law, I'm not following.

[Juan_Bottom]

And the Bill of Rights shouldn't extend to everyone.

That's just silly. You don't deserve the right to a fair trial? Or protection from illegal search and seizure?

If you've ever committed a felony or something of that sort (depending on the felony as going 100+ mph is a felony in many places),

Unfortunitly felonies don't mean anything anymore, that's why they have classes. For instance, a class 4 felony is for "non-violent offenses." Like writing a bad check over $200 in the state of Illinois. Felonies are just used to get people in the system and increase revinue.

And veterans who have had PTSD or ever taken medication will not be allowed to own a gun. Again, without any type of trial or conviction. Does that make sense to you?

Yes.

I couldn't disagree more. A soldier gets sick, or is involved in a traffic accident. Maybe he collapsed due to exaustion from a combat enviroment... and has to take pain meds, or depression meds, or whatever. Now he can't own a gun. No trial or anything. What gives anyone the right to take away someone elses rights? What the hell were they even fighting for to begin with???

Yes, I want people to have to get a license to own a gun.

That's a state right, and states do this already.

Yes, I want all transfers to go through a dealer.

Again state right. Some require you to report sales. Mine requires that you check them for a FOID card(license). I think all states do.

Yes, I want it to be regulated by thumbprint. Yes, I want you to have to pass a test to acquire one.

States right(?).

Yes, I don't think guns for sporting purposes should be permitted on the sole bases they are suitable for sporting events.

You missed the point completely on this one;

and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.

First, "sporting event" is a new term. And it's not defined, so what does it mean to the Attorny General? It's another trick of the language of the legislation to regulate which guns become availiable.

GOOD. You think they shouldn't know where the guns are? I do.

They do! States keep records of dealer gun sales.

I should point out that this does not hurt criminals at all. More trickery! This bill makes it more difficult to purchase, own, and move guns. But criminals steal guns, they aren't going to register them! Guns will still disappear in the exact same way! The only difference is that if you don't report a gun as stolen within 72hrs you get a felony. There is no provision in any of these bills that will prevent deaths from firearms. This bill hurts the good guys, not the bad ones.

They aren't taking away the rights, they are regulating them... just like the right to free speech --> still can't scream fire in a movie theater.

This country has ben deballed. There is no statute or law or provision that says the fed can "regulate" your rights! That's why they call them "rights!!!" They just do it anyway...
In fact, only the judicial has even the right to "interperet" the Constitution. But again, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives them that right either. They just started doing it. You know this.

Because people don't like a law and would resist, we shouldn't do it? Worst argument in here...

The feds have no authority, & that's why. They are trashing 2 Amendments; if we count the 4th, then they are trashing 3!!! It's our lawful duty/reponsability to resist.

I'm saying it's a shitty amendment how people have interpreted it to be. The sentence was a very brief summary of how I felt about it.

I strongly disagree.
And again, there is no provision for "interpretation." In fact, many of the authors have described in detail what everything means. The original spirit of the 2nd Amendment was to have the citizens be better armed than the government. Not that I don't think that idea is a bit dated ..........

I'm merely saying that we were granted something we never should have been and now we're trying to say it.

Strongly disagree.

If your entire argument relies on the fact that regulation somehow makes it unconstitutional, although I disagree with it, I can buy it for what it's worth and accept your viewpoint. I wasn't aware that was how you felt.

My arguement is dependant about the Constitution. I'm not argueing gun rights "just because." It's not just the regulation either, it's that they are taking away your right to a trial.

So it is taking all guns away? I don't give a shit how many people would die from the legislation, I don't think that's even slightly relevant. I was thinking that it was taking all guns ON THAT LIST away, and then making everything else be regulated?

That's the trick, you're looking at the list, and not reading the fine print. That's what they want you to do.
All the guns on the list will be outrighted banned(not nearly a full list). Including the guns that were on the original Brady list. But if you bought one of those guns already, then you can keep them.
BUT! the trick is that the Attorny General reserves the right to ban any gun at any time. And what did I mean by taking all guns away?
If you have ever had a misdemener, you cannot purchase a gun. OR, If you're on the "no fly list" (suspected domestic terrorist) you cannot own a gun. There are over 1 million Americans on the "no fly" list. There is no trial to get on the list. There is no way to get your name off the list. We do not even know who adds or how it is decided that names are added to the list. 20,000 are added a month. Basically, if the government doesn't want you to get a gun, they add you to the list. Congressmen are on that list... Kennedy is on that list....... I posted the YouTube video earlier in here somewhere.
There are no terrorists!!! These are all Americans!!!

BTW, this is perminent legislation. The bill that just expire is alled "sunset legislation."

This is my whole point. They want you looking at the list of guns, and not thinking about it. They want you to divide into the "guns are good" or guns are bad" camp and not take the time to read what they are actually asking for.

As if. Like we need that anymore. Whatever. I don't think the argument holds any grounds anymore in modern society. The purpose was personal protection from the government. Not to possess your own mini arsenal of guns that can tear through god knows what. I'm talking about a personal firearm.

I strongly disagree. There has never existed a government that has not become corrupt. Even the Southern Rebel government became corupt, an it barely even existed. No nation stands strong forever.

Which is exactly why it's regulated by the government and you need a license to drive a car...

You need a license to get a gun. It's harder to get a gun then get a car. But you could argue tht you don't need a license for a car because you have the right to travel... you could argue that you don't need a gun license because you have the right to bear arms.

this is a load of crap.... promoted by the gun industry to further promote "panic" purchases.

While the renewed gun ban law is not set in stone, and is "just a leak" it is real. They are adding to the expired gun ban. You can google it, it expired in '07, or I posted it above. Furthermore, the "gun registration and tracking" bill is real too. I provided a link to the actual government page. Finally, I do not have a direct link to the "no fly = no guns" legislation, but I did provide a YouTube of Rahm Immanuals (Obama's pick!) speech to the Senete. This isn't just a scare, this stuff is already written.

That being said, I'm a gun lovin democrat!!

I'm a liberal-Libertarian leaning independant. Supports your gun rights!

I live in NY pretty strict gun laws.

Ninja Sis and throwing stars are illegal there too. You guys have a serious ninja problem.

You know, I may have to agree with this.

No not you! They don't even get a trial! Thier name just goes on a list. Soldiers don't get to chose what drugs they take either! What are they fighing for?

This doesn't even have to be a permanent restriction as a person's status may improve over time, but giving a gun to a veteran at the lowest point of his life can and does create problems.

It's permenant...

[FabledIntegral]

And the Bill of Rights shouldn't extend to everyone.

That's just silly. You don't deserve the right to a fair trial? Or protection from illegal search and seizure?

and I would just say "no you're just silly." The Bill of Rights shouldn't extend to people who have shown they can't be trusted. Aka convicted felons. If someone has murdered someone else before, lo and behold, I don't give a f*ck if they can't protect themself on the very offchance we need to from the government. He has LOST that right indefinitely.

If you've ever committed a felony or something of that sort (depending on the felony as going 100+ mph is a felony in many places),

Unfortunitly felonies don't mean anything anymore, that's why they have classes. For instance, a class 4 felony is for "non-violent offenses." Like writing a bad check over $200 in the state of Illinois. Felonies are just used to get people in the system and increase revinue.
[/quote]

Hence it's relative to the level. I'd assume you would have gathered that. So wait, are you arguing my case for me?

And veterans who have had PTSD or ever taken medication will not be allowed to own a gun. Again, without any type of trial or conviction. Does that make sense to you?

Yes.

I couldn't disagree more. A soldier gets sick, or is involved in a traffic accident. Maybe he collapsed due to exaustion from a combat enviroment... and has to take pain meds, or depression meds, or whatever. Now he can't own a gun. No trial or anything. What gives anyone the right to take away someone elses rights? What the hell were they even fighting for to begin with??? [/quote]

Do I want a mentally unstable person with a gun? No. Done. End of conversation. Gabon covered it better than I care to go in depth.

That's a state right, and states do this already.

Sweet, now it will become a federal requirement.

Again state right. Some require you to report sales. Mine requires that you check them for a FOID card(license). I think all states do.

Sweet, federal now.

states right(?)

w00t the federal branch seems to be spreading quite quickly.

You missed the point completely on this one;

and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
First, "sporting event" is a new term. And it's not defined, so what does it mean to the Attorny General? It's another trick of the language of the legislation to regulate which guns become availiable.

It's quite clear. Sporting event is whatever the gun is used for casual use. Aka shooting a can, hunting, etc.

They do! States keep records of dealer gun sales.

sweet they won't be bothered anymore

I should point out that this does not hurt criminals at all. More trickery! This bill makes it more difficult to purchase, own, and move guns. But criminals steal guns, they aren't going to register them! Guns will still disappear in the exact same way! The only difference is that if you don't report a gun as stolen within 72hrs you get a felony. There is no provision in any of these bills that will prevent deaths from firearms. This bill hurts the good guys, not the bad ones.

Criminals can obtain nuclear weapons anyways, let's let the public legally own them as well.



Wayyy too much else to respond. If there's anything of particular importance that doesn't cover states vs federal, repost please and I'll answer. I just think answering is getting redundant.

[Juan_Bottom]

Wayyy too much else to respond. If there's anything of particular importance that doesn't cover states vs federal, repost please and I'll answer. I just think answering is getting redundant

Or read appearantly. You didn't respond to anything of substance.

Do I want a mentally unstable person with a gun? No. Done. End of conversation. Gabon covered it better than I care to go in depth.

Who decides what sick is? Why only cover vets? Why not you too? What if your daughter takes anti-depressants... or sleeping pills. Does she revoke her rights permenantly as well? To a military court? Really? Specifically, why do you think the government deserves the priviledge to decide who gets what rights? They don't have the authority, whether you think they should magically get special powers to act outside of the law or not. I don't wipe my ass with the Bill or Rights or Constitution.

[FabledIntegral]

Wayyy too much else to respond. If there's anything of particular importance that doesn't cover states vs federal, repost please and I'll answer. I just think answering is getting redundant

Or read appearantly. You didn't respond to anything of substance.

Do I want a mentally unstable person with a gun? No. Done. End of conversation. Gabon covered it better than I care to go in depth.

Who decides what sick is? Why only cover vets? Why not you too? What if your daughter takes anti-depressants... or sleeping pills. Does she revoke her rights permenantly as well? To a military court? Really? Specifically, why do you think the government deserves the priviledge to decide who gets what rights? They don't have the authority, whether you think they should magically get special powers to act outside of the law or not. I don't wipe my ass with the Bill or Rights or Constitution.

You're right, I didn't read it all . I responded to everything in order and stopped at that point.

If my daughter is on anti-depressants then she loses her right to carry a gun. That works for me. Make her take a test to get them. And you can see if she passes or not. Do I think the government "deserves the priviledge"? That's a load of shit. Do you mean "do you think the government has the authority to decide who gets what rights?" In the case of guns, YES. They DO have that authority.

[Juan_Bottom]

What a load of crap.
You don't even know what you're talking about.

Do you mean "do you think the government has the authority to decide who gets what rights?" In the case of guns, YES. They DO have that authority.

No they don't. Have you ever even heard of the Declaration of Independance? We already fought this war. The government has NO AUTHORITY to take any right away. Only you (as case precident and confirmed by the Supreme Court) have the ability to take your rights away. I asked you why you think the government has the priviledge, because they do not have the authority. Our government is bound to the Constitution and Bill of Rights; & If they act outside of those documents, then they are no longer our government. If you don't know your rights, then you wouldn't know what I'm even talking about. I might as well be talking to a New Zealander or something. This nation was founded with the intent of creating a wall of liberty, but people like you have torn that wall down. I am in awe.

[comic boy]

Dont the thousands who die every year from gunfire also have rights ?

[Juan_Bottom]

Dont the thousands who die every year from gunfire also have rights ?

According to FI's train of thought, they don't even have the right to a fair trial...
(You would know what I mean if you had read everything I wrote.)

[GabonX]

All I can say is that every one better be ready for the crime to sky rocket once this bill passes. We are now living in an Obamanation.

Care to enlighten us with your logic here? Unless you're referring to people resisting the law, I'm not following.

Violent crime sky rocketted in both the UK and Australia when the similar measures passed. Gun violence in the UK has nearly doubled since a handgun ban went in place in the late 90's

FA, it's pretty clear that you don't respect the Constitution or the law. We have been granted the right to own fire arms and Jefferson wrote extensively about how the public needed to have a comperable means to apply force with that of the government. There is an implicit danger in living under a government that has it's subjects out gunned and if you were to read texts from the era of the framers you would understand that banning a gun is unconstitutional.

You're position is based on ideology as opposed to history, law, or any other kind of relevant knowledge. Essentially what you want to do is trade my rights for your percieved security. This is not and will never be acceptable to people like me.

[comic boy]

All I can say is that every one better be ready for the crime to sky rocket once this bill passes. We are now living in an Obamanation.

Care to enlighten us with your logic here? Unless you're referring to people resisting the law, I'm not following.

Violent crime sky rocketted in both the UK and Australia when the similar measures passed. Gun violence in the UK has nearly doubled since a handgun ban went in place in the late 90's

FA, it's pretty clear that you don't respect the Constitution or the law. We have been granted the right to own fire arms and Jefferson wrote extensively about how the public needed to have a comperable means to apply force with that of the government. There is an implicit danger in living under a government that has it's subjects out gunned and if you were to read texts from the era of the framers you would understand that banning a gun is unconstitutional.

You're position is based on ideology as opposed to history, law, or any other kind of relevant knowledge. Essentially what you want to do is trade my rights for your percieved security. This is not and will never be acceptable to people like me.

You are completely wrong,gun deaths in the UK fell in the period 1994-2006. Homicides from gunfire are per capita 25 times higher in the US than in the UK and 20 times higher than in Australia. If you are comfortable living in a society with such appalling statistics then fine but dont try to pretend that restrictions dont save lives because they do.

[GabonX]

You are completely wrong,gun deaths in the UK fell in the period 1994-2006. Homicides from gunfire are per capita 25 times higher in the US than in the UK and 20 times higher than in Australia. If you are comfortable living in a society with such appalling statistics then fine but dont try to pretend that restrictions dont save lives because they do.

The violent crime rate in the UK is more than double what it is in the US.
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/cr ... in-us.html

The use of guns in crimes comitted in the UK has almost doubled since the 1997 ban on hand guns went into effect in 1997.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 317307.ece

These restrictions do the opposite of what they are intended to do as they cost more lives than they save, and the numbers back me up on this. Gun restrictions have universally been accompanied by an increase in violent crime and gun violence. If such a measure were to be passed and achieved it's aims in the United States it would be the first time in history that this kind of legislation worked.

[GabonX]

Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime


Major crime fell dramatically in states which have legalized the carrying of concealed handguns, according to a comprehensive new study at the University of Chicago.

For the first time, researchers analyzed crime statistics for all 3,054 counties in the United Sates between 1977 and 1992, according to one of the authors of the unpublished study, Professor John Lott. After adjusting for a general fall in crime rates, the study found that:

In the 31 states that now have "concealed right to carry" laws, murders were down, on average, by 8.5 percent.

Rapes were down 5 percent and serious assaults by 7 percent.

In cities with populations of more than 250,000, murder rates dropped after the passage of such laws by an average of 13.5 percent.
According to the study, the fall in crime did not result from an increased use of guns, but from potential criminals avoiding confrontations. In fact, criminals apparently shifted to lower-risk offenses, since property crimes increased in those states. Other findings included:

The most dramatic falls in murder rates were in areas where the number of women carrying firearms was high.

The study found that for every woman who carries a concealed hand, the murder rate fell by three to four times more than it would have if one more man had carried a concealed gun.

If states with concealed handgun bans had allowed them in 1992, about 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided.
In addition, the researchers found no evidence of an increase in accidental killings or suicides in states with concealed carry laws.

Sources: Ian Katz, "'Gun Law' Cuts Crime Rate, US Study Finds," Guardian, August 3, 1996, and Dennis Cauchon, "Study: Weapons Laws Deter Crime: Fewer Rapes, Murders Found Where Concealed Guns Legal," USA Today, August 2, 1996.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm

[Iz Man]

In 1982 the town of Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring all heads of households to possess a firearm & ammunition (exclusions were made to convicted felons, people with religious objections, and people with disabilities).

Members of the city council introduced and voted for the ordinance to make a statement when a city in Illinois, Morton Grove, passed an ordinance banning hand guns from anyone other than peace officers. Morton Grove was the first community to ever ban the sale and possession of handguns.
Both city ordinances drew worldwide media attention, with Kennesaw's attention being negative. Nicknamed "Gun Town USA" from a column titled the same and written by Art Buchwald, expectations were for the town to covert back to the Old West style of handling disagreements with ruthless shoot outs. This expectation never happened. In fact, more than 25 years after the ban, not a single resident of Kennesaw has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. There has been one firearm related murder but not from a resident of Kennesaw. Since the ordinance, no child has ever been injured with a firearm in Kennesaw.
That one murder actually involved two visitors who got into an argument in their motel room. One was insisting that a .25 pistol could not penetrate thick chest muscles like his, and the other guy decided to settle the argument. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were both idiots.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of 5,242 but a crime rate higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available (2005) show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. A 74% reduction in crimes against people in just the first year after enacting the law. Meanwhile, the population has jumped over 500% to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, Ill has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202 (2005). More significantly, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

Putting a ban on owning a firearm will keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens; putting them at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their families and possessions. Criminals who do not abide by laws anyway, will still possess weapons. If you were a criminal planning on breaking into a home to steal or cause somebody harm, would you choose a home in a city where every homeowner is required to carry a gun and ammunition (like Kennesaw, GA), or a home in a city where homeowners are banned from carrying guns (like Morton Grove, Ill)?

[GabonX]

I was just waiting for the right oppurtunity to talk about those two towns, looks like you beat me to the punch

[Iz Man]

[GabonX]

lol
I'm saving that!

[The1exile]

A witty saying proves nothing.

GabonX, comparing "violent crime" for the UK and the US is like comparing green apples to elephant sized oranges. They're not measured by the same standards, and your sites sources are the spectator and the sun - not much for reliable journalism, compared to slating the government of the time with the worst possible stats you can wrangle (like making up unverifiable comments about "600 kids mugged a day" off frankly invented stats - "we'll say it's 110,000 because most probably don;t report it"? My arse.). Also, the generally accepted reason for gun crime going up so dramatically is because of a change in recording measures that classed more crimes in these categories, implemented in 2002 - this is why you will see a spike on nearly all graphs over 2002/2003, after which the figures tend to decrease smoothly once more as all reports conform to the same system once more. Real stats on gun ownership versus homicide, suicide and crime is better displayed on this graph:

Click image to enlarge.

Well, would you look at that! More guns means more deaths? Who woulda thunk it!

[GabonX]

A witty saying proves nothing.

Agreed.

Why would you start off by quoting one?

GabonX, comparing "violent crime" for the UK and the US is like comparing green apples to elephant sized oranges. They're not measured by the same standards.

How so? Murder, rape, and assault are all violent crimes. An act of violence is universally understood. If their is a school of thought which holds that the definition of violent crime varies between the US and the UK it is up to you to provide evidence of this.

Your sites sources are the spectator and the sun - not much for reliable journalism, compared to slating the government of the time with the worst possible stats you can wrangle (like making up unverifiable comments about "600 kids mugged a day" off frankly invented stats - "we'll say it's 110,000 because most probably don;t report it"? My arse.)" off frankly invented stats - "we'll say it's 110,000 because most probably don;t report it"? My arse.).

First off, this is a very bad run on sentence which you're trying to make me understand.

Second they also cite organizations like the British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006 (the specifics here) and the CIA Factbook as well. Those are the third, fourth and fifth links of my first source.

Third the Spectator and the Sun are not entirely unreliable sources. Below is a link where the Telegraph covers the "600 kids mugged a day"story as well. There is another source beneath that one. I can get more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... a-day.html
http://www.escatory.org/news/8/

Also, the generally accepted reason for gun crime going up so dramatically is because of a change in recording measures that classed more crimes in these categories, implemented in 2002 - this is why you will see a spike on nearly all graphs over 2002/2003, after which the figures tend to decrease smoothly once more as all reports conform to the same system once more.

Once again, if this is true it falls on you to show evidence of this.

Real stats on gun ownership versus homicide, suicide and crime is better displayed on this graph:
Well, would you look at that! More guns means more deaths? Who woulda thunk it!

Click image to enlarge.

I have a number of problems with your graph. The web addresses that it provides do not provide any information on the subject. The first one (http://www.ryerson.ca/safer-net/issues/ ... eaths.html) generates an error message and the second one (http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/data.php) does not present any relevant information either. On top of that it is unclear what the graph is actually trying to say.

Yes, we do have a higher murder rate in the United States but we have a lower over all violent crime rate (this includes things like rape, assault, burglary etc.). The higher murder rate is the result of gangs who have more control than police in violent urban areas. The recent Supreme Court Case dealt with someone who lived in one of these places and was denied his right to own a hand gun by the city. Luckily the Supreme Court reaffirmed his right to keep arms as it would make no sense to not allow the one person who applied to own one legally.

Anti gun advocates leave out critical details which include the fact that there is a boom in violent crime (including murder) in every instance where gun bans are put into effect and violent crime has decreased (once again including murder) in every state that has adopted right to carry laws.
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.html

BBC states that the murder rate in the UK is at a ten year high

[GabonX]

"The knife culture must be stamped out and a growing gun culture nipped in the bud.

"The underlying causes of crime need targeted, but there must be no mercy shown to those who use guns, knives or other weapons randomly or indiscriminately."

Jeremy Purvis MSP, Liberal Democrat justice spokesman said: "These are disturbing figures, especially that 53% of the murders were committed by people with knives.

"This adds weight to my view that the Police Bill needs to be tougher on knife crime.

"We should take this opportunity to bring the law on knife crime into line with the law on firearms."