One thing that gets lost when discussing gun laws is the intent of the Founding Fathers in the Second Amendment. Yes we now have very little need of raising a militia for defense of the nation. There is a need to defend yourself from other citizens. Most of the papers I've read on the topic lean towards more gun violence in less strict districts, but I wonder why it leads to a decreas in other violent crimes. This could be because more criminals are getting shot while trying to victimize an armed citizen.

Sigh, it doesn't decrease other violent crimes, efficient policing does that, and an informed populace as to what to do to prevent a violent crime. I know we are never going to convince each other, but an interesting headline in today's Record: Gunman kills at church. Not to prevent a crime but rather to prevent a wedding of his estranged wife. That's what guns do.
And boy have we gotten off topic.

Brady Rankings: More Gun Laws, More Violent Crime
National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action | February 1, 2008 | NRA-ILA

In January, the Brady Campaign released its annual "State Report Cards," scoring the states according to their gun laws.

Once again, the Brady rankings clearly demonstrate that states that have the most gun control tend to have the most violent crime.

Brady says that a state could get a perfect "100" if it would: limit the frequency of gun purchases; prohibit private transfers of firearms; require gun show attendees to sign a ledger to be provided to the police; prohibit the sale of firearms that do not engrave a serial number on fired ammunition and require registration such firearms' purchasers; license and regulate firearm dealers at the state level; prohibit handguns that do not have "smart" gun features; prohibit detachable-magazine semi-automatics and some pump-action rifles and shotguns; allow the arbitrary rejection of Right-to-Carry permit applications; allow local jurisdictions to impose gun control laws more restrictive than the state legislature; and allow the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in legitimate self-defense.

Since most states do not have these kinds of laws -- gun control having been rolled back and rejected at the federal, state, and local levels in the last 15-20 years -- Brady gave most states "failing" scores. Forty-two states received 28 points or fewer, and only one state received a score higher than 63--California.

But, as usual, Brady's scores correlate inversely with states' crime rates. Using crime data published by the FBI for 2006, the most recent year available:

* California, the state that has the most gun control and received Brady's highest score (79), has violent crime and murder rates that are 14% and 23% higher, respectively, compared to the rest of the country.

* Brady didn't bother giving a score to Washington, D.C., which has more gun control than California and even higher crime rates.

* Most of the 38 states that Brady gave 20 or fewer points to, have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates.

* For states that have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates, Brady gave average scores of 19, 19, and 14, respectively.

* For the 10 states with the lowest total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates, Brady gave average scores of 12, 12, and 9, respectively.

(image removed - perhaps it was a bit offensive or at least it may have been taken the wrong way)

In truth, I cringe at arguing against gun control with the fact that gun control doesn't decrease violent crime or increase our security. Even if gun control reduced crime, I would not be in favor of it. Too often we sacrifice our liberties for security. We now have mandatory drug testing of school children, searches of cars without warrants, prisoners locked up without any hope of a trial at Guantanamo, and all sorts of violations of our liberties in the name of security.

With the gun control enthusiasts attitude, where does it end? When does our liberty become more important than our freedom? Would you have gladly turned your guns over to the British when they came banging on your door? Would you have gladly turned your guns over to the Nazi's when they came banging on your door? Would you also allow the police to perform random searches of your property in the name of safety and security? I find liberty more valuable to me than either my life or my security.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

OK first as I said I know we will not convince each other. Second I resent being compared to Hitler ( I really must have hit a nerve to bring that on), not everyone who wants to live in safety is a sick evil murderer. Besides he wasn't for gun control. He was for arming only his own people, which I guess would make people who want to own guns much like him- the bigger the better.
And third we are way off the topic of standing up for those who can not defend themselves.
Other countries that have gun control laws do not have higher violent crime rates than we do. As a matter of fact we have one of the highest in the world. There is no correlation. What we need is for the government to butt out of private concerns instead of riling the general public. Even Ceasar had the colosseum.
How is owning a gun a liberty? Granted it was one of the first things invented after gunpowder, that does not give you an immediate right to have it.

Now how about getting back on topic of protecing people with mental handicaps and getting them the things they need.

I was not comparing you to Hitler. I was pointing out that Hitler (along with Stalin and Mao) was very much in favor of gun control.

From the Bureau of Justice report Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96:
" Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States."

England has very strict gun laws. In fact when they increased their gun control laws, crime went up. Criminals found that the citizens were defenseless and were easily taken advantage of.



1988 - Firearms Amendment Act
1997 - Firearms Amendment Act Number 2 (per several links crime has gotten even worse)