Letter: Gun bans don’t work

I am writing in the response to Robert Kraemer’s letter on Friday. I believe he is being misguided by leftist groups through the media.

Just by doing the smallest search on the Internet, you will see the facts, numbers and effects of gun laws around the world. I simply Googled a few words and came upon a website called: http://www.Gunslot.com. Upon my screen I found an article listed as the following: Comparing Gun Control Laws and Their Effects in Different Countries

By Marvin Posted: May 1, 2007 filed under: “miscellaneous.”

Here are a couple of excerpts of a list by country of laws these countries laid down for their patrons. For example, Australia — In 1973, Australia mandated the licensing of gun owners whereby each handgun required a distinct and separate license. Additionally, Australia did not allow the use of a firearm for self-defense as a legitimate reason to possess a firearm. In 1985, Australia required the registration of firearms. In May, 1996, the country outlawed semiautomatic, center-fire rifles and many pump-action shotguns and other semiautomatic weapons. As of October, 2000, the Australian government confiscated and destroyed about 660,000 privately owned firearms. However, viewing the data provided by the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 armed robberies rose 73 percent, assaults rose 16 percent and unlawful entries rose 8 percent. During this time period, murders increased slightly and then decreased slightly. (Jacob Sullum, “Guns down under,” Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00).

Japan and Switzerland “stand out as interesting models. The countries have crime rates that are within the lowest in the industrialized world, despite having completely opposite gun laws and policies.” (Nicholas D. Kristof, “One Nation Bars, The Other Requires,” New York Times, 3/10/96.) The citizens of Switzerland are frequently issued fully-automatic rifles to utilize for home national-defense purposes, despite this fact, “abuse of military weapons is rare.” The citizens of Switzerland own approximately 2 million firearms, including semiautomatic rifles and handguns, they shoot approximately 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and “the rate of violent gun abuse is considerably low.” (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.)

Those are just two examples. In some countries crime went up. In some it went down. From my reading, I believe that in the majority of cases when guns are banned, crime has risen. So I wouldn’t blame the NRA or manufacturers of guns for murders just like you wouldn’t blame car manufacturers for drunk drivers. It’s time to take responsibility, America, not blame someone else for something you do not agree with.

Brent Burgess

operator

French Settlement

Comments

1) Comment by Attila - 09/01/2013

DMJ, you do know that an armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity, don't you? That is precisely the point of being armed. You do not want to arm yourself; that is your choice. I hope you never find yourself in a situation where a gun will save your life..chances are you won't, but if it does and you are unarmed, all you will be able to do is bend over and kiss your butt goodbye.

2) Comment by Whatnow - 09/01/2013

And we are just to blindly take the government's word that this is all they want to take? This administration's word? Wait..... don't make me laugh, my sides are hurting.... Stop! Benghazi was because of a video. Gee, DMJ, thanks. I was feeling a little down today. This joke brightened it. Where's the outrage for all the illegal killings in Chicago everyday. Hmmmm? Are you going to try to make law abiding citizens feel guilty and treated like criminals for these animals? Won't work. We are not the criminals, DMJ. You shouldn't make all good citizens of the entire country responsible for the stupidity of this mother who allowed her son around her guns. You don't punish the innocent for the guilty. That's like punishing the whole school for a kid bringing a gun to school. Sure, I don't mind closing the gun-show loophole. But a registry? First, someone has to locate every gun. It's impossible unless the gestapo goes to every house and searches it. The government might want to start in Mexico. They gave a few of our guns to them.

3) Comment by Being_Stupid - 08/01/2013

Like Gun Bans, Democrats don't work either.

4) Comment by DMJ - 08/01/2013

Not take away guns from those who didn't do it... regulate the sale and distribution of them. Restrict certain kinds like the AR-15 (used in Aurora, Newtown, the D.C. Sniper, and in the 2 NY firefighters) for instance. Close the gun-show loophole. Forever. This is how the 2 yahoos in Columbine got their guns. Build and maintain a decent database and registry, like Switzerland, Canada, Sweden,...you know... countries that have far fewer gun deaths than we do. Ban all magazines that are 10+ capacity. Restrict internet gun sales. Restrict carrying firearms across state lines. Will this stop all gun violence? Of course not. But it will help. Doing nothing helps no one...except for those who sell guns, that is.

5) Comment by Springer98 - 07/01/2013

I have guns that have been in my family for generations & have never been registered & never will be.The government will have a very hard time keeping tabs on weapons that they don't even know exist. There will always be guns in the U. S., no matter what laws are passed. There will also always be criminals in this country, with no morals whatsoever, that will be more than willing to rob, rape & murder. Those of you that are so against guns, don't own one! Just don't try to impose your beliefs on me, a law abiding citizen!!

6) Comment by Whatnow - 07/01/2013

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. - William S. Burroughs.

7) Comment by Whatnow - 07/01/2013

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. - William S. Burroughs.

8) Comment by nimby? - 07/01/2013

so , how do we identify the bad guys ?

9) Comment by DMJ - 07/01/2013

Everyone is law abiding right up until the point when they're not. Call me crazy, but it's especially dangerous when someone who reaches this point is armed.

10) Comment by nimby? - 07/01/2013

control ; since the government is unable to control those who break the law it feels it must exercise that option over those who do . makes sense to me ....

11) Comment by Buck - 07/01/2013

I read Mr. Kraemer letter and was impressed with his courage in contributing to this debate, but thought the writer may had misunderstood the underlying structure and purpose of the NRA. If one can say anything about such, that it is one of the most effective lobbying entities in the D.C. area. Mr. Burgess response follows the script and uses the personal attack mode at the very beginning, i.e. the old "leftist groups" label and tries the ploy of tying in the media. Of course no entity is specifically identified. The he quotes "Marvin" as his source. Marvin who? Looking back at other lobbying tactics it becomes clear these are always the same implored be it for tobacco, defense, medical, energy, etc. The small arms industry uses a powerful human emotion that drives it's success, FEAR. The industry has coupled with a once respected organization, National Rifle Association, and compromised it's initial purpose and via providing a funding stream has given the perception it is powerful political force. It's about the money. In dealing with similar lobby groups I always find it interesting that some of their basic talking points exposes flaws. For instance the claim that the membership is approximately 4 million ( less that 1% of the country"s population). As we say, consider the source. Interesting that several recent polls give indications that of this membership, a good deal have qualms about the leadership and it's positions. The issue therefore is who is driving the organization. A review of it's financing may share some light. It may be effective in doling out contribution to the political world, but perhaps the trust that we have of the House of Representative may be indicator that these funds are not being used in the most constructive manner. As per Mr. Burgess information, his mention of Australia is especially interesting. One aspect of it's approach is too require that when one seeks to get a weapon, there must be at least one character witness. The bottom line is that this is a money issue that is especially manifest in the public health numbers re incidents with firearms. Note homicides are one part, but there are also suicides, accidents and the most significant, wounds.

12) Comment by DMJ - 07/01/2013

Also, Bighug...gun control laws can't work on a city-by-city basis. Think about it...what good would gun control laws do in one city when that city is surrounded by a country with lax gun laws? We've been through this before.

13) Comment by DMJ - 07/01/2013

Jesus. Here we go again with the complete gun ban vs. no regulations bogus debate. As if those were the only 2 options. By the way, Switzerland does make military-eligible citizens have a rifle, but they also have a strict permit-issuing system. They have a comprehensive government registry and database. They limit how many guns a person can get, how they can buy them (no pawn shops, gun shows or "private-sellers") which types of guns they can own, and how much ammo a person can have. IF ONLY the U.S. had gun control as strict as Switzerland. I would consider that a huge victory for the cause of gun control. Also.... someone should remind Mr. Burgess how homocides in Australia have decreased after they issued an assault weapons ban after their most recent mass shooting.

14) Comment by Hello Baton Rouge - 07/01/2013

twinkie1cat - Here is a fact of life. Making guns illegal won't change a killers mind about getting one. Not sure if you realize it, but killing someone is already illegal. How's that law working out? Or do you think that a murderer is going to have a change of heart about breaking the gun ownership law but has no hang-ups about breaking the murder law? Oh, you do don't you. Bless your heart for not having a clue how the world works.

15) Comment by tradewinns - 07/01/2013

gun controls only work well with an intelligent society. we don't have that.

16) Comment by Bighug - 07/01/2013

What's wrong with the website today? It is posting my messages without my hitting submit, then not posting all I wrote. The reference was supposed to read "Exodus 29:18."

17) Comment by Bighug - 07/01/2013

The reference to Jehovah is from Exodus 19:18.

18) Comment by Bighug - 07/01/2013

There are comparisons here in the US on effectiveness of gun laws. Compare the crime rates of New Hampshire and Vermont, places with the most open laws for gun ownership, with Chicago and D.C., with some of the strictest laws. You don't seem to get the message, twinkie. It is already against the law to kill someone with a gun. What law do you propose that outlaws will obey? Would you also require us to get a license each time we buy a hamburger? Shame on those who would kill one of God's creatures for the sake of a cheeseburger! I'm not sure which god you refer to, but Jehovah may also need a license. He does enjoy the aroma of burning meat.

19) Comment by Bighug - 07/01/2013

20) Comment by Whatnow - 07/01/2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yATeti5GmI8

21) Comment by nimby? - 07/01/2013

if someone bought a gun in Virginia and brought it into D.C. they would be breaking the law , making them a criminal . we have established that criminals don't obey or care for laws , so ....

22) Comment by [e-mail] - 07/01/2013

What hubris is this, that some among us want to rule the rest of us in spite of our inalienable rights? I don't want people who believe that if we all just cower and hide that violent people will leave us alone dominating the rest of us. The fact that Amerians are guaranteed these rights is justification enough; end of debate.

23) Comment by twinkie1cat - 06/01/2013

Here is the fact of life. If you don't have a gun you cannot use it to kill someone. It is just that simple. Other weapons, except perhaps bombs and grenades have to be used up close and personal. You don't have to see your victim as a human being. That should stop almost everyone from killing except for the severely mentally deranged and psychopaths and sociopaths. Get rid of assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. Let those who get a thrill from killing God's creatures have licensed, traceable, single shot rifles and shotguns and require them to demonstrate responsible hunting, including eating or donating the meat so that they are not just being Sara Palins about it.