Monthly Archives: April 2013

Gun Debate by an Anti-Gun poster

Regarding the American Engineer Article “British Gun Ban of 1997 led to Huge Spike in Violent Crime

Anti-Gun Dan writes:

You are extraordinarily prejudice in your view about gun prohibition.

In order to promote your prejudice you have attempted to make a case against prohibition of guns by comparing violent crime statistics in the UK after the 1997 handgun ban but not those involved in just firearms, most specifically handguns.

I refer you to detailed statistics with respect to firearm crimes throughout England and Wales at the following site: http://www.gun-control-network…

This relates solely to firearm crimes. You will clearly see that handgun crime has reduced from a peak in 2001/2 of 5874 crimes to just 2651 during 2011/2. You will see further reductions with regard to crimes committed involving shotguns and other weapons.

The effect of any restrictive change in the law will inevitably lag as illegal guns remain in existence.

However you will clearly see from the statistics that there is a clear and substantial reduction in firearm crime as a result of banning handguns. The plan in the US is to ban assault weapons, ones that will multiply injuries and deaths. Why would anyone need an assault weapon for domestic use?

It is said that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. That is a conservative absurdity because people with guns kill people.

….

American Engineer Response:

Banning guns on an island nation has reduced gun violence.  However, when criminals no longer worry that grandma, stay-at-home moms, and the disabled have no means to defend themselves crime rises. A gun is a great equalizer when confronting a powerful criminal. If overall violent crime rises even while gun crimes go down have you really accomplished anything but lost freedom?

Dan asked the question: Why would anyone need an assault weapon for domestic use?  Great question.  I’ve asked Dan three times why there is a 2nd Amendment in the first place and what sparked the American Revolution on April 19th 1775.

The 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution affirms the rights of citizens to own guns for the purpose of opposing government tyranny. In other words, you could make the argument that citizens should be allowed to own whatever weapons were necessary to effectively oppose tyrannical government.  Note: it does not say the right to bear guns should not be infringed, it says “the right to bear arms”. Please note ALL of the first ten amendments of the US Constitution known as the “Bill of Rights” are there for one purpose as stated when the Bill of Rights were adopted “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Federal Government’s] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”

To better understand why the Bill of Rights is necessary please read the Declaration of Independence. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Finally, “Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as cutting or stabbing weapons. Those now having in their possession weapons and ammunition must at once surrender them to the local police authority.” – Where is that from?

All the best,

John