Re: Centers for Disease Control: No Conclusive Evidence that Gun Control Laws Reduce Violence

While I firmly believe that an armed society is a polite society, you are spreading unsubstantiated data without citing a source.

On 1/25/2011 2:52 PM, plainolamerican wrote:

since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!  It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!  While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.  There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.  You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.  Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.  The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.  With Guns………..We Are "Citizens". Without Them……..We Are "Subjects"  On Jan 25, 4:36 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote: 

    <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> Centers for Disease Control: No Conclusive Evidence that Gun Control Laws Reduce Violence<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/centers-for-disease-con...> *Scotty Starnes <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>*| January 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM | Tags: 2nd Amendment Rights<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=2nd-amendment-rights>, Arizona <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=arizona>, gun control<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=gun-control>, gun violence <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=gun-violence>, Jared Loughner <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=jared-loughner>, Rahm Emanuel <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=rahm-emanuel>, Second Amendment <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=second-amendment>, Tucson<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=tucson>| Categories: Political Issues <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?category_name=political-issues>| URL:http://wp.me/pvnFC-4eD  Gun control advocates have nothing to back up their claims that more gun laws will reduce violence. Once again, I point to Chicago and Washington, D.C. to bitch slap liberal claims that strict handgun controls, and handgun bans, reduce violence. Both of these cities have the strictest gun laws in the country, yet both are suffering from some of the highest crime rates in the nation.  By the way, since the ruling of Heller v. Washington, DC, the capitol has seen a decrease of 9 percent in their homicide rate. Robert A. Levy reports, via USActionNews.com<http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/gun-control-measures-dont-stop-violence/> :  Against the horrific backdrop of the Tucson, Arizona, tragedy, new gun control proposals are on the way. Some of our legislators will be tempted to apply Rahm Emanuel's aphorism, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."  For example, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, wants to outlaw magazines with more than 10 rounds — even those already in circulation. She hasn't explained how a ban on previously sold magazines would deter anyone but law-abiding citizens.  Still, the Supreme Court has suggested that sensible gun regulations may be constitutionally permissible. Sensible is not, however, what we have in Washington, Chicago, New York and other cities, where you can probably get a pizza delivery before a response from a 911 call. Police cannot be everywhere.  Selected proposals may nonetheless be constructive, with three important qualifications. First, government has the burden to show that a regulation will not unduly impede the use of firearms for self-defense. Second, ostensibly modest steps down a slippery slope must not compromise core Second Amendment rights. Third, a regulation must be effective in promoting public safety, when weighed against reliable evidence that past restrictions have not lessened the incidence of gun-related crimes.  Recall that Washington banned handguns for 33 years; during some of those years the city was known as the nation's murder capital. *Killers not deterred by laws against murder were not deterred by laws against owning guns*. Moreover, anti-gun regulations did not address the deep-rooted causes of violent crime — illegitimacy, drugs, alcohol abuse and dysfunctional schools — much less mental instability.  In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. *Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents*. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control reported on ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. *CDC's conclusion: There was no conclusive evidence that the laws reduced gun violence.*  So much for the quasi-religious faith that more controls mean fewer murders. There are about 500,000 gun-related crimes annually in the United States. Further, Americans own roughly 250 million guns. Assuming a different gun is used in each of the 500,000 crimes, *only 0.2% of guns are involved in crime each year*. A ban on firearms would be 99.8% over-inclusive.  Continue reading>>><http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/gun-control-measures-dont-stop-violence/>  Add a comment to this post<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/centers-for-disease-con...> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/scottystarnes.wordpress.com...> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/scottystarnes.wordpress.co...> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/scottystarnes.wordpress.com...> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/...> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/...> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/16283/> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/1...>    [image: WordPress]  WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>| Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>| Express yourself. Start a blog. <http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>  *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com 

--
When dealing with legal issues, far too many people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs who send out emails or hold weekend seminars! Learn how to control judges and lawyers from a lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning lawsuits!