…Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was “in startling free-fall.” We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.”

Connect the dots. The US has seen crime dramatically decrease while the UK has seen it dramatically increase. More specific in regards to the UK violent crime rate,Bloomberg reports in 2005:

In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.

Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

So, what changed in 1954?

I am guessing there's a lot of mistaking spurious correlation for causation going on here.

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

Ban on private handgun ownership.

Well, at least the 'causal sequence' is plausible. Now, where's the actual demonstration that the null hypothesis that the two variables are not causally related can be rejected?

How about France or Canada? What's happening there?

Mind you, I am not supporting the gun-control argument, either.

I just think both 'arguments' are bullshit.

Is it your position that, ceteris paribus, the laxer the gun-laws the lower the violent crime rate?

No.

Well, good, then.

I am with you on rejecting, as well, the position that the 'tougher'/more stringent the gun-laws the lower the violent crime-rate, ceteris paribus.

I think the laxity-strength of gun laws and the violent crime rate are, at best, both caused by a third or third set of variables.

I think that taking the self defense capability away from the honest citizen is always going to lead to more crime against said citizen unless there is some other effective way to protect him or to prevent crime.

There are extremes at both ends of the weapons law spectrum and I believe there is plenty of room in the middle for safe, sane allowance for the citizens to own firearms and other weapons.

Fine, I'll play. What qualifies a politician as a 'gun grabber'?

Better yet, what must a politician be for in order for him/her to qualify as a NON 'gun grabber'?

Someone with a thorough understanding of the 2nd Amendment, who votes accordingly, and realizes the US political class ultimately wants to ban firearm owership in this country.

So, someone whose understanding of the 2nd Amendment agrees with yours and who votes accordingly. Also, someone who's given to believing far-fetched theories about the existence of a so-called 'political class' and asserts that he/she has some sort of direct line of access to "its" ultimate desires.

The second amendment is just a clear as any of the others in the Bill of Rights.

Obviously. That's why there's never been any dispute as to its implications. Silly me.

So, someone whose understanding of the 2nd Amendment agrees with yours and who votes accordingly.

Also, someone who's given to believing far-fetched theories about the existence of a so-called 'political class' and asserts that he/she has some sort of direct line of access to "its" ultimate desires.

(January 29, 2008) There are several ways for a person to unintentionally commit a felony, but most of them are looked at by prosecutors, judges, and juries as the accidents they are and dealt with accordingly. Such is not always the case however, especially when firearms are involved; for the past 2 years David Olofson has been learning that the hard way. Olofson is a regular guy who happens to be fond of AR15 style sport-utility rifles. He loaned a rifle to a friend. While the friend was shooting it he moved the safety switch to a point beyond the Fire position. The rifle fired a couple of short bursts and jammed. Someone at or near the club called the police to complain about machinegun fire. The police notified the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and David Olofson was subsequently charged and convicted of illegally transferring a machinegun.

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has filed a pro-gun amendment to HR 980, and it
could be voted on as early as tomorrow!

This amendment would protect the right of citizens to carry concealed
weapons (outside of their home state) in states that allow concealed carry.

Sen. Vitter explains that his amendment does not violate the rights of
states as it "does NOT establish national standards for concealed
carry, nor
does it provide for a national carry permit."

In other words, the Vitter amendment specifically says that state laws
concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried
shall be followed. "My amendment will not federalize concealed carry
permits but simply requires concealed carry permits to be recognized in
other states that allow concealed carry permits," Vitter said.

This is a real reciprocity provision which grants citizens the
"full faith
and credit" protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the
Constitution.
Section 1 of this article says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Vitter says that this constitutional provision authorizes the Congress to
pass legislation forcing each state to recognize the "public
Acts" of other
states. So if states are not willing to recognize another state's laws,
Congress has the authority to pass laws to require recognition of those
measures.

It's just like with driver's licenses. If certain states refused to honor
the driver's licenses of citizens in other states, Congress could pass
legislation (under Article IV) to require every state to honor all licenses.


ACTION: Please urge your Senators to vote for the Vitter amendment to HR
980 to protect the right to carry concealed firearms outside of your home
state.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written
e-mail message below. And, you can call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or
toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

Pure idiocy. Gay rights? What the fark?

I suppose getting federally-paid-for or subsidized housing has now become a citizen-right. Thus, no reasonable regulation of one's right to keep and bear arms can be imposed on recipients of federal housing.

Only rich people are covered by the Constitution.

I do like the word imposed, sums it up nicely.

What's wrong with the word/term imposed? Aren't all regulations impositions?

What the fark is wrong with you, anyway?

Another example of why being big enough to rip some fool's arm off and beat him with it is a good thing...

Wouldn't that make them unarmed?

Only a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller case, which struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and allowed having a firearm in operable condition at home, D.C. has passed "emergency" law and new police regulations intended to retain as much of the ban and storage requirement as possible. The law was crafted in consultation with the Brady Campaign, according to the Washington Post.

There are many objectionable features to the new D.C. law and regulations, but two stand out as particularly egregious. Though the Supreme Court ruled that D.C. could not ban handguns, the new rules would still ban all or most semi-automatic pistols. And in spite of the fact that the court ruled that D.C. cannot ban the use of guns for protection in the home, the District still prohibits having a gun loaded and ready unless an attack within your home is imminent or underway.

Without Congress' intervention, D.C. can violate the intent of the Heller decision indefinitely. That is because under "Home Rule," D.C.'s emergency bills are not subject to review by Congress, and D.C. can reinstitute "emergency" laws every 90 days. The city's officials are already thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court.

"They're doing everything that they can to not comply with the Supreme Court ruling," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, who characterized the new law as "a joke." "Unless the criminal calls you beforehand and lets you know he's coming over ... you're going to be left defenseless."

In a true case of irony, and a fine example of the absurdity of the District's "compliance" with the Supreme Court's decision, Dick Heller, the man who brought the lawsuit against the District, and on whose case the Court ruled, was among the first in line this week to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic pistol, he was rejected! Heller's gun has a seven round magazine. D.C.'s law defines any semi-automatic as a "machine gun" if it is "capable of" firing more than 12 shots without reloading. D.C. police interpret this as banning any "bottom-loading" semi-automatic handgun, regardless of its actual capacity. That's outrageous.

As things currently stand, a handful of arrogant politicians in a city that accounts for less than two-tenths of one percent of the population of the country, and less than two one-thousandths of one percent of the country's land mass, appear determined to disregard a decision of the country's highest court. Therefore, it's time for them to be taught as much about the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (which defines Congress's total authority over the District of Columbia), as they were recently taught about the Second Amendment.

In an effort to remedy the District's arrogant flouting of the Supreme Court's clear mandates, Representative Mark Souder (R-Ind.) recently introduced H. Res. 1331, a rule to govern House consideration of a modified version of H.R. 1399--the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act." (H.R. 1399 was introduced in March of 2007 and has 247 cosponsors. For more information on H.R. 1399 and its Senate companion bill, S. 1001 by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), please go to www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=72&issue=020)

H. Res. 1331 would force House consideration of H.R. 1399 if activated by a discharge petition, which will require 218 congressional signatures. It would provide for speedy consideration of legislation to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller by repealing the provisions of the D.C. Code that were at issue in that case, and by preventing the District from enacting the very restrictions they are now trying to foist on their residents' Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

NRA-ILA is fully committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding residents of Washington, D.C., and will fight this critically important battle until victory is in hand.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to press Congressional leadership to bring H.R. 1399 to the House floor. It's time to nullify, once and for all, the unconstitutional gun laws that Washington, D.C.'s government has imposed on D.C. residents and other Americans for more than 30 years.

Only a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller case, which struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and allowed having a firearm in operable condition at home, D.C. has passed "emergency" law and new police regulations intended to retain as much of the ban and storage requirement as possible. The law was crafted in consultation with the Brady Campaign, according to the Washington Post.

There are many objectionable features to the new D.C. law and regulations, but two stand out as particularly egregious. Though the Supreme Court ruled that D.C. could not ban handguns, the new rules would still ban all or most semi-automatic pistols. And in spite of the fact that the court ruled that D.C. cannot ban the use of guns for protection in the home, the District still prohibits having a gun loaded and ready unless an attack within your home is imminent or underway.

Without Congress' intervention, D.C. can violate the intent of the Heller decision indefinitely. That is because under "Home Rule," D.C.'s emergency bills are not subject to review by Congress, and D.C. can reinstitute "emergency" laws every 90 days. The city's officials are already thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court.

"They're doing everything that they can to not comply with the Supreme Court ruling," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, who characterized the new law as "a joke." "Unless the criminal calls you beforehand and lets you know he's coming over ... you're going to be left defenseless."

In a true case of irony, and a fine example of the absurdity of the District's "compliance" with the Supreme Court's decision, Dick Heller, the man who brought the lawsuit against the District, and on whose case the Court ruled, was among the first in line this week to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic pistol, he was rejected! Heller's gun has a seven round magazine. D.C.'s law defines any semi-automatic as a "machine gun" if it is "capable of" firing more than 12 shots without reloading. D.C. police interpret this as banning any "bottom-loading" semi-automatic handgun, regardless of its actual capacity. That's outrageous.

As things currently stand, a handful of arrogant politicians in a city that accounts for less than two-tenths of one percent of the population of the country, and less than two one-thousandths of one percent of the country's land mass, appear determined to disregard a decision of the country's highest court. Therefore, it's time for them to be taught as much about the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (which defines Congress's total authority over the District of Columbia), as they were recently taught about the Second Amendment.

In an effort to remedy the District's arrogant flouting of the Supreme Court's clear mandates, Representative Mark Souder (R-Ind.) recently introduced H. Res. 1331, a rule to govern House consideration of a modified version of H.R. 1399--the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act." (H.R. 1399 was introduced in March of 2007 and has 247 cosponsors. For more information on H.R. 1399 and its Senate companion bill, S. 1001 by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), please go to www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=72&issue=020)

H. Res. 1331 would force House consideration of H.R. 1399 if activated by a discharge petition, which will require 218 congressional signatures. It would provide for speedy consideration of legislation to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller by repealing the provisions of the D.C. Code that were at issue in that case, and by preventing the District from enacting the very restrictions they are now trying to foist on their residents' Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

NRA-ILA is fully committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding residents of Washington, D.C., and will fight this critically important battle until victory is in hand.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to press Congressional leadership to bring H.R. 1399 to the House floor. It's time to nullify, once and for all, the unconstitutional gun laws that Washington, D.C.'s government has imposed on D.C. residents and other Americans for more than 30 years.

In a true case of irony, and a fine example of the absurdity of the District's "compliance" with the Supreme Court's decision, Dick Heller, the man who brought the lawsuit against the District, and on whose case the Court ruled, was among the first in line this week to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic pistol, he was rejected! Heller's gun has a seven round magazine. D.C.'s law defines any semi-automatic as a "machine gun" if it is "capable of" firing more than 12 shots without reloading. D.C. police interpret this as banning any "bottom-loading" semi-automatic handgun, regardless of its actual capacity. That's outrageous.

I wondered when the reality of the situation would reveal itself. I knew they weren't just going to roll over and legalize guns.



Nutty, but at least it looks like revolvers aren't machine guns.

Only if it's a 13 shooter.

The town of Wilmette, Illinois had a handgun ban on their books for almost 20 years. You may remember the town for its outrageous prosecution of Hale DeMar--the man in Wilmette who was forced to use a handgun to defend himself and his family against a convicted criminal who had broken into his home for the second time in as many nights.

Well, in the wake of last month's historic Supreme Court decision protecting an individual right to possess firearms, village trustees in the northern Chicago suburb recently voted unanimously to repeal the egregious ban and strike it from the books.

NRA filed lawsuits challenging local gun bans in Chicago and three of its suburbs the day after the Supreme Court decision. And the suits are already having an effect. Two of those three suburbs have already repealed their bans.
Wilmette officials have reportedly said the ban would probably not withstand legal challenges. A story on today's Chicagotribune.com noted that, unlike the other suburbs, Wilmette officials say they believe NRA didn't file suit against them because the village stopped enforcing the ban right after the Supreme Court ruling. The article also reported that Wilmette trustee Lali Watt says she doesn't believe her town has the necessary resources to fight NRA and keep the ban.