A year ago this website took a moment amid the post-Newtown, Connecticut handwringing to point out that Chicago – home to a leftist mayor and some of the nation’s harshest anti-Second Amendment laws – was the murder capital of America.
“Anti-Second Amendment laws don’t stop violence … they invite it,” we wrote. “Meanwhile elevated levels of gun ownership have been proven to deter violent crime, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual reports make abundantly clear.”
Oh, and then there’s the pesky fact that the Second Amendment is … well … the Second Amendment.
Accordingly, U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang ruled this week that Chicago’s ban on gun sales within its city limits represented
“(C)ertain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,” Chang ruled. “Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms.”
Damn right …
31 comments
So. why is Australia gun free and a lot safer after their ban on most guns in 1996?
Since they confiscated most of the guns owned by citizens, I understand crimes and violence have increased greatly, there. Not sure what you consider to be “safer”.
“Figures don’t lie, but liars figure” It is extremely important to note the difference between violent crime statistics in the US and Australia. If you lazily just compare “violent crime” statistics, which is exactly what you did, you would be comparing apples to oranges. Australia does not have a single category for violent crime. Rather, violent crime is classified under a number of different categories that often indicate a range of both violent and non-violent behavior. There is your difference, in the way the statistics are kept. Again, statistics are nothing without context. Australia is NOT more violent than the US, not by a long shot.
and they didn’t confiscate “most of the weapons owned by citizens”, they had a buyback program. And citizens aren’t allowed to own guns over there in the first place, they don’t have a 2nd amendment from the 1700’s providing that luxury. Only certain groups are allowed to own certain types of guns.
In other words, with regard to “confiscation”, same difference.
Actually under English Common Law (which Australia is under) that predates the Constitution, individuals did have a right to keep and bear arms and the “Castle Doctrine” and “stand your ground” were firmly in effect.
Yeah, totally comparable comparison – a completely homogenistic population(a population which is only a little better than double the size of Chicago), which also happens to not have the same demographic history or border dynamics that we’ve always had. Good call sir…
Demographics and border security? Really? That’s the best argument you could come up with? lol
It’s actually a very sound argument. When your borders are protected by great white sharks and customs agents who have the same temperament, you tend to not get a lot of unwanted “narco-traffic related, gang violence” that account for a significant margin of our gun violence. Additionally the semi-homogenous nature of Australia’s society has an overall tendency to eliminate “class” and “race” friction much like Japan.
While we’re in Oz, let’s look at what happened after their near gun ban went in effect.
Dr. Weatherburn, statistician for the Melbourne PD – “I would need to see more convincing evidence than there is to be able to say that gun laws have had any effect …The best that could be said for the tougher laws is there has been no other mass killing using firearms [since Port Arthur]”.
“Suicide by gun fell – but, hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell.”:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html
Homicide by gun fell but there was a corresponding increase in homicide by knife/sharp instrument according to Australian
government’s Institute of Criminology:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html
Murder and suicide were already on a downward trend long before the ’96 law was enacted – the law did nothing to affect that trend in the long term and actually increased gun crime in the short term – as the criminals who chose to use guns
were caught and imprisoned, the rate went back to its original trend line.
Australia’s experience is not a panacea to hang your hat on.
I have a poster that show the following, but since we can’t post photos any more, here is the content–
COMMON MURDER WEAPONS AND THEIR ALTERNATE USES
——————————
kitchen knife…………food preparation
bottle of poison……..pest control
hammer……………….building stuff
dynamite………………demolition
axe………………………splitting logs
chain saw……………..cutting trees
rifle………………………hunting
wood chipper………..chipping wood
ak-47…………………..NOTHING
ak-47………………..defend yourself against an oppressive government
Bingo! We have a winner…
Chuck Norris’s blood type is also AK-47
The United Nations is not made up of people from around the world. It consists of governments from around the world, the enterprises meant to control the people of the world. Gun-control is an evil and draconian way to control these people, it reduces the common man to the status of herd animals. This is why governments propagate it. Gun-control does not make you safer (unless you are a criminal), it makes governments safer. Consider the proposed “assault weapons ban”.
America in perspective:
Total murders- 12,664
Handguns- 6,220
Knives-1,694
Hands and feet-728
Hammers + clubs-496
All rifles- 323 (that includes your “assault” + .50 rifles)
Source: FBI 2011
Why would anyone suggest banning the semi-auto rifle when more people have been murdered with “hands and feet” then all types of rifles? Because it is an effective battle weapon and the one a modern day Minute Man would carry. This is what concerns them, not your safety.
If I recall correctly, shotguns were in the 400 range and the handguns when analyzed by situation, 60% or so were drug/gang related.
The FBI considers between 50% and 80% of our Nation’s murder and crime rates to be of gang origin. This is why inner cities have higher crime problems then suburbs or rural areas.
That’s great Shifty except that almost no one in the US has shot much less owned an AK-47. An AK-47 by definition is fully automatic and they’ve been tightly restricted for a very long time.
The AK itself isn’t a bad hunting rifle (I think they’re uncomfortable to shoot, but millions of insurgents can’t be wrong). The 7.62×39 round is an ideal round and in fact, Ruger make a gun called the ranch rifle for it. It’s ideal for someone who wants to control predators on a farm, like wolves or foxes or cattle thieves. Ruger also makes the Ranch Rifle in 5.56×45 or .223.
…and I don’t recall the part in the Second Amendment that says, “The right to keep and bear arms which serve some other useful purpose other than being a firearm.”
PS- this poster was made to show that not all murders are by firearms. (see williamdiamon below).
For people who understand sociology and statistical analysis, those are pretty damn good references.
As my mother used to say, “what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?”
This is what happened in Australia,
“Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively.”
They have reverted to a “might makes right” society. Notice rape has increased 20 percent? Violent assaults 40 percent? It is THE reason to carry. Protection of yourself and loved ones, the innocent and community. Violent assault, home invasions, strong arm robberies. Compare the rates of these crimes before and after. Now that the innocent has only kitchen utensils to defend with as long as the criminal is bigger, or in multiples, there is no more deterrent. Think that’s a good thing?
England is similar, with a higher violent crime rate than America.
JJ Evans grew up in the projects of Chicago and was shot by Mad Dog of the Satan’s Knights. I know the violence on the streets and every mentally stable law abiding citizen has the right to own a gun. Guns are to protect us from the criminals and the politicians…oh, that’s redundant, politicians are criminals.
“every mentally stable law abiding citizen has the right to own a gun”
—– key point = mentally stable
one word —- Five Points
A year ago this website took a moment amid the post-Newtown, Connecticut handwringing
Read more at https://www.fitsnews.com/2014/01/07/chicago-gun-ban-struck/#HeZ7hB2FSllyH6ip.99
Yeah, we don’t want to spend too much time wringing our hands over 20 murdered children.
Apples and oranges, Rick. Australia has a population of 23 million, who never had the right to possess firearms. Never. So to claim that a “gun ban” in 1996 has led to a dramatic increase in safety is disingenuous. Australia has experienced a 44% increase in assault in the last 12 months, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. a person is only as safe as they make themselves, whether in a country of 23 million, or a city of 2.7 million.
The first law of nature, that of self-preservation, is supreme to all other laws and/or regulations imposed by a government. Saying the people never had the right to possess firearms is false, as the right to self defense by any means necessary is an inalienable right afforded upon birth, not “given” by some other entity.
I can hear the Libtards now:
“These bloodthirsty gun nuts wont be happy until we have a murder rate on par with Honduras”
“He was bought off by the 1%”
The 2nd Amendment is law, deal with it.
“The 2nd Amendment is law, deal with it.” Amen to that – if you really want to control people’s guns, start working on gaining support for repealing that amendment.
The proper response, when someone is shooting at you is to shoot back. You will need a gun for this. It is also the only way to protect an innocent, If you care as much about people as you think you do. If you do not have a gun, call police. Why? Because they have a gun. / Reread paragraph until it sinks in.