Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
317 bytes removed ,  06:30, June 27, 2016
clean up & uniformity
Line 1: Line 1:  
'''Gun control''' is [[leftist]] [[doublespeak]] and a term used when advocating [[unconstitutional]] laws designed to disarm the American people by restricting the lawful purchase, ownership, or carrying of guns, under the guise of "public safety." Studies show that increasing lawful access to guns results in less crime,<ref>''Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws'', Cramer C and Kopel D. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994</ref> but, despite the fact that gun ownership is a [[civil right]], leftists and [[liberals]] alike push gun control because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection while disarming citizens capable of fighting back against [[tyranny]]. The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward, and hence the primary supporters of gun control are the [[liberal media]] and [[leftist]] politicians.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref>  In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, although their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there. But leftists want gun control because fewer guns means greater dependency on government.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece</ref>   
 
'''Gun control''' is [[leftist]] [[doublespeak]] and a term used when advocating [[unconstitutional]] laws designed to disarm the American people by restricting the lawful purchase, ownership, or carrying of guns, under the guise of "public safety." Studies show that increasing lawful access to guns results in less crime,<ref>''Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws'', Cramer C and Kopel D. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994</ref> but, despite the fact that gun ownership is a [[civil right]], leftists and [[liberals]] alike push gun control because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection while disarming citizens capable of fighting back against [[tyranny]]. The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward, and hence the primary supporters of gun control are the [[liberal media]] and [[leftist]] politicians.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref>  In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, although their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there. But leftists want gun control because fewer guns means greater dependency on government.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece</ref>   
   −
Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]],<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref> as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]].  Genocide has occurred only after gun control first disarmed the citizenry.<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/>
+
Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]],<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly">"In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref> as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]].  Genocide has occurred only after gun control first disarmed the citizenry.<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/>
    
Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns lead to less crime, although guns are primarily defensive weapons<ref>People who support gun control claim that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns.  Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref> (see [[Concealed carry]]).
 
Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns lead to less crime, although guns are primarily defensive weapons<ref>People who support gun control claim that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns.  Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref> (see [[Concealed carry]]).
Line 29: Line 29:  
Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured.  "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures.  This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>   
 
Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured.  "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures.  This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>   
   −
There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref> Although from 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University) <ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>  
+
There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref> Although from 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University) <ref name="theage.com.au">http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>  
    
Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>
 
Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>
−
[[File:Send_a_gun_to_a_British_home.jpg|thumb|right|[[Second Amendment]]-supporting [[American]] [[citizen]]s gifted their [[firearm]]s to [[gun free zone]]-[[gun control]] supporting [[British]] citizens during [[World War II]] via [[The American Committee for the Defense of British Homes]]]]
+
[[File:Send_a_gun_to_a_British_home.jpg|thumb|right|[[Second Amendment]]-supporting [[American]] [[citizen]]s gifted their [[firearm]]s to [[gun free zone]]-gun control supporting [[British]] citizens during [[World War II]] via [[The American Committee for the Defense of British Homes]]]]
   −
:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>   
+
:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>   
   −
Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government.  Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.
+
Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government.  Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]]—if not more so—ever since.
    
The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
 
The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
−
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>
+
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.&nbsp;15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>
    
== Trends ==
 
== Trends ==
Line 81: Line 81:     
[[Emily Miller]] wrote,
 
[[Emily Miller]] wrote,
−
"New York City Mayor [[Michael R. Bloomberg]] has spent tens of millions of his billions trying to get his gun bans instituted in the rest of America, even though these laws have never stopped criminals from getting guns."<ref> [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/miller-bloomberg-loses-stop-and-frisk-and-nra-gets/ Bloomberg loses stop and frisk, and NRA gets blamed: The mayor’s default disgust for gun owners tarnishes his life-saving program] - [[Emily Miller]]</ref>
+
"New York City Mayor [[Michael R. Bloomberg]] has spent tens of millions of his billions trying to get his gun bans instituted in the rest of America, even though these laws have never stopped criminals from getting guns."<ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/miller-bloomberg-loses-stop-and-frisk-and-nra-gets/ Bloomberg loses stop and frisk, and NRA gets blamed: The mayor’s default disgust for gun owners tarnishes his life-saving program] - [[Emily Miller]]</ref>
    
==Constitutional Debate==
 
==Constitutional Debate==
Line 88: Line 88:  
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
   −
Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The reason for this was the fact that the supplying of guns for the military and militas was already provided for in Article I Section 8 as a power of Congress.  The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June, 2008, Heller v District of Columbia.
+
Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The reason for this was the fact that the supplying of guns for the military and militas was already provided for in Article I Section 8 as a power of Congress.  The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June 2008, Heller v District of Columbia.
    
The majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.
 
The majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.
Line 118: Line 118:  
== Sexism of gun control ==
 
== Sexism of gun control ==
   −
Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as many handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref>  Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.
+
Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as many handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/</ref>  Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.
    
== Elitism  of gun control ==
 
== Elitism  of gun control ==
   −
Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref>  These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.
+
Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun.<ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/</ref>  These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.
    
== Gun control outside the United States ==
 
== Gun control outside the United States ==
Line 132: Line 132:  
In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]]." In [[Switzerland]], on the other hand, gun ownership is quite widespread, which no doubt contributes to its reputation as a peaceful  and neutral country.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/switzerland.shooting Gun control in Switzerland]</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States". Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where most replicas are outlawed.
 
In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]]." In [[Switzerland]], on the other hand, gun ownership is quite widespread, which no doubt contributes to its reputation as a peaceful  and neutral country.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/switzerland.shooting Gun control in Switzerland]</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States". Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where most replicas are outlawed.
   −
In Australia, gun violence has always been significantly lower than other types of violence.<ref>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html</ref>. Australia has not experienced considerable violence problems with legally purchased guns. It has always had a much lower homicide rate than the more violent culture in the [[United States]].<ref>In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population.  In the US it is about 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.</ref> From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University).<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>  
+
In Australia, gun violence has always been significantly lower than other types of violence.<ref>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html</ref> Australia has not experienced considerable violence problems with legally purchased guns. It has always had a much lower homicide rate than the more violent culture in the [[United States]].<ref>In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population.  In the US it is about 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.</ref> From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University).<ref name="theage.com.au"/>  
   −
Gun control began in Australia in response to fears that guns would be used by home-grown Communist Revolutionaries.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083528 This study discusses the parallel policies of early-mid 20th century Britain and Australia.</ref> The most restrictive reforms were made in 1996 and 2002, following highly publicized shootings.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref>
+
Gun control began in Australia in response to fears that guns would be used by home-grown Communist Revolutionaries.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083528 This study discusses the parallel policies of early-mid 20th century Britain and Australia.</ref> The most restrictive reforms were made in 1996 and 2002, following highly publicized shootings.<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref>
   −
Both sets of reforms (1996 and 2002) were lead by Prime Minister [[John Howard]] of the Coalition(Australia’s conservative government). Howard was well known as an anti-gun advocate.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> The move offended gun supporters, many of whom had traditionally supported the Coalition.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> Despite the loss of this voting group, Howard won elections following both reforms (in 1998 and 2004).
+
Both sets of reforms (1996 and 2002) were lead by Prime Minister [[John Howard]] of the Coalition(Australia’s conservative government). Howard was well known as an anti-gun advocate.<ref name="ReferenceB">http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> The move offended gun supporters, many of whom had traditionally supported the Coalition.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> Despite the loss of this voting group, Howard won elections following both reforms (in 1998 and 2004).
   −
There is controversy over the success of Australia’s gun restrictions. Studies suggest overall gun violence has decreased since the 1996 and 2002 bans.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref> However, Australia’s bike and drug gangs, the main perpetrators of gun violence, still easily access illegal firearms.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-disarming-cause/2006/04/27/1145861489519.html</ref> Further, the overall homicide rate remains constant.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04
+
There is controversy over the success of Australia’s gun restrictions. Studies suggest overall gun violence has decreased since the 1996 and 2002 bans.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> However, Australia’s bike and drug gangs, the main perpetrators of gun violence, still easily access illegal firearms.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-disarming-cause/2006/04/27/1145861489519.html</ref> Further, the overall homicide rate remains constant.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04
 
/27/1145861484114.html?page=2</ref>
 
/27/1145861484114.html?page=2</ref>
   Line 151: Line 151:  
*In 1935, [[China]] established gun control from 1948-1952 20 million political dissidents were killed.
 
*In 1935, [[China]] established gun control from 1948-1952 20 million political dissidents were killed.
   −
*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>
+
*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated.<ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>
    
*In 1956, [[Cambodia]] established gun control and between 1975 and 1977 one million oppositionals were exterminated.
 
*In 1956, [[Cambodia]] established gun control and between 1975 and 1977 one million oppositionals were exterminated.
Line 165: Line 165:  
== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==
 
== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==
   −
''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''
+
{{Main|Young mass murderers}}
    
Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.
 
Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.
Line 177: Line 177:  
* Victim disarmament
 
* Victim disarmament
   −
==See Also==
+
==See also==
 
* [[Gun control quotes]]
 
* [[Gun control quotes]]
 
* [[Gun free zone]]s: [[Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists]]
 
* [[Gun free zone]]s: [[Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists]]
Line 189: Line 189:  
* [[Fourth generation warfare]]
 
* [[Fourth generation warfare]]
   −
==External Links==
+
==External links==
    
=== Opposed to gun control ===
 
=== Opposed to gun control ===
Line 221: Line 221:  
{{reflist|2}}
 
{{reflist|2}}
   −
{{Template:Second Amendment topics}}
+
{{Second Amendment topics}}
   −
[[Category : Gun Free Zones]]
+
[[Category:Gun Free Zones]]
−
[[Category : Gun control]]
+
[[Category:Gun control]]
−
[[Category : Anti Second Amendment]]
+
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
−
[[Category : United States Political Terms]]
+
[[Category:United States Political Terms]]
−
[[category : Second Amendment]]
+
[[Category:Second Amendment]]
−
[[Category : Oppression]]
+
[[Category:Oppression]]
−
[[Category : Liberalism]]
+
[[Category:Liberalism]]
−
[[Category : Communism]]
+
[[Category:Communism]]
−
[[Category : Socialism]]
+
[[Category:Socialism]]
−
[[Category : Marxism]]
+
[[Category:Marxism]]
−
[[Category : Police State]]
+
[[Category:Police State]]
−
[[Category : Welfare State]]
+
[[Category:Welfare State]]
−
[[Category : Professor Values]]
+
[[Category:Professor Values]]
−
[[Category : Man-Made Disasters]]
+
[[Category:Man-Made Disasters]]
Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,183

edits

Navigation menu