Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:LRose

2009-12-11T03:07:11Z

LRose: saying hi!

== Hi Everyone! ==

Please leave me a message! I love to chat! [[User:LRose|LRose]] 22:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2009-12-10T04:46:22Z

LRose: /* Cleaning Up Australia References */ woah! Fixing my typos.

{{Articletalkheader|prefix=Archive_}}

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: Good improvement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!
::::::: Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.
::::::: I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.
::::::: The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is [[liberal]]. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

:::::::: It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor ''prohibiting'' abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Your claims about YECs voting for Obama are nothing more than assumptions based on simple averages, and you've completely sidestepped the point about YECs and materialists being completely incompatible.
::::::::: You are incorrect to claim that I am unwilling to state my other political positions, given that I have already stated a number of them. It is not my intention to ''discuss'' them here, as this is a page about gun control. But as ''you'' have brought them up, I will state them. First, I fail to see how a person who favours taxpayer-funded abortion can be ''against'' abortion. But here are my positions on the things that you question: I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where a choice has to be made between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. And yes, I favour prohibiting it. I favour lowering taxes. I support more free enterprise and less government. I oppose same-sex "marriage". Given that I agree with you on all those points, there should be no need to discuss them further, and I would hope that you will now acknowledge that I am no "liberal". Or will you instead ask further questions, trying to find something else to justify your opinion of me?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: Your conservative positions on those issues are welcome, but the rest of your posting is flawed. Many politicians do state they are against abortion, yet vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm sure you have many in Australia who do that, and I wonder if you vote for them based on what they say.

:::::::::: Your claim that YECs and materialists are "completely incompatible" is illogical, and you haven't explained the incompatibility. As I said (and you didn't address), belief in an occasional divine intervention does not necessarily negate one's adherence to materialism otherwise. [[Thomas the Apostle]], for example, believed in [[Jesus]] based on materialism, not despite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::::Andy, the incompatibly has been explained by three seperate editors. Pick one explanation, they all say pretty much the same thing, which just to make it easy to find is this: YEC is the explicit presupposition that a supernatural Creator supernaturally created the universe and told us how He did it by supernaturally inspiring human authors. Materialism is the explicit presupposition that nothing supernatural exists. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 10:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::: Regarding abortions, I think we are talking past each other a little. I agree that some are ''personally'' "against" abortions, in that they would not choose it themselves, but would not impose that on others, so might support taxpayer-funding of it. This is probably what you meant. I was talking about those (such as me) who are genuinely ''opposed'' to abortions, as in believing abortions to be wrong.
::::::::::: I did explain the incompatibility: materialists reject the supernatural, YECs require it. You can't reject the supernatural and simultaneously believe that supernatural interventions occur. Thomas accepted that the risen Christ was really Jesus based on ''physical evidence'', not a materialistic worldview. They are not the same thing. And I did address that, in my post below replying to the comments that I though were made by RodWeathers. Could you now address the question that I mistakenly put to him, about the polls asking people if they were YECs.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
: Well put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:: Just look at polling data and you'll see that millions of YECs are liberal and voted for Obama. You have free will to deny it, but it's as indisputable as 2+2=4.

:: The claim that YEC and materialism are "mutually exclusive" is likewise absurd. Divine intervention at the beginning (or otherwise) does not detract from materialism afterward. The polling data show that many YECs are very materialistic in their outlook, as are even more non-YECs. --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Materialism is the overemphasis on matter rather than principles. "Guns cause crime" is a materialistic falsehood. "Money causes injustice" is another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::: <s>RodWeathers</s> Andy, could you please point me to the polls that asked voters if they were YECs or not? Unless you do, I will presume that you are making the same sorts of assumptions that <s>Andy did</s> I commented on above.
::::: Thanks, though, for implicitly acknowledging that YEC and materialistic viewpoints are contradictory by inventing a contrived explanation to claim that they are not. Materialistic views do ''not'' allow for the supernatural at any time. Yes, there are some who believe that God started things off but then left them on their own (''almost'' a "materialism afterward" position), but these people are Deists, not YECs.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: That comment about polls is Andy's, not mine, but was missing a sig., which i've added. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:53, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: I'm curious, however. If YEC is materialistic, and bigbang+evolution is explicitly so, is there any non-materialistic origins theory? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Liberal]] Rant ==

Recently I tried to make an addition to this article which pointed out that while it may be true that "Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: self-defense" (from the article aready), it is also true that a decrease in gun ownership rates leads to a decrease in homicides, which i then cited with 2 scholarly journal articles,
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/455/1/63
http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=12000&article=00001&type=abstract

I thought, of course, this would be fine, i didnt remove any text, I meerly added what seems to be a legitimate if not universally accepted point.
However, my entry was deleted twice, according to Andy Schafly, was because he had seem me "push liberal untruths." (full response at http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly )

So my question is this... if Mr Schafly doesn't censor the truth, then why exactly does he delete well referenced points solely on the basis that he thinks they are 'liberal'?

:Your posting doesn't tell the whole story. I personally invited you to discuss and debate this here. Instead, you've gone into a rant. I doubt you've even read or critically examined the articles that you claim are "scholarly".

:[[Wikipedia]] will unthinkingly post material from liberal sources as though it must be true. We don't do that here. If the New York Times claimed that 2+2=5, we would not repeat that falsehood as Wikipedia might.

:I welcome an open-minded discussion about the illogical claim that guns, which are overwhelmingly defensive, somehow increase crime. So far, you haven't shown an interest in open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly, I have long sided with the pro-gun agenda, however, in trying to be open minded, I conducted research into the defensive use of guns. According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144624 this] report, "Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense." I think we both know that this is simply not true, but I was hoping you could provide some insights as to the nature of this deceit. Obviously, this reeks of liberal bias, as they baselessly attempt to portray lawful defensive use as illegal. I think this is representative of the deceit liberals proffer in fallacious attempts to slander gun ownership. [[User:JennaK|JennaK]] 12:23, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I think several of your postings are an example of [[liberal deceit]]. Perhaps you can explain, why you are so easily amused by your own games? I don't think being so easily amused by deceit is a sign of high intelligence or future success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:29, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: Yes, I would also enjoy an open minded discussion where we look up research to support our ideas, find none, and then call it a conspiracy against us. Has anyone ever considered that if all the research disagrees with your opinion, then it might be opinion thats wrong?

::::: Flanagan, logic and a wealth of research set forth in our [[gun control]] entry confirms that gun control increases crime. Liberals like gun control because they want to increase dependency on government. Open your mind if you want to discuss this. Please go somewhere else if you want to continue ranting. You're not going to fool anyone here by ranting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Cleaning Up Australia References ==

Hi!

I'm an Australian, and a Law student majoring in Domestic Law and Australian Politics at the Australian National University.

I noticed that a lot of the information in this article about Australia was wrong. Which is understandable! From what I've seen around here, most of the contributors are from the U.S.! I bet you don't get many news stories on what's happening here Down Under!

The 1996 and 2002 gun reforms were really interesting, because John Howard's Coalition (The Liberal & National Parties) really attacked a part of it's base, going after guns. Guns and gun control haven't historically been as hot an issue here, as they are in the U.S.. And, they also aren't a simple left/right, liberal/conservative issue. John Howard was one of this countries greatest conservatives, but he opposed guns (because of his personal religious doctrine).

Anyway, I've cleaned up the references to Australia in this article, and provided references for my changes. I've provided links to some of the data showing that the overall crime-rate hasn't been effected by gun control, and on the data relating to illegally acquired gun violence in Australia.

I don't want to make this an "Australia" dominated article, so I didn't expand the section too much. I took out the references to Australia from the opening section, partly because they were a bit confusing and wrong, and also because it seemed more appropriate to have that information under the "Gun Control Outside the U.S." section.

If you feel there's more of a role that the Australian example can play in this article, I have some great information on illegal guns and gang violence, and on the typical uses of guns in Australia (hunting, farmers protecting their lands from feral animals like foxes and cats, etc.). Also, there's more on Australia's history with guns, including the pre-WW2 practice of training local volunteers with guns to defend Australia, and the fears of communists using guns, as well as more modern arguments in favour of guns for sport!

I hope these edits help to add to the overall quality of Conservapedia! The more facts the better! =)

-Lex

[[User:LRose|LRose]] 23:43, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2009-12-10T04:43:11Z

LRose: explaining edits I made to the artical

{{Articletalkheader|prefix=Archive_}}

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: Good improvement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!
::::::: Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.
::::::: I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.
::::::: The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is [[liberal]]. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

:::::::: It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor ''prohibiting'' abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Your claims about YECs voting for Obama are nothing more than assumptions based on simple averages, and you've completely sidestepped the point about YECs and materialists being completely incompatible.
::::::::: You are incorrect to claim that I am unwilling to state my other political positions, given that I have already stated a number of them. It is not my intention to ''discuss'' them here, as this is a page about gun control. But as ''you'' have brought them up, I will state them. First, I fail to see how a person who favours taxpayer-funded abortion can be ''against'' abortion. But here are my positions on the things that you question: I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where a choice has to be made between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. And yes, I favour prohibiting it. I favour lowering taxes. I support more free enterprise and less government. I oppose same-sex "marriage". Given that I agree with you on all those points, there should be no need to discuss them further, and I would hope that you will now acknowledge that I am no "liberal". Or will you instead ask further questions, trying to find something else to justify your opinion of me?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: Your conservative positions on those issues are welcome, but the rest of your posting is flawed. Many politicians do state they are against abortion, yet vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm sure you have many in Australia who do that, and I wonder if you vote for them based on what they say.

:::::::::: Your claim that YECs and materialists are "completely incompatible" is illogical, and you haven't explained the incompatibility. As I said (and you didn't address), belief in an occasional divine intervention does not necessarily negate one's adherence to materialism otherwise. [[Thomas the Apostle]], for example, believed in [[Jesus]] based on materialism, not despite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::::Andy, the incompatibly has been explained by three seperate editors. Pick one explanation, they all say pretty much the same thing, which just to make it easy to find is this: YEC is the explicit presupposition that a supernatural Creator supernaturally created the universe and told us how He did it by supernaturally inspiring human authors. Materialism is the explicit presupposition that nothing supernatural exists. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 10:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::: Regarding abortions, I think we are talking past each other a little. I agree that some are ''personally'' "against" abortions, in that they would not choose it themselves, but would not impose that on others, so might support taxpayer-funding of it. This is probably what you meant. I was talking about those (such as me) who are genuinely ''opposed'' to abortions, as in believing abortions to be wrong.
::::::::::: I did explain the incompatibility: materialists reject the supernatural, YECs require it. You can't reject the supernatural and simultaneously believe that supernatural interventions occur. Thomas accepted that the risen Christ was really Jesus based on ''physical evidence'', not a materialistic worldview. They are not the same thing. And I did address that, in my post below replying to the comments that I though were made by RodWeathers. Could you now address the question that I mistakenly put to him, about the polls asking people if they were YECs.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
: Well put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:: Just look at polling data and you'll see that millions of YECs are liberal and voted for Obama. You have free will to deny it, but it's as indisputable as 2+2=4.

:: The claim that YEC and materialism are "mutually exclusive" is likewise absurd. Divine intervention at the beginning (or otherwise) does not detract from materialism afterward. The polling data show that many YECs are very materialistic in their outlook, as are even more non-YECs. --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Materialism is the overemphasis on matter rather than principles. "Guns cause crime" is a materialistic falsehood. "Money causes injustice" is another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::: <s>RodWeathers</s> Andy, could you please point me to the polls that asked voters if they were YECs or not? Unless you do, I will presume that you are making the same sorts of assumptions that <s>Andy did</s> I commented on above.
::::: Thanks, though, for implicitly acknowledging that YEC and materialistic viewpoints are contradictory by inventing a contrived explanation to claim that they are not. Materialistic views do ''not'' allow for the supernatural at any time. Yes, there are some who believe that God started things off but then left them on their own (''almost'' a "materialism afterward" position), but these people are Deists, not YECs.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: That comment about polls is Andy's, not mine, but was missing a sig., which i've added. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:53, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: I'm curious, however. If YEC is materialistic, and bigbang+evolution is explicitly so, is there any non-materialistic origins theory? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Liberal]] Rant ==

Recently I tried to make an addition to this article which pointed out that while it may be true that "Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: self-defense" (from the article aready), it is also true that a decrease in gun ownership rates leads to a decrease in homicides, which i then cited with 2 scholarly journal articles,
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/455/1/63
http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=12000&article=00001&type=abstract

I thought, of course, this would be fine, i didnt remove any text, I meerly added what seems to be a legitimate if not universally accepted point.
However, my entry was deleted twice, according to Andy Schafly, was because he had seem me "push liberal untruths." (full response at http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly )

So my question is this... if Mr Schafly doesn't censor the truth, then why exactly does he delete well referenced points solely on the basis that he thinks they are 'liberal'?

:Your posting doesn't tell the whole story. I personally invited you to discuss and debate this here. Instead, you've gone into a rant. I doubt you've even read or critically examined the articles that you claim are "scholarly".

:[[Wikipedia]] will unthinkingly post material from liberal sources as though it must be true. We don't do that here. If the New York Times claimed that 2+2=5, we would not repeat that falsehood as Wikipedia might.

:I welcome an open-minded discussion about the illogical claim that guns, which are overwhelmingly defensive, somehow increase crime. So far, you haven't shown an interest in open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly, I have long sided with the pro-gun agenda, however, in trying to be open minded, I conducted research into the defensive use of guns. According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144624 this] report, "Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense." I think we both know that this is simply not true, but I was hoping you could provide some insights as to the nature of this deceit. Obviously, this reeks of liberal bias, as they baselessly attempt to portray lawful defensive use as illegal. I think this is representative of the deceit liberals proffer in fallacious attempts to slander gun ownership. [[User:JennaK|JennaK]] 12:23, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I think several of your postings are an example of [[liberal deceit]]. Perhaps you can explain, why you are so easily amused by your own games? I don't think being so easily amused by deceit is a sign of high intelligence or future success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:29, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: Yes, I would also enjoy an open minded discussion where we look up research to support our ideas, find none, and then call it a conspiracy against us. Has anyone ever considered that if all the research disagrees with your opinion, then it might be opinion thats wrong?

::::: Flanagan, logic and a wealth of research set forth in our [[gun control]] entry confirms that gun control increases crime. Liberals like gun control because they want to increase dependency on government. Open your mind if you want to discuss this. Please go somewhere else if you want to continue ranting. You're not going to fool anyone here by ranting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Cleaning Up Australia References ==

Hi!

I'm an Australian, an a Law student majoring in Domestic Law and Australian Politics at the Australian National University.

I noticed that alot of the information in this artical about Australia was wrong. Which is understandable! From what I've seen around here, most of the contributors are from the U.S.! I bet you don't get many news stories on what's happening here Down Under!

The 1996 and 2002 gun reforms were really interesting, because John Howard's Coalition (The Liberal & National Parties) really attacked a part of it's base, going after guns. Guns and gun control haven't historically been as hot an issue here, as they are in the U.S.. And, they also aren't a simple left/right, liberal/conservative issue. John Howard was one of this countries greatest conservatives, but he opposed guns (because of his personal religious doctrine).

Anyway, I've cleaned up the references to Australia in this artical, and provided references for my changes. I've provided links to some of the data showing that the overall crime-rate hasn't been effected by gun control, and on the data relating to illegally accuired gun violence in Australia.

I don't want to make this an "Australia" dominated artical, so I didn't expand the section too much. I took out the references to Australia from the opening section, partyly because they were a bit confusing and wrong, and also because it seemed more appropriate to have that information under the "Gun Control Outside the U.S." section.

If you feel there's more of a role that the Australian example can play in this artical, I have some great information on illegal guns and gang violence, and on the typical uses of guns in Australia (hunting, farmers protecting their lands from ferral animals like foxes and cats, etc.). Also, there's more on Australia's history with guns, including the pre-WW2 practice of training local volunteers with guns to defend Australia, and the fears of communists using guns, as well as more modern arguments in favour of guns for sport!

I hope these edits help to add to the overall quality of Conservapedia! The more facts the better! =)

-Lex

[[User:LRose|LRose]] 23:43, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2009-12-10T04:42:35Z

LRose:

{{Articletalkheader|prefix=Archive_}}

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: Good improvement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!
::::::: Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.
::::::: I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.
::::::: The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is [[liberal]]. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

:::::::: It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor ''prohibiting'' abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Your claims about YECs voting for Obama are nothing more than assumptions based on simple averages, and you've completely sidestepped the point about YECs and materialists being completely incompatible.
::::::::: You are incorrect to claim that I am unwilling to state my other political positions, given that I have already stated a number of them. It is not my intention to ''discuss'' them here, as this is a page about gun control. But as ''you'' have brought them up, I will state them. First, I fail to see how a person who favours taxpayer-funded abortion can be ''against'' abortion. But here are my positions on the things that you question: I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where a choice has to be made between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. And yes, I favour prohibiting it. I favour lowering taxes. I support more free enterprise and less government. I oppose same-sex "marriage". Given that I agree with you on all those points, there should be no need to discuss them further, and I would hope that you will now acknowledge that I am no "liberal". Or will you instead ask further questions, trying to find something else to justify your opinion of me?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: Your conservative positions on those issues are welcome, but the rest of your posting is flawed. Many politicians do state they are against abortion, yet vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm sure you have many in Australia who do that, and I wonder if you vote for them based on what they say.

:::::::::: Your claim that YECs and materialists are "completely incompatible" is illogical, and you haven't explained the incompatibility. As I said (and you didn't address), belief in an occasional divine intervention does not necessarily negate one's adherence to materialism otherwise. [[Thomas the Apostle]], for example, believed in [[Jesus]] based on materialism, not despite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::::Andy, the incompatibly has been explained by three seperate editors. Pick one explanation, they all say pretty much the same thing, which just to make it easy to find is this: YEC is the explicit presupposition that a supernatural Creator supernaturally created the universe and told us how He did it by supernaturally inspiring human authors. Materialism is the explicit presupposition that nothing supernatural exists. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 10:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::: Regarding abortions, I think we are talking past each other a little. I agree that some are ''personally'' "against" abortions, in that they would not choose it themselves, but would not impose that on others, so might support taxpayer-funding of it. This is probably what you meant. I was talking about those (such as me) who are genuinely ''opposed'' to abortions, as in believing abortions to be wrong.
::::::::::: I did explain the incompatibility: materialists reject the supernatural, YECs require it. You can't reject the supernatural and simultaneously believe that supernatural interventions occur. Thomas accepted that the risen Christ was really Jesus based on ''physical evidence'', not a materialistic worldview. They are not the same thing. And I did address that, in my post below replying to the comments that I though were made by RodWeathers. Could you now address the question that I mistakenly put to him, about the polls asking people if they were YECs.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
: Well put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:: Just look at polling data and you'll see that millions of YECs are liberal and voted for Obama. You have free will to deny it, but it's as indisputable as 2+2=4.

:: The claim that YEC and materialism are "mutually exclusive" is likewise absurd. Divine intervention at the beginning (or otherwise) does not detract from materialism afterward. The polling data show that many YECs are very materialistic in their outlook, as are even more non-YECs. --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Materialism is the overemphasis on matter rather than principles. "Guns cause crime" is a materialistic falsehood. "Money causes injustice" is another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::: <s>RodWeathers</s> Andy, could you please point me to the polls that asked voters if they were YECs or not? Unless you do, I will presume that you are making the same sorts of assumptions that <s>Andy did</s> I commented on above.
::::: Thanks, though, for implicitly acknowledging that YEC and materialistic viewpoints are contradictory by inventing a contrived explanation to claim that they are not. Materialistic views do ''not'' allow for the supernatural at any time. Yes, there are some who believe that God started things off but then left them on their own (''almost'' a "materialism afterward" position), but these people are Deists, not YECs.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: That comment about polls is Andy's, not mine, but was missing a sig., which i've added. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:53, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: I'm curious, however. If YEC is materialistic, and bigbang+evolution is explicitly so, is there any non-materialistic origins theory? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Liberal]] Rant ==

Recently I tried to make an addition to this article which pointed out that while it may be true that "Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: self-defense" (from the article aready), it is also true that a decrease in gun ownership rates leads to a decrease in homicides, which i then cited with 2 scholarly journal articles,
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/455/1/63
http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=12000&article=00001&type=abstract

I thought, of course, this would be fine, i didnt remove any text, I meerly added what seems to be a legitimate if not universally accepted point.
However, my entry was deleted twice, according to Andy Schafly, was because he had seem me "push liberal untruths." (full response at http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly )

So my question is this... if Mr Schafly doesn't censor the truth, then why exactly does he delete well referenced points solely on the basis that he thinks they are 'liberal'?

:Your posting doesn't tell the whole story. I personally invited you to discuss and debate this here. Instead, you've gone into a rant. I doubt you've even read or critically examined the articles that you claim are "scholarly".

:[[Wikipedia]] will unthinkingly post material from liberal sources as though it must be true. We don't do that here. If the New York Times claimed that 2+2=5, we would not repeat that falsehood as Wikipedia might.

:I welcome an open-minded discussion about the illogical claim that guns, which are overwhelmingly defensive, somehow increase crime. So far, you haven't shown an interest in open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly, I have long sided with the pro-gun agenda, however, in trying to be open minded, I conducted research into the defensive use of guns. According to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144624 this] report, "Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense." I think we both know that this is simply not true, but I was hoping you could provide some insights as to the nature of this deceit. Obviously, this reeks of liberal bias, as they baselessly attempt to portray lawful defensive use as illegal. I think this is representative of the deceit liberals proffer in fallacious attempts to slander gun ownership. [[User:JennaK|JennaK]] 12:23, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I think several of your postings are an example of [[liberal deceit]]. Perhaps you can explain, why you are so easily amused by your own games? I don't think being so easily amused by deceit is a sign of high intelligence or future success.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:29, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: Yes, I would also enjoy an open minded discussion where we look up research to support our ideas, find none, and then call it a conspiracy against us. Has anyone ever considered that if all the research disagrees with your opinion, then it might be opinion thats wrong?

::::: Flanagan, logic and a wealth of research set forth in our [[gun control]] entry confirms that gun control increases crime. Liberals like gun control because they want to increase dependency on government. Open your mind if you want to discuss this. Please go somewhere else if you want to continue ranting. You're not going to fool anyone here by ranting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

== Cleaning Up Australia References ==

Hi!

I'm an Australian, an a Law student majoring in Domestic Law and Australian Politics at the Australian National University.

I noticed that alot of the information in this artical about Australia was wrong. Which is understandable! From what I've seen around here, most of the contributors are from the U.S.! I bet you don't get many news stories on what's happening here Down Under!

The 1996 and 2002 gun reforms were really interesting, because John Howard's Coalition (The Liberal & National Parties) really attacked a part of it's base, going after guns. Guns and gun control haven't historically been as hot an issue here, as they are in the U.S.. And, they also aren't a simple left/right, liberal/conservative issue. John Howard was one of this countries greatest conservatives, but he opposed guns (because of his personal religious doctrine).

Anyway, I've cleaned up the references to Australia in this artical, and provided references for my changes. I've provided links to some of the data showing that the overall crime-rate hasn't been effected by gun control, and on the data relating to illegally accuired gun violence in Australia.

I don't want to make this an "Australia" dominated artical, so I didn't expand the section too much. I took out the references to Australia from the opening section, partyly because they were a bit confusing and wrong, and also because it seemed more appropriate to have that information under the "Gun Control Outside the U.S." section.

If you feel there's more of a role that the Australian example can play in this artical, I have some great information on illegal guns and gang violence, and on the typical uses of guns in Australia (hunting, farmers protecting their lands from ferral animals like foxes and cats, etc.). Also, there's more on Australia's history with guns, including the pre-WW2 practice of training local volunteers with guns to defend Australia, and the fears of communists using guns, as well as more modern arguments in favour of guns for sport!

I hope these edits help to add to the overall quality of Conservapedia! The more facts the better! =)

-Lex

[[User:LRose|LRose]] 23:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Gun control

2009-12-10T04:28:29Z

LRose: AUSTRALIA: The information here about gun control in Australia was simply incorrect. I have made a summary in the talk page.

'''Gun control''' laws restrict the purchase or ownership of guns, a weapon acquired mostly for defensive or sporting purposes. Gun control is unique among social programs in increasing the emotional and physical dependency of ''all'' voters on government. Because gun control increases the dependence of voters on government, its political effect is to shift the electorate leftward, and 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, even though their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there; 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"/>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns leads to less crime.<ref>People who support gun control generally believe 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>

In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are:
* [[National Firearms Act]] (1934)
* [[Gun Control Act]] (1968)
* [[Brady Bill]] (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the [[Firearms Owners Protection Act]] (1986) and the [[Omnibus Crime Bill]] (1994).

Fed up with federal gun control, in 2009 States began considering (Utah) or passing (Montana) laws "making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations" including "background checks, licensing and registration."<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<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>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</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.

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>

== Trends ==
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "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."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches.

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"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 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 decision upheld an appellate court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s 1976 handgun ban. The case marked the first time in more than 70 years that the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment ''and the first time it spoke directly about the implication of an individual right''. The court struck down two of the District of Columbia's gun control laws: its handgun ban and its requirement that other firearms kept at home have a trigger lock or be disassembled.

Relying on the broader historical record, Justice Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|'''putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'''}}

Scalia noted that the ruling should not be interpreted to "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." <ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Supreme Court Opinion, District of Columbia v Heller]</ref>

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as 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 ==

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 USA ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Gun Control in Japan|Japan's gun control laws]], which severely restrict gun ownership and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

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]].<ref name="EU">http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/29/europe/union.php EU legislators push tougher gun controls</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".<ref name="EU" /> 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 all replicas are outlawed.<ref name="EU" />

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>

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 publicised shootings<ref>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 1999 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 bikey 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 homocide 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>

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless 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>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

[[Josef Stalin]], former dictator of the [[USSR]] and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported Gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have gunpowder weapons.

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[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.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
* [[Gun control quotes]]
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]

==External Links==

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]
*[http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html Coalition for gun control]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:gun control]]
{{liberalism}}