Forbes: "Assault Weapon" is just a PR Stunt Meant to Fool the Guillible

[Naked_Duc]

Since we are on the firearm discussion, I thought I'd share an article I found on Forbes. It's a very insightful, fact-based view on the US gun control debate.

'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes

For those UK folks, here's some food for thoughts. I found it interesting to read how "effective" the Fireamr Act of 1998 has worked out for UK (or was it just Scotland).

George Mason Law School Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Harvard, 2002), explained why Morgan’s position was so silly in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal. In March, 1996, Thomas Hamilton, known to suffer mental illness, shot and killed 16 young children and their teacher in a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane, wounding 10 other children and 3 more teachers before killing himself. That resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, “which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.”
The results of that law, which would be unconstitutional in the U.S. no matter how many guests Piers Morgan calls stupid on his show, were:

“Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.”

 

[Rocker66]

Thats not srictly true as police guarding VIPs and royals have been armed for years

 

[Naked_Duc]

maybe you are referring to Scotland Yard? I thought UK police (bobbies) are not armed... sorry, I claim ignorance with UK police and gun law. My QUOTATIONs in my OP was quoted from the article itself.

 

[happy]

Thanks Tony
That was a good read.

I think i've got the perfect solution.
Ban internet banter....
Ban and control all newspapers....
Ban facebook.
Ban forums.

In that way, no one can know if there is a murder by a firearm, and that there will not be any copycats.

Also ban movies with guns. They can only hurt one another with wise cracks and words....

That is the future!

 

[Rocker66]

maybe you are referring to Scotland Yard? I thought UK police (bobbies) are not armed... sorry, I claim ignorance with UK police and gun law. My QUOTATIONs in my OP was quoted from the article itself.

No we have police at airports openly carrying machine guns. There are Armed Response Vechicles patroling the streets. don't really good old bobbies patroling on foot anymore they mostly tend to be swaning around in cars

 

[Naked_Duc]

Thanks Tony
That was a good read.

I think i've got the perfect solution.
Ban internet banter....
Ban and control all newspapers....
Ban facebook.
Ban forums.

In that way, no one can know if there is a murder by a firearm, and that there will not be any copycats.

Also ban movies with guns. They can only hurt one another with wise cracks and words....

That is the future!

Yup, we can all grow potatoes, hunt buffalos, fish from crystal clear steams, form drum circles around bonfires at night, and share community properties. What's yours is mine. Roam free in the field of wild flowers and dance till the sun comes up again. Wouldn't that be nice.

 

[Xcellor8]

Yup, we can all grow potatoes, hunt buffalos, fish from crystal clear steams, form drum circles around bonfires at night, and share community properties. What's yours is mine. Roam free in the field of wild flowers and dance till the sun comes up again. Wouldn't that be nice.

Only if we all hold hands and sing Kume-by-ah!lol

 

[Seabee Bob]

QUOTE=Naked_Duc;18137]Yup, we can all grow potatoes, hunt buffalos, fish from crystal clear steams, form drum circles around bonfires at night, and share community properties. What's yours is mine. Roam free in the field of wild flowers and dance till the sun comes up again. Wouldn't that be nice.[/QUOTE]


Sounds like Asheville, NC. 116 Days and counting! First stop, 12 Bones Smokehouse!

http://youtu.be/thDDC7v1kpk

http://youtu.be/66VzVtnfIkE


Asheville North Carolina Drum Circle 2012 Asheville NC - YouTube

 

[wgwgoldwing]

“Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.”

Of course crime with handguns doubled, because owning a handgun (in the above case) is now criminal. Anyone caught with a handgun has now committed a crime. If a crime is conducted with a handgun, bam, two crimes were committed. Create a law that makes something criminal and that in of itself will technically "increase crime".

It's like saying that crime went down when they legalized marijuana. Well of course it did, because it's no longer criminal to use and posses marijuana. By eliminating that law, they have eliminated criminal act, which according to numbers, has reduced crime.

In a more extreme example: If we eliminate all laws, there will be no crime because nothing will be illegal, but, if we make everything illegal, crime rates will skyrocket because everyone is breaking the law.

A few years ago, one of our administrations was bragging about unemployment numbers. They were stating how "x" number of American's went back to work. The numbers sounded great but the numbers also included public school teachers who were previously on their summer break and were now "back to work". Technically they were correct, but it was deceptive.

Stats are great, but they are sometimes skewed to support the agenda of those trying to make their point. It is certainly tough to filter out the truth from the lies.



WGW

 

[MZ5]

Do you know that the cited article mis-uses the statistics thus? Can you point to supporting evidence of such in this instance?

Simultaneously, your assertion assumes that all people will always do precisely what they want to do regardless of the law. If that were in fact true, then it would make no difference to anyone in any way (except perhaps to those who can jail people, for breaking the law, whom they wish to control) whether there were any laws at all. This, then, controverts your implicit premise that it is beneficial to ban some things.

So, which is it?

 

[Seabee Bob]

I will not tell you all how much money I made just today in guns, ammo and accessory sales. I have been doing this ever since Obama became President. Buy low sell high. It is the American way! Love it or leave it.

 

[wgwgoldwing]

Do you know that the cited article mis-uses the statistics thus? Can you point to supporting evidence of such in this instance?

Simultaneously, your assertion assumes that all people will always do precisely what they want to do regardless of the law. If that were in fact true, then it would make no difference to anyone in any way (except perhaps to those who can jail people, for breaking the law, whom they wish to control) whether there were any laws at all. This, then, controverts your implicit premise that it is beneficial to ban some things.

So, which is it?

Nope, I have no clue if the article is based on factual information or if there is a bit of truth stretching. I guess my point is that statistics aren't always as they appear and you really have to research how they came up with their numbers before you can really consider it supportive.

Not sure what you mean about the "all people will always do precisely what they want" part. Don't think I presented or implied it that way and if that's how it came across, that certainly wasn't what I meant. If you make something illegal, there will be some otherwise law abiding citizens that will defy that particular law because of their strong beliefs and if caught, they will be criminals that wouldn't otherwise be criminals. This will add to crime statistics.

There are lots of controversial issues out there and each side may get creative to win support.


WGW

 

[turbodieseli4i6]

You don't have to tell me, just save me a G19 and a SR1911!

 

[wgwgoldwing]

I will not tell you all how much money I made just today in guns, ammo and accessory sales. I have been doing this ever since Obama became President. Buy low sell high. It is the American way! Love it or leave it.

View attachment 2329

How about a "NC700-forum member" discount?

Maybe something like $1000 for everything I can fit in the not-a-trunk?


WGW

 

[happy]

How about a "NC700-forum member" discount?

Maybe something like $1000 for everything I can fit in the not-a-trunk?


WGW

Na...the AR is way too long.

You will have to cut a hole in the not-a-trunk.
It does, however, fit across the tank.

 

[happy]

Nope, I have no clue if the article is based on factual information or if there is a bit of truth stretching. I guess my point is that statistics aren't always as they appear and you really have to research how they came up with their numbers before you can really consider it supportive.

Not sure what you mean about the "all people will always do precisely what they want" part. Don't think I presented or implied it that way and if that's how it came across, that certainly wasn't what I meant. If you make something illegal, there will be some otherwise law abiding citizens that will defy that particular law because of their strong beliefs and if caught, they will be criminals that wouldn't otherwise be criminals. This will add to crime statistics.

There are lots of controversial issues out there and each side may get creative to win support.


WGW

Statistics are like guns.

Some love them.
Some loathe them.
Even worse, some abuse them for their own wicked benefits.

 

[Rocker66]

Do you know that the cited article mis-uses the statistics thus? Can you point to supporting evidence of such in this instance?

Simultaneously, your assertion assumes that all people will always do precisely what they want to do regardless of the law. If that were in fact true, then it would make no difference to anyone in any way (except perhaps to those who can jail people, for breaking the law, whom they wish to control) whether there were any laws at all. This, then, controverts your implicit premise that it is beneficial to ban some things.

So, which is it?

A famous person (I can't remember who) once said "There are lies Damm lies and statistics"

 

[Beemerphile]

Thats not srictly true as police guarding VIPs and royals have been armed for years

And, of course, these "VIP's and Royals" have a greater right to life, huh?

We didn't use to have Royals here, but we have elected some mighty pompous buffoons who think they are.

 

[happy]

And, of course, these "VIP's and Royals" have a greater right to life, huh?

We didn't use to have Royals here, but we have elected some mighty pompous buffoons who think they are.

Not so long ago (i am not that old you see), I did not understand terrorism and why they are there in USA to do what they do.
Then I read up and research quite a fair bit. Then EUREKA!

Those "right things" which your buffoons made all over the world (especially in oil-rich countries), they deserve and need the 24X7 armed guards.
Do I envy them? No way.

Why should they have armed personnel when the normal citizens do not? I mean they (we) are now currently allowed to own and even carry arms if we jump through some hoops and loops (aka background checks).
If they close that process, there is no easy way to become "heard" or stand equal to an armed policeman working for the Administration. They can simply shoot you first and explain later (hoping there are no cameras around to negate their wonderful "self defense" story)

Who owns the biggest guns around the world?
If they first disarm, I am sure others will (may) do so too.

If the President walk the talk, then he can talk the talk. Notice his silence?

 

[MZ5]

A famous person (I can't remember who) once said "There are lies Damm lies and statistics"

Yes, that's a fun quote! It's particularly entertaining when an organization (the British gov't in this case) bans something 'for everyone's benefit/safety,' and then that same organization's statistics show that doing so was significantly harmful overall.

I am thoroughly versed in the misapplication of numerical data, unfortunately. In this case, the most-likely perpetrators of same should be expected to be the British gov't, as they have a vested interest in making sure the statistics support their ban. That they dramatically show the opposite suggests, at least superficially, that the data indeed indicate what was stated. If none of us have any further information about the stats, then we're all left to our own pet conspiracy theories.