Proof : Gun control does NOT work

[marine1]

http://www.24.com/news/?p=tsa&i=423468
Legal gun control does not work. These are all illegal weapons. Suck on that Gun free SA

 

[Syndyre]

All gun control means is that the victims will be easier targets.

 

[Skeptik]

I checked recently with the local police station. Thousands are applying for renewal. They know of only 10 who got it.

 

[Syndyre]

What are the grounds for denying it?

 

[Leitmotif]

Syndre: usually "insufficient motivation". Ie., they don't believe you have sufficient need to own a firearm. Apparently self-defense in a crime-ridden country isn't need enough. Who knows what reason or motivation they'll accept... CFR's policy is completely opaque and quite apparently arbitrary.

I love their heading "Gun culture out of control" in the middle. This isn't gun culture. This is sheer thug behaviour.

Britain is becoming a showcase for how gun control is a complete failure. The recent gun deaths are the most visible examples because this is the sort of thing that gun control is supposed to prevent, but the real proof is the rising violent crime, the very thing that gun ownership guards against.

 

[Syndyre]

If GFSA could actually provide a "gun free SA" they might have a semblance of a point, but even then you need something to protect yourself against the people with knives etc. Realistically the criminals are always going to have guns, they're criminals after all, acquiring them illegally isn't exactly a problem for them. Shouldn't law-abiding citizens be entitled to the same. I've honestly never seen one decent, coherent argument for gun control.

It's very simple, if most home owners in SA had guns and were legally empowered to shoot anybody they find on their property illegally, period, crime would drop dramatically, I wouldn't be surprised if it was by as much as 90% within a few months. Especially because this would also empower the police, security companies etc.

Its quite worrying when a government like the ANC tries to disarm its citizens, what are their intentions?

 

[Leitmotif]

Syndre: try and explain that to GFSA and GCA. They'll immediately tangent off about changing people's mindsets and other such wishful nonsense. Then they'll start to talk about how it's such a risk having a gun. Utter bollocks of course, same as their good old fallback, "you'll be disarmed and shot with your own gun".

 

[Syndyre]

Syndre: try and explain that to GFSA and GCA. They'll immediately tangent off about changing people's mindsets and other such wishful nonsense.

To be honest I wouldn't even bother.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."

Then they'll start to talk about how it's such a risk having a gun. Utter bollocks of course, same as their good old fallback, "you'll be disarmed and shot with your own gun"

I'd love to see an unbiased statistical analysis showing how often that really happens, especially in somewhere like SA where probably 95% of criminals are armed already. The only reason they'd then shoot you with your gun would be to leave less forensic evidence but either way you're still likely to be shot, at least with a gun you've got a fighting chance. I could understand if they wanted mandatory training for people that acquire guns and denying them to people with violent criminal convictions etc. but the way they're doing it now is just sick, refusing to deal with crime in the country and then disarming the victims.

 

[Skeptik]

Syndre: usually "insufficient motivation". Ie., they don't believe you have sufficient need to own a firearm. Apparently self-defense in a crime-ridden country isn't need enough. Who knows what reason or motivation they'll accept... CFR's policy is completely opaque and quite apparently arbitrary.

I love their heading "Gun culture out of control" in the middle. This isn't gun culture. This is sheer thug behaviour.

Britain is becoming a showcase for how gun control is a complete failure. The recent gun deaths are the most visible examples because this is the sort of thing that gun control is supposed to prevent, but the real proof is the rising violent crime, the very thing that gun ownership guards against.

True, and they are often not telling anyone why they have been refused. You have to get a lawyer to raise it with the committee before they will tell you.

Guys were saying if you put "I need a gun because I live in a dangerous area", the police will say "Move house!". I know, messed up logic again!....

Maybe we should include some newspaper articles of people getting their brains shot out during a hijacking and stories of home invasions.

I was also discouraged from using two motivations - sport and self defence.

 

[Syndyre]

What motivation does work then? Is it the police themselves being so difficult? You'd think with their job they'd see the need for people to have guns, so is the pressure coming from higher up? And why?

 

[MyDraadloos]

So if I tell the police I need a gun to shoot cans in my back yard, stray dogs & burglars it is unlikely that they will give it to me.

 

[Syndyre]

Maybe if you bring a persuasive lawyer along, that seems to be the way to get things done.

 

[Leitmotif]

I'd love to see an unbiased statistical analysis showing how often that really happens, especially in somewhere like SA where orobably 95% of criminals are armed already. The only reason they'd then shoot you with your gun would be to leave less forensic evidence but either way you're still likely to be shot, at least with a gun you've got a fighting chance. I could understand if they wanted mandatory training for people that acquire guns and denying them to people with violent criminal convictions etc. but the way they're doing it now is just sick, refusing to deal with crime in the country and then disarming the victims.

Quoted for Great Truth™.
Unbiased statistical analysis, huh? Look into the gun fact book. http://www.gunfacts.info Specifically, page 47. Lots of interesting information in there, all with verifiable references... unlike the emotive drivel produced by the gun control groups.

Maybe we should include some newspaper articles of people getting their brains shot out during a hijacking and stories of home invasions.

I was also discouraged from using two motivations - sport and self defence.

Some police and trainers already recommend that you look up violent crimes in your area and add clippings and references to your motivation. Doesn't seem to help, though. Accordng to the DFOs themselves, some applications with an encyclopaedia of violent crimes are turned away, while others with a bare paragraph are approved. It's infuriatingly arbitrary.

As for sport and self-defense... yeah, they make it a mission. Some middle manager decided to institute a defacto gun ban, and they refuse applications on anything.

 

[Leitmotif]

What motivation does work then? Is it the police themselves being so difficult? You'd think with their job they'd see the need for people to have guns, so is the pressure coming from higher up? And why?

No idea what motivation works. The CFR - Central Firearms Register - are the ones being difficult. The official police line is that if you jump through their hoops you'll get your gun, but dear old Jacob Bothma seems to have seen fit to make the minister and several police administrators into liars...

Anyway. The DFOs handling the applications seem to want people to get their guns, and most cops seem sympathetic. As usual, it's out-of-touch management that's to blame. That and possibly a promise to the UN to reduce the number of firearms in SA... regardless of the consequences. Political expediency.

So if I tell the police I need a gun to shoot cans in my back yard, stray dogs & burglars it is unlikely that they will give it to me.

*dies laughing*

Sigh. If only. That's the way it *should* be, though.

Maybe if you bring a persuasive lawyer along, that seems to be the way to get things done.

Indeed. CFR knows full well that what it's doing is, in fact, illegal, and as soon as they see legal action they cave. Unfortunately, this costs you money, as lawyers aren't exactly cheap.

GOSA and SAGA are collecting cases and names for a class action suit, though... if enough people come forward with rejections and confiscations, it'll be much easier to fight.

 

[Syndyre]

Look into the gun fact book. http://www.gunfacts.info Specifically, page 47. Lots of interesting information in there, all with verifiable references... unlike the emotive drivel produced by the gun control groups.

Thanks I'll have a look when I have time.

 

[Leitmotif]

You're welcome. The link in my signature is a good source of bullet point* info. Also referenced with peer-reviewed research.

*Yes, ha ha, "bullet"

 

[RichardP]

Why not ban guns totally... and whats left are the criminals. Unfortanately it doesnt work with a very savage society.


Elementary my dear Watson.

 

[Leitmotif]

Why not ban guns totally... and whats left are the criminals. Unfortanately it doesnt work with a very savage society.

Elementary my dear Watson.

Because criminals are by nature lawbreakers and don't care if guns are banned. Gun laws affect only the law-abiding, making them even more vulnerable. Gun control is just a more acceptable term for Victim Disarmament.

Police shoot more innocent people mistakenly, by percentage and sheer number, than civilian gun owners. Police cause more accidental shootings due to bad gun safety practises than civilian gun owners. Since they're such dangerous gun owners, why don't you take away their guns?

Incidentally, nowhere in Doyle's novels will you find the phrase "Elementary my dear Watson"...

 

[RichardP]

Because criminals are by nature lawbreakers and don't care if guns are banned. Gun laws affect only the law-abiding, making them even more vulnerable. Gun control is just a more acceptable term for Victim Disarmament.

Police shoot more innocent people mistakenly, by percentage and sheer number, than civilian gun owners. Police cause more accidental shootings due to bad gun safety practises than civilian gun owners. Since they're such dangerous gun owners, why don't you take away their guns?

Incidentally, nowhere in Doyle's novels will you find the phrase "Elementary my dear Watson"...

Guns are more dangerous to alot of "legitimate licensed" people. Wives shot, road rage etc etc.... there are alot of responsible owners - but I feel the ratio leans towards irresponsible for the majority of gun owners. Your statement of 'Victim Disarmamemt' really disturbs me as you are saying that 'everyone is going to be a victim' sooner or later - maybe I am reading too much in to it. The police shooting everything that moves is a whole new argument. If a civilian pulls a gun out on a cop - the cop has the mandate to fill you with lead slugs.... no matter what you have to say in the matter.

But Gun control is good for taking guns out of Road rage, Wife beaters or any other person that tends to react violently and impulsively.

 

[Syndyre]

Your statement of 'Victim Disarmamemt' really disturbs me as you are saying that 'everyone is going to be a victim' sooner or later - maybe I am reading too much in to it. .

In SA is this really that unrealistic? Most people here have been a victim of crime.