Gun ban advocate concedes gun bans don't work

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
Gun ban advocate admits gun bans "have failed utterly"

2/28/2007

It didn't make the newspapers or the network news here, but one of the loudest voices for England and Scotland's handgun ban has admitted it's been a dismal failure.

Ian Bell worked long and hard to make sure the ban passed a decade ago. But writing in Scotland's Sunday Herald, he says, "My idea didn't work... guns have become commonplace, so commonplace that every would-be terrorist worth his salt must be armed to the teeth. Bans have failed utterly."

What Bell says is true. Guns have become common, at least among the criminals in England. Gun crime has doubled since the ban took effect. But guns aren't common among the law-abiding. In fact, they've disappeared, leaving ordinary Britons helpless against criminals.

It's good that Ian Bell's admitted the ban's been a failure. But I notice he never called for an end to the ban.

Admitting failure's a good first step, but it does nothing if you don't take the next step of righting a wrong.

Audio stream (MP3 file):
Download
http://www.nranews.com/blogmedia/170/WLP_3_1_07_GBConcedesDefeat.mp3
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
It just amazes me that people think it would work in the first place. They treat it like some type of social experiment when it isn't. It's basic math. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less crime.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
It just amazes me that people think it would work in the first place. They treat it like some type of social experiment when it isn't. It's basic math. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less crime.
Actually, given the tenor of the time, the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Constitution so citizens could protect themselves from a despotic and tyrannical government. But it works for the citizens protecting themselves from each other as well. If some creeps breaks into my house intent on robbing us and get a cap busted in his ass, it's all good to me.
 

gabosaurus

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
95
Reaction score
5
Points
6
Location
San Francisco
I don't understand the need for handguns. Why are they useful for except for killing other people. If you need self-defense, keep a rifle in your home.
And why does anyone need a machine gun or assault rifle?
 

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
I don't understand the need for handguns. Why are they useful for except for killing other people. If you need self-defense, keep a rifle in your home.
And why does anyone need a machine gun or assault rifle?

A handgun is easier to conceal than a rifle, much better for protection from the kind of violent nutcases that the ACLU and the Democrat party have helped spawn....ask any violent felon who they want for President and you will get the same answer, a Democrat. As for home protection a 20 or 12 gauge pump shotgun is the wisest choice with a small Glock 45 in your belt just in case. The shotgun is a bit messy but just the sound of the mechanism loading the first round from a dark room will scare off most criminals.


Why does someone(Nancy Pelosi) need a 757 to travel across the country for fundraisers when an airliner that is already going there is available every couple of hours? Security? Bring some extra air marshalls with handguns and automatic assault weapons.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Actually, given the tenor of the time, the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Constitution so citizens could protect themselves from a despotic and tyrannical government. But it works for the citizens protecting themselves from each other as well. If some creeps breaks into my house intent on robbing us and get a cap busted in his ass, it's all good to me.
It's sentiments like that Bully, that make you near and dear to my heart!
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
I don't understand the need for handguns. Why are they useful for except for killing other people. If you need self-defense, keep a rifle in your home.
And why does anyone need a machine gun or assault rifle?
I just have to ask...what makes a rifle an "assault rifle"? Do you know?

I suspect you mean "automatic weapons" and "militarized firearms". Truthfully, in my opinion, why shouldn't law abiding citizens own any type of firearm they want? Pistol, rifle, shotgun or even a cannon...who cares. Either the owner is law abiding or they are not.
 

LOki

The Yaweh of Mischief
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
358
Points
85
I don't understand the need for handguns.
No one require you to. You are required to understand that you don't get to determine what others need, and that "need" doesn't come into the equation of gun ownership because keeping and bearing arms is a right.

Why are they useful for except for killing other people.
Why is this an issue for you?

If you need self-defense, keep a rifle in your home.
Rifles are inappropriate for personal self-defense.

And why does anyone need a machine gun or assault rifle?
Irrelevent. You don't get to determine what others need, and that "need" doesn't come into the equation of gun ownership because keeping and bearing arms is a right.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top