Gun ban advocate concedes gun bans don't work

[Little-Acorn]

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]

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

Something you might like:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14167.ctl

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

 

[Bern80]

Have it, but thanks

 

[Annie]

Have it, but thanks

Welcome, looked interesting.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.