Mall Killing and Other Mass Killings

[ReillyT]

"Hypothetical" countries aside - here's a few actual countries:

England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.
"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html, and www.nraila.org/research/19990716-BillofRightsCivilRights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see www.nraila.org/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and www.nraila.org/research/20010215-InternationalGunControl-001.shtml.
From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today, 11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by the military -- which in America would include countless millions of rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,` had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

You are late to the game, so I will cut you some slack, and quickly address some issues.

A low level of gun ownership does not suggest (and I don't see any reason it should) a low level of crime. The issue is whether a low level of gun ownership is generally correlative of a low level of gun deaths.

In 1995 (the year I found when I quickly looked it up on the internet), gun deaths per 100,000 in the following countries:
USA - 13.47
UK (England/Wales) - .4
Australia - 2.94
Canada - 3.95
Italy - 2.27
Germany - 1.44

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html

As for some specifics, I live in London, there are a lot of assaults. Most of it seems to do with the heavy drinking culture. A stat which points out that a doctor killed 200 people is... meaningless... but interesting.

Italy - lots of gun deaths in the south. Wonder why that is? Oh yeah, the fucking mafia.

Germany - gun crime rose 76% from 1992-1995. That might be more interesting if it weren't the second lowest figure that I found from your group as of 1995.

Canada - well, that I just don't know. They are crazy fuckers up there.

Thanks for the meaningless blurbs. Hope it didn't take too long.

 

[Lookout]

Hello Larkin, I and others on this site realize that you are here not to actually accomplish a change in someone's ideology, or sway anyone's opinion on anything. It is obvious that you believe you are more intelligent than anyone else, and showing off your advanced use of common nomenclature is your way of trying to make others feel inferior and making yourself feel superior. I used to be like you until I found I had no friends because I was too pompous for my own good and no one liked me. I'm sure that given enough time you will discover the same thing. So Mr. mensa, if you want to compare brain pans or even e.q. take your best shot. No gun humor pun intended. I set myself up as you have done on a high pedestal and almost did not survive the fall. So lets quit screwing around with this capricious, infintile nomenclature and lets see just what you are made of. I will disparage myself to your mundane, trite, pompous, banal and childish sinuosities for my own amusement.

 

[Annie]

You are late to the game, so I will cut you some slack, and quickly address some issues.

A low level of gun ownership does not suggest (and I don't see any reason it should) a low level of crime. The issue is whether a low level of gun ownership is generally correlative of a low level of gun deaths.

...

Here's something to consider:

www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30790761_ITM - 42k -

To read the whole thing, you may need to register or put in your library card bar code number.

Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide? A review of international and some domestic evidence.

Publication: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

Publication Date: 22-MAR-07
Author: Kates, Don B. ; Mauser, Gary

The numbers for some reason differ from guncontrol groups. Go figure.

 

[ReillyT]

Here's something to consider:

www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30790761_ITM - 42k -

To read the whole thing, you may need to register or put in your library card bar code number.

The numbers for some reason differ from guncontrol groups. Go figure.

Hi Kathi. I am trying to juggle a couple of things at once right now, so I may not get to the link for a while, but thanks for posting it. I will try to check it out later.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You are late to the game, so I will cut you some slack, and quickly address some issues.

A low level of gun ownership does not suggest (and I don't see any reason it should) a low level of crime. The issue is whether a low level of gun ownership is generally correlative of a low level of gun deaths.

In 1995 (the year I found when I quickly looked it up on the internet), gun deaths per 100,000 in the following countries:
USA - 13.47
UK (England/Wales) - .4
Australia - 2.94
Canada - 3.95
Italy - 2.27
Germany - 1.44

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html

As for some specifics, I live in London, there are a lot of assaults. Most of it seems to do with the heavy drinking culture. A stat which points out that a doctor killed 200 people is... meaningless... but interesting.

Italy - lots of gun deaths in the south. Wonder why that is? Oh yeah, the fucking mafia.

Germany - gun crime rose 76% from 1992-1995. That might be more interesting if it weren't the second lowest figure that I found from your group as of 1995.

Canada - well, that I just don't know. They are crazy fuckers up there.

Thanks for the meaningless blurbs. Hope it didn't take too long.

No, it didn't take long and I don't think the blurbs are meaningless. It shows that many foreign countries are having increasing crime problems despite their well-meaning gun control programs…Britain in particular where it is now much more dangerous than here in the US...

"Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now 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."

And it appears you got your info from some of those Canadian "crazy fuckers"who started the Coalition for Gun Control. Not exactly an unbiased source. For example the site claims that Canada has a "staggering" 6 billion in economic costs of violence and then claims the US costs are so much higher - 13 billion - which is in truth double the cost in actual dollars but ignores the fact that the US population is about 10 times larger than Canada. I could turn right around and say that the per capita cost of violence in anti-gun Canada is five times greater than that in the pro-gun US. Which leads up to my major points:

Your homicide stats can be false or at least misleading for different reasons. It is difficult to directly compare countries for many reasons. For example, comparing murder stats with Britain:

1. In the US we stand our ground and defend ourselves, killing in self defense if necessary, and our law supports that - whereas in Britain the law insists that one should retreat when attacked. Thus you get a higher rate in the US because of two different kinds of attitude based in law.

2. Murder rates are affected by how each country counts their murders. For example, in the US the FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder no matter the outcome of a case later whether it is later dismissed or changed to a lesser charge. This results in making US numbers as high as possible. In Britain they do just the opposite, thus making the British numbers as low as possible.

You might want to read the following which lays out the history of your country and how it has so drastically changed for the worse.

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

 

[Gunny]

Congrats on ignoring the ways that criminals would have their guns removed.


http://www.nber.org/papers/w11737.pdf

Guns are much harder to get illegally than crack and pot.



They are a few hundred bucks. And yes they can buy it easily.



And I'm sure its solace to the victims of accidentical firearm deaths that YOU think they were just protecting themselves. The emotional bullshit works both ways kid.



Lmfao..."its not illogical and nonsensical that I might be wrong, I think its illogical and nonsensical to think that I might be wrong". Alrighty then.



As I said, I'm speaking past you. What you don't seem to get is that I'm not arguing that we should ban all guns. This would be clear if you weren't freaking out so much about the prospect. I don't have an "emotion-based personal prejudice" on this issue. I don't know where I stand. But both sides have good, and bad, arguments. Hence my statement that its not common sense.

I'm ignoring nothing. As I said, your idea or plan you support is unrealistic. It isn't going to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

And yes, it IS quite a common sense argument, as I've detailed time and again. Criminals are not going to just magically decide to obey one law while they live to violate others. To assume that is nonsensical. The only ones that are going to obey the law are law-abiding citzens.

You might not know where you stand, but you ARE making an argument for outlawing guns.

I'm not freaking out at all, dude. I'm making a completely logical argument is all. And since I apparently am speaking past YOU, I'm out. I've done nothing but repeat myself and have yet to be given a logical explanation as to why I am wrong.

EDIT: Don't know where you live, but if you want to buy a gun with no numbers here, it doesn't take any more effort to get one than it does to buy crack.

Since criminals prefer semiautos in 9mm, yeah, they cost upward of $500.

 

[Larkinn]

You are right. you are untouchable. You have all the answers. You know everything...All bow before GOD Larkin!!! You are so full of yourself you don't even know it...You? HR? God help us all!@

Did I claim any of that? No I didn't.

Man you need to lay off the drugs.

 

[Larkinn]

What an airy-fairy statement.

Let's have some real argument from you Larkinn. Provide proof that your in-lockstep-with-leftists belief that to disarm people will actually result in less crime.

So you don't think its the case that if there were 0 guns, nobody would die from guns?

If you can't (and I know you can't because the opposite is true*) then tell me why you really support an anti-gun policy…given that you are such an "intellectual"…(and please don't give me that syrupy liberal lie that it's "because of the chirrun" because you know that is not true either).

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

I don't.

 

[Larkinn]

As soon as you tell the families of car accident deaths they died for the good of us all.

I don't think their deaths are insignificant. Necessary yes, but I would never belittle their loss. Too bad you can't say the same.

 

[Larkinn]

Hey dumb shit we already went over this. NO law you pass will keep guns out of the hands of criminals unless you know some way to magically eliminate every gun on the planet and the knowledge and ability to make more.

No, you made an unsupported assertion. That doesn't count as "going over it". Gun laws WILL keep guns out of the hands of SOME criminals.

Using your logic we damn better eliminate cars, no cars and 50000 people in this country alone, every year will be alive. not to mention ALL over the world. Last I checked people die in car accidents over 3 times as often as are killed by all manner of weapons in this country, including cop use and self defense and accidents.

We already went over this. Economic arguments, remember? Come up with something better.

And as my statistics and Kaths show MORE people die or attacked using NON Firearms at a staggering level. When ya gonna ban all knives, all bats, all sticks, all hammers, all what ever weapon is used? Go ahead now and explain how those are needed items so the 90 percent of all violent crime victims should just suck it up for the good of the rest of us.

Which one of those weapons has NO use except to kill? Thats what I thought.

 

[Larkinn]

Hello Larkin, I and others on this site realize that you are here not to actually accomplish a change in someone's ideology, or sway anyone's opinion on anything. It is obvious that you believe you are more intelligent than anyone else, and showing off your advanced use of common nomenclature is your way of trying to make others feel inferior and making yourself feel superior. I used to be like you until I found I had no friends because I was too pompous for my own good and no one liked me. I'm sure that given enough time you will discover the same thing. So Mr. mensa, if you want to compare brain pans or even e.q. take your best shot. No gun humor pun intended. I set myself up as you have done on a high pedestal and almost did not survive the fall. So lets quit screwing around with this capricious, infintile nomenclature and lets see just what you are made of. I will disparage myself to your mundane, trite, pompous, banal and childish sinuosities for my own amusement.

Try writing something coherent with an actual point and then get back to me, kid.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm ignoring nothing. As I said, your idea or plan you support is unrealistic. It isn't going to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

Well now that you said it won't, it surely won't. Because your assertion is all the evidence anyone needs.

And yes, it IS quite a common sense argument, as I've detailed time and again. Criminals are not going to just magically decide to obey one law while they live to violate others. To assume that is nonsensical. The only ones that are going to obey the law are law-abiding citzens.

Really? So tell me why more criminals haven't robbed fort knox? After all, all crimes are the same, right?

You might not know where you stand, but you ARE making an argument for outlawing guns.

Yes, I am. And thats because I'm trying to get some of the emotional dumbasses here to realize that there IS a valid argument on the other side.

I'm not freaking out at all, dude. I'm making a completely logical argument is all. And since I apparently am speaking past YOU, I'm out. I've done nothing but repeat myself and have yet to be given a logical explanation as to why I am wrong.

You haven't made a logical argument yet. You've said the same bullshit assertion over and over again.

EDIT: Don't know where you live, but if you want to buy a gun with no numbers here, it doesn't take any more effort to get one than it does to buy crack.

Somehow I doubt you know this. But regardless, where I live guns are illegal and you can't just have a friend buy one and file off the numbers from the local Walmart.

Since criminals prefer semiautos in 9mm, yeah, they cost upward of $500.

We are talking about guns, not their preferred gun.

 

[Larkinn]

I can not see this, I don't know why but when ever anyone links to another part of this board and I click on it it tells me I am not logged on or have not got permission to see that thread.

So maybe you could tell me what you linked to?

The thread where you lambasted others, including me, for calling you out for not replying quickly enough (which I haven't done, by the way).

 

[Dr Grump]

You have no balls and hide the fact that you don't believe your own life is worth saving, behind satirical innuendos and fear. Too scared to actually take care of business. Afraid of living and afraid of dying.

Considering you're the one who NEEDS the gun, there's somebody around here afraid all right..and it ain't Larkin.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The thread where you lambasted others, including me, for calling you out for not replying quickly enough (which I haven't done, by the way).

Different kettle of fish moron, YOU were on, and not answering and you still never responded to the facts. Ohh and YOU were IN this thread at the time, further I assumed your ignorant ass missed it, cause after all, you never "run away" now do you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The simple fact is you pea brains want to ban guns because of a rate of .005% , thats right not 1 10th of one percent, not 1 100th of a percent but 5 1000th of one percent.

Law abiding citizens should surrender their weapons because you think .005 % is to much.

Now again if we are talking all violent crimes 10 percent or less are done with firearms. Again you want to ban something that has nearly no impact on crime. Ignoring the whole time that banning guns does NOT keep the criminals from having them, from getting them and from using them. All it does is encourage their use because now armed criminals KNOW we are not armed.

Once again EXPLAIN Britain , they banned guns and the result? A skyrocketing crimewave involving guns that are banned. That worked out just wonderful now didn't it.

Let me make it real plain for you.... Ban guns and you will have an armed rebellion. I and a hell of a lot of other law abiding citizens will cease to be content to have our rights removed because you think it is for our own good.

It only takes a couple million to start a war, and you will have a lot more than a couple million refusing to turn in their weapons. And we will either have the ban revoked or we will have a shooting rebellion to replace an oppressive Government.

Further, parts of the military will join in the rebellion as will police and elected officials. You want a war, go ahead.

Ever see the bumper Sticker " You can have my weapon when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" Multiple that by millions.

Statistics are NOT on your side. Common sense is not on your side, and the Constitution is NOT on your side.

As for your city banning guns, guess what? If the Court rules on the DC ban like we expect and hope it will, your ban is going down the toilet.

 

[Lookout]

The simple fact is you pea brains want to ban guns because of a rate of .005% , thats right not 1 10th of one percent, not 1 100th of a percent but 5 1000th of one percent.

Law abiding citizens should surrender their weapons because you think .005 % is to much.

Now again if we are talking all violent crimes 10 percent or less are done with firearms. Again you want to ban something that has nearly no impact on crime. Ignoring the whole time that banning guns does NOT keep the criminals from having them, from getting them and from using them. All it does is encourage their use because now armed criminals KNOW we are not armed.

Once again EXPLAIN Britain , they banned guns and the result? A skyrocketing crimewave involving guns that are banned. That worked out just wonderful now didn't it.

Let me make it real plain for you.... Ban guns and you will have an armed rebellion. I and a hell of a lot of other law abiding citizens will cease to be content to have our rights removed because you think it is for our own good.

It only takes a couple million to start a war, and you will have a lot more than a couple million refusing to turn in their weapons. And we will either have the ban revoked or we will have a shooting rebellion to replace an oppressive Government.

Further, parts of the military will join in the rebellion as will police and elected officials. You want a war, go ahead.

Ever see the bumper Sticker " You can have my weapon when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" Multiple that by millions.

Statistics are NOT on your side. Common sense is not on your side, and the Constitution is NOT on your side.

As for your city banning guns, guess what? If the Court rules on the DC ban like we expect and hope it will, your ban is going down the toilet.

Yeah...What he said!

 

[Larkinn]

Different kettle of fish moron, YOU were on, and not answering and you still never responded to the facts. Ohh and YOU were IN this thread at the time, further I assumed your ignorant ass missed it, cause after all, you never "run away" now do you?

You posted less than a minute after I posted. Its exactly the same "kettle of fish", moron.

By the way, in case your incredibe intellect hasn't realized why I am on all the time, but don't post all the time, is because I often leave the browser on while I am in class or studying.

And no, I don't run away. Pity the same can't be said for you.

 

[Larkinn]

The simple fact is you pea brains want to ban guns because of a rate of .005% , thats right not 1 10th of one percent, not 1 100th of a percent but 5 1000th of one percent.

Right...and your willing to tell those people that their deaths are insiginficant, right?

Law abiding citizens should surrender their weapons because you think .005 % is to much.

Any deaths are too much.

Now again if we are talking all violent crimes 10 percent or less are done with firearms. Again you want to ban something that has nearly no impact on crime.

Nearly no impact on crime? Are you insane?

Ignoring the whole time that banning guns does NOT keep the criminals from having them, from getting them and from using them. All it does is encourage their use because now armed criminals KNOW we are not armed.

Care to explain how I can ignore and address something at the same time? And you think I'm stupid.

Let me make it real plain for you.... Ban guns and you will have an armed rebellion. I and a hell of a lot of other law abiding citizens will cease to be content to have our rights removed because you think it is for our own good.

Right because the left is all about removing rights Like the right to have an abortion, right to free speech, etc, etc.

It only takes a couple million to start a war, and you will have a lot more than a couple million refusing to turn in their weapons. And we will either have the ban revoked or we will have a shooting rebellion to replace an oppressive Government.

Well, you are retarded then. "If we can't be safe we'll start a war!!!". You don't believe this for rational reasons, you believe it for emotional bullshit reasons.

Further, parts of the military will join in the rebellion as will police and elected officials. You want a war, go ahead.

Ever see the bumper Sticker " You can have my weapon when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" Multiple that by millions.

As little respect as I have for your intelligence, I doubt even you are stupid enough to try to forment a rebellion against the US. But, really, please do. Then you can bitch and moan and cry when the anti-terrorism statutes you supported so strongly come to bite you in the ass. In fact, go ahead. Forment rebellion you fucking moron. Have fun in a navy brig without a trial for 6 years with the only ones who give a fuck about your rights being those you hate.

Statistics are NOT on your side. Common sense is not on your side, and the Constitution is NOT on your side.

Actually all are mixed. But keep on with the bullshit assertions.

As for your city banning guns, guess what? If the Court rules on the DC ban like we expect and hope it will, your ban is going down the toilet.

Care to make a large wager on this? The USSC won't ban gun laws. At worse they will make the DC laws unconstitutional. It won't be nation-wide.

 

[Dr Grump]

The simple fact is you pea brains want to ban guns because of a rate of .005% , thats right not 1 10th of one percent, not 1 100th of a percent but 5 1000th of one percent.

Law abiding citizens should surrender their weapons because you think .005 % is to much.

Now again if we are talking all violent crimes 10 percent or less are done with firearms. Again you want to ban something that has nearly no impact on crime. Ignoring the whole time that banning guns does NOT keep the criminals from having them, from getting them and from using them. All it does is encourage their use because now armed criminals KNOW we are not armed.

Once again EXPLAIN Britain , they banned guns and the result? A skyrocketing crimewave involving guns that are banned. That worked out just wonderful now didn't it.

Let me make it real plain for you.... Ban guns and you will have an armed rebellion. I and a hell of a lot of other law abiding citizens will cease to be content to have our rights removed because you think it is for our own good.

It only takes a couple million to start a war, and you will have a lot more than a couple million refusing to turn in their weapons. And we will either have the ban revoked or we will have a shooting rebellion to replace an oppressive Government.

Further, parts of the military will join in the rebellion as will police and elected officials. You want a war, go ahead.

Ever see the bumper Sticker " You can have my weapon when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" Multiple that by millions.

Statistics are NOT on your side. Common sense is not on your side, and the Constitution is NOT on your side.

As for your city banning guns, guess what? If the Court rules on the DC ban like we expect and hope it will, your ban is going down the toilet.

Do you want your Oscar now or later? DQ