Thanks for the idea. Since we don’t live in your gun owner’s paradise, I’m going to start doing this. See something, say something.
Geh ta Glasgow, they’ll sort ye owt ! 
I can’t speak for Australia, but as regards the UK that is complete hogwash. There has been a longterm decline in crime over several decades. A major component in that has been the decline in the proportion of young men in the population. What we do find is that where there are pockets of violence, those who are that way inclined use knives. But at least Friday night drunken punch-ups and family rows don’t turn into shoot-outs.
I was giving a slightly-joking but mostly-serious idea of MY idea of “common sense” gun legislation.
I’ve thought about this, and I would indeed be willing to vote for your proposal if my proposal was included in the plan. It isn’t perfect, but in many respects, it would be better than what we have now. I would be willing to give up certain aspects of gun rights in order to gain others.
Would you be willing to vote for the combined plan?
You have been misinformed. Since the 1997 gun law, robbery in Australia has dropped by over 50 percent. Other violent crimes have stayed about the same.
Cops who want to stay alive assume everyone is armed no matter who they are or what he/she is approaching them for. According to the majority of the ones I’m around and do different activities with, its not the “shots fired” call that gets you killed - its the domestic or traffic stop that turns out to involve someone drunk or in the drug trade/drug use that gets you killed. Even if we were able to ban ownership tomorrow they would still have to assume everyone is armed because (to them) someone who ignores the current laws against recreational drugs, or drunk driving for example, probably isn’t going to care about laws against guns. To them the real heart of the matter isn’t a gun problem so much as a drug/alcohol abuse problem.
Police unions are like any union; solid Democrat and for gun control. Since most city Chiefs are appointed politically and since most of the cities are “ours” they tend to be Democrat and for gun control as well. Patrol officers and more rural departments are mixed politically (and far less Republican than you would think IMHO) but tend more towards my feelings; strict enforcement of the laws we have rather than adding new ones on top of the equation.
Their feeling is that since they can’t protect everyone, law-abiding people should have some ability or recourse to protect themselves. A lot would like to see some stricter standards for CCW and how people (physically) keep guns in their homes but feel ownership and having a gun in your own house is fine or in some cases actually beneficial to them. A couple officers actually work around my neighborhood trying to educate people on the best ways to go about ownership and would like to see a serious program of outreach and education so I guess we can call that pro-gun. But few, if any, are looking to roll things back to say pre-1968 standards so we can’t say they are against gun control either.
This is the first hit when searching for “Police Opinion gun control”
Some detailed questions and responses at the link.
The same is true here in the US. Despite media hype and sensationalism regarding gun deaths, violent crimes, including murder, are down in the US over the past several decades. And this has happened at the same time that the number of guns has gone way up.
The number of mass shootings, like those in Oregon, are tragic, no doubt, but are not statistically meaningful.
Well, sure it is. Because to us gun owners, gun control laws proposed by gun control advocates are illogical, ineffective and entirely one-sided. It’s always about more restrictions and more inconvenience and more cost for gun owners. How about if you want to propose a new restriction, you rescind an existing one?
If you want expanded background checks, then be willing to implement carry permit reciprocity throughout the country, with universal similar laws in all states?
If you want waiting periods, then how about letting us buy guns through the mail like we could before 1968?
If you want magazine capacity restrictions, then how about letting us own suppressors with no fee or permit?
Why is it whenever there is a widespread case of computer hacking, or child porn, or credit card file thefts, that nobody proposes new computer control laws? Make people register with the government to buy a PC. Make people go to a federally-approved computer store to buy a new laptop, where the serial number is recorded, and you can’t sell it without going to a licensed computer store for the transfer. And if you live in CA or NY, you can only buy a 10 pound laptop loaded with Windows XP.
Why? Because we all recognize that computers are not the problem when these crimes happen, they are the tool. And because implementing such laws would only represent an unfair cost and inconvenience to the vast majority of people who do not use their computers as criminal tools.
So I clicked on the link to find out who conducted the survey and what their methodology was. Color me surprised:
Then I saw this at the bottom of the page:
Not exactly an unbiased source.
Sorry, I find your cite unpersuasive.
I struggle to imagine what you would consider persuasive. A question was asked, and a data point offered. I have no comment as to the rigor of the survey, but it’s obvious who conducted the survey - it was the website. To participate, people have to be verified current or former law enforcement officers per the website. Because of this, it’s clearly not a random sample, but specifically only those law enforcement officers who have verified with the site itself. If the PoliceOne membership is not representative of police as a whole, then the survey results would not be either. And vice versa.
Yeah, that’s pretty much why I find it unpersuasive. It is a self selected survey, not much better than an online poll. I might trust a nationally recognized poll company, but this one does not impress me.
Australia’s - and the UK’s - violent crimes have risen sharply since their governments disarmed all the honest people so that they can’t defend themselves from the criminals, who of course pay no attention to laws and don’t only use guns either, but these politically corrected cows, like what you see here, haven’t got the common sense to figure that out, and of course the governments and their enablers are always coming out with phony statistics to cook the books.
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 – five years after enacting its gun ban – the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
[COLOR=“Magenta”]Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States – where no gun-ban exists – both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, “Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban,” Free Republic, April 9, 2009.
For text:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts
- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847#sthash.Hg1fPZX4.dpuf[/COLOR]
In the US the places with the strictest gun controls - so only the criminals and the politicians (same thing) are armed - criminals of course pay no attention to laws, like “gun free zone” laws - not that criminals even need guns as they choose their targets, so that a bunch of them might jump or home invade an elderly person, whose only chance at self defense would be a gun - like the once great city of Chicago, have by far the highest violent crime rate.
Also, how come none of you politically corrected cows addressed the second part of my post above:
“And if your “Mister Obama” - and the Pope too - hate guns so much how about they set an example for us and get rid of all those hired gunsels that surround them and protect THEIR own precious rear ends night and day?”
Personal insults aren’t allowed outside of the Pit. Don’t do this again.
This thread seems better suited to Great Debates. I’ll relocate it.
Speaking of phony statistics, who is Howard Nemerov, and why should we accept his uncited post on Free Republic?
As for the “National Center for Policy Analysis” here is the rest of their story:
I like my cite from the Australian government better.
You know, “crazies” would’ve been perfect.
The same way they got around it in 1934.
Before I do, I’d like to at least understand the rationale behind what seems to me to have as much to do with “common sense” as plugging one’s genitals into the nearest power outlet.
What are your proposed measures supposed to accomplish ?
I’m confused. What state do you live in that allows criminals, children, and/or psychotics to own firearms? I am not familiar with a single state where this is the case.
As a guess, I think he means laws intended to make it impossible for the 3 Cs to illegally obtain guns; presumably by drastically curtailing who’s allowed to own a gun at all.