Hope For Piers Morgan

Instead of being a rabid gun-grabber, tonight Piers Morgan of CNN went to Texas and talked to responsible firearms owners, users and businessmen and fired semi-auto and full-auto firearms. When he asked did anyone “need” such things, he was told firearms are a good investment and Mexican drug-runners frequently slip over the border and confront land-owners in Texas. The drug-runners definitely don’t follow any gun-control laws.

He followed with Ted Nugent and actually listened to him, for a while…

Clearly Piers Morgan now realizes firearms ownership is much more complex than what is seen on the news or Hollywood movies. There are ordinary people who need firearms of all kinds and firearms are tools just like hammers and saws, lethal in the hands of bad guys, and life-savers in the hands of good guys. Fortunately, most firearms owners are good guys and should be left alone. The situation in Texas is different than in northern cities, Alaska, or the farmlands but firearms are useful everywhere. I doubt this experience will convert Morgan but it might make him a lot less likely to blow up on people expressing legitimate views on the matter. Look at it this way. If there are 300million+ firearms in USA and only a few thousand unlawful killings with firearms annually, the firearms problem is tiny and clamping down on the vast majority of good guys will do nothing. Does anyone really believe one needs to ban anything that has 0.1% per annum probability of being misused?

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in firearms. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Hope For Piers Morgan

  1. eug says:

    What’s the connection between
    gun control… a recent executive order…
    and the coming food crisis?

    http://www.backyardliberty.com/vsl/

  2. oiaohm wrote, “Murder counts in the stats include Attempted Murder and Murder.”

    Uh, you mean “black”=”white”? Hmmm… My dictionary is falling into a black hole …

  3. ram says:

    I know for certain that guns and ammunition are more available (now illegally) than ever (in my living memory) in Australian cities. Places to shoot them safely, however, have declined. As far as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, John Howard’s gun ban has completely backfired.

    As to Australian government statistics they have no validity but just say what the government of the day wants them say. The most obvious bogus statistic is unemployment. If a person is even employed one hour per month they are considered ‘employed’ — yeah, right!

  4. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson what you are missing is the victim count of homicide has decreased compared to the amount of homicide.

    Murder counts in the stats include Attempted Murder and Murder.
    Manslaughter in the stats includes Attempted Manslaughter and Manslaughter. USA figures split these.

    Please also note the Line is decreasing in-line with gun usage in crime in Australia.

    Chicago Tribune does not know how to read the Australian numbers. They did not publish a graphic of the victim numbers.

    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html Go down the page look the 1915-2003. To be correct by 1996 in Australia firearm crime numbers were starting to drop.

    The last major spike was 1969. Or world war 2. Then until 1971 a very major drop off due to ammo not being produced or imported. Yes Australia produced most of the bullets for World war 2 and at end of war shut factories instantly causing a massive short fall in supply.

    Yes since 1969 the number of guns criminals have been able to get hands on have been decreasing Australia.

    Gun control is not a fast process Robert Pogson. Its most likely going to take 30 to 40 years to plug most of the leaks and recover most of the weapons particularly that the buy back was 100 percent screwed up. Yes when the gun laws came in vast number of weapons were released to the criminals. They stock piled them out of fear of lack of means to replace.

    Australia has been able todo so much by import control volume limiting the market. That is 1969-about 1991 Levels off until about 1996 when the new firearm laws come in. Spike due to buy back being botched. The decrease will keep on going.

    The Brookings Institution did not take into account that the gun buy back was completely stuffed up. Criminals running the so called gun crushes taking vast number of guns. So the criminal world in Australia 1997- on was flooded with guns. Volume lost is about 20 years worth of criminal supply without the latter stolen weapons.

    It is the one major mistake the Australia system did. The mistake has delayed the effect of the gun laws right. No in by historic number when ever market is flooded with guns and ammo crime rates go up. This did not happen due to the fear of not being able to replace weapons. So they have been stock piled. Police are still hunting those stock piles down. The weapon buy back was the most number of stolen weapons Australia has ever had. So Australia is screwed. Remove the firearm laws criminals will no longer have a reason to hide there stock piles. Its the law that stopped something really bad happening.

    Robert Pogson
    “I’ll take my odds even if the nearest police officer is 15 miles away.”
    Remember what I said most cause of death rural by firearm is dropping by unannounced.

    Rural you can do something to reduce your risk of being dead in problem areas just obey the simple rule ring/contact everywhere you are going first and be sure they 100 percent know you are coming. Also make sure you never get lost rural it might be the last thing you do. Not just the wild life the local humans are more problem to lost humans.

    This is why locals to rural area have very little problems. Visitors on the other hand. Yes this is why with a Visitor to a rural area it is wise to setup for a local to be with them at all times. Reduces death rate. Problem is not all Visitors are wise the city slicker or the over confident rural people are the ones that end up dead.

    Cities you have idiots in gangs this is a worse problem you cannot do much about that other than be lucky. Yes the rural problem is sortable by education. Mandatory education of firearm users. Most of the decrease in homicide is rural in Australia. Cities in Australia are now more of a risk than rural after the gun laws.

    Our gun laws are limited on how far they will help in cities. Cities will take longer for the number of arms to disappear from criminals. Rural in Australia have increase there number of firearms.

    Lot of Australian numbers are completely backwards to what is expected.

    Cities gun ownship has reduced and risk has not moved. Rural gun own-ship has increased yet death rate due to guns in Rural has decreased and the over all death rate in rural has decreased. Historically in Australia increased gun ownership equals increased deaths.

    The more you do the in Australian numbers the more strange. The gun control in Australia has done something. Number are going against there natural out comes. It would have be more useful if the weapon buy back had not been screwed up. Most of the lost weapons from the buy back are turning up in the cities.

    This is the problem. You look at one lot of number they suggest crime in Australia should have gone threw the roof but it did not move.

  5. oiaohm writing about what he knows naught, wrote, “the shocking part in Canada the odds of being killed in those vast regions by another human holding a gun is higher than being in the city. “

    There are “rural” areas that are as densely populated as most towns/villages in the North, yet the size of Nunavut, for instance is thousands of miles with only a tiny populated strip along the coast with villages about every 50 miles. You can travel 10-20 miles from town and never see another human for months except possibly for trans-polar flights. The whole population of Nunavut is a few tens of thousands.

    Where I live, although rural, there are neighbours every few hundred feet for ten miles in every direction. I have never seen police on my street. In the city of Winnipeg, police sirens are heard multiple times every night rushing to some crime. I’ll take my odds even if the nearest police officer is 15 miles away.

  6. Gun control is a complete waste of time. The homicide rate has hardly decreased at all from before to after the tighter control in Australia:

    Does it really matter if someone is killed by a knife, a stone or a firearm?

    “It’s true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect — but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn’t accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn’t budge. At most, they conclude “there may” — may — “have been a modest effect on homicide rates.””

    see Chicago Tribune

  7. oiaohm says:

    ram Go recheck the numbers now. Straight after it went up years down the track its gone down every year.

    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics.html
    http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

    The register found guns entering system that should not be. Hang on these guns went here to be crushed and hey we got some from this crime over here. Hey that crush has a leak. Cancel that crushes contract. This all takes time.

    Before the country wide register yes guns were so called crushed in one state and turned up doing crimes in others and no one knew the difference.

    ram the crime states of Australia are fully on the public record. You will not be able to make a case of increased crime 2 to 3 years after the gun ban. It has been declining since.

    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

    homicide weapon guns are kinda getting rarer. Homicides where the charge is attempted Homicide not Homicide has also increased.
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/victims.html

    Shows up in victim stats. Less victims ever that there have been more attempted Homicides. Reduce guns make people doing Homicides use knifes less people die. Even if your Homicide rate does not appear to change. Yes australian homicide rate include failed attempts at Homicides. The number would be clearer if they were reported differently.

    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/robbery.html

    Robbery really has not increased it is lower now than when the gun laws were brought in. Less deaths again.

    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html Increased assault rate should equal higher death rate again not the case.

    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/sexual%20assault.html

    This sexual assault and general Assault rate rate increase lines up with mandatory reporting requirements. Those laws came in the year 2000.
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html

    Notice the sharp jump on all Assault year 2000 to 2001. That is not the year Australian gun laws came in. 1996-1997 is when gun regulation comes in. 2000-2001 is medical forced to mandatory report to police about assaults and those going into the register even if nothing is done. Of course there was a arguement over mandatory reporting of sexual assault the reason for is spike being end of 2001 start of 2002.

    Yes trap with stats. You have to be sure the stats are recording exactly the same thing. What is being measured has changed.

    http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp116/10_conclusion.html

    Less than 10 percent of guns come from illegal production used by crime. 90 percent+ is coming from legal owners having weapon stolen or legal owners selling to criminals.

    Criminals are mostly not importing. We know this from the the guns they are being caught with. Most turn out to be imported into Australia then have false deal to sell them back overseas never happens or be stolen.

    This has also resulted in criminal gangs stock piling particular classes of weapons for gang wars and not using them on a general base. Reason they may not be able to replace them. Lots of those weapons are pre buy back and hard to find.

    Note the report is from 2012 and most of the guns we are still weeding out are from the buy back because the buy back was not setup properly and many crushes as Ram said lead straight into the hands of criminals. This stopped with the crush press at police station and it being crushed into front of owner.

    So its not like Australia has not done things wrong. Allowing criminals to operate gun crushes that was a very big opps. Sharing of tracking data still has to be improved.

    ram in canada rural you are more likely to die by gun shot than in Australia combining the numbers of poisons snakes, spiders, jelly fish. Your percentage of risk is insanely high in Canada rural.

    Ram the stats don’t show increased rate in Australia without explanation. The increased don’t like up with the firearm laws. The interesting is the reduced death from crime. The amount of reported crime is the same or more yet the death rate from crime is lower.

    Reducing guns appears to reduce death from crime. Right. Other than the fact Australia has more guns now than before the gun laws in legal people hands.

    So its not gun reduction. For some reason criminals are having a harder time getting hands on guns even that the number of guns is there. I suspect the fear of tracking knowing you have lost a gun.

  8. ram says:

    ‘You are more likely to die from snake bite in Australia than a gun in rural areas.’

    oiaohm is definitely right about the snakes though! Also don’t forget about our spiders!

    How about a swim? That’s even more dangerous with the amazingly lethal jellyfish, crocodiles, and sharks. Not to mention venomous fish and sea snakes!

  9. ram says:

    oiaohm is mistaken about the gun situation in Australia. Since John Howard’s gun ban, gun crime, indeed all crime, is way up.

    As to the police destroying guns seized from criminals he should visit (i.e. work for a while, say undercover) at one of the local metal/scrap dealers that ‘destroy’ arms for the police under contract. Curiously, those same scrap dealers are run by ‘biker club’ members and are the same places stolen vehicles get crushed for insurance purposes.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is!

  10. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson
    “Nonsense. There are vast regions where the probability of meeting anyone, let alone a bad guy, are so small that humans are not a problem.”

    And the shocking part in Canada the odds of being killed in those vast regions by another human holding a gun is higher than being in the city. Yes its in the Canada Murder stats on the wikipedia.

    Your statement does not match reality Robert Pogson.

    This is also wrong.
    “It is Nature that is out to get you on the tundra or in the forest.”
    You are more likely to die by gun even in areas with polar bears. Yes death rate by gun is higher than death rate caused by polar bears and all the other natural ways to kill us. Nature is mostly not out to kill us unless we are stupid.

    Reality when you get down to the cold hard numbers Robert something needs to be done about guns in Canada and the USA. In Australia deaths on farms and nature areas after gun control has become basically non existent. Few to domestic violence but that is it. No more accidental shootings. You are more likely to die from snake bite in Australia than a gun in rural areas. Yes we have some very toxic snakes. Heck even a lighting strike is more likely if you are just visiting the area. Canada and USA both have a problem of shooting people who are lost and happen to go near someone house with a person not trained to use guns properly.

    Yes Australia you will hear verbal order to halt if you miss that a warning shot. If you run you live if you stop you live. If you processed forwards then killing shot might come. Trained process for dealing with intruders using gun.

    There is a training requirement with firearms to use them correctly for self defence so you don’t shot some poor bugger who is just lost.

    Yes the problem here is the person who is the bad guy in rural areas thinks they are being a good guy protecting their property and is doing it wrong. So very nice person other than the fact they shot you. They also end up mentally scared by it.

    Most common cause of gun death in rural areas without gun control is shot by properly owner while unarmed. Humans have a fear problem when alone so without training can over react leading to these problems. Yes this has nothing todo with how nice or evil the person is.

    Not all people who kill with guns has evil intent. Yes firing a warning shot and not being able to aim well can turn from a warning shot to a killing shot. People watch too many movies and in movies they see shots across bow and in front of people as warning shots. These are not even attempted by expert marksman in real life. Yet untrained amateurs attempt todo them as self defence to property resulting in hurt and dead humans who really were doing nothing wrong.

    City people are in fact more accepting of uninvited guests dropping by than rural if you go by firearm usage. Yes movies are part to blame for incorrect training.

    Yes rural people are more helpful and friendly as long as you are not an uninvited guest to there property.

    Both city and rural have there own unique culture problems. Rural culture problems can be handled by mandatory training.

    Yes just like driving a car where you have to have a license so you know what in hell you are doing on the roads so you don’t kill others is the reason why you need a gun license with required training. Just registering or just licensing is not enough.

    USA and Canada have massive number of problems caused by lack of effective gun training/control. If you don’t want to bring in gun control.

    Other option is mandatory gun handling and self defence usage training in all schools then at least this would go away to sorting out the rural.

    Basically something needs to be done. If not Australian gun control to force training some other way to force training. Untrained twits with guns are the ones who shot bystanders in cities and visitors in rural areas.

  11. Ivan says:

    Ted Nugent

    You look up to to this guy?

    You’re an idiot.

  12. bw wrote, “Out on the frontier, as defined by those residing within any such area, lawlessness would prevail and one would have to band together with other citizens for mutual protection. Strangers could be shot on sight and important agri-businesses could hire private security or even sub-contract things to National Guard or similar organizations.”

    Nonsense. There are vast regions where the probability of meeting anyone, let alone a bad guy, are so small that humans are not a problem. It is Nature that is out to get you on the tundra or in the forest. Folks tend to be helpful and friendly in the rural areas because that’s the norm. It is the city folk who thrive on taking from one another. Still there are particular places where smugglers value their trade enough to kill to maintain it or the odd nut-case dwells. Folks used to being self-reliant deal with it. City-dwellers like someone else to solve problems so problems grow and multiply.

  13. bw says:

    “Get out of the city! In sparsely populated areas there is no “effective” law enforcement.”

    Maybe that opens up some grounds for compromise then. In the city or environs where citizens expected government supplied security, let us control firearms along the lines proposed by the Australian here. People who want to shoot guns for whatever reason would first need an operator’s license gained through some effective training procedure and, once qualified at some level, would have some strict requirements for keeping their weapons secure and away from others who might use them criminally.

    Out on the frontier, as defined by those residing within any such area, lawlessness would prevail and one would have to band together with other citizens for mutual protection. Strangers could be shot on sight and important agri-businesses could hire private security or even sub-contract things to National Guard or similar organizations.

  14. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson
    –Ask anyone in Afghanistan who has had family members killed by US forces whether they need protection from US.–
    The answer will be yes and no. If the person was an active combatant and know as such the family members may understand USA forces had no choice.

    Now when its a case that they were just attending a funeral or just walking down the street next to the wrong building and shot directly by USA forces of course they will want protection from the USA forces. Not like one small machine gun will be about todo anything.

    Robert Pogson
    –There is a town in Saskatchewan, Batoche, where the Canadian government used artillery and machine-guns on civilians to quell an insurrection.–

    Ok what is the results of doing this.

    Canada population include you remember this event. So have embedded in the back of mind that they must remain armed against the Government because they cannot trust the Government not todo this to them.

    Result of massive force is massive mental scare in the population that prevents the country being properly peaceful. You will find some of the criminal groups in Canada use the same thing to justify there stealing and other crimes.

    Robert Pogson
    –Dozens of treaties resulted with aboriginal tribes wanting to avoid that fate…–

    You complained about the poor education out comes in Canada with aboriginal tribes.

    Where I lived growing up in Australia the aboriginal tribes were different to the normal. They were not defeated. They entered into a true willing treaty included as part of the treaty is a free university for the best grade holding local. They don’t have the Education problem. Reason why a true willing treating was required. Whites had guns the 3 local tribes had airborne bio and chemical weapons what they still know how to make. Neither side could win. Also the local aboriginals started with there no killing bio weapons. Disabled and captured.

    Most other areas in Australia I go to have major Aboriginal problems they were taken by force.

    The outcome in the Canada would have been vastly different if one of the tribes from here was there with their bio weapons. Force of arms becomes impossible against equally or better armed.

    The lose of life causes resentment.

    Australia has its scares. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Rebellion

    They lost to force of arms. Yet we as Australians can never forgot them or there ideals.

    We understand as Australian. Just because you win by force of arms. You can completely lose on paper after the war. The agreements at the end decide if you have victory or not. Numbers killed make the scare deeper so creating a force for change in the favour of those you killed.

    Prime goal to avoid losing like Eureka is don’t kill were able.

    –Governments are tyrannical– Line comes from the scare your population still carries.

    Yes Australia is well aware governments can be tyrannical but we do as much as we can on paper to prevent and limit there powers.

    Robert Pogson
    –In sparsely populated areas there is no “effective” law enforcement.–
    This also shows you are being foolish. As well as no effective law enforcement there is no effective medical. This is why you need to be trained to have a gun in those areas you cannot afford to shot yourself or a friend.

    Australia law does not forbid arms. Requires you to have to the training to use them correctly to reduce accidents. So you get a new weapon you have to go to an armorer to pick it up. Who will run you threw the weaknesses and defects of the weapon. Result no more accidental shooting because two models of guns have safety switch different ways.

    Everything about the way Australian firearm law works its to make sure the legal person is least likely to hurt themselves or any other party they are not internally aiming at. Yes starting off with single shot weapons instead of semi automatic gets people out of the habit of spray and pray.

  15. Hans Gruber wrote, “if you gotta shitty job, a naggin wife and a dump for a home, at least you have your gun making you feel like a man.”

    Nonsense. Small children throw stones because it’s a challenge and causes action at a distance. It’s not about manliness. see here:
    Jessie Duff, a lady, shooting. She’s not trying to be a man.

    I hunt. My wife has hunted on occasion. She doesn’t like getting away from Safeway. I do. I have hunted gophers to moose and used a variety of firearms to do so. I didn’t feel like a man doing that. I am a technologist using the best tool for the job. This year, for a change, I plan to use a bow to hunt deer. My home is pretty fine. Too good for me…

    If you watch the video of Piers Morgan shooting, he probably wasted $hundreds of dollars in the spot. That’s not about manliness. Shooting is not a great sport for poor people because it’s costly. When I was young, a .22 rimfire rifle was ~$15 and 50 rounds of ammunition cost about 25cents. Now, many .22 rimfire rifles cost ~$200 and cheap ammunition is about $2 for 50 rounds. Rifles that people used to buy as “war surplus” for ~$20 now cost $hundreds. Complete Mauser rifles cost ~$100 during the 1970s. Here’s a guy selling just the action for $600.

    That many live in situations where they actually need firearms means many have to do without other things.

  16. bw wrote, “It seems incredible to me for anyone to actually hold the notion that they must have a gun ready to defend themselves against drug runners or worse. Ditto for the idea that some tyrannical government will assault them and put them in chains (or worse).”

    Get out of the city! In sparsely populated areas there is no “effective” law enforcement. Responses may take hours. There’s a reason people live in such places: opportunity. Where else can one person own huge tracts of land, valuable property? Where else can one have the most freedom. OTOH, one must be more self-sufficient. These folks are not asking the government to do everything. Governments are tyrannical from time to time everywhere: e.g. religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, feudalism (no rule of law), corruption, etc. Ask anyone in Afghanistan who has had family members killed by US forces whether they need protection from US. Ask anyone who served over there whether they think the US government can be ruthless. Same in Canada. There is a town in Saskatchewan, Batoche, where the Canadian government used artillery and machine-guns on civilians to quell an insurrection. They didn’t sit down and talk. They just blasted their way in and took few prisoners until the matter was decided. Dozens of treaties resulted with aboriginal tribes wanting to avoid that fate…

  17. Hans Gruber says:

    I like your articles Robert but your non-FLOSS positions are much weaker than your FLOSS ones.

    Youre support for death or guns is not more than rehashing of NRA scare tactics.

    The majority of people have guns because their cool.
    They make noise, and are dangerous and they given even the weakest coward a sense of manliness.
    Simply because one click of a trigger allows you destructive power more than most people ever have in their lives.
    Not that much different from power tools.

    You can do a Freudian analysis dealing with penis envy and other such phallic substitutes as to why the need but guns owners love to shoot guns. It excites them, it makes them feel alive.
    And if you gotta shitty job, a naggin wife and a dump for a home, at least you have your gun making you feel like a man.

    I remember years ago when a friend remarked about how the majority of people that have Photoshop didnt pay for it and another one mentioned thats because ‘Everyone’ is a graphic designer because theyve learned to do a flared lens effect. Most of them never got paid for a job but they are ‘graphic designer’.

    The same way the mexican bogeyman he is taking one particular regional problem (kill the war on drugs and it will drive them out of business. illegality=profit) and transferring it to themselves.

    And why is arming against mexicans ok but arming yourself in inner cities against gangs not considered a good example anymore? Imagine someone said, I need a gun because of all the black criminals and drug dealers… cant say that, youd be a racist. So the mexican bogeyman is the one to go to.

    Ive heard the western reform party yahoos belittle the arms registry in Canada and have yet to find a cop who wouldnt like to go into a house knowing weather there are guns there or not when going in for a domestic abuse case.
    But gun nuts have fought tooth and nail.
    The gov has to know if you have a car, if you have a mortgage but not if you have a gun? Sorry, there is no reason for this. (please dont bring the bogus unmarked gun red herring, most of the big killings here have been done with legal guns..we just had a 12 yr old kill his brother last week…dad was violent, barred from seeing his ex-wife, unstable and loved guns, the big Polytecnique, Concordia and Dawson school killings were all legal guns just like the Qc election shooter who was huntin-fishing guide.)

    For someone who reads between the lines of the MS propaganda, you seem to be willing to overlook (and use) the cheap reasoning the NRA has been pumping for decades.

    Semi-automatic hogwash is hogwash, pure and simple.

    its not about danger but about feeling like a man.
    guns do that for a lot of people and to totally overlook the fun aspect of gun ownership is hypocritically self serving. Because people like you dont like that guns and fun is a way of life that has nothing to do with protection. I understand. Its frivolous as opposed to the do gooder chord you are going for.
    Ive heard the same BS expressed about armed forces being liberators. Every invader doesnt seem himself as the bad guy, even the nazis. All you got to do is convince some high school dropout that his killing of civilians is done for a greater good.
    Heck, we have that BS in schools now where they get ex-NHL goons telling kids that they werent bullies, they were there to protect their teammates against bullies.

    In all three cases, its how you perceive yourself that clouds your view. I cant be the bad guy, Im a good guy.

  18. bw says:

    It seems incredible to me for anyone to actually hold the notion that they must have a gun ready to defend themselves against drug runners or worse. Ditto for the idea that some tyrannical government will assault them and put them in chains (or worse).

    If any of that were a real threat, any rational person would simply leave that area if it were not possible to do the common thing and establish police or sheriff protection in the locale. Anyone hunkered down on their property awaiting the imminent arrival of a bad guy in need of dispatching is crazy enough to qualify for a firearms exclusion.

    Doubtless there have been cases of burglars or other interlopers shot dead by an armed homeowner and maybe some day as many such criminals will be killed to equal the number of innocents shot by mistake when taken for a burglar, but it seems unlikely.

    Piers Morgan is quite right and the gun nuts are looking more and more insane in their paranoia.

  19. oiaohm says:

    But it is important that the good guys with semi-automatic have decent training so they don’t shot like the power metre reader.

    Mexican drug-runners ok how did they get there guns thinking Mexico don’t make guns. Possible steal them from houses along the boarder when people are not home.

    Tracking of weapons and security of storage of weapons is important.

    –If there are 300million+ firearms in USA and only a few thousand unlawful killings with firearms annually, the firearms problem is tiny and clamping down on the vast majority of good guys will do nothing.–

    Ok who is supplying the bad guys with guns. Think of this guns get used in crime. Police takes gun. Gun gets crushed no more gun. Criminals need a constant supply of new guns because between disposing of guns to hide the evidence of crimes and what police take they are going threw guns.

    Tracking mind find the few thousand unlawful used guns might be coming from police letting guns back on street or by some people selling guns illegally under table. Plug these leaks yes it takes time but the result is what you see today in Australia. Dropping number of guns in criminal hands.

    Remember with our gun laws more people have guns today legally than before the laws. Just now they are better trained if they have semi-automatic.

    Mexican drug-runners I would guess are mostly poorly trained. So the people along the board properly trained in combat would reduce the chance of 1 Mexicn drug-runners getting away. Number 2 of the good guy dieing in the fire fight against the Mexicia drug runner.

    Yes a gun is a tool. But a gun with training is the same as asking a person to panel beat a car without proper training they might pull it off or they might cause a complete disaster like killing a non-guilty person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Firearm control is really not about taking weapons away as Australia has shown. It make sure people with weapons are trained. It also make sure a person does not think they can sell there guns under the table to some criminal for some money because they are desperate. Reason they know the guns will track back to them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>