from cory's list server:

Is Australian Gun Control a Warning for U.S? Australia: After Gun Confiscation

Read the following synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association then post your views in the firearms politics newsgroup.

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in...

A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer...you'll see...".

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:

* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%

* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%

* Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)

* In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)

* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)

* There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly

* At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"

* From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

* The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions

* The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.

* Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

"...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size. We didn't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..."

Keith Tidswell Sporting Shooter's Association Australia

http://communities.msn.com/outdoors/magazines/firearms/1/australia.asp <>

-- a (a@a.a), August 11, 1999

Answers

A gunless society -- if there could ever be such a thing -- would be anything but safe. Without firearms, only the most brutal and savage rule. Criminals who know that they are dealing with an unarmed populace know that they will have the upper hand. (Governments too, I might add.)

Here are two truths, which make a completely gunless society impossible:

1) Criminals will always have guns. By definition, they do not obey laws, including gun laws. Guns even find their way into prisons, either smuggled in or made inside.

2) Governments will always have guns. And as Adolph Hitler so well proved with the Holocaust, once you have disarmed your victims, you can pretty much do whatever you want to with them.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), August 11, 1999.

a

Did the source you found this in cite the source of these statistics? I would love to get a hold of these to beat gun grabbers over the head with. But I insist on having all my information footnoted first. After all, at least ONE side of the debate should have acurate and verifiable information. *evil grin*

If you have it, I'd be interested.

Keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), August 11, 1999.

eyes: try the URL. It's from an MSN e-zine.

-- a (a@a.a), August 11, 1999.

Aha, there's a mistruth in the original Post.

The gun buy-back did *not* cost the government $500 Million. It was funded by a one-off increase in the Medicare Levy (The compulsory government medical insurance scheme to which all Australians are compelled to belong, even if they have private medical insurance).

Th fire-arm types which were banned and hence had to be sold to the government were all automatic, semi-automatic and pump action weapons, regardless of calibre (yup, even semi-auto 22's!)

They paid you a fair price for them though, the only problem was that they paid you with your own money!

The buy-back was prompted by a massacre in Tasmania in which over 30 people were shot and killed by a by a lone (millionaire!!) gunman of well below average intelligence called Martiin Bryant. He survived but is now serving a life sentence in Tasmainia's Risdon Jail and his fortune was taken as compensation to the families of the deceased. He was (IMHO) a cowardly scum-bag!

It is not known how many criminals surrendered their weapons.

RonD

-- Ron Davis (rdavis@ozemail.com.au), August 11, 1999.

Oops, scumbag's name was Martin Bryant, only one i.

RonD

-- Ron Davis (rdavis@ozemail.com.au), August 11, 1999.

Home Invasions Skyrocket in Canada,Great Britain and Australia

Home Invasions Skyrocket

Police agencies across Canada are reporting an enormous increase in the frequency of "home invasion" robberies. Coincidentally, Great Britain an d Australia are reporting the same thing and yet, in the United States home invasions, which have traditional been quite uncommon,are actually on the decline.

The Canadian Institute for Legislative Action would like the Minister of Justice Anne McLellan to answer one simple question.

Why?

What do Canada, Great Britain and Australia share that the United States d oes not? The answer is obvious to anyone open minded enough to look.

Recently enacted, extremely restrictive laws against the private ownership and use of firearms.

But the United States, the only opposing force in this trend against the citizen, has been busily enacting state legislation to permit citizens gre ater freedoms in the ownership of firearms. Not just home invasions, but many types of violent crime have experienced significant declines since the beginning of this trend.

And here in Canada, individuals rally in fear of their safety while local police services reel from drastic manpower and budget cuts ( it has cost t he Government of Canada $200 million to implement C-68 ) and recommend such ridiculous, useless measures as putting toys in your front yard. (See attached clippings).

Why should Canadians have to put up with such measures in order to combat a government created problem? Why would the government made the people of Canada so vulnerable to this type of terror?

Is the Justice Minister open minded enough to examine the possibilities outlined above? Will she look at this issue honestly and inform the Canad ian public of the results?

For more information contact:

Canadian Institute for Legislative Action P.O.Box 44030,A0 600 Grandview St. S. Oshawa, ON.A0 L1H 8P4 Ph: (905) 571-2150 Fax: (905) 436-7721 e-mail:A0A0 teebee@sprint.ca Home:A0A0 http://www.cila.org A proud member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities ---------------------------------------------

-- mmmm (mmmm@aol.com), August 11, 1999.

Ah yes, the great "freedom" that exists in the US. Facts anyone?

In 1995 alone, 35,957 Americans were killed with firearms, in homicides, suicides, and accidents. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,148 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), August 12, 1999.

Let those who want everyone to give up their guns, first put a sign in their window: "No guns here" You may or may not recall Carl Rowan, Washington left-wing, liberal journalist who advocated this same gun-control nonsense. (BTW, DC has the most strict gun laws on the books) Well, ol' Carl got pissed off when some college students skinny dipped his pool and shot one of them.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), August 12, 1999.

>>In 1995 alone, 35,957 Americans were killed with firearms, in homicides, suicides, and accidents<<

Yes, and more than that died in auto accidents. By the way thats .00014% of the population.

-- George in NePa (grc0702@aol.com), August 12, 1999.

Some facts for you, Y2K Pro...

European anti-gun laws only arrived after World War I, and they were not passed in order to curb crime. They were passed in response to the political violence of that tumultuous era (1918-1939) between the two World Wars.

Whatever their purpose, European anti-gun laws have miserably failed. They have not prevented assassination, terrorism, and other political violence?problems occurring throughout Europe on a fairly regular basis, but not so in the U.S. Neither have these anti-gun laws stopped non-political crime, which has steadily increased throughout Europe since World War II.

To this issue, the further question has been asked, "Why has Europe had so much less non-political violent crime than the U.S.?" Yale University's preeminent historian, Dr. C. Vann Woodward, suggests an answer. He writes, "The impact upon Europe of the emigration [to the U.S.] of 35,000,000 Europeans in the Century between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I remains to be acknowledged. The importance of the West as a safety valve for American society has undoubtedly been exaggerated. But the significance of America as a safety valve for Europe and the effect of the closing of that safety valve after World War I remain to be fully assessed." 1

Suicides in Europe

Nor, finally, have these anti-gun laws stopped suicide, something which has always been a much greater problem in Europe than in the U.S. In this respect, one can note a curious (but invariable) omission when anti-gun articles compare the U.S. to Europe.2

Anti-gun propaganda emphasizes suicide as well as homicide. U.S. suicide rates have risen over the past quarter century (while U.S. homicide rates have declined). However, anti-gun advocates recently have taken to combining suicide and homicide figures in the U.S. This allows them to conceal the decline in U.S. homicide rates (and to exaggerate the so-called "societal costs" of gun ownership). They have done this more particularly in the last few years while the U.S. homicide rate has been declining (despite a 100 per cent increase in handgun ownership since the 1970s).

But then, inconsistently, when comparing the U.S. to Europe, they only compare the homicide rates. They never use the combined homicide-suicide figure?because it would refute their entire argument; it shows that Europe's homicide-suicide combined rates are higher than that of the U.S.

---

INTERNATIONAL SUICIDE/HOMICIDE TABLE*

(*Ranked according to highest combined suicide-murder rate; nations ranked higher than the U.S. in either suicide or murder rates are in bold face)

Country	Year	Suicide	Murder	Combined
ESTONIA	1995	39.99	22.11	62.1
RUSSIA	1992	26.6	15.3	41.9
LATVIA	1990	26.	9.2	35.2
LITHUANIA	1990	26.	7.5	33.5
FINLAND	1994-95	27.3	3.3	30.6
UKRAINE	1990	20.6	8.0	28.6
DENMARK	1991	22.	5.0	27.0
AUSTRIA	1991	22.3	1.5	23.8
SWITZERLAND*	1994-95	20.8	1.1	21.9
FRANCE	1990	20.2	1.1	21.3
BELGIUM	1987	19.3	1.4	20.7
UNITED STATES*	1995-96	11.5	7.3	18.8
SWEDEN	1990	17.2	1.3	18.5
GERMANY	1995	15.8	1.8	17.6
LUXEMBOURG	1991	15.1	2.1	17.2
NEW ZEALAND	1989	13.9	1.9	15.8
CANADA	1995	12.9	2.0	14.9
ISRAEL	1989	7.3	1.2	8.5

*All information in this table dated before 1993 comes from the U.N. Demographic Yearbooks for 1993 and 1992. All information dated 1993 and thereafter comes from a draft study prepared for the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice's Vienna Session 28 April-9 May, 1997, except: a) the U.S. homicide figure comes from FBI preliminary data for 1996, and b) the Swiss homicide and suicide rates come from the Swiss national police.

-- Gunner (.38@special._), August 12, 1999.

gunner

What country are you most likely to be killed with a handgun? Do you need to buy a vowel? Its to late to stop the madness in the US.

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), August 12, 1999.

All you anti-gun, pro-socialist nazi bastards(that's where we get our gun laws from--but you don't care)go move to theese other wonderfull countries. Leave the US free, we're the only free country left (sorta). If your so scared of dying don't get up in the morning, life is dangerous and no one gets out alive.

The number ONE killer of kids is......Automobile accident's(go turn in your evil car). Buy a clue.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), August 12, 1999.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

You argue that guns should be banned because they kill thousands of people each year.

That is like arguing for not using automobiles because almost 50,000 people died in car accidents last year. Not to mention the criminal gangs killing each other's members while shooting from their vehicles. Or that we should ban doctors because millions die each year at the hands of inept doctors.

Actually, FBI crime statistics show that fully two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals. Locking up the criminals would dramatically reduce the number of people killed each year and would make our neighborhoods and communities safer.

Two recent studies have shown that firearm ownership actually reduces crime. Survey research shows there are over two million protective uses of firearms each year, far more than the number of criminal gun uses reported by the FBI. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 86 (1995).

The survey results showed that most often, the mere brandishing of a firearm to a criminal was enough to thwart the crime. Another study, by Prof. John Lott of the University of Chicago, showed that by adopting "shall issue" concealed carry handgun laws, 31 states have reduced murders, on average, by 7.7 %, rapes by 5 %, aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens would have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies.

As Prof. Lott characterized his findings: "Criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats." "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal, p. A13, August 28, 1996.

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S.

But there is also more to the story in Japan. Its murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. This means the Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 21 also (9.3 and 11.7, respectively, according to the National Safety Council). This comparison is significant because it shows that even if we could ban firearms, there probably would not be an appreciable reduction in the combined murder and suicide rate.

-- Gunner (38@special._), August 12, 1999.

Ya know Gunner, I bet ol' Buford agrees with you 100 per cent...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), August 12, 1999.

There ya go, if you can't refute the facts, resort to personal attacks. You're a real piece of work, "pro".

-- Gunner (38@special._), August 12, 1999.

Facts!

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit your hairy NRA luvin' backside. Tinfoils like you love to compare the US with third world countries and then exclaim: See, we aren't so bad". Here are the FACTS again:

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), August 12, 1999.

Hey Pro:

Try breaking into my house and getting my gun. :)

-- cynic (cynic@skeptic.com), August 12, 1999.

Hey Pro:

Your gun ban worked well in Rwanda, didn't it? And don't give me that third world country comparison crap. Your premise that gun bans add safety isn't worth crap to people in Rwanda who died trying to defend their families with sticks and branches.

-- cynic (cynic@skeptic.com), August 12, 1999.

OK "Pro", dispute this fact. Half the murders in the U.S. are not commited with a firearm. So, even if by some miraculous means we could get rid of every gun in America, and homocides were cut in half (which they wouldn't be, but that's a discussion for another time), the U.S. would STILL have a ridicously higher murder rate then any of the countries you mentioned. But you blame a hunk of metal for this countries problem with violence and murder? It's time to quit having that liberal knee-jerk reaction against those scary guns, and start looking at the real problems in our society.

-- Gunner (38@special._), August 12, 1999.

Gunner:

You're wasting your time. Y2KPro will make change the subject. He/She won't address the deaths caused by people being unable to defend themselves, like in Rwanda, or even in L.A. during the Rodney King riots. Where were you when Reginald Denny was getting the *hit kicked out of him, Pro? Where were your police then? Where were your police when shops were being looted? They were nowhere to be found. Why weren't you out there helping to defend people in the riot area, Pro?

-- cynic (cynic@skeptic.com), August 12, 1999.

I think I got it. Why don't we get all the pro-gun-ownership, NRA members, patriots, hunters, etc, i.e., all the "sane" people, which I consider myself to be a part of) We can all get together, with our guns, and go up against all the gun grabing, liberal, socialist, "guns kill people" pussies in an all out, to the death, fight. Each is allowed to use their weapon(s) of choice. Wonder how long the pussies would last...or how quickly they would holler "enough, we see your point".

-- gunslinger (heavilyarmed@alltimes.always), August 12, 1999.

Not a good plan pal. Then we would become the people the gun grabbers want to protect - violent criminals. Remember that gun grabbers don't want you to be able to protect yourself from violent criminals.

Personally, I'd love to see Y2K Pro take a stroll unarmed in a high crime area after dark. Then I'd be convinced that he/she really supports gun control. Remember gun grabber Carl Rowan? Guess what he did when someone invaded his property? He shot them with a pistol!

-- cynic (cynic@skeptic.com), August 12, 1999.

Y2K Pro said:

I bet ol' Buford agrees with you 100 per cent...

Pro, the insane bastard Buford had already broken 6 gun laws as it was. Please take the time to explain to us how MORE gun laws would have prevented this crime.

Then you can address the Atlanta massacre, where 5 of that bastards victims were killed with a hammer. The next thing you know, Y2K Pro will be suggesting that we register the country's 25 million hammers. LOL

-- a (a@a.a), August 12, 1999.

Come on Y2kPro:

I miss seeing that little yellow strip down you back. No answers? If you love disarmament so much, then prove it. If you fly to Chicago I will be glad to drive you to some of the more 'interesting' parts of the city for an unarmed stroll during the evening. And feel free to bring any friends along. I'll be happy to give you a ride. Since you feel so strongly that citizens should not have access to guns for defensive purposes, then prove it. Put yourself at the same risk that the people in these neighborhoods live with. Actions speak louder than words.

Come on Y2k Pro. How about it? Or are you gonna make up some excuse for your cowardice? Prove that you really believe your own postings. Put your a** out on the line like so many others do.

-- cynic (cynic@skeptic.com), August 12, 1999.

Why did Buford come to California to shoot up? Weren't there suitable targets in Washington/Idaho? Mind control programming from when he was in jail? Came to California per "instructions" as gov Davis and Dems want California to be the first U.S. state with a total gun ban and confiscation.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 12, 1999.

The gun grabbers' agenda doesn't have to make sense, it only has to "appear" to make sense. Unfortunately, the facts get in the way. Unfortunately, logic shreds any thread of argument the gun grabbers attempt to foist upon the American citizenry. Their only tool is hysteria, the more hysteria the better. And the day this country is run via hysteria is the day the writing appears on the wall.

The Wall Street Journal Europe, 1999-Jun-24, by Stephen P. Halbrook:

In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."

For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)

Tourists-especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police-think it's a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.

According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.

The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned. Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.

No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however. Congress is stampeding to pass additional firearm restrictions in response to the events of April 20, when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado. Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.

But there have been no school massacres in Switzerland, where guns and kids mix freely. At shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter, the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles with men and women of all ages. In fact, the tourist brochure "Zurich News" recommends September's Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest) as a must-see: "The oldest Zurich tradition . . . consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." The event has been held since 1657, and attracts thousands of teenage participants and spectators.

While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime. Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of guns. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in shooting matches bind youth to adults and discourages a generation gap.

By contrast, homicide rates are highest in the underdeveloped countries, many of which ban private firearm possession. In some, private murder does not compare to the genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.

In America, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and violent movies. But in Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family. Beside the range is a huge tent where scores or hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing.

With cantonal and rifle club banners fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells.

Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."

This coincidence has not escaped the notice of those who oppose liberty. Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Subjects must be disarmed to prevent democratic sedition, he said. The Swiss proved, Bodin wrongly averred, that arms bearing was "the cause of an infinite number of murders."

The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe's despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists. John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.

The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.

However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home. For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify. European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.

By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?

Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal firearms law was recently enacted. Certain firearm purchases require a permit, and others do not. On retirement, every soldier may keep his rifle or pistol. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military Department.

The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not.

_________________________________________________________________

1999-May-18, from the Orlando Sentinel, by Charley Reese:

Tragedy-fueled push for more gun control is based on a lie

The current push for more federal gun control is fueled by the Littleton, Colo., tragedy and based on a lie, which is repeated over and over not only by gun-control ideologues but by talk-show hosts and politicians.

The big lie is that guns are more accessible today.

This is factually false. It is demonstrably false. The truth is that, despite the Second Amendment, guns are less accessible today than at any time in American history. There are more than 20,000 gun-control laws and regulations already on the books.

Before 1968, there was no federal regulation at all of ordinary handguns and long guns. The only federal regulation was one passed in the 1930s that did not ban, but required a special license to purchase, fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Before that legislation, anybody who wanted to could buy a sub-machine gun, fully automatic, at most any store, without filling out any paperwork at all.

Guns are to America what the sword is to Japan. We would not exist as a country today without guns. For the majority of America's history, guns were as common in an American household as a broom or cooking pot.

Today, most states will not allow children to own a BB gun or to shoot one unless an adult is present. I received my Daisy BB gun at age 5, and I shot it unsupervised. I received a .22 caliber rifle for my eighth birthday, and I already possessed my own pistol, a .380 semi-automatic, which had been given to me by my brother-in-law, who had fought at Normandy. It was among a duffel bag full of pistols he brought back from the war.

American soldiers brought home all kinds of enemy weapons -- pistols, rifles, true-assault rifles, submachine guns. Today, even an admiral or a general is forbidden to bring back a rifle as a souvenir.

There have been changes, and one change is that guns are less accessible than before. Another is that more and more Americans have been born and reared in big cities where they had no opportunity to use a gun recreationally or for personal security. Another is that, with the end of the draft back in the 1970s, fewer and fewer Americans have an opportunity to be trained in weapons use in the military. Another change, probably related to the others, is that more journalists and politicians are simply ignorant of firearms, though that never stops those people from talking about and wanting to regulate firearms' ownership and use.

What happened in Littleton had nothing to do with firearms. Every other kid at that high school had the same access to firearms as the two shooters, and that's true in all the other school shootings. If you're going to argue that all the other kids had the same access to culture and they didn't go berserk, therefore you can't blame culture, then you must acknowledge that the same argument applies to firearms.

What you are seeing all around you is the old Hegelian principle at work -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis. First you create or call attention to a problem; then you generate hysteria about it; and then, voila, you offer a solution. In this case you have two kids go berserk, you fan hysteria and then propose, as a solution, restrictions on the right of all Americans to acquire and own firearms.

The land of the free is gradually becoming the land of the unfree. There are Americans, you know, who don't believe in freedom -- at least not for others. We should never forget that humans are humans regardless of their nationality. There are always some people who have a terrible lust to control the lives of other people.

Better to be free in a society with risks than a safe slave in a dictatorship.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), August 12, 1999.

here in our little po-dunk town, our gun store sells bumper stickers... saw one yesterday... "Yeah, you can have my gun!! Bullets first!!" love it...

and mine is the old favorite...

"God, guns, and guts... Keep America Free"

the right to bear arms was written into our constitution for a reason and there are even more reasons now to preserve our right to defend ourselves... REALLY...

i think i'll go home and practice with my "Aunt Sally"...

keep the faith...

-- booann (cantsay@lovemyjob.edu), August 12, 1999.

Nathan, loved that item from the Wall Street Journal Europe (?).

Do you have a URL?

Thanks!

-- alan (foo@bar.com), August 12, 1999.

alan,

I think you'll need to subscribe to the WSJ to search their archives to see the source article. However, I found a copy here:

Firearms, Crime, and Gun Control: an International Perspective

I believe the author, Stephen Halbrook, is well-regarded Second Ammendment Rights defense attorney.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), August 12, 1999.

The problem with this thread is that you can not argue with that type. They live in a "perfect" world where people will be "good" if they just follow their rules.(As long as it does not interfer with their life). Try to take away their car, they will say the deaths are incidental. You could point out two dozen countries where the citizens do not have access to weapons. The populace is at the "mercy?" of the government. Note-- These are also the countries where people disappear in the night, women are frequently raped, and a wrong statement will get you on one of these two lists. Yes, they are third world countries, but Cuba at one time was not considered third world. Is the Soviet Union considered third world? I seem to remember something about things called gulogs. It will be a sad day when some of the anti-gun NUTS actually succeed. All they will accomplish is to dis-arm the people who they don't agree with. It will be just what the founding fathers fought against.

After this post, I will also be considered a gun toteing gun nut. But, It is one of the lessons my Pappy tought me. "It is better to have something, and not need it. Then to need something and not have it."

As for pro. The best argument for guns was in the same riot. A little Korean guy was sitting on his front lawn while the riots were raging. He sat unmolested. A reporter asked him why he was not being bothered. He casually raised the blanket on his lap and pulled out a big old 357 mag and just grinned. Just goes to show even "mob mentality" respects its own life.......

-- Win Chester (wishya'll@get.clue), August 12, 1999.