[allester666]

Firearm crimes are up in the UK and Australia, countries that passed gun bans. A large factor in this statistic is best explained by Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

Quoted by Thomas Jefferson:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better
for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then
to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
with greater confidence than an armed man."

This I realize is criminal theory, not fact but statistics are leaning on this to be true. It won't ever be realized as fact in our society because crime continues to happen and that opens interpretation of the cause of crime. The atom bomb was a theory, and so is some forms of communication but they look like they work to me.

Laws are meant to set conditions for men to peacefully come together as a society. I certainly don't object that. But what is disturbing is the general lack of interest of American citizens to look into the root of the problem, and of these people who would rather blindly accept the opinions of those appointed to govern our country.

Motivation through appealing to recent events is very effective. 9/11 created stricter security standards in our nation. Good. Purpose and direction are easily assumed to the jist of preventing those who intend to inflect great harm on US citizens or guests in our country from undue harm. AAR, security measures have helped to prevent at least some further terrorism in this fashion.

Objects continually brought up such as the traggic events of Columbine, Virginia Tech and the DC sniper also serve as a motivator in the train of thought that banning the sale of certain weapons will reduce the crimes related in such weapons. In a sense this could be plausible. However, atomic weapons capabilities are already "regulated" yet those with the money, the will and the motivation can still illegally obtain them. Firearms are cheap and easier to transport, and the principle is the same in that a truly dedicated person will be able to obtain them regardless of laws. In this instance the law abiding citizen is at a loss to defend himself (possibly) against a person of ill will who chooses to disregard the law.

Its easier to defend what you have then take back that which is lost. I hope we don't slowly wittle away at our rights as a nation. This a larger impact then being able to own a "assault weapon".

Last one for the night:

"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance
to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's
liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
George Washington, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1785