Armes
QUELQUES LIENS
A Human Right
40
reasons to support gun control
Facts
& Fiction
Jews for Preservation
of Firearm Ownership
guntruths.com
ironic
banners
racism
of gun control
danger
of gun control
12 times
?
The
facts on gun control
statistics
as example
UK
ans USA crime comparison
guncite.com
Keep
and Bear Arms
gunowners.org
Shooters'
Rights Association
National
Rifle Association UK
http://www.liberty-belles.org/
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/
http://www.womenandguns.com/
http://wagc.com/
http://www.sas-aim.org/
http://www.wagc.com/
http://www.mothersarms.org/
http://www.rachellucas.com/
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/laf/
http://www.clairejoly.org/laf/help.html
ARMES: ESPOIR ?
24.01.2004 "
le registre des armes a du plomb dans l'aile. les opposants a un registre des armes en circulation en Suisse marquent un point. l'office federal de la police propose d'exclure de la revision de la loi le projet d'enregistrer tous les proprietaires d'armes. il plie devant les vives critiques que l'idee a suscite lors de la procedure de consultation. Christoph Blocher ne s'est pas encore exprime sur ce projet, lance par Ruth Metzler. " (ats)
19.08.2003
je precise juste au sujet de loi qu'il ya un probleme d'interpretation... la loi dit que "Toute personne qui porte une arme en public doit être titulaire d'un permis de port d'armes."
donc bien sur pour moi un magasin c'est prive, mais je ne sais pas ce qu'en dit la jurisprudence... l'epicier ayant fait recours, reste a voir ce que l'instance superieure decidera...
Eh bien, l'instance supérieure a décidé, et, pour changer, bonnes nouvelles: acquitté ! Et, surtout, le Tribunal de police "a ordonné la restitution des trois armes propriété de l'épicier et qui avaient été saisies à tort." Autrement dit, l'interprétation libérale l'a emporté: un magasin est bien privé ! Seule ombre au tableau: notre bien aimé Etat aimerait bien changer la loi sur les armes, et un des changement prévus, qui semble anodin, devient ici clair: changer le "en public" en "dans un lieu accessible au public"...
L'ETAT NOUS PROTEGE
quelle blague !
01.08.2003
Comme je l'ai mentionné, tous les week-ends je comments l'imprudence de lire le journal...
Voici encore quelques extraits d'un article, qui cette fois-ci se passeraient même de commentaires:
" Victime d'un marabout,
l'épicier est maintenant accusé.
Collectionneur d'armes,
un épicier des Pâquis a été condamné
par ordonnance à quinze jours de prison avec sursis et 1000 francs
d'amende pour avoir utilisé l'une d'elles sans droit [oui je sais
ça fait mal de voir le mot droit employé de manière
aussi érronée].[...] Autorisé à détenir
les trois armes de poing déclarées, il n'était en
revanche pas au bénéfice d'un permis d'un port d'armes. Or,
afin de se défendre d'un marabout qui s'apprêtait à
le délester de 37'000 dollars, alors qu'il l'avait déjà
escroqué de 10'000, il a brandi son pistolet SIG Sauer P245 chargé.
La substitute y a vu une infraction à l'article 33 de la Loi fédérale
sur les armes.[...]
En retenant ainsi l'Africain prétendument multiplicateur de billets de banque et surtout escroc, l'épicier l'a empêché pour quelque temps de sévir, même s'il a été étrangement libéré après une semaine de prison [!!!!]. Les circonstances de son arrestation ont en revanche donné l'idée au Parquet d'ouvrir une information pénale contre la victime [j'adore la fin de la phrase... information pénale contre la victime, sic.]. L'épicier détenait deux revolvers sous clé dans son appartement et le pistolet dans son magasin, dans un tiroir près de la caisse. [...] Après l'avoir escroqué une première fois, le marabout est revenu à la charge, dans le commerce même de l'accusé. Il s'est montré violent, le menaçant de "le saigner", tout cela en présence des enfants. "Que pouvais-je faire pour me préserver et le retenir en attendant la police ? Il fallait faire vite. J'ai pris mon pistolet dans le tiroir.[...]""
Donc, selon l'Etat, agresser les gens c'est très bien, c'est même recommandé, puisque les gens que vous agresserez ne sont pas autorisés à se défendre ! Et si l'un vous retient malgé l'interdiction de l'Etat ? Rassurez-vous, l'Etat vous relâchera dès que possible ! Voleurs, volez, les commerçants ont le devoir de se laisser faire !
Et après cela, certains vont encore s'étonner que la criminalité augmente....
De plus, Si cet épicier avait respecté la loi, il serait peut-etre mort aujourd'hui. Autrement dit: selon l'Etat, il aurait dû se laisser tuer, selon l'Etat il n'a pas le droit de se défendre, selon l'Etat il n'a pas le droit de vivre.
Encore une preuve que lorsque l'anarchiste Lysander Spooner disait que l'Etat est une bande de voleurs et de meurtriers, il avait entièrement raison: oui, un Etat qui pense qu'un épicier qui se fait agresser mérite de mourir, cet Etat est non seulement brigand et criminel, mais meurtrier et assassin. Et certains voudraient que cet Etat assassin assure notre sécurité, que cet Etat criminel qui encourage les criminels nous protège des criminels...
Décidèment, le gouvernement
anglais est cohérent dans sa stupidité: après avoir
interdit les armes à feu, provoquant une augmentation
de la criminalité avec armes
à feu sans précédent (+35% en un an, statistiques
du gouvernement), il a décidé de faire la chasse aux terroristes...
sans armes ! 24 (!) policiers, sans armes (!), interrogaient 3 suspects
et fouillaient leur appartement, lorsque l'un des suspects se saisit d'un
couteau de cuisine (!) et poignarda l'un des officiers de police et en
blessa 3 autres...
Un expert en armes déclare:
"Knives
are of course a greater threat to police officers and indeed to all of
us than illicit guns. Far more people are killed with knives than guns.
" Wow ! Voilà qui est bizarre, le ministre de l'intérieur
anglais veut pourtant prendre de nouvelles mesures anti-armes, et étrangement
il ne vise pas les couteaux de cuisine, mais notamment les très
dangereuses (!)
armes factices...
sources
BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2660321.stm
BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2648343.stm
BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
swissguns http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/swissguns/edito.htm
Free Goat http://www.freegoat.dreamstation.com/ukdisaster.html
TV
LANCE-ROQUETTES
(posté
sur le forum de la TdG)
19.08.2002
Je viens de lire dans la Tribune
d'aujourd'hui (17.08.2002) qu'en France des malfrats ont attaqué
un fourgon, équipés d'un LANCE-ROQUETTE. La France a pourtant
des lois sur les armes plus strictes que la Suisse, et, ce qui va de pair,
une criminalité plus grande. Je pose donc la question à tous
les partisans du contrôle des armes: croyez-vous donc que des LANCE-ROQUETTES
soient légaux en France? Il faut simplement accepter la réalité:
si on n'arrive pas à contrôler l'importation illégale
de quelque chose d'aussi encombrant qu'un lance-roquette, comment voulez
vous empêcher quelqu'un de se procurer un simple pistolet? Même
en mettant des policiers à chaque coin de rue, dérive que
personne ne souhaite je l'espère, ce serait chose impossible. Le
choix est donc simple: on ne peut désarmer les agresseurs. Souhaite-t-on
désarmer les victimes?
DOES GUN CONTROL WORK ?
A utilitarian and statistical look at gun control in
the UK
18.08.2002
(thus we shall not focus on the ethic problems of gun control. For example, why a government would have the right to steal its citizens property, guns included, only to then toy with it itself? How would you feel were you to see a policeman armed with your gun, which you purchased, which he stole from you whilst breaking no laws, and which he has a right to carry when you, for doing exactly the same, would risk 10 years of jail ? This is not just about liberty, this is also about equality! And what about your right to your own property, your life included, and your right to protect it? Denied, shut up and obey! I'm just saying that either an ethic or a utilitarian view is enough to convince me of something, but when the two views lead to the same conclusion, I actually have trouble understanding those who are ready to sacrifice human lives AND liberty AND equality for NOTHING.)
"what matters is what works" Labour Party slogan
Labour says: "We came into government with a promise to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, this is not an empty slogan at all."
1997: Labour Party in power in UK
1998: handguns are banned. (larger than .22 forbidden,
.22 very restricted use)
What exactly did they do ?
" In the biggest surrender of private property in Britain
since the late Middle Ages, Britons today handed over thousands of handguns
in the hours before a new firearms bill took effect at midnight.
Spurred by last year’s massacre of 16 schoolchildren
in Dunblane, Scotland, the government has made possession of any handgun
larger than a .22 caliber a crime punishable by 10 years in jail and fines
of as much as $7,500. "
"Government officials hailed what they describe as
among the toughest firearms rules in the world."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/britguns930/
And why wouldn’t they "hail" their own policies indeed?! They can still carry guns. The government and the military is still armed.
now let's see what works....
Let's see those two BBC articles, same style, same picture,
but three years have passed and innocents have died....
|
|
"despite"... Why not say frankly how things are ? "Because of " would be more correct:
"The new anti-gun law is also expected to have little
impact on another source of potential danger—the estimated four million
guns owned illegally in Britain."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/britguns930/
Food for thought: The total of legally-held weapons that got confiscated numbers 160,000. That's 4%. How can anyone be stupid to the point of hoping to reduce crime in any way by seizing 4% of guns, not to mention the fact that the citizens most likely to hand in their arms are the citizens that are the most unlikely to employ them to unlawful ends in the first place?
gun control kills
Responding for the Tories, shadow home secretary Ann
Widdecombe said: "Today's figures show that crime is spiralling out of
control with an appalling 190,000 more victims last year than in the previous
12 months. Things are getting worse, not better, under Tony Blair. "When
they came to office crime was falling. Their policies have caused this
rise. Labour's law and order policy has failed," she said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/837875.stm
Think about it. If you were a criminal, would you rather
attack
a) a house whose inhabitants are armed
b) a house in which you know they’re not
Would you rather rape
a) a woman with a gun who can kill you
b) a disarmed woman
Logic, isn't it ? How can the people “elected” to govern a country not understand even so simple a logic ?
Or is THAT their logic ?
Now let's see a few more data
| The Economist.... | BBC...
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in
London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which
a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
"Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally
held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime. And of
the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two
had armed crime levels above the average."
|
The Guardian...
(which I seriously doubt could be accused of making right-wing
propaganda)
One in three criminals under the age of 25 owns or
has access to a firearm, the Government's researchers have discovered.
A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing
number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three
million illegally held firearms in circulation - double the number believed
to have been held 10 years ago - and that criminals are more willing than
ever to use them.
Officers patrolling the Notting Hill carnival last month said they had been prevented from searching a suspect, later found to be carrying a loaded 9mm pistol, for fear of inciting violence. Last Monday, doormen trying to break up a fight at the Epping Forest Country Club in Essex watched in horror as several revellers produced guns and began shooting at them. Two doormen were hit and seriously injured. A few hours later, a man was shot in the head during a 'road rage' row in south London.
Last Tuesday, three people were left fighting for their lives after a group of young Rolex robbers ambushed them in the driveway of their luxury home in Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire. Millionaire Joe Martorana had just stepped out of his BMW when two men snatched the Rolex from his wrist. When his wife, Josephine, tried to raise the alarm, she was shot once in the back by a handgun. As she lay bleeding, the gunmen snatched her Rolex. The couple's son, 18-year-old Steven, and his girlfriend, Isabella, had heard the shot from inside the house. They rushed through the front door to confront the robbers who gunned them down. Steven was hit by a bullet in his chest, and Isabella was shot in the stomach. A few hours later, a 28-year-old man was seriously injured after being shot at a London nightclub.
Last Wednesday, Essex builder Ronald Fuller was shot
dead by a moped-riding gunman who waited near his home. Fuller, who has
a child, was shot twice in the head and twice in the body at point-blank
range. Fuller had been acquitted of stabbing a man to death at the Epping
Forest Country Club. Police have not ruled out a link between his murder
and the violence at the club.
Between 1997 and 1999 there were 429 murders in the
capital, the highest two- year figure for more than 10 years. At least
100 of them were drug-related; nearly two- thirds of those involved firearms.
Dozens of other firearms incidents resulted in people being seriously injured.
Last month eight people were wounded when a gunman began shooting indiscriminately
outside Chicago's nightclub in Peckham High Street.
The picture is the same across the country. Last month a small-time cannabis dealer, Paul Rogers, was shot dead in front of his young son after two gunmen burst into his Liverpool home. In Birmingham and Manchester, police attend more than 100 firearms incidents every month. In Wales, armed police have been called into action every day this year.
Detectives say modern weapons are increasingly being held by young drug dealers protecting themselves and their territory.
Small shopkeepers, who in the past have found themselves threatened with iron bars, baseball bats or knives, are increasingly finding themselves facing handguns or even automatic weapons. A study by Independent Retail News shows that a third of all attacks now involve firearms. Lee Jasper, who advises the London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, on matters of race and policing, believes that, whereas guns were once reserved for the criminal élite, they are increasingly falling into the hands of younger, less experienced criminals. 'We have a culture developed where people think it is very cool to carry a gun, and are prepared to use it at the drop of a hat. The crime has moved on from just protecting your market and your market share to doling out punishment and intimidation. And the gun is the first resort - the weapon of choice - for settling arguments.'
Government researchers are hoping to track the source of black market weapons to devise more effective ways of combating the trade. Controls such as the banning of handguns after the Dunblane tragedy have had no effect on the number of illegally held guns that are smuggled into the country, supplied by corrupt dealers or reactivated from supposedly decommissioned stock.
Meanwhile, makers of bullet-proof vests are reporting record profits. Vest sales have quadrupled, with 60,000 snapped up in the past two years at about £400 a time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,363761,00.html
What does this data show ? Not only do legally owned guns NOT cause more deaths, but in fact they do actually cause LESS deaths ! When facts confirm mere logic....
final thoughts
There are only two possible societies: a society where everyone is armed, like Kennesaw where the crime falls, and a society where some are armed and some aren't, like the UK: I still do not understand how can the left, which claims to be defending equality, accepts such flagrant injustice. I do not understand either how can anyone feel safe in a situation where there are four million illegal guns, thus probably owned mostly by criminals, and where honest citizens are prevented from buying guns. And please, don't tell me that a society with no guns at all is possible. Because in all objectivity, it's not. Take France for example. Armed bands in France own ROCKET-LAUNCHERS. Do you think rocket-launchers are legal in France ? Do you think that a society that can't stop criminals from importing such huge weapons as rocket-launchers and rockets can stop anyone from acquiring an easily-concealed handgun ?
Besides, even if it were, say for example in a fascist state where there would be more policemen than civilians and where everyone would have to submit himself to daily body searches, it would mean only one-thing: the return of rule by brute force. I still do not understand either how is it that so many women actually support gun control: imagine a woman of 50Kg attacked by a brute man of 100 Kg. Just who exactly are the odds in favour of? Now imagine them both having a shotgun... You can't rape a woman with a shotgun, it's that simple.
So the choice is pretty simple:
1) society where as many people as possible are armed.
2) society where criminals are armed, military is armed,
police is armed, and no one else
3) fascist state of rule by brute force (even though
I doubt that even in that case 0 illegal guns would exist...)
KENNESAW
13.07.2002
l'incroyable example de Kennesaw ! Une petite ville de
géorgie où le flingue est obligatoire pour tout le monde...
résultat: 70% de crime en moins, pendant qu'en douce France dans
toute banlieue qui se respecte les crimes augmentent de +70%... et après
les français vont donner des leçons aux américains....
ça prouve aussi qu'il y a d'autres solutions , plus simples, plus
efficaces et moins dangereuses que le "tout-flic" à la Sarkozy...
| LA
LOI EXACTE
Gun Law Ordinances
Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those
heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability, which would
prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect
of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously
oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine,
or persons convicted of a felony.
Crime Statistics Report
FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) statistics for the year 1998 based on incidents of crime per 100,000 population indicate: Overall Crime for the City of Kennesaw is approx. half the state and national rates. Burglary incidents are approx. half the state and national rates. Violent Crime incidents are approx. four times less than the state and national rates. |
Note: Violent Crime includes Murder, Non-Negligent Manslaughter, Rape, Aggravated Assault and Robbery. Part 1 Index Crime includes all violent crime plus Burglary, Larceny, Auto Theft and Arson. To control for population differences and make descriptions and comparisons between jurisdictions more accurate and meaningful, index crimes are reported at the rate per 100,000 persons. The rate is figured by dividing the number of crimes by the total population and then multiplying by 100,000. Crime Statistics also indicate that incidents involving the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime make-up less than 2% of all reported Part 1 Crimes. Since 1982 approx. 4,900 Part 1 Crime incidents were reported with approx. 59 involving the use of a firearm. 1981 (Year prior to Gun Ordinance)
1982 (Year Gun Ordinance Passed)
1998 (Compared to 1981)
|
voir aussi
(articles en anglais, externe)
ARTICLE
1
ARTICLE
2
ARTICLE
3
BONNES NOUVELLES
11.06.2002
le parlement refuse de supprimer les munitions a domicile
pour les soldats !
DROIT DE CITE
droit de cite sur la question des armes, excellent intervention
de notre collegue libertarien de www.prolibertate.org
inutile de dire que j'ai ecrit quelques mails, mais qu'ils
furent ignores au profit de messages aussi enrichissants que "mon fils
s'est suicide avec un flingue c'est pas bien maintenant faut les interdire"
GENOCIDES
Countries having successful gun-control laws in the
20th Century - and the results of those laws:
1915-1917 : Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians
murdered
1929-1953 : Soviet Union, 20 million people who opposed
Stalin murdered
1933-1945 : Nazi-occupied Europe, 13 million Jews,
Gypsies, and others who opposed Hitler murdered
1948-1952 : China, 20 million anti-communists or communist
reformers murdered
1960-1981 : Guatemala, 100,000 Maya Indians murdered
1971-1979 : Uganda, 300,000 Christians and political
rivals of Idi Amin murdered
1975-1979 : Cambodia, 1 million educated persons murdered
Genocide is only possible with Gun Control.
l'argument
du genocide
OUR PRINCIPLES
extracts from the Libertarian
Party platform:
Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.
Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.
Constitutional Rights
America's founders fought the Revolutionary War to throw off British tyranny. Most of the revolutionaries owned and used their own guns in that war. After the war, in 1789, the 13 American States adopted the Constitution, creating the federal government. Before ratifying the Constitution, the people demanded a Bill of Rights to prevent our government from depriving them of their liberties as the British had done.
One of the most important protections we have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial.
But, gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns. although millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded.
The Prohibition Lesson
Gun control advocates are much like the prohibitionists of the early 20th Century. By making liquor illegal, they spawned organized crime, caused bloody, violent turf wars and corrupted the criminal justice system. Today's war on drugs has exactly the same results.
Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership.
The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws.
Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits.
The Right of Self Defense
Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.
The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.
Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.
Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.
Personal Responsibility
Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.
Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.
Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.
Par Turion, sous Armes, le 2004-01-27