Gun control: the results are in?

No, but it's strong evidence that gun control laws aren't a good way to reduce the murder rate.

Really? Could it because of deteriorating socio-economic conditions, the fact that black market guns are sold cheaply, and easier to get? Could it be because those guns are easier to acquire because the government has no controls? Etc? I think it is pretty superficial to look at it say that restrictions means more deaths, the reality is that an underground is formed, guns still form the basis of the crimes. So I don’t personally see a correlation.

Surprisingly, all evidence seems to indicate that no, people are not more likely to kill each other simply because they have guns.

Can I see this “evidence”? Are you telling me that people have the same mentality when they are holding a Colt, and a fist? I VERY highly doubt that.

Since, you know, decreasing gun ownership doesn't seem to decrease the murder rate.

Recorded gun ownership, that’s the irony.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find myself having to repeat things that I've already pointed out in this thread.

After the U.K. banned handguns the numbers of deaths from stabbings, beatings, etc. increased faster than the number of shootings decreased. Now they are at a point where last year they had only about 70 shootings but over a thousand murders, and the murder rate is higher than before the gun ban – higher than it's been in 100 years, in fact. All other types of violent crime have also increased. This seems to indicate that when you take away guns, people seem to simply switch to other methods for committing murder.

You seem to think that when people have guns they are more likely to be 'bloodthirsty' then when they are armed with less dangerous weapons. Since murder rates tend to go up when guns are taken away (even as shooting rates go down), I contend that gun ownership actually makes people more cautious and less likely to attack each other/commit crimes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find myself having to repeat things that I've already pointed out in this thread.

Sorry I am not an aficionado on this subject, I’m merely wasting time.

After the U.K. banned handguns the numbers of deaths from stabbings, beatings, etc. increased faster than the number of shootings decreased. Now they are at a point where last year they had only about 70 shootings but over a thousand murders, and the murder rate is higher than before the gun ban – higher than it's been in 100 years, in fact.

That still does not necessarily indicate that restricting guns is the prime factor, what was the murder rate immediately before the banning of guns? How long has it been since the ban? It is not feasible to say that there murders were because of socio-economic conditions rather then restricting guns? What type of crimes are they? Etc, I mean it’s awfully easy too look at it superficially but digging does take energy.

This seems to indicate that when you take away guns, people seem to simply switch to other methods for committing murder.

But the restrictions then did work didn’t they? If people are more apt to use other apparatus’ as weapons that seems to indicate to me that the restriction is working.

You seem to think that when people guns they are more likely to be 'bloodthirsty' then when they are armed with less dangerous weapons.

Not “bloodthirstily” that was over the top and hyperbolic, what I said is that people are more likely to contemplate the idea of killing someone because they can, and because the other person has not defense mechanism there is a absolute feeling of superiority. Are you telling me that when you are pissed off at someone you are thinking of murder with a fist? The answer is obviously, no, because you don’t have the ability to. Give someone an inch, they’ll take a mile. Be careful what you wish for.

Since murder rates tend to go up when guns are taken away (even as shooting rates go down), I contend that gun ownership actually makes people more cautious and less likely to attack each other/commit crimes.

Again I have to see an effective correlation, chances are that the actual rate of ownership hasn’t gone down but the persons who have made up the difference are more sinister, and more likely to use it. You don’t see a suburban housewife going to a “crib” and buying a gun illegally now do we? But what we do see is less then upstanding citizens buying black-market guns.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well, yeah. i doubt that many people commit crimes simply because they can. but wouldn't the knowledge that your victim does not possess a firearm make you that much more likely to commit a crime? a crime which could result in your victim's death or your own?

so wouldn't the housewife be the one in danger of attack by these "less than upstanding citizens?"

 

but wouldn't the knowledge that your victim does not possess a firearm make you that much more likely to commit a crime?

Possibly, if not certainly. But when the victim of a robbery for example gets those “pairs of balls” to confront the burglar isn’t he more likely to be shot rather then visa versa. You know what they say, don’t do things that will have you killed instead.

so wouldn't the housewife be the one in danger of attack by these "less than upstanding citizens?"

Or visa versa?

 

people often do things that could kill them. like eating puffer fish, sky diving, or - most notably - drugs. you aren't thinking about the reprocussions when you commit the act.

but the "less than upstanding citizens" have access to firearms when the housewife does not. because, of course, "you don’t see a suburban housewife going to a 'crib' and buying a gun illegally now do you?" i changed "we" to "you" for agreement, my apologies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But that's the point... they'll have them with or without gun laws. Most guns used to commit murder TODAY are obtained illegally. It isn't the people legally getting the guns which are the problem. For example, 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between '87 and '94. 18 crimes were committed by licensees with firearms. At the same time, Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year.

More to the point, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer (stats as of 1998). Several have helped officers in trouble.

Fine, I can rephrase it to "Are people more likely to kill other people when they know that nobody else has a gun, but they still do?"

1) So, statistically, people with legal guns really aren't all that likely to likely to use them against other people. People with illegal guns are.
2) Outlawing guns only stops the sale of the legal guns (which don't kill many people) and don't really effect the illegal guns.
3) Knowing that they are the only ones with guns, criminals are more likely to use them more often.

 

Where do the illegal guns come from?

I assume there is no hidden factory spewing out illegal guns.

 

I agree with your point... but it's a mute point now.

Illegal guns come from legal sales which are in some way 'procurred' by someone else. The problem is that this has already happened. Even if we in the US stopped selling guns todays, the criminals would still have guns anyway. England is probably the best example of this.

Guns have a legal use, self-defense. Outlawing guns because a fraction are going to be stolen/sold is not a very good defense.

 

people often do things that could kill them. like eating puffer fish, sky diving, or - most notably - drugs. you aren't thinking about the reprocussions when you commit the act.

But why give them the option? Unlike the other things like sky diving, where the only victim is you. With a gun the victim is someone else (or at least the possibility) there is a imo a difference.

but the "less than upstanding citizens" have access to firearms when the housewife does not.

Granted, that’s what most people in Canada and Europe have yet somehow we feel much safer then any American? That’s because we aren’t so liberal with the use of guns quite obviously, you know it’s a self-perpetuating cycle when it comes to guns. You have a gun to protect against criminals thus people scream laxer gun laws, and then criminals get guns that much easier as well. So really they both negate each other.

 

But that's the point... they'll have them with or without gun laws.

So are you suggesting that we shouldn’t be proactive and try to restrict the amount of guns available? Wouldn’t a quota system be appropriate, and banning outright guns such as revolvers, semi-automatics, etc? Because really a criminal only becomes a criminal when they use their gun, who by default we considered “responsible gun owners”?

"Are people more likely to kill other people when they know that nobody else has a gun, but they still do?"

I don’t think so, I would fathom that people are more likely to use a gun when they are scared of a possible threat. Of course we have some people who kill others to shut them up so there are no witnesses, etc. But again the gun gives them that ability. It’s all psychological.

1) So, statistically, people with legal guns really aren't all that likely to likely to use them against other people. People with illegal guns are.
2) Outlawing guns only stops the sale of the legal guns (which don't kill many people) and don't really effect the illegal guns.
3) Knowing that they are the only ones with guns, criminals are more likely to use them more often.[/i]

In all three you are assuming that all “legal” gun owners are responsible you are really still taking a chance aren’t you?

 

Please try and be consistent. You just said that having a gun makes you feel powerful. The ONLY reason it does this is because you think the other person doesn't.

I showed you the statistics to back it up. As I said before "for example, 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between '87 and '94. 18 crimes were committed by licensees with firearms."

Outlawing guns is like setting the speed limiter on everybodies car to 30mph because 100 people killed someone drunk driving.

It's a valid means of self defense and you can't say "you aren't allowed to have it because I don't trust you... by default". That's not it works.

 

Please try and be consistent. You just said that having a gun makes you feel powerful.
The ONLY reason it does this is because you think the other person doesn't.

Well I suggest you re-read what I wrote don’t think so, I would fathom that people are more likely to use a gun when they are scared of a possible threat. I didn’t contradict my former stance, I just added that now people are even more likely to use that gun. Yes having a gun does make you feel innately more powerful, that’s the reason d’etre of the gun. It’s purpose is to kill, no other reason, yet just anyone who are considered “responsible gun owners” have one the world’s most malicious machinations in their hands?

I showed you the statistics to back it up. As I said before "for example, 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between '87 and '94. 18 crimes were committed by licensees with firearms."

So then why do people who have to register have to fear the register, or complain, if they are truly responsible persons then registering or carrying a license whatever it be, should not be an issue for them. My question is where do the excess guns come from, that are sold on the black market?

Outlawing guns is like setting the speed limiter on everybodies car to 30mph because 100 people killed someone drunk driving.

There already is a law against that, it’s called drinking and driving you would get arrested, it’s not the speed limit that is the problem is the alcohol, so I personally don’t see the connection. I still have yet to see an effective correlation btwn restricting gun rights, and increased gun deaths, or deaths overall.

It's a valid means of self defense and you can't say "you aren't allowed to have it because I don't trust you... by default". That's not it works.

Again we are going into the self-perpetrating cycle, because as a future criminal (mass murderer, etc) I can say the same thing and you would agree with me. Your lobbying for easier gun laws, in turns negates any protection by the increased availability of guns to those you don’t want having them.

 

The criminal has the gun either way. He's not going to leave the gun at home thinking 'they dont have one, why should I need one'.

The same could be said about guns. There is already a law against that, it's called murder. It's not the gun that is the problem, it's the use of it to murder.

Please show me where I said that, but i sure as hell didn't. In fact, you may be able to convince me that certain new gun laws should be passed limiting how and who can obtain guns.

That's not what you've been doing. You've said people can't be trusted with guns. I disagree.

 

The criminal has the gun either way. He's not going to leave the gun at home thinking 'they dont have one, why should I need one'.

That’s exactly the problem; firstly he has access to the gun in the first place. Secondly he will carry the gun regardless of external conditions thus there is an increased chance that the gun is being used maliciously, thirdly if this is his first crime until he shoots x person, or uses the gun in a malicious manner he is to be considered a “responsible gun owner” because you cannot be charged with a crime for merely thinking about a crime.

The same could be said about guns. There is already a law against that, it's called murder. It's not the gun that is the problem, it's the use of it to murder.

False dichotomy you stated it was the speed limit not the alcohol that is the problem, that’s the first problem with your explanation. Here it is the gun being used for its purpose which is murder. Unlike a car or alcohol they aren’t intended to kill people, a gun is.

Please show me where I said that, but i sure as hell didn't. In fact, you may be able to convince me that certain new gun laws should be passed limiting how and who can obtain guns.

If you can agree to that this: You've said people can't be trusted with guns. I disagree. Makes no sense, because the only reason to restrict gun rights is for the mistrust we have of others. So make up your mind, which is it?

 

I just showed you stats showing that licensed gun owners don't generally go around and use them in crimes... yet here you are saying that again. You're going to tell me the state of California should not allow the ownership of guns by anyone because the ownership by 18 people used them incorrectly

Fine, outlaw alchohol then... and people who buy guns would disagree with you. You can defend yourself without having to use it.

So wait, you expect me to throw he entire population into one bucket as you have? We have reason to mistrust some people.... the majority of people we do not. You can't just presume that they'll misuse it, and then punish them ahead of time by limiting thier right to purchase.

 

what do you mean? i use my gun to switch off lights and open beer bottles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I just showed you stats showing that licensed gun owners don't generally go around and use them in crimes...

But they still do don’t they? So what factor of utility has been satisfied?

You're going to tell me the state of California should not allow the ownership of guns by anyone because the ownership by 18 people used them incorrectly

Wasn’t the stat from Florida? Also why use past numbers? What potential is there for murder with all those guns over 200,000 surely. Also I would love for you go up to family members of those 18 people who were victims of gun violence and say, “so what it’s only 18”. See the sick logic you are employing now?

Fine, outlaw alchohol then... and people who buy guns would disagree with you. You can defend yourself without having to use it.

How? If the intention is to use it? Even if you don’t fire it, that has more to do with circumstance then the gun itself.

So wait, you expect me to throw he entire population into one bucket as you have? We have reason to mistrust some people.... the majority of people we do not.

Ted Bundy, all I have to say my friend. Think long and hard about that…

You can't just presume that they'll misuse it, and then punish them ahead of time by limiting thier right to purchase.

We do that with illegal drugs…awfully hypocritical. I mean consider the only person that illegal drugs direct affects in the person using it, a victimless crime. Yet a gun which kills innocents, is ok? Explain to me the logics behind that please?

 

Self defense. That number is so incredibly small. 18 people, over a good number of years.

Either way, point still stands. I used numbers I could find... they were the first hits.

Sick logic. I think not. Would you feel back walking up to the family of somebody who died from some bad sushi and saying 'so what it's only 18'? No, because you wouldn't do that.

No, most people wish they never have to use it against a person. If they have to, then something has gone ery very bad. You can't say, "oh, your not allowed to have a gun because you might use it to defend yourself".

Yeah, and? Remeber that guy that stole a tank and tried runing people over? We should outlaw tanks... think long and hard about that.

If someone is going to go off, they have plenty of more destructive options besides guns. The Unabomber, remember that?

With some drugs I'd agree with you. With other drugs, they change the persons state of mind where they can't think reasonably. Guns don't do that. As much as you are trying to convince us otherwise, holding a gun doesn't make you want to kill something.

 

And you are about to make me repeat myself covering points I;ve already covered, but here it comes again

Right, let's get things straight. The UK has had strict gun control for a long time, this was because after our world wars, troops started bringing home issued and trophy weapons and the govt realised this could cause a problem, so introduce strict licensing. In 1997, the handgun ban removed short barrelled pistols from the Firearms Certificate. There were just 250,000 people licensed to own short barrelled pistols out of a population of 60,000,000. Therefore, the effect on crime caused by legal gun ownership would only ever have a small effect on overall crime rates.

There was an underlying trend of increase in violent crime, banning a certain type of gun cannot solve every problem, and to ask it to do so is tangential and absurd. Restricting access to guns WILL reduce the numbers of crimes comitted with guns. The fact that there will still be stabbings is immaterial, and stats show that stabbings will not fill the void left by guns, so lives WILL be saved on the whole by reducing gun ownership.

Nope, like I said, while other types of crime may increase, the void left by gun crime will not be filled completely, and to assume so is groundless. Look at the UK vs the USA, and you will see that we just don't have the same per capita stabbings etc that you guys have gun crimes.

We have restrictions on many types of weapons in the UK, not just guns. We aren't allowed to carry swords, knives pepper spray, tasers etc. This is all in an effort tomake the life of a normal citizen safer. It works.

Rubbish. IF you are basing that on the UK figures, what you are missing is that in the UK, guns were only ever allowed for sporting purposes, NEVER SELF DEFENSE. An FAC application would not be granted on the basis of self defense. Guns have to be locked away in a secure gun cabinet, which is concealed from view, and the ammunition kept in a seprate locked section. That said, guns in the UK are no use for self defense, and there would be no legal support for anyone using a gun in self defense.

You are also guilty of making causal links where there are none.

If you think you can explain changes in murder rates, please explain the causes of the massive peaks and troughs in the US murder rate over the past several decades. That one should be a hoot.