Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously criminals won't obey laws , but you're missing the point, that the clamp down on gun ownership with the continued confiscation of fire arms has been successful in greatly reducing gun crimes.
Britain had a significantly larger gun problem pre-ban, hence the reason for the ban. The gun problem has been greatly reduced post-ban. Criminals previous to the ban got a lot of their guns from legal gun owners, and now they cant do that, so now they have a lot less armed criminals. It's really not that hard to understand.
Here's where your logic fails.
Many anti-gun folks like yourself cite to the UK to support your theory that gun control reduces violent crime. You point to the UK and their clampdown on guns, and alleged reduction in gun crimes, and then say QED: gun control works.
But how about this? Over the last 20 years there has been a tremendous decrease in crime in the U.S. Despite many of you obsessing about guns and school shootings and being petrified to death of gun violence, violent crime and murders in the U.S. have decreased tremendously. There have been entire articles and books written on this subject but all the various commentators can't seem to agree on what caused the decline in crime (e.g., more police, broken windows policing, end of crack epidemic, abortion, better economy, end of the use of lead paint, etc.).
Your argument, or at least the argument of most gun grabbers, is that with more guns comes more crime: however, this is absolutely false in the U.S. From 1992 to 2011, the rate of murders and the rate of violent crime in the U.S. has dropped tremendously. During this same time period, the number of guns sold and possessed has increased substantially. In addition, during this time period, a bunch of states have enacted concealed carry laws. Now using your same logic (like you do with the UK gun ban), we should read this reduction in violent crime and the murder rate as evidence that more guns and more CCW laws work, right? I'm guessing you won't agree.
My point is this: you want to look at a point in time with the UK, then a gun control law that was enacted, followed by an alleged drop in murders, and then read that as evidence that gun control works. But I could do the same: the time period around 1992 (and the many years leading up to it) were a violent period for the US, after which numerous concealed carry laws were put into place, not to mention a large proliferation of guns (particularly after the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004), and crime has actually come down! Thus, more guns and CCW laws lead to reduced crime. Right?
Here are the numbers from the FBI (a neutral source):
1992
Violent Crime Rate: 757 per 100,000
Murder Rate: 9.3 per 100,000
2011
Violent Crime Rate: 356 per 100,000
Murder Rate: 4.7 per 100,000
See my post above. Lots of guns in the US over last 15 years, yet murder and violent crime rate has been falling steadily.
Antigunners don't care about crime. If anything, they like to see it increase because that's always an excuse for more government control of everything. They want us disarmed but they also want us in thralldom to the government. They like the idea of random police searches and warrantless searches. It's pointless to argue with them because their goal is to eliminate freedom. How do I know this? Simple observation.
i suspect that more than a few are government employees.
Antigunners don't care about crime. If anything, they like to see it increase because that's always an excuse for more government control of everything. They want us disarmed but they also want us in thralldom to the government. They like the idea of random police searches and warrantless searches. It's pointless to argue with them because their goal is to eliminate freedom. How do I know this? Simple observation.
i suspect that more than a few are government employees.
To a point, I agree with you: much of gun control isn't actually about saving lives, but wanting to control your opponents (and I mean opponents in the sense of gun supporters v. anti-gunners). If the gun control folks really were all about saving lives, there are much better ways to go about it then writing crappy laws that infringe on all law-abiding citizens' freedoms but that won't even make a dent in violent crime. Repeated gun violence tends to happen over and over again in the same areas, and tackling the problems in those areas would easily be much more effective in reducing crime (e.g., more police, better economy and education, ending the war on drugs, etc.).
But I think the rift between gun supporters and anti-gunners is also a cultural one, much like the culture wars over abortion, gay marriage/equality, etc. One side finds a practice abhorrent, and instead of just taking a "live and let live" attitude, they want to use government coercion to force the other side to give up its practice.
Many anti-gun folks like yourself cite to the UK to support your theory that gun control reduces violent crime. You point to the UK and their clampdown on guns, and alleged reduction in gun crimes, and then say QED: gun control works.
But how about this? Over the last 20 years there has been a tremendous decrease in crime in the U.S. Despite many of you obsessing about guns and school shootings and being petrified to death of gun violence, violent crime and murders in the U.S. have decreased tremendously. There have been entire articles and books written on this subject but all the various commentators can't seem to agree on what caused the decline in crime (e.g., more police, broken windows policing, end of crack epidemic, abortion, better economy, end of the use of lead paint, etc.).
Your argument, or at least the argument of most gun grabbers, is that with more guns comes more crime: however, this is absolutely false in the U.S. From 1992 to 2011, the rate of murders and the rate of violent crime in the U.S. has dropped tremendously. During this same time period, the number of guns sold and possessed has increased substantially. In addition, during this time period, a bunch of states have enacted concealed carry laws. Now using your same logic (like you do with the UK gun ban), we should read this reduction in violent crime and the murder rate as evidence that more guns and more CCW laws work, right? I'm guessing you won't agree.
My point is this: you want to look at a point in time with the UK, then a gun control law that was enacted, followed by an alleged drop in murders, and then read that as evidence that gun control works. But I could do the same: the time period around 1992 (and the many years leading up to it) were a violent period for the US, after which numerous concealed carry laws were put into place, not to mention a large proliferation of guns (particularly after the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004), and crime has actually come down! Thus, more guns and CCW laws lead to reduced crime. Right?
Here are the numbers from the FBI (a neutral source):
1992
Violent Crime Rate: 757 per 100,000
Murder Rate: 9.3 per 100,000
2011
Violent Crime Rate: 356 per 100,000
Murder Rate: 4.7 per 100,000
Actually, you haven't proved my logic fails, and here's why;
Gun crime in the UK dropped substantially after the ban, not violent crime in general, plus there has NEVER been another school shooting since the ban... so the drop in gun crime shows what the ban does.
Here's why your logic fails;
You, and other gun advocates try to link the loosening of gun laws to the general decrease in violent crime over time in the US... but all you are showing is that violent crime is dropping across the board, not specifically gun crime. This differs from the UK.
Antigunners don't care about crime. If anything, they like to see it increase because that's always an excuse for more government control of everything. They want us disarmed but they also want us in thralldom to the government. They like the idea of random police searches and warrantless searches. It's pointless to argue with them because their goal is to eliminate freedom. How do I know this? Simple observation.
i suspect that more than a few are government employees.
It's completely absurd that you equate the want to ride society of guns as an attempt to further empower the government, take away freedoms and legitimize "warrantless searches". This sounds seriously like the talk of a paranoid delusional person. Let's not forget that there are plenty of pro gun politicians in the US, plenty of which retain power with the help of the NRA.
What is also completely absurd is that you state that "antigunners" want crime to increase so they can give the government more power... You try to paint anyone that is against guns as against freedom and for the increase of crime when they have absolutely nothing quantifiable to gain from it, but I will tell you who DOES have things to gain from the increase in crime; the NRA, gun makers, "legal" and illegal gun dealers. Yup, when crime goes up, and guns are in the news, the NRA and co. go around telling everyone that they need to arm up, and guns start leaving the shelves and dollars start rolling in. What I don't understand is why there are so many gun nuts out there that can't see that they are merely pawns inside of a multimillion dollar industry.
"Antigunners" want to get ride of guns, because guns kill thousands of Americans each year.
Last edited by chitownperson; 01-09-2013 at 10:42 AM..
Actually, you haven't proved my logic fails, and here's why;
Gun crime in the UK dropped substantially after the ban, not violent crime in general, plus there has NEVER been another school shooting since the ban... so the drop in gun crime shows what the ban does.
Here's why your logic fails;
You, and other gun advocates try to link the loosening of gun laws to the general decrease in violent crime over time in the US... but all you are showing is that violent crime is dropping across the board, not specifically gun crime. This differs from the UK.
My Response:
Murders (which are usually committed with guns) and violent crime (which is sometimes committed with guns -- e.g., armed robbery, rape) have fallen hugely over the last 20 years, at the same time that CCW laws have been enacted and the U.S. has been awash with new guns. Using your same reasoning you apply to the UK example, that is evidence alone that CCW and more guns work.
By the way, note what I'm NOT trying to do here: I'm actually not sure I believe in the "more guns, less crime" theory put forth by John Lott, Gary Kleck, and others (including commenter prelude91). I'm actually honest enough to say that I think the jury is still out on that one. What I'm trying to do is show you that if you want to use your simple reasoning to show that the UK gun ban works (crime is up, law enacted, crime is down), we could easily do the same for the U.S. But my guess is that you only want to use that reasoning when it suits your position (pro-gun control), but ignore it or qualify it when it leads to a result you don't want (more guns/CCW, less crimes).
My thoughts on the UK gun ban:
A few caveats: for purposes of arguing I am assuming as true that the UK gun ban actually worked. In reality, I think the UK gun example is wrong for so many other reasons but I didn't want to distract from my main argument. Here are my main problems with the UK gun ban:
(1) school schootings weren't really even that much of a problem before the UK ban so we don't even know if the gun ban itself had anything to do with the reduction in school schootings
(2) violent crime has actually gone up in the UK following the gun ban, which makes sense because once you disarm law-abiding citizens, the deterrent effect goes down and criminals become more brazen (it's the same reasons why shooters love gun-free zones, b/c they know law-abiding citizens, by defintion, will follow the law and be gunless)
(3) comparing the UK and US is hard because the US is so much larger than the UK, and the US has a much larger number of metropolitan areas (those with a population of 250,000 or more, which is where most gun crime is situated).
(4) the UK does not have a second amendment that guarantees the possession and use of firearms for its citzens.
In the end, I don't disagree with you: gun crime in America is a problem (although not nearly as large a problem as it seems -- cars, medical negligence, and drownings pose a much greater risk). But if you want to tackle gun crime -- particularly murders -- there are much better ways to do this than banning guns, which is a very hard remedy on all the law-abiding citizens in the US who own guns and not a very effective one at that. As I said above, I think the gun control debate is a cultural war for many. They don't like gun culture and the idea that some people have guns and will use them for self-defense, hunting, shooting sports, or even for government revolt if it ever comes of that. They don't like gun culture and they want to shut it down using the force of government (which, ironically, is backed up by the use of guns). You, of course, may not be one of these people-- I don't know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
