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.
The next time someone says that banning guns will stop violence, we need to confront gun-grabbers with the facts.
Fake news!!!!!
The studies cited in the article DOES NOT show banning guns increase murder rates. It is a plain lie!
In fact, England's murder rate is steadily dropping after a brief spike. The article only focused on the brief spike, but conveniently ignored the long decline.
London’s recent history, meanwhile, has been mostly one of steady if unspectacular drops in the murder rate, from 181 homicides in 2005 to 155 in 2007 and 101 in 2013.
You do know in Brazil only police officers can have guns...
Also the statistics involve cities in the U.S and one of the things the list fails to do is actually account for the reasons these countries tried to ban guns. Correlation doesn't equal causation, a bunch of cities and countries pre-crime wave due to drug use worldwide between 1970-2000 see increasing rates and decide to ban guns as a result, they ban guns and the rate of crime keeps increasing. Obviously it goes without saying the type of society that bans guns sees an uptick in gun usage hence an uptick in crime before attempting to ban them. Obviously the banning of guns won't have an immediate effect if the crime rate increasing rapidly. But the point is too have less crime than if guns were left untouched and the same crime wave still happened and that is frankly impossible to get out of a study as no two countries (barring Canada and the U.S and maybe a few Latin American ones) are similar enough to expect that. The study would only be valid if the increase in crime rate which is almost 100% likely to be at the same time as the crime wave increase worldwide but mostly in western countries (Europe/Latin America/ North America) due to explosion of drugs was a much higher increase than in other countries with the same crime wave problem. But as can be seen in the U.S, the U.S had a huge spike in crime and we certainly didn't ban guns during the time. Now was the question is the response of banning weapons to the crime wave effective, well you really can't tell but in every developed country were guns are extremely limited their are much lower rates of murder than in the U.S. More guns means more gun homicides and since guns are deadlier than knives and most alternative weapons that your run of the mill street criminals can build it is almost certain with gun bans that you'll have less murders.
More stairs = More Deaths ...No really... the number one killer in homes with stairs is stairs. Coincidentally homes without stairs do not have deaths due to stairs.
Such blanket statements are ridiculous. Where I live perhaps 90% of homes have guns, the crime rate is minimal and the murder rate is 0 going back decades. If we were to adjust for population there should of been handful of murders based on national averages.
On the other hand in the most violent neighborhoods in this country have the lowest rates of legal gun ownership. Would higher rates of legal gun ownership decrease that? I think so but it's not going to eliminate it.
The primary reason for these vastly differing rates of crime is not not the availability of guns but the people that live there.
The studies cited in the article DOES NOT show banning guns increase murder rates. It is a plain lie!
In fact, England's murder rate is steadily dropping after a brief spike. The article only focused on the brief spike, but conveniently ignored the long decline.
.
Basically what I was trying to say but much shorter. Also it involves U.S cities which is problematic for a whole list of reasons primarily because, their in the U.S which has the 2nd Amendment and 99.5% of U.S citizens who are working adults can leave the state or even the city limits their in and enter a jurisdiction that guns are much more available for them.
It also ignores that the reason countries/cities/states etcetera often due gun bans is because their in the middle of a huge spike in crime, so if crime keeps rising immediately after the ban it was likely part of a greater trend of all ready increasing crime. It also throws in third world countries who really don't have the same resources available as American police to combat crime which of course will lead to more varied results, even if the country in question has a lower murder rate than America, it's economy isn't as developed hence it's policing capabilities aren't as developed, and the same culture with high social trust that first world citizens often have isn't present.
The thread is about general homicides not specifically gun homicides. The link states exactly what the OP states, page 15 first bullet point
Quote:
Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a generally downwards trend, with the number for 2009/10 (608) being the lowest since 1997/98. The five per cent increase this year sees levels returning to the number of homicides recorded in 2008/09 (640), but are around a hundred lower than those recorded in 2007/08 (734).
Point of note. Firearms Amendment act 1997 banned handgun possession in the UK.
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.
