1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Bans = More Crime

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Jan 10, 2003.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Five years ago, and I do not know if anyone remembers this, after 16 children and a schoolteacher were gunned down in Dunblane, Scotland, Britain passed some of the world's tightest gun control laws.

    Crime statistics released by the Home Office yesterday show just how adept criminals are at getting around such bans. My purpose here is to use UK's model for the US model and to show how the only people who lose in this are the law-abiding citizens. Right then, on to my argument.

    Crimes involving firearms were up 35% in England and Wales in the last year, which includes a 46% jump in the number of robberies involving handguns. That followed a 9% increase in crimes involving handguns in 2000-2001.

    In summary, gun crime has basically doubled since Dunblane. The murder rate is still much lower in England and Wales than it is in the U.S., but the gap has been closing steadily. This ought to suggest that it's time to look beyond gun control for a way to make Britain safer?

    The Home Office also reported a survey in which a third of those surveyed cited anti-social behavioral problems as a very big or fairly big problem, and 44% believe that the criminal justice system is not effective.

    No wonder.

    Perhaps mindful of how rising crime rates in France helped drive former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin from power, Britain's Labour government knows it needs to do more? Or do they?

    Get this though, the plan of attack is to tighten an already comprehensive gun control law to include a ban on fake guns and a crackdown on the use of air guns and enforce mandatory sentences on those found with guns.

    I am not sure if anyone is looking at the past five years where a tightened gun ban will have no practical effect on the ability of determined criminals to get hold of guns, which, despite the statistical increase, are used in only 12% of murders and less than 1% of all reported crimes.

    A decade ago, one might have had some sympathy for ministers flailing about in search of a way to make the streets safer. But the dramatic success of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has provided the textbook for how to do this -- through a combination of tough policing, consistent sentencing and attention to the sort of quality-of-life crimes that British police tend to ignore and judges to dismiss.

    Nothing in the Labour government's approach suggests Britons can start feeling safer any time soon.
  2. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    This is just my opinion, sir.

    But, the sooner you come to the realization that 'gun-control-laws' have NOTHING to do with the intent of reducing crime, the more comfortable you'll be.
    It's impossible to keep up with the political spin.
    Analyzing the accuracy of the statistics of the 'anti-gun' crowd will give you nothing but a headache. (they make no logical sense)

    The anti-gun argument is all about emotion.
    And, it's very hard to debate emotion.

    So, maybe the best thing logical, reasonable folks can do is let the lawyers argue for our 'rights'.
    Join the NRA.

    Just kidding.
    (Well, then again, maybe not)

  3. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Preaching to the choir ethics ;)
  4. Frodo Lives

    Frodo Lives Luke, I am NOT your father!

    Now if they would only pass that mandatory sword weilding law. :)
  5. Andy


    Sure, a week after I could have used this info in my last "debate" on said topic:nut: ....

    Some people still don't get it. They would much rather blame the tool of the crime than the person weilding said tool....

    Oh, don't get me started. I'm actually having a GOOD day! (job interview on Monday!):happy:

    <small> edutid bekawse I kan't spel ;))</small>
  6. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Good luck with the interview!
  7. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    I remember Dunblane very well. When they tightened the gun laws I sat back and waited for the inevitable increase in crime.

    Here's a good example of how gun control is about emotion. I used to work at Salt Lake City Public Library. In 1994 (while I was on vacation in Europe) someone took patrons on the second floor of the library hostage. He had a makeshift bomb. It's too long a story to go into here, but when the dust cleared from that one, the library decided to bring in armed guards. Despite going through all that terror, there was a great hue and cry from some of the employees re having anyone with a gun in the library. The company supplying the guards settled the debate when they announced that we either got their armed guards or we went without guards.

  8. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Thanks for that personal view, Allene, totally agree on the emotional variable.
  9. halldor

    halldor Registered User

    It's "The Lord of the Rings" I can't quit - wait till I've finished Part 3 and then I'll join in the gun debate.

  10. Ugly

    Ugly Fish is Brain Food

    I'd prefer prisons used with priority for folks who commit violent crime, especially with a gun, over jailing casual, adult soft-drug users.

    When drug-users crowd prisons to the point that violent offenders must be released, paroled, etc. to allow newer convicts sufficient space for admission this is a clear proof something is wrong with the priorities of local prosecutors and judges.

  11. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    What the hell is a "<i>casual, adult soft-drug user</i>"?

    A drug user is a drug user is a drug user. Period. :rolleyes:

    And anyone who commits a crime with a gun... whether it is used or not... should be executed. Five or so years of that and you'll see a dramatic drop in crimes involving guns... so long as we actually execute them instead of imprisoning them for twenty years while they try every form of legal trickery in the book to get off on a technicality.
  12. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    They're frequently one and the same, Ugly. I work in the trenches see what they're about, and one of the more universal common denominators of the street thug who has the nuts to drop the hammer is that he is a drugged out freak.

    Most murders fall into only a few categories -
    1) Spousal abuse
    2) Sex related
    3) Drug robbery

    It's why I'm so anti-drug. I see the damage up close and personal.
  13. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    I'm sorry I missed the start of this thread as it goes back some time now.

    But, regardless of my feelings on guns, the original point made ethics re the increase in crimes being caused by tighter gun laws isnot supported by the evidence included above. Its a correlation you are pointing out here, not a cause. How is the increase in crime caused by the change to the gun laws? Have any other factors contributed to this increase? Simply saying factor 'A' changed therefore I'll pick factor 'B' and say one caused the other is all that has been done here. A positive correlation or a negative one for that matter, is totally different from cause and effect. If the crime rate had dropped after the gun laws were tightened the relationship between the two would still not be proven and I would be just as incorrect to say look, the tightened laws resulted in a lower crime rate as you are now in saying the opposite.

    There could have been any of a dozen reasons why there was an increase in the crime rate. Whether tighter gun laws were one of them has in no way beeen demonstrated here.

    What I see here is an emotional reaction, just like the ones the anti gunners come up with as has been pointed out, on the part of some pro gunners desperate for some evidence to support their case. This Scottish example isn't supporting your case.

    As to whether tighter gun laws have been THE CAUSE of the increase in the crime rate may be the case. I am not saying they were not. What I am saying is that the evidence presented from the Scottish example above doesn't support that view.
  14. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    But ditch, you must then apply that same logic to your own argument that disarmament decreases crime.

    "How is the increase in crime related to the gun laws?", you ask.

    You must ask yourself "How are gun laws related to a decrease in crime?" But the second we ask this question, you don't answer, or you say it makes no difference but yet you still support disarmament.

    The pendulum swings toward those who support gun ownership. We don't state it as an exact science. We state it as an inexact science. But that inexact science bears mounting evidence.

    Another example -

    Vermont has virtually no gun control laws. No waiting period, no registration, anyone can carry a weapon, concealed or displayed, anywhere except schools, hospitals, and government buildings. In Vermont in 2000, per capita 100,000 in population, there were 113.5 violent crimes.

    By contrast, in Washington D.C., with some of the most rigid gun laws in the US, the rate of violent crime per 100,000 population was 1507.9.

    All I can say to gun control advocates is this. Our constitution does not provide our rights. It states our rights that are already provided by our very existence. One of those rights is the right to defend oneself from aggression. Our government exists not to protect us from an aggressor, but to protect our right to defend ourselves from an aggressor.

    <I>Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"</I> - Thomas Jefferson, 1764

    Tends to dispel the notion that our founding fathers intended the right to bear arms as being just for a military and state security purpose, now doesn't it?
  15. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    I've never seen this quoted before. Is it from a paper or letter that he wrote?

    To me, it's so applicable today as apparently it was in 1764, that it could have been written this morning.

    I believe it reflects my view that;
    when the anti-gun folks begin work with the law enforcement folks to GUARANTEE my safety against any armed agressor, then, and only then, will I consider 'compromising', in any way, my ability to defend myself and my family.

  16. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Copzilla, I am not saying the tighter laws are or are not the cause of the change to the crime rate. All I have said s that the evidence presented supporting the Scottish stats do not support the conclusion that was drawn.

    As I've said before, of course laws only impact on those that abide by them . Law breakers always do whatever they can get away with. That applies to ANY law not just laws involving guns.
  17. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

  18. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    That's correct, biker! He borrowed those words from Cesare Beccaria, and subscribed to them. Everything Jefferson did pointed to his understanding that an armed populace served multiple purposes. He stated that he believed the greatest purpose was against a tyrannical government (which, despite some people's statement to the contrary, is still a very real possibility; we're only 60 years removed from one of the most evil governments in history), and he talked about attitudes of those who were armed, peace of mind but hoping one never has to use it... Much like we do in these forums.

    The biggest problem with the second amendment now is the sideways assault - the lawsuits against gun manufacturers (if we can't make them illegal, we'll run them out of business) - the unreal amount of red tape (people can own a gun... anyone who can juggle elephants) - when the end result is the same, the result of disarmament.

    To not infringe on the right to carry a firearm means just that - NOT INFRINGE.

    These lawsuits, restrictive licenses, restrictive permits, exhorbitant fees, they are unconstitutional. They deprive us of one of our basic rights.

    I think we need to implement a fee for people to engage in free spe
  19. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member


    Thank you for the links.
    I learn something every time I chat with you learned folks.
    (Most of it's useless drivel, but every once in a while... ;) )

  20. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    The crime rate statistics involving guns in Britian are deceiving. The standard for how they report and rate crimes is such that the crime rate is even higher than reported. They are not deceptive in their reporting, just different that end up reflecting a lower rate than if they were reported using the FBI or U.S. model for reporting same.

Share This Page