Banning firearms to fight crime is fool's gold

[fushigi]

As any of you who've taken part in our debates on firearms will know, I'm against the private ownership of guns. However, Keith recently pointed out some data from England and Wales showing that aggressive anti-gun laws have not stemmed gun crimes; in fact, the rate of crime is rising. In a previous debate, I determined that tough gun laws in DC and New York City have also had no statistically significant effect on crime rates. Today, I found this PPT presentation from the American Society of Criminology that shows post-gun ban crime rates have been unaffected in Canada and Australia, and actually risen in Ireland, Jamaica, and Scotland.

Furthermore, the report cites that enforcement of gun control laws in Canada costs over US $2B a year - hardly worth it if you consider that only 1% of violent crime in the country is firearm-related, and the overall crime rate has not been changed by enforcement.

So I'll do something few rarely do here and admit that my original position was wrong. We don't need anti-gun laws to protect society. All they do is cost us more money.

However, this is not to say I'm going to go out and join the NRA.

My final conclusion is that - as with most debates where two sides argue vigorously that they're right - both sides are wrong. Those who say countries need to make guns legal so families can protect themselves are mistaken, just as those who say banning handguns will make our society safer are mistaken. Guns and crime just aren't related; there's no strong evidence to convince me otherwise.

[Jack]

Guns and crime just aren't related; there's no strong evidence to convince me otherwise.

Agreed. A gun is just one tool among many that criminals can exploit to their advantage. The list would include vehicles, hand weapons (knives, clubs, bats...), even psychology. It's nonsensical to suggest we prohibit access to everything that might possibly be used for criminal activity. Still, having worked around firearms for a number of years, I don't believe their widespread ownership does anything to make the average citizen safer. Many gun owners never bother to learn proper firearm safety and handling, making them as dangerous in their ignorance as criminals are in their deliberate use of firearms.

I've had a few of my own beliefs and attitudes adjusted by other's comments here. And it's encouraging to see someone else admit as much. An open mind is always learning.

[Charon]

I think perhaps, you might want to read the following when discussing "gun-control". Gun Control in Australia --- Chaos Down Under

And, for those in the US, the 2nd Amendment provides for the "Right to bear arms". This is not to protect you from other citizens, but from a "tyrannical government"...Although it would be a better world without the need for guns, I feel safer for my family with my guns.

[brien]

The way my philosophy works is thus: Better not to need my firearm and have it, than need it, and not have it.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: fushigi So I'll do something few rarely do here and admit that my original position was wrong. We don't need anti-gun laws to protect society. All they do is cost us more money.

For some of us, anti-gun laws do more than simply cost money -- they force us to live at the mercy of criminals, whether legal (i.e., government agents) or not.

However, this is not to say I'm going to go out and join the NRA.

No one's asking or forcing you to do so.

My final conclusion is that - as with most debates where two sides argue vigorously that they're right - both sides are wrong. Those who say countries need to make guns legal so families can protect themselves are mistaken, just as those who say banning handguns will make our society safer are mistaken. Guns and crime just aren't related; there's no strong evidence to convince me otherwise.

Is a firearm invalid as a means of personal or familial defense?

- Rob

[fushigi]

Quote by: Autolykos Is a firearm invalid as a means of personal or familial defense?

From the data I've seen, yes:

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[5] When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[6] The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.[7] The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.[8] From 1987-1990, victims used firearms to protect themselves in fewer than one percent of all violent offenses.[9] In 1998, there were only 134 justifiable handgun homicides by a private citizen compared with a total of 6,498 handgun murders in the United States.[10]

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Charon I think perhaps, you might want to read the following when discussing "gun-control". Gun Control in Australia --- Chaos Down Under And, for those in the US, the 2nd Amendment provides for the "Right to bear arms". This is not to protect you from other citizens, but from a "tyrannical government"...Although it would be a better world without the need for guns, I feel safer for my family with my guns.

It would, but as long as you have people who want what you have there will be crime and there will be guns. And no amount of legislation will keep people from getting guns that are ALREADY illegal. If you have a person who commits a crime, what's one more crime added to it, especially if the payoff is worth it.

But I'm split on private ownership of guns as a deterrent to crime. On the one hand, I'm fully aware of the fact that if someone who merely wants to shoot me, he already has the drop on me. I don't expect anyone in a crowd to gun me down, but if there's one guy in that crowd out to get me I'll never see it coming.
BUT, on the other hand, if criminals believe that every home they want to enter illegally has an armed homeowner, I believe a lot of these criminals may have second thoughts. You can't watch somebody else's plasma TV when you're dead. In the time it takes to break down a door or break through a window a homeowner with a gun might have enough time to pick it up and use it.
This might well utilize the criminal's natural cowardice against them.

[Technosoul]

Who said that banning handguns and assult weapons is done to stop crime, the fact is that crime will continue with or without guns, as long as poverty and other causes are in effect.

In other words, the reason to ban handguns is not about stopping crime, we are not supposed to act as policemen anyway. The reason to outlaw such weapons is to prevent the other problems that having guns around the house can magnify, as pointed out in a posting above (#6).

To reduce the chances of children and teens from getting a gun with ease.
To help prevent the number of accidents that are gun related.
To help prevent domestic shootings that are caused by lack of anger managment, when a guy gets mad at his wife, or the boss at work.
Now it would be more difficult for a teenager to got to school with a knife or bat and start killing a bunch of people, or someone going to his workplace and doing the same thing, or in a shopping mall.

Gun control is about preventing the large number of deaths and injuries that are not directly connected with the crimes of robbing people. Like, how can gangs have dirve-by shootings without guns? In the 1950s we had gangs also, and we might carry a switch blade knife and act tough, even have street fights where we mostly used our fists as weapons. But drive-by shootings? No, that is something fairly new. Back then few of us got killed or injured all that much with out black leather gang activities. Although cars were a big probem then relative to teen deaths and injuries, them old drag races.

It is the NRA that keeps suggesting that gun control is about preventing crime and then they bring up stats to the contrary, that is just a scam.
The real reason is to get guns away from the nuts, form those suffering from depression and insecurity, the irreponsables, and the stupid jerks. And of course, minors. From those who act out of rage and anger instead of out of commonsense, and away from drunks and drug users.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Technosoul Who said that banning handguns and assult weapons is done to stop crime.

Um, the people who are trying to BAN them do!

NOBODY in the public eye, whether from government, citizen anti-gun groups or the media is saying they are worried people with guns might have an armed interaction with the government.

But crime always sells, and if the idiot sheep are made to believe making guns illegal will stop the criminals from doing something ILLEGAL with them, then the governmental spin doctors have done their job.

[ZNFYRH]

Here's the problem with guns...

They are so easy to use.

The question stands regarding what effect it will have to ban guns altogether.

On the one side, crime will always happen. Someone with violent tendencies is going to find a way to exhibit those tendencies regardless of what they have available.

But on the flip side, and the only reason I would support banning guns, is that there is a type of person who would only be violent if they had a gun.

There is a major psychological barrier that exists between just shooting someone and actually having to touch them to hurt them. By not having the ability to disconnect oneself from a violent action, I think it will prevent violence by a person who can't breach that barrier.

All in all, that's why I support banning guns. It will prevent violence by those who need to be disconnected from their victim.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: Here's the problem with guns... They are so easy to use.

No way.

A pencil or scissors are EASIER to use in close proximity.
A car is easier to use of your target is outside in the open, and affords more protection to the criminal.
A rope is easy to use.
Concrete shoes are easy enough to make.
Shallow graves are easy to dig.


That argument is bunk, at least in my opinion.

ZNYFRH said: The question stands regarding what effect it will have to ban guns altogether.

Only some see it as being a valid question, let alone, worthy of considering.

The reasoning is not there to support the argument.

ZNYFRH said: On the one side, crime will always happen. Someone with violent tendencies is going to find a way to exhibit those tendencies regardless of what they have available. But on the flip side, and the only reason I would support banning guns, is that there is a type of person who would only be violent if they had a gun.

Once again, the mistakes or errors of a few is no reason to remove the rights of others.

ZNFYRH said: There is a major psychological barrier that exists between just shooting someone and actually having to touch them to hurt them. By not having the ability to disconnect oneself from a violent action, I think it will prevent violence by a person who can't breach that barrier.

I don't touch someone if I hit them with a car.
I don't touch someone if I pay to have them dragged into a shallow grave, and put dirt on them.
I don't touch someone if I dig a pit full of punji stakes and lure them into it.

Once again, this argument is riddled with holes, and would set precedent to outlaw everything using its flawed logic.

ZNYFRH said: All in all, that's why I support banning guns. It will prevent violence by those who need to be disconnected from their victim.

That is wholly, totally untrue, and I will bet dollars to donuts you CAN'T prove that in any form of valid reasoning, factual data or basis of argument.

[Mr.Vicchio]

fushigi,

What you have to really look at is the rate of home invasions while the owner is actually at home, I have a meeting to go to, but if memory serves, the rate in countries with gun bans is higher then in the USA and rose after the gun bans.

Criminals felt safer. While Guns and Crime per say cannot be factored, that's one of the factors I think IS important, because it's the most dangerous to the average joe as it were. having someone break into your home.

[ZNFYRH]

I guess I'll have to do this piecemeal...

Quote by: OFE That argument is bunk, at least in my opinion.

Of course there are other things that are equally easy to use. My statement about ease of use wasn't about the technicalities of the weapon. The point was that they are easier because of how I elaborated after.

Quote by: OFE Only some see it as being a valid question, let alone, worthy of considering.

The thread posed the question, not me. I'm answering the thread, instead of twisting this to something else. If you don't like the question, don't try to change it so that your answer is relevant.

Quote by: OFE Once again, the mistakes or errors of a few is no reason to remove the rights of others.

Sucks when that happens, doesn't it?

Quote by: OFE I don't touch someone if I hit them with a car. I don't touch someone if I pay to have them dragged into a shallow grave, and put dirt on them. I don't touch someone if I dig a pit full of punji stakes and lure them into it. Once again, this argument is riddled with holes, and would set precedent to outlaw everything using its flawed logic.

My argument is absolutely not riddled with holes.

Go back and read closely what I wrote.

I'm going to emphasize this because I'm growing tired of forum members making this same stupid mistake.

I did not say banning guns would reduce all violent crimes across the board.

I specified that it would stop violent crimes from those who would be disposed to the gun.

The fact that you mention the alternatives earns a big, "No sh*t, Sherlock." Just as the fact that there are those who, without a gun, will find another way.

The people I'm thinking about, as far as prevention goes, are the ones who let the gun give them more confidence and nerve to commit crimes. Without the availability of the most efficient tool for killing, I believe violent crimes would be reduced.

Quote by: OFE That is wholly, totally untrue, and I will bet dollars to donuts you CAN'T prove that in any form of valid reasoning, factual data or basis of argument.

You're right. I can't prove it because it hasn't been done.

I could only prove it if it were done and then looked back and did a comparison.

Honestly, that's just a stupid thing to say, Osborn. I'm not calling you stupid, but of course I can't prove it. That's the whole point of this thread... would the banning of guns prevent violent crimes.

Obviously the question of the thread wouldn't be asked if it had already happened.

::shakes head in disappointment::

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You're right. I can't prove it because it hasn't been done. I could only prove it if it were done and then looked back and did a comparison. Honestly, that's just a stupid thing to say, Osborn. I'm not calling you stupid, but of course I can't prove it. That's the whole point of this thread... would the banning of guns prevent violent crimes. Obviously the question of the thread wouldn't be asked if it had already happened. ::shakes head in disappointment::

Banning guns has been done. Many, many times throughout history and throughout the world.

The Nazis banned private gun ownership. Did that reduce the overall number of deaths and levels of violence?

The British have banned virtually all guns. Have they experienced a reduction in deaths and violent crime?

The Australians have banned more than 60% of guns, and many knives, and have severely restricted ownership and use of what they do allow. Has that resulted in a reduction in violent crime?

The evidence is all around, you simply choose to ignore it.

Keith

[fushigi]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio fushigi, What you have to really look at is the rate of home invasions while the owner is actually at home, I have a meeting to go to, but if memory serves, the rate in countries with gun bans is higher then in the USA and rose after the gun bans.

I'm keen to see your source.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Um, the people who are trying to BAN them do! NOBODY in the public eye, whether from government, citizen anti-gun groups or the media is saying they are worried people with guns might have an armed interaction with the government. But crime always sells, and if the idiot sheep are made to believe making guns illegal will stop the criminals from doing something ILLEGAL with them, then the governmental spin doctors have done their job.

The last time (that I recall) they attempted to effect more rules to monitor and control guns was right after the shooting incident at a highschool, or was it after it occured at two or three public schools? Although that might be called a crime it is not the kind of crime where people robbing you are breakikng into your house. Not a act caused by regular criminals who make a living doing hold-ups or simular things.

Now I agree with you that gun control will not stop organized crime nor will it stop hard core criminals who use guns to rob people. The school incident was the motivation for Bill Clinton to encourge stronger gun control measures, not crime as it would be done by relgular gangsters. It was because we have irrisponsible teens, nuts, stupid fools, and jerks who shoot guns off on New Years Eve without concern about where the bullets will fall, and of course gun accidents and the use of such weapons for domestic disputes or for resolving depression. Just a few months ago the Vice President shot a fellow duck hunter by accident.,. for example.

And then we get those NRA freaks making stupid statements for damage control about the idea we should allow a bunch of irrisponsible people to own guns.

It is time to stop pretending and to become realistic, no matter what our original rights are (were).

Now you might think I am for banning guns by changing the documents with amendments. Nay! But guns are known to be dangerous and so I think we need a new law that will make every registered gun owner get insurence for such property. to cover the costs of potental accidents or miss-usages. What is human life worth? And what if your gun was used to kill a bunch of people? Hmm? A three million dollar insurence policy should cover it. (The amount a armed security guard or his company must be insured at to stay in business). Like car insurence. That way you can bear arms as long as you do the responsible thing and get insurence to cover damages that such a weapon could potentially cause. Good idea ... right?

[Slevin57]

Well I have considered owning a gun, but for me personally the consequences out weigh the benefits.

If someone walks up to you and you feel "threatened", you need to pull the gun and shoot the person then.

If you do not, you have probably missed your chance. Most people don't carry sheathing swords, nor do they want to go through the trouble of struggling with you to kill you with a knife.

No, they use the great equalizer. Lead.

Chances are they are going to have a gun. And they will shoot you. Especially if you pull out your 12 gauge to protect yourself.

As I said earlier you would have to shoot the person before you saw a weapon, when you felt threatened. Most intelligent people will know that shooting a person who turns out to be unarmed, is not looked upon nicely. (barring someone who is trespassing)

Also, I think people should stop saying they need to own guns to protect themselves from tyranny. I don't know if you have noticed, but our current Tyrant (president) has out gunned any private citizen or company, but about 50 thousand to one.

You will loose if you try to fight the military with your shotgun, I promise.

[ZNFYRH]

Keith,

Ahhh... the evidence all around me.

Since you posed questions in your post instead of actually just giving me the information (which implies that you don't actually know on your own) I'll do the same for you (since I believe in "do unto others"):

What are the statistics on the number of violent crimes committed with guns where the guns are illegally acquired?

I'm willing to bet "dollars to donuts" that the majority of them were committed with unregistered / illegal guns anyway.

So now you are faced with the dilemma of "a lock only stops an honest thief".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do know the effectiveness of those gun bans you listed for me.

Since you are implying they weren't effective, I wonder if you could tell me if they at least reduced the number of violent crimes committed by the owners of a legally acquired and registered weapon.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Here's the problem with guns... They are so easy to use. The question stands regarding what effect it will have to ban guns altogether. On the one side, crime will always happen. Someone with violent tendencies is going to find a way to exhibit those tendencies regardless of what they have available. But on the flip side, and the only reason I would support banning guns, is that there is a type of person who would only be violent if they had a gun. There is a major psychological barrier that exists between just shooting someone and actually having to touch them to hurt them. By not having the ability to disconnect oneself from a violent action, I think it will prevent violence by a person who can't breach that barrier. All in all, that's why I support banning guns. It will prevent violence by those who need to be disconnected from their victim.

I agree with you about the phychological reasons of some people who would use a gun to kill someone, and also, being at a distance is more anonymous (for a sniper) and he has less chance of being counter-attacked. If you use a bat or knife some stronger person could still overcome you and take away the weapon.

But gun advocates would point out that killing people is not the only reason to want to have a gun, they might enjoy target shooting, hunting wildlife, or simply for self defense in which case keeping a distance would be a advantage because who wants to get close to someone breaking into your house for a fisty fight? (I have not read the follow-up posts below this one yet and so they might have beat me to the punch). And they will say "why punish the responsible people because a few nuts ( and I think a gun dealer must do background checks to insure the buyer has not mental record with the police). Lot of good that does...eh?

But thanks for favoring a unarmed citizenship. But they will class you as a sheepe who is brainwashed by the governmental spin doctors as they think that we have a conspiracy in government to take away private guns so that that another Hitler type guy can remove all your other rights and then establish a dictatorship or that in some manner our democratic system would be made of non-effect. Now the anti-gun people do not talk about that conspiracy very much but the pro-gun people do talk about it at their little para-miltary meetings. The NRA spin doctors use that concept to scare people into advocating more freedoms for gun owners.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Technosoul Good idea ... right?

The best. How could I have not seen this? I am humbled. Insurance! What an idea. Wow!