Gun Control

J

JosephK

Member
Yes, there are differences in measurement. Yes, neither side refers strictly to being shot. But if you are stabbed to death or beat to death, is that really better than being shot to death?

I gotta ask how a 546% increase compared to a 62% decrease is irrelevant. If guns are the problem, those numbers would be reversed as you guys have the ban. If gun control is the answer, the numbers would be reversed.

What have we seen so far?

Wesson posts statistics that show that when gun ownership is increased, violent crime goes down.

Tough gun control laws in the US, at least, don't seem to deter violent crime, even shootings.

The rate of violent crime has increased in the UK even though there has been under a gun ban and the US rate has decreased without one.
 
R

Rooster2619

New member
It really is pretty simple. If you believe gun control is the answer, can you explain why gun control doesn't seem to work in the US. The places with the toughest laws have seen their rates increase. The places with the least stringent laws have seen their rates go down. NYC, Washington DC have the toughest laws but are the murder capitals of the country. Why would that be?

As far as the second paragraph, Holy made the statement
1. Dunblane happened
2. Gun ban in reaction
3. No more Dunblane

The question is how long was it before the previous such incident in the UK. Or was that the first such incident in your country's history? If it had been twenty years between the previous one and Dunblane, then the ten years since the gun ban and now, would not be a remarkable amount of time and should not be pointed to as a success for the gun ban.
 
S

shellylamb

Member
Illegal arms are the problem, and more relevantly the people who use them.

This makes interesting reading:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml
 
B

brookeandjohn05

New member
There are good arguments made on both sides.
All I can say is that I know lots of young thugs around my area and the very idea that they could legally go and buy a gun chills me to the bone.
These people do not rationally think "This other guy might have a gun so if I try to shoot him he might shoot me first, therefore I won't chance shooting him". Otherwise, they would think the same before knifing someone which they frequently do.

If making weapons more readily available is the answer, then surely we should be giving nuclear weapons to al countries. If making weapons more readily available is the answer, then we should be flooding Iraq with even more Kalashnikovs. If making weapons more readily available is the answer, then we should be giving Loyalists and Republicans in Northern Ireland more assault rifles and RPG's rather than disarming them.
 
B

butterfly18

New member
I think the most important point is that 2002 is years after the ban and that they were experiencing higher gun crimes than in the year of the ban or of the incident that led to the ban. Thus you have to question how effective the ban is at reducing crime.
 
A

AlexDean

Member
And again:


Gun control was introduced to reduce the number of people killed in shootings. It worked. It halved them.

"Gun crime" is anything where any form of gun is used, from a replica to an air gun or similar to a real gun.

Most UK gun crime involves air weapons or replicas used to intimidate. Gun crime may be up and there are surely many reasons for that.

But fatalities are down since the ban. Dramatically

Mitch

EDIT TO ADD:
Here are the latest figures I can find: Govt Firearms report to 2006 They show 50 homicides involving firearms , down 36% on last year, which also answers one of Wessons queries earlier.
 
D

djstathis

New member
So violent crimes, gun crimes, and murders being up while gun deaths being down is a success for the gun ban? I am not sure that being killed by a different method is any better than being killed by a gun. If the number of gun crimes are up, then it seems the number of illegal guns must be skyrocketing.
 
L

lwk362393

New member
Sources?


No. Because we count the use of airguns and replicas in Govt stats, these account for the increase in gun crime, not illegally held "real" guns.

Re your question on mass shootings before Dunblane, the only one I can recall is the Hungerford massacre, about 10 years before Dunblane.

Both were carried out with legally held firearms.

Mitch
 
N

nekegap

New member
Wrong.
Violent crime has fallen by around 46% since it's peak in 1994.
Source


By gun crimes we're primarily refering to people brandishing replica or air weapons.
See above sources.


Wrong.

March 1999 - March 2000 = 760
March 2000 - March 2001 = 792
March 2001 - March 2002 = 891
March 2002 - March 2003 = 1,048 - (876) This includes 172 attributed to Harold Shipman
March 2003 - March 2004 = 853
March 2004 - March 2005 = 820
2005 - 2006 = 765 includes 54 victims of the July bombings in london
Source
If you exclude the London bombings from this years figure it's the lowest for nearly two decades.

Next?

Mitch
 
L

lonelynomoreeee

New member
How do you propose to keep illegal weapons out of the U.S?

It would go about as well as keeping Marijuana, Meth, Cocaine etc.. out of the country...which is to say it would be a complete and total failure
 
L

Latasha

Member
I am making no argument at all in favour or against gun control in the US. I've made that clear in previous posts.

NewLearner and others are trotting out arguments that it hasn't worked in the UK and I'm simply checking out the facts; it seems like it has.

Mitch
 
B

Bridgett

New member
I am merely going off the ones posted in this thread.


Do you know what percentage are not "real" guns?


Then so far, it is about the same amount of time since the last massacre. The previous 10 year period was without the gun control. How do you determine the effectiveness of the ban then?


Ok. Were the people that bought them legally the ones that used them? Or did someone steal a legal firearm and use them? If the latter, they really aren't legally held firearms.
 
A

Amesyy

New member
Not police reports of crimes but rather surveys. Isn't it better to use some actual numbers? Perhaps the one that mentioned that violent crime was up in the UK by 456% since 93? (source linked on page 7 and 8 of this thread).



Once again, is there a percentage of the trebling of gun crimes since 93 to 02 according to the 2002 newspaper article linked on page 9? Sure, some of them are not real guns, but how many? And what was the percentage before?



No, you are the one wrong. The numbers are higher than prior to the gun ban. Look at the graph in your link. It is pretty clear.


Do you have anything that really shows the effectiveness of the ban? That is what I would really like to see. If it is conclusively proveable that a ban will result in less pain and suffering for all, then I would be for it. But when the numbers are at best mixed or actually heading in the wrong direction, why have the ban? This is a serious question.
 
K

KurtK

New member
No, I am not making arguments at all. I am asking how you know it has worked. So far, I don't think your facts make a clear case. Especially when your own links show higher rates after the ban.
 
Top