Gun Control and Crime

[mike milly]

I am having an argument with a co-worker, so we come to you to help us resolve the dispute. The question is exactly as the description says; Does more gun control mean less crime? An example: If all handguns were banned in the US or any other country would the instances of handgun crime for said country go down, stay the same, or increase? Please let me know why you think what you think, not just "stay the same" or something like that.

[Abramul]

I'd say it depends on:

A) Whether existing guns are taken out of circulation

B) Effectiveness of anti-smuggling efforts

C) Prevalence of small machine shops

D) Availability of various chemicals

Probably some more...

[Peregrine]

All handguns are banned in Washington DC. Washington DC also has the highest (or very close to the highest, it may have changed) murder rate in the world (at least of the "civilized" world).

 

The conclusion should be obvious: gun control doesn't work.

 

 

Well, I take it back, gun control can reduce crime. If you have good control of your gun, you will be able to shoot more accurately. You will be less likely to miss the criminal, and your hits will be more likely to hit vital organs and kill the criminal. And besides the obvious benefit of you being safe, any potential future victims of the now-dead criminal will be safe. So get out to the range and improve your gun control!

[Malchik]

Ah, Peregrine and guns, how did I know exactly what you were going to say!

 

To answer the question with an opinion rather than any factual info. Increased gun control - if effectively established - will reduce crimes using guns. It will also reduce accidents with guns which is another very important issue and indeed in real terms is probably the more significant. I cannot however see why it will reduce crime per se. The criminal will simply use a knife or chemical spray instead.

 

It will probably reduce the number of fatalities because killing a class of kids with a gun is a lot easier than stabbing them all to death.

 

But note that I said if effectively established. In a place like the USA with long and often unpoliced borders it could not work without international co-operation.

 

My opinion is therefore that it would take several years of hard work to get the desired effect. But if it is never started it can never improve.

[Peregrine]

To answer the question with an opinion rather than any factual info. Increased gun control - if effectively established - will reduce crimes using guns.

 

Key point being "effective". Besides the question of whether gun control is right or not (right to self defense, etc), it doesn't work. Guns are just too easy to get, just take a look at the Washington DC example. Guns are completely banned, but that doesn't stop gun crime at all.

 

It will also reduce accidents with guns which is another very important issue and indeed in real terms is probably the more significant.

 

You could make the same argument about banning virtually any object. Why should basic freedoms be taken away "in our best interest" rather than letting each person decide for themselves whether to take that risk or not?

 

I cannot however see why it will reduce crime per se. The criminal will simply use a knife or chemical spray instead.

 

Exactly. And it would actually increase crime, because a strong enough criminal knows the risk of harm to himself is near zero. Robbing and killing that 90 year old grandmother suddenly looks a lot less appealing if she's got a gun to blow your head off with. But take away guns, and the only thing that matters is physical strength.

 

So even if you manage to disarm everyone, and not just the victims, you're still tipping the balance far in favor of the criminal.

 

It will probably reduce the number of fatalities because killing a class of kids with a gun is a lot easier than stabbing them all to death.

 

And this is almost completely irrelevant. Mass-murder like that is a TINY percentage of violent crimes. The only reason you hear so much about it is the endless media attention seeking. One school shooting gets months of front-page attention across the nation, while some random guy killed in his own home is lucky to make the front page of the local news section of his local paper.

 

But note that I said if effectively established. In a place like the USA with long and often unpoliced borders it could not work without international co-operation.

 

Right... lets have the rest of the world police our country. Let me think about that.... NO.

 

Besides the huge sovereignty issues involved, policing the border doesn't work. Pretty much every drug is highly illegal, and yet vast quantities of them still make it across the border. The sheer size and difficult terrain involved makes this nothing more than an idealistic dream. Society would be far better off spending the obscene amount of money and effort on something useful, like worrying about people starving to death.

 

My opinion is therefore that it would take several years of hard work to get the desired effect. But if it is never started it can never improve.

 

Try "decades of insane amounts of money" at MINIMUM. You'd need a Berlin-wall-style border before you could even think about cutting down on smuggling. Then of course you'd need a heavy crackdown on anyone with basic machine tools. I don't even have a full engineering degree yet, but give me the tools and some engineering/materials science textbooks, and I'll have your first guns coming off the assembly line by the end of the week. And lets not forget the problem of confiscating all the existing guns (since a gun can easily last hundreds of years, "let them wear out" isn't an option). How many police officers would you like to send to their deaths to carry out your little crusade?

 

Not to mention the moral issues involved... self defense is a basic human right. If anything, it needs to be easier to get guns, and especially concealed handgun permits. The idea that we should trust the criminals not to hurt us, or fight back strength vs. strength, is just horribly offensive. It's nothing more than a death sentence for crime victims.

[Malchik]

Human beings have no rights, Peregrine. They have permissions. These permissions vary bewteen societies. Some human beings who believe in the a particular society even go so far as to condemn others who see things differently. I do it myself. However the defending of oneself against attack is an innate behaviour used by most if not all living things. It is not a 'right' except in so far as it is enshrined by law (a legal right) and that varies hugely between different societies, too. IIRC in the UK you have the legal right to use reasonable force, a somewhat ambiguous term, which does not include shooting someone in the back when they are running away. Yet even if it were a human right to defend yourself it cannot be carte blanche for any kind of behaviour. Guns are forbidden in most of the civilised Western World. Presumably these societies feel that it is a 'human right' to keep the streets as clear of such weapons as possible. It is not of course a human right any more than being able to own a gun is.

 

You have an entrenched view of the matter as I suspect do I. My belief is that a society with fewer guns is ultimately safer and a comparison of crime rates in countries where guns are banned with those where they are not supports that assertion.

 

You are perfectly entitled to disagree but please do not bring 'rights' into an argument. The USA constantly ignores even legal rights. Neither of us believes in god-given rights. Just accept that 'rights' other than legal ones that can be changed tomorrow, don't exist.

[cactoblasta]

It'd be easy to find figures. Firearms are banned in the UK; simply compare their rate of gun crime/crime in general with the US or any other country where guns are readily available.

 

I'm pretty sure all gun control does is limit firearms crime, but I haven't looked at the figures in ages.

 

Peregrine's example of Washington DC as an example of a gun-free society is ludicrous (how do you police the borders of a city for chrissake? Of course there's guns in there!) but the ready availability of handguns in the UK illustrates that criminals will always be able to get their hands on them. The only ones who can't are the nutjob multi-murderers and the average citizen.

[Marxist ßastard]

All handguns are banned in Washington DC. Washington DC also has the highest (or very close to the highest, it may have changed) murder rate in the world (at least of the "civilized" world).

 

The conclusion should be obvious: gun control doesn't work.

Baku, Azerbaijan has recently instituted water control laws. Baku also happens to be in the middle of a severe drought.

 

The conclusion should be obvious: droughts are caused by water control laws.

[Nappa990]

Wether or not guns are banned the criminals will still get them. The U.S.A (i think) has passed the stage of no return on this gun issue; if they do ban guns there will be so much rioting and such is the like of a constitutional change.

[Peregrine]

IIRC in the UK you have the legal right to use reasonable force, a somewhat ambiguous term, which does not include shooting someone in the back when they are running away.

 

Shooting someone in the back as they run away is murder, and most (if not all) self defense laws even in the US reflect that. You are allowed to use force only if the attacker presents a legitimate threat, once the threat is removed, so is your right to use force.

 

You have an entrenched view of the matter as I suspect do I. My belief is that a society with fewer guns is ultimately safer and a comparison of crime rates in countries where guns are banned with those where they are not supports that assertion.

 

Maybe if you only look at it country by country, it does. But step down to a smaller scale and look at it city by city, and the general trend is lower violent crime rates in areas where gun ownership is less restricted. And that's the more accurate picture. Country by country, the US is one of the only "civilized" countries with limited gun control. And the US has a high violent crime rate due to social factors beyond whether guns are legal or not (large cities, organied gangs, widespread poverty, etc). These high-crime areas distort the overall crime rate for the country... most of the US isn't at all like that, but the statistics don't reflect it.

 

You are perfectly entitled to disagree but please do not bring 'rights' into an argument. The USA constantly ignores even legal rights. Neither of us believes in god-given rights. Just accept that 'rights' other than legal ones that can be changed tomorrow, don't exist.

 

Actually, if a "right" only exists because a law grants it, it's a privilege. And no, I don't believe in "god-given" rights, since I don't believe in a god to give them. But I do believe in some basic human rights that everyone should have, regardless of what the governments think. The fact that the US and other governments ignore them so frequently just means they're abusing their power, not that the rights don't exist.

 

===========================

 

Peregrine's example of Washington DC as an example of a gun-free society is ludicrous (how do you police the borders of a city for chrissake? Of course there's guns in there!) but the ready availability of handguns in the UK illustrates that criminals will always be able to get their hands on them. The only ones who can't are the nutjob multi-murderers and the average citizen.

 

Fortunately that wasn't the point of my example. Washington DC is an example of a society with strict gun control, not an example of a gun-free society. Yes, Washington DC has plenty of guns available if you don't care about breaking the law. That's the entire point, gun control doesn't work. Even a complete ban on all gun ownership isn't enough, and you can't get any stricter than that.

 

===========================

 

All handguns are banned in Washington DC. Washington DC also has the highest (or very close to the highest, it may have changed) murder rate in the world (at least of the "civilized" world).

 

The conclusion should be obvious: gun control doesn't work.

Baku, Azerbaijan has recently instituted water control laws. Baku also happens to be in the middle of a severe drought.

 

The conclusion should be obvious: droughts are caused by water control laws.

 

 

False analogy. I'm not arguing that Washington DC proves that strict gun control causes a high crime rate, I'm arguing that Washington DC proves that gun control doesn't work. We have an example of a complete ban on gun ownership, but there are still plenty of guns, and one of the highest violent crime rates in the world.

 

Your correct analogy would be that if the hypothetical water control laws in Azerbaijan had little or no effect on the drought, the obvious conclusion would be that water control laws don't work.