Gun Control and Crime

[Peregrine]

Thank you milly, but there are far better flaws to point out (and the satan bit was sarcasm... I might disagree with Marxist ßastard sometimes, but I don't think he's dumb enough to seriously blame satan for crime):

 

 

1) The table is a bit misleading when it lists some states as "may-issue". Some of those (New York, Hawaii, others I believe) are "may-issue" only in the sense that wealthy politicians and their bodyguards can get the permits. For the average citizen, it might as well be a complete ban.

 

2) The table only addresses concealed handgun permits, not gun ownership in general. While it's a useful area to look at, it's not a complete look at all factors. For example, the table would completely ignore someone who doesn't have their handgun permit but keeps a shotgun in their house. And it doesn't mention the rate of gun ownership... it doesn't matter if there are zero laws restricting gun ownership if few people actually buy them. A more relevant table would compare the gun ownership rate to the violent crime rate. Or more correctly, to the crime rate where gun ownership by the victim would make a difference... breaking into occupied houses, armed robbery, etc.

 

3) Most importantly: yes, it's a strong argument that concealed handgun permits do not necessarily cause a decline in crime rates. But it also acts as a counter-argument to gun control. You'll notice that the table doesn't suggest stricter gun control prevents crime either, the states with tighter restrictions on concealed handgun permits have widely varrying crime rates.

 

Since gun control does not appear to have a significant effect on the crime rates compared to other factors, we go with the default for a free society: no restrictions since the restrictions are not justified by a serious need.

 

 

Oh my... Could this possibly mean that people whe commit violent crimes have motivations much more complex than "because nobody's going to stop me"?

 

Of course there are other motivations. But fear of a victim that can fight back is a factor. I'd have to go hunt down the sources, but I've seen studies where they have interviewed convicted criminals, and "will they have a weapon?" is a common factor in victim choice.

 

But that's really just part of the fact that criminals prey on the weak. How often do you see a 90 year old grandmother as the victim compared to a 250lb professional wreslter? Guns just make it a lot easier for the physically weak victim to defend themselves (or become an unappealing target).

 

Could it mean that to reduce crime, we need to institute actual social change instead of just handing out guns to random people in hope that they'll do the government's job for them and put their lives on the line to catch criminals (or, far more likely, kill them without any trial)?

 

You know, that's actually my argument against gun control. The motivating factors behind crime are social issues, not access to guns. Without the social changes, the criminals will still be criminals, they'll just move to the next best weapon (if they don't still get their guns illegally). With the social changes, there won't be any need for gun control, since there won't be many violent crimes.

 

And the hope isn't that the would-be victims will do the government's job for it, it's that the victim will defend themselves and not become a corpse. The fact that a worthless "person" is removed from society is just a nice benefit.

 

The two things are completely different. The police can only punish the criminal after the crime, they are rarely able to arrive in time to protect the victim. Nobody's arguing for vigilante justice here, only the right to protect yourself once the police/society fail.

[KzinistZerg]

Gun control stops people who obey the law from getting guns, right? the law-abiding will give them in and be left, not defenseless, but with lesser weapons (a piece of iron pipe does not compare to a gun, neither does a crossbow).

 

Criminals break the law. They're not going to give in guns, they will keep them. Suddenly the civilians are unarmed and the criminals are better armed and free to prey upon whomsoever they please.

 

Something to remember is that the first thing that Hitler did when he got into office was to take away all of the guns.

 

I have to agree almost completely with peregrine; gun control does not work.

[old1eye]

It's human nature, fellas; get used to it. There will always be someone with a god complex who enjoys the power they get by having a gun.

So, no, gun control won't work.

I hve to agree with kzinist, I'm sure that banning guns will suit criminals just fine; less people will be able to fight back!

[Septim741]

It is just sad how people can act. They think that they can do whatever they want. Guns are for hunting and occasionally stopping criminals, not taking innocent lives. Really sad. :glare:

[Evangelion_2014]

If the government does not allow the people to be supplied with an object legally, the people will obtain it illegally. Same thing goes for guns. Criminals will always use guns to commit crime, and making them illegal will increase crime not decrease it. Victims will be unable to defend themselves, and criminals will supply guns illegally. This defeats the entire purpose of outlawing them in the first place. I'm not saying that every hunter needs to walk around with a 50 calbiber chain gun and twelve concealed handguns(that should be illegal), but the people have a right to use firearms for defense and support. As for children dying from gun accidents, more children die from drowning than from gun accidents per year. Furthermore, it is a simple process to lock up guns safely, and a duty of a concerned and loving parent, not the government, Most parents world never let their kids endager their lives with drugs, and the same goes for young children and most teens handling lethal firearms.

[Mercbird]

The whole point of being a criminal is to live outside of the law. To NOT FOLLOW THE RULES. If the law states that you may not own a gun, then the criminal is obliged to have one.

 

My mom comes packing, and its how she got the burglars out of the house, last week. One had a gun, the other a knife. What are you going to do, phone a friend?

 

I would rather be a hard target.

[Mithrandir8]

The whole point of being a criminal is to live outside of the law. To NOT FOLLOW THE RULES. If the law states that you may not own a gun, then the criminal is obliged to have one.

I agree. A lot of the students at the school I attend break the rules solely for the purpose of breaking rules. They are punished for breaking the rules, but they continue to break the rules because they want to rebel against society and leadership. Also, having gun laws will only allow criminals a better chance of commiting a successful crime because they are less likely to find someone with a gun. If everyone has a gun, or at least a large majority of the people, crimminals are less likely to think about breaking into someone's home or robbing someone because they are afraid of armed resistance. This makes having a gun more of a security and crime deterant.

[KzinistZerg]

[...] As for children dying from gun accidents, more children die from drowning than from gun accidents per year. Furthermore, it is a simple process to lock up guns safely, and a duty of a concerned and loving parent, not the government, Most parents world never let their kids endager their lives with drugs, and the same goes for young children and most teens handling lethal firearms.

 

True; and actually, educating your kids carefully and well about guns and how to handle them is exactly the best way to make sure they don't get into accidents. I learned about guns at a young age. I can shoot one, and I'm merely okay as a marksman. But the point is, having learned with a CO2 pistol when I was smaller, I've already done my experimentation, under the watchful eye of my father, who was ALWAYS there to make sure I knew what I was doing, to demonstrate, and to ensure I didn't get hurt. As of now, i feel no urge to mess with guns. I know in general where they are in my house, and am not scared of having them around. In other words, my curiosity is satisfied, so there's not point in messing with them at all.

 

For smaller kids (I was five or six or so when I learned on the small pistol) you need to lock up your stuff, and it's your own damn fault if you're too stupid to see that a two-year-old can actually get into something and destroy it. But, hey, Darwin will take care of it. It's your job to protect your kids, NOT the government's.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

[...] As for children dying from gun accidents, more children die from drowning than from gun accidents per year. Furthermore, it is a simple process to lock up guns safely, and a duty of a concerned and loving parent, not the government, Most parents world never let their kids endager their lives with drugs, and the same goes for young children and most teens handling lethal firearms.

 

True; and actually, educating your kids carefully and well about guns and how to handle them is exactly the best way to make sure they don't get into accidents. I learned about guns at a young age. I can shoot one, and I'm merely okay as a marksman. But the point is, having learned with a CO2 pistol when I was smaller, I've already done my experimentation, under the watchful eye of my father, who was ALWAYS there to make sure I knew what I was doing, to demonstrate, and to ensure I didn't get hurt. As of now, i feel no urge to mess with guns. I know in general where they are in my house, and am not scared of having them around. In other words, my curiosity is satisfied, so there's not point in messing with them at all.

 

For smaller kids (I was five or six or so when I learned on the small pistol) you need to lock up your stuff, and it's your own damn fault if you're too stupid to see that a two-year-old can actually get into something and destroy it. But, hey, Darwin will take care of it. It's your job to protect your kids, NOT the government's.

I agree completely with you on this one, and I have a few qualms about the stance my country's gov't is taking on the control of simple handguns. See, in Canada, the Canadian gov't passed a bill that controls the the sale and use of handguns and handgun permits by civilians. Only those that use their handguns for target shooting (as at a shooting range) may be allowed to carry a handgun permit. Not even avid gun collectors will be allowed to keep their handguns, unless it's an extremely rare model (such as the muzzle-loading pistols used in the 18th century).

 

Now, from my understanding of this situation, the Canadian gov't believes this is a security measure to curb violent gun crimes, specifically those commited with handguns, because those crimes are claimed to be on the rise in this country. I can't see any proof for that reasoning, as most violent gun crimes in Canada are commited using whatever gun the perp can get his or her hands on. Violent gun crimes in general ARE NOT on the rise in my country, as it is rather hard to get even just a hunting license! Canada has a more or less stricter policy regarding the procurement of any firearm deemed legally obtainable from any firarm dealer within Canada.

 

SMGs and assault rifles are among the list of firearms that NO ONE in Canada may purchase or use (I don't think civilians should be using those kinds of firearms to begin with), but handguns are far less dangerous (in the hands of responsible citizens, that is) than a hunting rifle. My stance on this issue is quite clear. I don't condone the use or procurement of any firearm by anyone, but I don't see a reason for completely banning the use or procurement of handguns or handgun permits in Canada.

 

That to me is the point where a country is on the road to communism. When the gov't believes THEY can control EVERY action their citizens make. My gov't "claims" to be a democratic one, but I'm kind of not buying it (and they're CONSERVATIVE, much like the US Republican party). If any of my fellow Canucks read this post, correct me if I'm wrong about anything I have stated, but this is the way I see things. Not ONE gov't should be ALLOWED to make control-freak policies regarding the use of firearms.

 

Making handguns harder to obtain without valid reasoning for obtaining those firearms will NOT, I repeat, WILL NOT, curb violent gun crimes AT ALL. People WILL REBEL against the authority of their gov't, and more illegal handguns will become more commonplace than those obtained legally. As with KzinistZerg, I have also been in contact with firearms when I was at those ages, and I feel completely comfortable around firearms. I know how to handle them safely, and I am responsible when it comes to their use. To paraphrase what KzinistZerg said, it's the job of RESPONSIBLE parents to guard their children against dangerous firearms, that is NOT the job of an IRRESPONSIBLE gov't.

[Kragnor]

Peregrine and your long messages. Lawl.

 

 

I would like to present that guns do not kill people, but people kill people. Those people have guns.

 

The facts are, that there are more people who are killed in car accidents that gun acidents. Are we going to make driving illegal, no.

that there are more people in the nation who drown in pools than gun accidents. Are we going to ban public pools? NO. People die more from drunk driving and drinking, are we going to ban booze, no. But we do put safe guards on these things to make it better safer for society.

 

Guns are a very important part of the country. I forget whom I am quoting, but here goes.

 

"The right to bear arms was created to protect the people from the government." (Thomas Jefferson? James Madison?)

 

Now, we also need to be protected from other people. So we out some restrictions on who can legally own a gun. That is why we have background checks. Unfortunately, most people who do those murders are first timers so there is no info on them.

 

The people's job, make sure the government follows its own bills and promises. If not, we attack.