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

More guns, less crime

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by taximike, 3 Jun 2010.

  1. taximike

    Hitman

    Joined: 25 Dec 2009

    Posts: 615

    http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/aeqv2n2lott.pdf

    The basic argument for those who don't want to read 11 pages of stuff:

    Suppose firearms were readily available and law abiding citizens yesterday all along street had firearms. They would have been able to then shoot Bird and disarm him after he shot his first victim - thus saving 11 lives.

    How much crime would actually be stopped if more people had firearms? Cities with high rates of gun ownership where you can buy a gun in Walmart in the USA have incredibly low levels of crime. People don't even lock their doors at night. Places like LA/Washington DC with tight gun control laws are among the worst affected in the US. There's actually an almost perfect inverse relationship between the rates of licensed gun ownership and the crime rates. Is this cause or effect?

    It's game theory at its purest - by creating a real threat you create a stable equilibrium.
     
  2. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,594

    Location: Plymouth

    Some of this is being discussed in the cumbria shooting thread.

    Looking at worldwide rates, there is little correlation between gun control and crime rates either way. Guns don't cause crime, but they don't provably reduce crime either.

    Which is more than enough to rescind stupid unnecessary bans :)

    Looking at the events of yesterday, it's possible he could have been stopped by armed civilians, indeed it's probable, if the laws were right. But situations such as yesterday are so rare they should not be considered justification for any legislation or process...
     
    Last edited: 3 Jun 2010
  3. The Mad Rapper

    Banned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,480

    I can't see how that could reasonably be applied to this country though. Given that the current generation has never known widespread gun ownership, it would be a nightmare. Simple arguments could get very badly out of hand.

    I understand the proposal you're making, I am for home defence firearm ownership, but I worry how the population would react if it were ever to be implemented.
     
  4. kwerk

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 23 May 2009

    Posts: 5,748

    I don't think it would work in the UK.

    A. It's too crowded and much more urban.
    B. There is no gun culture and get their knowledge straight from TV and films. Very dangerous. They aren't steeped in the second amendment heritage like Americans.
    C. Alcohol abuse shows how responsible a lot of British people are.
    D. Too many chavs.
     
  5. mufc802

    Mobster

    Joined: 1 Jul 2009

    Posts: 2,536

    Most people wouldn't want a gun in their house imo, unless they really fear their going to get burgled or attacked, so just a few people would get guns, possibly the ones who want to use guns for crime.
     
  6. Nix

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2005

    Posts: 19,841

    Take all the knife crime we have at the moment and replace that with guns.

    Indeed, prior to actually knowing who the suspect was/is, what's to stop armed civilians shooting each other (as they're all carrying guns at this point) for fear of their own safety? Guns have the horrible potential to make volatile situations worse.

    Removing any laws/bans will increase gun-crime, because it's next to non-existant in this country. Having no immediate defence against such a rarity as someone running riot with a shotgun, is not a justification to arm the mob. It's just a sad consequence that we have to pay for having the bans to keep the crime low in the first place.

    Good citizens (ignoring the possible variables here such as mental illness, etc.) have no interest/business in running around with weapons on their person. Make new weapons available, all you're doing is putting those weapons in the hands of those of dubious morality.

    And how often have the house occupants been unable to phone the police of fear for their own personal safety to the point they need to take the life of the burgler with immediate effect? Give the burgler a gun, then the occupants really would need a gun to defend themselves. As it is, this isn't the norm.
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,594

    Location: Plymouth

    It may increase gun crime, but will it increase overall crime? That is the key question.

    If 100 people are murdered, and all you do with the ban is change the weapon used, where's the benefit?

    This also ignores the fact that prior to 1997, we didn't have a major handgun crime problem anyway, at least not one that was at all addressed by the ban.
     
  8. Heliospherez

    Mobster

    Joined: 3 Jan 2004

    Posts: 3,490

    Location: At Home

    And as has been shown in China recently.... if you have a madman bent on killing...... a gun, knife, sword, stick or even bare hands makes little difference. If they go out with the will to kill 20 people - they can do it relatively easily.

    USA - Population 309 million - Majority of gun related deaths in 2004 were due to suicide (16,907 suicides by firearms)
    England/Wales - Population 54.5million - Suicide rate in 2003....4,8796 - the majority caused by Paracetomol or other OTC drug.

    So which is the worse problem ?
     
    Last edited: 3 Jun 2010
  9. Gackt

    Soldato

    Joined: 2 Apr 2007

    Posts: 6,403

    No, we aren't nearly responsible enough to allow Joe Public to carry firearms.
     
  10. Citizen420

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 10 May 2010

    Posts: 372

    I don't like to discuss this issue but I agree, the statistics show more guns less crime, its a simple fact that outlawing guns only takes them away from the law abiding citizen as the criminal will always flaunt the law.

    In the USA the murder capitals are cities with gun control, that market extremely hare for law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right. The criminals know a lot of people are easy targets, in places like Texas and other states and cities which allow people to carry firearms and some even open carry (open carry is old English common law as only spies and assassins used to conceal their weapon) crime is a lot lord because criminals know people are able to defend themselves.

    The news always likes to jump on a good massacre but you rarely hear about the maniac who goes into a school where the (mature) students are carrying weapons and he gets killed after he shoots one or two people, not 30.

    I just think its a joke that people are told to hide whilst this guy goes on a rampage, it should be like it used to be, if theres a nutter out on a spree, we all man up with our weapons and go and hunt him with the police.

    And lastly I think its a sad reflection on our society when we allow individual actions from nutters to dictate our freedoms.
     
  11. The Mad Rapper

    Banned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,480

    How do you know what 'most' people want? I don't accept that you have any idea where the population sit on this matter.
     
  12. Nix

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2005

    Posts: 19,841

    In my mind it comes down to cultural norms. Today we have this culture of knife-crime based around the immitation gang-culture. If guns were available, these people would acquire and use them. At the moment, stabbing someone (as horrible as it is to explain this) is somewhat of an intimate affair; you have to be close to their person. Guns provide distance and take away the physical aspect. The ease of use and extreme advantage a gun gives an individual will mean other crime becomes easier as a consequence and will most likely rise.

    As said, those who have no interest in carrying weapons, don't anyway. All you're doing is providing those who want to do ill with the new methodology to do so.

    This is also true. One could - arguably - go on a killing spree with little more than a small knife in a crowded shopping centre, etc.
     
  13. The Mad Rapper

    Banned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,480

    Criminals who burgle frequently go armed already, perhaps not with guns but certainly with screwdrivers etc.

    I would contend that firearms are a great 'leveller'. Assuming both burglar and home owner are armed with the same weapons, a 60 year old home owner hasn't much chance against a 20 year old burglar if both are wielding knives, but if both have firearms any physical advantages in terms of strength etc. are immediately lost.
     
  14. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,594

    Location: Plymouth

    And this is why I cannot support a gun ban. It doesn't actually fix the problem. The statistics are pretty clear, guns don't cause crime, hence I see little reason to ban them.

    The problem is not, and never has been, guns. It's people. Taking away the guns doesn't fix the people, it doesn't even limit their effect, apart from in people's minds.
     
  15. Nix

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2005

    Posts: 19,841

    You're missing my point. What's to say that the 60 year old has any intention of actually owning the gun? In such a case this 'leveller' just skews it so heavily in the favour of the antagonist as to make it even more difficult for the police to apprehend them.

    But there's the rub. They are banned, and unbanning them would upset the status quo. Upset the status quo and you will see crime increase and you will find that guns are to blame.

    As said earlier, I do not believe that as a society - especially at present - that the majority of so-called 'adults' are responsible enough to raise a child, let alone be trusted with an incredibley dangerous instrument.
     
  16. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 49,594

    Location: Plymouth

    Citation needed, especially as it goes against most available, independent studies, as well as the evidence available from when we banned handguns, which was only 13 years ago.

    Neither do I, that's why I advocate licensing.
     
  17. Repta

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Jul 2008

    Posts: 4,658

    Location: Surrey

    Handguns arent banned in Northern Ireland and yet very few people seem to own them. I can't recall every hearing of a legally held handgun being used in a crime either. Well apart from when a police officer went a bit nutty at her bit on the side.
     
  18. The Mad Rapper

    Banned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,480

    I'm not sure I am. If it's illegal to carry firearms outside of the home, then a burglar taking a firearm to a burglary is still in a world of **** legally. I suppose the question is, would a burglar be more likely to take a gun with them if they had access to one? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd probably think they would.

    That said, if people can own firearms for home defence, then that increases the danger to the burglar to the extent that they must question whether it's actually worth it.

    As I am a strong believer in the legal possession of firearms for home defence, I do not understand why anyone in their right mind wouldn't want one. But then I served 14 years in the Army, so my view is perhaps not typical.
     
  19. Nix

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2005

    Posts: 19,841

    There's no citation Dolph. I'm basing this on my own objective understanding of society and culture. It's opinion.

    The status quo as it is, works. Apart from the rare incident such as the Cumbria incident, where exactly are guns running riot in the state? Bring back guns, you put them into the hands of those who you don't want to and then you've got a whole new problem to deal with.

    Society should be moving away from its individuals being armed, not retreating to it the second something goes awry. This isn't fuedal England anymore.
     
  20. The Mad Rapper

    Banned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,480

    Why would you use a legally held firearm in the commission of an offence? You'd have to be the most retarded criminal ever...