Question for anti-gun:

[spartan231490]

The other thread is way too long and cluttered and has at this point devolved far from a reasonable discussion. It has also been an opinion-fest from the beginning, so I thought I would start this one to make sure that people saw the facts. I think this is more than enough reason to start a new thread so similar to the last.

So: the facts.

There is no evidence to suggest that stricter gun control reduces the crime rate, violent crime rate, murder rate, or even suicide rate.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf

On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that legalizing the concealed carry of handguns, may actually reduce the rates of several crimes. One study found that:
"States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent"
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
Also, during the years when Washington DC had a handgun ban and trigger lock law in place " the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower"

Also
" Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban." The annomalies that were listed on the page, sourced below are large numbers of murders reported all at once that weren't related to firearms, such as the 2002 incident where over 170 murders were reported when a doctor was found to have been killing his patients and the 2005 London bombings.

Further:
" Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower"

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

"U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year" though other researchers have suggested that number is far higher, the most common estimate being between 2 and 3 million, and one estimate of 3.2 million. The most widely accepted number is 2.5 million times per year.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm

Contrasting this, there were less than 12,000 non-suicide, firearm-related deaths in the US in 2010, less than 32,000 firearm-related deaths total.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Also, while loose gun control may allow for mass shootings, civilian firearm ownership often stops mass shootings as well.

http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1200991
http://www.bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm
This is just a forum discussion but they have links to several wiki pages on shootings that were stopped by armed civilians: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-270374.html


This page details a study which found that the only policy out of all the different gun control laws(over 1,000) in US states and the inclusion of a death penalty in state law, only "shall issue" handgun laws reduced deaths and injuries from mass shootings. "Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%."

http://www.beyourself.com/howtostp.htm



And so, those of you who are anti-gun, or pro gun control, I ask you: How can you argue against such overwhelming evidence against the effectiveness of gun control?

I myself spent between 2 and 3 hours looking up this information, I used the search title: "Gun control and crime", in order to avoid bias, and I did not find a single piece of evidence that supported the fact that stricter gun control reduces crime rates, violent crime rates, suicide rates, or even murder rates. So, I tried the biased search entry: "gun control reduces crime" and still found no such evidence.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Hiya-

It's not me arguing, so stay cool. Here's what the problem is for other people as I see it:

They don't see that the numbers do add up. They see that there are still numbers adding up to a death toll. They don't want the lesser of two evils. They want no evil. This is fine. I don't want such evil either, but I agree with you that the gun control idea doesn't appear to work. The problem is people, and the issue is that people do dumb and crazy shit, and that's why they die. That is my very cynical way of looking at it, but it seems to me that that's more the nail on the head than trying to take guns away from the billion-or-so people who have them, whether they are considered actually DANGEROUS with them or not. Ya follow?

 

[spartan231490]

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

There's also Japan, Australia, and quite a few others. Can't find a good source, but here's what wiki has to say about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

Though these figures might be better suited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

[aba1]

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

Canada has gun control as well. I always think it is worth noting compairing places in the states with different gun policies is not really fair since people can just take there guns from state to state. You would have to compare different countries.

 

[spartan231490]

the point of guns isnt to defend they are designed to kill others, they have no purpose other than to kill.

but frankly im beyond caring what the americans do, you guys want machine guns in every household? go for it. the country is too scared about everything from someone of a different skin colour breaking into their house, to terrorists through to some conspiracy of the UN removing their weapons and they have how many times more guns than people these days that its impossible to remove them.

as for the latest shooting.. the guy had body armour. say 20 people in that mass of people were armed with pistols.what do you honestly see happening with a large group of people,, gun fire being heard and a pile of strangers with guns in the crowd? you know with hindsight there was one shooter. you know with hidsight what he looked like and what he was using. you would have a pile of paniced people firing at other people in the crowd who they saw had guns. the death toll would of been much higher in all probablity

TLDR
while i get a good chunk of the country wants gun control america has a gun culture, and until thats adressed its impossible to properly solve the issue of gun crime there. if you want more guns on the street and in houses then be prepared to deal with the consequences

What consequences? That people can defend themselves from criminals and enjoy a good day out hunting or sport shooting at the range? I am perfectly prepared to deal with those consequences.
What evidence do you even try to offer? Nothing. Just ifs, maybes, and hypotheticals. I have evidence and science. More guns does not mean more crime, does not mean more murder, does not mean more death. There are no negative consequences to keeping guns legal.

but, to address your comment on body armor: body armor is far from universal bullet protection. Firstly, someone probably would have hit him in the head. Also, body armor doesn't protect the legs, and a leg shot will, if not stop a shooter, it will slow him down and distract him enough to let people escape. That's assuming he's on drugs, if he's not a few hits to the legs or arms will stop him.

And most importantly, body armor sucks. It stops handgun rounds well, but it's useless against rifle rounds. In the right conditions, even a handgun will go through it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGw_D9KSIok
Take the standard issue cop flak vest, myth-busters shot through it with their very first rifle, which I think was a .22LR I can't for the life of me find a video of it, they were testing a BP vest. Oh well, can't find it. However, many handguns are chambered for .22 magnum, which is nearly identical to the .223 rifle round.

 

[spartan231490]

the point of guns isnt to defend they are designed to kill others, they have no purpose other than to kill.
snip

I hear this argument a lot, and it makes no sense at all. You could say the same thing of a bow, but nobody's clamoring to ban bows. That aside, the overwhelming evidence proves you wrong. 1.5 million times each year(conservatively), in the US alone, a gun is used for self defense, the vast majority of the time not killing anyone. On the other hand, including suicides and accidents, only around 30 thousand people die because of firearms. This overwhelmingly shows that guns are used more often to defend people than they are to kill them, so of the two, self-defense is the more common "point" of firearms. Also, there are between 70 and 80 million American's that own firearms, and each of them uses it for something.

 

[spartan231490]

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

 

[Thaluikhain]

but, to address your comment on body armor: body armor is far from universal bullet protection. Firstly, someone probably would have hit him in the head. Also, body armor doesn't protect the legs, and a leg shot will, if not stop a shooter, it will slow him down and distract him enough to let people escape. That's assuming he's on drugs, if he's not a few hits to the legs or arms will stop him.

And most importantly, body armor sucks. It stops handgun rounds well, but it's useless against rifle rounds. In the right conditions, even a handgun will go through it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGw_D9KSIok
Take the standard issue cop flak vest, myth-busters shot through it with their very first rifle, which I think was a .22LR I can't for the life of me find a video of it, they were testing a BP vest. Oh well, can't find it. However, many handguns are chambered for .22 magnum, which is nearly identical to the .223 rifle round.

Well, in the North Hollywood shootout, the body armour of the criminals meant they could hold off the LAPD until SWAT arrived, the police went to get rifles from a local gun shop because their pistols weren't powerful enough. Though the one SWAT killed was killed by them shooting him in the leg.

And...a handgun round nearly identical to the .223? Citation needed there.

 

[Kalikin]

I'm not American, nor particularly gun-anything, but I thought I'd add my seldom-heard voice to the din that is the Escapist's new favourite topic.

I think it would take a really special kind of gun fanatic to claim guns don't facilitate, or even empower people to commit, violent crime. And what could be more common-sense than the idea that if you remove the main instrument in those crimes, those crimes would decrease?
It's that very thing that I think is the problem, though - and it may even be reflected in the statistics in the OP (although it doesn't specify an increase in GUN related crime, so it's hard to tell).

The point is that when, "between 70 and 80 million Americans" own guns, restricting the sale of guns isn't going to do much when the gun population is already so huge - and any attempt to take guns away from people who purchased them before the new laws came into place would be somewhere between completely useless to extremely inefficient, and of debatable legality in any event.

Then there's the issue of the right to carry a weapon. Frankly, if that many people own weapons, then there are bound to be some owners with the disposition to go and commit a crime with it, so restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying a weapon really is depriving them of protection.

TL/DR: With the gun population is America being as large as it is, sales restrictions would probably be of limited use; restricting the right to carry would be counterproductive for the same reason.

 

[elvor0]

The one that gets me is "It's to stop the government taking over!" That would've made sense when the constitution was written, when people had muskets and there was an even chance that if they wanted to, the people could've overthrown the Government. It is now 2012, your handgun isn't going to amount to shit if the government (for some insane reason) decides it's going to become 1984, the government has Predator Drones, Tanks, Airstrikes, an Airforce, a Navy, Nukes and whatever other Heavy Artillery it has available, if they wanted to take over, they could do it and no amount of NRA members is going to be able to stop them.

The thing is, people are legally and easily able to buy guns, for example The Joker guy, bought all of his ammunition and stuff off of the frikkin internet. Were it not that easy for him to get his equipment, it most likely wouldn't have happened, and although there are criminal means for people to acquire guns, you have to have contacts, likely pay more and have to deal with shady characters to do so.

Criminals are always going to be able to get hold of stuff, but they would have to rob an army supply centre or what not in order to get stuff beyond handguns and hunting rifles. Not only that, some middle class dude with a hand gun is not going to be able to face down a gang packing mac-10s, he might get a potshot off and kill one of them, then he's just going to get riddled with bullets.

Guns don't just magically come into existence, they have to come from somewhere, you can at least impose some difficulty on things by limiting what civilians are allowed to buy, in the UK you can get a .22 rifle after extensive checking and tests, no ones massacaring anything with that, one shot and then he's got to reload, works okay-ish for hunting and shooting ranges and that's about it. Beyond that Farmers may apply for a shotgun license to defend their livestock.

You barely ever get stories of gun massacres in the UK, because no one gets any access to them, so it fucks me right off when people say "Oh well you get knife crime!!11!" Yeah, which may lead to one person getting stabbed, not a massacare where loads of people get killed and horribly injured. Not only that, it's utter hyperbole, you can't take away knives, it's an integral tool to so many things, fishermen, chefs, cooking, etc etc. Guns primary purpose is that of a weapon, a knife is on the other hand a tool.

I agree that you should be able to defend your house, but how likely /are/ you to do that? Most of the time you're going to just have it sitting there, not doing anything, unless you've been trained and are a very calm individual, you're unlikely to be much of a threat to someone willing to rob your house. A gun is not like having a bat, it's a very powerful and scary weapon to be pointing at another human, and you better be sure you're prepared to pull the trigger, or any knowledgeable criminal is going to just going take it away from you.

Cartels and organized crime rings are going to be able to get guns, but your average gas station robber, would likely not be able to get hold of a decent gun if it wern't so easy to just walk into Ammu-nation and buy one.

However on the flip side, there's just so /many/ guns in America at this point, that it's gone beyond just clamping down on selling them, there needs to be a massive overhaul, and I'm not sure what that would be.

And just to add, I'm in a bit of an awkward position, I -like- playing with guns, there's something I dunno... sexy about them. In the same way people like cars, and tinkering with the engines, there's just something about them as technology, the sleakness and that mechanical click, so it's not like I hate guns and want them all destroyed, but as we can plainly see, people are cunts and can't be trusted.

 

[spartan231490]

but, to address your comment on body armor: body armor is far from universal bullet protection. Firstly, someone probably would have hit him in the head. Also, body armor doesn't protect the legs, and a leg shot will, if not stop a shooter, it will slow him down and distract him enough to let people escape. That's assuming he's on drugs, if he's not a few hits to the legs or arms will stop him.

And most importantly, body armor sucks. It stops handgun rounds well, but it's useless against rifle rounds. In the right conditions, even a handgun will go through it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGw_D9KSIok
Take the standard issue cop flak vest, myth-busters shot through it with their very first rifle, which I think was a .22LR I can't for the life of me find a video of it, they were testing a BP vest. Oh well, can't find it. However, many handguns are chambered for .22 magnum, which is nearly identical to the .223 rifle round.

Well, in the North Hollywood shootout, the body armour of the criminals meant they could hold off the LAPD until SWAT arrived, the police went to get rifles from a local gun shop because their pistols weren't powerful enough. Though the one SWAT killed was killed by them shooting him in the leg.

And...a handgun round nearly identical to the .223? Citation needed there.

It's not a handgun round, it's a rifle round, but a lot of revolvers are chambered for it. Obviously, with a short barrel it won't come out as fast, but even out of a handgun it is fast.

As for north Hollywood, the cops aim sucks then. Head-shots aren't as hard as they're made out to be. The human head is comparable in size to the kill-zone on many game animals, hunters hit that target from 500 yards plus no problem. That's discounting arm and leg shots, which are even easier

 

[Tsaba]

Spoiler

Wouldn't accomplish much, if people want to commit a crime they will, a firearm is a deterrent.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

Oh, you're one of those people.

But anyway- perhaps I should have clarified, that statistic didn't include all gun deaths, just homicides.
But, the only point I was attempting to make is if you don't give an idiot a gun, they won't be able to shoot it.

 

[The Funslinger]

snip

I think this is a good neutral way of looking at it.

I'm British, but I think America's take on guns is a good base.

I think a good system to implement would be this: Every gun owner must be put on a database, along with up to date listings of what they possess. With carry weapons, shooting, safety and situational training must be given. A check up must be made at least once a year (this is something that's already done with hunting weapons in Britain, albeit every 2 years) and I don't see that more... exotic guns would need to be banned. Statistically, things like assault rifles aren't weapons of choice for crime. They're far too impractical. Let's face it, some people (myself included) like guns as a feat of technology and engineering, the same way you get people who know every little thing about cars, and maybe to them up as a hobby.

Since every legally owned weapons would be extensively archived (as would any modifications made to it) if it were stolen, tracking it would be easier. I've known a great many people who couldn't safely go out at night without a carry gun, and have had cause to use them. Even in 'nice' neighborhoods) so you can't tell me carry weapons don't help people. Using America as an example, if such weapons laws were employed in a uniform fashion across all states, that would take a dent out of black market weapons since a big part of it is likely going somewhere with very loose gun laws, and driving your new stock across the border to one of the more tightly kept states.

Plus if it's the public image that a guy on the street is likely to be armed, that's one hell of a crime deterrent. Thing is, even in places like America, the vast majority of people aren't. Fair enough, that's their decision, but still.

 

[GM.Casper]

As for gun laws in general I would do the following- to own guns you need Gun License. Then you can own any number of guns and carry concealed too. But to get the License you need to pass a training curse in:
Safe gun storage (so that your kid doesn't blow his brains out);
Safe gun handling (so you don't blow your own brains or your neighbor's);
Self Defense (so you know when it is appropriate to pull out your gun out and when NOT);

Basically explain them that 'Stand your ground' does not mean 'start confrontations with random people, then shoot them in the face'. Negligence with firearms, or letting them fall in criminals hands results in revocation of license and confiscation of weapons. And people with criminal records cant get the license.

 

[The Funslinger]

Head-shots aren't as hard as they're made out to be. The human head is comparable in size to the kill-zone on many game animals, hunters hit that target from 500 yards plus no problem. That's discounting arm and leg shots, which are even easier

This. The primary reason body shots are encouraged is because obviously, while it does increase chances of a hit, it also provides the most stopping power with all the momentum being driven into a person's center mass.

 

[spartan231490]

On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

Oh, you're one of those people.

But anyway- perhaps I should have clarified, that statistic didn't include all gun deaths, just homicides.
But, the only point I was attempting to make is if you don't give an idiot a gun, they won't be able to shoot it.

I was mostly joking when I said that. and it's still incorrect. It's about 12,000 gun homicides in 2010, and more than that in years previous.

Also, while idiots can't shoot guns if guns are banned, the evidence doesn't bear out that fewer guns means less crime.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The one that gets me is "It's to stop the government taking over!" That would've made sense when the constitution was written, when people had muskets and there was an even chance that if they wanted to, the people could've overthrown the Government. It is now 2012, your handgun isn't going to amount to shit if the government (for some insane reason) decides it's going to become 1984, the government has Predator Drones, Tanks, Airstrikes, an Airforce, a Navy, Nukes and whatever other Heavy Artillery it has available, if they wanted to take over, they could do it and no amount of NRA members is going to be able to stop them.

Though that's true, firearms would be useful for defending civilians from, say, government backed thugs doing things like frightening certain demographics away from voting booths.

Now, that has happened in the US over race lines, you've had black people beaten up by white supremacists to scare them away from voting, and you have Republicans claiming Obama had scary black men frightening white people away, and that's why he won...many Republicans are big believers of Democrats only winning due to illegal means.

It's not a handgun round, it's a rifle round, but a lot of revolvers are chambered for it. Obviously, with a short barrel it won't come out as fast, but even out of a handgun it is fast.

Ah, ok. In that case, may as well go the whole way and get a Kel-Tec PLR16 or something similar, which lookes like an AR-15 someone has cut down way past making it a carbine.