We’ve dealt with all aspects of the 2nd Amendment, we’ve dealt with Gun Registration, we’ve dealt with “Why should people use guns?”… if you’re concerned about any of those issues, this thread ain’t for you.
Now, then…
It looks like that, here in L.A., compact handguns (known as “pocket rockets” by the fear-mongering media and Gun Control advocates, known as “small handguns” by rational people) look like they’re about to be banned. I just saw a news report about it… it showed a man crying about how his daughter was murdered by a “small handgun”.
I’d love to ask this man how a ban on such guns would have saved his daughter…
Let’s see, here in California, we’ve banned “assault rifles” (rifles that look like - not ARE, just LOOK LIKE - high-powered automatic weapons), and crime kept going up. We’ve banned “Saturday Night Specials” (inexpensive guns), and crime kept going up. Why, exactly, would anyone think that banning “pocket rockets” would put a damper on crime? Why would a law that keeps law-abiding citizens keep law-breakers from committing crimes? And, finally, why should law-abiding citizens have their rights restricted if they don’t commit any crimes?
Part of why I’m glad I left CA. Those two idiots (Feinstein and Boxer) will stop at no excuse to put on an impression of “fighting crime” by blaming everything except the criminal. Why? Because if they did otherwise, they’d be voted out of office by the bleeding hearts that outnumber the normal people who long learned that they are useless in their positions. They have yet, and never will admit to the undisputed fact, yes, that’s undisputed fact, that in every area that has gone the opposite route and legalized handgun carry has experienced an immediate drop in violent crime. (No, I’m not gonna put up cites for what can easily be found as I’m not in a surfing mood right now, but perhaps later). Even HCA will only answer to that with other questions, usually pointing to other countries. As an example, Florida saw a huge crime rate drop with that law for a year. It’s pointed out that it began to rise again afterwards. But nearly exclusively on tourists. Why tourists? They are the only ones virtually guaranteed to not be carrying a weapon.
It’s not only with guns either. One of the greatest examples I have seen in CA stupidity is years ago when a guy killed his girlfriend by cutting her head off with a mail order japanese tanto knife. Immediately, tanto knives like he used were not allowed to be mail ordered. Pick up a U.S. Cavalry catalog and you’ll notice that a “japanese” tanto cannot be shipped to CA, yet the tanto made by Cold Steel can be, because it does not LOOK like the knife that was used in the killing (orante wrapped handle, brass guard, etc). The same knife can be purchased in stores, but to prevent “copycat” killing, they banned the mail order one.
CA works very hard to outlaw anything that can be used in defense on the notion that more people will use it for crime than defense. That alone should tell the lawmakers that the problem is not the inanimate objects, but the number of criminals. They did their damndest to outlaw pepper spray for the same reason.
Ban whatever you want, criminals will find a way. Nobody can stop the hundreds of tons of drugs that come across the border annually, even with dogs and technology that can smell drugs even underwater. I’d love to know how they plan on preventing “steel parts” from entering the country.
The other countries that have banned guns haven’t seen an uprising. Well, as is so often pointed out by the “Antis”, all these same countries had a far less crime rate than ours to begin with, and those countries continue to make jokes of our justice system. Why? It’s simple and has nothing to do with guns. In other countries, crime is not a good career choice. Cops are allowed to do their jobs, including beating people. Jails are pretty medieval, many still “allowing” torture.
Remember the kid in Singapore a few years ago that caused an outrage? Yeah, just for painting a little graffiti, he was gonna get caned. Nobody in the world but the U.S. saw a problem with that. Human rights? He had none because as a criminal, he forfeited his rights. Singapore, clean… U.S., pigsty. Why? Nobody wants to get caned! Here, at worst it’s a fine. People in other countries don’t want to go to jail cuz it sucks. Ask any cop here how many people they pick up that tell them that they just wanted to go BACK TO JAIL, where they are fed decently, etc…
Ignore the guns, and ban the “no cruel and unusual punishment” crap, and a lot of our problems will drop real fast.
Damn… I only meant to type a quick paragraph! I need to quit watching the news before checking this place.
OP: *Let’s see, here in California, we’ve banned “assault rifles” (rifles that look like - not ARE, just LOOK LIKE - high-powered automatic weapons), and crime kept going up. We’ve banned “Saturday Night Specials” (inexpensive guns), and crime kept going up. *
It did?
According to the tables at this site, California crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants appear to have peaked in the 1980’s or early 1990’s (index: max. 1980 at 7833.1; violent: max. 1992 at 1119.7; property: max. 1980 at 6939.5), and have significantly dropped since (1998 values: index 4342.8, violent 703.7, property 3639.1).
I do not believe that stricter gun control necessarily reduces crime, but I have a hard time seeing how these figures square with what seems to be your position that gun control in CA correlates to increased crime.
TurboDog: “Ignore the guns and ban the ‘no cruel an` unusual punishment’ crap”—oh, you mean the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution?! IANACaliforniaVoter, but—um, no thanks! Maybe we’d see “a lot of our problems drop”, but maybe we’d see some unsavory new problems replacing them.
I’m not a gun-banning fanatic, but y’all’s discussion here so far seems kind of long on anger and short on factual evidence. Remember, if you want expansion of our gun rights, I’m the kind of voter you have to convince, and you’re not convincing me.
From the term “pocket rocket”, you’d expect that they were talking about something with the power of a bazooka concealed in a derringer-sized weapon.
Nope, just the kind of smaller guns that, as the story points out, can be utilized for self-defense by people who can’t comfortably handle larger firearms. Are the councilpersons hoping that hoodlums will now give up committing crimes, since carrying the big guns will spoil the line of their suit jackets?
I didn’t mean that crime had been rising steadily over the past decade… I meant it had a sudden spike and everyone ran around like beheaded chickens screaming “It’s the guns! The guns are killing everyone! The guns are trying to take over the planet!”
No, it makes me think of really well-endowed men, personally, but maybe that’s just 'cuz I’m not in the business of applying dangerous- and scary-sounding nicknames to things for the sheer purpose of driving up ratings.
My argument to getting rid of the 8th, is the same logic as people use to try and get rid of the 2nd when they say that “milita’s aren’t required nowdays…it was different back then.” What is considered cruel and unusual punishment today, was routine punishment at the time it was written. But since “times have changed”, and any punishment not involving cable tv and steak for dinner is cruel and unusual, why do we need that law since it’s so open to interpretation (the other argument). If we need to get rid of the 2nd, lets rewrite all of it.
As for convincing, I don’t try to convince people very hard anymore about changing their ideas of gun control. It’s a mindset that few people are willing to change no matter how many facts are presented. It’s already been proven that in the areas that allow and encourage carrying concealed weapons, crime rates have fallen drastically, and the areas with the highest crime rates are still the areas of the country that have the strictest gun control laws. But the media doesn’t report on that. An example I enjoy a lot is the argument that “the crime rate in DC is so horrendous even with it’s insanely strict gun laws is because Virginia has much less strict laws, and the criminals are getting guns in VA, then going back to DC to commit crime, so we need to ban guns in VA”. Sure, I’ll buy that. As soon as it’s explained to me why the crime rate in VA so much lower where people are allowed to have guns? Why don’t the criminals just do their crimes in VA?
That same argument, along with those of states such as AK and FL, has been repeatedly posed to Sarah Brady over the past several years, and she has always to this day refused to comment.
As far as the table that was posed on the crime rates, you’ll notice that in 1994, the crime rates began their sharp decline. 1994 also happens to be when the “Three Strikes” law went into effect. Do you think the crime rates went down because of that, because more repeat offenders were in jail to stay, or because look alike guns and small “sat. night specials” where banned (which by the way, are not the weapons of choice for your standard gun criminal)?
Jackmannii: *From the term “pocket rocket”, you’d expect that they were talking about something with the power of a bazooka concealed in a derringer-sized weapon. *
SPOOFE:No, it makes me think of really well-endowed men, personally, but maybe that’s just 'cuz I’m not in the business of applying dangerous- and scary-sounding nicknames to things for the sheer purpose of driving up ratings.
To be fair, it seems (as far as I can tell) that this particular nickname didn’t originate with the gun-control types. It appears to have been in use among gun owners to designate certain compact handguns for at least the past few years, and pistolsmith Brian Bilby has trademarked the term for his “Pocket Rocket Carry Pistol.” I think it’s legitimate for lawmakers and the media to apply a widely used designation when referring to a particular type of gun, though I agree that they probably took to it mostly because it sounds dashing.
SPOOFE:I didn’t mean that crime had been rising steadily over the past decade… I meant it had a sudden spike and everyone ran around like beheaded chickens screaming “It’s the guns!”
Okay, my mistake, I thought that you were suggesting that “crime just kept going up” despite gun bans, and was surprised to find that for much of the post-bans period it was going down.
TurboDog:My argument to getting rid of the 8th, is the same logic as people use to try and get rid of the 2nd when they say that “milita’s aren’t required nowdays…it was different back then.” What is considered cruel and unusual punishment today, was routine punishment at the time it was written.
Umm, not really. I don’t mean to hijack this into a discussion of the 8th amendment, but it’s worth noting that some of the practices the American Civil Liberties Union is currently protesting as “cruel and unusual punishment” include electroshock stun belts and castration. But since I don’t advocate repeal of the 2nd amendment anyway, I’m not that interested in your analogy with the 8th: I don’t think either pro-repeal argument really holds water.
As for convincing, I don’t try to convince people very hard anymore about changing their ideas of gun control.
Well, that’s up to you, but you might want to rethink your strategy, because the people who are trying to change and influence others’ ideas, like HCI, are the ones gaining support. I am still more on the gun-control side of the fence, but I used to be much more negative about gun rights before I heard some sane and reasoned arguments from some of the gun advocates on this board. So you see, responsible debate can make a difference.
It’s already been proven that in the areas that allow and encourage carrying concealed weapons, crime rates have fallen drastically, and the areas with the highest crime rates are still the areas of the country that have the strictest gun control laws. But the media doesn’t report on that.
I’d take issue on this one with your use of “proven”: John Lott has published some studies indicating crime drops following concealed-carry laws in some areas, but numerous critics have pointed out that changes in crime rates involve a very complex mix of lots of factors, and Lott himself acknowledges that much more work needs to be done to make the results conclusive. And that still wouldn’t settle the question of how we should balance the increased deterrent effects of having more guns around (if indeed they exist) with the increased dangers of other kinds (more gun thefts, more gun accidents, more casualties of non-criminal conflicts) that we might get from having more guns around.
As for the correlation between most crime and strictest gun control, that’s another example of the fact that correlation isn’t cause and that crime levels involve a complicated mix of causes. Crime may be highest because gun control is strictest, or it may be highest because of high population density and other characteristics of big cities, meaning that without strict gun control it would be even higher. It’s hard to control for all the variables when studying these phenomena, and it’s not very useful simply to point at any one given correlation and say “well, obviously this is the cause” (though I agree that gun-control advocates make this mistake a lot too). And by the way, I’ve seen lots of media coverage of all of these issues.
*As far as the table that was posed on the crime rates, you’ll notice that in 1994, the crime rates began their sharp decline. 1994 also happens to be when the “Three Strikes” law went into effect. Do you think the crime rates went down because of that, because more repeat offenders were in jail to stay, or because look alike guns and small “sat. night specials” where banned […]? *
Once again, changes in crime rates aren’t likely to have single or simple causes. The early-90’s spike followed by a sudden drop (which btw only applied to the violent-crime category; property crimes seem to have been decreasing steadily through the '80s and '90s) was probably affected by both the factors you mention. My personal guess, though, is that the biggest factor was not any particular criminal-law issue, but simply the improvement in the economy, which generally seems to correlate to decreases in crime. If you want to argue that the drop was due solely or primarily to having a “three-strikes” law in effect, then how do you account for California’s post-1999 crime rate increase discussed in SPOOFE’s link?
because there are too many people out there who mistakenly think that guns are the problem and not irresponsible or criminal behavior. like the guy in this thread who said “compare ‘personal enjoyment’ to the thousands of deaths that occur each year as a result of guns, and you have a pretty pathetic argument in favor of keeping guns.” not as a result of irresponsible gun use, but ‘as a result of guns’. as if guns used primarily for hunting or target shooting are inherently more dangerous than any others. so what’s the answer? how do we educate these people?
zwaldd replied to the OP: *‘Why, exactly, would anyone think that banning “pocket rockets” would put a damper on crime?’
because there are too many people out there who mistakenly think that guns are the problem and not irresponsible or criminal behavior. *
zwaldd, I think that may be somewhat oversimplistic. Certainly, irresponsible or criminal behavior is a big problem, but it’s also undeniable that irresponsible or criminal behavior committed with guns usually has worse consequences than irresponsible or criminal behavior committed without guns (except for IOCB committed with automobiles, maybe). It’s the very nature of guns to be dangerous, and that means that they’re extremely liable to make the consequences of bad behavior much worse. Like it or not, guns themselves do contribute to the hazard level of our society, although I don’t agree that that means that getting rid of all the guns will remove all the hazards.
To answer the OP’s question, I can certainly think of more reasonable reasons to believe that banning small (less than 6.75 inches, I believe) handguns known as “pocket rockets” might “put a damper on crime”. For one thing, smaller guns are easier to conceal and thus a criminal who is carrying one could escape detection more readily. For another, smaller guns are more likely to be carried by legal, lawabiding owners in something like a purse or briefcase that can be stolen, thus putting more small, concealable guns into the hands of criminals.
Now I hasten to point out, before you jump all over me, that of course I do not KNOW that either of these scenarios is actually occurring in significant numbers, nor do I KNOW that even if they were, banning small guns would necessarily reduce the overall crime levels. As I think I’m going to be saying till I’m blue in the face on this thread, the causes of crime are a complex issue and it’s very hard to assess accurately the relative importance of different factors. But speaking as a rational person who wants to be fair and objective, it doesn’t seem impossible to me that rational people might believe that banning small guns would help reduce crime. Wasn’t that one of the reasons for the widespread bans of “Saturday Night Specials”, after all?
Actually, this isn’t the argument at all. We gun proponents are more concerned with preserving the rights we still have and repealing misguided limits placed on the rights we used to enjoy. You won’t find too many reasonable proponents advocating expansion of arms ownership rights; this includes the NRA.
This law is idiotic and will not put a ‘damper’ on crime at all.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this law bans the sale of this type of gun, not the possesion. And the thumbprints would be taken in conjunction with legal gun purchases. Most people who use these types of weapons in criminal activity do not purchase them in stores, but on the street.
People will still be able to purchase pocket rockets in neihboring states. Or, if you don’t want to go outside of the state, you could just go to Riverside, Orange, or San Diego counties where this silly city ordinence will be irrelevant.
This will only inconvenience people who want to own guns legally. Felons will still be able to get them.
Well, excuse me, but that sounds like a rather sweeping statement. In most of Western Europe, anyway, guns are banned (or very nearly so), and cops do not have “beating up suspects” as part of the job description. As for medieval jails, well - given the choice between Danish & American jail, I have a pretty good idea where I’d want to do time. And torture being allowed ? Nope.
IMHO, there’s not a strict relationship between “low crime”, “strict gun laws” and “medieval justice system”.
You’re right about one thing, though: Make crime a poor career choice, and the guns/no guns debate becomes a moot point. Only I think you can find better ways than police brutality & torture to make a career in crime become less appealing - making sure that there are other & more attractive choices within easy reach, for instance. But that is, of course, another debate entirely.
TD:I would like to ask what you mean though by, “more guns”. Pro-gunners aren’t lobbying for more guns, simply to keep what they already have.
Well, what I was referring to was the title of Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime. What did Lott mean by that expression? My take on it was that he was suggesting that reduced crime was linked to an increased gun presence in everyday life: more law-abiding people would have guns, and more gun owners would be carrying their guns around with them as a normal part of daily life. Yes, Lott’s studies indicated that the counties that liberalized carry laws (which generally, btw, already had high levels of gun ownership and gun familiarity) didn’t see significant increases in gun accidents as a result. No, that doesn’t convince me that the nation as a whole wouldn’t suffer severe damage from having “more guns” around. No, I can’t agree that the evidence is currently strong enough to support widespread liberalizing of gun laws as an experiment.
*The one argument I never have liked is your “more gun theft” one. My having a gun increases the risk of my gun being stolen? Well, here I have an analogy, that holds the same amount of water, and is pretty silly, for the exact same reasons: My having a car increases the risk of my car being stolen. And since many car thefts involve death or injury to innocent people, banning my privelege of owning a car will eliminate the possibility of it’s being stolen, ergo, lives will be saved and injuries prevented. It is the exact same philosophy, yet when applied to a gun, it sounds like a pretty good reason to write a new law. *
Well, you sound as though you think it’s prima facie absurd in the case of the automobile, but I’m not sure that’s true. I think that if there was a widespread consensus that crime, injuries and deaths involving stolen cars was a big enough social problem, we would be hearing serious discussions about restricting private car ownership in order to reduce the dangers from stolen cars. As it happens, most people don’t seem to feel that illegally acquired cars pose a big enough threat to society to warrant such actions. In fact, most people are willing to accept the huge social costs of legally acquired cars, which IMHO are far worse than those of legally acquired guns, because they feel that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. So I don’t agree that the idea of banning or restricting car ownership is intrinsically “silly”: it’s simply that most people don’t think the benefits of it would be greater than the burdens.
When it comes to guns, though, most people (I think; I’m not really sure what percentage of the population owns guns) don’t feel that the lack of a gun is much of a burden at all. So if restricting gun ownership seems likely to carry even a small benefit, naturally, they’re for it. And I think there’s no question that the social costs associated with stolen guns are pretty considerable, certainly greater than those associated with stolen automobiles.
Banning my shotgun cuz it has a pistol grip will reduce violent crime? How about starting with the full auto uzi used by the gangs? Oh… Uzi type weapons have already been banned for over 30 years, so let’s not address why they are still on the street and thereby proving that banning a certain gun has no effect reducing it’s use in crime, even after 30 years, but instead, ban some more guns like the cheap ones that the violent criminals don’t use.
Gotta nitpick this one: we’ve been doing so well (IMHO) so far, on both sides of the debate, at maintaining the distinctions between facts and opinions that I don’t want to see us get tangled up in vague assertions now. I think we have to keep in mind that the fact that there are still uzi-type weapons in illegal use after 30 years of banning does NOT “prove” that the ban had “no effect” in reducing their use in crime. All it proves is that the ban didn’t eliminate their use in crime. Nor does it prove that a ban on any other gun would have no effect on reducing its use in crime. Nor have we seen any comprehensive evidence so far in this debate about which guns violent criminals do and don’t prefer.
So if I’m complaining about the lack of comprehensive evidence, I guess it’s up to me to try to provide some, so I went looking and dug up this 1999 ATF report on crime gun tracing. (It appears to be part of the “Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative”, but it reports on adult crime and overall crime too.) They’ve broken down their data on traced crime guns by type, caliber, manufacturer, and model. The data’s far from complete, of course, and it doesn’t take into account any of the illegally owned guns that haven’t been traced, but it seems to me that this report can at least give us a rough idea of what sorts of weapons “violent criminals prefer.” There’s a lot more information than I can process here, but here are a couple of the relevant findings:
Now all this caliber business is frankly over my head, but I will try to summarize what this looks like to a gun novice:
The guns that violent criminals prefer would probably be among the most frequently traced guns (because criminals use a lot of 'em) and would also have short time-to-crime (because criminals seek them out more rapidly than other guns).
The Bryco 9mm has the shortest time-to-crime and is also in the top 10 of traced handguns.
Bryco Arms is one of the “Ring of Fire” “junk gun” manufacturers (as per this 1999 article, and the Bryco 9mm is one of the cheap “junk guns” discussed there.
Therefore, there is some strong evidence that violent criminals, contrary to your assertion, do use “cheap guns” in preference to other kinds.
Now I may be completely misunderstanding my technical data here, and if so I’m sure some kind person will help me out. But to me, it does look as though violent criminals prefer cheap guns (and the OC Reader article that I linked to seems to confirm that). So I can’t agree that it’s obvious that trying to restrict them will do no good. (I do agree with spooje that simply banning their sale within one city is not likely to have much effect, though.)
*It’s also yet another step towards complete banning of all guns. *
Calm, calm. Remember, I am not advocating banning all guns, and I think it would be unconstitutional to do so. Remember that most people involved in this are honestly trying to do what they think would be best for society, and if their premises are incorrect then we have to try to provide better information, rather than making sweeping accusations.
UB: * We gun proponents are more concerned with preserving the rights we still have and repealing misguided limits placed on the rights we used to enjoy. You won’t find too many reasonable proponents advocating expansion of arms ownership rights; this includes the NRA. *
Okay, perhaps instead of “expansion” I should have said “re-expansion” or “repealing certain limits”: to me, any removal of current restrictions on gun ownership (which I think the NRA is advocating) technically counts as an “expansion” of current gun rights.
Kimstu, The NRA is not calling for widespread repeals of gun laws, they are trying to stop even more gun laws from being enacted. They are also calling for stricter enforcement of current gun laws.
I would like to point out that, despite the hysteria, gun crime is declining. I know of now public health issue which is in decline and also leads to the suggestion that we alter our constitutional rights. Gun crime is not really a big problem. I can think of 10 ways to save lives without eroding constitutional rights and none of them involve guns.
But if we are to really prevent crime, I have a snide and sarcastic suggestion. Put microchips in everyone and track their movement 24/7/365.
The point is that we have to balance freedom and safety. Banning guns any more than they are banned is an erosion of freedom. Personally, I favor freedom strongly over safety, that is why I am willing to leave he house every morning.
As far as cheap guns go, theri prevealence is irrelevant. cocaine is more costly than gold. THat does not prevent criminals from having it. IF a cheaper form come out, will that be used more? Surely. Does that change the problem? not really.
The question asked is, does banning guns equal crime prevention? The answer, IMHO, is NO, absolutly NOT.
Surely no one really thinks that a ban on guns would have any effect on criminals? How could it? A black market in guns exists now. If guns were completely banned, the black market would continue to exist; would, in all probabiliy, expand.
I always thought that the anti-gun people were working to get guns out of the hands of the honest citizens, in the belief that ordinary people cannot be trusted with guns. Surely no one thinks that a career criminal (or, for that matter, a previously honest citizen who has formed a criminal intent) will be stopped by a ban on the pvt ownership of some types of gun or of all guns? Surely everyone realizes that such people will buy their guns illegally, from a black market that can no more be stamped out then the war on drugs can be won?
I’ve come to the conclusion that honest citizens, too, will simply disobey a ban on guns. Perhaps I should say, “otherwise honest citizens”.
But I do think that the honest citizens are the target of the anti-gun crowd. They want to prevent all the bad things that do sometimes happen when honest citizens have guns.
I do not deny that these things happen:
> Impuse killings. In the grip of rage, husband kills wife or wife kills husband. Or friend kills friend. If no gun had been available, the murder might not have occured. The argument might have ended with a slap or punch, or someone might have snatched up a knife. A gun is more likely to kill then is a fist or even a knife.
> Tragedies involving children: Toddler or preschooler finds gun, does not understand that it’s not a toy, shoots someone. Or, older child finds gun, knows it’s not a toy, can’t resist the tempation to sneak it out of the house and play with it, accidently shoots someone.
> Suicides. If a gun is in the house, it may be the method used, and it’s a pretty sure method. Without a gun, the person might use some less sure method, and be saved. (Personally, I think this one’s a bit weak. If someone really wants to kill himself, the lack of a gun is not going to stop him. Jumping from a high enough height should do the job.)
These things happen. Banning guns won’t prevent these bad things, because the honest citizens will no more obey a gun ban then will criminals.
INSTEAD OF TRYING TO BAN GUNS, WE SHOULD BE WORKING TO FIND WAYS TO PREVENT THESE GUN TRAGEDIES.
i disagree with this. regardless of what effect a gun ban will or will not have on crime, i think law abiding citizens (if that’s what you mean by honest), will obey the ban. they may not like the ban, and they may try to get the ban repealed, but i don’t think they’ll risk getting arrested by using a banned gun. i have a “pre-ban” high cap magazine for my rifle that i use regularly at the range, but i would not feel comfortable using an illegal “post-ban” magazine. not because i support the ban, but because i don’t want the hassle of getting arrested or fined. until a ban is repealed, i think most honest citizens will just buy a different kind of gun.