# Banning guns = crime prevention? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2001, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927 "2001-03-21T22:25:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2001, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/21 "2001-03-23T22:29:38Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Nah, there’ll be some (not most, but some) who’ll say “In my day, _the right to bear arms_ meant you had a fuckin’ **Right To Bear Arms**!” ---
**Author:** ![Turbo\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@Turbo\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turbo_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/22 "2001-03-24T01:49:23Z")
Spiny Norman, yes I wrongly used the term “other countries” when I should have said “some other countries”. Doing a search on Human Rights Records for various countries outlines prison conditions and levels of brutality. I in no way meant to suggest that Europe was included in “pro-torture” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > > \*Well, what I was referring to was the title of Lott’s book, _More Guns, Less Crime._ \* > > Okay, that clears up a lot, and I know what you mean now. > > _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._ > > No and partially yes. He has also mentioned, as many others have in other studies that where carry laws are passed, the number of gun sales, contrary to HCI’s predictions, do not increase dramatically. And only a small percentage of gun owners who apply for carry permits actually carry a firearm with them at all times. They just like having the LEGAL option of doing so, should they choose. > > _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._ > > So what you are saying is that, in light of the evidence posed by the 32 of the 50 states that allow “more guns”, you still feel that allowing it in the remaining 18 would be disastrous? > > _No, I can’t agree that the evidence is currently strong enough to support widespread liberalizing of gun laws as an experiment._ > > 32 of 50 states… with other states continually attempting to pass similar laws due the fact that it has worked in other states… and many of the states having had these laws in effect for over 10 years now, at what point is it no longer an experiment? > > _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._ > > No, but since they do take it as a personal loss, anti-car theft measures are continually being adopted. The goal is to reduce the amount of car theft. With guns, the goal is to reduce the amount of guns. If somebodies stolen car hits a jogger, there is no outrage in society about car theft and innocent people. If a gun used in a crime is found to be stolen, there is hell to pay. Similarly, and I’ve seen the media do it countless times, as I’m sure you have. Car gets stolen, gets in an accident, hurts somebody, and later a gun is found under the seat of the stolen car. What does the media focus on? The gun, as if the gun made the theif steal the car. > > _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._ > > When you show me some numbers for the social costs associated with stolen automobiles, I’ll accept that. Until then, I will meet you halfway, only because I cannot disprove your statement, even though I disagree and would lay money that the opposite is true. The only numbers I have is that it is estimated that 1.1 million cars are stolen annually. I’ll bet that not nearly that many guns are stolen. For what it’s worth, the Dept. of Justice ran a state prison survey. Of all the criminals that used a gun in a crime, 6% said that the gun was stolen. > > _All it proves is that the ban didn’t **eliminate** their use in crime._ > > Which is the point of the OP. Banning a certain gun does not take them out of the hands of criminals. > > _Nor does it prove that a ban on any other gun would have no effect on reducing its use in crime._ > > So in light of the fact that its proven that banning a certain gun does not remove it from the criminal equation, we should continue to ban various certain firearms until a statistic pops up for proof that it does work, only because it might be used by a criminal? > > _this report can at least give us a rough idea of what sorts of weapons “violent criminals prefer.”… Therefore, there **is** some strong evidence that violent criminals, contrary to your assertion, **do** use “cheap guns” in preference to other kinds._ > > A VERY rough idea… and SOME evidence. There is a problem with using that link (a very good one, btw) in this particular argument. A “Crime Gun”, by the definition, is one that EITHER A) has been used in a crime (acceptable)… B) is suspected of having been used in a crime (borderline, but I’m willing to partially accept it on the basis that it does not take into account if it is later proven that it was NOT used in a crime… and C) was in possession of a person who committed a crime, but not used. (Unacceptable. Eliminate those guns and re-compile the numbers. For this debate, if a gun wasn’t used in the committing of a crime, whether it was banned or not, would have had no bearing on the crime, any more than a crook having a wallet in his pocket) > > _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._ > > Cheap guns were among the list, but not a large part of that list. I cannot provide numbers, but based on personal experience, the criminals that USE a gun in a crime, as opposed to having a gun in a pocket, or under a car seat, or a bedroom closet when arrested (all of which are considered as “possession”, prefer the more expensive shotguns, fully automatic weapons, semi-automatics and revolvers (Smith and Wesson doesn not make cheap guns) over the “disposable” ones. > > _(I do agree with **spooje** that simply banning their sale within one city is not likely to have much effect, though.)_ > > Again, the point of the OP. Banning a certain gun only means that I, as a law abiding citizen, cannot have it, nothing more. > > _ **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._ > > I am not accusing you of being one of “them”. But I disagree wholeheartedly. If they were really that concerned with doing what was best for society, then they would focus on the problem, which is the criminal and why crime is a viable option without much consequence, rather than just putting on a dog and pony show for the voters. The better information does exist, but the anti-s, rather than using this information and working WITH the pro-gun folks like the NRA, who have continually pushed for stronger crime bills and better enforcement of existing laws, rather than the ignorng of them while inventing new ones, they would accomplish much more. Instead, it’s easier to invent numbers, use skewed studies and deliberately misinform people to reach a personal agenda. > > _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._ > > The NRA is not attempting to overthrow current restrictions, but simply prevent continual new restrictions, new bans, etc. Banning a weapon because it has a bayonet lug? Why? Is there a rash of bayoneting going on in the cities? Again, each new restriction, is simply one more step towards a complete ban, which IS a re-writing of the constitution, something that our “leaders” are supposed to support. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/23 "2001-03-25T00:25:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Hazel \* > > > > **honest citizens will no more obey a gun ban then will criminals.** > > 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. \*\* zwald, yes, if some specific types of guns are banned, many people will switch to a type that is still legal. (By the way, what happens when a formerly legal gun is banned as of a set date? How do people dispose of the suddenly illegal guns? Does the govt reimburse them, or are they just out whatever they spent on their newly-banned guns?) But that’s not what I was talking about. By “a ban” I meant just that, a complete ban on the pvt ownership of guns. All guns. In a situation where pvt citizens are not allowed to own guns at all, I think that most current gun owners will disobey the law. If records exist re what guns they own, they may well turn those guns in – and then buy new guns on the black market ASAP. And the popularity of gun ownership might go up; some people who’d never owned guns before might well also go out and buy black market guns, in the belief that no one has the right to tell them they can’t own guns. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/24 "2001-03-25T20:34:38Z")
> [@](#): > > By the way, what happens when a formerly legal gun is banned as of a set date? How do people dispose of the suddenly illegal guns? Does the govt reimburse them, or are they just out whatever they spent on their newly-banned guns? well it’s funny you should ask this because i just got done (i hope) debating about this. in the case of california’s assault weapons ban, they gave gun owners a chance to register their pre-ban weapons so they could legally keep them after the ban went into effect. after a certain amount of time, they stopped allowing registration, presumably so no new assault weapons could be brought into the state and old ones could not be transferred. unfortunately, i believe some weapons were banned outright, without the registration option, so those owners were completely out of luck. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/25 "2001-03-25T22:24:39Z")
Zwaldd slight hijack Apparently you have conceded I was right. Finally Thanks. If you cannot sell the weapon and cannot will it to your heirs, since they cannot register it,and they cannot own it since they don’t have permits for banned weapons your only option is to turn it in or render it inoperative. Confiscation. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2001, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/26 "2001-03-25T23:12:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by justwannano \* > **Zwaldd > If you cannot sell the weapon and cannot will it to your heirs, since they cannot register it** so you’re saying that if you **could** re-register it then you **would** be able to transfer ownership? so you’re in favor of a continued registration period? now you’re confusing me. i thought you were **against** registration. i’ll tell you what, if you want to clarify, post in the old thread so we don’t totally hijack this one. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2001, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/27 "2001-03-26T00:33:34Z")
Quote Justwannano Also you have said repeatedly that gun registration is the only way you can keep your gun. Because they would ban them and you would not get to keep them. Who the hell are they??And who the hell do they think they are?? If you folks want to see how zwaldd answers I invite you to go to the Why Guns thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2001, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/28 "2001-03-27T00:49:54Z")
**TD** replied to “me”: \*“No, I can’t agree that the evidence is currently strong enough to support widespread liberalizing of gun laws as an experiment.” 32 of 50 states… with other states continually attempting to pass similar laws due the fact that it has worked in other states… and many of the states having had these laws in effect for over 10 years now, at what point is it no longer an experiment? \* It is an “experiment” until such time as we have conclusive evidence showing a **definite causal relationship** between lax CCW laws and reduced crime. Just because we have 32 states that have relaxed CCW laws and seen a subsequent drop in crime, that doesn’t mean that the one caused the other, especially in light of the fact that places that **didn’t** loosen CCW laws saw as much or more crime reduction. (For example, from 1996 to 1997, crime rates fell an average of 2.1% in most states with loose CCW laws—but they fell an average of 4.4% in most states with **strict** CCW laws. Now as I keep pointing out, crime rates are very complicated things, and I would definitely be wary of accepting this as reliable evidence that loose CCW laws encourage crime; but it certainly doesn’t indicate that they **discourage** crime.) As I pointed out before, Lott’s book does not succeed in demonstrating such a causal relationship in any conclusive way. Even criminologist Gary Kleck, who is pretty pro-gun and seems to agree with most of what Lott says, has criticized his book for not adequately isolating the different factors that influence changes in crime rates. I agree that that’s a very difficult thing to do; but until we have reliable, comprehensive statistical studies that manage to do it, we cannot say that the evidence really shows that such policies “work”. \*No, but since they do take [car theft] as a personal loss, anti-car theft measures are continually being adopted. The goal is to reduce the amount of car theft. With guns, the goal is to reduce the amount of guns. \* Well, I would be happy to see the focus shifted to reducing gun theft and all other illegal access to guns, rather than further reducing the guns that non-criminals can own. But since guns are much smaller and more portable than cars, legal measures to reduce illegal access to them (e.g., mandatory use of gun safes, mandatory background checks on buyers, annual or biannual inspections to check that legitimately owned guns haven’t “gone missing”) would be much more invasive than anti-car-theft measures. \*“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.” When you show me some numbers for the social costs associated with stolen automobiles, I’ll accept that. Until then, I will meet you halfway, only because I cannot disprove your statement, even though I disagree and would lay money that the opposite is true. The only numbers I have is that it is estimated that 1.1 million cars are stolen annually. I’ll bet that not nearly that many guns are stolen.\* Well, the 1995 BJS report “Guns in Crime” said there were over 340,000 gun thefts in 1993. Given that many cases of firearm theft involve more than one gun, there might be close to half a million guns stolen per year. That’s only about a quarter to a half of the annual number of car thefts, but that doesn’t prove that the costs of car theft are worse. Lots of car theft incidents merely involve “joyriding”, and lots of others involve just selling the car for parts—not a good thing, but IMHO nowhere near as bad as shooting or even threatening to shoot somebody. You’re right that we can’t compare the costs conclusively until we have hard evidence about what really happens to most stolen guns, but considering the comparative harmlessness of what happens to very many stolen cars, I don’t think the money you want to bet on this is as safe as you may believe. \*“All it [i.e., criminal use of a particular type of gun after it’s banned] proves is that the ban didn’t **eliminate** their use in crime.” Which is the point of the OP. Banning a certain gun does not take them out of the hands of criminals. \* But you’re not paying attention to my point, which was that the failure to **eliminate** criminal use doesn’t mean that the ban didn’t **reduce** criminal use. A significant reduction is a good thing, even if it’s not as good as total elimination. Now of course, that argument doesn’t constitute evidence that gun bans **do** significantly reduce criminal use of the banned guns, but neither have you shown that they don’t. \*“Nor does it prove that a ban on any other gun would have no effect on reducing its use in crime.” So in light of the fact that its proven that banning a certain gun does not remove it from the criminal equation, we should continue to ban various certain firearms until a statistic pops up for proof that it does work, only because it might be used by a criminal? \* Same missed point. I do not consider that a gun ban is necessarily unsuccessful simply because it fails to **completely eliminate** criminal use of the gun, or what you call “removing it from the criminal equation.” If we refused to consider any policy successful unless it was absolutely **100% effective** , there’d be no point in having annual car inspections or trying to teach kids to read. \*Cheap guns were among the list, but not a large part of that list. \* ? Table 6 of the ATF report lists the top ten handguns among the traced crime guns in their data, and #2, #4, #7, #8, and #9 were all made by “Ring of Fire” manufacturers (Lorcin, Bryco, Raven, Davis) who do “Saturday night specials” and other cheap guns. I think that does count as “a large part of the list”, unless there’s some aspect of this I’m missing. _I cannot provide numbers, but based on personal experience, the criminals that USE a gun in a crime, as opposed to having a gun in a pocket, or under a car seat, or a bedroom closet when arrested (all of which are considered as “possession”, prefer the more expensive shotguns, fully automatic weapons, semi-automatics and revolvers (Smith and Wesson doesn not make cheap guns) over the “disposable” ones._ I don’t dispute your personal experience, but of course we need numbers if we’re going to be able to draw real conclusions. The numbers we have in this report bear you out that criminals do prefer Smith and Wesson guns (#1, #5, and #6 on the top ten handguns list), but they also indicate that criminals also like the cheap guns. \*"(I do agree with **spooje** that simply banning their sale within one city is not likely to have much effect, though.)" Again, the point of the OP. Banning a certain gun only means that I, as a law abiding citizen, cannot have it, nothing more. \* That, I think, is too sweeping a conclusion. A sort of “cosmetic” ban on sales of a particular gun in only one city may be pretty useless, but if a ban is sufficiently widespread, stringent, and well-enforced (nobody’s allowed to manufacture them, nobody’s allowed to sell them, nobody’s allowed to buy them, nobody’s allowed to own them), then that gun’s availability is likely to be significantly reduced in practice. At least, a lot of police officers have said so, and I assume they have some knowledge about criminals and guns. _If they [I’m not exactly sure who “they” is here] were really that concerned with doing what was best for society, then they would focus on the problem, which is the criminal and why crime is a viable option without much consequence, rather than just putting on a dog and pony show for the voters._ I agree that the problem of crime is much more fundamental and much more serious than the problem of guns (although we probably differ in how the problem should be addressed, with me being much more on the reeducate-and-rehabilitate-and-eliminate-poverty side of the fence, as opposed to the lock-em-all-up side). But I can’t agree that there’s solid reason to believe that the crime problem isn’t exacerbated by the gun problem. Gary Kleck and others have shown that the link between the two is a lot less solid than the ban-ban-ban extremists would like to believe, but we are still a **long** way from being able to conclude that guns don’t worsen crime. \*The better information does exist, but the anti-s, rather than using this information and working WITH the pro-gun folks like the NRA, who have continually pushed for stronger crime bills and better enforcement of existing laws,[…] \* What I don’t understand is why the NRA, if it really wants better enforcement, isn’t pushing for increased funding for BATF—at least, I can’t find on their website any evidence that they are. If you want more enforcement, you need more enforcers. _Instead, it’s easier to invent numbers, use skewed studies and deliberately misinform people to reach a personal agenda._ There’s too much of that going on on both sides of the debate, not excepting the NRA. \*Again, each new restriction, is simply one more step towards a complete ban, which IS a re-writing of the constitution, something that our “leaders” are supposed to support. \* I hear a lot of that from gun advocates, but I’m kind of skeptical about the statement, at least in such an absolute form. I seriously don’t think there’s a large base of public or political support for banning basic hunting rifles, say, or high-quality revolvers. I know quite a few people you’d doubtless consider rabid anti-gun zealots, and I’ve never heard **one** of them assert that we just shouldn’t have any privately owned guns in this country at all. ---
**Author:** ![Turbo\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@Turbo\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turbo_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2001, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/29 "2001-03-27T03:06:27Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* _It is an “experiment” until such time as we have conclusive evidence showing a **definite causal relationship** between lax CCW laws and reduced crime._ So in the meantime, we should experiment with gun bans? {i}As I pointed out before, Lott’s book does not succeed in demonstrating such a causal relationship in any conclusive way.\* Does it reduce total crime rates? Correct, the data is inconclusive. However, according to Lott in his final report: > [@](#): > > we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. > > [http://www.deepwaterweb.com/gunstudy.htm](http://www.deepwaterweb.com/gunstudy.htm) > [/qoute] > > _Well, I would be happy to see the focus shifted to reducing gun theft and all other illegal access to guns, rather than further reducing the guns that non-criminals can own. But…_ > > The solution therefore is to ban what I own or can own because it’s “obvious” that guns can hurt more people than a car. Well, same logic here… Let’s ban the home possession of cash and jewelry, since they are the most common item stolen, in the most common public crime in which people get hurt. Doing so would reduce the occurrance of the most common crime, therefore less people would be hurt. A little on the far side? Perhaps it is, but I feel the same way about the gun ban. Banning what I can own, simply because it might reduce the number of that gun on the street, is no less a violation of my right. > > \*But you’re not paying attention to my point, which was that the failure to **eliminate** criminal use doesn’t mean that the ban didn’t **reduce** criminal use…that argument doesn’t constitute evidence that gun bans **do** significantly reduce criminal use of the banned guns, but neither have you shown that they don’t. \* > > So again, in light of any “real” evidence either way, the best course of action is to take away something that is mine, “just in case”? > > _? Table 6 of the ATF report lists the top ten handguns among the traced crime guns in their data, and #2, #4, #7, #8, and #9 were all made by “Ring of Fire” manufacturers (Lorcin, Bryco, Raven, Davis)… I think that does count as “a large part of the list”, unless there’s some aspect of this I’m missing… The numbers we have in this report bear you out that criminals do prefer Smith and Wesson guns (#1, #5, and #6 on the top ten handguns list), but they also indicate that criminals also like the cheap guns._ > > Actually there is a part you are missing. The TOP TEN most preferred guns, that are traced to a criminal…remember, this includes possession, not just USE in a crime… Do in fact include the “cheap” guns that you list. Do the math in that report. The top ten most preferred, make up 29% of the total of all traced guns. Of that 29%, 13.8% of the most preferred guns are the cheap guns. What this means is, according to this report, the “cheap guns” which are in the most preferred list, (that you support the banning of to help reduce crime) account for a total of 3.8% of all guns traced to crime, and again, this includes possessed guns that were not used in a crime. 3.8% is not what I would call a preference among criminals and hardly a menace to society. > > _if a ban is sufficiently widespread, stringent, and well-enforced (nobody’s allowed to manufacture them, nobody’s allowed to sell them, nobody’s allowed to buy them, nobody’s allowed to own them), then that gun’s availability is likely to be significantly reduced in practice._ > > Which is precisely the end goal of anti-gun groups, to the total number. > > \*I agree that the problem of crime is much more fundamental and much more serious than the problem of guns… \* > > So again, rather than solving the root of the problem, it’s easier to make it look like the problem IS the guns. > > _What I don’t understand is why the NRA, if it really wants better enforcement, isn’t pushing for increased funding for BATF—_ > > Because local laws are enforced at the local level, by local cops. And when a suburb near Baltimore last year (I can’t recall the name of it) refused to create new gun laws, but simply enforced the laws that are already in place, their violent crime rate reduced to nearly zero in less than 4 months. The criminals, rather than taking a chance on going to a Federal jail, moved away to neighborhoods that believed that it’s better to give probation and teach them that murder, rape and robbery is “just plumb wrong” while blaming their now higher crime rates on guns. > > \*There’s too much of that [misinformation, lying, etc…] going on on both sides of the debate, not excepting the NRA… I hear a lot of that from gun advocates, but I’m kind of skeptical about the statement, at least in such an absolute form. I seriously don’t think there’s a large base of public or political support for banning basic hunting rifles, say, or high-quality revolvers. I know quite a few people you’d doubtless consider rabid anti-gun zealots, and I’ve never heard **one** of them assert that we just shouldn’t have any privately owned guns in this country at all. \* > > This is a direct quote from Sarah Brady, as reported by The > National Educator, January 1994. She has never rebutted it, nor has she ever asked for an extraction. Believe me, I wish this was not true, but it is. From the mouth of the founder and chair of the leading anti-gun group in the country, which all other anti-gun people flock to for their statistics and their “good intentions”, and which Bill Clinton and Dianne Fienstein hold in such high regard when passing each additional gun ban. You make the call. > > > [@](#): > > > > “Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” > > THAT is why us pro-gun folks get a little on the defensive side immediately. ---
**Author:** ![Turbo\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@Turbo\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turbo_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2001, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/30 "2001-03-27T03:08:54Z")
Sorry, I’m an idiot and didn’t proofread, otherwise I would have caught the blown quote in the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2001, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/31 "2001-03-27T06:28:10Z")
Kimstu Quote Even criminologist Gary Kleck, who is pretty pro-gun and seems to agree with most of what Lott says, has criticized his book for not adequately isolating the different factors that influence changes in crime rates. I agree that that’s a very difficult thing to do; but until we have reliable, comprehensive statistical studies that manage to do it, we cannot say that the evidence really shows that such policies “work”. Here is a site that gives a sort of bio on Gary Kleck [http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html](http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html) It in part tells how he ,once a gun control believer changed his mind. Then if you access The Guncite you will find lots of very pertinent information on gun control issues. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2001, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/32 "2001-03-27T19:05:32Z")
**TD:** \*So again, in light of any “real” evidence either way, the best course of action is to take away something that is mine, “just in case”? \* Well, we have to keep trying to address the problem in whatever ways we can, and IMHO that will doubtless include some bans as well as tougher enforcement and self-protection. Remember also that gun technology and commerce aren’t frozen in one particular configuration, either; manufacturers keep developing new ways of making and selling firearms, and many legislators (e.g., in those 32 states you refer to) are also working to relax gun control. So it’s not really as though the **only** development in gun ownership is “something being taken away from you.” U.S. gun owners have a **great** deal of liberty when it comes to firearms, particularly compared to almost all the other countries of the world. I’m not objecting to states liberalizing CCW laws if they want to, nor am I objecting to states and communities banning certain guns if they want to. All I ask is that we not overstate what the evidence really shows. \*Of that 29%, 13.8% of the most preferred guns are the cheap guns. What this means is, according to this report, the “cheap guns” which are in the most preferred list, (that you support the banning of to help reduce crime) account for a total of 3.8% of all guns traced to crime, and again, this includes possessed guns that were not used in a crime. 3.8% is not what I would call a preference among criminals and hardly a menace to society. \* But don’t forget that lots of the other 71% of traced crime guns, the ones that aren’t in the 29% comprising the top ten, are **also** cheap guns. Your 3.8% figure is derived from considering only the top ten and assuming that there are no cheap guns farther down the list, which is not true. Also, though I think that a ban on “Saturday night specials” is not unreasonable and might reduce crime, it seems to me that a better reason for the ban is simple safety considerations. According to the OC Register report I linked to, most “Ring of Fire” guns are pretty crummy and don’t meet reasonable safety standards for things like not blowing up in the user’s hands and so forth. If we require cars to meet very stringent safety requirements, I don’t see why we shouldn’t do so for guns. \*“if a ban is sufficiently widespread, stringent, and well-enforced (nobody’s allowed to manufacture them, nobody’s allowed to sell them, nobody’s allowed to buy them, nobody’s allowed to own them), then that gun’s availability is likely to be significantly reduced in practice.” Which is precisely the end goal of anti-gun groups, to the total number. \* I don’t quite know what you mean by that sentence, but now you seem to be agreeing that gun bans **can** reduce gun availability in general. I don’t see how you can argue that a ban that **significantly** reduces gun access for the law-abiding can **never** have **any** significant effect on gun access for criminals, and if you do so argue, I’d like to see some hard evidence. \*The criminals, rather than taking a chance on going to a Federal jail, moved away to neighborhoods that believed that it’s better to give probation and teach them that murder, rape and robbery is “just plumb wrong” while blaming their now higher crime rates on guns. \* We are obviously not going to agree on most issues about the criminal justice system, so I’m not going to continue arguing about it. All I can say is that if an anti-gun-control approach to reducing crime requires one to support the punitive harshness, and the contempt for community/prevention/rehabilitation measures, that you seem to advocate, then it’s not likely to succeed in getting my vote. \*This is a direct quote from Sarah Brady, as reported by The National Educator, January 1994. She has never rebutted it, nor has she ever asked for an extraction. Believe me, I wish this was not true, but it is. From the mouth of the founder and chair of the leading anti-gun group in the country, which all other anti-gun people flock to for their statistics and their “good intentions”, and which Bill Clinton and Dianne Fienstein hold in such high regard when passing each additional gun ban. You make the call. \* > [@](#): > > “Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” _THAT is why us pro-gun folks get a little on the defensive side immediately._ _snort_ Well, you pro-gun folks are sometimes a little too credulous, maybe. You do know that the [National Educator](http://home.inreach.com/grafix/educator.html) is a hyperlibertarian antigovernment publication, right? (E.g., its stated mission is to “help you to understand and appreciate a host of government regulations and policies designed to intrude into our lives”, and a downloadable sample front page from 1997 contains lead articles that are uniformly anti-liberal and antigovernment.) Do you really think that the National Educator (a “kitchen-table” paper put out until 1996 by a couple of retired schoolteachers) would be likely to obtain access to actual comments made by Sarah Brady to Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (which is what the NE claimed that quote to be) that no more reputable journal has (AFAIK) ever repeated or confirmed? (And by the way, an actual scan of the relevant page of that NE issue, shown [here](http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ed6e9e13e0.htm), doesn’t even include the first two sentences of your version of the quote, which seem to have been stuck in by a later source.) Moreover, do you really think that the wife of a former high official in the Reagan Administration advocates “creating a Socialist America”, or that if she did, she would choose to say so publicly, knowing that it would shock and repel the vast majority of the people on **both** sides of the gun debate? Do you think that perhaps Baker’s (and Metzenbaum’s) refraining from commenting on this story might have been due not to its truth, but to the fact that they considered it too silly for anyone but “wacky gun nuts” to believe and therefore felt it unnecessary to draw more attention to it by repudiating it officially? Even the folks in the discussion group at [freerepublic.com](http://freerepublic.com) (where I got the above link) conceded that this was just a hoax! Mindful that this is the Straight Dope, I really want to be openminded and honest with the evidence in this debate. But if this is a representative sample of the bias and credulity on the other side, then I’m very discouraged about the potential for useful discussion on this issue, and I think I can find more worthwhile arguments elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Turbo\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@Turbo\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turbo_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2001, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/33 "2001-03-28T00:53:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > > - IMHO that will doubtless include some bans as well as tougher enforcement and self-protection. \* > > That is your opinion, and I can respect that. In my opinion however, tougher enforcement alone is the key. > > \*it’s not really as though the **only** development in gun ownership is “something being taken away from you.” \* > > I agree with you entirely. But the more gun models that are produced, the more cosmetic reasons to ban them appears. It’s an ongoing circle. > > _All I ask is that we not overstate what the evidence really shows._ > > Again, I am in agreement. When I see any actual evidence that gun bans do what is claimed, I will support gun bans. Until then, taking away one of my rights just because it **might** work is something I will not support. I am not advocating legalizing an illegal item. I am supporting my legal right to legally own a legal item that is not inherently dangerous. The standard line, always laughed at and shrugged away, never to be accepted… No gun has ever killed anyone on it’s own volition. A person has to use it. > > _Your 3.8% figure is derived from considering only the top ten and assuming that there are no cheap guns farther down the list, which is not true._ > > I was not implying otherwise, simply refuting the statement that you had posed earlier by using that particular table as evidence for your view. > > > [@](#): > > > > Table 6 of the ATF report lists the top ten handguns among the traced crime guns in their data,… I think that does count as “a large part of the list”, unless there’s some aspect of this I’m missing. > > Unless I misinterpreted what you said, you suggested that the “junk” guns that are listed in the top ten most preferred list were a large part of the trace list. They are not. As far as other cheap guns, yes there are some more, but the most preferred cheap guns which are the most often used make up a very small portion of the total. The less preferred and less often used cheap guns therefore, will make up an even smaller portion. The numbers are all in that report, and no matter how you add them up, the result is the same. > > _I think that a ban on “Saturday night specials” is not unreasonable and might reduce crime, it seems to me that a better reason for the ban is simple safety considerations._ > > This may shock you, but I agree with you 100% on this point at one level. If the ban is due to poor material and workmanship resulting in something that can injure the person shooting the gun, then it has no place on the market. But banning a gun that is well made, simply due to an inexpensive price tag (of which there are a lot of, many of which already banned) takes away the right of the less wealthy citizen. Again, comparing to cars, just because a car is small and cheap doesn’t mean it’s unsafe. Restricting anything like guns or cars or anything else so that the only models available can be put out of reach to the poor is simply not right, no matter what the argument. > > _I don’t quite know what you mean by that sentence, but now you seem to be agreeing that gun bans **can** reduce gun availability in general._ > > hardly arguing that point. If all guns are banned, then of course their availability to the general public will be reduced. > > _I don’t see how you can argue that a ban that **significantly** reduces gun access for the law-abiding can **never** have **any** significant effect on gun access for criminals, and if you do so argue, I’d like to see some hard evidence._ > > If all guns are banned, then obviously the numbers available to criminals will be reduced. IMO, I don’t see it as being significant though for the same reason that so many weapons used on the street, that are routinely confiscated, especially in the LA area, are full automatic weapons which have been illegal to own without special federal license since 1934. These weapons are not being stolen from the Average Joe as the average joe simply cannot have them, but they are still appearing by the crate load, brand spanking new still in manufacturer’s packing. > > _do you really think that the wife of a former high official in the Reagan Administration advocates “creating a Socialist America”,_ > > When the policies she advocates are those which make up a socialist government, yes. View her as you wish, that is your opinion. But it’s not hard to compare her numbers and statistics with any other government agency, and see that she is not telling the truth. > > One thing I missed yesterday that I wanted to touch on was when you mentioned that nobody wants to ban basic hunting rifles or high quality revolvers. > > First, I would ask you to define both. Many rifles that were designed and created for hunting purposes, and marketed to hunters, are now on the ban list. More are being added due to cosmetic reasons only. The Ruger mini-14 is simply one example. A rifle made for varmint hunting that is now banned not because it is used in crimes, but because it looks similar to some “assault” weapons… Full length hunting shotguns have been banned for the sole reason of having been manufactured with a pistol grip, because a pistol grip is defined as a "part of the makeup of an “assault” weapon. > > So we are banning certain guns not because they are used by criminals, or are easily concealable, or are of low quality, but because they look scary. What happens when someone decides, (as HCI has been advocating for some time now) to ban “Sniper Rifles”? Then you will have effectively banned 90% of all “basic hunting rifles”. When all handguns but “high quality revolvers” are banned, and a criminal uses one, will they be placed on the ban list as well? Keep in mind I am not ranting here, but just asking you a few questions. Something that has been proposed to the anti-gun legislators is something that would end the discussions, but they are unwilling to do so for the obvious reasons. “Put down as law exactly what models, manufacturers, calibers, cosmetic appearances, accessories, etc that are deemed as “acceptable for ownership” and you can ban all the rest”. This would take away future options on what can be banned, however. I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again. Why is it illegal to own a gun with a bayonet lug? Does this reduce violent crime? Are people being bayoneted to an extent that this is an issue? > > _Mindful that this is the Straight Dope, I really want to be openminded and honest with the evidence in this debate… I think I can find more worthwhile arguments elsewhere._ > > As am I. I’ve not seen any more evidence from you than you have seen from me. No matter what part of the country you are in, or what format it is discussed, wherever any hardcore evidence for whether or not gun control works appears, counter evidence can be found to dispute it. Yes, I am biased in my views, but I think I’ve shown reasonable reason why I can be, and have seen none that show me why I shouldn’t be. I think I’ve shown however, that I am not a “fanatic” as I have openly met you halfway on issues if I couldn’t “prove” a certain point. Personally, I would like to keep this going with you as you are one of the few people on “your side” that I’ve ever spoken to who actually WILL debate it with some intelligence, rather than the usual who are NOT openminded. But I am certainly not going to agree with you 100% in an area unless you can show me very reasonable cause to do so. I don’t expect you to do less either. Your choice though. ---
**Author:** ![Turbo\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@Turbo\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turbo_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2001, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/34 "2001-03-28T01:30:18Z")
Missed another point, sorry. If you feel I am a poor debater for taking a line from what you feel is not a credible area, I will concede that. But she did say say that she and HCI felt that the only course of action was to “get rid of all guns” on the Phil Donahue show, in 93 or 94, I can’t recall which year exactly. In the early part of her “crusade” with HCI, she made many statements like that. Only after she and HCI began to lose a great deal of political backing, for obvious reasons (a great number of voters are gun owners) she began to rethink and rephrase much better. But even though she has changed her tactics after that period, I will never believe that her end goal has changed. Again, your opinion may be different. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2001, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/35 "2001-03-28T16:58:42Z")
**TD:** Fair nuf. I didn’t mean to write you off, but that particular Sarah Brady “quote” seemed to me pretty far into “wacky gun nut” territory. I won’t take it as typical. \*First, I would ask you to define both [basic hunting rifles and revolvers]. Many rifles that were designed and created for hunting purposes, and marketed to hunters, are now on the ban list. More are being added due to cosmetic reasons only. The Ruger mini-14 is simply one example. A rifle made for varmint hunting that is now banned not because it is used in crimes, but because it looks similar to some “assault” weapons… Full length hunting shotguns have been banned for the sole reason of having been manufactured with a pistol grip, because a pistol grip is defined as a "part of the makeup of an “assault” weapon. So we are banning certain guns not because they are used by criminals, or are easily concealable, or are of low quality, but because they look scary.\* Well, I am not familiar with the rationales for such bans advocated by organizations like HCI, nor, to be honest, do I know jack sh\*t about the advantages and disadvantages of various features on various types of guns. But just applying naive common sense, I would think that one valid reason to ban “scary-looking” guns is to make enforcement easier. If I were an enforcement officer, I would sure like to know whether somebody I see carrying a gun is toting a legal hunting weapon or an illegal “assault” rifle, and I would like to be able to make that call from a reasonable distance, rather than having to postpone it till I’m staring right down the weapon’s barrel. So wouldn’t it make sense to require legal weapons to be as distinct as possible from illegal ones? To turn the question around, what exactly is the disadvantage, from a firearm owner’s point of view, of having legal weapons be visually distinct from illegal ones? I realize that it is doubtless a big pain in the neck to have to keep track of which features are currently legal and which are not, and to have to get rid of your formerly legal weapons as the design of illegal weapons undergoes inevitable changes. But it seems to me that that’s not an unreasonable price to pay for the advantage gained by enforcement officials in being able to tell the different kinds apart more easily. If we do want tougher enforcement of illegal gun use, and we admit that it’s reasonable for some types of guns to be illegal, then I think it’s reasonable to accept some limitations on cosmetic features to make enforcement easier. _Something that has been proposed to the anti-gun legislators is something that would end the discussions, but they are unwilling to do so for the obvious reasons. “Put down as law exactly what models, manufacturers, calibers, cosmetic appearances, accessories, etc that are deemed as “acceptable for ownership” and you can ban all the rest”. This would take away future options on what can be banned, however._ Well, natch. I can’t see why we should be willing to “freeze” gun control legislation in any one particular place unless we also put a moratorium on all future changes in gun design and manufacture. If we could get manufacturers to agree to make no further changes to the appearance or capabilities of any guns, I certainly think it would be reasonable to stipulate that lawmakers identify once and for all which of those are “acceptable for ownership”. But as long as guns change, gun control legislation has to be able to change. \*I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again. Why is it illegal to own a gun with a bayonet lug? Does this reduce violent crime? Are people being bayoneted to an extent that this is an issue? \* That one also sounds pretty easy, although again I’m only using naive common sense on it so I may be missing something. The only types of guns that are commonly manufactured with bayonet lugs are military small arms (hunters, as you point out, don’t do a lot of bayoneting). And the current international proliferation of military small arms and light weapons has a lot of people worried (see, for example, [this International Security Forum report](http://www.isn.ethz.ch/securityforum/Online_Publications/WS5/WS_5D/Krause.htm)). It makes sense to me that we would want to keep this unsavory arms proliferation as far away from the legitimate US firearm trade as possible, so we ban the types of weapons that are most likely to be involved in it. To turn the question around again, why is the lack of this feature a problem for most legitimate gun owners? Why do you need a bayonet lug? Again, I think putting up with the minor hassle of having such features banned doesn’t seem like an unreasonable price to pay for making it easier for enforcement officials to separate legitimate gun commerce from the international small-arms-and-light-weapons market. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2001, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/36 "2001-03-29T19:15:08Z")
Anybody know if there was an effort to ban guns after Lincoln was killed? Since he was the first President to be murdered while in office one would think that there was some movement at the time to restrict gun ownership. Or is that merely a symptom of our own misguided era? ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2001, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927/37 "2001-03-30T04:48:13Z")
Tuckerfan One of Grants concessions was that both sides could keep their guns. I think that gun posession was too common back then for anyone to really consider giving them up. IIRC wyatt Earp began a no guns in Tombstone policy. Don’t know if he was first though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-guns-crime-prevention/58927.md?page=1)