Did they effectively ban other types of guns?
No, because rifles and shotguns are used in minuscule number of murders annually. Even “assault weapons”
I see. So people in Chicago and DC could still easily purchase rifles and shotguns?
Not 'easily". You have to qualify and get a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, and there is a waiting period.
More or less the same as in Canada.
First of all - why? Aren’t we debating whether gun control laws work? Wouldn’t the point of gun control be to lower the total amount of gun deaths, including murder, suicide, and accidents? The only reason to exclude those numbers is to obfuscate the issue.
Second of all - okay, fine. The highest states by murder rate are Louisiana, Mississippi, Maryland, Missouri, South Carolina, Alaska, Alabama. The lowest states by murder rate are New Hampshire, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, Utah, Idaho, Massachusetts.
So people in red states are committing murder more, and dying more often to gun accidents and suicides, than people in blue states are.
Seriously, if your best argument against gun control is “guns stop murders” then you should re-evaluate your position. Honestly ask yourself if you like guns because they stop crime and make people safe, or for some other reason? If for some other reason, then argue for that instead.
This is only sort of true. Part of the reason gun laws are only partially effective is because of how easy it is to transfer ownership.
One example. If you drive from Chicago to my house in NV, I can sell you my gun as a private seller without fear of being arrested. Sure, you’re committing a crime, but I’m not. I have no duty to do any kind of background check on you. I have no duty to generate a bill of sale, to determine if you’re legally allowed to own the gun, or to even know your name.
All that’s legally required of me to do as a private seller is that I cannot knowingly sell to a prohibited person…except I’m not actually required to check if you’re a prohibited person. See the rub?
The reality is that if someone is willing to break the law to get a gun, there are very few practical roadblocks for them. The guns are readily available from people who are protected from criminal liability while selling them to you. You can freely travel from places where these types of sales are easy to places where they are restricted. Local (state) gun control laws do work in a limited sense, but their effects are stunted by easy acquisition, distribution, and transfer of guns across state and local lines.
Judging by the amount of gun crime in Britain and Canada compared to the USA, this is not as true as you think it is.
Washington, D.C. had a population in 2017 ~694,000. There were 135 homicides in 2016.
Ottawa, Canada had a population in 2016 of ~934,000. There were 24 homicides in 2016, 12 of which were shooting deaths, and one which was determined to be self-defence.
I suspect that Canada’s gun control laws and consequent much lower rate of gun ownership (and very much lower number of guns) has something to do with the difference.
Correct. They work about as well as the sex control laws.
Yes, because we are all born with guns attached to our groins, obviously. Or half of us are.
What checks are in place at state borders?
Not easily, not cheaply and there is no real driver to do so.
None, we believe in free travel. You will see a wall between the US and Mexico before you see a wall between Illinois and Indiana.
So the ban of handguns in DC really didn’t do anything to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens then, since they were still able to purchase a gun?
No, since one point the gun people make is that criminals will turn to other forms of weapons.
If “gun murders” go down by 1000, but “knife murders” increase by 1000, then the gun control laws have done nothing. True, I doubt if that kind of increase would occur, but still that’s the comparison that needs to be done.
Next, including suicides is bogus. Suicide is a basic human right, imho, and needs to be taken off the table.
Finally another point that gun people make is that gun *prevent *some violent crime. I am sure that is so, but I dont know how big the number is. Possibly not significant.
But if you just compare "gun deaths’ then the gun people can point out that the murder rate didnt decrease at all.
The correlation between the homicide rate and Brady score in all 51 jurisdictions is +.032 (on a scale of -1 to +1), which means that states with more gun restrictions on average have very slightly higher homicide rates, though the tendency is so small as to be essentially zero.
I am not a gun nut. I only own a old .22 rifle, given to me when I was in the Boy Scouts and my service pistol. But I am a small l libertarian, and since gun control laws simply do not reduce violent crime in America, i dont see the purpose of putting law abiding citizens in prison and taking their guns away to make some people with a irrational fear of guns feel safer.
The Supreme Court disagrees, since they were not able to own or purchase handguns.
None to very little ( there are checks at the CA border for example, to check for agriculture), but doing so still is illegal. What’s the use of putting yet another restriction on gun ownership when your point is that that one is so easily bypassed? In any case, guns so purchased are indeed illegal to own.
I think it would be something more like “gun murders down by 1000, other forms of murder up by 150.”
Some people are going to get killed, but guns makes it easier. I may be too lazy to go over there and stab they guy with my knife, but I can sit back over here and plug him with some holes.
Suicide by gun is more convenient and effective than other forms. It may be a right, but it shouldn’t be a temptation.
Hard to tell, but I’d agree with the not-significant. Especially if you do smart gun laws that still allow people who have demonstrated lawful responsibilty to still have guns.
Counting suicide is controversial, but I would certainly count accidents.
Also, I would not count just death by gun in those stats, but injury by gun as well. People get hurt, but not killed, at best they are going to have financial hardship from the imposed medical bills. They could also be disabled, unable to work, or even live on their own anymore.
The problem is not that a criminal is going to break the law, and therefore get a gun illegally anyway, the problem is that it is not breaking the law to sell that gun to a criminal in the first place. If some sort of responsibility was on the owner of the gun when he sold it to ensure that it was not going to a prohibited person, and hold them liable if it does, then that would cut down on the trafficking of guns. As is, since the person selling the gun is not liable in any way, unless you can prove that they knew that the buyer was prohibited from having a gun, that leaves a massive loophole for getting guns into the blackmarket.
Please call it an “excuse” again, because maybe then we will stop noticing that you are merely handwaving away the actual and obvious reason rather than rebutting it, and substituting a much feebler and lazier alternative that fits your preferred narrative.
Oh, and add a few more slippery slopes too. Those are always good.
Sure. Have a look at the UK. Knife deaths, while still serious, don’t remotely match US guns deaths (or even murders) on a per capita comparison basis. Also, an assault with a knife is far less likely to be lethal than one with a gun, particularly as it has to be done close up and can thus be defended against - consider a recent example of a knife-wielding lunatic entering a school…and being defeated by students throwing their backpacks at him. Think that would work against guns? The comparison doesn’t hold up.
But hey - it’s America! Nothing we can do! Local guns laws don’t work! And I guess laws against murder don’t work either since people still murder, so let’s get rid of those too.
Sure, it is a reason. But it is also a excuse. Gun control laws dont work in America. Period. Of course part of that reason is that local laws can be bypassed- but doing so is illegal, note. However, since they can be bypassed and the chance of a 100% nationwide gun bad is less than zero, why bother- since at the local level they simply dont work? It’s not that the local laws dont stop all gun crime (we cant expect that) - it’s that they never show ANY significant reduction in violent crime.
Laws against murder work since the significantly reduce the number of murders.