Reading through several gun debates, it seems like one of the key sticking points is that banning guns has no effect on criminals because criminals all have illegal guns. I’m fully prepared to concede that this would be true in the short term in a country awash with unregistered guns. However, I was wondering if this would still be true in countries with traditionally low rates of gun ownership and restrictive gun laws.
I wouldn’t have the first clue where to obtain an illegal gun in Australia but that doesn’t really mean much since I wouldn’t even know where to get pot in Australia. However, from anecdotal evidence, the few people I know who have got mugged in Australia have either been threated with knives or screwdrivers (which seem surprisingly popular for some reason). I don’t think I’ve even heard of many cases in the news of gun murders. The notable exception in my mind was a shooting in Monash University last year by someone with a registered, legal gun.
In short, while I think it’s certainly debatable how effective more gun control would be in the US now, I think there are very good arguments against further gun liberalisation in other countries and would like to hear other peoples opinions.
[quote]
The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
It is admittedly an older article, dated 16 July 2001, but all the same it shows that in spite of the illegality of handguns they are readily available.
Now, you can call me crazy if you like, but when something is banned and it is still used 3,685 times in one year it is fairly demonstrable that the ban is not effective. Gun bans are similar to the “War on Drugs” in that they don’t stop anybody from doing anything, they just punish after the fact.
Then again, The US had 500,000 handgun crimes in the same time period (cite). A 130 fold difference in crime rates for a 5 fold increase in population seems to support my contention that a historical lack of guns leads to making it harder for criminals getting guns.
I never stated that it’s an overnight solution, in fact, it would probably seem logical for crime rates to go up in the short term. However, I’m asking whether historically low gun rates, legal and illegal, lead to lower illegal gun ownership.
We’re not talking about the US. We’re talking about the ease of getting a gun in other countries that have bans. I respectfully submit that an increase in use after something is made illegal suggests that the act of making it illegal is not effective.
That’s false logic. It can, and in the case of the UK, does, mean it hasn’t been 100% effective. Criminals have turned to new sources such as modifying deactivated, replica and certain makes of air guns. These in turn will be removed from the market and the possession of them heavily penalised.
No actual information to offer, so this is only my W.A.G.; but I’d say that in countries with strict bans on civilian possession of firearms, a gun is probably about as easy to obtain as it’s weight in heroin or cocaine. That is to say, by no means impossible if you have money and connections, but dammed difficult and risky for the average schmuck.
And I respectfully submit that I am comparing rates between different countries, not within the same country at different times. You might as well say that the number of human rights abuses perpertrated by the US military has gone up since 2001 while the number perpetrated by the Iraqi government has gone down, therefore, it is safer to live in Iraq. This completely ignores the underlying fact that gun rates in the US are some 2 orders of magnitude higher than that of britain.
Again, only somewhat informed hearsay, but real guns are a helluva lot harder to get hold of from ‘a guy in the pub’ and a lot more expensive. Which is why, as in the cite above, dealers are having to pay hundreds for converted replicas.
Make it illegal to own or sell these and the supply will fall again. In the UK we’re still in the position of being able to limit the availability of firearms.
To be fair, Shalmanese, ADUSAF isn’t making any claims about gun rates in Britain vs those in the States - only that the British handgun ban hasn’t reduced the incidence of illegal gun use.
On the other hand, examining other factors operating over the same time might be helpful, and it’s possible that there would be still more gun crime but for the ban on handguns. I personally believe the ban was silly vote-chasing and ineffective to boot, though.
But that is a false claim unless he can demonstrate that the same incidence would obtain if the ban wasn’t in place. There has been rising demand for handguns in the UK and the fact that those who want them are being forced to opt for expensively activated replicas suggest it was effective in containing the spread of real guns and suggests similar bans on the selling and ownership of replicas will also restrain the rise in use.
Make things difficult to obtain and in the absence of mass private ownership gun ownership by criminals will at the least not rise as fast as they would.
And I never said it did. I said that statistically speaking there has been an increase, and that is indicative that the ban has not reduced usage. Perhaps it has not increased to the degree it would were general ownership permitted, but it has increased nonetheless.
As far as this debate goes, it started out with “Reading through several gun debates, it seems like one of the key sticking points is that banning guns has no effect on criminals because criminals all have illegal guns. I’m fully prepared to concede that this would be true in the short term in a country awash with unregistered guns. However, I was wondering if this would still be true in countries with traditionally low rates of gun ownership and restrictive gun laws”, and as soon as I gave a cite to substantiate my contention I was faced with “Then again, The US had 500,000 handgun crimes in the same time period”.
I am not prepared to compare the US to anywhere else, because there is no comparison. I am, however, prepared to answer the question that was asked. Otherwise, this debate is going to become what most gun debates turn into: a massive sausage fest where it always turns back to the US and their gun crime rates and how much it sucks compared to other countries’ gun crime rates. If that’s what you want, have at it. If not, let’s stick to the question that was asked.
Look, I understand how most gun debates turn out and I certainly agree with you that I don’t want this one to go down the same lines. However, I don’t really want to look at the (mostly short term) effects of a single firearm ban. Rather, I want to look at long term historical trends. As I said before, I’m fully prepared to concede that a gun bad would lead to a short term increase in crime rates, that gets brought up in every gun debate and I don’t particularly want to go there. What I am interested in is whether long term policy and cultural decisions have any effects on illegal gun ownership. A horizontal rather than longitudinal study if you will. The only real way to do that is to compare gun rates between different countries or different areas within a country. While 3000 sounds like a big number when compared to 2000, it sounds like an exceedingly small number when compared to 500,000. I’m also fully prepared to admit that there are a number of unique factors independant of gun ownership that push the US figures higher so more data points would be welcome.
If this is the thrust of your argument, it’s a self-proving hypothesis. Fewer guns means fewer guns - regardless whose hands they’re in. If guns in the hands of criminals have been acquired mostly through theft from a legal owner, it is self-evident that with a smaller national stock of legally-owned guns, there can be fewer thefts of them.
I’m willing to concede that in the short and even intermediate term that a gun ban will not be effective in the United States. We are already awash with guns. But as the years go by and the decades drag on, more and more of the guns from the old days will fall into disrepair and become unusable, or just flat out go missing. More and more will be discovered and be confiscated at a rate greater than the demand for illegal manufacture of these antique guns. It certainly would make a dent in the gun violence rate 50 years from now.
Not neccesarily, that would only be the case if most guns obtained by criminals were from local sources and were obtained largely passively. If most guns were imported or there was an active movement to steal guns, then it would be largely irrelevant how many guns were in the possesion of legal gun owners.
I doubt it. I ever used cocaine or heroin, but I know several ways/places where I could begin my quest for them. I bet I could have some at worst within a day, at best within an hour if I wanted to.
On the other hand I don’t have the slighest clue about how to find an illegal gun.
Japan certainly meets both of these categories, and it is extremely difficult to obtain guns illegally. I know how to obtain drugs illegally, (by watching TV shows folks ) but would have no idea how to get guns. Most of the criminals apparently don’t either. The yakuza, Japan’s organized crime has some, but very rarely used in crimes against ordinary citizens. You average thug, or even your extraordinary thug doesn’t have one.
) but would have no idea how to get guns. Most of the criminals apparently don’t either. The yakuza, Japan’s organized crime has some, but very rarely used in crimes against ordinary citizens. You average thug, or even your extraordinary thug doesn’t have one.