Lumpy plays devil's advocate on gun control

Great Debates
41

Why? Because we both speak English? That’s about where the similarities end. The US shares an actual border with Mexico, you know, and I’ll wager we have more people in the US with close family or cultural ties to Mexico than we have with the UK.

Demographically and culturally, the US and UK are quite different. First, there’s the population thing; England has nine population centers with over half a million people, while the US has thirty-three. Big cities breed crime, don’t ya know. Plus, the US has a greater mix of languages and ethnicities, what with that whole “melting pot” thing, and people who are different from one another often find a reason to dislike one another. Now, immigration has been up for England in the past 15-20 years or so, and crime has risen accordingly, so they may yet catch up. And of course there’s history to consider: because of Britain’s past liberal use of the death penalty, the criminal society has morphed into one that tends to favor property crime over personal violence.

If I were you, I’d drop the UK and go with Canada instead.

42

Well…sharing a common language is big since we can easily share cultural things like movies and books and so on. Not to mention much of our notion of things like law stem directly from British Common Law so our very foundation as a country is in no small part evolved from the British. As for sharing a border with Mexico so what? Mexico I think would be deemed far more foreign to most Americans than England would. Sure the US has a very large Mexican immigrant population but the melting pot factor takes generations to process through.

To be sure making comparisons with other countries is dicey as there are many factors that can bear on crime rates and an apple-to-apple comparison is not really possible. That said I do not think the lessons other countries learn should be totally ignored as a result. When doing the comparison it is appropriate to look for factors that affect what we see but the comparison can still be made as long as we keep the caveats in mind.

Not sure Canada is a closer model than the UK for comparison’s sake but no reason Canada shouldn’t be looked at too so we can see what we might learn.

43

Because I don’t understand your position. You seem to be claiming that virtually all gun control laws have been ruined by compromises, and you simultaneously seem to be claiming that you are ignorant of most gun control laws.

That’s a contradiction, and I would like to know whether still claiming that most gun control laws have been ruined by compromises or now you are claiming that you do not know one way or another.

I’m not making such a demand. Please don’t strawman me.

Anyway, you never answered my question:

**Don’t you think that the reasonable way to assess the efficacy of the UK gun ban is to look at crime rates both before and after? **

44

That’s absolutely true. But what’s annoying to me is that your typical gun control advocate can easily recognize why places like Oregon or New Hampshire are different from places like California or New Jersey. And yet they are essentially blind to the differences between the US and the UK. Or the US and Canada.

45

Um, the last execution in Britain was in 1964. 45 years later, why would criminals here still be affected by that?

46

Perfectly reasonable.
However you may be surprised to hear that gun restrictions started here in 1903.
There were further laws on registration and banning in 1920 and 1937, before the 1967 law covering shotguns, the 1988 Act on rifles and finally the 1997 Act banning almost all handguns.
it is interesting that the handgun ban affected only an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1%of the population, as the vast majority of Brits have never owned a gun.

OK, this covers just the timeframe from the latest Act:

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. “Injury” in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as “slight,” which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.

Given that no beat police here are armed, the UK population is happy with the almost total ban on guns.

47

Are you saying you won’t ask for a list of gun laws?

48

No. I’m not asking for a list at the moment, though. Will I ask at some point in the future? I don’t know.

49

Well let’s see…

WaM: “What gun control laws that have been passed are generally ruined by compromises to get them passed.” (post #5)

brazil84: *"When you say “generally,” are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises? " *(post #7)

WaM: “I do not have a comprehensive list of all gun control laws passed in the United States or the world.” (post #8)

brazil84: *“In that case, are you retracting your claim that gun control laws – in general – have been ruined by compromises? Because as stated, your claim would seem to apply to all gun controls in the US, and indeed in the rest of the world.” * (post #10)

WaM: “Not retracting anything.” (post #20)

brazil84: *"Then again my question:

When you say “generally,” are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?" *(post #25)

WaM: ““Generally” means (to me at least) “commonly but not always”. That said I certainly do not have an authoritative list of all gun control laws passed anywhere in the US much less the world as a whole.” (post #35)

brazil84: “Does that mean “yes” or “no”?” (post #38)

WaM: “From what I have seen of various US laws aimed at gun control they are almost always lacking and I would not expect them to be useful in reducing crime in any notable way. Is it possible there was a good gun law made sometime, somewhere? Sure but since I do not keep the legal codes of all 50 states for the last 200 years locked in my head I cannot say definitively.” (post #40)

brazil84: *"You seem to be claiming that virtually all gun control laws have been ruined by compromises, and you simultaneously seem to be claiming that you are ignorant of most gun control laws.

That’s a contradiction, and I would like to know whether still claiming that most gun control laws have been ruined by compromises or now you are claiming that you do not know one way or another."* (post #43)

After that I gave up with him. Maybe I am misreading something but I feel I answered his questions and he persisted in re-asking the same thing over and over for some strange reason I cannot fathom.

50

Thank you.

No it’s not a surprise.

I’m not sure what your point is. You don’t seem to dispute that the UK handgun ban did not have much of an effect on crime. Are you claiming that some earlier gun law had a big effect? Or were those earlier laws “ruined by compromise”?

51

Well, maybe Whack-A-Mole just had a hunch or something.

52

You’re welcome.

I just posted the facts. :cool:

The first point is that the UK handgun ban was a tiny thing, affecting only 0.1% of the population. We don’t use guns for home protection, and haven’t for decades.

Next we have much lower levels of gun crime (especially homicides and particularly school shootings) than the US.
From my previous source (bolding mine):

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings), a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.

By comparison, **5.5 murders per 100,000 of population **were reported by police in the United States in 2000, **of which 70% involved the use of firearms **(75% of which were illegally obtained).

53

You’ll have to be more specific in your argument because I don’t understand it.

54

In which case, making firearms illegal wouldn’t have stopped those crimes.

The weapons were already illegal.

55

Sure. But work backwards up the pipe. I doubt these criminals are robbing gun factories. In order to get a weapon someone almost certainly obtained it legally first. Then their gun was either stolen or they were content to sell to a criminal (either knowingly or not caring who the person was buying the gun from them).

Because guns are so easily available in the US it is no surprise it is a relatively simple matter for criminals to get their hands on one.

56

Looks like gun theft is a relatively (although still significant) source of illegal weapons used by criminals.

57

There’s a joke that goes something like, “What’s the difference between the US and England? In the US, 100 years is a long time, and in England, 100 miles is a long way.”

It’s tradition, man. Little criminals grow up doing the criminal stuff that their criminal parents did before them. It’s not hard to check, just look at England’s rates of crimes like burglary and motor vehicle theft and compare them to the US. Clearly, property crime is preferred in the UK. I’m just guessing at the reason, but I suspect I’m on to something.

58

Sorry, been really busy at work. Will get back to it.

59

Your argument was that the government doesn’t regulate tools because of potential abuse. But the government does do exactly that. Potential abuse is exactly why codeine, for example, is tightly regulated.

60

Again, I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that some earlier gun control law in the UK resulted in a decrease in crime? If so, which one?

And if not, why should we expect things to be different in the United States?

Again I am confused. Is it your position that gun control has been a failure in the UK?