More gun control. (this time lets argue the effects)

Great Debates
1

With the pevalence of gun control threds on the board right now, I just thought I would ask the question that no one has tried yet. To wit:

Can gun control work?

Heck, let’s start with just handguns. If we banned all handguns in the U.S., would it reduce the number of crimes committed with guns? Would it reduce the fatality rate of violent crimes?

On the other hand, would we have an equally dramatic effect by arming and training every man, woman, and child in america. (I think it would be a heck of a deterrent to criminals if every potential victim were armed.)

Also, how would we enforce such a ban, is it logistically possible?

I personally believe that total handgun control would dramatically effect crime rates around the country. After all, handguns are a weapon that are specifically designed to kill people. (Anyone go hunting deer with a Browning 9mm lately?) If you take handguns away from everyone, it becomes much more difficult to commit crimes such as robbery, murder, etc. Also, crimes of passion would be less fatal overall. A person is much more likely to survive being stabbed with a knife than being shot with a gun.

Any takers?

2

Not by much, if people wanted to commit crimes, they would likely aquire guns. Criminals wouldn’t care if guns were banned.

No, violent crimes would be just as violent.

I hope this was intended to be sarcasm. Doing this would just cause chaos.

I think that gun control would at first be much like prohibition, guns are illegal, but still prevalent, but after awhile, it would be beneficial.

Don’t forget assault rifles. People don’t need a fully automatic rifle with a 30 round banana clip.

This would never happen. The 4th amendment may not apply anymore, but it is unlikely that congress would pass legislation that would take away guns from the people.

For the record, I think that people have the right to own firearms, but there needs to be much more restriction on obtaining one. And as I said above, all you should be able to own is a plain rifle or handgun.

3

the district of columbia banned handguns recently, and it had no effect in reducing the number of handguns on the streets. that is probably related to the fact that it’s easy to go to maryland or virginia to get guns if you live in dc, but it’s something. maryland has also introduced some great (in my opinion) legislation requiring trigger locks.

4

hightechburrito says:

Criminals don’t care if guns are banned - but they do care if carrying a gun is a liability. If the presence of a gun draws attention, it weighs against carrying it. (Think of it as a two-pound badge saying “Arrest me!”). Besides, if a gun is a rare black-market item, the price goes way up, putting it out of the reach of a lot of criminals - the druggie trying to raise some cash for his next fix, for instance.

Anyway, that’s the situation here in Scandinavia, where handguns are rarities and a handgun carried in public practically unheard of, unless you’re a police officer. Crime stats are relatively low, so it might be a positive influence. OTOH, the difference in culture between Scandinavia and the U.S. is huge.

Would it work in the U.S. ? No idea.

5

The “gun situation” in United States is quite bewildering for Europeans like me, with vocal lobbyists on both sides, the constitutional angle, etc.

I agree with Spiny (you’re Danish, I believe?), while we have few or no problems with handguns or guns in general, I don’t think our system would work in the US.

A few cultural differences:

  1. Thanks to tight regulations and small public demand, there are very few handguns on the market. So handguns are very expensive and scarce in the illegal market too AND they have always been. I’d imagine it would be very hard to enforce handgun ban in the States with couple millons of them already in the streets.

  2. To own, let alone to carry a handgun with you, you must go through a detailed background check. This usually takes weeks and you must have a really valid reason to get a permit.

  3. Public attitude. People who own handguns (collectors, etc.) are regarded as… well, loonies.

  4. There are a lot of guns in Finland: hunting rifles. These are seldom used in crimes, but are an unfortunately common weapon in domestic disputes and suicides.

We do have some problems with heavily armed criminals, especially biker gangs, like Hell’s Angels and Outlaws, who are crazy enough to shoot each other with bazookas. And of course proximity to Russia causes problems with smuggling and the Russian mob.

All this doesn’t mean we Finns are unfamiliar with guns. Most of the male population goes through 6-12 months of Mandatory Military Service (rough translation) and get to know assault rifles and other smaller and bigger arms.

We just don’t get a hard-on while we handle them… :smiley:

6

Yes, gun control can work, and can be logistically accomplished. Of course, it would require some serious weapons sweeps, lots of home searches, a huge expansion of police forces and police powers, and the dropping of a number of rights that are generally taken for granted here.

In other words, we can make this country and its people safe from guns. The question is, will you want to live here once the job is done?

Personally, I like the idea of criminals thinking that every man, woman, or child may be carrying a gun. For the ones that aren’t crazy, I would expect it to have a definite deturrent effect.

It all comes down to how much freedom you are willing to trade for how much safety. Lately, Americans have been pretty willing to give up freedom for dubious safety improvements. Personally, I hope this trend reverses soon, while we still have some freedom to be proud of.

7

PV: If we “banned” handguns, there would be no significant decrease in crime. Now, to be fair, if you had a magic wand, and made all the handguns (except those in the hands of Police, Security and Military, I assume those are OK) go POOF!.. there would be a significant, but minor decrease in some crimes.

Oh, and PV, handguns are not “made to kill people”, if they are they are doing a damn poor job, as less than 1% of them have been used to do so, and to get the stat this high, we have to include Police shootings. Many handguns are designed especially for target shooting, many for “cowboy action shooting” a growing sport, some just to collect and NEVER fire, some ARE designed for hunting. But, true, most are bought “for protection”, but by someone who hopes never to use it. And of course the Police, etc, buy a lot.

Look, in NYC they have “banned” handguns for decades now. In Switzerland, it is required by LAW that every ablebodied man keeps an Assault rifle in his home or business. Where would you be/feel safer in the center of a large park at Midnite? :smiley:

8

Study after study has shown that gun control results in more crime, and concealed carry permits reduce crime. As somebody mentioned if you could magically make all guns disappear, and make the illegal market disappear and not resurface then yes, it would have an effect, but does anybody seriously believe that this is practically possible? Otherwise, no. The only effect of taking guns out of the hands of people is to make criminals more brazen. Canada has a higher rate of “hot” burglaries than the USA because the criminals know that there are likely to be no deadly weapons inside to harm them. The same is true for states that have higher levels of gun control.

What does work are efforts like “Project Exile” that throw the book at criminals who carry guns by actually prosecuting the case, in federal court no less! Philidalphea (sp) has experienced a reduction in violent crime that is felt to be due to efforts like “Project Exile”.

See:

John Lott - “More Guns, Less Crime” and numerous articles
Gary Kleck - Numerous articles

Morgan O Reynolds - National Center for Policy Analysis
W.W. Caruth III - National Center for Policy Analysis
James D Wright & Peter H Rossi - “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”

Paul Blackman - Journal of Firearms and Public Policy

Marianne Zawitz - “Guns Used in Crime” & “Firearm Injury from Crime” (Bureau of Justice)
Patsy A Klaus - “The Cost of Crime to Victims: Crime Data Brief” (Bureau of Justice)
Micheal R Rand - “Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self Defense, and Firearm Theft” (Bureau of Justice)

9

The ban on “assault rifles” had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons, which have been illegal for the most part for many years. That stupid ban just arbitrarily decided that any gun that looked a certain way was now illegal - e.g. my brother had a semi-automatic .22 with a flash suppressor on the barrel. He bought it because it looked cool and we used to do a lot of target shooting. All of a sudden it was made illegal. He also had a 30 round banana clip for it because .22 bullets are cheap as dirt (which is why we used them for target shooting) and it was a pain in the ass to have to reload all the time. What’s the big deal about this gun?

The assault rifle thing was nothing but a political move; people said,“OOOO, he’s getting rid of assault rifles, ain’t he great?”

If you really want to kill people, any old deer rifle will probably be more effective than many of the guns banned.

For clarification: Semi-automatic guns are guns which require you to pull the trigger for each round you fire.
[/hijack]

PeeQueue

10

Glitch, though I’ve gotten used to more or less taking your word “ex cathedra” in matters like this, I think I’ll have to disagree with you here.

Gun laws do not exist in a vacuum, they interact with the rest of the culture. If the general attitude to guns were to become one of disapproval (distaste ?) - then stricter gun laws could have an effect, and I believe a positive one (lower gun crime rates, at least). If gun control laws were met with widespread contempt and resistance, they’d probably achieve nothing but installing contempt for law in general in some people.

Or are you saying that (relatively low) Scandinavian crime rates would fall if we were to introduce more relaxed weapons laws ? While there’s no way of knowing for sure, I have a hard time believing it. Of course, as mazirian pointed out, we have a very different attitude towards guns. They’re generally accepted as necessary for police & military, hunters and target-shooters need them to pursue their sport, but they’re not cool and they’re kept away from daily life. (OK, hunters sometimes display some pride in their weapons. Target-shooters do as well - among themselves).

If you are (as I suspect) only referring to American conditions, I guess I’m really not qualified to comment.

BTW, this has to be one of the more interesting takes on the gun control debate so far!

11

The question of guns for protection is an interesting one, though I seriously doubt that empirical studies can answer it.

It is true to say that a criminal wishing to rob your house will be influenced by the presence of guns, but how is not clear.

He may be more likely to carry a gun himself, or be quicker to use it if he thinks you are armed.

In a neighborhood where there are lots of guns, this can mean that not having one increases your risk, but this does not mean that this would be true for all patterns of gun ownership.

Remember that many criminals are in a sense just doing their job (anti-social as it may be) and that the level of violence they tend to be prepared to use depends to some extent on the level of violence they expect to encounter.

picmr

12

Even if we could ban guns how would we get rid of the millions that are already here? I can’t imagine that the American people would just turn them over without a word. Guns can be pretty expensive. A member of my family is a gun collector. He has paid upwards of ten thousand dollars for a gun in the past, and would be mighty pissed if his investment were to be confinscated without any compensation.

As it’s been said before, honest upright citizens might tun in their guns, but the criminals wouldn’t, and aren’t they the ones we’re worried about?.

Unless policemen/women are arbitrarily stopping and frisking people in the street they wouldn’t know if a person was carrying a gun or not. Criminals don’t generally advertise the fact that they’re packin’ a piece, especially if they’re up to no good.

Not necessarily. If someone wants to kill you, they will. If they’ve only got a knife, they’ll just stab you repeatedly. Kitty Genovese wasn’t killed with a gun. Guns just make killing more convinient and less messy. We can’t take away all lethal weapons. Murder will still churn in the heart of man, no matter what impliment he is restriced to.

I am a gun owner. I feel safer at night knowing that if I hear somone creeping up the stairs, I can fire a warning shot, and hopefully scare them off. I pray to God that I never need to use it. I hope that I never have to shoot anyone. But I rest safer knowing that I can defend myself, if necessary. I would live in terror if that right was taken from me. I wouldn’t have a weapon, but my attacker would. How horrifying!

Yes, I know that if I hear a bump in the night that I can call the police, and I will, but what about the ten looooong minutes before they get here? My bedroom door has a lock, but the door wouldn’t stand up to a good kick. Without a gun, my only recourse is to throw perfume bottles.

Taking away the right to own a gun from everyone makes me think of when I was in grade school. Some kid spits his milk at another, so the teacher takes the milk away from all of the kids, and has them put their heads down on their desks. It wasn’t fair in grade school, and I don’t think it’s fair to punish America at large for some people’s behavior.

I groan when I see another gun tradgedy. I know that soon the calls will come for gun-control legislation that will do absolutely no good. I firmly believe that there should be some kind of law that states that legislation cannot be dictated by moral outrage.

I believe that there should be background checks. That’s only reasonable. I believe that there should be free gun saftey courses offered to each new gun buyer. I believe that trigger locks should be included with all new handguns. And I believe in my right to own that gun.

Was it Thomas Jefferson who said “A person who will give up their rights for a feeling of security deserves neither?”

13

Spiny: The answer is a sound maybe. :slight_smile: Don’t you hate that?

In the US, at least, felon surveys repeatedly show that the thing that criminals fear most is the “victim” fighting back especially if they are armed.

Drug dealers own guns for protection from other drug dealers and their own clients than for protection from the police. They simply don’t worry about being shot by police officers. They know that if they aren’t armed and don’t go for a gun, it is highly unlikely a cop will shot them, and they’ll be out in 2 years tops anyway, so it isn’t worth dying for.

Rapists typically don’t arm themselves because they have a developed condition of finding sheep. This gets a bit hairy to understand in the limited context I can explain here, but most criminals develop the ability to recognize a fighter and to recognize a passive person. This isn’t so much a learned ability as a developed ability in the sense that they pick up on what works and what doesn’t.

For example, police profilers know that if the rapist use items in the house to tie up/assault the victim he probably has done multiple rapes before, because almost all first timers bring their own rope or cloth and other equipment. However, they start to realize that they don’t need to, because everything they need is in the house. Similarly, when they develop the ability by either just looking at somebody or by the interview (innocent seeming questions or interactions) they can tell if the person will fight. Rapists attack those that won’t fight.

The exception to this is the rapist who attacks by home invasion. Here since he doesn’t see the victim before the attack, he is rolling the dice. While she fight back or not? So what they fear most is that they choose the wrong house and they have a fighter, and one that is armed.

Burglars are the same. They typically don’t want a confrontation. They just want your stuff. So what scares them is that in the middle of their heist they will be confronted with a hail of lead. But they know that if guns are illegal there is little to fear especially if they do bother to arm themselves.

But again, if the US there is a thriving illegal gun market. It would be exceptionally difficult to close down. If the same is true in Scandinavia then I would say, yes, having citizens with guns will reduce crime. If there is little to no illegal market then there is little need, and it would probably only have a marginal effect.

14

last paragraph

…if the US …

should be

…in the US…

Also, I wish to stress another possible factor in Scandinavian crime levels. In the USA, because of overload courts gun violations are not generally prosecuted. If this isn’t true in Scandinavia, then this is another factor. Again, efforts like “Project Exile” are very successful are reducing gun crime without actually requiring the people to own guns. Both in conjunction would be, IMO, an awesome force against violent crime. So, if in Scandinavia, your courts throw the book at gun toting criminals then … well, this is a good thing, and may account for decreased levels of violent crime on its own.

15

“Can gun control work?”
Hell yeah, in 1934 the Gun Control Act outlawed fully automatic guns, BAM there goes the Tommy Gun. It was only a few decades later when we figured out how to make a semi a fully in your own backyard. But no one can make a handgun or a semiautomatic in their backyard…unless you’re the antagonist in ‘In The Line of Fire’. In 1968 Federal mandate restricted guns further…it’s worked in the past it will work again.

“Also, how would we enforce such a ban, is it logistically possible?”

Sure, first stop the bastard compaines who sell them to the public…yeah I’m talking to you, Keckler & Koch! And YOU Intertec! Then we stop the imports…you know who you are.
Then we just catch criminals like normal, take their guns away and DO NOT SELL THEM BACK TO THE PUBLIC! Within 10 years anyone who uses guns to hurt others will be without them. While those who use M-16’s to target shoot will still have them…and they will want to protect them because you can’t buy them anymore. Case closed.

16

I believe we will eventually have much more federal legislation controlling guns. I have a sneaking feeling that it is a given. Maybe not in the next 4 years if Bush wins the presidency, but it will happen eventually. I think public opinion is shifting in this direction. It surely didn’t take but a few years to turn cigarette smoking into something almost criminal. Project Exile is an excellent step in the right direction. At least it is something that can be enforced. The effects of new and more stringent gun control laws will not mean a hill of beans if they are not enforceable.

Needs2know

17

About ten years ago, handgun control was a debate topic on the cpollege circuit. It is, of course, possible that the situation has changed, although I would be somewhat surprised if there were drastic changes. I’m also afraid that I don’t remember the cites from ten years ago. Anyway, I stopped being as opposed to handgun laws without changing my mind on the wisdom of owning one by facts such as the following:

  1. Estimates are that a ban on handguns, even if totally effective, would simply mean that people would use long arms (shotguns, rifles, etc.) and thus dramatically increase the lethality of crime.

  2. People who own handguns are about eight times more likely to be killed during a break-in than people who don’t–false sense of security among those who are untrained, perhaps?

  3. Handguns are woefully inaccurate. My room-mate, who was trained by the 82nd Airborne, says that the estimate for most handguns is about 50% accuracy from six feet by a shooter with training.

  4. Criminals are more deterred by the presence of a dog than any other “security” device.

So, don’t think that a handgun ban would really work, although I still wouldn’t own one for “home protection.” If I needed that kind of protection, I would load a shotgun with rock salt for the first shot (in case of an accident).

I agree with Glitch that more sure prosecution would be more likley to have an impact. A rule of thumb in the crime and punishment is tha surety of punishment is more effective in reducing/preventing crime than unenforced laws or harsh punishments which are seldom used.

Bucky

18

Glitch:

You’re right, I truly hate having a “maybe” for an answer.

The Danish (have to reduce my scope to preserve just a bit of accuracy)courts generally do “throw the book” at gun-related crime, at least if it’s premeditated (sp?). Crimes involving guns are relatively unusual and get a lot of media attention. And of course, the police really, truly hates the idea of armed criminals, so they’ll put a lot of ressources into solving those cases.

The illegal gun market is definitely not “thriving”, guns are hard to come by. Stolen military weapons appear in biker gang wars, politically motivated crime and well-planned robberies (money transports and the like), but they’re not really practical for everyday crime, while handguns are the luxury trade - expensive and hard to get. (And liable to get stolen :wink: ) The average robber gets no proper return on his investment in a pistol, neither does the burglar. I’ll part with my wallet on the first glimpse of a knife (or even if the guy is big), and most burglars will run if disturbed. They don’t have to render me harmless, I’m unarmed. They would probably take the greater risk by fighting me (at least, that’s what they might think if the lighting was bad :slight_smile: ).

This more or less leaves the psychos who don’t judge the risks but want to hurt someone - rapists, psychos. Guns in the hands of of their victims would have stopped some of them - but if that would mean arming the rest of society, including the criminals and (perhaps) driving violent crime as a whole upwards, would it be the moral decision to make ? I dunno - I think we’ll keep guns hard to get for everyone for the time being. It seems to work pretty well for us.

But of course, if the US can pull off the trick of disarming most criminals and still be able to let law-abiding citizens arm themselves, we might have to reconsider. And I guess cracking down hard on gun crime is a logical first step.

19

This debate, either pro or con, never ceases to amaze me whenever I encounter it - it’s not what people say, but rather what they don’t say.

We’re fascinated with effect but we ignore cause.

Not that anyone’s brought it up yet (but it usually does come up eventually), but the whole constitutional argument is a red-herring. Everyone knows, gun-control advocates and opponents alike, that original reasoning behind the hallowed “right to bear arms” is an ahistorical concept in today’s context (well, everyone except the militia groups I guess, but for all the things they’re known for, intelligence is not one of them, so they’re easily omitted for the sake of argument). In short, the reality that the second amendment reflects is not reality any more, ergo, Q.E.D., in your face, shut the hell up Billy Bob Buckshot.

So, why do Americans love guns, indeed, regard them as a divine right? Easy. The gun makers make sure they do. How? First, you need to recognize that military and law-enforcement contracts are not as lucrative as everyone else thinks they are. Volume means discounts. So, how do you increase profit with lower volume? Ask any first year business student: retail. How do you increase retail market share? Identify and exploit non-saturated markets. In this case, women are a good example. Give 'em guns to kill the rapists. So, now that I’ve identified the market segment, how do I market it effectively? Easy. I tell my prospective customers that I make guns for the military and law enforcement, and they kill bad guys real good. “Yes,” says prospective customer, “there is evil out there - evil that the military and police fight every day. I need the same tools they have!” so he goes out and buys an Israeli 9mm machine-pistol with a folding stock, laser sight, and a 50 shot clip filled with armor piercing bullets. And I’ll make sure to offer one for the ladies that’s got a pretty pattern engraved into it. Maybe chrome plated.

Bingo. Now I’m selling my killing machines that were originally developed for the highly specialized missions of my low paying customers at 100 times the profit. God Bless America.

So, in the end it’s all about technology and marketing, and American popular culture is all about shiny things – this is merely an extension of that, and this is why guns are part of American culture. It’s a well known fact that hunting rifles and shotguns do not kill people in the staggeringly high numbers that high-performance hand-guns do (contrary to what some posters here believe). Gun-control advocates don’t give a rat’s ass about Dad’s hunting rifle, but the NRA and their ilk continually stoke the passions to convince Billy Bob otherwise. It exasperates me – their arguments having nothing to do with hand-gun deaths in the United States – I keep thinking that someday they’ll say “Oh my, I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly disappear in a puff of logic (with apologies to Mr. Adams - Douglas, that is). But they’re merely the advocates and servants of the gun manufacturers who still, today, are looking for even more novel ways to push their highly-specialized products to market (Billy Bob thinks they do it in the name of his inalienable human rights, and they aren’t about to tell him otherwise - hell, he’s a no-charge lobbyist). And they’ll forever fight any legislation to limit these lethal products all in the name of something that isn’t real.

-whew-

That felt good.

“Maybe, just once, someone will call me ‘sir’ without adding, 'you’re making a scene.’” - Homer Simpson

20

In response to Lissa,

You pointed out that handguns are concealed weapons. This is why I feel that they have no purpose other than killing people. Yes, they can be used for “protection”, but if that is the purpose then couldn’t they be made more obvious?

I mean if all new handguns were manufactured in only one color - day glo orange - and outfitted with a tiny radio transponder so that they could easily be detected with a simple radio scanner, wouldn’t they still be just as useful in protecting your home? I think this would be especially attractive to gun collectors as it would allow them to “tag” their property in a distictive way. It would also be useful to police when searching for evidence or for criminals. (there’s probable cause for you right there)

The main problem that I have with handguns is that they are so easily hidden in one’s pants or jacket. This make commiting many crimes much easier. It would be much harder to rob a convenience store with a rifle. It would also be harder to mug someone at gunpoint.

I guess what I’m saying is that gun control doesn’t have to mean we take all guns away from everyone, just the one that are most likely to be used for criminal purpuses.

The other point that was brought up by Lissa is that you can still kill people with other weapons. While true, what I was referring to was specifically crimes of passion. In a fit of anger, a husband pulls out his gun and shoots his wife. Later he tells police that he just wanted to scare her, He didn’t really mean to kill her. Now, if the same man were to stab her with a knife, he would be unlikely to stab her 37 times. Thusly, she would have a better chance of survival.