Prohibit Gun Posession by Citizens?

[Ravenman]

I just noted this story about the declining murder rates in several large cities, including Washington DC and New York City. It says that NYC has its lowest murder rate in four decades, but it still has very restrictive gun laws.

Now, how can we buy the proposition that restrictive gun laws lead to more crime? In New York, under its restrictive gun laws, first there was a dramatic increase in murders in the '70s and '80s, and now there’s been a dramatic decline that been unfolding for more than 10 years… but there was no change in the gun laws! Isn’t this evidence that gun laws are a very minor part of the trends that dictate crime rates in particular locations?

[artcramp]

The argument for whether or not firearms decrease crime is moot, and will not be proven one way or another until sociology matures considerably as a science.

They are one factor, when several factors may be present, including number of police officers, employment, anti-gang programs et cetera.

Both sides can argue about this until they are blue in the face, and nothing will ever be changed or proven.

Facts:

Guns are useful and at times necessary for those who live outside of urban settings.

Gun control has made it only slightly more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. Stolen guns can’t be pawned etc. because of the trail, so they are usually bought and sold at reduced prices from dealers who need to move them quick and make a little profit.

The founding fathers believed it necessary to protect the right of the citizenry to bear arms. Times have changed, but the concepts that this country were founded on were created for good reasons from hard won wisdom.

Soldiers at war who are usually pressed for equipment have historically received weapons and armor from families to preserve not only our freedoms but the lives of their loved ones. How do you think the Tommy Gun got the moniker “trench broom”?

[Arwin]

@Renob

Perhaps, but correlation is not causation. Poor people are more likely to engage in violence, but does that mean that being poor made them engage in violence, or does it mean that the same factors that made them poor also make them prone to violence?

No, that’s true. For one, there has to be social inequality or racial segregation, or similar causes for social disintegration, and there has to be something to gain (socio-economic inequality).

I grew up in a poor rural area that had lots of guns. There was very little gun violence (although there was a lot of physical violence – spousal abuse, fights at school, etc.). Simply being poor and having guns available does not lead to the type of violence that plagues D.C.

Still more than where I live, which is not D.C. It’s not even the States. I’ve never even been in the U.S.

Actually, that’s completely false. Gun accidents among children is exceptionally rare, as is accidental shootings of the sort you describe.

It’s not. More children die from gun accidents in the U.S. than criminals shoot each other here, even corrected for the different population sizes. Check infoplease or a similar statistics site.

What part of DC do you live in? That’s a bit odd.

I understand your confusion. I’ve lived in the Netherlands all my life, and one year in Stockholm, Sweden.

Do you mean to say that there are few gun related deaths in your area of town? I’m a little confused by this statement. Could you plesae clarify.

As above. I was talking about the Netherlands, sorry for this not being clear - I thought I added this to my profile and it would show in the top right corner of my posts so I didn’t mention this specifically.

It is also one of the reasons why I do think poverty is also a factor - the Netherlands ranks very high in low poverty figures.

I must disagree. Perhaps if we had a national ban on all gun sales and a wholesale confiscation of guns, and if everyone actually turned in their guns, your scenario would play out. However, the number of guns in circulation in the U.S. today, and the fact that they will never be banned (leaving aside the whole debate that arises about whether or not they should be banned), makes your scenario wishful thinking, at best.

That’s turning the issue around, stating that my scenario can’t play out because guns will never be outlawed. Kind of a moot point.

As it is, D.C. will never see a reduction in illegal guns because guns are so easily obtained from outside D.C. and brought in. D.C.'s gun ban has had almost 30 years to work. It clearly hasn’t reduced gun violence at all.

That’s the exact same kind of logic countries around the Netherlands used to use to criticise our drug policies.

It’s time to repeal this ineffective law and let law abiding citizens like myself own a means to defend my home.

A slightly side-tracked question, have you ever needed one for this purpose yourself?

Again, I don’t think that’s scientifically proven at all. Sure, poor people are more likely to commit crime, but it doesn’t logically follow that they commit crime because they are poor. Correlation, as I said above, is not causation.

No it is not, and it is a mistake often made. But a bigger mistake would be to reverse it and go back to saying that the cause is simply that some people are evil, others are good. I thought we evolved beyond that by now, but I keep being proven wrong.

[Arwin]

I collected some data in an earlier discussion that I thought I might as well share here:

---

Here’s some numbers for you:

In the Netherlands an estimated 2% of households have a firearm (1999). We have ‘only’ 70 deaths by firearm. In Belgium, an estimated 20% of households carry a gun. They had 384 deaths by firearm in 1999. In the U.S., an estimated 40% households carry a gun. They had about 30.000 deaths by firearm in 1999 (and 100.000 wounded).

Now of course we need to correct these numbers for population. U.S. were about 275.000.000 then, the Netherlands about 15.500.000 and Belgium about 10.000.000. That makes 1 in 9000 for the U.S., 1 in 26.000 for Belgium, and 1 in 220.000 for the Netherlands.

Combine the number of deaths by gun we have with the percentage of gun owners, and compare that to the U.S. (which we often do) and you will understand we have a hard time understanding people telling themselves the world is a safer place with guns around.

EDIT- some U.S. figures here:

Deaths by Firearms, 1979?2010

bringing in another area where the US feels relatively careless, traffic related deaths, and comparing them with gun-related deaths:

“Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among Americans 1-34 years old. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the total societal cost of crashes exceeds $200 billion annually. Contributing to the death toll are alcohol, speed, lack of belt use and other problematic driver behaviors. Death rates vary widely by vehicle type, driver age and gender, and other factors.”

So, these 40.000 deaths per year are acceptable, right? Let’s not do anything about them, people need to drive to work and stuff, so the benefits far outweigh the costs. Oh, but wait. It’s illegal to drink and drive. It’s illegal to break the speed limit, it’s illegal not to use a seatbelt, etc.

Are we being that careful about guns? I’m not so sure. But what are the benefits of carrying a gun? In terms of crime prevention, murder being the most serious crime, you tell me. If you were to choose between having a car or having a rifle, what would you choose? Which one is really useful? Which one is worth all those deaths.

---

when someone claimed this policy didn’t work in the UK, I replied this:

Figures, please. I can’t find any to confirm. Rather the opposite, such as this interesting footnote in an online article:

[2] France, for example, has a higher proportion of households that have firearms than the U.K, and consequently has around 6 firearm deaths per 100,000 people, compared to the U.K that has a rate of less than 1 death per 100,000. See the table of firearm ownership and deaths in industrialised countries in Chapter 6: After the Smoke Clears: Assessing the Effects of Small Arms Availability of the Small Arms Survey 2001: Profiling the Problem, compiled by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva (Oxford, Oxford University Press: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/Year...S2001Ch6_en.pdf, published 2001/accessed 15.04.02), p.1.

http://www.ex.ac.uk/politics/pol_da.../new_page_5.htm

Also, you’re claim that it didn’t do anything good for the U.K. actually has little bearing on our current discussion, because there were never many guns to begin with:

“Australia’s rate of firearm-related homicide is 0.4 per 100,000 population compared to 0.7 in Canada and 6.3 in the United States of America. In the United Kingdom, however, the firearm homicide rate is 0.1 per 100,000. The culture of firearms is less pervasive in the UK.”

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/961104.html

[JXJohns]

@enipla

What seems odd to me, is that the usually pro-gun conservatives are the ones that will eventually chip away at the 2nd.

I would say that there are some pro-gun conservatives that may chip away at 2nd amendment rights. There are plenty of anti-gun liberals however who would do well more than chip away at the 2nd…

[Razorsharp]

@Polycarp

I lived for a few months in an apartment building with certifiably insane crack users in a neighboring apartment – and I was glad they had no access to weapons.

Whaddya mean, “glad they had no access to weapons”? Cause the legislature passed a law outlawing the possession of firearms? (Oh, the legislature cares so much about us and our safety, that they passed a law. We should all feel so warm and comfy now.)

Sheesh, do you actually assume, because they passed a law, that a bunch of “certifiably insane crack users” ain’t gonna packin’ heat? Isn’t that a bit naive?

Do you not realize that a law against the possession of firearms, only disarms those who are law-abiding?

Hey, and while we’re at it, do you know what the only crime a gun is responsible for?

It’s to make a previously law-abiding citizen a criminal, with the passage of a law that makes it a crime to possess a firearm.

[Polycarp]

@Razorsharp

Whaddya mean, “glad they had no access to weapons”? Cause the legislature passed a law outlawing the possession of firearms? (Oh, the legislature cares so much about us and our safety, that they passed a law. We should all feel so warm and comfy now.)

Sheesh, do you actually assume, because they passed a law, that a bunch of “certifiably insane crack users” ain’t gonna packin’ heat? Isn’t that a bit naive?

Do you not realize that a law against the possession of firearms, only disarms those who are law-abiding?

Hey, and while we’re at it, do you know what the only crime a gun is responsible for?

It’s to make a previously law-abiding citizen a criminal, with the passage of a law that makes it a crime to possess a firearm.

You know, an intelligent and courteous poster asked, a few posts down from where you quoted me, what I meant by this, and I actually answered him.

It might be a good idea for you to read the thread, and then to emulate him in how you conduct yourself.

[buttonjockey308]

@MEBuckner

Well, if the media reports are to be believed, the San Francisco proposal is not to license but (according to NPR) to completely ban possession of handguns by anyone except for “police, security guards, and military personnel”.

They’ve done it in Chicago. You cannot legally possess a handgun within the Chicago city limits, unless you are otherwise licensed by the State of Illinois to do so. They did it (those crafty bastards) by saying you have to register your handgun with the city, and then ceasing to issue registrations.

That doesn’t keep the mutts on the streets from having handguns though. Nope, sure doesn’t.

[enipla]

@Arwin

It’s time to repeal this ineffective law and let law abiding citizens like myself own a means to defend my home.

A slightly side-tracked question, have you ever needed one for this purpose yourself?

This question was not directed at me, but I would like to address it.

I think the answer is obvious - Deterrent.

The problem with quoting crime statistics is that we will never be able to put a number on how many crimes did not happen because a homeowner may have a gun.

I live in a pretty isolated area. There are perhaps 200 homes on about 3000 acres in this valley. In the 12 years I have lived here, I have not heard of a single robbery or burglary. I would guess that 90% of the households in the valley have at the very least a hunting rifle or shotgun.

Personally, I have used a gun to scare off bears that would not be intimidated by yelling at them, or banging pots and pans together. I’ve done that three times. The report from a large caliber gun is the only thing that seems to get there attention. And while it’s dangerous to be outside when a bear is around even with a gun, a gun is a hell of a lot better protection than pots n’ pans.

[Monocracy]

@Abbie Carmichael

Why is it, then, that West Virginia remains a relatively safe place to live while DC is so dangerous?

population density

@Arwin

Here’s some numbers for you:

In the Netherlands an estimated 2% of households have a firearm (1999). We have ‘only’ 70 deaths by firearm. In Belgium, an estimated 20% of households carry a gun. They had 384 deaths by firearm in 1999. In the U.S., an estimated 40% households carry a gun. They had about 30.000 deaths by firearm in 1999 (and 100.000 wounded).

Now of course we need to correct these numbers for population. U.S. were about 275.000.000 then, the Netherlands about 15.500.000 and Belgium about 10.000.000. That makes 1 in 9000 for the U.S., 1 in 26.000 for Belgium, and 1 in 220.000 for the Netherlands.

Combine the number of deaths by gun we have with the percentage of gun owners, and compare that to the U.S. (which we often do) and you will My final opinion is that understand we have a hard time understanding people telling themselves the world is a safer place with guns around.

If you cherry-pick numbers, you can make the stats say whatever you want. Here, i’ll do it to. In Switzerland, 27.2% of households have guns, and the homicide rate by gun (per 100,000) is .46. France has 22.6% of households and a rate of .55. Belgium 16.6% and .87. Northern Ireland, 8.4% and 3.55. So in these cases, homicide rates go down as gun ownership increases.

Check out Table 1 on this site: http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html Even though it’s a pro-gun control site, the chart doesn’t support their position. Gun related deaths seem better correlated with the society and cultural of a particular country rather than the percentage of households with guns.

[Monocracy]

I also wanted to add that i think private gun ownership is necessary for the security of a Free State. Just look how good a job the Iraqis are doing fighting off an immensely superior fighting force due to their easy access to weapons.

[Razorsharp]

@Polycarp

You know, an intelligent and courteous poster asked, a few posts down from where you quoted me, what I meant by this, and I actually answered him.

It might be a good idea for you to read the thread, and then to emulate him in how you conduct yourself.

That’s a big 'ol bunch of bull. The poster asked you, “If they are willing to break the law by using crack, why would it bother them to illegally posses a firearm?”

You “answered” with, (Uh… well… uh…) “They apparently didn’t have connections to get illegal weapons.”

You don’t really know if they had illegal firearms or not, you just assumed that, because there was a law, those “certifiably insane crack users” didn’t have them.

Well, one thing is for certain, law-abiding citizens did not have them. A fact that, like you, those “certifiably insane crack users” also assume.

And I have no intention of being courteous to anyone who promotes legislation designed to rob me of any rights, liberties or security.

[Polycarp]

@Razorsharp

That’s a big 'ol bunch of bull. The poster asked you, “If they are willing to break the law by using crack, why would it bother them to illegally posses a firearm?”

You “answered” with, (Uh… well… uh…) “They apparently didn’t have connections to get illegal weapons.”

You don’t really know if they had illegal firearms or not, you just assumed that, because there was a law, those “certifiably insane crack users” didn’t have them.

Well, one thing is for certain, law-abiding citizens did not have them. A fact that, like you, those “certifiably insane crack users” also assume.

And I have no intention of being courteous to anyone who promotes legislation designed to rob me of any rights, liberties or security.

Gee, it’s so wonderful that you are telepathic, and “know” what I was thinking! Can you read what I’m thinking right now? :mad:

[DocCathode]

Razorsharp I’d recommend being courteous to Polycarp for the same reason I’d recommend being courteous to Gandhi. Rudeness won’t get you anywhere and will make many people very angry with you.

Polycarp You don’t need to get upset. Throngs of your supporters shall rush in and do that for you. You’re just supposed to sit there and look at all the angry people with compassion and cry because your brothers and sisters are fighting.

[El_Kabong]

And I have no intention of being courteous to anyone…

Actually, having read many of Razorsharp’s previous contributions to this board, IMHO he could have stopped right there and have been equally correct.

[1010011010]

@Arwin

Combine the number of deaths by gun we have with the percentage of gun owners, and compare that to the U.S. (which we often do) and you will understand we have a hard time understanding people telling themselves the world is a safer place with guns around.

Combine the gun deaths with the percentage of gun owners? Yes. Lets.
1:9000 in the US and 0.40 gun owners… so we multiply 9000 by 0.4
1:3600 in the US.
1:26000 for Belgium and 0.2 gun owners… so we multiply 26000 by 0.2
1:5200 in Belgium.
1:220000 for Netherlands and 0.02 gun owners… so we multiply 220000 by 0.02
1:4400 in the Netherlands.

So, for equivalent risk, we’re safest from “gun death” when 20 percent of the population owns guns. Since no other types of death or non-death causing crimes were presented these aren’t very useful statistics (I.E. it wouldn’t be very comforting to have the modest decrease in “gun death” if there’s a disproportionate increase in “knife death” or “pointed stick death” making us overall more likely to be killed. Of perhaps a decrease in “gun death” offset by increase in non-fatal maimings.)

[artcramp]

@Arwin

I collected some data in an earlier discussion that I thought I might as well share here:

---

Here’s some numbers for you:

In the Netherlands an estimated 2% of households have a firearm (1999). We have ‘only’ 70 deaths by firearm. In Belgium, an estimated 20% of households carry a gun. They had 384 deaths by firearm in 1999. In the U.S., an estimated 40% households carry a gun. They had about 30.000 deaths by firearm in 1999 (and 100.000 wounded).

Now of course we need to correct these numbers for population. U.S. were about 275.000.000 then, the Netherlands about 15.500.000 and Belgium about 10.000.000. That makes 1 in 9000 for the U.S., 1 in 26.000 for Belgium, and 1 in 220.000 for the Netherlands.

Combine the number of deaths by gun we have with the percentage of gun owners, and compare that to the U.S. (which we often do) and you will understand we have a hard time understanding people telling themselves the world is a safer place with guns around.

EDIT- some U.S. figures here:
Deaths by Firearms, 1979?2010

bringing in another area where the US feels relatively careless, traffic related deaths, and comparing them with gun-related deaths:

“Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among Americans 1-34 years old. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the total societal cost of crashes exceeds $200 billion annually. Contributing to the death toll are alcohol, speed, lack of belt use and other problematic driver behaviors. Death rates vary widely by vehicle type, driver age and gender, and other factors.”

So, these 40.000 deaths per year are acceptable, right? Let’s not do anything about them, people need to drive to work and stuff, so the benefits far outweigh the costs. Oh, but wait. It’s illegal to drink and drive. It’s illegal to break the speed limit, it’s illegal not to use a seatbelt, etc.

Are we being that careful about guns? I’m not so sure. But what are the benefits of carrying a gun? In terms of crime prevention, murder being the most serious crime, you tell me. If you were to choose between having a car or having a rifle, what would you choose? Which one is really useful? Which one is worth all those deaths.

---

when someone claimed this policy didn’t work in the UK, I replied this:

Figures, please. I can’t find any to confirm. Rather the opposite, such as this interesting footnote in an online article:

[2] France, for example, has a higher proportion of households that have firearms than the U.K, and consequently has around 6 firearm deaths per 100,000 people, compared to the U.K that has a rate of less than 1 death per 100,000. See the table of firearm ownership and deaths in industrialised countries in Chapter 6: After the Smoke Clears: Assessing the Effects of Small Arms Availability of the Small Arms Survey 2001: Profiling the Problem, compiled by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva (Oxford, Oxford University Press: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/Year...S2001Ch6_en.pdf, published 2001/accessed 15.04.02), p.1.

http://www.ex.ac.uk/politics/pol_da.../new_page_5.htm

Also, you’re claim that it didn’t do anything good for the U.K. actually has little bearing on our current discussion, because there were never many guns to begin with:

“Australia’s rate of firearm-related homicide is 0.4 per 100,000 population compared to 0.7 in Canada and 6.3 in the United States of America. In the United Kingdom, however, the firearm homicide rate is 0.1 per 100,000. The culture of firearms is less pervasive in the UK.”

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/961104.html

From the International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 1998 by Gordon C. Barclay & Cynthia Tavares:

Homicides, USA, per 100,000 = 6.26
Homicides, UK, per 100,000 = 1.43
Homicides, France, per 100,000 = 1.64

So yes, homicide is much higher in the US. However…

Current studies of the “war on drugs” era and the “prohibition” era show that homicide rates rise sharply during such periods due to the proliferation of organized crime. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1419

Do France and the UK have any similar programs in place? Any gangs or organized crime to speak of? I am curious if this does not explain the difference in homicide rates at least as well as the anti-gun arguments…