Yes, people have always managed to find weapons to kill each other with, but guns are a lot easier to kill each other with. If I get into a fistfight with someone else, we’ll probably both have bruises by the time the fight is ended. If I get into a clubfight with someone, one or both of us may have a concussion by the time it’s over. If I get into a gunfight with someone, then one or both of us is likely to be dead when it’s over.
In any event, if we want to reduce gun crime (which, while not all violent crime, is a particularly lethal component of it), it seems to me that the first step would be to take a good look at the rest of the free world (western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc.), and figure out what they’re doing right that we’re not.
i’ll take my chances taking a hit from an unripe pear.
What i was trying to say, is to find ways to reduce violent crimes, and that is a freakonomics-esque task to undertake. to filter away all the noise and isolate a causation rather than correlation of violent crimes is pretty much an impossible task, but i do think that getting rid of at risk youths (through contraceptives, abortions, or more orwellian means) is a good start. I know that makes me sound like a heartless bastard, but isn’t it more heartless to bring in a child to a single-parent drug filled environment?
To cut down on violent crimes other than eliminating the perpetrators in conception, we can cut down on the causes, the most realistic of which is to cut down on the coveting - combat poverty and raise education.
OR, if you want to lower the number of deaths resulting from violent deaths, you just reduce the means of violent death that results in death, and that means a complete shut down of the arms-manufacturing market. The department of homeland security actually doing something productive than just preventing me from carrying toothpaste and deodorant onto planes and crack down on gun ownership. Domestic gunfire have posed a greater risk to homeland security than osama bin laden ever dreamed.
Maybe a Brit Doper could help me out here. As I understand it, gun ownership there is nearly impossible. Yet crime continues, with the criminals either armed with guns, or the victims with no way to defend themselves against a bigger guy with a knife or a blunt object or whatever.
You’re right, I wasn’t clear-I was thinking re the OP about the feasibility of banning guns. I didn’t mean there shouldn’t be laws designed to enforce responsibility in acquiring and keeping guns.
Many years ago I was in Old Bailey watching the trial of two men accused of robbing a rural grocery store. The old women who worked at the store chased the away by throwing tins (cans) of peas at them. Not only did the judge sentence the thieves to jail, he also made fun of their utter incompetence in such a manner that their testes may still not have grown back to full size.
If decreasing gun crime requires more restrictions on gun ownership for everyone, then I would rather we did *nothing *to reduce gun crime. I would rather have the crime rate stay right where it is than give up any of my rights.
As a broad generalization, crime levels in the UK are similar to the US, except for murder and rape, which are much higher in the US. And most murders are with guns (in the US). There is little gun-related crime in the UK and very few gun murders - about 70 per year.
Guns have not been used for self-defence in the UK for a long time. To get a firearms certificate, you have to give a good reason. “self defence” has not been a valid reason since 1946 (I think - too lazy to check the exact date). So actual gun legislation over the last 50 years or so has not effect on whether the populace can protect itself. People have not used guns to protect themselves for a long time. Hence you can look at charts of crime and gun crime and note that the hand-gun ban after Dunblane had zero effect on regular crime. That is not at all surprising: the hand-gun ban removed about 160,000 guns from a population of about 60 million. It also removed less than 10% of the guns in circulation - there are about 2 million shotguns and rifles (mostly shotguns).
This is a minor thing, but I think removing the possibility of appeals is not a good idea. Mistakes are made and police and prosecutors, even if we assume 100% good intentions, screw up so removing the chance to appeal increases the possibility of putting an innocent person in jail.
Is it really illegal to attempt to purchase a firearm if you are not eligible?
Why not how can we reduce violent crime in America?
Why is being shot with a gun so much more horrible than being hacked to death with a machete, or tortured to death in a basement, or burned to death by having gasoline poured over you?
In California it is a misdemeanor to file a false application (one question on the application is whether you are eligible). Once the firearm is in your possession it is another crime.
Because it is easier for gun-control activists to go without guns than it is to go without machetes, gasoline, or all the everyday objects that are easily converted into instruments of torture. Then they get to pat themselves on the back and say they’re saving lives, while thousands of people are smashed to bits in car wrecks every day. “But cars aren’t designed to kill people!” they say, even though automobiles are by far the most dangerous objects in a modern human’s possession. What the hell. I guess if they have no use for a potentially dangerous tool, it is high time to ban it, but if it conveniences them personally, it is a necessary evil.
Who the hell are you to decide what is too dangerous for me? And are you saying gun violence is okay as long as it only involves drug addicts, because it is better for poor addicts in the ghetto to be victims of gun crime than for your kids to be legally tempted to ruin their afternoon snorting coke?
Preventing drug addicts from getting shot is better than preventing them from willfully endangering themselves with their chemical hobby if you ask me. But what do I know? You are the benevolent nanny looking out for my best interests, after all.
As to the OP, I suggest spending a little less taxpayer money on [insert your pet government waste project here] and a little more on police education, recruitment, equipment and salary. And hey, why don’t we pay teachers more, too? I’m of the opinion that crime is exacerbated by poverty, which is exacerbated by a poor or limited education. We’ll never eliminate gun crime, but we can lower it. I’m as libertarian as the next guy, but I can always get on board with spending tax money on cops and teachers.
I am for legalizing and taxing all drugs. You can not win through prohibition,that is clear. We could tax them and actually have a bunch of new jobs and a bigger tax base. About now that sounds real good with a depression coming on.
Illegal drugs corrupt the police and judges. They waste money imprisoning people who need rehab . They help finance the Taliban and the Afghan and Pakistani insurgencies. They prop up and enrich dictators and corrupt nation states. It just does not work.
Our streets would be much safer if an expensive addiction did not require stealing money to finance. As long as they are profitable ,turf wars will be fought killing innocent bystanders. It is a waste .
Not only are you not allowed a gun to defend your home with, but the regular police are not armed either.
This is a very popular policy.
Contrary to your unsupported statement above, (as amarone also posted) this leads to less murders and rapes, far less gun crime and massively less school shootings.
The logical conclusion is not that an unarmed victim is at greater risk, but that an armed criminal is far more dangerous.
If this is also addressed to Brits, and by “home invasion” you mean entry to the home by criminals while the owners are still present - leading to some sort of incident, the answer is “very rare”. Homeowners being prosecuted is also very rare, such that when it does happen it makes national news.
Because someone’s much more likely to attempt to shoot me with a gun than to attempt any of those things, and if someone does attempt those other things, I have a much greater chance of survival than with the gun.
:(:smack: :eek: :mad: