Fast Forward: 10 Years After We Ban Guns...?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
If you are part of any of those increases I bet you consider them significant
Can't bring a fist or foot to a gun fight. Seriously this is your mindset? Good luck with that, I would almost find it humorous if your home was robbed at gun point. I bet you feel differently after the fact, for some they have to become victims before they understand.
The homicide rate nearly doubled in the UK after the handgun ban in 1996 and never started to fall until after 2003 when they flooded the streets with more police. They have finally fallen back to where they were when the ban went into effect.
This is from a site that claims that gun bans are followed by homicide rate increases in all cases. But it's hard to find a brief spike several years later very convincing.
Can you break it down? Is there society safer? Did they give up anything substantial to achieve what they gained?
Yes they are safer. Their crime rates are down since the restrictions. New Zealand on the other hand has had their rates fall even faster than Australia. Their gun rights have remained intact. The violent crime rates are down even more in the US. Am I to assume the restrictions in Australia had anything to do with that?
Mass murder was pretty rare in Australia before Port Arthur, which lead to the restrictions. They are still rare. Port Arthur was the worst mass murder in modern times there. It has not been duplicated since the restrictions but I think it is a bit premature to pull out the mission accomplished banner. There have also been 3 mass murders by fire since that time.
The cons with money don't want to keep the illegals out. Ds gave them that option in the 80's and the Rs turned it down. Remember everything Rs do is aimed at one goal, cheap labor. Can you think of one policy they actually vote for that doesn't have this aim?
This is from a site that claims that gun bans are followed by homicide rate increases in all cases. But it's hard to find a brief spike several years later very convincing.
But if you look at that chart again....you'll see that in 2011, the homicide rate by handgun is not lower than is was in 1990. In fact it's starting to tick upwards again.
A poll was taken recently in the UK, where Brits stated at over 75% wished to have their handgun rights restored.
I'll look for the survey that was taken....can'r remember where I saw it. But I believe it was on the Daliy Mail's website.
This is from a site that claims that gun bans are followed by homicide rate increases in all cases. But it's hard to find a brief spike several years later very convincing.
Next thread/question.......What's it like 10 years after they ban abortion?
If I am reading your graph correctly then 10 years after the ban look pretty much like the 6 years before the ban - am I missing something there? I thought the whole point of banning guns is it would lower the homicide rate. Four years after the ban went into effect showed no change and then you had the spike.This is from a site that claims that gun bans are followed by homicide rate increases in all cases. But it's hard to find a brief spike several years later very convincing.
NO, the WHOLE point of banning guns is NOT to lower the homicide rate. Where did you get that idea?
Sure, part of the aim would be to lower the homicide-BY-GUN rate, but that isn't what we are looking at here.
The biggest part of the aim would presumably be to lower the death and injury rates where guns are involved. That's by far a much bigger problem, especially when you consider that murder is consistently the lowest crime rate of all major crimes.
You'll notice that people who post claims that banning guns doesn't help or makes things worse NEVER talk about accidental deaths or injuries due to guns after these bans. They cherry pick a couple of lower-frequency crimes, and most of the time don't even zero in on crimes where guns were used. It's murders, not firearms murders. It's aggravated assaults, not aggravated assaults where a gun was used. And so on.
I got that idea because this issue comes up every time there is a mass shooting.
Yeah but notice that it isn't the gun-control nuts saying a ban will cut all homicide rates (regardless of weapon used). It's the anti-gun-control nuts who throw that up as a straw man. And, as in this case, even when they cherry-pick the data, their argument is very weak.
I think a program to reduce the ability to get guns will reduce violence over time. It will not completely eliminate the school shooting syndrome however.
[
This is just a thought experiment since it's pretty silly to think America cares enough about children and others being shot, but imagine that we bit the bullet (see what I did there?) and banned all guns.
Imagine we figured out a way to do it that worked (whatever that might be) and got it done.
Now it's 10 years later. What would you expect to see?
Would it be a clear success? Would America be a less violent place or would it be ravaged with violent crime now that only criminals have guns? Would wackjob mass killers simply have turned to different weapons to produce the same or greater carnage? Micro drone bombs, maybe?
Would gun "rights" still be a big issue? Instead of always arguing about tougher gun laws would some party (no names please) be staking its election chances on repealing the existing gun laws?
What's your take?
Chicago...where guns are banned and they just had they're deadliest September ever.
I posted this in another thread but since people keep using Chicago maybe people will find this context useful:
I took the following from a reddit comment from a article a week or so ago, you might find it interesting or not:
Incredible amounts of misinformation in this thread, so I'll summarize a few of the most important corrections here. I would think that whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun, you'd at least be pro-truth, so let's not downvote for ideology here.
1) Chicago (and Cook County) is ~~several orders of magnitude~~ much, much larger than most American cities, which skews the numbers. On a per capita basis, Chicago doesn't even crack the top 30 for murder rates in the US. If Chicago had the violent crime rate of Atlanta (1433 per 100,000) there likely would have been almost TWICE as many shootings this past weekend as there were. Chicago's violent crime rate, for the record, is around 884/100,000. As long as you're not living in Englewood or Austin and you're not in a gang (~80% of gun violence in the city is gang-related), you're in a very safe American city. The violent crime rate in Chicago has been on a general downward trend for the past 3 and a half decades.
2) Guns are NOT illegal in Chicago, they're just onerous to purchase. Several stores and restaurants in Chicago will post policies regarding whether people are allowed to bring guns into the establishment, actually! Which in any of the other big three US cities (LA, NYC) would seem like the wild west. [Edit to add: There are also few if any penalties for being caught with a gun that isn't yours. If Chicago had strong laws against possessing a gun that isn't registered to you - and enforced those laws - we'd actually be seeing real gun control in Chicago that doesn't hurt law-abiding gun owners]
3) As /r/xeroshogun points out, Chicago is in a unique situation because the CITY has strict gun control laws, but 15 minutes outside the city in any direction is another story entirely. Indiana and Wisconsin both make it very easy to get guns, and Illinois isn't exactly cracking down on guns either. [1500 guns used in crimes in Chicago from 2009-2013 were traced to a single gun store located about 15 minutes outside of the city](http://abc7chicago.com/news/protest...alers-at-chucks-gun-shop-in-riverdale/770226/).
4) By comparison to Chicago, New York City has EXTREMELY onerous gun laws, but unlike Chicago those gun laws are also matched by similarly strict (though not as strict as the city) laws in the rest of the state, and in bordering states New Jersey and Connecticut. Perhaps not coincidentally, New York City has one of the lowest per capita violent crime rates of any major city in the United States, so much so that several precincts have ~0 gun-related violent crimes to report in any given recent year. By NYC standards, Chicago's gun laws practically look like "move here, get a free gun!"
5) Moreover, ATF stats seem to indicate that it is not city laws that curb gun access, but [federal laws and tracking](http://m.phys.org/news/2015-09-criminals-guns-social.html).
6) Finally, people keep saying straw purchases are illegal. That's right! But they're also *really easy*. Living in Chicago, it's very easy to find someone who's legally able to purchase on your behalf. Living in NYC, it's much, much harder. Don't just look at how illegal something is, but how difficult it is to do that illegal thing. In Cook County, the situation is "illegal but easy" when it comes to guns - again, because of the laws of the surrounding counties.
7) And as /u/letsgohawks points out, "once you get your Illinois FOID card, guns are easy to get. You don't even have to leave Cook county. And since they're not actually registered to you, strawman purchases are almost impossible to stop." So I don't know where people get the idea that getting guns in Chicago is a hard thing to do.
Edit: formatting
Edit: "Several orders of magnitude" means something different than I thought it meant. Phrase corrected, thank you /u/shaleena
Edit: Added #6 and #7
Final Edit: Scroll down and you will see so much thinly-veiled racism it's incredible. What's even more incredible is that someone can say something like "I'll be the one courageous enough to say it: everywhere the black people hold the majority is violent and uncivilized" and have positive karma. These Chicago crime articles are dog whistles for racists, and the one phrase all racists have in common is "how is it racist to say ________?"
I took the following from a reddit comment from a article a week or so ago, you might find it interesting or not:
Incredible amounts of misinformation in this thread, so I'll summarize a few of the most important corrections here. I would think that whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun, you'd at least be pro-truth, so let's not downvote for ideology here.
1) Chicago (and Cook County) is ~~several orders of magnitude~~ much, much larger than most American cities, which skews the numbers. On a per capita basis, Chicago doesn't even crack the top 30 for murder rates in the US. If Chicago had the violent crime rate of Atlanta (1433 per 100,000) there likely would have been almost TWICE as many shootings this past weekend as there were. Chicago's violent crime rate, for the record, is around 884/100,000. As long as you're not living in Englewood or Austin and you're not in a gang (~80% of gun violence in the city is gang-related), you're in a very safe American city. The violent crime rate in Chicago has been on a general downward trend for the past 3 and a half decades.
2) Guns are NOT illegal in Chicago, they're just onerous to purchase. Several stores and restaurants in Chicago will post policies regarding whether people are allowed to bring guns into the establishment, actually! Which in any of the other big three US cities (LA, NYC) would seem like the wild west. [Edit to add: There are also few if any penalties for being caught with a gun that isn't yours. If Chicago had strong laws against possessing a gun that isn't registered to you - and enforced those laws - we'd actually be seeing real gun control in Chicago that doesn't hurt law-abiding gun owners]
3) As /r/xeroshogun points out, Chicago is in a unique situation because the CITY has strict gun control laws, but 15 minutes outside the city in any direction is another story entirely. Indiana and Wisconsin both make it very easy to get guns, and Illinois isn't exactly cracking down on guns either. [1500 guns used in crimes in Chicago from 2009-2013 were traced to a single gun store located about 15 minutes outside of the city](http://abc7chicago.com/news/protest...alers-at-chucks-gun-shop-in-riverdale/770226/).
4) By comparison to Chicago, New York City has EXTREMELY onerous gun laws, but unlike Chicago those gun laws are also matched by similarly strict (though not as strict as the city) laws in the rest of the state, and in bordering states New Jersey and Connecticut. Perhaps not coincidentally, New York City has one of the lowest per capita violent crime rates of any major city in the United States, so much so that several precincts have ~0 gun-related violent crimes to report in any given recent year. By NYC standards, Chicago's gun laws practically look like "move here, get a free gun!"
5) Moreover, ATF stats seem to indicate that it is not city laws that curb gun access, but [federal laws and tracking](http://m.phys.org/news/2015-09-criminals-guns-social.html).
6) Finally, people keep saying straw purchases are illegal. That's right! But they're also *really easy*. Living in Chicago, it's very easy to find someone who's legally able to purchase on your behalf. Living in NYC, it's much, much harder. Don't just look at how illegal something is, but how difficult it is to do that illegal thing. In Cook County, the situation is "illegal but easy" when it comes to guns - again, because of the laws of the surrounding counties.
7) And as /u/letsgohawks points out, "once you get your Illinois FOID card, guns are easy to get. You don't even have to leave Cook county. And since they're not actually registered to you, strawman purchases are almost impossible to stop." So I don't know where people get the idea that getting guns in Chicago is a hard thing to do.
Edit: formatting
Edit: "Several orders of magnitude" means something different than I thought it meant. Phrase corrected, thank you /u/shaleena
Edit: Added #6 and #7
Final Edit: Scroll down and you will see so much thinly-veiled racism it's incredible. What's even more incredible is that someone can say something like "I'll be the one courageous enough to say it: everywhere the black people hold the majority is violent and uncivilized" and have positive karma. These Chicago crime articles are dog whistles for racists, and the one phrase all racists have in common is "how is it racist to say ________?"
Agree.
A lot better analysis. Those that claim that other countries have lower crime/murder rates with stricter gun laws are very suspect IMO. Analyze the data from this country....from our cities that have strict gun laws and those that don't.
Conservatives claim that stricter gun laws in Chicago, for example, contribute to more murders.
How about forming an independent commision (not politicians) to study the problem, get some answers.....the truth....instead of continually arguing/politicizing it.
Last edited:
The bottom line is that if we ban guns, you and your family will be at more risk. Period. Bunch of damn pansies out there want to make this into a mind control, police state. No thanks.
The Chicago point has been debunked. I would guess there have been many independent studies with recommendations and yet here we are. Why don't we just trust the market and open the gun industry to market forces? Trust the people, no need for any government at all. Now that's a trap of course, but it makes me smile all the same.
This is just a thought experiment since it's pretty silly to think America cares enough about children and others being shot, but imagine that we bit the bullet (see what I did there?) and banned all guns.
Imagine we figured out a way to do it that worked (whatever that might be) and got it done.
Now it's 10 years later. What would you expect to see?
Would it be a clear success? Would America be a less violent place or would it be ravaged with violent crime now that only criminals have guns? Would wackjob mass killers simply have turned to different weapons to produce the same or greater carnage? Micro drone bombs, maybe?
Would gun "rights" still be a big issue? Instead of always arguing about tougher gun laws would some party (no names please) be staking its election chances on repealing the existing gun laws?
What's your take?
Easy, they will print them with 3d printers. People have already done it.
Grow their own?
Down by the 7-11?
Not seeing the parallel. Drugs are a repeat-business industry supported by a large number of addicts and frequent users. Guns aren't.
The black market will always get you what you want. Just because drugs are used more doesn't mean every neighborhood won't have a gun guy.
This idea that every wannabe crook or mentally unstable person has extensive underworld contacts is so incredibly ludicrous that I can't understand why this argument crops up over and over again.
Sure, good laws won't stop every crook, but it will stop most who aren't hard core.
I imagine some people a long time ago saying we shouldn't have laws about which side of the road to drive on because some people will simply ignore them.
When there is a bombing, you blame the bomber.
When drunk driving, you blame the driver.
When a shooting, you blame the guns.
Why is that?
When drunk driving, you blame the driver.
When a shooting, you blame the guns.
Why is that?
Funny, but not all that true.
When there is a bomber, we blame Islam.
When drunk driving, we blame alcohol.
When a shooting, we blame liberals for preventing everyone from packing heat.
Well I guess that depends on what the media wants to report.
There is evil all over the world in all shapes and sizes.
Do you suggest that the laws that are all ready on the books get inforced, or confiscate every thing from humans that can cause death, be it one person or a thousand.
We probably should also ban airliners as those too can cause mass casualties.
I think you're not paying attention if you don't think bombs and booze get blame too.
There are already gun free zones where it is illegal to have a gun. Yet in Chicago for example, there are constant shootings and deaths occurring that are the cause of guns that are not registered to people who are criminals.
How many things that are illegal in this country yet quite prevalent and accessible? To fix the problem we need to go in the right direction and it is more than just guns!
How many things that are illegal in this country yet quite prevalent and accessible? To fix the problem we need to go in the right direction and it is more than just guns!
We should weigh the costs and make rational decisions, not box ourselves in with knee-jerk doctrine.
I would severely curtail air travel, to pick one of your examples, not because of the death risk (which is pretty low, depending on how you measure it) but because it's mostly unnecessary and very bad for the environment. A very tiny infringement on liberty in exchange for eliminating a significant harm.
The common conservative deflection that we should just enforce the laws on the books and everything would be fine is absurd. Not only is it often not true, the fact is that we aren't enforcing those laws and apparently have no intention of enforcing them. So clearly we need a better solution than saying we should do what we plainly aren't going to do.
BTW, I'm not saying we should NOT enforce the laws on the books. Especially if they seem to be good laws. Just that we need to be realistic about whether we really WILL enforce those laws.
No I am very much paying attention. It is the bomber that is blamed because of the bomb. The drunk is blamed because of alcohol. But in shooting is blaming the gun first and the shooter second.
You cannot ban guns and truly believe that no civilians will have any guns? I would love to live in that perfect world but that ain't here my friend.
What do you think should be done with laws written to protect the legal citizens of this country?
