Why gun control is necessary

“Ped,,, rate of death by guns was on that site of your also.

I think we were 8th and 4th in '99

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

Drug and gang related gun crimes have to inflate our stats.”

“CRIME AND GUN CONTROL /


Monday, June 07, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The withdrawal of Englishmen’s right to self-defense is having dire consequences in Great Britain: higher crime rate, weak sentences for assailants, and even the victims end up thrown in jail, says historian Joyce Lee Malcolm.

This did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years, she says. Those include the strictest gun laws of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. The impacts have been stark:

One is six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City.
More than half of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, while the frequency of such “hot burglaries” is only 13 percent in America.
Since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled.
Offenders under the age of 21 are almost never sent to prison; criminals that end up in prison are routinely released after serving half the sentence. .
Overall, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States. The British police are now, for the first time in their history, routinely armed, and have even sought the advice of American policemen to deal with gun crime

Victims of crime risk imprisonment for defending oneself. Fending off robbers in one’s home with toy pistols will get one charged by the police; killing an assailant results in a life sentence, while if one manages to knock an attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault, says Malcolm.

Source: Joyce Lee Malcolm, “Self-Defense: An Endangered Right,” Cato Institute, Policy Report No. 2, March 2004.

http://www.ncpa.org/newdpd/dpdarticle.php?article_id=133&PHPSESSID=a293fbeec324e52af29a6e29e4e03bce”

“THERE, NOW YOU'VE DONE IT!

Gun control topped a billion Canadian dollars and has not prevented one crime.

Criminals have been released dut to delays because the only forensic laboratory in Canada lacks the funds to provide testimonyt in reasonable time.

What you call 'hot' burglaries we call home inveasions and they are up in Canada over 300 per cent.

We are in the middle of a general election and the unbeatable Liberals are being overtaken by the Conservatives who promise to scrap the gun law.

In Quebec a vote taken away from the Liberals works in favour of the seperatitst Bloc québécois, but I don't care. I'll vote Conservative for the firat time in my life. The Conservatives have confirmed the partition of Quebec in case of seperation and that's fine.

The control of honest citizens in the hope of reducing crime just does not work.

Doug”

“One is six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City.


And you honestly want me to believe that the reason crime has gone down SO SIGNIFICANTLY here is because of more armed citizens? What a f_cking laugh? If anything, we have the toughest handgun controls in the country. And don't give me the crap about how easy it is to get one on the streets. The people that deal in guns on the street are precisely the ones who I DON'T want to see with a gun! I am hardly professing any expertise on this subject, but, for all the reasons Britain is having the problems that your article names, I guarantee there is a dozen or two mitigating factors that your source leaves out!”

“wow you peeved of the canuk. nice going


gremlin, is tree playing nice?”

“One is six times more likley to be murdered in America than in England.”

“Nothing deters a would be burglar more than the sound of a twelve guage be racked.”

“grr..."gauge"


I am getting worse than Tea and Strat on my spelling.”

“Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen.

Fact: Street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime is up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%.

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

Fact: A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation - double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago - and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm.

Fact: Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including the 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries.

Fact: Handguns were used in 3,685 offences in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%. It is interesting to note: Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of "gun crime." Of the 20 areas with the *highest* levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.

Fact: Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – in a country that has banned private firearm ownership.

Fact: Over the last century, the British crime rate was largely unchanged. In the late nineteenth century, the per capita homicide rate in Britain was between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000. In the late twentieth century, after a near ban on gun ownership, the homicide rate is around 1.4. This shows that the homicide rate does not vary with either the level of gun control or gun availability.

Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland that has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.

Fact: "the scale of gun crime in the capital [London] has forced senior officers to set up a specialist unit to deal with . . . shootings."”

“I guarantee there is a dozen or two mitigating factors that your source leaves out!

I've often wondered about this as well, Treebeard. I've yet to see a study that controls for relevant socioeconomic variables.”

“I get fed up with rubbishing the crap this guy puts out, manipulating statistics and such. The biggest problem is that handguns - which were resticted after the massacre of sixteen toddlers in the school in Dunblane - were never at all prevailant in the country.
Sure the UK has a crime problem - but it's not connected to the lack of guns.
Maybe if guns were a greater part of British culture then it too would have less muggings but more murders?
While Malcolm presents a strong case to the uniformed, you'd be hard-pressed to find any senior law enforcement officer, politician or any significant minority of British people who think free gun ownership is the answer to rising crime.”

“Ever spent much time in England Mutt?”

“I haven't. But I have spent time in roadhouses in Lower Alabama. I wouln't go there unarmed.”

“Heck, abolish handguns.

We can fall back to assault rifles anyway.

”

“Sure the UK has a crime problem - but it's not connected to the lack of guns.

Okay, what's your stats that show otherwise?

And no, I've never been to England.”

“The control of honest citizens in the hope of reducing crime just does not work.

I forgot who said it, but to paraphrase: Trying to reduce crime through gun control laws is like trying to reduce DWI deaths by making it harder for law-abiding people to buy and own cars.”

“Mutt, is that really your position?

That we shouldn't have any "gun control" laws?

Or do you advocate that we should have some laws, but you are against abolition of ownership?”

“Chili, the only gun control laws that I think are worth anything are age restrictions and felony restrictions.”

“Well, now that is "gun control".


So, I am correct is saying you agree with gun control, but disagree with the amount of control, correct?”

“Ok, we can look at problems in the Education system if you like, the courts, which at present lean too heavily in favour of the denfendants - many prosecutors I've interviewed feel their hands are tied. There's also the issue of leniant sentencing.

Other issues include the rising drug problems, the breakdown of the family unit, questions of poverty, the development of a criminal under culture.
The list is endless, and many in England ask themselves the question of what can be done about it. The results are varied, but very few indeed come to the conclusion that gunes are the answer.

I think the most telling statistic, is that even though they are under threat, 78% of police officers, when polled by the police federation, were against the routine arming of officers.
http://www.polfed.org/0603firearms-survey.pdf”

“'spose so.”

“gunes????”

“ynami, those are some of the socioeconomic factors I'm curious about.

Do you think lawful gun ownership plays *no* role in reducing crime?”

“Fair enough, mutt. Just trying to make sure I understand your position better.

I suppose mine is somewhat "left" of yours, but not with the abolitionists.

I feel that finding the right balance on "how much control is enough, but not too much" is crux of the matter.”

“I think lawfil gun ownership is a minimal crime deterrant, if you care to use New York City as an example. I think that other factors have been responsible for the reduction in violent crime here. I think the NYPD deserves better credit for this rather than patting gun owners on the back for something that i don't think they are responsible for. With tough restrictions on handguns, we have managed somehow to become the safest large city in America...”

“I think that's about right chili. I tend to bait on this issue, but honestly - I don't know what the effect of gun control or gun ownership has on crime. I fail to see the logic, though, in making it more difficult for law-abiding people to own guns when criminals by definition don't follow laws. And, I know I want a firearm for protection, as the police are an investigative force, not a crime-preemption force.”

“I think Britain and America are very different countries where guns are concerned, and any comparisons are largely invalid.
Guns are here in the US, that's a fact, and while gun crime is a rising problem in the UK, it's actual incidence is very low. Suddenly allowing Brits, most of whom have never fired anything more than an air pistol, to own handguns would be a disaster, and as such they are not the cause or solution for Britain's rising crime issues.

In America guns are a fact of life, and many here have grown up with them. The sheer number of guns in America, more than in all the armies of the world combined, apparently, means you are never going to get rid of them - so what is needed is an effective way of at least trying to make it difficult for criminals to get hold of them.
What I find in America is that people living in safe happy towns across America are unable to see the problems that the easy availablity of guns has in areas like SE DC, and other inner cities. There's little to no empathy for the people living there. Because America is such a diverse country people are often unable to imagine a situation where the availablilty of guns means shootings at school and drive-by shootings, until it actually happens in their town, or to somebody they know.

Personally I think the answer, and this is just my opinion, is to allow a person to have a firearm, but to make them own safes and lockers to put them if they are kept in the house, and to take regular competance tests if they are to carry them on the streets.
The result is probably fewer muggings, but probably more murders.
Maybe that's seen as acceptable.”

“Guns don't go off by themselves, kids.
People shoot other people. A gun is just a tool, such as a crow bar is a tool that can also kill.
I proudly defend my right to bear and own guns.
You ban guns, and the only ones with them are the criminals!
If you research it you would find it very eye opening to find out how many home invasions are prevented due to the homeowners having guns.
I have no qualms with citizens being armed. If you aren't a felon go for it, before all our rights are taken away.”

“I also think that a lot proponents of 'gun control' such as myself are not of the position that we are trying to 'take your guns away.' That's paranoia. When someone mentions a waiting period, there's a multitude of gun nuts saying this. hey, a waiting period is simply a few days to make sure that you should be one of the folks that should have one of these. If you have a problem with a simple concept like that, then perhaps i don't feel comfortable knowing you are armed. I say 'you' as a figuritive term...”

“unable to imagine a situation where the availablilty of guns means shootings at school and drive-by shootings

Okay, so from this you seem to be suggesting that not only do a lack of guns not raise crime rates, but that the presence of guns actually creates crime?

Otherwise, you seem to be making good points.”

“a waiting period is simply a few days to make sure that you should be one of the folks that should have one of these

Background checks (and the time it takes to do them) - yes. But an arbitrary waiting period? Pointless.”

“It's the same old arguments peddled by the NRA that they want to take your guns away. Outlaw guns etc etc.
I think most rational people know that's not going to happen. While there are benefits to individuals to owning guns there needs to be a realization that this widespread ownership and availability causes problems too - shootings in schools for example.
Maybe rather than pushing out the same old lines it would be wise to try to look at why it's so easy for criminals to get guns, and to try to make it a little more tricky for them rather than playing the brass monkey and pretending that there are no downsides to the wide ownership of firearms.”

“Well I think the easy availability of guns makes certain types of crime more likely. Shootings for example ;o)”

“I don't have any issue with background checks. Not at all.
We don't have that problem-once you have a CPL you can buy immediately, as you are on file with the FBI.”

“I remember the days when you could buy an Uzi, or a Mac 10. The Country didn't go to pieces when they banned assult rifles. Control is a goot thing, over control is not.

I agree with Tree. Iffin` yu ain't willin` to wait a few days, well.....that's a problem.”

“IMO, part of the problem is the lack on uniformity between states when it comes to laws. Most of the guns used in crimes here can be traced to states with more relaxed laws. You should need more than just a #2 pencil to purchase one of these. (Being a little factious there, pardon moi) But, the point is that i think the way it is makes gun running easier where a more nationalized strategy might ease some of this problem...”

“Disagree Mutt,
Police are a prevention force when physically present, such as a beat patrolman.

But there is not enough coverage to use police this way and a lot more restrictions put on police.

Also nowhere near severe enough punishment to those who hurt the police during the commission of a crime

The result is as you state the police are now investigative AFTER the crime.

The crime deterence of police now is in probability of getting caught, and punishment when caught.

A low probabilty, or slight punishment is not much deterent versus the possibility of getting severly hurt.

Best crime deterent is probably still 2 large dogs, but an armed person who has not had the restraint training given to police has got to be very scary too.”

“Although I would say that while probably not creating crime, the involvement of guns often changes the nature of the criminal act that is committed.
For an example, a liberal MP was attacked with a Samurai sword in a church in the UK some time ago, and I think another person was killed in the attack. While horrific I think the consequnces would have been much more severe had the madman walked into a packed church with an automatic weapon.”

“The crime deterence of police now is in probability of getting caught, and punishment when caught

Which is negligible....”

“MOURNING IN AMERICA
Reagan pulled gun on mugger to save woman
As young Iowa sportscaster, 'the Gipper' confronted would-be robber with .45
Posted: June 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

"Leave her alone or I'll shoot you right between the shoulders!"

A line from a Clint Eastwood movie or other classic Western? Or a tough-guy line from a cop show?

No. It's Ronald Reagan – not as a movie star, but in real life – facing down a bad guy as a young man, just as he did later in life with various world leaders, tyrants and dictators.


More than 70 years ago, as IowaChannel.com reports, long-time Iowa resident Melba King was a 22-year-old nursing student.

The year was 1933, and on a hot, humid autumn night, as Melba was strolling home in downtown Des Moines, she felt a gun in her back. A mugger had stolen up behind her and was demanding money.

But someone was watching out for Melba – a young Des Moines radio sportscaster named Ronald Wilson Reagan who had overheard the confrontation and immediately sprang to her rescue. Reagan pointed a .45-caliber revolver at the would-be robber from the window of the second-story rented room he lived in.

"And he said, 'Leave her alone or I'll shoot you right between the shoulders,'" King recently told KCCI-TV."

The scared mugger ran off, and Reagan went out to comfort King and walk her home.

"You stay right where you are, and I'll go get my robe and slippers and walk over with you," the youthful Reagan told her, according to King's vivid recollection.

Decades passed. The next time King saw Reagan was more than 50 years later, in 1984, when Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad asked her to attend a Republican campaign event.

Embracing on stage, Reagan laughed as he quipped to the audience and King: "This is the first time I've had a chance to tell you – the gun was empty! I didn't have any cartridges! If he hadn't run when I told him to, I was going to have to throw it at him!"

Staying in touch over the years, King's and Reagan's families exchanged birthday and Christmas cards, and comforted one another during hard times.

"The Reagans helped King when she lost her husband Harold in 1987," said the Iowa news outlet, "and now she will send Nancy Reagan a sympathy note."”

“I haven't read all the posts, but I think Treebeard (whom I have met, like and respect) is off the mark.

Ynam has points with which I disagree - again with respect.

I am what most of our American cousins would consider a flaming Pinko. I was and am not opposed to reasonable gun control. After all, we licence cars and drivers.

The problem is that

- and this is an argument that I would have dismissed out of hand before my country brought in the gun control fiasco -

gun control beyond licencing is very much a tool to confiscate guns. I could find a way to cut and paste hundreds of examples, but suffice it to say that the software crashed several times because of unnecessary complexity. The forms we must fill out has a ton of useless information that would permit authorities to confiscate certain kinds of firearms - not just handguns, but non-single shot firearms, et cetera.

All previous firearms licences were declared redundant. If they had really wanted to control guns, they could have made the already established five year renewal of gun licences stricter. They could have made registration straighfroward by make, type and serial number.

That, however, was not the way they (the authorities) wanted it. Crime control is not gun control and Canada is the proof.

One of the problems is that people see through the ruse and refuse to register all their guns. And, BTW, unregistered guns cannot be made legal. This has created a bank of illegal weapons among people who would never have considered committing a criminal act (which it is).

BTW, you need a firearms possesion permit to borrow a gun for hunting. If you do not own a gun already, you cannot get a possession permit. If you 'phone the government agency, they will tell you to lie and claim ownership of someone else's gun - DUH.

If you want to buy a gun you need a purchaser's permit and when you apply for it your possession permit becomes void and you are breaking the law because you still have your other guns.

The control of honest citizens does not fight crime.

Doug”

“Ronald Reagan would have run these anti-gun Nancy's out of town.”

“The forms we must fill out has a ton of useless information that would permit authorities to confiscate certain kinds of firearms
-I owuld like to know some specifics on that. Confiscating firearms, to me, would be reasonable ONLY when there is good reason to do so. So, at this point, this can be too subjective to argue.

Just out of curiosity, Grem, are the reasons you are laying out here ALL applicable to the laws in America? My position was more towards the idea of:

1) background checks - common sense tells me this is absolutely essential.

2) safety locks and certain other guidelines towards safe storage - again a common sense issue. too many children get hurt.

3) uniformity of laws within the states - places (like New York) that get its illegal weapons from places where it is easier to obtain them from. perhaps this could make crime prevention at least a few degrees more feasible.

None of these steps advocate the confiscation of weapons. These are simple steps that no law abiding citizen should fear, IMO.”

“Interesting statistic.

Crime (all types) is less in downtown Memphis, which, by the way, has the highest density of police officers.

I tend to think police presence does reduce crime. Guns be damned.”

“That's a big thing, Chili. I know for a fact that when Rudy Guiliani intiated the 'quality of life' crackdown on petty crimes, (although very unpopular, especially in minority communities) that it had a positive effect on our crime statistics. But, not all the credit should go to him for that. David Dinkins initiated the "safe city, safe streets" program during his administration, where he put more cops out on the street and tried to establish something of a bond between the NYPD and the community. That was the start of it. Guiliani picked it up from there and took it to the quality of life issue. Overall, this, more than anything else, has had the effect we are enjoying today. Crime stats are remarkably good here, considering what we used to have...”

“BTW, as an example of the quality of life thing I mentioned:

turnstile jumpers in the subways. we used to see this constantly. and frankly, it burned me up when I was paying my fare to see some lowlife hop a turnstile as a train approached and get aboard like nothing was happening. well, the cops started busting these dicks. and voila, they ran their names and found quite a few with arrest warrants out for more serious crimes. just an example...”

“Safes or locks should be required for purchase, that I am 100% for. As should requirement of a basic gun class before being able to purchase any gun for the first time. (Where you learn how to handle guns safely, you shoot a couple hundred rounds and learn how to break down your gun and clean it).
Those things I would support. All our guns are kept locked up, to keep my kid and anyone else out of them besides us. Then again, at 6 years old, he has his own personal bbgun. He gets weekly training on gun safety.
For instance, on backpacking trips, since I carry, I unload my handgun before getting into the tent, and the gun is kept seperate from the clip-though I could reload it in less than a second. I do this since the little guy is sleeping next to me. Though I know he wouldn't touch it, it is still a safety issue.
Guns are just a tool. They are not evil.”

“You are obviously a responsible gun owner, Sarbar. And my advocacy of certain restrictions is not geared to infringe on your freedoms. I worry about those that aren't...”

“The Gun Law
Kennesaw rocked the world when on May 1, 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring all heads of households to maintain a firearm and ammunition. The law was passed partly in response to a law passed in Morton Grove, Illinois (June, 1981) banning private possession of handguns. Since passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw has gone down significantly, while the rate in Morton Grove has gone up.



"Before the law was passed we had 11 burglaries per 1000 in population. As of 1992 we had 2.7 burglaries per 1000 population. Over the years, it may fluctuate 1% higher, or 1 or 2% lower, but its something that's stayed in line from '83 all the way up to today." (Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson, 1994)



As of 2000, the burglary rate in Kennesaw was even lower – making it one of the safest cities of its size in the United States. It is all the more astonishing given that Kennesaw has quadrupled in size since passage of the gun law:



"With the fast growth of the population, and the location of the city in relation to I-75 and 41 coming right through town, all indications are that the crime rate should have gone up. And instead it has gone down a tremendous amount." (Former Mayor J.O. Stephenson, a city councilman when the gun law was passed)



The law is part of the Civil Defense and Disaster Relief section of the town code. It has several significant exemptions:

Those that suffer from physical disabilities

Those who conscientiously oppose use of firearms

Convicted felons

Paupers

While no one has ever been charged under the Kennesaw gun law, it remains an active law – and seems to be having a significant impact on crime.”

“Tree,

What you are talking about is what we had. You had to take a course to get a hunting licence. You had to have a Firearms acquisition certificate, whisch, of course, you could not get if you were not a law abiding citizen.

Simple registration would have been no problem; they could have sent the form to everyone with a FAC.

The authorities used a mass murder incident to bring ibn what they call 'gun Control' and the exercise is to make gun ownership as complicated and onerous as possible. Gun purchases and purchase certificates are a nightmare.

Your NRA is right, gun control is an ever increasing attack on you and your guns.

I love my country and cherish our gentle ways, but the control of honest citizens does not, nor can it ever, control crime.”