Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   Will strict gun laws reduce the number of homicides in the United States? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=641416)

richie3888 11-07-2012 7:38 PM

Will strict gun laws reduce the number of homicides in the United States?
 
I'm writing a paper about how I believe stricter gun laws will not reduce the number of homicides in United States.

It's an argumentative paper.

I need help on key points and maybe some links to articles where they discuss this subject.

The key points I already have.
1. Not constitutional
2. Only law abiding citizens will follow the law.
3.

I just need a couple more

Thanks

njineermike 11-07-2012 7:43 PM

How about this: The US localities with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of gun related homicides

hermosabeach 11-07-2012 7:45 PM

Look at the 10 year federal AWB and the stats surrounding it...

DannyInSoCal 11-07-2012 7:47 PM

It certainly worked in Aurora.

It certainly worked in Ft Hood.

When are delusional liberals going to finally accept they have blood on their hands -

Due to the murders committed under the fantasy of "gun free safe zones".

God will judge those responsible for delivering rooms full of unarmed, defenseless murder victims -

May they and those who support their false agendas burn in hell...

DonFerrando 11-07-2012 7:49 PM

Any efforts to reduce "gun violence" are an amoral perversion and a political distortion of issues aimed at limiting a citizen's freedom to self-determination because the real issue should be to reduce violence not so-called "gun violence". Likewise any silly statistic showing a reduction in "gun homicides" due to increased gun control is nonrepresentational since what matters should be the amount of homicides, not what means was used to commit them.

ElvenSoul 11-07-2012 7:52 PM

Harvard University did a big study on this a few years ago. The results came out in our favor. Still the anti gun lobby fights on.

missiondude 11-07-2012 7:57 PM

NO it will not...

VictorFranko 11-07-2012 7:59 PM

In England and Scotland, due to lack of guns, they all stab each other with blades.

Link

In China, due to lack of guns, madmen hatchet kindergarten children in their classrooms.

Mighty J ho 11-07-2012 7:59 PM

Use Chicago as a example

nicki 11-07-2012 8:01 PM

Resource.
 
First, you have to define what are strict gun laws.

Laws aimed at criminal misuse that are enforced should reduce crime because we should be taking violent predators of the streets.

Now if the strict gun laws are designed so that they are obeyed only by potential victims(law abiding citizens), then the answer is pretty obvious.

Here is a resource, use it, www.gunfacts.com

Guy Smith runs this site, updates annually, should be able to answer many questions.

Nicki

joe_gman 11-07-2012 8:01 PM

The problem with current gun laws is that they are relatively ineffective in the United States due to lack of consistent gun laws across all state lines. Couple that with the fact that there are around 310,000,000 firearms in the hands of civilians right now, and laws limiting access do little to reduce availability. The only way that the government could stem the number of firearm related homicides (other than through societal changes), is to do a door to door militaristic confiscation of every residence in the US.

Even doing this will have little effect on the overall homicide rate in the US. Humans are fragile creatures and it takes little damage to our bodies to kill us. I trained for 3 years on how to injure and kill with just my hands and feet. If someone wants to murder someone else, they could always find some way. Most murders in the US are domestic situations anyway where the victim and the murderer know each other, and therefor have regular access to each other.

Cali-Shooter 11-07-2012 8:02 PM

FBI crime statistics prove a big, definite, NO.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

socalbowhunter 11-07-2012 8:12 PM

I would cite Washington DC as a prime example of how strict gun laws have either no effect, or the opposite effect on crime. DC has one of the highest crime rates in nation.

POLICESTATE 11-07-2012 8:14 PM

Look at homicide rates per capita in countries that do not allow private ownership of firearms. If people can't shoot each other they will club/stab/chop/choke/drown/beat/whatever each other to death.

Personally I think a firearm is a poor tool for homicide, too loud and leaves too much forensic evidence.

Cali-Shooter 11-07-2012 8:39 PM

Quote:

Personally I think a firearm is a poor tool for homicide, too loud and leaves too much forensic evidence.
Icicles would be the perfect assassination weapons. Or knives made of ice.

kaligaran 11-07-2012 9:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hermosabeach (Post 9679164)
Look at the 10 year federal AWB and the stats surrounding it...

This is a really good one.

In addition, you may want to look at some statistics about the types of guns used in crimes. Where they legally owned/possessed by the bad guy? What about stolen? Do they currently conform to the state/federal laws (ie fully automatic garage-conversions or high caps in CA)?

Compare gun crime vs gun ownership trends.

Check the links in my forum signature. They may also help. :)

Rider1k 11-07-2012 9:11 PM

simply put. NOPE

ClarenceBoddicker 11-07-2012 9:24 PM

Guns & homicides from bullets have nothing to do with each other. Criminals commit crimes not tools. America has a societal problem, not a gun problem. In fact America needs more guns not less. America's societal problems can be traced to TV & the public school systems, which are both the responsibility of parents. Parents are failing their kids & our society. Criminals are rewarded & citizens are punished in the US. Follow the money & all shall become clear.

POLICESTATE 11-07-2012 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali-Shooter (Post 9679545)
Icicles would be the perfect assassination weapons. Or knives made of ice.

OMG, that's brutal. I love it. :43:

d4v0s 11-07-2012 9:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richie3888 (Post 9679111)
I'm writing a paper about how I believe stricter gun laws will not reduce the number of homicides in United States.

It's an argumentative paper.

I need help on key points and maybe some links to articles where they discuss this subject.

The key points I already have.
1. Not constitutional
2. Only law abiding citizens will follow the law.
3.

I just need a couple more

Thanks

Often times in argumentative papers, its a good idea to include alternate solutions.

What do my fellow calgunners think would actually deter crime?

My ideas
-Death penalty for crimes commited with guns (exceptions for lawful self defense) as in felony assault with a weapon, robbery, etc...

-Statewide shall-issue CCW with national reciprocity, with a 10 year prison sentence for anyone caught with a gun and no CCW. (exceptions for travel, and securing firearms misunderstandings...big difference between a gun in its case unlocked, and one on a KKK members belt or in his glove box loaded.)

-Must register your weapons if you live in high crime areas. dont like it, move out.

tlcwrites 11-07-2012 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4v0s (Post 9680022)
Often times in argumentative papers, its a good idea to include alternate solutions.

What do my fellow calgunners think would actually deter crime? .

Better access to mental health services for those in crisis, and better enforcement by the criminal justice system in domestic violence cases. Realistically, I think the data on recent shootings shows these areas are likely to be more effectively (if still imperfectly) targeted relative to blanket gun laws.

Thinking about gun control overall, here's an analogy: Stabbing a blade through the heart of a cancer patient is, arguably, an effective way to ensure he won't die of cancer. Doing a biopsy and excising the tumor is nearly as effective at stopping cancer, and has the added benefit of not killing the patient.

Here's another: Drunk drivers kill about the same number of people every year as the number of firearms homicides. There is not widespread calls to ban cars or alcohol. Instead, we do all sorts of intervention and education to would-be drunk drivers, and we accept that the risk attendant in relatively free access to both cars and alcohol is that a certain percentage of irresponsible people will drive drunk. (Interesting side note: I was recently involved in a fundraising event at which alcohol was served. Our local police department had an officer there administering voluntary EPAS screenings to attendees. Fully 2/3 of those who attended voluntarily submitted to screening, and some of the attendees were not drinking.)

Back to guns: The problem we're trying to solve is the behavior of people with violent tendencies and/or mental illness and who are willing to break the law. Therefore, the solution should come from providing interventions targeted toward mental illness and violent tendencies - and, to the extent possible, limiting those interventions to those willing to break the law. When you decouple these issues from the emotion of guns, the solutions proposed by the gun control groups would be utterly irrational if translated to any other problem domain.

Tammy

glockfu 11-07-2012 10:45 PM

Google "Gun Control crime rates" or something like that. I remember reading an article once where they stastically came up with the amount of increased homicides due to gun control. It tracked homicides before major gun control laws took place and compared them to national average trends to come up with a statistical number of increased homicides due to stricter gun control laws... the results were shocking. The thing that pisses me off is the one off movie theater shootings that kill 20 people or so but if you look at the statistics, gun control has killed thousands per year, that's something that isn't reported because theres no drama behind it.

redcliff 11-08-2012 7:32 AM

They should pass a law making suicide illegal and then we'd automatically reduce gun deaths in America by 50%.

Oh wait, suicide is already illegal. Maybe we should pass another law making suicide by gun "double illegal". Yeah, that will fix it....

Gun violence in America is a societal problem, not an inanimate object problem or a law problem. Too many untreated and ignored mentally disturbed people, too many children without good role models, too many homes with no one available to teach kids right and wrong and to discipline them and teach them actions have consequences.

fizux 11-08-2012 8:37 AM

John Lott's book, more guns less crime, is about $5 on Amazon for the ebook. If you prefer your electrons dispensed by iProducts, there is an app for that.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/?m=1

He has spent almost 20 years on your issue, and I find his footnoting very helpful from a research perspective.

a1c 11-08-2012 9:42 AM

As 2A supporters, we need to be honest, and acknowledge there is unfortunately not enough research or data to assert that armed neighborhoods are safer than unarmed ones, or that the rate of LTCs has a deterrent effect. Just not enough data, not enough scientific research, and way too many other factors at play. Lott's research is impressive but also controversial. Correlation and causation are two different things.

However, I know this: gun control doesn't work.

Like many on this board, I come from a country where there is strict gun control - France. Like a lot of those countries, strict gun control was imposed after World War 2, when civilians were ordered to surrender or register certain classes of firearms. Even among resistants, a lot of people didn't want to bother with paperwork, and sometimes chose to give away whatever rifle they had gotten parachuted over, or pistols stolen from the Germans. I suppose at the time, it was a way for some people to turn the page. They didn't see the value in it.

Getting a shotgun in France is easy if you have a hunter's license (and there are a lot of French households with legally owned shotguns, or old shotguns who have been handed from one generation to the next, and are often not registered - ask me how I know). Getting centerfire rifles or handguns is a lot more paperwork, and requires a license, membership with a club validating your permit everytime you shoot, and so on (that said, ironically, I know French people who legally own full auto ARs).

Now, for a very long time, the truth is that gun control actually did work in France, in the sense that there was very little violent crimes compared to the US. And very few gun-related deaths. The crime rate is higher for petty crimes, but much lower for murder, armed robbery, and so on.

So an argument could be made that in those countries, gun control worked. Guns were very difficult for criminals to obtain, making it harder to commit violent crimes.

But things quickly changed when the Iron Curtain fell. I remember going to Romania in January of 1990 and meeting soldiers trying to sell their AKs (for ridiculously high prices, BTW).

And a lot of Eastern European countries have now joined the EU, making it easy to truck merchandise from one end of the continent to the other.

The result? Some gangs in Western Europe now have relatively easy access to AKs. The Arab Spring will no doubt also facilitate the smuggling of more illegal guns from the Middle East and Northern Africa to Europe.

There are also a lot of militaria collectors in Europe who regularly break the law to get some items that are regulated or prohibited.

Now the bad guys over there have fire superiority. But even if getting a shotgun is still within reach for the average citizen, getting access to any other kind of weapon is very difficult. And forget about LTCs.

Things are changing in some countries. The firearm legislation in France is under review and some legislators are pushing for less paperwork and making it easier for law-abiding citizens to acquire them. Not sure if that will happen under the current government, but it could happen within years.

Now some of my friends in Europe (or antis in the US) sometimes tell me "Well you're acknowledging that gun control regulation did work in Europe, so why are you opposed to it here?"

And to me the answer is obvious and twofold:

1. The RKBA is in the US Constitution. Period. It's not in those other countries. Which is why, by the way, I don't like it when people transpose US issues to other countries, and vice-versa. It is a fundamental American right.

2. Historically, this country has been built with guns. It doesn't matter if you're Howard Zinn or Burton W. Folsom Jr., all historians will agree that they played a huge role in building this country. There are hundreds of millions of them. There is no way you can have gun control in this country on an even practical level. So deal with it.

To me, that settles it. I don't need any argument dealing with crime vs. gun control. It doesn't matter. There are plenty of very safe neighborhoods, some where everybody's got a gun (legally), and others where almost nobody does. And there are plenty of crappy neighborhoods where people can carry legally, or where gun control is very strict. It's not the legislation that really has an impact here, it's other factors: unemployment, poverty, education, population make-up, lack of LE, lack of services, etc.

If you start using statistics to make that point, the other camp will have just as many to throw at you. You're not going to convince them.

Just tell them this: there already are plenty of guns out there. Some in the hands of criminals (the minority), and most in the hands of law-abiding citizens. There is no way any amount of gun control is going to make a difference. You want less crime? Work on what causes crime. Hint: it's not guns.

Rant over. Back to work.

BigRobb 11-08-2012 10:19 AM

Short answer: NO

Long answer: H - E - Double Hockey Sticks NO

Untamed1972 11-08-2012 10:19 AM

All one need do is point to the places with the strictest of gun control, Chicago, DC, New Youk city, UK, Mexico, Australia. Did murder/violent crime vanish over night by banning firearms?

Did murder/violent crime exist before the invention of firearms?

Clearly.....firearms are not the variable that is the driving force behind violent crime. Removing that variable has been shown to have at least no effect, or actually causes a slight decrease in violent crime.

But one must always remember.....gun control isn't about guns....it's about control.

PackingHeatInSDCA 11-08-2012 10:25 AM

strict gun laws will only ensure that criminals - and only criminals - have guns.

ChrisZ 11-08-2012 10:27 AM

Let's just put it this way. There are vehicle codes, but it does not stop people from speeding or having accidents. Even guns are completely banned, there will still be violence.

NytWolf 11-08-2012 10:40 AM

Imagine a world where no laws exist and everybody gets along. That world would be called Utopia. Of course, we all know that world does not exist. So the next-best world is a world where everyone obeys all laws. But we know that does not happen either.

Laws were made because society decided that something someone did was wrong. In order to prevent anyone else from doing that same something, laws were put into place. The human nature of it all though, even though laws were erected, that something the someone did is still going to occur even if the laws were not put into place.

ap3572001 11-08-2012 10:47 AM

I was born and raised (till 14) in the counrty when population had NO gun at all. VERY few people had permits to own a side by side or an over and under.
VERY few had permits to own .22LR target style pistols and rifles. SINGLE SHOT ONLY.

I must say that as a teenager , while walking in the park in the evening or hanging out somewhere, the chance of getting shot was almost ZERO.

Once while walking with a friend , we were jumped by 3 guys .

My friend picked up a rock, I had about 5 years in martial arts at that time.....

There was fight. We won . Everyone walked away alive. ( I had a black eye:)

In that society, having a pocket knife AND some skill in boxing or karate made a BIG difference.

Because NO ONE (only police) had a gun.

Do we WANT or CAN we have that kind of society here in US?

In my opinion its a NO on both.

Would a society that is REALLY gun free have less GUN violence?

Yes.
In the same way that You dont have to worry about 3 feet of snow in San Diego... LOL

In USA private ownership of firearms is a part of our history. And for sure will (and has to be) be a part of our future.

Glock22Fan 11-08-2012 10:57 AM

Logic and statistics beat (attempted) logical gun control arguments hands down. Unfortunately, gun control isn't logical.

The battle isn't between statistics, it's between statistics and raw blind emotion.

Won't help your paper much, but it might be worth a mention.

I'm not allowed to leave "provocative" pro-firearm stuff lying around when some of my in-laws visit, but I have started serious discussions when I left a paper "School Football Should Be Banned" lying around. The paper argued that as football kills something like ten times as many kids as do guns, then maybe football should be banned. That was about the only mention of guns, the rest of the article was about the statistics of sport-related deaths in schools. I had all the in-laws saying "Surely this is a joke, it can't be true?" My reply was that the statistics and facts were true, the headline was pointing out the disparity of treatment between sports and firearm deaths. Sadly, I no longer have that paper, but it kind of snuck in and attacked their beliefs insidiously from behind, without even appearing so to do. That, I think, is a good way of going about it.

Shakespeare had a similar idea in Marc Anthony's funeral speech in Julius Caesar.

oni.dori 11-08-2012 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VictorFranko (Post 9679274)
In England and Scotland, due to lack of guns, they all stab each other with blades.

Link

In China, due to lack of guns, madmen hatchet kindergarten children in their classrooms.

Or, they just have firearms they obtained illegally in the first place. Also, as Nicki said, you need to establish which laws are "strict", and which are "reasonable". Are traditional background checks "reasonable"? Are only instant checks reasonable now that they are available? Are waiting/"cooling off" periods? AWB's? "Hi-cap" bans? Barrel length regulations? Caliber limitations? And so on, and so on. Now, I don't necessarily think you would have to name th all (the paper would just be too long, and I'm sure you have a deadline to meet), but I would definitely list the most common and rediculous ones. Once that is established, you must give your stance, but make sure to back it up with factual resources and information, and not just conjecture. John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" is a good place to start, as he has done a lot o the leg work for you already. I know there are other books like his out there (and I would recommend using/citing them to add validity to your standpoints), but I can't think of any more off the top of my head.
Anyways, good luck.

Mesa Tactical 11-08-2012 11:17 AM

The only way to answer this empirically is to compare homicide rates in a country before and after guns were outlawed. What this will reveal, I believe, is that places like the UK, where everyone knows they have a lower homicide rate than the US (presumably because they have strict gun control), always had a lower homicide rate than the US, even when guns were legally available there.

What you want to do is compare homicide rates before and after gun control was enacted.

At one level it's a lame argument anyway. Homicide rates are caused by big social conditions and history, not by whether this tool or that one is legally available. For example, I think if you look at the historic violent crime rate in the US you will find it correlates very closely with the proportion of young males in the population (which explains why, for example, the crime rate was so bad in the 1970s and has been declining since then). If this correlation is relevant to cause, then how does it look if gun control is introduced just as the proportion of young males in the population begins to decline? Yep, it looks like the lower crime rate is a result of the gun control law.

So even if you compare homicide rates in the UK before and after gun control was introduced, you may still see changes in the crime rate that could be due to other factors.

John Lott is an interesting resource, but be very careful with him: he has been caught fudging his numbers. I would no sooner name him as an authority than I would Michael Bellesiles, for fear of tainting my entire thesis.

radioburning 11-08-2012 11:21 AM

The largest mass shooting in modern history happened in a country with strict gun control. Columbine happened during the AWB. Sweden has more guns per capita than the U.S., but a far lower homicide rate. England banned guns in 1997, they still have gun crime, and now you're much more likely to be stabbed there.

d4v0s 11-08-2012 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlcwrites (Post 9680317)
Better access to mental health services for those in crisis, and better enforcement by the criminal justice system in domestic violence cases. Realistically, I think the data on recent shootings shows these areas are likely to be more effectively (if still imperfectly) targeted relative to blanket gun laws.

Thinking about gun control overall, here's an analogy: Stabbing a blade through the heart of a cancer patient is, arguably, an effective way to ensure he won't die of cancer. Doing a biopsy and excising the tumor is nearly as effective at stopping cancer, and has the added benefit of not killing the patient.

Here's another: Drunk drivers kill about the same number of people every year as the number of firearms homicides. There is not widespread calls to ban cars or alcohol. Instead, we do all sorts of intervention and education to would-be drunk drivers, and we accept that the risk attendant in relatively free access to both cars and alcohol is that a certain percentage of irresponsible people will drive drunk. (Interesting side note: I was recently involved in a fundraising event at which alcohol was served. Our local police department had an officer there administering voluntary EPAS screenings to attendees. Fully 2/3 of those who attended voluntarily submitted to screening, and some of the attendees were not drinking.)

Back to guns: The problem we're trying to solve is the behavior of people with violent tendencies and/or mental illness and who are willing to break the law. Therefore, the solution should come from providing interventions targeted toward mental illness and violent tendencies - and, to the extent possible, limiting those interventions to those willing to break the law. When you decouple these issues from the emotion of guns, the solutions proposed by the gun control groups would be utterly irrational if translated to any other problem domain.

Tammy

Very well said.

I noticed something kind of shocking, many (not all) shootings involve the person killing themselves afterwards. and in the case of a recent one, the guy was out on parole.

How can you legislate a crazy person especially when they are going to just end their life after said act. In that case, sure gun crime couldnt have been prevented. But as is said many times over in this thread its really a violence problem. And crazy can pick up an ice pick just as easy as a gun.

I think its important to understand something. Yes, a gun ban will stop all gun crime, but It cannot stop crime. They will still happen. And honestly, I carry a gun for the one in a million chance I am victimized by a group of people and have no hope of protecting myself or my family without it.

But I am glad so many of you realize that guns do make crime easier, we just all understand that its a necessary evil and in fact is less evil than kids sports, drunk drivers, and even smoking.

Mesa Tactical 11-08-2012 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4v0s (Post 9683160)
I noticed something kind of shocking, many (not all) shootings involve the person killing themselves afterwards. and in the case of a recent one, the guy was out on parole.

Those mass shootings you cite contribute very little to the broader homicide rate. But they make for great headlines.

a1c 11-08-2012 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radioburning (Post 9683059)
Sweden has more guns per capita than the U.S.

I actually doubt that. Most, if not all guns are registered in Sweden. Not in the US. There are millions and millions of unregistered shotguns, rifles, pistols and BP firearms that are not registered and therefore uncountable. Those statistics are therefore skewed.

I am convinced there are far more guns per capita in the US than in Sweden. But that doesn't change anything anyway. This Swedish tragedy was an outlier, an anomaly. It can't be used by either side to make a point.

Mesa Tactical 11-08-2012 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a1c (Post 9683223)
This Swedish tragedy was an outlier, an anomaly. It can't be used by either side to make a point.

Especially as it happened in NORWAY!

Or are you one of those guys who considers Norway to be part of Greater Sweden? My Norwegian friends warned me about people like you!

a1c 11-08-2012 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesa Tactical (Post 9683283)
Especially as it happened in NORWAY!

Or are you one of those guys who considers Norway to be part of Greater Sweden? My Norwegian friends warned me about people like you!

Oh crap, my bad. I was sheepishly making the same mistake as the poster I replied to. I know, they hate that stuff. This is especially embarrassing for me considering my main line of work - localization. Oops! :D


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.