Guns lead to more or less crime? your opinion.

Interesting question, on one hand if there were no guns we'd all still be hitting each other with rocks and that would get boring and we might just give up and live in peace and harmony and wild unicorns fart rainbows or something. On the other hand if guns were just illegal and all the muggers still had them yeah we'd be fucked.

I would say that whether guns increase or decrease violence depends on their availability. The more accessible guns are the more detrimental the effect. If guns were restricted to say for example the military, crime rates relevant to guns would be eliminated. This being said, no guns for police would increase crime rates as criminals would believe that they had equally as much power / force as the police. In short I believe guns should be restricted to the military and police force.

In case you are wondering what country I am from I live in australia.

The Ancient-, Middle Ages, the Renaissance beg to differ:
Lots of people were still killed with old fashioned cold steel. Back then a trained man could kill several opponents if he had skill, while a knight could kill dozens of peasants since he owned arms and armor far ahead what others could ever posses with their meager wealth.

Firearms, for all their deadliness are a great source of democracy: they give the common man the chance to kill the powerful tyrant, the wealthy lord, the trained soldier, the cunning assassin alike...
...with a flick of a finger and a little training.

Egality didn't become fashionable until serfs with weapons had the guts to enforce it - and could afford said weapons, and said weapons were effective enough. The rest is history.

Well, the NRA can be a bit obtuse yes, but they are the biggest boxer we have in the ring(thought grassroots movements in states are doing alot too).

-But I have to ask...why is this such a bad thing? To date, most of the massacres in this country have been in public schools; so called 'gun free zones'. Just simple analysis of the facts shows that a sign and a law or two does not prevent some wacko from going in and shooting up the place. Imagine if a few teachers at Columbine or VT had been armed, how many lives would have been saved?

-So let's analyze the reason most dislike the idea of guns in schools/colleges; 2nd-degree murder. since we're talking primarily about K-12, we mean teachers with guns. Granted, I don't mean carrying all the time. I mean a gun in a locked desk drawer, or something like that. Do entire classes gang-up on a teacher? Do teachers get so angry with students that they use the threat of physical harm to bring them in line? Armed teachers would have concealed-carry permits (in my world the CC permit reqs. would be the same nationwide and like Michigan's). The rate of CC-license holders is so astronomically low in comparison with the general public; I think I can count on two hands the number of Michigan CPL holders convicted of felony murder/homicide; and that's with two out of every hundred adults in this state strapped regularly.


But the simple fact is that this happens so infrequently. In America, we have both the Violence Prevention Center and the Brady Campaign as the big anti-gun players. Both routinely predicted as states adopted shall-issue CC* that there would be "blood in the streets, people shooting each other over parking spaces". And guess what? Each, and every time, they were proven wrong. In face, after Florida adopted shall-issue CC, violent crime plummeted(a big reason it was enacted in the first place). Here's a vid by a guy I like on the internet, Nutnfancy, explaining his opinions on concealed carry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei8OK4WdoW0
(yes he rambles, I know)

His views on the fundamentals of CC...
For those unwilling to watch the full vid (and honestly I don't blame you). Basically, he extolls responsibility and anti-confrontational tactics while carrying.
...are what almost all people who carry concealed believe in as well. The point is that just because 200 million Americans have access to guns means they use them on other people on a whim. The last NHTA and DOJ statistics show that twice as many people die in car accidents every year than are murdered w/guns.

[spoilers not working]

Dude, the gun is just another tool. Tools can only hurt when the one holding it wishes someone to be hurt.

I dont think that having guns lead to crime i feel that it is the area that leads to more crime.


the reason that there are these statistics is because of the type of country that the U.S. is
Guns are part of the culture of America. guns freed us from the British and as a reaction of that its in our bill of rights. And in America the only thing that many Americans hold more dear than the Constitution and Bill of rights is the bible.

I bet that all of those contrys above give more to help there poor or they don't have nearly as many poor people. As people have seen poverty makes people do things that they normally wouldn't do. one of those things is kill. (I am only talking about the contrys on the list above.)

When I think back, I used to be pro-gun-control for a long time, since it made sense that by removing guns their would be less violence done with them. I would imagine a situation where a would be criminal enters a home or a store, pulls out a gun, and uses it to threaten and rob the victim.

Then I would imagine the same situation where the would be criminal didn't have a gun. It was a lot harder for the criminal to get away the money and he was caught more often since he wasn't able to properly used the victims life as a bargaining chip.

I remember giving a speech about outlawing the ownership of easily concealed weapons, since they are the main, and practically only type I hear about, firearm used in robberies and other similar crimes. I had thought that if people couldn't own a weapon that could be easily concealed and then pulled out to threaten or kill someone without warning, then the ability of the would be criminals to commit the crime would be severely reduced.

It soon became apparent though, that there were many people who were not willing to give up their ability to own such a firearm for both protection and sport. I didn't like the idea choosing one group over the other without knowing both sides, so I decided to look at it from the perspective of a gun owner who owns a personal firearm for protection.

This time, the would be criminal invades the person's home and is armed. When he finds the home owner, he also finds that he too has has a gun. There are very few options left for him now, depending on the home owners personality and mood. He may try to escape only to be shot from behind, or he may be let go. He could take a chance and bet that the home owner doesn't have the guts to shoot and try to rob them anyway, though it is unlikely that the chance to shoot him while he does this will not be taken. He could try to kill the home owner, and if he is lucky he can do it before the home owner can retaliate, and if he is not lucky it could turn into a fight for his life, which he obviously doesn't want to lose as he is struggling to improve it by taking from others.

In all these cases, he loses his bargaining chip and leverage over the home owner that were provided by his gun. The smart criminal would avoid robbing people then, since it would hazardous to his health.

Yes the "Guns don't kill people, people do" thing may be right in its own way, but that doesn't mean that gun ownership doesn't make a difference in people's ability to kill. We fear guns, and are less likely to commit a crime knowing that a gun will be aimed our way with the intent to kill us. This is a great deterrent to the smaller of possible criminal acts involving guns and a partial deterrent to the underground and organized crime that preventing gun ownership would actually allow to thrive.

Sadly, it is not a perfect solution, instead it is just switching the kind of crime that is prominent and creating more chances for criminal justice outside of the law. Guns don't cause the crime, they change what crime is committed and in what way it is done. Also, it is obvious that increasing the distribution of firearms will also increase 'accidental' manslaughter. A gun is simply a means for which to harm something or someone, just like a knife can be used to kill as well, but the presence of a gun during a dispute that may have led to fists and broken prides could instead lead to bullets and broken lives.

In concluding this summery of my thoughts as they changed over they years, there are only a few points I would like a present, followed by my opinion. As there is no connection to crime and firearms save the charm of being better armed, firearms do not have a direct effect on crime rates. Secondly, though firearms do not have a direct effect, they do indirectly determine the ability for certain crimes to be committed, namely cases of 'accidental' manslaughter. Third, the absence of firearms does not decrease the total frequency of crimes, as the crimes that would have been committed using a firearm are replaced by crimes that don't require firearms, being that firearms are not the cause behind the crime but a means to commit certain types of crime more easily.

So finally, I think that it is incorrect to say that increasing or decreasing the distribution will lead to less or more crime, but by restricting the ownership of guns you are not only hurting industries that produce them but infringing upon the rights of those that own them, that means that I went from being pro-gun-control to pro-gun-freedom as I came to realize that things are not always as simple as they seem. In fact, I am always willing to change my opinion again should new ideas cause these points to become outdated understandings.

This has to be my longest post ever \(^.^)/

Neither most of the great massacres nor most of the murders involving guns have occurred at K-12 schools. The few that did were very sensational and highly publicized, but other than that, your statement is not correct.

The reason to not have guns in K-12 schools is the potential for accidents. Yes, the guns are supposed to be locked away, but mistakes always happen, and of course if they do, students will play with the guns, and it is likely that someone will be shot accidentally. I agree hostile classroom takeovers by students and teachers flipping out and shooting students would be extremely rare.

It's hard to say for sure without actually trying it, but I think the number of people that would be killed or injured in accidents each year if there were mandated weapons in every K-12 school would be significantly higher than the number of people killed or injured in Columbine style school shootings each year.

[font=Verdana][color=green]For starters, to Fiery Penguin, this statistics are 20 years old. That means that any validity they held can be voided, I'm afraid. Besides, even if the stats were valid, they work in my favour. The two highest countries with the highest percentage of gun ownership have the highest percentage of deaths per 100,000. But, of course, I'm not using that argument as the stats are void.

And to Pendragon, the fact that your ancestors used to guns to be "freed" from the British doesn't mean that they should be treated with such high regard. We British used guns to take many countries, and we don't hold guns in such high regard; more disdain. Besides, you weren't "freed" at all; in all actuality your ancestors were actually traitors to the British. But...that's a lecture for another day...

With America it was the average citizens in militia who fought the battles not an organized military who trained their men in using guns. all of the experience those militia had in using guns came from hunting and other such things. meaning that for many of them guns were there lively hoods. In Europe at the time the average person did not have a gun or know how to use it their for it is not part of your culture as it is in America. As for my ancestors being traitors to the British what you call a traitor and at the time a terrorist is what we called a patriot and a freedom fighter. Looking in history i think we did better off in the long run than we would have with you.

Guns are very normal
and everyone has a right to own them except lunatics and muslims.

NRA 4ever!!!

So who do you have to free yourself from now?

Guns are not necessary in killing people. People have been killing each other for millions of years without the use of guns.

Guns lead to more crime? Nonsense, without my rifle - I'll be dead 3 years ago. Remember that crime is enacted by a person and guns are just a tool, depends on the user himself. If i may say, DRUGS lead to EVEN more crimes.

Well said. I agree with you all the way.

our own government.. =_=

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):


USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

(First column is homicides, second is suicides, third is accidental.)

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

Also some info from Nation Master.com about the crime in 4 select countries

Swiss Crime Statistics

United States Crime statistics

United Kingdom Crime Statistics

Canadian Crime statistics

You'll notice that the U.S. has a higher crime rate in general. This is because the poverty in the States. While the uneducated claim we are the richest country in the world, we are in fact one of the poorest in physical wealth. Why that is will be saved for an entirely different thread for another time. Point of the matter is, we are rife with poverty and guns are simply a tool. Ban guns entirely and you won't prevent gun crime nor will you prevent crime itself. No, instead of preventing law abiding citizens from carrying personal protection. One should evaluate how to counter the reasons for gun crime itself. Banning firearms is merely a band-aid on a severed limb when it comes to the real problem at hand.

Gun bans simply remove the guns from the law abiding citizen while not affecting the non-abiding citizen. Look how well prohibition and the war on drugs have worked. I suspect that a gun ban within the United States would face equal success.

PDF

the IANSA website is down so you'll have to settle for a pretty picture instead



Oh, one final example is the District of Columbia's handgun ban

D.C. gun crime statistics

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell from 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose to 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

I believe all these statistics and studies pretty much close the thread.

Side note; I believe Macross knows of FBI estimates (or possibly ATF?) of how many crimes are prevented by the open display of a fire arm.

Half correct. The statistics are from a 1994 study conducted by two Florida State University criminologists. They projected that a defensive use (display/firing) of a firearm occurred approximatively 2.5 million times a year. Now, even I think that's high, and Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz only used a 5000-strong sample group. However, this is really the only study that either side has when talking about guns used in self defense.

-So let's say that the number of 2.5 million is inaccurate, and off by a full power of 10. 250,000 DGU's (defensive gun uses) a year. Surely Florida can't be more than ten times worse than the national average.

-The percentage of DGU's that prevented a victim death was 15.7% of total. That sounds accurate, when taken purely from guns used in defensive situations. But what if it's inaccurate too? cut it in half. call it 7.9% of total DGUs saving the victim's life.

-Do the math and it nets you 19,750. 19,750 lives per year saved by defensive gun use, and that's giving the anti-gunners the benefit of the doubt.

-Now, the most commonly thrown-around statistic of 'gun killings' per annum the last decade or so was 30,000 give or take. What isn't commonly said is that according to the FBI/DOJ statistics, 45-50% of those 'killings' are suicides. 13,500-15,000 homicides committed with firearms.

-This means that, again giving the anti's the benefit of the doubt, the net effect of firearms ownership is positive.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
(The link backs-up the study petty well, IMO, and gives cites)

Flaser is right.But sadly people aren't that smart, some are too stubborn or non-educated to ever change.

It depends entirely on who is behind the gun. Saying firearms cause someone to commit a crime is like saying that it's the fork that makes us fat and the pen that makes us poor spellers. If the person who has a gun is abusive of power, then hey, he might go shoot up a Safeway in Tuscon. But if the person is dependable and only uses his gun for target practice, all the while following very strict safety rules, I don't see why they should lose their right to own a gun because of some crazy bastard who goes on a rampage.