Matey, I live here and I have never once seen an unlicensed gun. Criminals (usually drug related) have guns which they use to shoot other (drug or organised) criminals. They don't go out mugging or holding people up with guns, it's really really rare to the extent I don't think I've ever heard of it happening. Knife crime is not the topic. The reason for lower gun crime is.
Of course crime is concentrated in the cities. You evidently missed where I said before that the gun use difference between the EU and the US is cultural. You still have gun crime, just less of it per capita.
From an Australian perspective but not wanting to derail the thread, I agree with you. There is some evidence that firearms-related violence dipped a bit but I'm not at all sure if it could be called a trend, not being a statistical type person. The two gun buybacks were not good policy for various reasons which I won't go into here. But I will just say this - firearms control laws in Australia are aimed at controlling legal weapons use primarily. Some jurisdictions have prohibited outright certain weapons (not just firearms) but this legislation is actually aimed at criminal use. The criminal law - eg legislation touching on crimes which are facilitated by weapons - is used to deal with armed criminals.
Take two societies. In Society A there is widespread civil ownership of firearms. In Society B there is no lawful civil ownership of firearms. Which is going to have more firearms-related violence? I think Society A. Please note I'm not referring to crimes facilitated with firearms (e.g. armed robbery with firearms), I'm referring to firearms-related violence. The US, generally speaking, is akin to Society A. The UK, European countries, Australia, NZ and others, are akin to Society B. We have the type of society we wish for (usually).
It did dip right after the gun buybacks but climbed back up to it's normal level. Unfortunately, gun control works great with the law abiding but not so great with criminals.
That's my point. At least here it's about minimising harm from lawful ownership of firearms. The criminal law - well that part of it that deals with serious offences anyway - is for armed criminals. Crooks, by definition, do not adhere to the law. Firearms control laws mean nothing to them, they're a nuisance and not a deterrence. Firearms control laws are for the average, law-abiding person. I think that might be borne out in the public response to the two gun buybacks - people came in and handed over there soon-to-be-illegal firearms in line with the law - no self-respecting crook is going to do that.
I didn't know that. Now, how does that translate to general wellbeing in society? I don't mean the organised criminals who use firearms as a tool of trade, I mean the ordinary person.
It means you cannot correlate gun control laws with crime. It is cultural. On a lighter note here in the USA:
We seem to be in agreement. Crime is very different from firearms control laws. Criminal law has as its aim the suppression of what we know as crime - in Roman Law the concept of mala in se (evil of itself) is useful here. Murder, robbery, housebreaking, theft - these are crimes according to the average person. The criminal law exists to try to minimise the occurrence of crime. Again going back to Roman Law the concept of mala prohibita - that which was made illegal by decree, is useful to look at legal regulation of behaviour. Liquor licensing laws, firearms control laws, fall under this category. I think in German law the distinction is still very strong, whereas in common law countries it isn't so well defined. Firearms control laws aren't specifically about crime control, they're about harm minimisation from lawful possession/use of firearms.
To a large extent I'd agree with that, except that in cultures where they are applicable gun control laws can be a very effective tool in legally enforcing the prevailing cultural opinions about how guns should exist in society. In such countries (like the UK) the gun control laws are a part of why gun crime statistics remain relatively low - when the general population largely don't want guns, the lack of easy over-the-counter gun availability does help keep them out of the hands of the few who might want them for the wrong reasons ('hardcore criminals' will still get them, of course, but only 'hardcore criminals' - they are not easy to obtain for casual thieves, or angry people with a grudge, or whatever). That doesn't mean that there can be no effective 'gun control' laws at all in countries where actually controlling guns in the way the UK does would not be suitable or culturally acceptable. There may be some issues that could be legally addressed to help minimise the number of guns that end up in the hands of irresponsible or unstable people who would seek to do harm without actually limiting the freedom of the general population to own guns. I'm not suggesting that that would be easy to do (or even that it is possible - just that it is possible that it is possible, and shouldn't be a taboo subject entirely), but it is something that could be openly discussed and considered, alongside other measures, without the immediate unhelpful entrenchment into 'don't touch our guns' resistance by hard-liners. In the case of the USA, the hard-liners need to acknowledge that there actually is a problem with high levels of gun crime (which clearly statistically there is), and that that is something society should be considering as a problem that needs to be looked at. Looking at the problem from all angles, including the availability and supply angle, doesn't mean 'disarming the population', it means simply considering whether there are some things that could be done to help people who want to (for example) carry out mass shootings of fellow school students from freely getting hold of as much armament as they want to do that, while causing only minimal inconvenience at most to the decent, law-abiding gun owner (of course there are other issues to discuss alongside that). That's not something I'm going to prejudge, but it is something I think should be discussed openly and honestly and in a spirit of pragmatism and logic rather than ideological dogmatism and/or denial of the issues. To put it bluntly (and obviously taking just one very specific issue for the sake of illustration), when someone says something like, 'Hey, maybe we should look at how easy it is for mentally ill youngsters with grudges and violent intentions to get limitless guns and ammunition to use', people really shouldn't be responding immediately with, 'You'll have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands - no compromise, no surrender, not ever', but instead with at least something like 'I don't think anything cvan really be done, I can see major problems with trying, and I don't want restrictions on my own lawful gun ownership, but I'm prepared to listen and consider any options put forward - youngsters going on killing sprees isn't a good thing for anybody'.
The Swiss have a violent crime rate lower than that of the UK and have gun ownership rates and gun control laws that are quite similar to those of the USA, rather than other countries of Europe. Thus, it is pure speculation on your part that "gun control laws are a part of why gun crime statistics remain relatively low" in the United Kingdom. There have been no prospective cohort studies demonstrating that efficacy of gun control. The issue is, us "hard-liners" are often the ONLY ones looking at statistics. For example, if we look at violent crime statistics between individual states in the USA, we can see that there is absolutely no correlation with severity of gun control laws and a decrease in violent crime rates. Thus, by looking at statistics, it does not appear that gun control laws affect violent crime in a meaningful way. What do you suggest could be done that has not already been thought of? Additionally, the most infamous school shooting in America, Columbine High School, was carried out by high school students who ILLEGALLY obtained their firearms. They broke many laws in obtaining their weapons, so I personally fail to see how adding more laws can possibly remedy this issue. I think we have been doing this quite a lot on this forum. Unfortunately, many people are too blinded by their own ideology to even consider the "other side" of this argument. This is an absolute strawman argument due to the fact that we ALREADY have many gun control restrictions that are in place on a state and federal level. "Mentally ill youngsters" cannot legally buy a gun (problem already solved).
Some have (here and elsewhere), are still of the opinion that there is nothing that can be done, have based their opinion on open discussion and consideration of the facts (and their interpretation), but are prepared still to discuss the issue and point out what they think are the flaws in other ideas, and that's fine - that's how it should be. What I was talking about as 'hard-liners' were those who simply won't discuss or consider any opinion other than their own, won't consider facts or logic, and so on. They exist on both sides of the argument, of course, and neither lot helps in actually having a reasoned public debate - ideology can be a good guiding light for forming personal views in the context of other considerations, but blind ideology alone is a really bad way to decide anything, let alone how to run a country and what laws there should and shouldn't be! There are many practical and other considerations that need to be taken into account to achieve a balanced system that actually works in practise. The issue with those restriction that are already in place not having been effective is all tied in with it, and questions should be asked about why they didn't work - is it purely an enforcement issue, or is it a flaw with the restrictions themselves, and so on. Only by continually questioning and considering and discussing, through evidence, logical arguement, consideration of various views and options, and so on, can things be improved so that the likelyhood of such events occuring again is minimised. Knee-jerk reactions by either side, either to the problem or to each other and each others' ideas, really don't help anything.
What I'm seeing from the liberal UK prospective (Jim92, cyneed, yourself, etc.) is this myopic, this short sighted focus on gun laws as they pertain to the false logic that gun restrictions are the end all, be all answer to crime prevention and public safety. Violent crime is more than just someone using a gun unjustly. There must be a workable plan to reduce violent crime anywhere in the world where it is a problem, and the focus should be on punishing the felons. I have already stated my position on logical, just and workable solutions to crime, that worked well in the past, essentially exucuting the most wicked offenders within no less than a few months after a fair and SPEEDY trial and appeals process. Doing the same for all repeat violent felons after their 3rd plus conviction. And finally, prison sentances of less than 5 years for all other crimes. Knowing that fear of punishment, no the failed idea of rehabilitation, is one of the primary keys to preventing crimes from happening in the first place. Prison work and discipline should strive to match conditions aboard one of Lord Nelson's ships of war 200 years ago. To keep the spead of HIV and Hepititis down, flogging with a leather strap can substitue for a "cat of nine tails." I would rather see a relative few thousand criminals being treated very harshly, and have tens of thousands, if not millions of extra violent crimes (as in the US) being prevented. Being so worried about rights of the relative few dangeous criminals, than the welfare of all the mutitudes of innocent lives they harm, I find barbaric. I've heard your ideas on gun control laws, now what about punishment? As a proper, civilized Brit, tell me the proper and humane punishment for each: 1) Felon who uses a gun to kill someone during the commision of a crime. 2) Same felon making a bigger mess using a knife. 3) Same felon doing even worse with a chainsaw. 4) Felon who uses a weapon to rob a store. 5) Felon who uses a weapon to attack a resident during a home invasion robbery. 6) Preditory rapist. 7) Child rapist.
What "control" laws are you referring to? Switzerland has a much higher rate of gun ownership than the US does. Many European nations with stricter gun laws also have higher rates of violent crime with other weapons (ex. knives) on the flip side.
Easy to make assertions - harder to back that with stats As for Switzerland - of course it has a higher gun ownership - every household HAS to keep military guns as part of the national readiness - and they have mandatory yearly training http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland So it seems that although Switzerland has one of the highest gun "ownerships" in Europe it has one of the lowest ownerships of ammunition for said guns LOLS!!!!
Actually that just means that they don't have the issued ammunition at home. It doesn't mean that they have no ammunition. You should read the whole article before you try to make a point from it: The article also mentions that shooting competitions are very popular and that 420,000 of the estimated 1.2 million - 3 million weapons in private possession are actually militia weapons. The rest are private, not military weapons. So unless you have another source, your conclusion that "it has one of the lowest ownerships of ammunition for said guns" is not at all supported by the article you cited, nor is your implication that most of the guns are military, rather than privately owned weapons.
The largest problem with gun control that we in the USA face today is the ILLEGAL use of guns! Legal law abiding gun owners, even machine and 20mm tank killer cannon owners do not even show up as more than fractional percentage points in gun violence/death. I am convinced that our, the Wests specifically the USA's gun culture romanticizing and popularizing gun violent play is FAR more to blame than easy access to firearms. All types of violence is popular in media and games in the west. For example in my days it was westerns and movies about the army etc. Today kids are more heavily influenced by media and games than ever before. Look at the inner city ethnic gangs that a significant portion of our youth imitate or admire. Why? Gun play is heavily popularized music, especially rap and in film. One can slaughter thousands in virtual reality, the violent games being far and away the most popular. I could go on, the old west and the frontier which many or most Europeans don't understand, even a good portion of the academics. I mentioned westerns which romanticize guns and guts winning the western frontier. Europeans do not understand that culture in many cases. I have read many European UK books authored by born and bred Uk/Europeans that mentioned the USA's preoccupation with the history of the western frontier, or the last frontier of Alaska etc. The books I am referencing having titles in everything from culture to physics. In the books referenced the PhD author invariably tells his readers that the frontier does not exist. The authors that do mention the frontier has a skewered notion of it. I digress, just a little eh? Anyway, I strongly opine that culture and not gun control in all its ghastly freedom robbing incarnations does much of nothing control serious injury including death from firearms. It is our love of games that are all about killing and excessive violence with weapons, primarily firearms, films and very popular music embracing gun play are a huge part, I would say 90% just guessing, of the problem. We should make firearms unpopular to the youth to more adults if we want to reduce death by guns. Of course I do not think the gangster, specially ethnic inner city type lifestyle which revolves around weapons CAN be easily changed. If that is not addressed and eliminated illicit use of firearms and deaths from firearms will remain the highest in the world here in the USA. reva
That is not right...Very few states have any restrictions to the open carry of weapons to a range or in hunting. If you want to carry concealed, most states require a permit and that is more complicated.
You cannot compare as you are far less diverse than we are and you carefully only want to compare 'gun crimes' but not simply compare like to like, violent crime to violent crime...Our rate has dropped for a couple of decades...has yours?
You live in the west of Scotland. It is simply too (*)(*)(*)(*)ed cold and wet to commit anything like a serious crime very often.
(*)(*)(*)(*) this site and its data base errors!!! I just lost another post ...I will try it again before going to another forum~ You are correct JIMV, in TN the ammo and the firearms must be carried separate preferably in a locked container or area like the firearms in the trunk and the ammo in the glove box. Concealed carry permits are only semi difficult to get. Usually one has to complete a firearm safety course and have a demonstrable reason for wanting to carry. I was issued mine because I owned a vending businesses and had to collect the money from the machines at night. And I have had death threats because of my internet postings. Anyway I really feel there should not be any restrictions carrying a firearm in open sight or concealed. Permits are just a game to make the county money. I know for a fact they did not even check my records, nor did they check if I owned the business I claimed, strangely enough they did want proof of the internet threats, my snitch in the county court clerks office told me it was a homeland security thing, which is another scam. reva
