I was having a discussion with a co-worker this morning about this very subject. There was a local news story about a man killing an intruder in his home with a gun he legally owned. Who knows what would have happened had he not owned the gun as the intruder was armed with a 4 inch hunting knife.

In short...The question for debate.

Will the banning of handguns in the United States reduce violent and non-violent crime?

Please gives reasons for your position. I will post my feelings on this subject a bit later.

Banning handgun sales in the US will never stop crime related to fire arms. The funny thing is that gun control has never been shown to stop crime. Even the Canadians have shown this..
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/cri...s/1995/gun/#gun

What it would do is slow/stop the handgun industry in the US, and put THOUSANDS of Honest Americans out of work. It would stop the tax revenue generated by handgun and ammunition sales, and it would force the sale of handguns underground.

Look at the Brady bill as an example. It did not stop the use of automatic weapons in violent crime, yet did put many small arms dealers out of business. There are no statistics that show that the Brady Bill stopped the illegal sale of automatic weapons that it limited. There are plenty of law abiding citizens that held FFL's that had to seek other means of supporting their families, etc.

Frankly, handguns in America are a means by which to protect homes, weapons for sport, and collectors items at the same time. Limiting or completely making them illegal would never stop the use of them in crime... but would put some lawful handgun owners at risk.

In short.... The answer is no.

Currently, there are an estimated 200 million guns in America.

Private Guns in America

The vast majority of people who exercise their constitution right to own one have never committed an illegal act with them.

It seems that the criminals who ignore the laws against theft, drug sale/use, violent behavior, rape, etc., aren't too interested in what the 20,000+ gun laws on the books "prohibit".

Banning handguns has been tried in some areas dominated by liberal/democrat politicians. It hasn't worked.

In contrast, the liberalization of concealed carry laws has resulted in crime decreases, not increases.

More Guns Less Crime

The bottom line is that laws that ban handguns essentially ban honest people from possessing the means of self defense. As such, I find such laws no only against the spirit of the constitution, but IMMORAL.

When you take away the ability of a person to protect himself, his family, and his property from a predator who is uninterested in the "law", you create a "victim".

I am a gun owner- and am not an extremist on this issue either way-

to me, pandoras box has been opened for far too long for this to ever be effective- what are we going to do, pull an Iraq and go door to door searching for weapons? Because total confiscation is the only way that will ever work- there are far too many guns already in circulation- so, short of door to door searches, it would never work.

However, it is very, very rare that the "good guys" win in a story like reported by sleeper- it is so rare it makes headlines when it does happen- mostly, especially if you have ever worked in the ER- it is husbands and wives killing each other, gansta wannabes exchanging some gunfire, one child killing his/her sibling while playing with them, or , mostly, a gun collectors getting thier collections stolen and then making it into the stolen blackmarket gun exchange.

Look at just the common sense sides of this scenario- first, the bad guys know when they are coming for you, so they have the element of suprise. Second, you own a pistol, and you fire that thing at a burgerlar, and where does the bullet go next? Perhaps into a nieghbors kid asleep next door? Shotguns are far better home protection- they typically will not go through plywood walls.

The best home protection you can have is a dog- bad guys are lazy, they hear the dog bark, the lose the element of suprise, and run away.

Bad guys USUALLY carry guns themselves- usually they dont' enter a house with just a knife- very dumb bad guy in this case.

WE are the most violent society in the world- we revel in it, we love bloodshed and violence, it is part of the very fabric of our society, every part of our entertainment, no matter which side of philosophy you land on, chances are, your form of entertainment at some point involves something being killed and destroyed.

The NRA always trots out some stupid stat that "proves" how much crime goes up when guns are illegal in another country- but when you have 200 hand gun deaths one year, then 400 the next year- there maybe a 100% increase in crime- but, still, when compared to the thousands and thousands of handgun deaths in the US, it still pales.

Moscow is a crime riddled city, very dangerous- but I still feel more safe there than in east LA!

I personally do not believe that by banning handguns we would reduce crime at all but it would increase. I base this of the fact that the UK banned hand guns and had a dramatic increase in violent crimes.

New laws don't make criminals start abiding by the ones on the books.

I'm not exactly sure why you feel that way, but I hope you're careful next time you visit Moscow.
From the Guardian UK




At least the gangbangers in East LA mostly shoot at each other. The criminals in Moscow seem to have very little regard for human life.

I, too, am a gun owner (I have three handguns) who agrees wholeheartedly with Cruisingram.

The reality is that our government knows how to stop a lot of gun crime but, because of the conservative lobby nothing happens. I learned a while ago that nearly all guns that enter the blackmarket come from a limited number of "legitimate" dealers. first link I found on that issue

Most of these dealers are marked for their paperwork discrepencies and strange inventory habits but usually cannot be caught because of the protections they have. For instance, dealerships must be notified of audits by the ATF days before the audit is to take place. The ATF is also limited in the number of audits they can perform on a dealer (one per year I believe) This is nonsense!
When I was a bartender the state was able to come at any time, send in undercover spotters, and come every night if they so chose. Why do gun dealers get so much leeway?


Banning the ownership of legal handguns in the U.S. would, in my opinion, greatly reduce the number of deaths due to handguns. Many people die due to ignorance, immaturity or downright stupidity when handling firearms. We could, however, argue the same line for automobile use and the many deaths on our highways.

Banning handguns would NOT reduce the number of gun crimes however. Crimes are commited by people who don't follow the rules. People who don't follow the rules don't care if their gun is illegal, after all, they plan on commiting murder or robbery with it. It is laughable when politicians taut some new gun law as a measure against crime.

Example:

Law banning magazines (clips) larger than 10 rounds. What did it net?
Legal owners could no longer buy a gun that holds more than ten rounds from a store. Business in selling old, high capacity magazines soars because they aren't being purchased with a handgun.

What is the outcome? Well, some politicians can tell you they stopped crime and John "law abiding" Public has to reload more if ever he gets caught up in a gangland shootout choreographed by John Wu....

It is impossible to eliminate handgun crime, our government is handcuffed from stopping the trafficking of legal guns into the black market and we are bombarded by feel good laws that only affect the people who care to follow them.


The real answer is as CR said; get a shotgun. They are safer, more useful for close combat inside a house and it is a lot harder to shoot yourself with a long barreled gun. Handguns are a part of our culture and we need to be educated on them. I support regulations that enforce liscencing, education and responsibility. Doing away with handguns would not make us less safe in our homes. It may save some people from themselves in fact. But it would not stop crime in any way.

Leave it to AD posters to be anti-gun legislation, but still turn a typically Republican stance into an anti-conservative rhetorical statement!!!

The fact is that there is no way to quantify how many guns are sold into the "blackmarket" by illegal dealers. This would require finding all illegal guns sold in the US and quantifying how many are sold without proper documentation. We'd then have to figure out how many were simply procedural errors and not sold to criminals. THEN, we'd have to ascertain whether perfectly legally purchased weapons were stolen, then sold illegally... etc, etc, etc.

Conservative lobbyists stop crime from being prosecuted? What else can you blame on republicans? Seriously. I think that conservatives probably have a list of "to-do's" on how to ruin the country. I love using the Brady bill as an example because nothing has changed since it was repealed.

The fact is that laws like the Brady bill got ratified because of Democrats in congress, and the vast majority of people that lobby for such legislation are liberals.

How do conservatives, whom are often anti-gun control, lobby against stopping gun crimes?

You know- it cracks me up to hear about "liberals" and gun control- since about 90% of the beauracracy involving guns started say back in the prohibition era as a demand of "tough on crime" conservatives!

I have been to Moscow several times now- and, unless you are a rich businessman (also called "the mafia") or a walking Russian- you will be pretty much left alone. You turn down the wrong street by accident in just about anyone of our big cities- you will certainly die!

There is too much hyperbole by both sides of this issue in America- alot of it just has to do with the fact we are a culture of violence. We can't control any crime until poeple up at the top are as accountable as a street thug.

I absolutely support Germany style gun licensing, where you have to take extensive testing and class room time- why is it so much easier to get a gun than a drivers license or car in this country? I mean, we place REASONABLE control over an automobile, which, in the wrong hands, is CERTAINLY as dangerous as a gun (though you rarely have your three year old running out to the car and running over his brother/sister) - some reasonable controls and watchdog activities over dealers etc would be a very good idea.

Also- making crimes commited with guns FAR more serious a penalty, than say, cocaine possesiobn would help! Our jails are so full of addicts and hookers we don't have room for the real bad guys anymore- it is a question of resources.

I can't say that I understand your references to Gun control and Moscow, and how it relates to whether the laws stop crime or not.

However, this site is great for increasing understanding and getting objective statistics on gun related crime, etc.
http://www.guncite.com/

The thing is that most gun control policy is not "prohibition era" law. When conservatives talk about "gun control" as it relates to contemporary politics, we're discussing laws like the Brady bill, or waiting times for firearms. Neither of which have aided in slowing crime in relation to firearms. This thread is all about whether gun control has slowed crime, and it hasn't. This is obvious.
I don't know how it turned into a rhetorical rant about conservatives and how their lobbying slows the crime fighting process...

check out the site. Interesting information from multiple sources.

Seriously, CruisingRam, I know that you have been to Moscow more than I (like more than once ), but this kind of hyperbole is ridiculous. A wrong turn in "just about any one of our big cities and you will certainly die!" There were about 500 murders in Los Angeles last year - are you saying that the 4 million residents of LA collectively only made 500 wrong turns? A white guy in the projects in Chicago is completely safe as the gangbangers have no idea who / why you are there, other than maybe to buy their drugs.

The murder rate in Eastern Europe, South Africa and parts of Latin America is orders of magnitude higher than the United States, even if you narrow down to big cities.

I have taken the advice of La Herring Rouge and am protecting my home with a Remington 870 Express...

As to the specific question:
Will the banning of handguns in the United States reduce violent and non-violent crime?
I look to places with gun bans - Chicago bans handguns and they pour in from surrounding areas. DC bans handguns (the nerve, in the city where the actual 2nd Amendment resides!!) and they pour in from surrounding areas. If you are talking about a national ban, they would certainly pour in over the southern border (not to mention there is no chance of confiscating the 200 million guns in circulation). It's not practical and wouldn't reduce crime a bit. Is hasn't reduced crime in Canada, the United Kingdom, or Australia. Indeed those nations had sharp increases in violent crime following their gun bans. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the tragedy of those citizens' not being able to defend themselves against criminals, it would at times seem farcical:

Let's look at the effectiveness of the "assault weapons ban" - these hands are registered as lethal weapons:
or the effect of handgun control on teen suicide - better ban rope:or in Australia, where people don't kill people, swords kill peopleWell, I guess Australia had to move onto swords since their gun control couldn't prevent this string of 20 gangland murders

The problems of gun crime and crime in general are too complex for a simple handgun ban to have any real effect.

Well, with serious straight out lies like "the brady bill has no effect"- it is no wonder that no one outside the NRA believes the NRA- over 320,000 felons or mentally ill stopped from buying guns since it's inception!

Here is a pretty balanced article IMO:

http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/SAN01-14.pdf

I would like to quote parts of it- but it is in PDF form.

some real facts:

1) If a member of a household owns a gun, then the at home suicide attempts and armed assaults are more likely to involve a gun than otherwise

2) Guns are more deadly in this case than other weapons (an instrumentality effect)

The intresting part of this article to me is this little nugget:

"The fact that the US is such a violent country has little to do with guns: the fact that our violent crimes are so deadly has to do with guns"

Since US vs Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) no federal appeal law has overturned a gun control law on second amendment rights

"Between 1994 and 1998 320,000 requests for purchase denied, with 220,00 rejections due to felony convictions or indictments pending"

The problem with the Brady bill is NOT the background checks- it is the loopholes demanded by the right wing! "Straw man" purchases etc and legal loopholes probably allowed a great deal of those folks to buy guns anyway.

Now- on the NRA side of the argument I AGREE with- only 50 prosecutions for a felon, caught trying to buy a gun by the brady bill, being prosecuted- now THAT represents one of the great problems to me- not prosecuting those that are committing crimes against laws ALREADY on the books!- I mean, really, why create new laws when we don't use the ones we have?

One of the great comments in this article is how price effect crime- i.e.- when guns are very expensive, bad guys don't have as many guns! LOL

Now- once again, I want to be clear, I believe both sides engage in too much hyperbole and fact wringing in this issue-

but, to be consistant- I see gun ownership on the same plane as currently illegal drug use, gambling or prostitution- to me, they are all part of the same thing-

the goverment should be able to license and control each to some degree, but not make the illegal for anyone- I think gun ownership for a family is far more dangerous to a family than illegal drugs, prostitution or gambling, but I don't want to see those illegal either!

I support an adults legal right as a consenting adult to engage in prostitution, take whatever drugs you feel like, gamble your life savings away, or own a handgun - just, when you commit a crime against persons or property, you should be harshly punished for misusing those rights you were given!

I agree with you for the most part (where legal), but you can't put these rights on the same plane. They may be all part of the same thing to you, but they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. A big difference. You can broadly interpret the 10th Amendment that all other rights not mentioned are reserved to the states or to the people, and I would agree. But the unique thing about the second amendment is that it notes the ongoing nature of gun rights are not to be infringed. That is, people already have a right to bear arms, and the second amendment recognizes that right to continue (not be infringed). The founders were specifically contrasting this with England, where subjects did not enjoy this right.

According to that article I posted- and correct me if I am wrong- but not a single supreme court ruling since 1939 has upheld your definition of the second amendment.

Since US vs Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) no federal appeal law has overturned a gun control law on second amendment rights

The second amendment is, at best, ambiguous- you may BELIEVE that it says something different to you- but no court, conservative or liberal- has agreed with the gun nut crowd as to Thier various definitions of it.

However- the question is really of would banning handguns solve anything-I say no, however, making them very, very expensive to own, easy to track, required lincensure exams for EVERYONE that owns handguns to the level many state require of the conceal gun course, and with large criminal penalties for misuse.


I think thier would be GREAT benefit for the requirement for all hand gun owners to go through the equivilent of the conceal gun permit licensure/education.

Anyone caught with a handgun without the equivilent of a conceal carry permit, with it's background checks, classroom teaching etc - would and should go to jail. Same as operating a car. Driving with suspended licence is jail time in my state- owning a handgun without the same level required should be the same penalty.

**I didn't include any of the other information in the forementioned post, as my point is valid without referencing them**

1. The Brady Bill was never coorelated to stopping crime, but simply stopping a very small number of people from purchasing firearms. The verdict was less than 2.1 % since 1994. That's saying that 97.9% of all purchases were by law-abiding citizens. Criminals aren't following the proper channels to purchase firearms. It also never coorelates why the minute 2.1% was rejected.

2. According to a Bureau of Justice report in 2001; "Those who had committed gun crimes were asked where they had obtained their weapons. Some 8.3 percent said from licensed dealers, .7 percent said gun shows, 39.6 percent said family members or friends, and 40.8 percent had obtained their guns illegally on the street."

3. There is no information as to how many violent crimes are committed by handguns purchased via conventional (legal) methods. There's no way to track what percentage of legally acquired handguns are never used in an illegal fashion.

VERDICT???
Gun laws don't stop criminals... police stop criminals. Be tougher on violent crime and it may not happen as much. That's a coorelation that we'd all love to see. If a criminal knew that being caught shooting someone would give them the chair, some people just may not pull the trigger.

You also mention that gun laws don't necessarily stop crime, but guns make crime more violent. That being said, we've already established that over 80% of guns acquired by criminals and used in violent crimes that are prosecuted do not buy them in the legally accepted fashion!@!@!@!@!@!@!

You bash the NRA as if they're crazy people standing up for child molesters on national tv or something... oh , wait, that's Jesse Jackson... never mind (sorry- a Micheal Jackson plug had to go on this board somewhere).

Coorelating gun laws to stopping violent crime is like stiffer drunk driving laws stopping drunk driving fatalities. It just doesn't have any quantifiable effect. Take a look at this article (by your liberal buddies @ CBS!)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/21/...ain530342.shtml

Will the banning of handguns in the United States reduce violent and non-violent crime?

Nope. The only thing that would have any impact would be the abolition of all firearms - followed by a massive and comcerted effort by every law enforcement agency in the country to round up all guns - including those that are unregistered and untraceable - and prosecuting those in possession of them. First, there will never be such an abolition in this country and, second, even if there were, enforcing it would take decades (at least) and more resources than exist.

The only places where the banning of firearms has had any impact on violent crime is in those countries (like the Republic of Ireland) where such a policy has been in place for generations.

If your colleague is genuinely concerned about violent crime, Sleeper, s/he would have better luck advocating the banning poverty, fear and hatred.

I, too own a number of handguns, a rifle and a shotgun. No shortage of armament in my home, and everyone knows how to use them responsibly.

Short answer to your debate question, Sleeper? No, it won't.

Long answer, with justification? If memory serves, in the early 80's, Morton Grove, Illinois banned handgun ownership. The following year, the crime rate was up something like 15 to 20 percent, while surrounding areas had an increase of only 3 or 4 percent.

Just after Morton Grove placed a ban on weapons, Kennesaw Georgia, a town of similar size, just to be contrary, passed an ordinance which required all homeowners to have a weapon. A year later, it was shown that the crime rate in Kennesaw was down around 80 percent, even thought the surrounding areas had an increase of about 10 percent.

The reasoning by those studying the effects was that most criminals in Morton Grove had little to fear from homeowners, while in Kennesaw, it was much more likely that a criminal would meet with armed resistance.


Shotguns will be safer for the average homeowner, yes. As noted, there is less likely-hood of missing the target, or in accidentally shooting yourself, especially if you don't practice in panic-type exercises regularly. I used to shoot competitively, however, both with a Winchester, as well as pistols. And I still practice on a regular basis. It's unlikely I'm going to miss my target with whatever I use, except maybe spitballs. I never could get the hang of those things.

I started a thread on this topic some time ago.
My question was somewhat different, would gun owners please suggest steps that would lower the rate of gun violence in the US?

I even separated the types (accidental, intentional, criminal, children, etc.)
There were very little in the way of useful suggestions.

It just seems that this is an issue that will not change. There are just too many guns already in circulation and the special interests are too powerful.

Banning handguns will not reduce instances of crime. A ban will only prevent law abiding citizens from possessing the tools necessary for personal protection. Those who commit crimes already break the law, why wouldn't they break this one?

I live in a rural part of the Big Island of Hawaii. Law enforcement here is very different than law enforcement on the mainland. There is a shortage of law enforcement personnel, and a very different view on the types of crimes they respond to. If you live in the urban areas on Maui or Oahu, you're more likely to see proactive crime prevention. In the Puna District on the Big Island, it's the old west mentality.

Rather than banning handguns altogether, perhaps a mandatory training and certification should be instituted. If you're going to carry, at least know what you're doing.

I think that some common-sense licensing makes sense. Unfortunately, the history of gun control in this country shows that such laws have been abused. Gun permits have been denied and special laws passed to keep guns away from former slaves, immigrant groups, even Catholics. This is why some of us have a hard time trusting the government to act in our best interest. I live in one of the cities with a handgun ban, but it certainly doesn't seem to concern the gang bangers. I doubt they would sign up for a legal permit either.

So we should not bother trying to stop the flow of guns into the blackmarket?
Why bother making laws to stop the loopholes in our present laws when there are just so darn many guns already out there?? I can't comprehend the logic there. I think most people here understand that our present gun laws don't work well. That does not mean that there are NO gun laws that can work well.





You are missing the point here aevans176. Present gun laws don't stop crime because, as Cruisingram and myself have pointed out, the conservative gun lobby ensures that the teeth have been removed from any significant gun legislation. We are left with fluff, feel-good laws that, in most states, aren't even enforced. See:
Federal gun laws not being enforced

Gun laws by state

The wild disparities in gun legislation from state to state are insane.
Background checks, concealed carry laws, permits for handguns, etc... These should be active laws in every state but they have been thwarted in many states by the conservative gun lobby. This article is admittedly biased but it is factual in it's description of the NRA's history of stopping the government from passing meanigful gun laws.

So yes, you are correct, gun laws do not work. But they could work better.


There IS a way to quantify, or at least estimate closely. We know how many guns are produced around the world by manufacturers and we know how many guns are purchased legally. Likewise the ATF knows which "legitimate" dealers have a high occurrence of their products turning up in the crime world.
As I already pointed out, the NRA and other lobbies managed to stop the federal government from setting up laws by which they could stop those dealers.

Perhaps I am confused because I support gun ownership and yet blame conservative lobbies for some of our problems, but this is not a black and white world. Here's one for you: I am going to take yet another classic conservative position and turn it around on them.

I think that, as a society, we must take responsibility for our penchant for guns. If we are going to have them we must also accept the need to regulate them. We don't complain about our complex system for controlling automobile traffic because we enjoy being able to hop in our cars and go where we please. Likewise, we should not shun the regulation of anything we cherish if that thing could become a danger to others around us.

I think the Brady Bill had been effective in that the waiting period during which background checkgrounds and "cooling off" takes place has screened out some potentially ill suited gun owners. I believe that all persons convicted(not charge) of domestic violence should not be allowed to own guns. Additionally the charges of using a weapon of mass destructions, any sale, distribution or trafficking of drugs should be a bar to gun ownership. Like some have said, raise the bar for gun ownership, make it a hassle to own one and the honest man will still get his, while collandering out the undesirable gun owner.

Will the banning of handguns in the United States reduce violent and non-violent crime?
I believe it’s been amply shown by examples from other countries (England, Australia), as well as by anecdotal evidence from those living in U.S. cities with handgun bans (i.e. carlitoswhey in Chicago), that there’s no reason to expect a handgun ban would lower violent and non-violent crime.

Furthermore — if we agree an outright ban fails to lower such crime, then it seems odd to believe that a less drastic step such as registration would somehow accomplish the goal. Granted, it might reduce the number of guns in legal circulation and thus reduce the number stolen and used by criminals. But it would also certainly have the effect of reducing the number of armed law abiding citizens (who might have a concealed handgun), something criminals surely count as an obstacle when they contemplate committing a crime.


If one reads the CBS story cited (Federal gun laws not being enforced), it actually blames the lack of enforcement on the apathy of both sides: "The gun lobby really isn’t interested in tough enforcement of laws that could inconvenience manufacturers and dealers. The gun-control lobby doesn’t want to undermine its call for tougher laws."

In other words, tougher enforcement isn't being attempted by anyone. It seems logical to try enforcing the existing laws before passing a new set.

To answer Sleeper's question:


Regarding violent crimes: People can still beat each other up. They can use tasers, pepper spray, baseball bats, crowbars, knives, etc. When a person is being beaten up by 4 people with clubs, and they don't have a gun to protect themselves, he would die. However, if he had a gun, there would be deterrance. And since guns make noise, people are less apt to use them in a violent situation, in my perception, (i.e. for purely violent crimes, rather than self defense) because a knife is completely silent, whereas if there is a gun being fired, everyone within 1 mile of the shot hears it. So if that is in a busy city, people are likely to hear it, so witnesses to crimes are plenty, leading to (possible) deterrance.

Regarding non-violent crimes: People can still steal things from closed stores by breaking through the window, so non-violent crimes would become greater. Consider if the owner were standing on the other side of the window as the people broke in. There is no deterrance. However, if the owner was standing on the other side of the window with a glock, then there would be deterrance.

No, of course not. The reasons are many. Number one and most important criminals do not obey the law. Only law abiding citizens will obey such a ban.

This law would also violate the 2nd Amendment, and in my state Article 1 Section 6 of our State Constitution (Michigan).

Lastly if you look at areas where private citizens are allowed to carry they are always less crime ridden than those where it is restricted.

Even then it wouldn't work. They are to easy to hide, to easy to make, and as we cannot stop millions of tons of drugs and millions of illegal immigrants from coming over our borders I do not see why we could stop guns from doing so.



That is why the intelligent person practices with their weapon to become proficient at its use and also choose the right ammunition. Frangible ammunition and hollow points, or shot-loads will not penetrate walls. Same choices with a shotgun. You put a 3 inch magnum sabot slug in your 12 gague it and will shoot clean through your house, your car, and the neighbors house as well. 00 Buckshot will go through interior walls like they didn't exist. You choose the appropriate round for what you want to use the weapon for.




This simply is not the case. The vast majority of burglars do not carry weapons for the simple fact that it can treble or quadrapole your sentence. If you see a charge of simple burglary or breaking and entering you know they were unarmed. Those who break in armed face far more serious charges.



You've obviously never visited Columbia, Iraq, Somalia, or any of a large number of stinking third world snake-pits. You might also note that oh so civilized Europe has started two world wars in the last century that killed more than 50 million people. We kill retail, they do it wholesale.




Israel and Switzerland both require adult citizens to won both semi-automatic handguns and selectable fire battle rifles. Switzerland is very peaceful. Other than the Islamic terrorists so is Israel. You might also note that more than half the handgun deaths in the US are suicides, something that is a right. More than half of what is left are criminals killed in the act of committing a crime, something I could care less about as well.



You may feel that way, but that doesn't make it so.

I think the assumption is that if such a law were to be passed, the Second Amendment would have to be reworded or removed altogether. This thread is about the principle.

Lastly if you look at areas where private citizens are allowed to carry they are always less crime ridden than those where it is restricted.
I'm not sure the relationship is as direct as you seem to suggest. Have any of the now-law-abiding areas that introduced concealed carry laws been especially crime-ridden to begin with?

Even then it wouldn't work. They are to easy to hide, to easy to make, and as we cannot stop millions of tons of drugs and millions of illegal immigrants from coming over our borders I do not see why we could stop guns from doing so.
Fair comment.

This simply is not the case. The vast majority of burglars do not carry weapons for the simple fact that it can treble or quadrapole your sentence. If you see a charge of simple burglary or breaking and entering you know they were unarmed. Those who break in armed face far more serious charges.
The big flaw in this argument is the assumption that burglars get caught. Most never do. I think sentencing is never a true deterrent - criminals either commit crimes on impulse, maybe under the influence of intoxicants, or they premeditate them, the object of which is almost always to commit their crime without being caught.

You've obviously never visited Columbia, Iraq, Somalia, or any of a large number of stinking third world snake-pits. You might also note that oh so civilized Europe has started two world wars in the last century that killed more than 50 million people. We kill retail, they do it wholesale.
Columbia, Iraq, Somalia and many other third-world snake pits (!) are all to some degree in a state of civil war. The War on Terror aside, only South Africa approaches the level of peacetime civilian violence that is routine in the USA, and arguably large parts of South Africa are "third-word snake pits".
Europeans tend not to kill one another unless there is a war going on. Admittedly we have them rather too frequently, but we've been good for an unprecedentedlt long time. Perhaps all those centuries of slaughter finally got too much and we decided that it wasn't worth the bloodshed any more?

Israel and Switzerland both require adult citizens to won both semi-automatic handguns and selectable fire battle rifles. Switzerland is very peaceful. Other than the Islamic terrorists so is Israel.
Yes. And most other countries in Europe - with the notable exception of the UK - permit firearms ownership to some degree or another, though nowhere makes it an inaleinable right. Yet in the Western World, nowhere approaches the levels of peactime violence seen in the USA. I think you just like each other less than anywhere else.

You might also note that more than half the handgun deaths in the US are suicides, something that is a right. [b/]
Suicide is a right, now? When did that happen?

[b]You may feel that way, but that doesn't make it so.
Back at you! That's what is all about- if we all thought the same way it would be more than a little dull around here

Could you back that up with some data of several years. was it up by 50 murders serious crimes a year vs our 20,000? (have no idea how many we have)


Will the banning of handguns in the United States reduce violent and non-violent crime?
I have no idea if it will or will not. I have not seen very complete data here, actually lacking the most common sense data which hurts an objective debate in my view. The link to John Lott if you read that he does not back up his statement with data (I understand he is trying to sell his book) so not a good link for what I am looking for. What I would like to see is a list of nations with handgun laws and their per capita murder violent crime rates with and without handguns. With several years of data. This data should be a staple of the ones who argue handgun freedom as a part of their essence. So can I ask someone to please post a link to such information in an orderly fashion.

Before you shoot me down, know that at one of my previous residences I had a handgun and riffle range on the property, but have never owned a gun. It is amazing how many of your friends show up for weekend target practice when you have gun ranges on your property. Fun was had by all including me, excuse this last paragraph for not being on target.

Sure here are some links, one by The Guardian none the less.

Guardian Article

Another from the Claremont Institute

From your second cited source Claremont Institute they state but do not list or backup with any data the following statement:

From your first cited source the guardian;


From the various mazes of side links to links posted on the guardian it lead me to find:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

My comment is something is just not right here, I have to conclude when not presented with the specifics it is the claremont institute’s posted article is just not making sense, they did not list any data to support their conclusions. I am not sure what the population of England was when they made that statement ( 60 million roughly http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html ). With these numbers listed to have about the same rate that would mean England would have a population of about one 45th of the USA. So that would put England at about 7 million people. I don’t think so.


Other info I found from the links to links from your cited source the guardian.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
for USA
• The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm
In 2003, about 67% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 19% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm
Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
Violent crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2003.

No, it will just reduce the Deaths when someone commits a crime and doesn’t have access to a gun anymore. A gun has the potential of turning a “Crime” into a very “Violent Crime”.

If you want to have less crime; have fewer laws.

2 things....

You asked for proof about my statement regarding the UK and I showed them, and now you are showing stats for the US to contrast with the UK stats.

The US never has banned hand guns and in many states they have introduced concealed weapons permits. Maybe that is why violent crimes have reduced in the US. But risen in the UK.

Edit to add: Just so I don't get any brilliant statements how certain assault hand guns were banned, I am speaking of non assault hand guns. I believe assault weapons have no place in society.

reply to sleeper,
In my post number 28 I quoted you as saying
"I personally do not believe that by banning handguns we would reduce crime at all but it would increase. I base this of the fact that the UK banned hand guns and had a dramatic increase in violent crimes."

So we are talking about the US and you brought in UK banning guns and a correlation to increase in violence. Which is a good argument. I asked for a source because something just did not correlate to me. I used and read your source and it did not back up its claim so I had to do a little more work. And while it could be accurate I have shown a reasonable case that it is not. I also did not see crime data for UK since 1973 to compare to the us numbers, after all their crime could have also dropped since 1993 which the article infers, they are back to the 1993 level and just had a jump last reported year to that level. Again I would like to see all countries data from 1973 with and without gun control. My point being I can not come to any conclusion till I see better and more data.

I do not know why serious crime in the US has dropped so much since 1994ish other than possibly, better economy, not as many youngsters, more emphasis, and police on the streets by Clinton, gun selling laws did and are working?

I also believe/support your last statement assault guns of any type including machine gun ect. I have never heard of data that shows riffles bans would do anything to offset significant crime. In a respect would like to try a mandatory ownership of riffles to see if that had an effect on crime for a test. Would like to see the cost benefit, see if there is a decrease in deaths of such an experiment.

No. Did banning the sale of alcohol prevent Whiskey from being sold? All banning handguns will do is paint a picture that although one weapon is banned: there are other accessible types of weapons available.

Self-defense is like a monster, when you cut off one head (handguns) two more grow in its place. People do not like feeling helpless- handguns give them feelings of safety, take away safety you get mass paranoia. When you get mass paranoia people die, be it by more crude and slightly less effective measures, but people still die.

The crime rate will not be reduced simply by taking guns off the street. Its like the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." A gun is no more dangerous than a knife, it depends on the person who owns the gun that will make the difference in reducing the crime rate.

Here is some data I have found, could not find a data source of gun crime by country, just gun murders. Again, for those who live by this debate this should be a staple, not knowing/having this information seems is to me intelelctual dishonesty.

I have found we are number one in the world for total prisoners. That we are also number one per capita for total prisoners.

That we are number 4 for total murders with firearms.
1 South Africa 31,918 (2000)
2. Colombia 21,898 (2000)
3. Thailand 20,032 (2000)
4. United States 8,259 (1999)
5. Mexico 3,589 (2000)
6. Zimbabwe 598 (2000)
7. Germany 384 (2000)
8. Belarus 331 (2000)
9. Czech Republic 213 (2000)
10. Ukraine 173 (2000)
11. Poland 166 (2000)
12. Canada 165 (1999

That should place us number 4 or 5 for total murders with firearms per capita.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cr...wit_fir&int=300
murders with firearms we are 4th


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri
prisoners total we are number one
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_cap
number one prisoners per capita
number 1 in total crime (but not all crime is reported by others)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri
this would put us about 6 approximately in rate, but not all crime is reported.

murders total we are number 6 in the world
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur
that should put us between 15 to 19 for rate.
1 India 37,170 (1999)
2. Russia 28,904 (2000)
3. Colombia 26,539 (2000)
4. South Africa 21,995 (2000)
5. Mexico 13,829 (2000)
6. United States 12,658 (1999)
7. Venezuela 8,022 (2000)
8. Thailand 5,140 (2000)
9. Ukraine 4,418 (2000)
10. Indonesia 2,204 (2000)
11. Poland 2,170 (2000)
12. France 1051 (2000)
13. Belarus 1013 (2000)
14. Germany 960 (2000)
15. Korea, South 955 (2000)
16. Zimbabwe 912 (2000)
17. Jamaica 887 (2000)
18. United Kingdom 850 (2000)

With that way of thinking why should we ban anthrax, shoulder launch missiles, grenades, C4, nuclear weapons, machine guns, drive tanks, any drugs, any medication that you need a prescription for. Yep, Timmy McVeigh found a way to do damage so why don't we give up and just allow people to have explosives as well as hand guns, fireworks, it is the person not the explosives, or the anthrax sent in the mail..

More the alcohol one I think has a different angle anyway, drugs are physically addictive, to my knowledge there is no physiological withdrawal associated with handguns. The main reason it has such a high price is to harm or take from others. Whereas the alcohol has not have that as a purpose but it has a secondary effect of destroying lives and killing people including in car related incidents.

After all, right now we invaded countries like Panama because we did not like their drug exporting policy, we invaded Iraq because of supposed WMD. So why shouldn't Arab nations be able to invade us because we export alcohol, and guns which are illegal in their countries.

Your second point of self defense, there are riffles. Also the helpless feeling you state does not seem to have harmed other countries. Seems they have dealt with it. Actually from some people I know from other countries they feel far more safe in countries that do not have hand guns all over. They are definitely concerned about visiting the USA. Your argument that a knife is no more dangerous, look at columbine high school et al. Also then buy a knife. Our crime rate seems about the same with everyone in the world per capita, but our murder rate matches only, ethnic cleansing countries, drug cartel counties, third world.

CR made some excellent points, that at least I pretty much agree with and have now posted supporting data to. Again, I see nothing that is conclusive presented to me that shows hand guns decrease crime or murder. I am waiting for someone with more information than I found, more specific relevant data from someone. Here is a timely article.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=448&row=0

All of your stats are pretty much pointless, inventor. The US has a lot of people, more people than, like, Luxembourg or some place like that. So basically every country in Europe has a small fraction of the people that are in the US. You must weigh the stats based on their population. You can't say: "Country X had only one gun murder last year. They're saints." Except you forgot to mention that Country X has three people in it. Oops.

Ok, let's look at the stats you had. First, firearm death counts.

South Africa, Ok, they are allowed to protect property with as much force as necessary, even deadly.

Columbia...Who's surprised?

Thailand, I don't really know what is happening there so...

US, we have 260 million people.

I don't know what's with Mexico's rate either.

I also think that the stat you are posting isn't truly relevant. I read on the website you sited, and I don't know how to interpret their interpretation. It may mean police rightfully shooting someone, so basically, the stats you give are completely, and I reiterate, completely, pointless.

And you are also trying to make a big show about how we are sixth in the world in homicides, but consider: all of the countries that are above us have more people, are more militant, or both. I suppose if we had an Iraq with 260 million people you would have a million murders in a year, more if you were living under Saddam Hussein. And also, all of these homicide stats are from 5 or 6 years ago. And plus, sixth in the world in murders for a super power isn't huge. What, honestly, what are you hoping for? Besides, all of the people committing murders in the US are probably insane, or high on drugs. There basically is no sane or sober murderers in the US.

I learned to watch for bad stats like this from this book. It's an actual serious book. I've only read to the part where they dismantle Michael Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine. Quality book!

Your stats just got unskewed.

I typically argue on the side of anti-gun laws, but I think I have to switch sides. Gun laws don't really do much to deter crime, as most have pointed out here. Those committing crime with guns already care little about laws. More isn't going to stop them. That said, I want to dispel one myth that is consistently spewed: the UK's crime rate increased not because of the gun ban, but because of how the UK's law enforcement agencies reported crime.

Another thing that bothers me are those people who use the 2nd amendment to shield themselves from criticism. The 2nd amendment was created to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, not to protect themselves from other citizens. And do you honestly think our founding fathers would have passed the 2nd amendment if fully automatics were around? I don't really think so, but that's purely subjective.

Just the opposite: banning handguns would increase crime dramatically. Criminals, who wouldn't obey this law either, would be armed and honest citizens disarmed, making it open season on the law abiding. The police can't protect people from crime, and they'll be first to tell you so. What they can do is sometimes catch the culprits afterwards, but if you've been the victim of violent crime, that's already too late for you.

Aside from the effect on crime, the idea is unconstitutional on its face, unless you first repeal the Second Amendment. I'll oppose that the same as I'd oppose an attempt to repeal any other article of the Bill of Rights, and I'd expect every defender of liberty to do the same.

But if you want a gun law that will reduce crime, get your state to pass a "shall issue" concealed carry law. That doesn't violate anyone's rights, and it seems to be effective everywhere they have it.

Question for debate: Will the banning of handguns in the United States reduce violent and non-violent crime?


my answer:

I am a forty-year-old woman who has, very thankfully, exercised sufficient personal safety measures to keep me relatively unscathed throughout my life, despite the fact that I live in a city neighborhood and do quite a bit of walking and driving through it, at all hours of the day and night. In the eight years I've lived in this neighborhood I've never been accosted in any way.

The times I *have* been a victim of crime were flukes. I went out with a guy once who attacked me, and while working in a tiny retail store once, I was robbed at gunpoint.

I hate guns. They frighten me and I would never sleep peacefully if I knew one was in the house. It also worries me that many people appear to consider guns a sort of security blanket, without having the supreme confidence and resolve that I think would be necessary for a gun owner -- knowing they COULD shoot someone if they had to.

I'm not sure that I could. And waving a gun at somebody sure won't make that person be LESS prone to violence against you. So I think people like me are better off going unarmed and taking our chances.

I would have a lot more support for the gun lobby if they would attach SOME restrictions to gun ownership. I would like to see people with guns required to renew their registrations annually and pass training examinations, like we do for driver's licenses; and I would like to see the requirements for keeping a gun in your home, in your car, or on your person become much stricter and more conducive to keeping guns from being stolen and used by criminals. Most importantly, I would like to see the penalties for committing a crime with a stolen gun increased appreciably.

I am a single woman and have lived by myself for 20 years. There are certain precautions that I take, some on a daily basis, to protect myself from crime. I don't think a gun would make me any safer.

In my opinion, the responsibility for reducing violent crime rests with its potential victims. Most crime is about money. The criminal doesn't want to hurt you; he just wants your money or whatever you have that he can sell for money. Therefore, by reducing the opportunities for being victimized, we can reduce the incidences of violent crime. It's not fair that the onus is on innocent people, but you know what they say about nice guys finishing last. lol