This topic came up in the debate in the constitution forum, and thought it would be a good topic of debate.

In 1996-97 the British Parliament banned handguns in England. Since the banning crime has gone up significantly.

Question to debate: If the United States were to pass the same type of ban on handguns would we share in the same fate?

Before we get into this debate- can you give statistics to back up your claims? I once saw a year of handgun deaths in the UK as something less than a 100- when we had over 22,000. If that number jumped up to 200 in the UK, thus doubling the handgun deaths, I would still not consider that "significant" by any measure, it could be a normal flux of human behavior, no connection to the availability of handguns legally!

This was similar in Australia, where they talk about guns being banned and then crime jumping "significantly"- when thier crime rate for this crime was insignificant in either case compared to the US!

I am not an anti-gun advocate, but I do recognize the silly rhetoric of the NRA when I read it!

Of course

Here

Here

Here

Here

Need more?

Yes- what were the total handgun deaths in crimes one year vs the next year? This is the real breakdown- when someone starts throwing percentages around- I get immediately suspicious- especially if you can't find any "hard" numbers in the "facts". ESPECIALLY when that same pub has a certain editorial bent, whatever that may be

Also, to really acertain what is going on, you also have other variables- what was the poverty rate one year vs another? Was there a large amount of job layoffs etc (desperate poeple do desperate things, aside from whatever the law is) Was there a larger than normal influx of poor immigrants (for the same reason, especially if that society has no aversion to guns itself)

Before we consider any bans or additional laws or restrictions we need to enforce all current laws. We don't. Not even close.

And when you're evaluating the impact on crime, shooting deaths are only a portion of the mix. A very small portion at that. And let's not forget the crimes that are prevented, a figure very hard to determine.

LOL that shows me you didn't look at the links I posted.

Two of them are from the guardian in the UK, hardly right wing gun freaks, if that is what you are getting at.

I agree P-51, a very aggressive enforcement of existing laws would be great. If so, we wouldn't probably be even debating this issue.

But I don't think there is any "fate" to be shared- pandoras box is opened here, and I don't think UNLESS we had total gun confiscation could put the lid back on it in this country.

We should look at the reason we ever had a gun law of any kind in the first place, and why the supreme court first looked at this in 1930s- it was because the average citizen could buy a fully automatic weapon in the hey day's of prohibition if he had the money- and the only ones with money to do that in any kind of volume was the gangsters- and, unlike today, they tried very hard not to harm innocents- whereas the drug dealers today don't care who they kill. If we were alve in the 1920, anyone on this board, with some money, could buy a "tommy gun" at the local gun store, fully auto.

Forgive me, but I did not see totals in any of those reports, only percentages- I read through the numbers, did see them, perhaps I missed them, do you mind posting the numbers, actual year to date murders by handguns one year vs the next?