Guns and crime

Before I start off, I want to lay down the context. I'm not wanting to start a pro/anti gun control debate. What I want to do is state the evidence that I have that widespread gun ownership and/or lax gun laws do not automatically result in more gun crime. To be fair and honest, I will state my bias. I am pro-gun. I am not a "gun nut," and I only own three hunting firearms (my only "combat gun" having been a 1911 that I sold), that I rarely shoot, and have for home defense and the occasional hunting venture. I also do not approach gun ownership as an American and/or patriotic thing, as I am not a patriot and I am doing my best to leave the USA. I do not base my argument for guns on the Second Amendment, but on the idea that a person is their own property, and that they have a right to have access to all means to preserve themselves. My view is that the Second Amendment is nothing but an acknowledgement of this. Gun ownership, in my view, is a universal right, irrespective of legislation.

That being said, here we go. The one myth/anti-gun argument I want to dispel is the "look at Europe" fallacy. I personally don't lump all European countries under the umbrella of "Europe," but I have to address the "Europe argument" as it is stated.

It's true that most European countries with the exception of Russia and presumably a few others have a lower rate of violent crimes. It's also true, generally speaking, that Europe as a whole has less gun crime than the USA. To adamant anti-gun Americans, this seems proof enough.

On the other hand, I want to offer the examples of countries like Switzerland and Serbia, where guns are ubiquitous. I want to also add that Switzerland is one of the safest places in the world. Guns are also very commonplace in Finland, Bulgaria, Northern Ireland, and Scandinavia in general. Guns are also fairly easily obtained in most of Europe, the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) being a conspicuous exception, along with a few others such as Poland and Belarus. Yes, all of the countries mentioned have much stricter laws than the US. I acknowledge this fact.

At the same time, many European countries have prison systems that focus on actual reform, reforming criminals and cutting short their careers that would possibly lead to more violent crimes, and gun crime. European countries, generally speaking, have a better health care system which gives better attention and higher priority to mental health, unlike the USA. European countries, generally speaking also do not force mind-altering drugs down children's throats. And kids in most European countries actually have schools that focus on learning and development.

To me, the anti-gun arguments in the USA are disturbing, because they're basically stating "Let's take away the guns of law-abiding citizens, so that we can continue to have crazy, drugged, abused people, and criminals with high rates of recidivism." I refuse to listen any arguments for tighter gun legislation until these problems have been addressed. Stop using guns as a scapegoat, and actually push for reform, for once.

EDIT: I want to add that I am not only a gun-owner, but a victim of American psychiatry, and I want all readers to view this post in light of this fact.

This topic just ends up being a bunch of different opinions grouping into different sizes based on the people involved ie no real solutions.

Problem is, it's a well worn path that weapon proliferation = arms race. If your afraid enough that you need a gun, then your gun is never going to be big enough. Wealth might not matter either, as if you can buy something, they can steal it too.

They are basically banned here where I'm at. I read some crazy sad statistics from the US about gun crime, but banning them does not remove all guns, it just makes accidental discharges and skylarking (which kill a lot in the US) extremely rare, and gun possession tends to be limited to criminals - which can therefore be reacted to harshly by authorities with sentencing etc. Honestly I think that is better then having everyone with a weapon, but that is my opinion (despite loving them myself).

IMO the best the US can do is limit general public to revolvers, unless on a rural property where a bolt action no magazine long rifle can be used for pest control, together with harsh punishment for anyone breaking that law. Excluding range shooting obviously as they can be secured to store 'other' types of weapon. The rest of the arguments are furphies in my opinion. Unfortunately the crazy amount of weapons in the US means a buy back would be heaps expensive, and as often stated most pro folk will need their weapons pried from their dead body.

Makes me reconsider visiting the US given tourists cannot carry a gun, yet many local's think its required for personal safety.

Adder wrote: This topic just ends up being a bunch of different opinions grouping into different sizes based on the people involved ie no real solutions.

Problem is, it's a well worn path that weapon proliferation = arms race. If your afraid enough that you need a gun, then your gun is never going to be big enough. Wealth might not matter either, as if you can buy something, they can steal it too.

They are basically banned here where I'm at. I read some crazy sad statistics from the US about gun crime, but banning them does not remove all guns, it just makes accidental discharges and skylarking (which kill a lot in the US) extremely rare, and gun possession tends to be limited to criminals - which can therefore be reacted to harshly by authorities with sentencing etc. Honestly I think that is better then having everyone with a weapon, but that is my opinion (despite loving them myself).

IMO the best the US can do is limit general public to revolvers, unless on a rural property where a bolt action no magazine long rifle can be used for pest control, together with harsh punishment for anyone breaking that law. Excluding range shooting obviously as they can be secured to store 'other' types of weapon. The rest of the arguments are furphies in my opinion. Unfortunately the crazy amount of weapons in the US means a buy back would be heaps expensive, and as often stated most pro folk will need their weapons pried from their dead body.

Makes me reconsider visiting the US given tourists cannot carry a gun, yet many local's think its required for personal safety.

My intention was to show that guns=/=high rates of gun crime, necessarily. I wasn't really making a pro-gun argument, except when I stated my bias. But since you put forth the argument, I have to make another point. The UK actually had a buyback in the mid-90s after the Dunblane massacre. Handguns were totally outlawed, and UK handgun owners turned theirs in accordingly. The thing is, there were never many (legally owned, privately owned) handguns in the UK to begin with. Other crackdowns took place too. There was a drop in gun crime, for a short period, but then it went back up and is now higher than it was originally. I think Australia hasn't much benefited from their post-Port Arthur gun bans either. The statistics are widely available, so I won't bother looking for a link.

Gun crime can be broadly defined in two categories. Normal criminal activity (murder, robbery, all that) and spree shootings/massacres. Both can be reduced (or in the case of spree shootings, avoided entirely), by addressing all the societal ills I mentioned.

Gun accidents could be avoided by government sponsored training courses. They wouldn't have to be mandatory; if they were available, for a small fee at licensed ranges, many people would go. I know I would, and I know the ins an outs of guns already.

The point of my post, though, was really to show that gun violence often has less to do with guns and more to do with culture. There's a machine gun in over half of Swiss households, and it's possibly the safest country in the world.

You keep mentioning the swiss. Are you aware of their gun laws pertaining to said weapons as well as compulsory military service? You are comparing apples and oranges.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Inconvenient facts the gun control lobby cannot answer

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 7, 2013

Despite the onslaught of media propaganda in support of the Obama administration’s anti-second amendment agenda in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, the statistics clearly illustrate that gun control does not reduce violent crime and in fact has the opposite effect.


Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

As the graph above highlights, according to the latest figures obtained by the FBI, violent crime offenses in the United States have been falling since 2007. The five year trend clearly shows that, despite there being an ongoing national debate about gun violence in America, violent crime itself is actually becoming less of a problem.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

The graph below from the Department of Justice also highlights the fact that over the last 40 years, the amount of guns in America per 1000 people has increased, whereas serious violent crimes have decreased.



In addition, despite the media drumbeat that murders involving guns represent the number one safety threat to American citizens, the reality is completely the opposite.

Amongst the “top ten killers” in the United States, homicide by firearms is at the bottom of the list, according to figures from the CDC and the FBI. Almost 20 times more people die in the United States from medical errors than they do from firearm homicides, but there is no outcry to slap draconian regulations on the medical industry.



In addition, the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs in the United States routinely outpaces the number of homicides committed using a rifle. Should US lawmakers introduce urgent legislation to outlaw hammers and baseball bats?

http://www.infowars.com/more-people-killed-with-hammers-and-clubs-than-rifles/

The figures clearly illustrate that rising gun ownership does not cause a rise in violent crime.

Look at Chicago, which in 1982 passed a ban on all handguns except for those registered with the city before the ban was enacted.



Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime.

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago_handguns.png

In comparison, let’s take a look at Britain, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world. Given that one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook has been a British citizen – Piers Morgan – who has used his platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the contrast is illuminating.

Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst “rich” countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990′s.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, with law-abiding people people rushing to turn in their firearms, over the next decade gun crime in the UK more than doubled. This proves that while law-abiding citizens willingly disarmed themselves, criminals were unfazed by the new laws and continued to use guns illegally. Therefore gun control only disarms innocent people since criminals do not follow the law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1450338/Firearms-offences-more-than-double-since-Dunblane.html

As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

In summary, despite a widespread ban on gun ownership in the United Kingdom, it is the most dangerous place to live in terms of violent crime in the entire western world.

Another country where violent crime and rapes are soaring is India, recently in the news because of the tragic death of a woman who was gang raped and savagely beaten in New Delhi.

India has a gun control policy just as draconian as the United Kingdom, and despite Indian women begging the police to allow them to own firearms for personal protection, the vast majority of license applications have been rejected, leaving women defenseless against rapists and murderers.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/indian-women-turn-to-guns-after-gang-rape-outcry.html

Now let’s take a look at a country which is geographically-speaking a stone’s throw away from the United Kingdom – Switzerland.

With a population of just six million, Switzerland has 2 million publicly-owned firearms. Despite the fact that guns are everywhere in Switzerland and are a deeply-ingrained part of Swiss culture, the gun crime rate “is so low that statistics are not even kept,” reports the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1566715.stm

Indeed, with its population of law-abiding armed citizens, Switzerland is one of the safest countries to live in the entire world, with homicide rates at just 2.2 people per 100,000.

http://travelsplendid.com/read-me/top-10-safest-countries-in-the-world/

So the UK is one of the most dangerous places to live in the developed world, while Switzerland is one of the safest, and yet Switzerland is a nation of gun owners. How then can we possibly conclude that gun control reduces violent crime when in virtually every instance it has proven to have the opposite effect?

The figures clearly show that gun control does not reduce violent crime, and in fact only emboldens criminals to use guns illegally – safe in the knowledge that their victims have been disarmed courtesy of government legislation.

Recent cases involving law abiding citizens in America, largely ignored by the mass media, who have exercised their second amendment right to prevent a crime and save lives, emphasize this reality, including an incident just two days after the Connecticut massacre during which a gunman entered a theater in San Antonio after killing his ex-girlfriend but was shot dead by an off duty policewoman.

http://www.infowars.com/media-ignores-shooting-stopped-by-law-abiding-gun-owner/

In addition, last month’s mall shooting in Oregon was brought to an end when 22-year-old Nick Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, pulled a gun on the killer, prompting masked shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts to use his final bullet on himself.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/armed-citizen-not-police-prevented-massacre-in-oregon.html

In both cases, the media virtually ignored the fact that potential massacres were stopped by responsible Americans using firearms. Similar cases emerge on a weekly basis, including another incident on Friday where a woman in Atlanta defended herself and her young children against an intruder by using a legally owned firearm.

http://www.infowars.com/another-gun-story-you-wont-be-hearing-about-on-tv-news/

The National Safety Council notes that guns are used some 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, meaning that firearms are utilized to protect innocent lives in 80 times more cases than they are used to end lives.

http://www.nsc.org/Pages/Home.aspx

These figures, not just from America but from other countries around the world, send a clear and consistent message - gun control actually increases violent crime, more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime, and only by allowing responsible, law-abiding people to be armed and not by disarming the victims can we hope to prevent or lessen the scale of future tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre.

---

From my journal entry on the sword:

"As far as what the sword means to me personally, I think of it as it's purpose as a weapon and a symbol for defending, protecting or going on the offensive to fight fire with fire. In todays age I wouldn't use a sword as a weapon, as we have firearms. Really when it comes down it I believe it is important for people in general to have weapons as tools for the self-defense of individuals and society at large. In the US we have the second ammendment which today is being demonized because there are a lot of nuts out there who think that it's all about being an anti-government militia. In my opinion, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” means each of our communities and neighborhoods should be prepared in many ways including being armed in order to protect ourselves and maintain 'order.' In the old western days when everyone was armed there was a lot of senseless violence but at the same time if you're an outlaw heading into a town of armed citizens you're going to think twice about messing around. To me the militia is just groups of individuals and families that have come together as a mutual aid network that can handle anything that comes their way.

Of course, it is important for the citizens to band together to ensure their government does not get out of control and in the context of weapons and gun control just look at history. In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. Between 1929 and 1953 20 million political dissidents were exterminated. In Turkey gun control was established in 1915. Between 1925 and 1917 1.5 Armenians were exterminated. In Germany gun control was established in 1938. Between 1939 and 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated. In China gun control was established in 1935. Between 1948 and 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated. In Guatemala gun control was established in 1964. Between 1964 and 1981 100,000 Mayans were exterminated. In Uganda gun control was established in 1970. Between 1971 and 1979 300,000 Christians were exterminated. In Cambodia gun control was established in 1956. Between 1976 to 1977 1 million people were exterminated. Defenseless people in the 20th century there were 56 million people exterminated.

It has been said that an armed man is a citizen and unarmed man is a subject. In the USA, you've got a heavy push for gun control all the while the government arms countless radical groups and regimes around the world, just look up Operation Fast and Furious or the Iran-Contra affair, etc. Hell since 1945 the US has attempted to overthrow over 50 foreign governments. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop the mass shootings either we're better off restricting SSRI drugs and other pharmaceutical who's packages state "may cause violent behavior or suicidal thoughts," it is also known that criminals don't follow the laws and you can actually get real automatic assault weapons easier than going through the legal processes of getting a semiautomatic rifle or handgun. You already have to go through a background check to purchase a firearm, most states require handguns be registered and soon long guns will be as well as California now requires it. Records of sales are kept and the guns can be tracked for the most part so just banning and disarming citizens is just going to let criminals have free reign to take advantage of most situations. I believe in gun control, I am not necessarily against registration but history has shown it's always used against the people so I'm weary and the parameters for restricting someone from owning firearms is already expanding. Real gun control policies would require that citizens be professionally trained in how to use them safely and effectively, as well as propper understanding of the laws involved with their use and responsible storage. A Harvard study concluded that gun control is counterproductive. Another study out of Quinnipiac suggests concealed carry saves lives and assault weapons bans are ineffective."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/03/Study-Concealed-Carry-Saves-Lives-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Had-Little-to-No-Effect

http://www.catb.org/esr/fortunes/rkba.html

youtube.com/watch?v=JoXm6iY2S9g

youtube.com/watch?v=Z_oJmEBZaFE

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sword-Sovereignty-Constitutional-Principles/dp/0967175941

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Homeland-Security-Nation-Arms/dp/0967175925

Adder wrote: Makes me reconsider visiting the US given tourists cannot carry a gun, yet many local's think its required for personal safety.

As usual I agree with most of what you've said. The only thing I would comment on is that I live in the US. I live in Texas of all places where it is believed by many that armed shootouts happen in the streets daily at high noon! :woohoo: hahhahaha

Exaggerated a little of course, but it was funny!

I can carry a fire arm if I so chose to, but in almost 40 years of living here I have never found the need to carry one. I own fire arms. I have a small caliber bolt action rifle (for varmint control) a break over shotgun (for hunting) and a revolver... cause it's fun to shoot at the target range. And in all honesty, they are little more than expensive toys that stay in the gun cabinet most of the year.

I have recently been considering purchasing an M6 Scout rifle to take on the role of my bolt action and shot gun. (varmint and hunting) and selling off the rest. And if I were a better shot with a bow, I might not use a fire arm at all. But rabbit on the run is dang hard to hit at 20+ yrds when they're hot footn’ it!

Back on topic, this is to all…
But as to all the high crime related gun owner rates that everyone keeps mentioning… I’m sure it happens. And of all the people I know (and every single one of them own at least one fire arm) not a single one has ever committed a crime with a gun. Don’t get me wrong, they ain’t all saints! Several have long criminal records. I think a lot of it depends on where you are and the impact society has had on you more than is there a fire arm in the vicinity. :huh:

you too, huh, lightstrider? see above re switzerland. you can call it 'a nation of gunowners' if you want, but when those guns are under official lock and key without ammo, very strictly controlled, thats a bit different, isnt it?

Desolous wrote: you too, huh, lightstrider? see above re switzerland. you can call it 'a nation of gunowners' if you want, but when those guns are under official lock and key without ammo, very strictly controlled, thats a bit different, isnt it?

"There is no restriction on possessing personally purchased ammunition capable of being used in their issued weapon, and such ammunition is readily available in shops and at many firing ranges." Conditions for getting a carry permit and transportation are very similar. Yes it is different in that the Swiss government actually regulates firearms in a way that works with the militias.

I like that you selectively. Quoted the link. Did you bother to read th rest of it, or just home in on what you need to support your preconceived americanized notion?

Yes I read it and understand that there is strict, responsible gun control there. So yeah, maybe using Switzerland as an example of more firearms equals less violence is not true but it shows that more firearms and less violence can occur simultaneously with real gun control policies involving training and licensing, NOT disarming law abiding citizens.