Gun control: the results are in?

[Nasor]

I said:

Or sometimes if they're feeling particularly devious they'll point out countries where the rate of gun murders went down, but conveniently ignore the fact that murder with other types of weapons went up and the overall rate stayed the same.

Then Undicided said:

I’ve never seen it “shot down”, I would love to see it shot down care to commence? Because according to my stats Canadian gun related crime has decreased:

Canada:

1999-165
2002- 149

%= 10% decrease

USA:
1999: 8,259
2002:10,800

%= 30% increase

Ah, thanks for providing another great example of the flawed reasoning that gun control proponents like to use! Yes, the rate of gun murders went down, but the overall murder rate stayed the same! Let's take a look at the total number of murders in Canada:

1998: 558
1999: 538
2000: 546
2001: 553
2002: 582
2003: 548

As you can see, the muder rate in Canda hasn't changed much at all. It's been fluxuating around 550 for years.On the other hand, the total murder rate in the US has gone down 13% since 1998 - in fact, it's been going down steadilly for over a decade.

I’d vouch for the opposite, how is it that Canada who has more guns per capita then the US has significantly lower death rate?

Uh, perhaps because violent crime doesn't corelate with gun ownership?

Thus the American death rate is 6x higher the Canadian, yet we have more guns per capita then you do?

Again, you're just comparing gun murders, not total murders. The murder rate in the U.S. is 5.5, and in Canada it's around 1.8. So Canada has three times the murder rate of the U.S., not six.

IT is the Canadian mentality, and law that allows us to live in relative peace.

I agree. There are fewer murders in Canada because there is less crime in Canada in general.

Remember that hand guns are illegal here in Canada...,

What the heck are you talking about? Only .25 and .32 caliber handguns are illegal in Canada. Almost all handguns (9mm, .22, .38, .357, .40, and .45) are perfectly legal, unless there's been a vary recent change in the law that I haven't heard about.

 

[Undecided]

Yes, the rate of gun murders went down, but the overall murder rate stayed the same!

This is your argument this isn’t mine, I never asserted the overall murder rate would necessarily change, all I care about and the only numbers that are relevant are those associated directly with guns. It seems that in Canada at least the murder rate that is relevant (being those that are caused by guns) have down 10% in a mere 3 years. The overall murder rate indicated absolutely nothing; the overall murder rate has more to do with socio-economic problems rather then anything to do with guns. My point stands, gun control in Canada seems to be working. If we banned guns outright then the murder rate should be in the 300 zone, to me that’s an achievement that we aren’t accomplishing. It would be idiotic, and idealistic to believe that getting rid of guns would automatically get rid of murder, but it sure will make the rate go down.


On the other hand, the total murder rate in the US has gone down 13% since 1998 - in fact, it's been going down steadilly for over a decade.

Well it seems btwn the years 1999-2002 that trend has been bucked, secondly you do know that a decade last 10 years, so how can a rate be going down for a decade since 1998? Think about that, I don’t see the Beijing Olympics starting do you?

Uh, perhaps because violent crime doesn't corelate with gun ownership?

No I wouldn’t argue that, most guns in Canada are designed and used for practical reasons (i.e. hunting). The guns in question here are handguns that serve only one purpose that is to kill/maim individuals. Canadians are less violent because we don’t have the same amount of tools to commit that violence.

Again, you're just comparing gun murders, not total murders.

I never asserted they are one in the same you are, rather illogically.

The murder rate in the U.S. is 5.5, and in Canada it's around 1.8. So Canada has three times the murder rate of the U.S., not six.

Well you might as well be speaking Chinese because you aren’t making much sense.

I agree. There are fewer murders in Canada because there is less crime in Canada in general.

Why is that? There are three reasons I believe that is true:

- Our socio-economic safety net.
- Our basic mentality.
- Harder access to weaponry.

 

[Nasor]

This is your argument this isn’t mine, I never asserted the overall murder rate would necessarily change, all I care about and the only numbers that are relevant are those associated directly with guns. It seems that in Canada at least the murder rate that is relevant (being those that are caused by guns) have down 10% in a mere 3 years.

Uh...hello? The entire point of this thread is that gun control doesn't work because people tend to simply use other weapons to commit murders when guns are taken away. What the heck is the point of lowering the number of shootings if the number of fatal stabbing and beatings goes up to compensate? If gun control simply causes people to switch to different weapons without lowering the murder rate, then the gun control hasn't accomplished anything. Canada is a perfect example of this; the rate of gun murders went down, but the overall murder rate stayed the same. I'm just as likely to be murdered in Canada as I was before the gun licensing laws.

The overall murder rate indicated absolutely nothing; the overall murder rate has more to do with socio-economic problems rather then anything to do with guns.

You seem to be agreeing with me here that gun control doesn't work. Unless you think it's somehow worse to be shot than to be stabbed, beaten, or strangled to death.

Well it seems btwn the years 1999-2002 that trend has been bucked, secondly you do know that a decade last 10 years, so how can a rate be going down for a decade since 1998? Think about that, I don’t see the Beijing Olympics starting do you?

http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20031005-120017-7049r.htm

The murder rate has been declining for over a decade. The 13% drop since 1998 is merely part of that trend.

 

[Tiassa]

If gun control simply causes people to switch to different weapons without lowering the murder rate, then the gun control hasn't accomplished anything.

• A criminal with a knife will not shoot at me, miss, and hit someone else.
• A criminal with a knife has to get within arm's reach to hurt me; machismo aside, that's not wise.
• A criminal with a knife has to get closer to each target, and can't kill several from a distance in a few seconds.
• The same applies to a club, or even one's fists.
• I am more likely to survive an assault with a knife or club or fists that find their target than I am to survive a gunshot that finds its target.

It's a start.

In 1993 or thereabout, I happened to ask a Springfield, Oregon police officer about the state's policy on carrying weapons. This was at a time when I carried knives on my person. Turns out, you couldn't at the time get a permit to carry a knife concealed. I asked why, and it was explained to me that when it comes right down to being attacked, officers had a better feeling about guns guns beacuse they had separation between themselves and the criminal when the gun was shown. The idea being that they saw the weapon sooner. Shooting angrily from 20 feet, a criminal might miss and hit the police car (or, unfortunately, another person; shooting from 20 feet, the criminal might hit his intended police target. However, at arm's reach, even a small knife can do serious damage, and the criminal is not going to miss.

 

[Undecided]

Uh...hello? The entire point of this thread is that gun control doesn't work because people tend to simply use other weapons to commit murders when guns are taken away. What the heck is the point of lowering the number of shootings if the number of fatal stabbing and beatings goes up to compensate?

Because the thing is that we can ban a gun, we can’t ban all other forms of potential weaponry. The fact that we allow a weapon to be in the hands of people who we wouldn’t trust with our children, yet we do with our lives everyday is beyond illogical on the grounds of human sanity. Gun supporters obviously must only live in their homes, because you can’t carry your gun all the time, and when a person puts a gun in back, and asks for the money, or else you’ll get a cap in your ass, I want to see gun supporters scream for the rights of the criminal. You can’t say to me that you don’t support the criminal having a gun, because lets assume that this is first crime, before to that incident he was a so aptly named “responsible gun owner” like you. We can’t pretend to know who is a responsible gun owner or not, we cannot know. So instead of banning guns so the threat is eliminated, we give everyone a gun so it’s fair? That is truly the most idiotic logic I have heard in a long while, and I’ve heard idiocy!

If gun control simply causes people to switch to different weapons without lowering the murder rate, then the gun control hasn't accomplished anything.

Not necessarily to me that fact that gun crime is declining is proving that the laws are working. The laws didn’t say that all murders would go down, that crime would disappear no the point of these laws was to decrease the amount of gun crime, should total crime go down great.

I'm just as likely to be murdered in Canada as I was before the gun licensing laws.You seem to be agreeing with me here that gun control doesn't work.

Mind showing me this, oh great communicator?

Unless you think it's somehow worse to be shot than to be stabbed, beaten, or strangled to death.

I do the reason why is because a knife, and a hand are not made to kill me, a gun is. To be shot is to vindicate the existence of the gun.

The murder rate has been declining for over a decade. The 13% drop since 1998 is merely part of that trend.

I don’t care about the murder rate; the gun rate has gone up 30%! So it seems that the reverse logic is coming around, more and more people are using guns to kill then other “weapons” so lack of gun laws prove me correct. You are confused… gun rate, and murder rate are not synonymous.

 

[Nasor]

I suppose it depends on what your goals are. If you just want to reduce the number of gun murders without regard for whatever might happen to the overall murder rate, then gun control would probably be successful at reducing the rate of murders with guns.

Personally though, I think it's silly to contend that it's better to be murdered with a knife or club than with a gun. If gun control laws decrease the odds of my being shot to death but increase the odds of my being stabbed, with the end result being that I'm not any less likely to be murdered, then what's the point? No one is any safer. Simply shifting the ratios of murder weapons around doesn't really seem like it accomplishes anything.

 

[Nasor]

• A criminal with a knife will not shoot at me, miss, and hit someone else.
• A criminal with a knife has to get within arm's reach to hurt me; machismo aside, that's not wise.
• A criminal with a knife has to get closer to each target, and can't kill several from a distance in a few seconds.
• The same applies to a club, or even one's fists.
• I am more likely to survive an assault with a knife or club or fists that find their target than I am to survive a gunshot that finds its target.

It's a start.

Here you seem to be making arguments for why there would be fewer murders if criminals switched to weapons other than guns. The thing is, we already have experimental evidence indicating that the murder rate does not, in fact, go down when guns are taken away/licensed. No amount of logical arguments for why gun control should reduce murder rates can counter the fact that it's been tried many times, and has never worked.

 

[Tiassa]

If you just want to reduce the number of gun murders without regard for whatever might happen to the overall murder rate, then gun control would probably be successful at reducing the rate of murders with guns.

I think you're taking a very narrow view of gun control in that sense. If we look at your second paragraph, we see part of the problem:

Personally though, I think it's silly to contend that it's better to be murdered with a knife or club than with a gun.

This has to do with ...? More specifically, I think it's a bit of a straw man. It's not about how it's better to be murdered. I've been hit in the face with baseballs, once in the chest with a bat, and I've had a few people take swings at me over the years. I have survived all of these. I have never been shot in the face, and I have never been shot in the chest. In fact, I have never been shot. Shot at, perhaps, but not struck by the bullet. Tell me ... what are my chances of surviving a gunshot wound to the left side of my chest? What are the chances of my surviving a gunshot that strikes my right eye at a 40° upward angle? What are my chances of surviving a superficial slash wound across my chest?

Start with a simple consideration:

• X number of assaults results in Y number of deaths.

If someone's coming after me in the heat of the moment, a crime of passion, or similar, if they land their blow, I'm going to have a much better chance of merely being attacked and not murdered if I'm struck with a club, a fist, or slashed with a knife compared to being shot squarely in the chest or head. It seems very simple to me.

Someone who regrets their actions can apologize to Joe for the black eye. But they can't apologize to Joe for killing him.

Additionally, I am less likely to be murdered if there are fewer guns shooting at me. For the reasons I've outlined. I don't intend to simply let someone murder me. How 'bout you? If someone shoots at me from even a short distance, I have less say in whether or not I'm murdered than if they have to step up and take a swing.

Lastly, I'll put up an example that's going on in DC right now.

D.C. police arrested a 20-year-old man yesterday in the slaying of a teenager last weekend and said that the shooting probably stemmed from a feud between two neighborhood groups.

Detectives are seeking at least two other men in the shooting of Myesha Lowe, 15, police officials said. Myesha was shot late Saturday as she and two friends sat in a car in Northeast Washington, apparently an unintended target in a months-long dispute, police said . . . .

. . . . Authorities said police have connected the dispute to several shootings. The feud also could be responsible for at least one homicide, they said.

The assailants Saturday night -- believed to be men from the Trinidad neighborhood -- spotted the car that was occupied by Myesha and her two adult friends in the 1400 block of F Street NE, police said. The gunmen either walked up to the car or opened fire as they drove past about 11:45 p.m., police said.

The gunmen either were trying to shoot a man from the 21st Street neighborhood who normally drove the vehicle or were trying to kill one of his friends in the car, investigators said.

Source: Washington Post

The unintended victim might have had a chance to live had the score been settled with fists, knives, or other weapons.

One more murder, one more death. Does it make no difference in the streets?

I think it does.
_____________________

• Wilber, Del Quentin. "Man Arrested in D.C. Teenager's Slaying." Washington Post, July 29, 2004; page B01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21060-2004Jul28.html

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Concealed guns are for cowards and troublemakers. It cannot be argued.
No person should have to guess if someone is armed. If someone is going to shoot you you can't stop it. You can't outrun it. It's going to happen. Persons who are armed don't care if you are. If they have reason to believe you are armed they are more likely to shoot you first. Tense situations have never been made better by the addition of a gun.
I had a friend in high school that was a big time gangster. Everyone knew he had a gun at all times. He got shot dead in the parking lot of the local grocery store. He had a gun and killed the other kid too. And, I'm sure as he was dying he felt a little better knowing he wasn't the only one.

THAT IS STUPID!!!​

I was there. I worked at that store while I was in high school and listened to him use his last few breaths to cry. He didn't say one word about the other kid. The other guy was a good kid I knew from church. He thought he was going to be tough and teach the bad guys a lesson. He took his dad's gun and got himself killed.
The NRA has convinced the most intelligent nation on earth that gun control is anti-American. Concealed weapons are not constitutionally protected. Handguns, or any gun you can conceal, have nothing to do with organized militia.

 

[Tiassa]

Source: http://reuters.com/ ]Reuters[/url]
Link: http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=5829950
Title: "Driver Beaten Up for Observing Speed Limit"
Date: July 24, 2004

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German truck driver beat up a motorist he believed was driving too slowly in a case of 'road rage' . . . .

. . . . Police in the western town of Bochum said the truck driver told them he felt provoked by the motorist "because he was actually driving 30 kph in a 30 kph area." The trucker faces an investigation and may lose his driving license.

Source: Reuters

I wanted to toss this one in, not as any statement regarding European or German gun laws, but rather in conjunction with my prior post:

• . . . . I don't intend to simply let someone murder me . . . If someone shoots at me from even a short distance, I have less say in whether or not I'm murdered than if they have to step up and take a swing.

I just think this odd story out of Germany is an interesting reflection on the situation. In the U.S., people do sometimes settle road-rage with guns. Of course, sometimes they run one another off the road and kill each other that way.

As much as it sucks to be beaten for obeying the law, at least the unfortunate motorist wasn't shot.
___________________

• Reuters. "Driver Beaten Up for Observing Speed Limit." July 24, 2004. See http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=5829950

 

[Nasor]

tiassa: I started this thread with the contention that gun control laws are largely pointless because criminals simply switch to alternate weapons, and the murder rate doesn't go down.

You seem to keep giving theoretical arguments for why people would be safer if criminals used weapons other than guns (basball bats being less lethal than firearms, etc.), but no amount of theoretical argument can compete with the experimental evidence that gun control doesn't lower the murder rate. I admit that it makes intuitive sense that the murder rate would drop if guns were taken away - because you're right, baseball bats, knives, etc are generally less lethal than guns - but there is a vast body of evidence that the murder rate does not, infact, go down after gun control laws are enacted.

I can see why my above comment about "it's silly to contend that it's better to be murdered with a knife or club than with a gun" might looks like a straw man, and I agree that no one really explicitly made that claim. But if you want to regard gun control laws that reduce shooting deaths but not the overall murder rate as a success, that seems like the only way to do it.

 

[Undecided]

I suppose it depends on what your goals are. If you just want to reduce the number of gun murders without regard for whatever might happen to the overall murder rate, then gun control would probably be successful at reducing the rate of murders with guns.

To my knowledge anti-gun laws are meant to decrease the amount of gun crime, not the murder rate. We must understand that guns aren’t only used for murders; their #1 use is for intimidation. Billion’s of your tax dollars are spent in ever increasing healthcare costs, and police costs because of the ever expanding use of guns. You even agreed that the laws do work as gun violence has depreciated, so how can one be against a law that obviously worked?

Personally though, I think it's silly to contend that it's better to be murdered with a knife or club than with a gun. If gun control laws decrease the odds of my being shot to death but increase the odds of my being stabbed, with the end result being that I'm not any less likely to be murdered, then what's the point?

That imo is hyperbole, we as a society cannot prevent murder done by hands, or knives, or spoons. We as a society can prevent murder with guns, that's the qualitative difference. I don’t know of another easily accessible item whose soul purpose is to inflict pain, and death on to another. It is really easy for a pro-gun supporter to proclaim the virtues of “responsible gun ownership” and “owning guns is a right”, but those don’t matter all that much when your lying in a pool of blood in front of a ATM, all the while your trusty gun is safely nested under your pillow, ironically for your protection. God does work in mysterious ways doesn’t he?

No one is any safer. Simply shifting the ratios of murder weapons around doesn't really seem like it accomplishes anything.

If were to totally ban guns, there would have been 145 less deaths in Canada, we know that. There would have been significantly less robbery, and other gun related crimes. Remember you seem to believe that gun is only used for murder, thus there is no point in getting rid of the gun. Illogical nonsense I dare say.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Your arguements are foolish. Perhaps we should never aim to cure another disease. If you don't die from cancer heart disease is gonna getcha. When we have no fear of guns the effort will not stop. We will have to work hard to find a solution for violence of all kinds. Maybe we should all carry guns then when someone gets out of line the last guy standing wins. For many, but not all, it would be unthinkable to suggest that the last woman standing wins. Why do you think that is so? Because hatred bleeds into everything. I hate this color or that gender or those queers that want to take my guns.

 

[Undecided]

Your arguements are foolish. Perhaps we should never aim to cure another disease. If you don't die from cancer heart disease is gonna getcha. When we have no fear of guns the effort will not stop.

Did I say it would? (I think you’re talking to me) My arguments are not foolish young one; my arguments are dealing with the subject which just happens to be guns not overall violence. It is very idealistic to believe that we can get rid of crime altogether, would humanity be human if it didn’t have crime? I’d vouch for no, we wouldn’t be human. I wouldn’t want to live in a Utopia, our human fallibility make living worth while.

 

[Nasor]

Your arguements are foolish. Perhaps we should never aim to cure another disease. If you don't die from cancer heart disease is gonna getcha.

This is a stupid analogy. If we cured cancer, people would live longer and safer lives. Since gun control laws don't reduce the murder rate, gun control laws don't allow people to live longer or safer lives.

 

[Nasor]

Undecided: you keep insisting that it's worth the effort to lower the gun murder rate even if it causes murder with other weapons to increase. Please explain why it's better to be murdered by a knife than with a gun.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Your arguments are foolish. Perhaps we should never aim to cure another disease. If you don't die from cancer heart disease is gonna getcha. When we have no fear of guns the effort will not stop.

Did I say it would? (I think you’re talking to me) My arguments are not foolish young one; my arguments are dealing with the subject which just happens to be guns not overall violence. It is very idealistic to believe that we can get rid of crime altogether, would humanity be human if it didn’t have crime? I’d vouch for no, we wouldn’t be human. I wouldn’t want to live in a Utopia, our human fallibility make living worth while.

My response was directed at any person who would argue against gun control only because that will not stop other forms of violence. This entire thread is full of that same argument. "OK gun murders will go down. But, people will still die by other weapons." try that with anything else. ______ will go down but people will still die from ______ and maybe people will hear how stupid that sounds.
As far as the subject -superstar- The thread is about how gun control won't stop violence. It will nearly stop gun violence. It will get us closer to stopping violence.
And then (on this one you can bet I'm talking to you) you want to tell me Gun violence is what makes America Great. It gives it a little flavor. Without gun violence life would be dull. That is absurd. How about this? Everyone else will work really hard to end violence and when we get too close to the border between hate and boredom you say stop. Because, by all means, do not allow your life to be without violence.

 

[Undecided]

Undecided: you keep insisting that it's worth the effort to lower the gun murder rate even if it causes murder with other weapons to increase. Please explain why it's better to be murdered by a knife than with a gun.

You know Nasor, ad nauseam is your friend by the looks of it. Simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn’t invalidate my argument. Secondly who said it was better to be murdered by a knife then a gun? Please keep your untermenschen words in your own mouth. Thirdly we can ban guns because guns independent of use is a weapon, a knife serves dualistic purposes. So get a new argument please, your current stance lacks…logic.

b0urgeoisie

And then (on this one you can bet I'm talking to you) you want to tell me Gun violence is what makes America Great.

I did? Mind showing me this intriguing (and imaginary) passage?

 

[Nasor]

Undecided: You claim that if gun control laws result in a decrease in gun murders and coresponding increase in other types of murders, leaving the over all murder rate unchanged, that the situation has improved - even though statistically nobody is any safer. If you think that it's just as bad to be murdered with weapons other than guns, then how has the situation improved after the murders switch from guns to other weapons?

I'll agree that if you only care about reducing gun murders but don't care about the total murder rate, then gun control can work. But when evaluating gun control laws, the only thing that most people really care about is whether or not it makes society any safer. Since gun control doesn't make society any safer, it seems rather pointless to me.

 

[laughing weasel]

How about you taking more effective steps to reduce gun violence and fear so that I do not feel like I need my weapons. That would have a greater and more effective impact but it would be harder because it would require you top address the causes of the disease not the symptoms. Breast cancer is a horrific disease that causes thousands of deaths every year. Using your logic we can save all these lives simply by removing every woman’s breast. They should all volunteer for this life saving procedure after all it is their lives that we would be saving. Do people really need those things any way? What other solutions to societies problems could be enacted if you just ignored a few rights? If every person who looked Arabic or Hispanic was searched before being allowed to board a plane and were segregated to a secure section of the plane that would stop a lot of terrorism in its tracks would it not? If they are not a terrorist then they should not mind a little inconvenience for the greater good. Where would you draw the line what rights are unimportant to you? I want all of my rights and am willing to fight and die to keep them. Part of the freedom and liberty that I enjoy today is because I have the right to bear arms including pistols and semi-automatic weapons.