Do strict gun laws reduce violent crime?

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Do strict gun laws reduce violent crime?

WASHINGTON — On Sept. 24, 1976, one of the toughest gun laws in the nation took effect in the District of Columbia, essentially outlawing the private ownership of new handguns in a city struggling with violence.

Over the next few weeks, a man with a .32-caliber pistol held up workers at a downtown federal office at midday, a cabdriver was shot in the head and a senator was mugged by three youths — one carrying a revolver — near the U.S. Capitol.

Since the ban was passed, more than 8,400 people have been murdered in the district, many killed by handguns. Nearly 80 percent of the 181 murders in 2007 were committed with guns.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004283912_gunban15.html
 
Empirical support for firearms laws has proved to be elusive in the US as well as
the UK. In 2004 the US National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a
review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical
research of its own. It could not identify any gun law that had reduced violent crime,
suicide or gun accidents (Wellford, 2004)
.
The US Centers for Disease Control reached a similar conclusion in 2003 in their independent review of research on firearms laws (Hahn et al. 2003). The recent mass shootings at Virginia Tech vividly illustrate the failure of restrictive gun laws to protect the public. Virginia Tech, like almost all schools,
is a “gun free zone.” Obviously, gun bans do not keep murderers from obtaining or using guns.


3
As startling as it may appear, many powerful tools for murder (even mass
murder) are readily available in highly regulated societies. For example, petrol, propane,
and knives are easy to obtain. As recent events in the UK have shown, even amateurish
terrorists are familiar with the first two, and knives are involved in more murders in the
UK than guns. Given the ubiquity of ropes, tall buildings, and motor vehicles, it is not
difficult for suicidal individuals to find adequate substitutes for firearms. See Kates and
Mauser (2007) for an analysis of the effectiveness of gun laws in reducing overall murder
or suicide rates in Europe.

http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/MauserPaper-200611.pdf
 
In truth firearms laws have little effect, positive or negative, on actual crime. Howey will ignoranly point out that we have a good bit of gun crime, which is true. However when compared to TOTAL CRIMES COMMITTED we're only sightly above average with other western nations. In fact we're lower in overall violent crime than Britain, which has some of the strictest and most draconian weapons laws in the world, and plenty of other creeping signs of fascism (not that we aren't hot on their trail at the moment). in truth our high crime rate is MOST related to our treatment of the mentally ill and our war on drugs. The former makes people who are likely to harm others unable to seek the help they need (and often DO attempt to seek, whether on their own or from loved ones), and the latter makes crime extremely profitable (also, this principle doesn't strictly apply to drugs, it can apply to any and every substance for which there is demand and no legal supply network).

There are other ancillaries to crime, but these are the two biggest. Bring back institutionalization and end the drug war if you want to talk about making America safer.
 
And if anyone is curious and can read French... (or just look at the charts)
http://www.contrepoints.org/2012/08/14/93643-taux-de-criminalite-plus-eleves-en-europe-quaux-usa
Crimes-Europe-USA.jpg

Crimes-propriete-Europe-USA.jpg

Crimes-violents-Europe-USA.jpg
 
I always find it amazing that liberals understand quite well that in banning drugs, you open up a blackmarket, grow organized crime, and you never address the root problem to begin with or make it harder for people to get drugs. In some cases, it can be even easier.

But then when it comes to the issues of guns, they think banning them will be an effective solution.

The two examples are a perfect illustration of peoples cognitive dissonance on this matter, and of course, also show how people are inclined to desire for what they want alone, hypocrisy be damned.
 
That's exactly what you've been doing...


You've had your head in the sand so you can pretend you don't see the question you've been ducking for three days now.

my good lord...how many threads are you going to lie about this obsessive stalker? you sick in the head. i answered your question more than once. what part of

i'm done discussing the issue with you because of your dishonesty and obsession and stalking do you not understand?
 
Do strict gun laws reduce violent crime?

WASHINGTON — On Sept. 24, 1976, one of the toughest gun laws in the nation took effect in the District of Columbia, essentially outlawing the private ownership of new handguns in a city struggling with violence.

Over the next few weeks, a man with a .32-caliber pistol held up workers at a downtown federal office at midday, a cabdriver was shot in the head and a senator was mugged by three youths — one carrying a revolver — near the U.S. Capitol.

Since the ban was passed, more than 8,400 people have been murdered in the district, many killed by handguns. Nearly 80 percent of the 181 murders in 2007 were committed with guns.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004283912_gunban15.html


There are several things missing from the article. The law enacted on 9/24/76 doesn't cover guns purchased before that date, just new handguns. So how many of these murders were committed with old vs. new guns?

Also, the article doesn't show how many people were killed in the 32 years before that date (1944-1976) as opposed to after (1976-2008), so we have no numbers to compare.
 
There are several things missing from the article. The law enacted on 9/24/76 doesn't cover guns purchased before that date, just new handguns. So how many of these murders were committed with old vs. new guns?

Also, the article doesn't show how many people were killed in the 32 years before that date (1944-1976) as opposed to after (1976-2008), so we have no numbers to compare.

feel free to find the data that counters the article. i dare say over 30 years of data is sound stats. old guns are irrelevant...as you can still buy illegal guns.
 
There are several things missing from the article. The law enacted on 9/24/76 doesn't cover guns purchased before that date, just new handguns. So how many of these murders were committed with old vs. new guns?

Also, the article doesn't show how many people were killed in the 32 years before that date (1944-1976) as opposed to after (1976-2008), so we have no numbers to compare.

Actually the law DID cover handguns purchased prior to it being enacted. They had to either be deactivated or kept in a non firing state (I.E. disassembled).
 
Back
Top