Support NeoGAF

[Zaptruder]

So you get 3 options;

1. Broad nationwide ban on all basic weapons; hang guns, assault weapons, hunting rifles to be kept of house premises maybe in a gun club or some such; strict laws permitting only select people to hold gun licenses (crop farmers that need to kill pests for example).

2. Keep it as it is.

3. Provide wide open, maybe compulsory military training for all young men from 18-21 (or something like that). Gun handling/psychology skills taught as part of military training of course and then issuing all the people that complete the training their own hand gun.

so which would you choose and why?

Personally, it would be a toss up against 1 or 3 for me; with one, gun availability goes way down; but with number 3, well, it's almost like an extension of the education program, that forces some amount of discipline as well as fitness into a broad group of people, in addition to giving a lot of people the ability to use guns in the right circumstances; potentially, overall crime goes way down, even if the incidents of gun homocides might go up simply due to higher gun availability.

 

[Pudding Tame]

Well Zap, 3 sounds too much like the actual wording of the Second Amendment so we know that would never pass.

The thing we need to remember is that there are lots of people out there who are responsible and legal gun owners, and hunter provide an important evironmental service. However thanks to the NRA and a bunch of left-wing groups that are just as reactionary this issue gets framed as black and white, either/or, and the issue is nothing like that. All that has to be done is reach a middle ground that respects individual rights and protects communities from gun violence. However in this political climate the discussion necessary for reaching such a middle ground is non-existant.


As for my ideas, it's not perfect but,

Allow only guns and ammunition to be sold that have a legit purpose for hunting, target shooting, and home defense.

Hold gun makers accountable for the manufacture of guns that can easily be converted from a legal semi-automatic to an illegal fully automatic.

Close gun-check loop-holes.

Bring the hammer down on the illegal distribution and possesion of fire arms, all the way from the suits in the gun companies to the homies in the streets.

 

[Culex]

Number 1 would never fly. It sure did "wonders" in Australia. They now have a higher gun crime rate than ever before.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Two.


I think our drug policy should clue you in, that banning something doesn't stop people from abusing it.


So, the money we would potentially waste on enforcement, should be used on education.

 

[Zaptruder]

Probably the best compromise then is to remove assault weapons altogether (I can't fathom legitimate reasons that anyone outside of military and law enforcement should be allowed these), as well as requiring strict checks on the gun; allow people to get them, but the have to pass through rigorous gun training, on a regular basis, as well as psychological assessment.
In addition, and I think most importantly is perfecting that gun trigger fingerprinting technology that stops any person from using someone elses fire arm; even short of that, a key like device on the gun itself would be good.

 

[psycho_snake]

There will never be a solution to the problem. People will always own guns. Just like toxicadam siad ,even if you did ban them, people will still abuse them.

Im not so sure how things work in the USA, so could someone explain that to me?

 

[Zaptruder]

Number 1 would never fly. It sure did "wonders" in Australia. They now have a higher gun crime rate than ever before.

Really? Show us figures please, pre and post port arthur massacre.

 

[Zaptruder]

There will never be a solution to the problem. People will always own guns. Just like toxicadam siad ,even if you did ban them, people will still abuse them.

Im not so sure how things work in the USA, so could someone explain that to me?

Dude... that's like saying, there's no need to control car use; they'll always be traffic accidents, no matter how hard you try they'll still be car accidents.


Of course, the logical fallacy is that while gun related deaths will persist regardless of control, the level of gun related deaths/injuries can vary dramatically depending on the measures and regulations you have for their usage.


I'm not entirely familiar with US gun laws myself; they vary from state to state. Basic stuff is that you go up and you register your details with a gunshop if you wish to buy one; but that can be circumvented by simply going to a gun show. Moreover, Walmart also sells hunting equipment, including shotguns... if evil dead is anything to go by

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Guns suck

 

[ToxicAdam]

This is a pretty good resource for gun related crime: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

That is truly a dramatic drop in the past decade. I would assume at some point we will level out, or even increase a bit. But it appears that all the gun laws (Brady Bill, etc) have made an impact on our society.


But more gun education will not hurt, I would support that.

 

[psycho_snake]

That graph is for the USA right?. I find it reall scary that there were nearly 1.5 million victims back in 1993. I never knew that the situation improved so much.

 

[robertsan21]

i love guns and think they are fun to use, but i think it should be controlled more

i would go for nr 1

 

[ge-man]

I prefer a ban and I kind of like the third option, but that will mainly reduce accidental injuries and death. Those who are determined to maim and kill will just hit up a more aggressive blackmarket in the wake of some kind of ban. We something else in addition to a weapons ban or weapons training program.

 

[DaveH]

Dude... that's like saying, there's no need to control car use; they'll always be traffic accidents, no matter how hard you try they'll still be car accidents.

But it's also logically fallacy to say doing anything is better than nothing or that bans are necessarily the way to go. The drug war, prohibition, etc. have demonstrated the folly of trying to deny the public what it wants. The public is only willing to tolerate so many car accidents. But guns? We've had 2 guns for every person in this country for over half a century.

ToxicAdam, that's a REALLY short sighted chart. If you dial it back even further, the stats were below even present day lows. And there were 2 guns for every person back then too. It's not like the guns turned evil overnight and started killing people in the late 80s and 90s. I mean we were friggin saturated with guns for at least 100 years (even, if you don't buy into the "every pilgrim had a gun"- if you do, then we're looking at around 300 years). And if they only became a problem the last few decades, then the problem clearly isn't with the guns.

The example I always cite is that in the 60's a student could carry a gun on the subway in NYC legally to school. The coach would take it in the morning, lock it up until the gun club after-school. Now that's unthinkable. Just like it's unthinkable to let people carry box-cutters onto airplanes. Or let a president drive in an open car. Modern wide-spread SWAT wasn't even created until the North Hollywood Shootout. School shootings and clocktower snipers were once unthinkable. It's not the guns. For lack of a better term, times are more "evil".

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Number 1 would never fly. It sure did "wonders" in Australia. They now have a higher gun crime rate than ever before.

IAWTP

If you were to modify it to include annual training courses on gun use and safety, how to keep tham hidden from minors etc, as well as annual gun maintainance checks I think you may have something.
Every body will say that it is for recreational use anyway
Maybe an outright ban on assault rifles and automatics, cant really see any use a citizen has for them.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

So you get 3 options;

1. Broad nationwide ban on all basic weapons; hang guns, assault weapons, hunting rifles to be kept of house premises maybe in a gun club or some such; strict laws permitting only select people to hold gun licenses (crop farmers that need to kill pests for example).

----snip-----

By the way what do you mean by a ban on all basic weapons and that hand guns, assault rifles etc should be kept of premises.
Do you mean banning owneship or forbiding them to be kept on the premises.

 

[Zaptruder]

so a basic ban on gun ownership; exemptions made perhaps for recreational uses; but requiring the guns to be kept off site, at a gun or hunting club.

 

[djtiesto]

Keep it like it is, with slightly more intrusive background checks. Stricter purchasing requirements at gun shows. Make automatics illegal of course.

 

[Fragamemnon]

2), with some extras.

First thing is that you've got to close the gun-show loopholes and other shenanigans that people use to circumvent proper background checks. I'm for some kind of structured mechanism by which gun shows can still exist and remain profitable and allow certain exception cases, but not have the kind of shadiness that goes on now in large shows-we can do it with the right tech and regulations.

Next thing is that gun manufacturers need to get more involved in the matter. Improving gun safety on handguns, for example, so that we have less inadvertent accidents involving children. We also need to encourage gun makers to better educate their customers, providing instructions or guidelines with guns on proper management on the weapons in a household.

We need a huge crackdown on assault wepaons and knock-off assault weapons. These things don't belong in the market, period.

We don't need much change, but we could do better.

Regarding violent crime: The large downtick in violent crime in the 1990s was the result of an economic engine that led to some seriously low unemployment and modest wage gains. The number one deterrent to crime, after all, is to provide opportunity for people to work and thrive through legitimate means.

 

[Drinky Crow]

What Frag said.

 

[xsarien]

An outright ban wouldn't do any good, because as we've seen with both prohibition in the 20s, and drugs since, oh, forever at this point, banning something from the marketplace doesn't make it unavailable.

What I do think should be done is to make it much, much harder to get a gun. I also think - humor aside - that Chris Rock has a valid point: Make the ammo much more expensive.

These are devices that are designed for one purpose: To destroy. The fact that any shmuck can walk into a Wal-Mart and buy one is a little scary. What's scarier is that there are weapons out there that no rational person should legally be able to own. No one "hunting" needs assault-style weapons, and claiming "But I'm a sportsman!" is nothing buy a cynical attempt to pass Go and move directly to the 2nd amendment, foregoing any intelligent discussion on the matter.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

man i dunno about banning guns...too many out there already whats the point if the main purpose is to curb gun related crime..criminals can get these illegally...like they already do. If anything there should be more trainning available for those who want to learn and understand a gun so that the stigma is gone from them, at this point education is the only way to curb accidents and violence.

 

[Crandle]

#2, depending on the laws in question (they differ state-by-state, after all). I have no problem with barring anyone with serious mental problems or violent criminal record from owning a gun and putting mechanisms in place to check for that, but it shouldn't require digging up every detail of a person's life. I'm find with concealed-weapons laws in most places, perhaps not huge cities. There was a study I've been trying to find that compared the Western states, which mostly allow concealed weapons, with our Prairie provinces (similar populations/cultures, except with the much more stringent Canadian gun laws) and found the latter to have considerably higher rates of violent crime. Assault weapons don't really bother me either. They do have legitimate applications for personal/property defense, albeit rare ones. Generally I'm just a big critic of trying to prohibit something, whether it be guns or drugs, because, as anyone with a unblinkered brain should be able to see from the drug war, that tends to restrict access and control to violent criminals. Outlaw drugs, and the people running the supplies will be crime lords; ban guns, and the only people willing to risk carrying them will be thugs and maniacs. Not to mention the disturbing implications of having the government, or police or whoever, being the only ones with legal access to firearms...

 

[Dilbert]

Option 1.

 

[Pimpwerx]

2), with some extras.

First thing is that you've got to close the gun-show loopholes and other shenanigans that people use to circumvent proper background checks. I'm for some kind of structured mechanism by which gun shows can still exist and remain profitable and allow certain exception cases, but not have the kind of shadiness that goes on now in large shows-we can do it with the right tech and regulations.

Next thing is that gun manufacturers need to get more involved in the matter. Improving gun safety on handguns, for example, so that we have less inadvertent accidents involving children. We also need to encourage gun makers to better educate their customers, providing instructions or guidelines with guns on proper management on the weapons in a household.

We need a huge crackdown on assault wepaons and knock-off assault weapons. These things don't belong in the market, period.

We don't need much change, but we could do better.

Regarding violent crime: The large downtick in violent crime in the 1990s was the result of an economic engine that led to some seriously low unemployment and modest wage gains. The number one deterrent to crime, after all, is to provide opportunity for people to work and thrive through legitimate means.

On point like a mofo. Definitely get rid of assault weapons. WTF do you hunt with those? PEACE.

 

[Blackace]

I like the Chris Rock method myself... make bullets really expensive

 

[NWO]

Probably the best compromise then is to remove assault weapons altogether

I'm pro gun but I see NO reason why anybody should have assault weapons.

President Bush voted to allow more of these to become available just recently and the fool couldn't even come up with reasons why people should own assault weapons. You want to know why BECAUSE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T. You should be able to own a gun but not some super powered machine gun.

And here's your stats for Australia. They banned guns and it just increased crime and made it worse and I'm sure America would be even worse since we are more fucked up than Australia.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15324

Since the introduction of Australia's sweeping gun bans, armed robberies rose a whopping 70 percent, from 6,256 in 1996 to 10,850 just two years later.
Unarmed robberies also rose by about 20 percent, from just over 10,100 to nearly 13,000 incidents.
In addition:
· Attempted murders rose from 335 in 1996 to 382 in 1998
· Manslaughter rose from 38 to 49
· Assaults were up from 114,156 to 132,967
· Sexual assaults rose slightly, from 14,542 to 14,568
· Kidnapping and abductions climbed dramatically, from 480 in 1996 to 662 in 1998
Some other highlights from the 1998 Australian government crime statistics report:
· Blackmail and extortion went from 268 cases a year to 298
· "Unlawful entry with intent (breaking into a home or business) involving the taking of property" rose by 30,000 cases, from 313,902 shortly after the ban was passed to 343,256 cases in 1998
· Other "unlawful entry" cases increased during the two-year period from 88,177 to 92,414
· "Motor vehicle theft" increased by 8,658 reported cases, and "other theft" rose to 565,214 from 521,762

 

[Blackace]

I'm pro gun but I see NO reason why anybody should have assault weapons.

President Bush voted to allow more of these to become available just recently and the fool couldn't even come up with reasons why people should own assault weapons. You want to know why BECAUSE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T. You should be able to own a gun but not some super powered machine gun.

And here's your stats for Australia. They banned guns and it just increased crime and made it worse and I'm sure America would be even worse since we are more fucked up than Australia.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15324

Since the introduction of Australia's sweeping gun bans, armed robberies rose a whopping 70 percent, from 6,256 in 1996 to 10,850 just two years later.
Unarmed robberies also rose by about 20 percent, from just over 10,100 to nearly 13,000 incidents.
In addition:
· Attempted murders rose from 335 in 1996 to 382 in 1998
· Manslaughter rose from 38 to 49
· Assaults were up from 114,156 to 132,967
· Sexual assaults rose slightly, from 14,542 to 14,568
· Kidnapping and abductions climbed dramatically, from 480 in 1996 to 662 in 1998
Some other highlights from the 1998 Australian government crime statistics report:
· Blackmail and extortion went from 268 cases a year to 298
· "Unlawful entry with intent (breaking into a home or business) involving the taking of property" rose by 30,000 cases, from 313,902 shortly after the ban was passed to 343,256 cases in 1998
· Other "unlawful entry" cases increased during the two-year period from 88,177 to 92,414
· "Motor vehicle theft" increased by 8,658 reported cases, and "other theft" rose to 565,214 from 521,762

but other countries don't have guns and their crime rates are low. not saying the America should ban guns but that data doesn't prove that the crime rate wouldn't go down in America if guns were banned. It just shows that it might not go down...

 

[Crandle]

Assault weapons are useful for defense in times of extreme urban unrest or a larger-scale invasion of someone's property (which, as that term is used legally, usually means desperate addicts breaking into someone's house or store). Shopkeepers used assault weapons to defend themselves during the LA riots, for example.

edit: that doesn't necessarily mean there should be no hypothetical restrictions on owning them in addition to the small ones in place for other guns, but it's not true to say they have no use beyond "murdering a bunch of people"

 

[DonasaurusRex]

but other countries don't have guns and their crime rates are low. not saying the America should ban guns but that data doesn't prove that the crime rate wouldn't go down in America if guns were banned. It just shows that it might not go down...

thats probably because it was never really easy to get guns in those countries like for instance, japan, or england. Unlike our country where you can go to walmart and get a shotgun, or a gun show and get a sub machinegun if you're a "collector". Really screwed up, a shotty is far more lethal than a handgun too...

 

[Blackace]

Assault weapons are useful for defense in times of extreme urban unrest or a larger-scale invasion of someone's property (which, as that term is used legally, usually means desperate addicts breaking into someone's house or store). Shopkeepers used assault weapons to defend themselves during the LA riots, for example.

edit: that doesn't necessarily mean there should be no hypothetical restrictions on owning them in addition to the small ones in place for other guns, but it's not true to say they have no use beyond "murdering a bunch of people"

so while defend your compund what would you be doing with your assault weapon, killing a bunch of people...oh I see

 

[Crandle]

so while defend your compund what would you be doing with your assault weapon, killing a bunch of people...oh I see

Well, yeah, but anyone who breaks into a home and doesn't run away when they find out people are inside (which includes the vast majority of burglars) is a "home invader" and probably going to kill you.

 

[Blackace]

I don't want to turn this into a big deal. But a Glock would kill the home invader just as dead as a tech 9...

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm pro gun but I see NO reason why anybody should have assault weapons.

President Bush voted to allow more of these to become available just recently and the fool couldn't even come up with reasons why people should own assault weapons. You want to know why BECAUSE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T. You should be able to own a gun but not some super powered machine gun.

And here's your stats for Australia. They banned guns and it just increased crime and made it worse and I'm sure America would be even worse since we are more fucked up than Australia.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15324

Since the introduction of Australia's sweeping gun bans, armed robberies rose a whopping 70 percent, from 6,256 in 1996 to 10,850 just two years later.
Unarmed robberies also rose by about 20 percent, from just over 10,100 to nearly 13,000 incidents.
In addition:
· Attempted murders rose from 335 in 1996 to 382 in 1998
· Manslaughter rose from 38 to 49
· Assaults were up from 114,156 to 132,967
· Sexual assaults rose slightly, from 14,542 to 14,568
· Kidnapping and abductions climbed dramatically, from 480 in 1996 to 662 in 1998
Some other highlights from the 1998 Australian government crime statistics report:
· Blackmail and extortion went from 268 cases a year to 298
· "Unlawful entry with intent (breaking into a home or business) involving the taking of property" rose by 30,000 cases, from 313,902 shortly after the ban was passed to 343,256 cases in 1998
· Other "unlawful entry" cases increased during the two-year period from 88,177 to 92,414
· "Motor vehicle theft" increased by 8,658 reported cases, and "other theft" rose to 565,214 from 521,762

Honestly, those just look like stats that have swung up on the basis of some natural (or socially based) cycle (as the increases aren't alarming); moreover they do little to show correlaion between gun use and violent crimes.

Truth is, guns weren't particularly prelevant in australia before or after the ban; dig up some additional stats on gun ownership, as well as longer term stats of violence in australia, as well as stats on countries with gun bans vs countries without gun bans; until then, my bullshit will have to fly for sound counter reasoning.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Assault weapons are useful for defense in times of extreme urban unrest or a larger-scale invasion of someone's property (which, as that term is used legally, usually means desperate addicts breaking into someone's house or store). Shopkeepers used assault weapons to defend themselves during the LA riots, for example.

edit: that doesn't necessarily mean there should be no hypothetical restrictions on owning them in addition to the small ones in place for other guns, but it's not true to say they have no use beyond "murdering a bunch of people"

Assault weapons are military weapons designed to take down humans, sometimes in large numbers. You don't need one for self-defense, and you don't need one for hunting. They are simply unjustified. If you need to fight off enough people to use an assault rifle, then you have much bigger problems than self-defense. You're probably a very wanted man. PEACE.

 

[Che]

Option #1 and set an 1-5 years in prison for every moron who was caught having one, and 3-10 years for anyone who was caught with one and with a criminal record of using guns. Guns are used to hurt others = bad. Even a child can understand that. Defend yourself and crap. Weapons dealers sell them to criminals so that the scared average little joe is forced to buy one after watching a 1 hour TV bullshit program about how dangerous is "out there". And the only thing that he succeeds is to either have a dead child because it was playing with it, or get killed because he tried to defend himself from the criminal who knows guns like the back of his hand.

 

[NWO]

but other countries don't have guns and their crime rates are low.

And these countries would be?

Honestly, those just look like stats that have swung up on the basis of some natural (or socially based) cycle (as the increases aren't alarming); moreover they do little to show correlaion between gun use and violent crimes.

Truth is, guns weren't particularly prelevant in australia before or after the ban; dig up some additional stats on gun ownership, as well as longer term stats of violence in australia, as well as stats on countries with gun bans vs countries without gun bans; until then, my bullshit will have to fly for sound counter reasoning.

Shit you asked for the Australia numbers and I gave you them. If you don't want to believe them then go ahead. :lol

I don't see any numbers in here that say banning guns will lower crime. Its just something that people assume will happen. I gave you a place where people said crime would go down and it didn't.

There's a lot more to crime then just guns. Honestly you people that blame everyone on guns sound just like the people who blame violence on video games. Guess what there was crime before guns and there was violence before video games.

Here's some more facts:

"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent; In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily."

"A report has just been published by the Centre for Defence Studies in London, which shows that criminal use of handguns increased by 40% in the two years immediately after the 1997 ban on handguns. In the years 1997-1998, 2,648 crimes involving handguns were reported. In 1999-2000, that number had increased to 3,685."

"Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%."

"Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:

-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder"

"Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Florida-- homicide rate -36% firearm homicide rate -37% handgun homicide rate -41%
US-- homicide rate -.4% firearm homicide rate +15% handgun homicide rate +24%"

"The recent International Crime Victimization Survey, which provides a good indication of overall crime levels around the world, shows that, while crime fell dramatically
during the 1990s in the United States and most of the rest of the world, it
has remained steady in Britain and Australia (which also enacted a gun ban
during the late 1990s)."

"The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s."

"The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada."

"It does not seem that Britain can be said to be a safer place as a result of the gun ban. The police there have traditionally gone unarmed, but the number of incidents in which police officers have had guns issued to them in recognition of potential danger increased from about 6,000 in 1994-95 to more than 12,000 in 1997-98."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...e01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html#1

"England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations. The UN reports also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults, with 851 people assaulted per 100,000, and seventh for burglaries and car theft, with 1,579 burglaries per 100,000 population."

And to the people saying that other countries are safer than the United States.

Serious Assault from 1977-1993 (Percentage Increase)

Australia +3.7
Belgium +1.9
Canada +2.0
Denmark +2.3
England-Wales +2.2
France +1.7
Greece +4.8
Hungary +1.7
Netherlands +1.9
New Zealand +3.8
Norway +4.8
Scotland +2.3
Sweden +3.0
United States +1.8

Murder from 1977-1993 (Percentage Increase)

Australia +1.6
Belgium +1.4
Canada N/A
Denmark +1.9
England-Wales +1.8
France +1.4
Greece +2.1
Hungary +2.1
Netherlands +1.3
New Zealand +3.3
Norway +2.2
Scotland +3.6
Sweden +1.8
United States +1.1

 

[Che]

And these countries would be?



Shit you asked for the Australia numbers and I gave you them. If you don't want to believe them then go ahead. :lol

I don't see any numbers in here that say banning guns will lower crime. Its just something that people assume will happen. I gave you a place where people said crime would go down and it didn't.

There's a lot more to crime then just guns. Honestly you people that blame everyone on guns sound just like the people who blame violence on video games. Guess what there was crime before guns and there was violence before video games.

Here's some more facts:

"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent; In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily."

"A report has just been published by the Centre for Defence Studies in London, which shows that criminal use of handguns increased by 40% in the two years immediately after the 1997 ban on handguns. In the years 1997-1998, 2,648 crimes involving handguns were reported. In 1999-2000, that number had increased to 3,685."

"Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%."

"Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:

-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder"

"Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Florida-- homicide rate -36% firearm homicide rate -37% handgun homicide rate -41%
US-- homicide rate -.4% firearm homicide rate +15% handgun homicide rate +24%"

"The recent International Crime Victimization Survey, which provides a good indication of overall crime levels around the world, shows that, while crime fell dramatically
during the 1990s in the United States and most of the rest of the world, it
has remained steady in Britain and Australia (which also enacted a gun ban
during the late 1990s)."

"The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s."

"The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada."

"It does not seem that Britain can be said to be a safer place as a result of the gun ban. The police there have traditionally gone unarmed, but the number of incidents in which police officers have had guns issued to them in recognition of potential danger increased from about 6,000 in 1994-95 to more than 12,000 in 1997-98."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...e01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html#1

"England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations. The UN reports also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults, with 851 people assaulted per 100,000, and seventh for burglaries and car theft, with 1,579 burglaries per 100,000 population."

And to the people saying that other countries are safer than the United States.

Serious Assault from 1977-1993 (Percentage Increase)

Australia +3.7
Belgium +1.9
Canada +2.0
Denmark +2.3
England-Wales +2.2
France +1.7
Greece +4.8
Hungary +1.7
Netherlands +1.9
New Zealand +3.8
Norway +4.8
Scotland +2.3
Sweden +3.0
United States +1.8

Murder from 1977-1993 (Percentage Increase)

Australia +1.6
Belgium +1.4
Canada N/A
Denmark +1.9
England-Wales +1.8
France +1.4
Greece +2.1
Hungary +2.1
Netherlands +1.3
New Zealand +3.3
Norway +2.2
Scotland +3.6
Sweden +1.8
United States +1.1

We need some real numbers man. Not well crafted percents. IIRC in Bowling for the Columbine there were some very interesting ones.

edit: there you go: http://img190.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img190&image=usaguns4ji.swf

 

[Warm Machine]

Who really NEEDS to own a gun besides farmers and people who live in the woods.

 

[SlickWilly223]

Yah, ban assault weapons.

But no, don't raise the prices of ammo. Most calibers are already ridiculously expensive as it is. When you go to the shooting range, you want to spend a good amount of time at there, and if prices increase than you might end up spending over $100 just for ammo that will last a good hour or so. That would suck, and it wouldn't prevent crimes at all. You only need one bullet to kill someone, and chances are if they're willing to shoot you with a gun they're willing to spend as much money as they have to on ammo.

 

[pj]

An outright ban wouldn't do any good, because as we've seen with both prohibition in the 20s, and drugs since, oh, forever at this point, banning something from the marketplace doesn't make it unavailable.

There's one key difference between drugs and guns.. Guns aren't consumable. It would be like banning syringes to get rid of heroin abuse. Guns can easily last 50 years, and there are already millions of them easily available. The only way they could stop gun crime would be to cease manufacturing of all existing calibers of ammunition, and make new calibers for law enforcement and whoever else is deemed worthy of owning a gun.

As for assault weapons, people want them because they're fun to shoot, so maybe they could just be confined to gun clubs and only be used for on-site rental.