More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.

[karlwig]

Well, it would still be safer. Yes, a man with a gun would be unstoppable for sivilians, but then nobody would get hurt trying to stop him either. Criminals with guns have a reason using them if they are trethened by other people with guns. If no one else have guns, they don't have to.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially, gun control has taken what would have been murders and turned them into much lesser violent crimes like assault. Isn't this exactly what you would intuitively expect? Gun control hasn't reduced the number of criminals, but it has dramatically reduced the damage that criminals are able to cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you actually have any data that indicates that is what is happening in the UK?

Drug activity is a huge contributor to violent crime, including murder. There's no huge wave of bar fights that escalate to shootouts.

Washington DC has basically the strictest gun control laws of any US city. It also has the highest murder rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there is less of a drug problem in England? Have you seen Trainspotting? There are a lot fewer drug murders (because of gun control), but I don't imagine the level of drug use is lower. (But I haven't seen any statistics on this.)

[Borodog]

Lol at the "if guns are not allowed" argument. The government can't keep hard drugs out of maximum security prisons. It is literally impossible to simply wave some magic legislative wand and POOF! make guns disappear.

Simple economics FTW:

1. Pass gun law to restrict access to guns; legitimate gun supply goes down.
2. Demand for guns among criminals does not change.
3. Price of illicit guns goes up, and hence the profit in supplying them, enticing more suppliers into the illicit gun market.
4. Price increase does not impact the demand for illicit guns amongst criminals, since they are, by definition, willing to simply commit property crimes to cover the increased cost. In fact, the gun is a capital investment for them.

Throw in the fact that the black market is dominated by criminals (by definition), and you have a recipe for increased crime rates completely aside from the incentive to commit crimes that comes with disarming potential victims.

[rubbrband]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it would still be safer. Yes, a man with a gun would be unstoppable for sivilians, but then nobody would get hurt trying to stop him either. Criminals with guns have a reason using them if they are trethened by other people with guns. If no one else have guns, they don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]
If no one has guns they don't need em? If you are a criminal and wanna rob a bank what are you going to use a sword?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it would still be safer. Yes, a man with a gun would be unstoppable for sivilians, but then nobody would get hurt trying to stop him either. Criminals with guns have a reason using them if they are trethened by other people with guns. If no one else have guns, they don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, have you totally forgotten the incident that brought on this thread? no, murderers certainly don't have to kill people, but they still do.

Unbelievable.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it would still be safer. Yes, a man with a gun would be unstoppable for sivilians, but then nobody would get hurt trying to stop him either. Criminals with guns have a reason using them if they are trethened by other people with guns. If no one else have guns, they don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not true. Loads of people are killed in muggings every year even in places where guns are virtually non-existient (ie where I live in DC).

To become a criminal you already are acting outside the law. Couple that with the fact that becoming a criminal is (in most cases) a highly irrational choice. I dont think these people will stop to think about their actions before doing them.

Like I said, if no one else has guns there is no reason for criminals NOT to carry weapons since they will be able to act with impunity.

[karlwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see any citations for an incident like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand. He doesn't get killed because he steals a handbag, but when BOTH he and the police officer is armed, a dangerous confrontation might happen.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see any citations for an incident like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand. He doesn't get killed because he steals a handbag, but when BOTH he and the police officer is armed, a dangerous confrontation might happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont need a gun to get shot by the police. Wear some dirty clothes and then run at the cops screaming. that will probably get you tazed if you are lucky and killed if you are not.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol at the "if guns are not allowed" argument. The government can't keep hard drugs out of maximum security prisons. It is literally impossible to simply wave some magic legislative wand and POOF! make guns disappear.

Simple economics FTW:

1. Pass gun law to restrict access to guns; legitimate gun supply goes down.
2. Demand for guns among criminals does not change.
3. Price of illicit guns goes up, and hence the profit in supplying them, enticing more suppliers into the illicit gun market.
4. Price increase does not impact the demand for illicit guns amongst criminals, since they are, by definition, willing to simply commit property crimes to cover the increased cost. In fact, the gun is a capital investment for them.

Throw in the fact that the black market is dominated by criminals (by definition), and you have a recipe for increased crime rates completely aside from the incentive to commit crimes that comes with disarming potential victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this huge black market for guns in all of the countries that have gun control?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I don't think we can dismiss the OP's point about making it harder for criminals to get guns. Just saying, "the criminals will always get guns" is defeatist and is no different than saying, "if a rapist wants to rape someone he'll find a way." We still need to try and make it as difficult as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why not require every private residence, business, and most public areas to be under government video surveillance? Surely this would also make it much more difficult to commit violent crimes.

If you argue that would violate civil liberties, then you are making the exact same argument as those who support the RKBA.