More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

The U.K. has very strict gun laws also, yet has far more violent crime than Norway. London has a higher rate of violent crime than New York City.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is really a pretty powerful argument in favor of gun control.

A lot of people who oppose gun control claim that it wouldn't reduce the murder rate because the US is simply a different (more violent) culture than countries that have both strict gun control and much lower murder rate.

Yet England and many other countries with strict gun control still have a high rate of violent crime. This suggests that the culture of violence in these countries isn't much different than America's. Indeed, petty violence like bar fights and soccer riots seem like a much bigger part of the culture in England than in the US. Gun control does not lessened the natural propensity for violence present in humanity.

What is the big difference between the crime rate in England and the US? A much much lower murder rate. 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.

[rubbrband]

The US also has stricter drug laws than about any country which partially accounts for such a higher murder rate.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that cultural differences are one of the biggest reasons for the disparities in the violent crime rates between Scandinavian countries and the U.K. or U.S.A.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is definitely true.

Some countries have lots of guns but a very low murder rate. That obviously says something about the US, and it's not good.

I also agree that legalizing drugs would probably eliminate a great deal of the gun violence in the US. Mass shootings like VT are very rare even though they get all the media attention.

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.

[rubbrband]

Gun control laws that target criminals but don't effect rites of the average citizen are fine with me.

1)Mandatory 5 years added to sentence for having a gun in the commission of a felony
2)Felons not allowed to purchase guns

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a third party to this transaction that you didn't agree to participate in. Which situation is better for you:

1) Bullets flying
2) No bullets flying

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
and of course, if guns aren't allowed, a criminal wouldn't need a gun as much as if everybody else had it. you don't need that "edge" anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "edge" would make the criminal into a near super villian if he had the only gun how could anyone stop him? I dont see why any criminal wouldnt seek this situation at all costs.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

[/ QUOTE ]

I would much prefer situation 1. There is no way that I could stop from being killed in situation 2 (I am obviously going to wield my weapon much slower than the 20-year old). But in situation 1, there is a high likelihood that bystanders will be able to stop the attack before I am killed.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

[/ QUOTE ]

I would much prefer situation 1. There is no way that I could stop from being killed in situation 2 (I am obviously going to wield my weapon much slower than the 20-year old). But in situation 1, there is a high likelihood that bystanders will be able to stop the attack before I am killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if said bystanders also had guns?

besides there is no way an 80 yo woman will be able to club to death a 20 yo man. With a gun she at least has a shot (no pun intended)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
20 year old punk vs. 80 year old lady. You're the 80-year-old lady, minding her own business. Which situation is better in your book:

1) you both have clubs

2) you both have guns

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a third party to this transaction that you didn't agree to participate in. Which situation is better for you:

1) Bullets flying
2) No bullets flying

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if both have guns, the likelyhood of an actual confrontation is greatly reduced.

If you make a decision to use force to prevent people from trading items, the old lady is a third party to the transaction that didn't agree to participate in it. Which is better for her:

1) access to resources
2) no access to resources

Your roll.