ABC News: Gun Control Increases Crime

[Falken]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c71_1362237045

Enjoy.

The first line of defense is you. Call the cops so they can take photos of the dead bad guy, not the other way around.

 

[Stelth]

Terrific! Captain Obvious finally shows up at ABC!

 

[Drew99GT]

On next weeks report, they'll show how the sun rises in the east.

 

[JohnnyZ52]

The problem with this stuff is that you can alter an argument easily. Crime goes up and down depending on a number of factors, but countries with strict gun laws (Japan, England, etc.) have been safer than those with more lenient laws. There is a lot of lobbying to promote gun ownership and a lot of money on the table in this manner. Fans of weapons want to believe they are safer, but if they were objective, might not think so. My argument all along has been...we can barely trust drivers to operate their death machines properly, why should we trust people with objects designed only to harm?

The argument that armed citizens could take down the shooter in mass shootings might have some plausibility, but those are exceptions and are quite rare even though the news would have you believe otherwise. Plus, if you wanted to kill people, bigger weapons are always available.

Because violent acts are caused by so many different cultural and economic factors, this debate can't be settled so easily. I find it hard to believe the majority of people would feel safer knowing the person next to them has a weapon on them. This video is sort of like that video where someone shows a bunch of women who had clearly never fired a shotgun before and they couldn't control it. That blows apart the logic that shotguns are safer than assault rifles? Because you have to spend a half an hour learning how to properly brace it?

 

[mechtech2]

The best example is Chicago.
The most restrictive gun laws , and the highest crime and shooting deaths and woundings.
Yet they want even more restrictions.
"Never let a crisis go to waste!" - Rahm Emmanuel - Mayor of Chicago.

 

[svhanc]

I think there is an excellent deterrent value in the possibility of the victim being armed.
My wife would never use a gun, so she doesn't have one.
I would, so I have several. Each has an appropriate application.
I just happen to trust myself to protect myself.

 

[Crashbox]

I honestly can't believe that ABC would broadcast something like this that makes total sense.

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

[yonyon]

Originally Posted By: Cujobob
My argument all along has been...we can barely trust drivers to operate their death machines properly, why should we trust people with objects designed only to harm?


Most people feel they must have a car. It would be very difficult to live without one. How many people do you think ask themselves "Do I really need a car?" or "Am I qualified to operate this equipment safely?" before they buy one and operate it? There are certainly people who don't consider these questions before purchasing a gun, but at least some do.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Cujobob
The problem with this stuff is that you can alter an argument easily. Crime goes up and down depending on a number of factors, but countries with strict gun laws (Japan, England, etc.) have been safer than those with more lenient laws.


I believe it has been shown that England is less safe than the USA. Sure you won't get shot but you will get stabbed or plain ol' beaten to a pulp.

Japan is sort of an anomaly as they are an island that has never had a "gun culture" or any sort of private gun ownership. Very easy to control guns on an island where the people have been conditioned to avoid them.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
The best example is Chicago.
The most restrictive gun laws , and the highest crime and shooting deaths and woundings.
Yet they want even more restrictions.
"Never let a crisis go to waste!" - Rahm Emmanuel - Mayor of Chicago.


Add to that NYC, Washington DC, and the state of NJ. When DC restricted gun ownership, crime shot up. Now that they are relaxing the restrictions, crime is creeping down.

 

[Mystic]

I get tired of people who try to make a simple thing complex. It is very simple-if you have a gun and you know how to use it, the gun provides you with security. Otherwise how do you stop the intruder-with your fists?

If bad guys think that people may have guns in their home, the bad guy at least has to take extra precautions before breaking in. The bad guys probably care somewhat about themselves and their own safety.

If there is very strict gun control in an area, the bad guys know that. They know it is likely that people in that area probably will not have guns.

There has to be reasons why areas where people are allowed to own guns typically have less crime than areas of strict gun control, like Chicago, where there is a huge amount of crime and violence.

We need to keep this simple. In industry there is a simple saying-KISS.

And even if we did have very strict gun control throughout the USA there are so many guns there would be illegal stockpiles somewhere where the criminals could get theirs. The criminals do not care about any laws.

In Mexico they have strict laws but it does not stop the drug gangs from having all the weapons they need, including automatic weapons.

Keep it simple.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Cujobob
...... objects designed only to harm?


This is a common misconception. Simply not true. The vast majority of my guns are used for target shooting only. A couple are used for hunting. Several amay be used in defense of my family and of my country and Constitution.

Originally Posted By: Cujobob
....we can barely trust drivers to operate their death machines properly, why should we trust people with objects designed only to harm?


Because it's a RIGHT in our Constitution.

I'm not sure why you exactly skim right past that.

Anyway, it's an OLD video Stosel is no longer with ABC and NO WAY would ABC show such a thing in 2013. No way. Their reporters would get booted from the WH press core. That's how a free and transparent leadership works.

 

[Gabe]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
The best example is Chicago.
The most restrictive gun laws , and the highest crime and shooting deaths and woundings.
Yet they want even more restrictions.
"Never let a crisis go to waste!" - Rahm Emmanuel - Mayor of Chicago.


Chicago is an interesting case. In 2010, the handgun ban ended; gun crime didn't noticeably decrease. In June, Chicago will see concealed carry permits introduced. It should provide us with some interesting statistics to look at.

Banning guns didn't reduce gun crime; allowing guns didn't reduce gun crime. The sooner we acknowledge this, the faster we can move on to actually solving this MAJOR problem. People have become entrenched in the idea that more/less guns are the answer - it isn't.

Lets changed the focus to drug addiction, breakdown in traditional family structures, mental well-being, or gang culture.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Gabe


Lets changed the focus to drug addiction, breakdown in traditional family structures, mental well-being, or gang culture.


Thank you! Great post.

 

[Mystic]

Regardless if an intruder is on drugs or not, regardless if the criminal comes from a broken home or not, regardless if the criminal is a member of a gang or not, in the end you have a home owner facing an intruder, an intruder who may try to kill or seriously injure the home owner.

It does not matter if the criminal is on drugs or not, if the criminal came from a broken home or not, if the criminal is a member of a gang or not, to the home owner facing an intruder who may kill. The home owner is going to have to try to defend himself/herself from that intruder, that criminal.

So choose, but choose wisely-what will you defend yourself with (a gun, a kitchen knife, a baseball bat , a hammer) or are you are going to let the criminal take whatever he wants and hope he will not hurt you.

I will call 911 if I have time, and I have a 9 mm. It may be thirty minutes by the time the sheriff deputies arrive.

The criminal does not care about any laws and will likely have a weapon regardless of any gun control laws. Even if gun control was so strict that even the criminals had a hard time getting guns a 230 pound hardened thug can still kill or seriously injure another human being even with his fists and his legs, and he could still have a knife, a baseball bat, or whatever. It will be impossible to outlaw all knives. Your wife needs knives in the kitchen, and your kids play baseball.

 

[GenSan]

And here's the literature referenced by John Stossel in that video and published by the National Academies of Science:

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (LINK)

 

[Mystic]

Sorry, but I do not automatically believe any literature nowadays. The NRA could fund a study on firearms and violence. Some other group very opposed to gun ownership could fund a study. Do we automatically believe the results of either study?

I think before you accept any literature from anybody you need to employ some common sense. Guns are everywhere in the USA. If handguns and rifles like the AR-15 were outlawed tomorrow morning, there will be handguns and rifles like the AR-15 in the USA in circulation for a very long time. It is a simple matter of fact. People would hide handguns in their homes. Even if every house in America was searched there would still be numerous handguns in circulation. People trying to make a quick buck would stockpile weapons for sale to criminals (or sale to people who are not criminals for that matter). Weapons could be concealed in numerous locations.

And in the end we have to remember the Second Amendment to the Constitution. People are allowed in this country to own guns.

There is not going to be an expensive, fruitless search of every house in America. We can't even afford something like that, and it would be a waste of time anyway.

The sensible thing would be to allow law abiding people to continue to own guns (not all guns or weapons) and perhaps some sort of national registry of gun ownership. Or let the individual states control gun ownership in their states. And there should be severe consequences for using a gun in the commission of a crime, especially if someone is killed or seriously injured.

What ever happened to common sense?

 

[Gabe]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Regardless if an intruder is on drugs or not, regardless if the criminal comes from a broken home or not, regardless if the criminal is a member of a gang or not, in the end you have a home owner facing an intruder, an intruder who may try to kill or seriously injure the home owner.

It does not matter if the criminal is on drugs or not, if the criminal came from a broken home or not, if the criminal is a member of a gang or not, to the home owner facing an intruder who may kill. The home owner is going to have to try to defend himself/herself from that intruder, that criminal.


You seem to be missing the big picture.

A person who is addicted to drugs or from a broken home are statistically more likely to become criminals. It is rare to hear about somebody breaking into a home and stealing a sofa for textbook money.

 

[dnewton3]

You all know I'm a data-driven man; keep the rhetoric and mythology out of it, right?

So why not look at REAL data from credible sources ...

Here you can find the long term history and such of violent crime, as defined by the FBI. As this covers many decades, the ying-and-yang of annual arguments can be set aside; long term history here!
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats


This is more widespread data reporting info ...
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications


Here is more great data ...
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=daa


Bottom line is that violent crime has been going down for more than two decades. It was heading downward before the 1994 ban, in continued down during the ban, and still heads downward even after the ban expired nearly 9 years ago, as it does today.

Not only that, but you can CLEARLY see data by regions and large metropolitan areas; gun crime is not averted with gun laws.


Statistical data and real world evidence do not lie! Use these links; copy them; study the data; be prepared so that when people lie or exaggerate, you can immediately correct them with truthful information. Nothing dispells bovine poo like the truth!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

So why not look at REAL data from credible sources ...

Here you can find the long term history and such of violent crime, as defined by the FBI. As this covers many decades, the ying-and-yang of annual arguments can be set aside; long term history here!
...


Bottom line is that violent crime has been going down for more than two decades. It was heading downward before the 1994 ban, in continued down during the ban, and still heads downward even after the ban expired nearly 9 years ago, as it does today.

Not only that, but you can CLEARLY see data by regions and large metropolitan areas; gun crime is not averted with gun laws.



This is an important fact to understand clearly in this time of lots of discussion and argument on this topic. There is IMO (note opinion not links) not a clear indication that bans or no bans have had much of any influence on the general population. Violent crime WAS dropping during the bans.

Of course we have the inner cities, but for each Chicago we have a Manhattan or SE DC where crime has gone down. Of course that is due to gentrification, and not gun laws. Its the quality of the people, not the guns that make the deal. That is why the first world has lower violence than the third.

But what Im seeing here is that statistically, less guns dont have to equal more crime, and that is a weak correlation when it is made.

That's also my read based upon the color map of the USA where the most violent crime tends to be in states with the most lax gun laws.

So none of this stuff really strengthens the pro-gun argument. The reasonable, rational side of me stays the same, no way Id want to ONLY be able to buy a shotgun or revolver, but at the same time, I dont need 30 or 100 rounds from an AR-15... That stays because it is reasonable to me and seems to be backed up by the findings and indications. The other side of me says that I dont want to be told what I can or cannot do because some thuggish, horrid segment of the population cannot control themselves and have allowed a culture that is obviously inferior and not amenable to human progress, and turns to gun violence...

Then again, if they didnt exist, the only need for guns would be for sport, and then it may not be a valid argument either...