What Do You Think About Gun Control Law?

For most of my life I've been in favour of gun control laws, being persuaded by the idea that gun control laws kept guns out of the hands of criminals and violent lunatics thereby making the country safer. However recently I've begun to question this idea. I've been doing some research and it seems to me as though while gun control laws do reduce the amount of gun crime and gun violence, in its place the amount of violent crime committed with other leathal weapons such as knives or even ordinary tools like hammers increases. And what you see to get are higher levels of crime than you had before the gun control laws were put in place. This has been seen in Britain, Ireland, Jamaica and many other countries who have instituted guns bans.

As you can see in the following chart the rate of violent crime in the UK has yet to return to its pre-gun ban levels.




Also there is the argument that gun control laws are ineffective because the black market exists and criminals and the insane can just purchase illegal guns. I mean if they're thinking about killing or robbing someone they aren't going to be concerned about a lesser illegal firearm related charge. So all the gun control laws end up doing is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizen who would never have used guns to commit a crime in the first place. Plus it keeps good citizens from being able to buy guns to effectively defend themselves from the criminals who have gone and purchased illegal guns.

In addition to my written arguments, the guy in the following video also makes some excellent and level head points about the inffectiveness of gun control and how gun control laws only hurt innocent citizens so I'm including it as well.



So those are some the thoughts I've been having on the gun control subject, and I would like to have a discussion about it. So what do you all think about this?

I think the problem with gun control laws, is that in attempting to control one problem, you are exacerbating another.

In my mind, the main reason you bring in gun control laws is to stop small time criminals and 'regular' people from getting guns. Sure, there will still be people who buy guns on the black market, but those people are likely to be the really serious criminals, in which case they are (probably) either going for a targeted killing or some sort of heist or bank robbery. And in fact, limiting guns to only these sorts of criminals is probably a good idea, as they are less likely to be sloppy with there crimes, so the risks are lower.

Now for the small time criminals and 'regular' people. The small criminals are likely to make mistakes with guns or panic when cops show up, so them having guns is a bad idea. The regular people mainly only cause problems when they lose it and go on a rampage to kill someone. If they have a gun, it is easy to do that.

Whilst the amount of violent crimes may increase, since many of them are without guns, I suspect the fatality rate of victims is slightly lower. Plus it's much easier to go on a spree with a gun than a hammer, for instance. In addition, the data you provided includes 'firearm offenses'. I'm not sure if it does, but if that includes the offense of owning/carrying a firearm, then that is naturally going to increase over the next few years, particularly if people are protesting the law.

And as for not having a gun to defend yourself against criminals, I think that's probably the better option in most cases. A robber is less likely to attack you if you do not resist, and that is probably for the better, both for your life, and for the cops that have to deal with the crime.

So I would say that, overall, I'm in favor of gun control laws. Certainly, I think it works in Britain. But I'm not sure if it would work for America, where the culture of owning guns is so deeply routed. A lot of people would probably be, quite literally, up in arms about it. In that case, I would suggest a slow increasing of regulation of gun ownership, to lessen the affinity to firearms, before bringing in full gun control laws.

I say gun control should be illegal, with mandatory life sentences for those who attempt to introduce it and currently lobbying in its favor (no offense meant to anyone, despite how incompatible with my previous statement that may sound).

Gun control was never about crime reduction, it was always just used to turn people into slaves. Gun grabbers are either naive law abiding citizens, or the Illuminati

It's naive to think that gun control stops even minor criminals from having guns.

Minor criminals routinely have illegal things, drugs alone should be case in point.

Disarming the population leaves them more vulnerable to minor crime because knowing you're armed and no one else is is something that can give a criminal a (very accurate) sense of confidence.


But a lot of it comes down to this: do you trust a third party to protect you or do you want to be more or less self reliant.

Governments aren't very efficient, and government policing is no exception to that. I want to be equpied to defend my family and neighbourhood at the moment of a threat, and not be some fool sitting there crying for half an hour plus waiting for police. Police do not live at your home, they are not there to protect you the moment of a problem. From what I've seen they're mostly ineffective as anything other than a soft deterrent. They can only follow up after the fact. Unlike on TV where everything is scripted that usually means they don't find the criminal.

Here in Detroit, the police chief is promoting gun ownership. I've seen more criminals shot during home invasions than any other time I can remember. Most of the shootings were by women. Old and young, gangstas' are getting a reality check. Ordinary citizens ain't taking their shit anymore. I'm a gun owner and this is my theory: I'd rather have the gun and not need it, to need the gun and to not have it.

As someone who has been around firearms their whole life I believe that gun control shouldn't even exist. Because shootings are more common nowadays the law wants to minimize crime rates by taking away guns. Those who believe that should also look into the fact that half the people who go on a rampage and start killing everyone aren't criminals, but are very sick and have some sort of mental disorders. I think stronger regulations should be held on those who wishes to purchase a gun. But then again, criminals and people with mental disorders can go about getting a gun easily.(through bm and such)

The law doesn't want people to own guns because it minimizes the likelihood of crimes being committed, yet they don't consider how regular law abiding citizens will be able to protect themselves. It's common sense that we shouldn't always rely on the police to help us. Sometimes matters should be taken into our own hands.

You say this, but then you go on and say:



This is exactly what gun control is about. Not an outright ban, but making sure that those who get one are really fit to do so.

Exactly why I said "But then again" even if restrictions were put onto purchasing a gun, people could find other ways to get theirs hands on fire arms, therefore the restrictions useless. I could have composed my statement better but English is not my native language, my apologies.

I think, based on the responses to this topic so far, the main thoughts many of those who are against gun regulations is that they are more capable of defending themselves then the police are at defending them (if you'll forgive the massive generalization). This is probably true.

But still, I would rather have gun control. Even if I wasn't an immense coward with little physical strength, I would rather have gun control. Because I know that if I resist a criminal, there's more chance of me getting injured, and even if I got them without a scratch on me, I would probably feel pretty bad about shooting him, even if he is a criminal.

Personally, I don't think it's alright to kill someone, even if they are threatening your own life. Fight them, sure, but not kill. Yet this is something which is perfectly fine in a lot of places, and not just places without gun regulation either.

To some degree there needs to be a gun control law, but at the same time this is only brought up in America cause of all the school shootings. Sorry people but these stupid kids and teenagers are not going out and buying the guns, but instead just taking the ones their parents bought. So maybe the owner needs to learn more safety lockup procedures or just have them where you kids cannot get them. Also maybe parents need to act like parents and learn how their kid is feeling from school so they don't all a sudden get bullied and then want to show up at school with DAD's shotgun.

Banning guns is not going to help because if a criminal or someone who wants to commit a crime wants a gun they will get it. Trust me if you go to a gang here in America and ask who actually bought their gun from a valid retailer none of them will answer they did, because none of them did. If any did I would be completely and utterly shocked.

The one thing I dislike about gun activists is some are being assholes and walking around the streets trying to provoke officers to come over and question them about their weapon. I seen videos where a guy walks back and forth on the street with his gun clearly visible which scares people in the neighborhood cause they have no idea what he is going to do.

I'm mostly in favour of control. I live in Britain so I've lived a life without seeing all too many crimes being reported about involving guns. There is a lot of knife crime but that's been the case in England before gun control here. I support gun control because it does restrict people from obtaining firearms, not to an extent where it eliminates all crime such as homicide and murder but it certainly lowers it.

People talk about how guns themselves help to 'protect' civilians who chose to wield them but I disagree. Sure, you may not get beaten or robbed in the circumstance these events happen but nobody speaks of the psychological trauma caused by shooting and killing a man. In the circumstance you do use your gun and shoot an attacker (just for example) that situation will move very fast and the civilian may not have time to line up their shot to merely wound the assailant. In that case it's reasonable to assume they could kill the attacker and then they would have to live with the guilt of killing a man, which is worse than being robbed in my opinion.

Anyway in most cases of crimes that aren't aimed to take someone’s life, it is probably safer to go along with the criminal since they are less likely to do harm to you and you to him.

Plus without gun control a lot more people, who may not be as responsible with the weapon, may be able to obtain a gun and do something that could result in the loss of life whereas most crimes that don't involve guns are more likely to result in the victim surviving. Not necessarily of course, especially if the criminal in question was a serial killer but in that scenario it wouldn't matter if they had a gun or not, but at least you're restricting the variety of ways they could kill someone.

Also the graph isn't a fair representation of society in England and Wales really, especially if you consider the idea that we've recently been through a recession and people are very desperate due to the lack of jobs available. You could say bringing in guns here could save lives but the better solution in my mind is to improve the economy so less people feel they have to steal to provide for themselves. If the theory I have about the economy is correct the bringing in guns won't help since it is a fundamental issue of the country itself, not the defencelessness of its people. Although the police force of the country has been drastically cut in recent years, so you could say with a lack of policemen around more people can get away with said crimes, whether or not you believe guns could help or not is up to the individual in that case.

So I'm in favour of Gun Control, its worked here in Britain in my opinion and the only reason I see for the graph to be shaped like that is due to the country's financial state.

I never understand why you would allow guns if it wasn't for hunting or like shooting hobby. Guns have never been allowed here and I'm super happy about that. I would go around being paranoid if I knew anyone could walk around with a gun!

Having the right to have a gun or bear arms comes from the idea or notion of citizens being able to resist or fight against their own government.

You may call the cops when a normal citizen like your neighbor breaks the law, but who are you gonna call when cops break the law?

Gun control laws main intention is to cut down on crime. The vehicle for this is regulating access to or out right banning some or all guns. The impetus for this isn't hard to figure out. Guns are the most lethal easily accessible and easy to use weapon we have available to us at this time. The question we must all ask ourselves is have the gun control laws in existence around the world today done anything to cut down on crime?

One thing I'd like to say about using a gun in self defense is that most times I doubt you would have to shoot. Simply brandishing the gun is probably good enough to chase away most criminals.

Well it's well observed that coloration doesn't prove causation England isn't alone in that coloration. For example Washinton in the U.S. has a similar though more delayed spike a while after a handgun ban and mandatory lock control measures where implemented.

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc-full.png

An interesting article Washington Timesobserves an interesting trend in the link between gun crime, crime in general, and gun control: there really isn't one.

Gun regulation is pretty well ineffective at preventing gun crime as the cartoon in the original post indicates.



This is more or less at the heart of the discussion though. It's a libertarian vs authoritarian view of the world really.

But in the end of the day it is me that has to look out for my family and freinds in a dangerous situation, I want to be as well equipped as possible any time something like crime is happening. There are lots of good police out there, but they'll be too late, and there are too many bad police out there sadly. The only criminal I ever saw get to the courts I fought with my fists myself. I've seen things stolen from people around me and the police just show up to file a report and essentially just waste their time and the victims. They won't accomplish anything. The cynical side of me says that most of them are too busy shaking down non-criminals in baggy pants who look wrong to them. Though in reality I only know a few police that waste most their time doing that, it probably (hopefully) isn't 'most'.



This is one thing that gets me though, I don't believe in the innate goodness of most people, to me this is a statement believing in the innate goodness of thieves...

They'll harm you on a whim, they'll harm you on less than a whim if they think they could get caught becasue they where seen. And I'm not worried about harming them whatsoever.

Well as you said correlation isn't causation. There could always be outside variables that effect whether or not gun control is having an effect or whether it is perceived to just not have an effect. But let's say it has little deterrence on someone who's going to commit a crime: At least then it restricts the ability to obtain a gun by walking into a shop and using it straight afterwards in broad daylight. If they had to obtain one through illegal methods then they have to be more careful with getting it and are putting themselves in more risk by doing this. To me it just seems more effective at stopping or reducing crime (theoretically) than the alternative which just invokes more violence with more violence. And that (if you don't mind me getting a little abstract/philosophical) just begins a cycle of hatred and may end up desensitising us from weapons.




Well I suppose that's more of a personal issue with what you believe of criminals then an issue with gun control. But remember not to overgeneralise criminals, just because they are breaking the law or may be willing to hurt someone to get a bit of money doesn't mean they are bad people or willing to actually go through with it. I like to believe in the innate goodness of most people and would never wish to hurt someone just because they were robbing me for instance, I would rather talk them down and remind them that this isn't necessary.

I see, but I don't think it happens often that the cops break the law? Also if it would ever happen I don't think a gun or violence would solve the problem anyway so why does allowing guns help solving the problem?

Cops that aren't breaking the law?

Im not sure you understand the big picture here. Yes, maybe in the country you live in right now (which i guess is USA) you dont have many cops breaking the law, but there are many countries in the world where the government repress their own citizens to the point where you are either thrown into jail or killed just for being against the government or from protesting.

When i gave the example of "who are you gonna call when cops break the law" i did not mean that cops go steal food from Wallmart or anything like that. I was (trying) to refer to the idea of government systematically repressing its own citizen through very hard laws that would break your constitutional rights.

Imagine that you are speeding on the highway and the cops stop you. Then imagine those cops starting to search your car without your consent and you start to protest it. Then the cops start to beat you up and arrest you for brutality against cops (fake charges). You are thrown into jail because it is your word against the cops word. That was a long list events, but those are realistic events that happen to people around the world where the countries are not as 'free' as states are. Also things like curfews or not allowing to gather up as group happen and these things are forced onto you.

Essentially what im trying to say is that there should always be the fear in government that its people will rise up against it if the government becomes too powerfull and corrupt. That the people have the means to fight against a government that oppresses its citizens. That is the exact reason for example why in the USA you have the right to bear arms.

I doubt the population having guns would prevent that. If the government has the military on it's side (which in many cases of political oppression, it does), then the citizens will likely be vastly outgunned. Resisting the oppression with open warfare is likely to just get a more innocent people killed. It would be much better to 'resist' in the form of appealing to other countries to aid your people, as they are likely to be able to assist you in the form of giving you armaments and soldiers, at which point being able to legally buy guns is irrelevant.

In addition, I would point out that constitutional rights vary between countries, and many countries don't even have them. It's less about breaking your rights, and more simply about the people not being happy with how the government treats them. Furthermore, I imagine that even in countries without gun control laws, governments can get away with oppression of certain groups of people, if the group is in a minority.