[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
More on how the U.K. crime rates measure up to states with the lowest crime rate in the U.S. — some with very lenient gun laws. As others have already noted, some states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have some of the highest crime rates.
IOW, gun bans do not prevent violent crimes or homicides. The culture of the people is what prevents or fosters high crime rates. http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-…%5B/quote%5D
To say that “some states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have some of the highest crime rates” means, IOW, that “gun bans do not prevent violent crimes or homicides.” is to ignore why those states have those gun laws in the first place, and it is also to ignore your main argument. (Besides which, “restrictive gun laws” and “gun bans” are not necessarily the same thing. And any gun ban, to be effective, would require a serious punishment for possessing a gun).
Say you have two towns. Town A is kind of rough and has a bunch of hoodlums living in it; town B is nicer. Graffiti is a big problem in Town A. Town A bans sales of spray paint and doubles the fine for spraying graffiti from $25 to $50. Lame measures, obviously. Similar to current gun-control laws. Those small measures aren’t going to do anything. So you look at these two towns and say, “Town A has tougher graffiti-control measures and still has a bigger graffiti problem.” Well, of course it does. It had a bigger problem to start with, and that’s why it enacted “tougher” measures. But those measures, while maybe technically more restrictive, don’t, in reality, have any effect at all.
So, in the case of these two towns, as you say, “The culture of the people is what prevents or fosters high crime rates.” But that’s only part of the story.
Let’s say you have a mandatory 5-year prison sentence for possessing spray paint in Town A. Do you think graffiti would be reduced? Of course it would. Crime rates are a result of a combination of culture and the rule of law. The reason that’s so hard to see in our country as far as gun-control laws is that there is nowhere in the U.S. that has meaningful gun-control laws.
The same people who are against meaningful gun control laws are generally also for tough punishment for crimes (I happen to be for gun control and for tough punishment for crimes). Why are conservatives so strongly for tough punishment for crimes? Is it because they think it will reduce crimes or for some other reason? If they believe that being tough on crime will reduce crime, why don’t they think it will be effective against guns?
[/quote]
You’ve just made the “pro-gun” argument, yourself. You can disarm 100% of the people in Town A (the town with gang culture, etc.), and there will still be homicides and other violent crimes; maybe the same number as before any gun ban. You can also arm 100% of the population in Town B (the nicer town), and if all of those people are law-abiding, respectful, considerate people, you can theoretically have ZERO homicides. It’s not the guns that cause homicides, but the people and culture of those people.
Let’s address your spray paint analogy, now. Assuming that it’s the *graffiti* you want to avoid, why do you think that enacting strict sentences for the possession of spray paint would be more effective than imposing those same strict sentences for vandalism? There are perfectly good and useful things that people can do with spray paint; why would you make owning the *paint* illegal instead of making vandalism illegal? IOW, why would you impose new restrictions on people who would never vandalize in the first place? Those who vandalize are already doing so even though there are existing laws against it. Making spray paint illegal would only create a larger criminal class because some currently law-abiding citizens would still need/want to use spray paint, and would end up getting it illegally. If you can’t control the smaller group of criminals who actually vandalize, what makes you think that our legal system could control an even larger number of criminals…many of whom would never harm anybody else or their property?
The same goes for guns. There are many perfectly rational reasons for people to own guns. Some hunt, some participate in shooting sports, some use them for self defense, etc. Why would you ban guns and create an even larger criminal class (by turning these law-abiding citizens into criminals via new gun bans) when you can’t even enforce the laws that exist for a much smaller criminal class (those who are committing the crimes)? Just like with the prohibition of alcohol, there are many people who would never commit gun crimes who would still insist on owning a gun for self-defense, etc. With new gun laws, you’ve just created a larger criminal class while not showing that it would lower violent crime rates in any way. If history is any guide, it would very likely cause MORE violent crime as this market goes underground.
The number of people who use guns to commit crimes is a very, very small percentage of gun owners. Think of these criminals as the numerator, and the total population of gun owners as the denominator. There are already laws that prevent felons from owning guns (numerator). There are already laws that make it illegal to commit violent crimes (numerator). If these existing laws are not able to prevent violent crimes, how do you figure that new laws affecting the law-abiding group (percentage of gun owners who never use guns to commit crimes — the majority of gun owners) would somehow reduce the number of crimes committed by the criminals? You’re increasing the ratio of criminal to non-criminal (as some law-abiding citizens are made “criminals” overnight via new gun laws), but not showing how that would reduce crime.
