More Police Officers were killed by guns in the US in ONE year in 2011 than in 114 years in the UK. Why use Police Officers? Because they're in the line of fire and have people trying to kill them on a regular basis. The populations are not equal. The US population is 5x as large as the UK population. Even then you're talking less than a Police Officer a year who gets shot in the UK over a very long period of time vs dozens and dozens who get shot in the US every year. The argument that the gun lobby makes is that crooks will always have guns so why keep them out of the hands of everybody else? The numbers say that either UK crooks shoot a lot less than their American counterparts or they *just don't have guns* as often. I'm guessing the answer is the latter because if a crook does have a gun he's probably going to shoot it when confronted by a Police Officer, no?
BTW I should add one very important fact here. There is less incentive for crooks to carry guns in the UK than in the US because many UK Police Officers are not armed with guns. This factor has however gone down some in recent years as a result of the nascent terrorism in the western world. Police forces tend to be better armed now than they were at the millennium. It's kind of sad that the UK made it through the IRA period without turning it's constabulary into an armed force but now have had to move that direction because of overall societal pressure and the fear of terrorism.
Another thing you are ignoring is that most violent crime occurs in metropolitan areas and the US has far more population living in those areas. England & Whales also have a 3.5x higher violent crime RATE than the US. [youtube]Ooa98FHuaU0[/youtube]
The focus is on the object because it's routine to restrict access to or regulate weapons (nuclear being the most extreme example), chemicals, etc. Guns distinctly enhance an individual's capacity and range to kill relative to other objects similar to a knife. And I draw the line where the Constitution does: what's worth mentioning in the Bill of Rights knowing the practical difference between an object of violence and a multi-faceted tool. I'm just specifically outlining my position as opposed to explaining the concept to you. I believe that diligently emphasizing the importance of responsible and careful gun ownership is necessary when discussing the subject. Statistics for convicted felons (can't legally own a gun) committing crimes w/ firearms would be the floor for the # of stolen guns in criminal possession.
Pointing out something without being specific or justifying it. Classic. I think you need to point-out the supposedly obvious incorrect assumption. As for the sentence you quoted, I was just explaining to you how you could begin to figure out the # of gun thefts in America since you seemed lost. Just trying to help you find your way.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I didn't think I needed to be specific. It seems that you're suggesting that every gun crime in America committed by a convicted felon is done with a stolen gun. That leaves out a number of possibilities including a black market or illegally transporting guns into the country among others.
Also, couldn't the same gun have been used in multiple gun crimes? Maybe I'm misunderstanding as well?
They may not be stolen per se, but they're still illicitly sold and/or possessed if on the BM. The point is that the gun industry doesn't directly supply the BM and that the BM allows convicted felons to gain access to weapons they wouldn't normally have access to. As for the argument as to whether gun control affects this positively is a different question, however it is certain that the gov't needs to take more action to either punish or prevent straw purchases and trafficking. Many guns that end up on the BM are completely preventable (example: kid steals gun from parent to trade for drugs).
The question as to whether gun control affects the availability of guns to the black market positively is THE question. If the gun control doesn't reduce the black market from supplying the same criminals that commit most of the gun crime, then what good has the gun control done? I have no confidence that they can accomplish that.
It's a good question and the answer is the gun lobby has done an excellent job of lobbying to essentially destroy the ability of law enforcement to actually go after illegal guns. The gun lobby represents the industry producers not the gun owners because that's where the money is. Guns bought by criminals through third party sales should be easily traceable but Congress and State law makers in pro-gun states have made it virtually impossible for the ATF, FBI and local law enforcement to trace back and prosecute gun dealers who are clearly selling guns to criminals. The laws on the books have been systematically made un-enforceable by direct lobbying of legislators who have the ability to appropriate money. They have even intimidated the CDC and other grant monies being used to study the issue. The complaint that the laws on the books aren't doing anything and therefore no laws will do anything ignores the fact that the laws on the books have been systematically defunded to prevent them from being effective by a very good lobbying effort.
Can you give me some good links to read up on how the existing laws are being blocked? This is something I've never read up on.
Numbers can be deceiving. What about Switzerland? Gun ownership is mandatory in every household and they have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. The UK isn't faced with all the same issues that the US is. Similarly, Switzerland is a lot different as well. It's not always just the stats that matter. It's the type of society, level of poverty, politics and the overall morale of the population. It's not JUST the gun control laws that influence the crime rates. Washington DC has the strictest gun laws, yet had the highest crime rates for a long time. Instead of looking for more gun restrictions or higher taxes on ammo, I believe that they should focus on the actual problem of criminals obtaining illegal weapons. Hold weapons manufacturers accountable for tracing all of their weapons. I know you can't prevent everything, but if America spent even half the money it does on the stupid "war on drugs", toward cracking down on illegal weapons manufacturing, instead of adding additional taxes (that don't fix anything, only lead to the rich being able to defend themselves) or additional restrictions on purchases (that don't fix anything, only leads to law abiding citizens not being able to defend themselves). Just to put this whole thing in perspective here are the death statistics in America. Let's see which ones are a REAL problem. Heart issues: 41% of all deaths Infectuous disease / parasites: 23% Cancers: 12% Stroke: 9% Accidents: 6% HIV/AIDS: 5% Violence crime / murder / suicide: 3% There's a bunch I left out in between Stroke and Violent crime as well. Looking at these stats, it hardly seems that gun violence is an issue at all when compared to other problems and causes of death. Double the people die from accidents (mostly car accidents). Quadruple from cancer, almost 15 times the amount of people with heart problems. I know that violent deaths are shocking and appalling and get all the media coverage, but it's hardly a major cause of death in America. It is only considered a problem because every now and then these big events happen and draw the attention of the entire country. If they gave even 10% of that coverage to people who die from heart disease or cancer, people might look at it a different way.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland Understand it. Then ask yourself why a highly regulated gun ownership program that provides military training in the proper use of weapons, restricts ammunition to use at approved firing ranges and features heavy regulation of ownership including extensive background checks, works. Now ask yourself what the differences in the US are that make private gun ownership not work.
Wow, that's really interesting. Those are well though precautions and regulations and seem to working fine for them
Private gun ownership DOES work for the most part in US. Legal guns are RARELY used in crimes. But like I said, it's not just the gun laws. That was my point in bringing up Switzerland and Washington. First, they both go against the idea that stricter gun control laws (and less citizens with guns) equate to less violent crime. Plus there are many more factors involved in violent crime that go way beyond gun control laws, although I'd be happy in adopting a similar system to Switzerland. My guess is that your beef with the US system is the 'private' ownership and capitalistic system of gun ownership rather than government regulated and controlled, correct? Anyways, that's the jist of why I think the the comparison to the UK isn't really valid, just like the comparison to Switzerland. They are completely different areas, with different ethnic backgrounds, cultures, poverty rates, immigration rates and government politics. Less poverty generally means less crime, regardless of gun control laws. Also if I had an illegal gun in my car and got pulled over by a police officer, I wouldn't just shoot him. I'd do everything possible to keep him from being suspicious and searching the car. It's not like people shoot first and ask questions later unless they are the mentally fucked serial killer type that doesn't think murder is wrong.
