Does Gun Control Prevent Gun Crime?

[Ignatius2000]

The gun control issue is only partially about rights. As a Criminology major (not to be confused with criminal justice, we’re much more theory based) I deal with this idea of gun control many times a day in my classes. Let me summarize a bit of research on the topic:

The FBI estimates some 300 million firearms in circulation in the USA.
Of those 300 million, about 200 million are in the hands of licensed owners. Studies also show that registered gun users DO NOT commit crimes that involve a firearm (Lott). Individuals who own a fire arm legally are MANY TIMES more likely to NEVER commit a felony crime in their lifetime. Lott also contends that individuals who purchase a gun illegally are more likely to use it illegally.

Let me just throw the idea out there that gun control is not the issue when we want to reduce violence that involves firearms. Rather, we should focus on ammunition control. An unloaded firearm has a similar lethality value as a firm potato, since the gun does not kill, rather it is the bullet that does the damage.

  Lott, John R jr. *More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Gun Control  Laws.*
   University of Chicago Press. 1998.

 

[mgrobertson79]

I cannot interpret the second part of the amendment independent of a military context, because a correct reading of the text with a firm grounding in the English language will not allow me to do so. The use of a comma between the first and second sentences means that the latter can ONLY be read in the context of the former. If the two were meant to be read independently (as you seem to be suggesting) it would read as such

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

You are right in that it is written in a military context, but not about the military. This is the “reset button” if you will for the US Constitution. We believe so strongly in the rights we fought for 230 years ago, we will fight again if they are ever threatened or taken away. If ever the UN soldiers take to the streets of the US it will be treated as a foreign invasion by US citizens, and the treaties they have been trying to put together aim at preventing that. We will die before we give up our liberty. It is such a strongly held belief among conservative Americans that another Waco, TX style seige would end in far more bloodshed on the opposing side. I have and read the Federalist Papers along with the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of the United States. They sit on my bedside table along with my Bible, Missal and my Sig P229.

 

[levi86]

You are right in that it is written in a military context, but not about the military. This is the “reset button” if you will for the US Constitution. We believe so strongly in the rights we fought for 230 years ago, we will fight again if they are ever threatened or taken away. If ever the UN soldiers take to the streets of the US it will be treated as a foreign invasion by US citizens, and the treaties they have been trying to put together aim at preventing that. We will die before we give up our liberty. It is such a strongly held belief among conservative Americans that another Waco, TX style seige would end in far more bloodshed on the opposing side. I have and read the Federalist Papers along with the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of the United States. They sit on my bedside table along with my Bible, Missal and my Sig P229.

I agree with you, a country does have a right to defend itself. My personal belief is that a militia style military (as recommended by the second amendment) is the best way of securing the defence of a country. One need only look at Switzerland to see how effective such a system can be.

However I’m not sure what you meant when you said “You are right in that it is written in a military context, but not about the military”., care to elaborate?

God bless

 

[Ender]

The Australian example is proof that gun laws reduce firearms related offences. converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

If gun laws reduce firearms related offences but also lead to increased overall violence, is the society better or worse off because of them? Is it really preferable to live in a city where your chances of being mugged by someone with a gun have somewhat decreased while your chances of being mugged by someone with a knife or baseball bat have significantly increased? Your own site admits that armed robberies increased 20% in the two years after passage of the restrictive gun laws (and was up by 45% two years after that).

If gun control works why are England/Wales and Australia much more violent than the US, with Australia leading the world in burglary, violent crime, and overall victimization (31% - according to the International Crime Victims Survey - geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html). The US isn’t even in the top ten in that last category.

Rather than ask whether gun control prevents gun crimes I think it is more relevant to ask what affect gun control has on all crimes. I really struggle with the concept that disarming the victims will somehow reduce crime rates.

Ender

 

[mgrobertson79]

I agree with you, a country does have a right to defend itself. My personal belief is that a militia style military (as recommended by the second amendment) is the best way of securing the defense of a country. One need only look at Switzerland to see how effective such a system can be.

However I’m not sure what you meant when you said “You are right in that it is written in a military context, but not about the military”., care to elaborate?

God bless

It is written in the military since, but includes every able body male male citizen as was listed earlier in the definition. Here are a few quotes from the Declaration of Independence and other sources.
Declaration of Independence Paragraph 2
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Supreme Court
Dred Scott v Sanford

In Dred Scott, the landmark decision on the status of
black slaves, Chief Justice Taney listed the rights blacks would
have if they were citizens.

           "[If blacks were] entitled to the
      privileges and immunities of citizens... It
      would give to persons of the negro race, who
      were recognized as citizens in any one State
      of the Union, the right to enter every other
      State whenever they please, singly or in
      companies...; and it would give the full
      liberty of speech...; to hold meetings upon
      public affairs, and to keep and carry arms
      wherever they went."

It was “the people at large” whom Alexander Hamilton
expected to see “properly armed and equipped.”

Justice Cooley was quite clear:

           "The right [to keep and bear arms] is
      General -- it may be supposed by the
      phraseology of this provision that the right
      to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to
      the military, but this would be an
      interpretation not warranted by the intent
      ... The meaning of the provision undoubtedly
      is that the people from whom the militia must
      be taken, shall have the right to keep and
      bear arms, and they need no permission or
      regulation of the law for the purpose."18

In an article by Mr. Charles Curley
rkba.org/militia/milintro

The Framers intended to safeguard the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, possibly even as an end in itself.
But they did not see the militia as an end in itself. They saw it
merely as a means to another end: the “security of a free State.”

      The militia clause is there to remind us that the arms

protected by the Second Amendment are "the arms of the militiaman or soldier"20 It is there to remind us that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security."21

You should read this for a history of the 2nd amendment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I apologize for the length of this, but it was necessary to include all pertinent quotes. There are more and I encourage all American citizens to Learn you Rights. Exercise your Rights before they are lost.

 

[mary_bobo]

I agree with you, a country does have a right to defend itself. My personal belief is that a militia style military (as recommended by the second amendment) is the best way of securing the defence of a country. One need only look at Switzerland to see how effective such a system can be.

However I’m not sure what you meant when you said “You are right in that it is written in a military context, but not about the military”., care to elaborate?

God bless

Levi, with all due respect, that was not the only thing recommended by the second amendment–militia. It also speaks to individual ownership of guns by citizens. I recommend for your homework the Federalist Papers. Then when you have read (or listened to those you might be interested in the documentary by second amendment law professors (constitutional lawyers, if you will) entitled “In Search of the Second Amendment”. You might find both of these sources interesting.

 

[Grace_Angel]

And we’re an ally!

I had thought so. Perhaps I was wrong.
Grace Angel.

 

[Grace_Angel]

I am glad you are happy with your system there. May you always be. But I believe you folks started with the insults. We have our system and you have yours and each seems to work. So get off the US bashing train and revel in what you have.

Mary we folsk “didnt start with insutlts” we offered an opinion, which is what I thought was permissible on this board. However the rules must have changed.
Grace Angel.

 

[Grace_Angel]

What insults?

The insults that I never even saw or even knew were made.
Grace Angel.

 

[Grace_Angel]

The courts side with the 2nd Amendment being an individual right and the Supreme Court of the United States will have to take up the matter in the next few years. Only one court has decided with the collective theory, that I am aware of and that wasn’t recently.

We will defend our freedom and rights, to the death if necessary. I will not surrender anything to anyone. I am a law abiding citizen and hope all other law abiding gun owners do the same.

You also seem to forget the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment, The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of shall not be infringed do we not seem to understand here. I think if we give up our 2nd we may as well advocate giving up the 1st because you deserve it about as much. Without one you CAN NOT have the other.

Mgrobertson, if you are happy as a people with the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed (still cowboys)
then stop shaking your heads and wringin g your heads about the massacres which happen. Factor these into your psyches. Because frankly you are really not interested in stopping these events because you cannot stop someone with mental health problems getting hold (somehow) of a weapon.
I am reminded of the high priest in the Gospels who said something along the long “its better than one man die than the who nation” In your case its better that we factor in massacres than lose our right to carry weapons.
Sorry but that is taking “Rights” to unbelieved heights. Its no wonder the women in America fight for the “right” for all women to be free to kill their in utero children. Its that “Right” again.
Sorry if you cant see that as societies who have supposedly become civilised we dont need “to carry weapons” then go ahead and do what you want and take whatever comes your way.
Grace Angel.

 

[mgrobertson79]

The insults that I never even saw or even knew were made.
Grace Angel.

What may work down under, we don’t want here in the US. We fought a very bloody war to get out from under the crown and are not going back. I understand Australia is or at least I think is not a British colony, but it’s own sovereign nation.

In this you have the right to make up laws as you see fit. This is true for every nation. In the US, we have a series of documents this country was founded upon. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, and other amendments.

The founders intended for the people to own weapons, though at the time they did not have some of the WMD’s that the world sees today. Those do not count. Guns are a part of American culture and only a war will change that. The politicians are more talk than anything.

The talk about licensing is bogus. Once licensing is required to exercise a right, it ceases to be a right. Thus firearms licensing is unconstitutional in the US. If people would grow a backbone and defend themselves in the face of gang violence and other violent crimes our crime rate would plummet.

Sure, people will die, but in the end this will be a safer country. We don’t need the police to protect us, the founders saw to that. We need to equip ourselves for our defense and that of our families.

 

[Grace_Angel]

What may work down under, we don’t want here in the US. We fought a very bloody war to get out from under the crown and are not going back. I understand Australia is or at least I think is not a British colony, but it’s own sovereign nation.

In this you have the right to make up laws as you see fit. This is true for every nation. In the US, we have a series of documents this country was founded upon. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, and other amendments.

The founders intended for the people to own weapons, though at the time they did not have some of the WMD’s that the world sees today. Those do not count. Guns are a part of American culture and only a war will change that. The politicians are more talk than anything.

The talk about licensing is bogus. Once licensing is required to exercise a right, it ceases to be a right. Thus firearms licensing is unconstitutional in the US. If people would grow a backbone and defend themselves in the face of gang violence and other violent crimes our crime rate would plummet.

Sure, people will die, but in the end this will be a safer country. We don’t need the police to protect us, the founders saw to that. We need to equip ourselves for our defense and that of our families.

It seems to me that your “bloody war” with guns hasnt ended has it?
And you say that “sure people will die but in the end the people will be safer?” what lunacy. Safer because you all have guns?
Is that giving a message of safety.
You dont need the police to protect you. So your police departments are for show are they? They dont need to work or protect anyone?. And your founders saw that you need to protect yourself? from whom? your family and friends.? From martians? Alians? from whom. All the massacres are from home grown people with guns who forgot that they werre supposed to protect themselves and their families.
Sorry Not with you at all and your thinking is so flawed its not funny.
Grace Angel.

 

[hosemonkey]

Please refer to the quote of Thomas Jefferson regard gun ownership posted in at least two places on this forum. I think he is qualified to interpret our Constitution.

Amen! The second amendment clearly states the intention of the Founders to enable law-abiding citizens to be armed personally “A well-well regulated militia” notwithstanding. Personally, I do not think that the Founders had any idea of the extent that mindless political correctness would grip otherwise sane people. The UK and Australia are prime examples of PC run amok. Crime of all types is rising in the UK, particularly gun crime. People are attacked on the street and in their homes and for the first time, police are regularly armed. And all this under the stiffest gun laws on the planet. Honest folk are victimised, criminals don’t give a hang about gun laws. I am a law-abiding citizen, I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, I will protect me and mine and any innocent. I regard gun ownership as a serious responsibility and not for every one. We have laws in place to control weapons, fallible people are charged with enforcing those laws. Even in ancient Rome any citizen embarking on a journey had the right to carry a sword for self-defense. I have the same right.

 

[hosemonkey]

Just as a continuing thought; the police DO NOT have the duty or responsibility to protect the individual. The job of the police is to create a climate of safety or law-abidedness, if you will, for society as a whole. Go to any police department in any city and ask them if it their job to protect you individually. Of course, this may be different in Australia, where every citizen has his own policeman.

 

[levi86]

Rather than ask whether gun control prevents gun crimes I think it is more relevant to ask what affect gun control has on all crimes. I really struggle with the concept that disarming the victims will somehow reduce crime rates.
Ender

Good point, but the question was "Does Gun Control Prevent Gun Crime?“ and in the case of Australia the answer is a resounding yes… The fact that other legislation has not been implemented to prevent other offences is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Just as a continuing thought; the police DO NOT have the duty or responsibility to protect the individual. The job of the police is to create a climate of safety or law-abidedness, if you will, for society as a whole. Go to any police department in any city and ask them if it their job to protect you individually. Of course, this may be different in Australia, where every citizen has his own policeman.

Dont be a smart alec hosemonkey (I wouldnt with a name like that (lol)) OH well if the job of the police is to create a climate of “safety or lawabidedness” for society as a whole, then you are safe as butter. Why do you need guns? You have a police system where alwabidedness is assured because the police keep everyone in control. So again you dont need guns, except to play cowboys and indians (or is that no longer politically correct in USA)
Grace Angel.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Good point, but the question was "Does Gun Control Prevent Gun Crime?“ and in the case of Australia the answer is a resounding yes… The fact that other legislation has not been implemented to prevent other offences is entirely irrelevant.

Hello Levi 86,
I also am from WA now living in the eastern states (Vic) and we do have the best country on earth with good social systems. And yes there are the renagades and we have a small amount of crime per capita, but we do have very good and strict gun controls and it is a good thing. Is it not.
Grace Angel.

 

[hosemonkey]

Dont be a smart alec hosemonkey (I wouldnt with a name like that (lol)) OH well if the job of the police is to create a climate of “safety or lawabidedness” for society as a whole, then you are safe as butter. Why do you need guns? You have a police system where alwabidedness is assured because the police keep everyone in control. So again you dont need guns, except to play cowboys and indians (or is that no longer politically correct in USA)
Grace Angel.

Notice that I said “climate.” Climate does not necessarily mean that crime does not occur. BTW, you guys are not still exterminating your aborigines too are, you? Shouldn’t throw stones, my old Dad told me too many stories of his early days in Australia and smugness does not become the decendents of convicts. OK! enough of that. The fact is is that no police force can keep everyone in control and it is not their job to. And no, most of the time our indians just shoot one another.

 

[levi86]

Hello Levi 86,
I also am from WA now living in the eastern states (Vic)

I love that you live in Victoria but still refer to them as the “eastern states”, a true West Aussie!

and we do have the best country on earth with good social systems. And yes there are the renagades and we have a small amount of crime per capita, but we do have very good and strict gun controls and it is a good thing. Is it not.
Grace Angel

Couldn’t agree more.

But we have to understand that Australians have a very different attitude towards guns. When the gun buyback was performed it was supported by over 90% of the population, and that only 5% of gun holders contested the issue. It was the single most popular political policy in our history.

It just goes to show how different our beliefs are from those of conservative Americans.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Notice that I said “climate.” Climate does not necessarily mean that crime does not occur. BTW, you guys are not still exterminating your aborigines too are, you? Shouldn’t throw stones, my old Dad told me too many stories of his early days in Australia and smugness does not become the decendents of convicts. OK! enough of that. The fact is is that no police force can keep everyone in control and it is not their job to. And no, most of the time our indians just shoot one another.

Of course we “exterminate aboriginals” exactly like you exterminate your American Indians. And your dad speaks through his nostrils. And by the way I am not a descendent of convicts I am european (Italian) whose family chose Australia, rather than America, after the war WWII), and we are grateful that our dad chose this country. thank you, enough of that.,
As far as your police force, as long as they were their nice uniforms for visuals you are OK. As far as your american indians shooting one another, they must have stopped scalping the whites and learnt how to shoot (using your guns) from them also.
Grace Angel.