I'd like to open by saying that the following information and websites have all been checked for accuracy by using government statistics and reports. I request that you read through both the links provided, as well as the statistics I provided, before making a decision. I'd also prefer that everyone refrain from attempting to point-by-point rebuttal this post, as that would be absolutely absurd. If you wish to disagree with the whole of this post (which I believe unlikely), then merely write it and exclude quotes. This is due to the length of this particular post (article). I would also like to mention that the use of logically fallacious arguments, as well as personal attacks, should be kept to a minimum. I've also split it up into a few "parts" for both reading ease and rebuttal indication. Example: I disagree with *something* in part 1. As two last notes, this is particularly written concerning the citizens of the United States of America. It doesn't apply to any other country. And the sources are at the bottom I thank you for complying. On the other hand, if you don't comply: "Elmo knows where you live". ----Part 1: Introduction---- What is it you think when someone mentions "Gun Crime"? A series of crimes committed by a gun, combined with the thought that it's very common is the normal response. The media normally displays one or two (sometimes five) separate murders per day. If it's five murders, 3/5ths of them are usually from the use of a firearm (varies from place to place, naturally). The amount of murders and other gun crimes the media reports in most areas tends to sway many people into thinking that Gun crimes are immensely common. And others that perhaps the only people that own a gun are expecting to commit some type of crime. Given how nobody (least of all the media) has provided the general masses with a viewing into the statistics behind Gun Crimes, it's not uncommon for people to assume most gun owners are redneck psycho's that go and shoot things up regularly (out of the USA especially). Perhaps they also assume that those that own a gun for self-defense also were previously involved in crime. For whatever the reason, not many people seem to think there is any reason for owning a gun. This is especially true for those living outside of the USA (such as Australia). It is believed that with guns removed, crime (Classed as "Violent Crime" considering it uses a gun) would plummet. More specifically so would the homicide rate. These statements are not exactly unsubstantiated, nor are they entirely factual. Given how political the subject of Gun Ownership has become it's generally impossible to tell fact from fiction (if either) from what's being given to the public. What's worse, is that groups that are pro-ban use every possibly fallacy in the book (as well as excuse) to further aid their own cause. Generally ignoring whatever or whomever they trod on in the process. This isn't to say that pro-gun parties aren't the same, they readily take all opportunities to further the armament of everyone (even some going so far as to suggest we stop doing background checks, but those are rare). Due to the general hostility between these two groups, one might consider them a bell-curve. The insane people are at the far sides of both, and the less insane ones are closer to the middle. The main goal here is to provide actual statistics and comparative information for those closer to said middle. The ones at the far ends are probably too busy either preparing for an armed revolution, or planting flowers while singing "I'm so happpeeeeee!" and wearing a tye-die shirt. *Shudder* ----Part 2 - Gun Violence: A comparison---- The predominant amount of homicide cases within the United States (and third world countries like Africa) aren't entirely committed with guns. During the year of 05, the total violent crime nation-wide was "1,390,695". The total of homicides from this number is "16,692". That's 1.2% compared to total violent crime. Comparing the homicide number of 16,692 to the total population, we get a homicide percentage of 0.005% out of 301,139,947 people. It's quite staggering how small the homicide percentage is, when you think about it and put it to number (and percentages). The media and other sources of information, with their reporting of such crimes, normally make one believe that such crimes are actually more numerous. Yet according to the government statistics (and calculations of percentages) above, they're actually immeasurably rare. Although lets also assume non-reported homicide cases. To be on the safe side, lets triple the original number of 16,692. Using that number, the percentage then becomes 0.011%. Which is still rather insignifigant. Keep in mind, however, that these are people. I am not attempting to remove the emotion from that fact, but I request you set aside that for now so we can continue with the statistics. Of the total homicides reported by government statistics, about 8,259 of them are committed with a firearm(3). Which means 49.4% of all homicides are gun-related. The total amount of homicides committed by a gun are thus 0.59% of the total violent crime. 49.4% of the total homicide rate (other sources like (4) put it at lower). The number of gun owners estimated in the nation is 80,000,000 (5) (6) (7) (alas, no statistic is fully clear. So I've listed a few websites), which makes the total percentage of homicides compared to total gun owners is 0.010%. Out of all gun owners in the united states, 0.10% is the amount of those that commit a homicide with a gun. The total violent crime rate regarding firearms varies vastly from year to year, further information regarding it is found here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to round up (yes, UP) to make violent crime total (with firearms) 700,000 (8). comparing that to the gun ownership count of 80 million, the percentage of people who commit violent crimes with a firearm is 0.87%. Compares to the violent crime statistic I reported above, however, it would then account for 50.3% of the total violent crime rate. ----Part 3 - The Point? My opinion of these statistics---- Warning: I am quite acerbic overall towards pro-ban enthusiasts. So this isn't the most well-written section. The total percentages of crime within the United States, and indeed other countries like Australia, is normally less than 1% of the total population. Even less then 0.5% if it's a gun crime. Due to the statistics available, and those I have provided, I present pro-ban people with a question. How is it rational to ban guns, when so few of them are ever used in a violent crime or crime compared to the total gun owners? According to one of the statistic websites I provided, there are at least 215 million guns in circulation within the USA as well. I find it absolutely improbable for any successful ban to be given, not to mention for them to be removed from gangs or anything else (since Gangs are already outside the law to begin with). So why, then, do you think that it is important we ban guns? That is like banning an automobile because less then 1% of all users will use them to commit a crime. Or because they cause accidents(9)(10). The statistics show that it's absolutely baseless and ridiculous to vote for a ban. better regulation (better, not more extreme) is a preferable method. Such as including psychology exams, and doing more extensive background reports (calling friends and family to ensure the person is stable). I find, by lack of any evidence that supports such extreme measures, a gun ban entirely unwarranted. Not only that, but it would also mean that you remove guns from the law-abiding citizens, and place better opportunities into the hands of street gangs and other organized crime. You also completely ignore the inherent social problem to begin with, and instead vote to ban things rather then address the sociological implications of their actions. Such severe methods for controlling the already insignifigant violent crime and murder rate isn't only fascistic, it's undiplomatic and closed minded. What DO these statistics reveal? They reveal that in the United States there exists a problem of how we treat others. This is not a suggestion of hugs and kisses to cleanse the nation of violent crime. It's a suggestion of poor economy, living conditions, parenting, schools, and other problems related (mostly to one another). Another problem with pro-ban and other groups is that they are demonizing guns. Instead of demonizing the problems and people that CREATE murderers and violent crime, they demonize the guns. Guns do not exist to turn people to some dark side where they abandon emotion and kill tons of "innocents". It is not like the One Ring from LOTR. It is not a Gun that causes the problem, it is the people that created that person. P.S: You can also take the population statistics and compare it with other countries to find out that, in total, our violent crime count compared to our over population is significantly lower (or the same). Sources: 1. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html 2. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...S:official&hs=LH0&q=US population&btnG=Search 3. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms 4. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violence-homicides-firearms 5. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126 6. http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm 7. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html 8. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate 10. In the USA the total is: 42,065 http://www.disastercenter.com/traffic/State.htm
When you can gaurantee that criminals won't be able to get handguns, then and only then does a ban of handguns make any sense. Banning handguns, without adequate measure to ensure that criminals can't get and use guns, is doing nothing but disarming the law-abiding citizens, while letting the criminals have all the guns they want. ...criminals don't obey the law, ya' know? Banning handguns is punishing the many for the acts of only a few. That ain't nice, is it? Would you suggest that we ban Muslims because a few of them attacked the World Trade Center towers? Baron Max
It seems to me that this could be a good discussion. I hearby undertake to delete all off-topic posts, such as the ones we've already had complaining that the poster is too lazy to read the opening post of the thread, and that therefore, by some bizarre logic, it should not have been written.
I am with the Baron, in the sense that the crims can always get their guns on the black market. A blanket ban on guns will leave Joe Blogs without the means to defend himself when a junkie with a gun hi jacks his BMW to feed a habit. In theory a gunless society is a great idea, but how do you close the back door?
Actually, I think any society that disarms its population is doomed to failure. Two great examples is Germany under the Nazi regime and Russia under Stalin. Much of Russian culture was squashed flat by Stalin, partially because the people had no recourse against the dictatorship. Of course this is not the only thing, but is one example.
Every local uprising against the Nazis failed, even when they were supported by allied supplied arms.
Actually that makes my point. Every local one failed, but what if it had been even 10% of Germanies men uprising against Hitler and the Nazi's. Supressing an uprising like that would have serious injured his warmachine.
