Sorry guys I don't live in the US anymore, but I'd like to know how this started, why it started, what was the motive, etc. etc. I browsed through the first pages and didn't find any article links.
Unless you go by the "law" but what do you care what "judges" have decided through years of "case law"
UK banned guns, then knives. Australia banned swords. Pretty soon they will be out of things to blame violence on.
Though it is not the only reason - the UK and Australia murder rates are much lower than the US' rate. This is not a good example if you are arguing that gun restriction doesn't help reduce crime.
Lets compare murder rates from those countries to the US and see who is on the right track: 765 in the UK, a 12% decrease from the previous year. http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp Australia is around 350. The US had 17000 people murdered in 2005....17000! http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html The US population is about 6 times larger then the UK, if that, while there are 22 times more murders. Gee, Im glad I have the right to own a gun!
People keep repeating this! I thought we did a fairly good point of refuting this little gem, but I'll try again. The number of murders when guns were legal in the UK were about where they are now. This very clearly demonstrates that the difference in murder rate can not be attributed to the presence or absence of firearms laws. (In fact I read somewhere murder rates in the US & UK have been right around their current per capita levels in each country since they started keeping centralized statistics in both countries around 1900.) That seems like a fairly clear fundamental statistical point to me. Does it really not make any sense to you? If altering the variable (firearms) has no effect on the outcome (murder rate) then the variable does not directly affect that outcome. Please, if there is something wrong with the logic tell me. I am willing to listen and we can talk about it. But if you can’t find any fault, please stop bringing the difference in murder rate as if it is clearly dependent on the presence or absence of firearms.
Actually it appears that since 1966 murder rates have doubled in England and Wales on a steady uptrend. Over that same period it appears that US figures had a large spike in the late 70's and another in the early 90's but otherwise have remained the same. Of course there is still a significant gap between the two, but in any case it doesn't appear that one can link changes in the homicide rate to changes in gun laws in either country. If someone would like me to provide references, let me know. I would just put them here now, but I can only find ballpark population figures of the UK over that period so I can't double check the math. But if someone wants it I will locate the figures. So it's gone from about .75 per 100,000 in the UK in 1966 to about 1.6 per 100,000 last year, while in the United States it was right around 5.6 per 100,000 in both 1966 and 2006. It spiked to an all time high of 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991. My first impression is that it seems that murder rates in the US get a boost when the economy heads south, but that is, of course, just a guess. That would be in line with the fact that the highest rate of homicide is among black men, who generally seem to be the low people on the economic totem pole in the USA.
I'm not talking about laws per se or any specific law creating change. But as a whole, dating back quite a while - guns are much harder to get in the UK (and as a result, the same gun culture/manufacture etc just doesn't exist there). But aside from the rates of growth and decline in the murder rate - their murder rates, even after explosive growth, are still several orders of magnitude lower than in the US, even after several years of decline. It's simply not in the same ballpark even. Obviously this may have a number of causes and factors - but I believe that lack of access to firearms due to years of legal prohibition contributes heavily to this. I think you'd have to be silly to not acknowledge it. While the two are not perfect analogues - the fact is that the problesm facing the English underclass on the council estate are not that much different from those facing people in bad US neighborhods. Relative to the rest of the world the two are pretty close - but one has a lot more access to firearms than the other.
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/ Here's a pop quiz for you: Which country in the world has the highest murder rate? If you said the United States, you would be wrong, but your error would certainly be excusable. The incessant drumbeat from the mainstream media and anti-gun groups serves to perpetuate the canard that the U.S. is the bloodiest free-fire zone on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth. In his article "America: The Most Violent Nation?" researcher David C. Stolinsky shows conclusively that there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than the U.S. This information comes from the United Nations report "The 1996 Demographic Yearbook." The report lists the murder rates in some 86 countries. There are more than 200 countries in the world, and more than 100 did not provide murder-rate data to the U.N. Even so, the Yearbook opens a fascinating window on the failure of gun-control laws around the world. The connection between murder rates and gun control is quite clear. The vast majority of murders are committed with firearms. Therefore, it is possible to determine if there is any sort of correlation between gun laws and murder rates in selected countries. Gun laws, like all laws, should be evaluated to determine if they meet accepted measures of success. Gun-control advocates contend that gun laws reduce murders as well as other gun crimes. An examination of this proposition shows conclusively that gun laws fail to reduce murder rates in many countries. Therefore, they fail to meet the fundamental measure of success and should be amended or repealed. A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7. By contrast, consider Brazil. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued. Therefore, it should not be a revelation to anyone that Brazil has a thriving black market in guns. Virtually any type of gun is available, for a price. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year. In Cuba, Fidel Castro controls every aspect of life with an iron hand, including gun ownership. Castro remembers well how he and his rag-tag armed Communist rebels overthrew the government of Fulgencio Batista and set up a Communist dictatorship. An armed populace is threatening to a repressive government. Still, somebody in Cuba is obtaining guns and using them to murder fellow citizens. Cuba's murder rate is 7.8. The former Soviet state of Lithuania is now an independent democratic country. But it still retains some vestiges of Stalinism. Lithuania's citizens must obtain a police permit to buy a gun. All guns are registered with the government. Somehow these restrictions are not deterring the criminal element; Lithuania has an unenviable murder rate of 11.7. Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed. Mexican authorities seem to take a particular delight in arresting and imprisoning unwitting Americans who are not familiar with Mexican gun laws. Americans may not bring legal guns or ammunition into Mexico. Possession of even one bullet can get you thrown in a medieval Mexican prison. The State Department says that at any one time there are about 80 Americans imprisoned in Mexico for minor gun crimes. The State Department even went so far as to issue a special notice to U.S. gun owners, warning about harsh Mexican gun laws. Americans are allowed to hunt in Mexico, but they must first obtain a permit from the Mexican Embassy or a Mexican Consulate before taking their hunting rifles south of the border. Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals. Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property. By the way, Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6. It is surprising to learn that there is gun trouble in the tropical paradises of Trinidad and Tobago. Here a permit is required to purchase a gun. All guns are registered with the police. In spite of (or perhaps because of) these restrictions, Trinidad and Tobago together have a murder rate of 11.7. In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies. The countries I have discussed, along with many others, have gun laws that are more restrictive than U.S. laws, yet their murder rates exceed the U.S. murder rate. These laws clearly do not meet the fundamental measure of success, which is ultimately to save lives. What anti-gunners all over the world fail to understand is that people everywhere are basically the same in one important respect. They are determined to protect themselves and their families. If their governments will not allow them to have firearms for self-defense, then they may obtain guns illegally, even at the risk of harsh punishment. It is a natural human response to danger. Try as they might, Sarah Brady and her bunch will never be able to defeat man's primal instinct to protect himself and his family through whatever means necessary. This fundamental human truth may offer some small measure of comfort to law-abiding gun owners around the world.
that's a great article but all it proves is that countries with lots of guns as a general rule have lots of murders. Examples like Israel and Switzerland are inapt comparisons - there are very few states on earth that are good comparatives for them. Switzerland is a small, extremely wealthy, homogenous, pacifist, confederation of cantons w/mandatory miltary service (and hence compulsory gun ownership) where crime is virtuallay unheard of. Israel is also homogenous wiht mandatory military service and in a perpetual state of war with iths enemies. These really aren't good analogues to the US, or even to the UK.
Exactly. If everyone in the US is making 50K and above I bet the muder rate in the US goes down by a factor of 10.
I don't agree. Your argument is essentially, 'can't you see its obvious'. I agree that on first examination it seems there should be a relationship, and in fact I relied on this for many years as sufficent evidence to be pro gun control. But when the evidence suggests that there is no direct relationship, I tend to believe in the evidence over appeals to common sense. A couple of other ways that the US differs from England you have already indicated. This describes England fairly well (though not as well as Switzerland). As the English population has become much less homogenous the murder rate has risen. I am aquainted with a Scottish DCI who believes that the giant spike in the English murder rate in 1991 was directly attributatble to the accession of Eastern European countries to the EU. The US is many times larger, much more ethnically diverse, and at the lowest end much less wealthy. Also, these poor populations tend to be enthic minorities which make them much more alienated from society. I agree with you but I don't believe Mr. Fisher would, as that would invalidate his thesis.
hmm, well too much evidence - not really sure how to respond. I have spent a lot of time in England, some in Switzerland, and I think the US-UK gap as far as demographics, culture, language, etc is kilometers (though the brits and the US would say --- miles) smaller than the US-Swiss gap as far as comparable cultures. In fact aside from Canada - (and maybe even MORE than canada) I would say the UK is best global analogue to the US. You might be right, in fact if I were a betting man I would bet that you were - but I think even so my point stands - yeah ethnic/class strife increases - but since weapons are inaccessible, weapon related violence remains levels below the US.
Truthfully, I don't understand what you are saying here, as in the words don't mean anything to me, or rather could mean about 5 or 6 different things. Could you rephrase your statement/concern?
this is true, but i would point out that mexico has very strict gun laws and double the murder rate we do. they also have a very corrupt government (but we are quickly closing the gap on that one!) or russia, where despite the fact that they have a strict gun ban, have a murder rate of 30 per 100k. on the flipside, finland appears to have very liberal gun laws and a murder rate of only 2 per 100k - we wont get into their suicide rates here though. the article seems to point out that countries w/ strict gun control have a thriving black market - you arent keeping guns out of hands of criminals, just the law abiding citizens. the third to last paragraph bears repeating - "In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies. The countries I have discussed, along with many others, have gun laws that are more restrictive than U.S. laws, yet their murder rates exceed the U.S. murder rate. These laws clearly do not meet the fundamental measure of success, which is ultimately to save lives." but the article points out that there are countries where weapons are inaccessible (by law), yet they have much higher murder rates. again, criminals will get them - all gun bans do is create a new black market economy and keep law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
