You are aware that the research behind the lead gasoline correlation was based on statistics, right? Statistics like the ones available on the FBI website? There has already been tons of research on the correlation between violent crime and guns. This site has some interesting statistics: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The point I've been making (and that the statistics support) is that there is no clear correlation between violent crime and gun control. The states with the loosest gun control laws (Florida, Texas, Maine, Vermont, Alaska) do not have the highest violent crime rates (in fact, Maine and Vermont have some of the lowest) and the state (DC) with the highest crime rate (by far) has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Therefore, enacting more restrictive gun control laws is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on violent crime, as there are clearly many other, more significant factors involved. The last part we can at least agree on, yes?

Out of curiosity, what exactly is your position on the topic? Do you believe guns should be banned? Do you think a ban would actually prevent criminals from getting guns? Do you think banning guns will significantly reduce violent crime? I'm pretty sure I already know your answers but confirmation would be nice.

BTW, liberals (or "progressives", as they like to refer to themselves) are no more interested in facts than conservatives are. Both are only interested in the facts that support their agendas. Such is the nature of politics. If a liberal wants to ban guns, he/she will ignore any evidence that undermines that. If a conservative wants to abolish all gun laws, he/she will ignore any evidence that undermines that desire. Willful ignorance is inevitable when people have strong beliefs.

That is how a Democrat would view it. As an independent I see culpability with both major political parties. Democrats are to blame for high crime rates in these economically depressed areas, because they are the engineers and enablers of the system which keeps poor people poor and robs them of ambition. Without an economically disadvantaged and undereducated class of voters, Democrats would have a much lower voter base.

Most of the crime committed is not done for survival. Most crime is a result of a gang culture. Gang cultures are the result of lack of education, disparity in the justice system, hopelessness, collapse of family units (which results in the need of place to belong), lack of employment prospects, etc. Both parties are at fault for not properly addressing the underlying causes of crime.

Republicans have the right idea in trying to limit social welfare programs. The problem is that they are looking at it from the standpoint of dealing with those who are collecting benefits. The problem needs to be addressed in altering the mindset and futures of the youth with a result to be seen in a generation and not a presidential term. It has taken generations of Democrat sponsored social philanthropy through a massive benefits sytem to get us to this point. It will take at least a generation to begin to get out of it.

Care to provide any specific counter-arguments to any of the points I made or the evidence I cited to support them? Again, do the research yourself because politicians and lobby groups have no interest in anything that undermines their agendas. If you're waiting for them to provide objective and thorough research, you'll be waiting a long time. Of course, if you're only interested in research that supports your own opinion, that will probably be easier to find.

Check out the crime statistics on the FBI website. Compare Florida's violent crime rate to DC's violent crime rate. Compare the percentage of violent crimes committed using assault rifles, handguns and melee weapons. Look at the percentage of crimes committed using legally-obtained guns. Look at the results of the ban on drugs today and the ban on alcohol during the prohibition. If you can look at all that and still believe that banning guns will significantly reduce violent crime, you clearly don't need any amount of research to support your opinions.

You can do your own research if you really want to find the answer. From the research I've done, I've already established that the availability of guns does not guarantee a significant reduction in violent crime. If that were the case, DC's violent crime rate would be significantly lower than it is because they have very strict gun laws. I've also established that a ban on assault rifles would not have a significant impact on gun-related crime because the vast majority of gun-related crime is committed using pistols, not fully-automatic weapons. I've also established that the majority of guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained illegally, either stolen or obtained through unofficial means. The facts simply don't support the idea that banning assault rifles (or even all guns) would significantly reduce violent crime.

The current fixation on gun control is a purely reactionary response to recent shooting sprees (which comprise a negligible percentage of all gun violence). The only reason people care now is because these shooting sprees generally take place in middle and upper-class areas. Nobody cares when people get killed in poor areas, where the bulk of violent crime occurs.

I'm in no way a gun nut (I don't own nor plan to ever own any guns) but I'm not going to let my opinion of guns get in the way of facts. People who blindly believe that banning guns will solve all problems are just as bad as the NRA. Do your own research and don't ignore facts that contradict your own position. The FBI website is a great place to start, as they provide annual statistics on all crime in the U.S. and they don't have any reason to skew the numbers.

Sure. Alcohol, for example, clearly does more harm than it does good if alcohol-related death statistics are accurate. The question is whether or not guns actually do more harm than good and that's a difficult question to answer. There are certainly other countries with strict gun laws but those are different countries with different populations, different economies and different cultures. In an ideal world, banning guns would solve all our problems. Crime rates would decrease and nobody would have anything to fear. Unfortunately, I don't think that would happen in reality. Criminals would still get guns (because they don't care about laws) and there would still be gun-related deaths (albeit fewer), in addition to all the unrelated violent crimes. I'd be surprised if overall crime didn't increase to compensate for the lack of guns and the inability for civilians to protect themselves.

It just seems to me that the recent uproar about gun laws is a reactionary response to the occasional shooting spree. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed using pistols (such as the one used in this story), yet everyone is focused on assault rifles which are almost never used. Then everyone is ignoring the fact that smoking and alcohol cause significantly more deaths than guns do. Why is no one trying to ban those? Oh, right, we've tried that already and it failed. Banning liquor during the prohibition only resulted in criminals getting the upper hand, just as banning guns would do today.

A good way to judge the effectiveness of gun laws is by comparing Florida to Washington D.C. Floria basically has no gun laws. You can buy assault rifles in garage sales. No licenses or registrations required. It's essentially the Wild West. Conversely, D.C. has strict gun laws. No assault rifles, no automatic weapons, no concealed carry, no open carry, an extensive registration and permit process, etc. However, despite all this, D.C. had more than double the violent crime rate of Florida in 2011 and more than triple the murder rate.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

@Yogi Way to miss the point. I wasn't comparing cars and guns, I was comparing laws regulating cars and guns. That's all I'm going to say to you. You've already told me in another discussion that you're going to refuse any evidence that doesn't agree with your narrow minded beliefs, so having a discussion with you is pointless.

@RedSky

1) I'm not implying that the US is more violent. I already pointed out that the US has lower violent crime rates than the US and UK despite the higher murder rate.


2) I'd say people in rural areas are most likely own guns for hunting and also self defense as there are no police patrols out in the country.

I also wouldn't blame the availability of guns to criminals on gun enthusiasts. Criminals generally don't legally buy their guns. One way to cut down on illegall gun sales is to charge the sellers as accomplices to the crimes committed with the weapons they sell illegally.


3) Maybe punishment was not the right word I should have chosen. My point is that to cut down on driving fatalities, the laws enacted didn't put any inconveniences on responsible drivers.

Your back of the envelope calculation isn't quite so clear cut. Sam Harris discusses this in his article.

It is also worth noting that relatively gun-free countries are not as peaceful as many think. Here are some recent crime data comparing the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Sweden. Although the U.S. has a higher rate of homicide, the problem of assaults in these other countries is much worse...

So, while the U.S. has many more murders, the U.K., Australia, and Sweden have much higher levels of assault. One might think that having a few more murders per 100,000 persons each year is still much worse than having many hundreds more assaults. Perhaps it is. (One could also argue, as several readers have, that differences in proportion are all we should care about.) But there should be no doubt that the term “assault” often conceals some extraordinary instances of physical and psychological suffering.

It's possible that the reason the US has lower assault, robbery and rape is that armed citizens are able to defend themselves from such crimes.

I'm seeing a lot of people saying the US should look to the UK and Australia on how to handle gun control. Both UK and Australia already had low murder and violent crime rates at the time of their "bans." After Australia's National Firearms Act and forced gun buyback, homicide fell by 9%, but assault went up 40% and rape went up 20%. In the years before the NFA, homicides had been on a steady decline, and a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found the NFA's impact on homicide was "relatively small."

After the UK's "gun ban" in 1997, gun crime actually increased [1] [2]. Gun crimes in 1997-1998 were 2,648. The Office for National Statistics shows that 5,507 firearm offenses were reported 2011-2012.


4) Yes cars do provide a benefit to society. Their regulation and restrictions are reasonable, and I already said I'm not opposed to any reasonable gun laws. But cars are the leading cause of accidental death each year. There are lots of things that can be done to make cars and drivers safer. Cars could be limited to 70 MPH. The national speed limit on highways is 70 MPH, why do you need a car capable of going faster? Cars can be fitted with a GPS and a "black box" that records your driving activities. Each year when you renew your inspection, the black box data is downloaded and analyzed. If it's discovered you've broken any traffic laws, you will be fined, and if it's determined you aren't a safe driver, your license is revoked. Prohibit personal sales of vehicles between individuals, because you can't know if the person your selling to is a safe driver or if their license is valid (see below about the "gun show exemption"). Sounds crazy, but those aren't nearly as bad as some of the things being proposed for new gun laws.

I doubt any of those would be acceptable to the majority of drivers, but it would make driving safer and save lives.

As for your suggestions "not yet tried."

- We already have rigorous background checks for purchasing firearms. They're done by the FBI's NICS, I don't know how it can be more rigorous.
- There is no "gun show exemption" or "loophole," that is more media buzzword BS. Private sale and transfer of anything (not just firearms) can not regulated by congress. It's another constitutional issue dealing with the regulation of commerce. It is still illegal for a person to sell a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe may not be legally able to own one. This is another issue that I'm not opposed to fixing though. It could be as simple as requiring the transaction to be witnessed by a licensed gun dealer and perform a background check.
- Assault weapons are already restricted. Real assault weapons that is, not what the media and lawmakers keep calling assault weapons. Once again I ask, why such fuss over the weapon type least used in crime? These "assault weapons" are expensive to acquire, and most criminals go for cheap, small caliber, concealable pistols and revolvers. [source] For more on what an assault weapon is and their use in crime, just head on over to this Wikipedia page.
- Restricting ammunition would be something that would effect responsible gun owners and likely have little effect on crime. Responsible gun owners are the ones that buy more ammo, go to gun ranges and practice.


5) You mean the steadily high murder rate that has been steadily declining for over two decades, by 50% since 1992? [source]

The UK has a higher overall violent crime rate, but a violent crime in the UK is far less likely to kill you. I'd be surprised if the prevalence of guns in the US has nothing to do with things.

Switzerland is a very special case when it comes to gun ownership and gun crime. Switzerland has no standing army. Instead it has a people's militia. Almost every man between the ages of 20 and 30 in the country is conscripted into the militia and receives military weapon training. They have to keep the guns at home as part of the militia.

This means they have a huge percentage of the population who are properly trained to handle a gun. However, they have a lower gun ownership percentage than the US. So, in the US you have a lot more people who own guns, but a lower percentage of these people have the proper training for the weapons. Is it any wonder that they kill more people in the US with the guns?

Also, think about this. Loads of people in switzerland are conscripted into the militia, learn how to handle a gun properly, then get too old to be in the militia and leave, hand back the weapon and go home. A large percentage of these people don't go out and buy a replacement gun for their home.

This tells me there's something else going on here. It isn't the guns keeping them safe, it seems it's deeper than that.

Differences in gun culture go way, way deeper than the figures suggest. In fact, the figures seem to show that there's very little correlation between the rate of gun ownership in a country and the number of homicides with a gun in the country.

Which means it's a cultural thing. So, just saying more guns or less guns will keep us safe means nothing. It's country specific, culture specific.

If you want to talk about gun violence, show gun violence statistics. If you want to talk about violence in general, show general violence statistics. But don't talk about gun violence, show general violence statistics, and talk about media conspiracies.

It started out compelling with unbiased sources, then proceeded downhill.

I've tried to dig this up myself, but as I think it's universally agreed, the categorization of crime and the regional differences makes it hard to make an apples to apples comparison. As much as I can see, the US crime rate is low and getting lower, however the percentage of gun homicide is still much higher than comparable G8 countries and is a worthwhile discussion:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Banning guns is retarded; a reasonable discussion about restrictions to access is much less... retarded.

That's funny I just came across this story a few days back. NBC covered it.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

Also to his "We have 6 times more large metropolitan areas than England and Wales" point. That is just about what you would expect given that have close to 6 times their population.

US : 314 Million, England & Wales : 56 Million

Good post.

There are always so many things could have an influence. A simplistic explanation is always going to be self serving and misleading.

Example: I bet just the move to credit cards (cash-less society) has lowered violent crime (muggings) by at least a small amount.

As a Criminal Justice student we reviewed studies on the effects of gun control (ineffective in the U.S.), death penalty (ineffective as deterrence), etc.

A very large influence to the crime rate was inequality and the number of people who feel disenfranchised from the mainstream.

The availability of social programs and safety nets (or lack of) also had a great effect.

That was years ago and the analysis has been out there for a very long time - but never used in any meaningful way.

So the UK has a higher violent crime rate and yet also less homicides? The UK has some of the strictest gun laws, and a gun homicide rate of 0.07per 100,000. This is 1/40th of the states. How much of this correlation is causation? I don't know, but I reckon if the UK suddenly go lax on gun laws that 0.07 figure would only change one way.

As for the drop in crime in the states...well, it reminds me of an episode of The Wire. A big drop like that and nobody wants to take credit for it? One can't help but wonder if thats because the goal posts have been moving. That or somebody created Amsterdam zones on the quiet

The problem (as I see it) is that we're conflating every-day street crime (which is statistically more rare than it used to be) with horrific gun rampages (which are statistically more common than it used to be, and obviously more rare than every-day street crimes.) They're completely different animals. Choggie would have us believe that baseball bats are just as dangerous as AR15s. Certainly, statistically, that is true when we're discussing average crime-rates. However, I've never heard of someone bludgeoning a classroom full of preschoolers with a louisville slugger.

As Americans, we have to decide: are we OK with horrific gun rampages a few times every year? Is your right to own a military sidearm or rifle worth the occasional shooting spree? Maybe it is. Maybe that's the price of freedom.

Certainly, absolutely we need to address street crime and the factors that contribute to it. However, its obvious from these statistics that WE ARE. The crime rate has gone down.


And yet the shooting spree rate has gone up.

I agree that he should have shown urban crime rates in the UK if those datas <wink> are available.

But if you assume (dangerous I know) the trends are similar, then 3 times the violent crime rate (per capita) in 1/6th the number of metropolitan areas means that UK cities are 18 times as violent as American cities.

Why didn't he show stats for crime rates in UK metropolitan areas? Wouldn't that be the most interesting comparison?
Also, the US may have 6 times as many metro areas, but it also has six times the population of UK and Wales.
...oh.. and please, "data" is plural.

@rebuilder

There's very good data showing test scores correlate with all socially valued outcomes.

That includes professional development, health outcomes (managing our personal health in the 21st century is complicated), lower divorce rates, lower rates of out-of-wedlock births, lower crime rates, etc.

I agree, however, that school is mostly useless. I encourage young people to get their highschool equivalency at age 12-16. Get a 4 year degree if you absolutely must, but do it as fast as possible. Aim to move to a tech hub like Silicon Valley or Austin, Texas to become a programmer, designer, marketer, bizdev guy etc.