Uk and Australia and Canada see crime

Just goes to show you that banning guns does not reduce violent crime.



Investor's Business Daily
June 29, 2004 Tuesday
BYLINE: By John Lott and Eli Lehrer

The gun -control movement is in trouble internationally. From Britain to Australia to Canada, promises of lower crime rates from gun control have turned into historic increases in crime.

While the normal knee-jerk solutions are to press for even more controls, once guns are banned the explanation that the laws failed simply because they didn't go far enough becomes almost humorous.

All these experiments were adopted under what gun -control advocates would argue were ideal conditions. All three countries adopted laws that applied to the entire country. Australia and Britain are surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem that Canada claims to exist with regard to the U.S.

Take the United Kingdom: With new data showing violent crime soaring, Britain's home secretary announced legislation this month that would impose an outright ban on many toy guns.

Britain has already banned just about every type of weapon that a criminal might want to use. Handguns were made illegal in 1997, and nearly every other firearm (even BB guns) is now subject to a complex regulatory regime.

Twice As Dangerous

The laws didn't do what was claimed. The government just reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%. The violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the U.S.

Understandably, the government wants to "do something," but it is hard to believe that the new proposals will succeed where past efforts have failed.

With the exception of the U.S., other English-speaking countries have followed Britain's lead in limiting gun ownership. Like the British, they have nothing to show for it.

Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur gun -control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law went into effect. Armed robbery rates increased 74%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's.

Canada hasn't gone anywhere near as far as Australia and England, but even that country's limited restrictions have caused problems. Despite a gun registration system that has cost 500 times more than promised (the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. claims the overrun is 1,000 times greater), the overall crime rate is more than half again higher than in the U.S. and has risen as the American crime rate has fallen. Meanwhile, violent crime in the U.S. has fallen much faster than in Canada, and murders in Canada have gone up slightly, while falling in the U.S.

The Canadian government recently admitted it could not identify a single violent crime that had been solved through registration. Public confidence in the government's ability to fight crime has also eroded, with one recent survey showing only 17% of voters support the registration program.

Guns do not tell the whole story: Gangs, police and prisons also play a major role. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up establishing their own armies and committing a great many murders. (Gang fights account for about 60% of all murders in urban areas in the U.S.)

The U.S. has long had a sophisticated and violent gang subculture that the nation's decentralized system of 16,500 police agencies had a difficult time handling. England's more centralized 45-agency police did a better job fighting gangs, but, over time, the gangs have become more violent, sophisticated and apt at acquiring guns. This has led to rising gun crime.

Police and prisons probably also account for some of the difference in crime, though it doesn't explain why the difference has grown so suddenly. The U.S. also has more police per capita than the U.K., particularly in its big cities:

New York and London are roughly the same size, but New York has about 40,000 police officers to London's 29,000.

Failed Schemes

The U.S. also locks up many more criminals: Nearly 500 out of 1 million Americans are serving time behind bars as compared to about 150 per 1 million in the other English-speaking countries. America, quite simply, keeps more bad guys behind bars where they can't commit crimes.

Repealing gun control laws might not solve the crime problems in the U.K. and Australia overnight, but the exploding crime rates (including gun crime) in countries that have banned all guns shows that we can add gun control to the list of government planning efforts that do not live up to their billing. Its failures have become too overwhelming to ignore.

 

Nearlly made me sick, when I saw the footage showing some of the weapons they were destroying. ....Almost like "Burning a book"..IMHO

 

I don't see how banning guns could be a bad thing. If it can't be used for huntin then they shouldn't even be allowed to make em.

 

QUOTE

If it can't be used for huntin then they shouldn't even be allowed to make em.

....and that would be what?..paintguns, and anything made by Matel

 

That article is so misleading that it must've been written by gun makers.


England banned handguns, and long guns in cities right after WW II.


So using the logic of the article, if crime rises it's because walking around with guns were banned 60 years ago?


Fact: Every country that has gun control has a MUCH lower murder rate than the U.S.


Private ownershop of guns IS NOT permitted by the Constitution, as gun nuts claim it is.


Banning guns is also a misrepresentation. The countries mentioned don't prevent private ownership of guns; it restricts their use. People in the countries mentioned own guns, and use them to hunt. They keep their guns at hunting lodges, not in cities where the only "game" is people.


If guns cut crime, how come they don't pass them out to people as they are released from prison?


I remember an event that happened in L.A. a few years back.


A man was sitting on his front porch one evening, holding his infant daughter in his arms.


A block away there was a gang fight.


A stray bullet tore into the little girls head, killing her as her dad was holding her.


How does this cut crime? How would this death been prevented if the man had owned every firearm permitted by U.S. law?

 

**** happens...


PeAcE

 

"....and that would be what?..paintguns, and anything made by Matel" - HIC  


U know what im talkin bout, automatics and handguns. Yeah i know handguns can be used for huntin but its not like u need em to hunt.

 

QUOTE

Quote: from therealdealranger on 8:32 am on Jan. 7, 2005
That article is so misleading that it must've been written by gun makers.

You say this

England banned handguns, and long guns in cities right after WW II.
So using the logic of the article, if crime rises it's because walking around with guns were banned 60 years ago?


Then You say this

Banning guns is also a misrepresentation. The countries mentioned don't prevent private ownership of guns; it restricts their use. People in the countries mentioned own guns, and use them to hunt. They keep their guns at hunting lodges, not in cities where the only "game" is people.

Which is it? to burst your bubble butt gun ownership is banned in the UK. Guns were banned in ’97.

If guns cut crime, how come they don't pass them out to people as they are released from prison?

Would you hand a recovering alcoholic a drink? Not all gun owners are criminals. Which is what you are imp, no?

I remember an event that happened in L.A. a few years back.

Completely anecdotal.

A man was sitting on his front porch one evening, holding his infant daughter in his arms.
A block away there was a gang fight.
A stray bullet tore into the little girls head, killing her as her dad was holding her.


Do you think that the gang member would have had the gun if they were banned in the US?


How does this cut crime? How does this relate to gun banning?

It doesn’t, which is why I am wondering why you brought it up.

How would this death been prevented if the man had owned every firearm permitted by U.S. law?

It wouldn’t have.

 

ODG ...yea, I knew.."assualt weapons"...Automatics are illegal, without a "special" permit issued by the Feds. But I do understand your point and respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it.


It's my opinion that we have plenty of laws, including "gun" laws. They only need to be enforced.



QUOTE

Private ownershop of guns IS NOT permitted by the Constitution, as gun nuts claim it is.

...Oh my goodness!...PLEASE show me where it IS NOT permitted.
from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/5534/quote057.htm


"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."


--Samuel Adams


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."


--Thomas Jefferson


"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."


--Richard Henry Lee


"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms."


--Vladimir I. Lenin


"The advantage of being armed...the Americans possess over the people of all other nations.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."


--James Madison,Federalist No. 26


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."


--Noah Webster

 

"Guns dont kill people Rappers do!"

 

The reason we should be allowed to have any gun including assualt rifles( I hate that discription BTW) Is not to shoot up crowds ,or do drive by's. They are so that our goverment cannot ever overtake our citizens by force. If **** ever does go down, you better hope you have access to some solid firepower. Guns in responsible hands do not kill people. Punishing responsible people is not justifiable. The problems they are having in them countries (,and they are having problems Ranger,I go to Canada alot), are similar to prohibition. If the people want it they will get it. If you tell them they can't have it , they just drive up cost,and crime together. It's really quite simple.

 

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

 

"They are so that our goverment cannot ever overtake our citizens by force. If **** ever does go down, you better hope you have access to some solid firepower." - SFC


:LOL:


I hope ur jokin on that one. Our government wouldn't take the time to have a gun fight with ya. They would point to ur house on a computer and send a missile in. Given they would prolly hit ur neighbor's house but they would eventually get it.

 

" Given they would prolly hit ur neighbor's house but they would eventually get it."......Oh man, that is rich!! Toooooo funny

 

QUOTE

Quote: from outdoor grower on 1:19 pm on Jan. 8, 2005
"They are so that our goverment cannot ever overtake our citizens by force. If **** ever does go down, you better hope you have access to some solid firepower." - SFC

:LOL:



I hope ur jokin on that one. Our government wouldn't take the time to have a gun fight with ya. They would point to ur house on a computer and send a missile in. Given they would prolly hit ur neighbor's house but they would eventually get it.

No they wouldn't, the guvment would want to keep the infrastucture in tact. It costs lots 'O money to rebuild.

(Edited by george roberts at 11:07 pm on Jan. 8, 2005)

 

Do you think we have enough smart bombs to take out every potential partisan. Thats rediculous. None of this is likely to happen anyway, but for arguements sake the goverment would have to fight it out on the ground. They would no doubt use air superiority when ,and how they could, but just like in Iraq, it is not the end all when fighting a guerilla insurgency.

 

Apparently u weren't jokin. Well i was, i don't think they would use missiles im just statin that it would be a stupid fight. Good reasons, but a group of renegade americans against an army every nation in the world will not take on.


This is all for arguements sake.

 

QUOTE

Quote: from outdoor grower on 9:36 am on Jan. 9, 2005
Apparently u weren't jokin. Well i was, i don't think they would use missiles im just statin that it would be a stupid fight. Good reasons, but a group of renegade americans against an army every nation in the world will not take on.

This is all for arguements sake.

If we were that badass we wouldn't be having any problems in Iraq right now.

 

yep, What fish said..^ and on top of that, those "American" soldiers might not be quite as willing to fire on brethern.


....for argument's sake....

 

It does make one wonder what would go thru a soldier's mind if asked to fire on his/her own people.