Reality check on gun crime rates. Awesome video!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem for 2A supporters is that anti's don't care about facts--they care about agendas. They will say and believe anything that seems to back what they wish were true, thinking that wanting it hard enough will make it true.

Sad.
 
The problem for 2A supporters is that anti's don't care about facts--they care about agendas. They will say and believe anything that seems to back what they wish were true, thinking that wanting it hard enough will make it true.

Sad.
Click to expand...


How true.
 
More or less guns has very little bearing on the homicide rate. An exhaustive study compiling existing studies was discussed in a book on prohibitions by the King's College London professor John Meadowcroft, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs found here, staring on page 90 (page 45 in the pdf since it's side-by-side) http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook429pdf.pdf
Empirical support for firearms laws has proved to be elusive in the USA as well as the UK. In 2004 the US National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some epirical research of its own. It could not identify any gun law that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents (Wellford et al., 2004). The US Centers for Disease Control reached a similar conclusion in 2003 in their independent review of research on firearms laws (Hahn et al., 2003).

Historical ignorance allows some to credit stringent gun control for the generally low homicide rates in the United Kingdom and western Europe. This claim cannot be accurate because murder in Europe was generally lower before the gun controls were introduced (Barnet and Kates, 1996:1239). Stringent gun controls were not adopted in either the United Kingdom or western Europe until after World War I. Consistent with the outcomes of the American studies mentioned above, these strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-World War II industrialized world (Malcom, 2002:209, 219).

In the late 1990's the UK moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on handguns and many types of long guns. Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban's ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had increased so much that England had the developed world's highest rate of violent crime, far surpassing even the USA (van Kesteren et al., 2001).
Click to expand...

Australia's homicide rate after a complete ban on semi-auto firearms compared to America's homicide trend (please note the Y axes) without any notable gun legislation during the same time period:
Guns.png

Homicide trends in Whales and England compared to the USA over the same period. Again, note the left and right Y-axis. This isn't a 1:1 comparison but rather homicide trends over time. UK's handgun ban in 1997 hasn't actually done anything to stop gun crime:
guns2.png
 
One thing to note about the posted video. Halfway through, they stopped quoting citations on where the stats came from. I wouldn't accept stats in our favor wholeheartedly either if you're to make a rational, reasoned argument. I want the citations for all the numbers, even if they're against or in our favor.
 
One thing to note about the posted video. Halfway through, they stopped quoting citations on where the stats came from. I wouldn't accept stats in our favor wholeheartedly either if you're to make a rational, reasoned argument. I want the citations for all the numbers, even if they're against or in our favor.
Click to expand...
Good point. I wish I could say, it's a news station, of course it's valid! Afraid not. :(
 
John Meadowcroft, Prohibitions, The Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 2008. ISBN 978-0-255-36585-7.
(Nice to see a book on Malum prohibitum laws, what I call "ban it and feel self-righteous about ourselves".)

Chapter 5 "Firearms" by Gary A. Mauser (Canadian) looks at murder trends in jurisdictions with British style gun control (England and Wales, Scotland, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica) versus murder trends in the USA. Before and after effects of gun laws within the jurisdiction passing the law.

This was published before Canada decided to abandon its rifle and shotgun registry as a failed experiment in 2012. New Zealand abandoned national gun registration in 1983: the police considered it a waste of resources.

I remember Colin Greenwood's article in Don B. Kates' "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out" 1979. Greenwood noted that gun control in England was followed not by a decrease in the use of guns in crime, but an increase. And I might add an increase in non-gun crime of the type that might be deterred by the possibility of encountering an armed victim, such as home invasion robbery. But with each act, the British politicians point to America and say, see, our gun crime rate is lower than America's, rather than looking at the before and after in Britain.

As Mauser put it:
"Evaluating legislation is analogous to evaluating a new diet. If
we want to determine whether our new diet is effective, we must ask
whether our weight changes after the diet is introduced. While it
may be reassuring, it is logically irrelevant to our diet’s efficacy
that other people are fatter than we are."
 
The "Antis" only use the rhetoric of crime rates, safety and 'the children' as propaganda tools.

Their only goal is to disarm lawful Americans. They know that partial disarmament drives up crime rates, which leads to more disarmament.
 
Here are a few of the sources Ben Swann cited:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2HQDkC3re

I wonder if Piers Morgan knows that, for the first time in the 200-year history of the Metropolitan Police, bobbies armed with Glock pistols and H&K MP5 submachine guns are patrolling parts of London? We're not talking about special squads, we're talking about regular beat cops who have received firearms training. The London Police have always had access to firearms, but this is the first time they've been part of the daily kit.

The interesting thing is that our Second Amendment was actually derived from an English law passed in 1688 guaranteeing the right of the citizens to possess arms for their own defense and the defense of the crown. One of the issues that fanned the flames of the U.S. revolution was the British government's attempts to deny the colonists those rights.
 
I wonder if Piers Morgan knows that, for the first time in the 200-year history of the Metropolitan Police, bobbies armed with Glock pistols and H&K MP5 submachine guns are patrolling parts of London? We're not talking about special squads, we're talking about regular beat cops who have received firearms training. The London Police have always had access to firearms, but this is the first time they've been part of the daily kit.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. I hope someone asks PM that!
 
That Ben Swann video came out a month or two back. The anti's I routinely deal with already dismissed it out-of-hand.

If Swan is even half-right, to the anti's he's all wrong.

It's not about truth; it's about agenda. And any fact-or-figure can be added or dismissed at-will by the anti's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Another Reality Check: More guns more crime? NOPE! {video}
Replies
0
Views
440
SigSour
S
Back
Top