Can Anyone Link Gun Ownership To Crime Commission?

[blackjack50]

This is just a simple question that I don't recall anyone answering any time recently. Gun control is touted as a way of "crime control." Can anyone prove this?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

This is just a simple question that I don't recall anyone answering any time recently. Gun control is touted as a way of "crime control." Can anyone prove this?

Cities with the most gun control tend to also have the highest crime rates.

 

[Sababa]

Correlation between crime and gun ownership is not a good argument as crime drives people to get guns.

The problem with guns is that their easy access puts them in the hands of people who shouldn't have them and creates a market that floods us with guns. So while we should never ban guns there are ways of mitigating the gun culture that drives gun crime. Gun ownership is settled law, as is the ability to have some forms of restrictions. However this is not something that can be done willy nilly.

 

[ttwtt78640]

To say that guns cause gun crime is akin to saying that penises cause rape, or that knives cause stabbings. Perhaps if guns are very tightly controlled by the gov't then they will become rare like heroin, meth and cocaine.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Correlation between crime and gun ownership is not a good argument as crime drives people to get guns.

Not really. Most people in my town are owners - likely over half of households, probably more than one firearm in each. Their main focus is hunting and collection, not crime prevention.

Thinking to my ex (boyfriend) they had rifles stashed in every closet or room. Overall: they (his family) were collectors and enjoyed firearms. Their 'crime deterrent' concerns felt more like an excuse, as if simply wanting to own a firearm wasn't 'reason' enough they had to defend their want with 'and I can protect the family, too'. Overall: they never had a reason to be concerned about crime other than 'crime happens sometimes'.

Home invasion - which is the only type of crime they would have been protecting their selves against considering that you can't conceal carry an M1916 - is a very uncommon crime that gets a large amount of news reporting.

So most people go 'but it's great for self defense' when a large number of people don't even conceal-carry and even more don't keep them readily accessible for easy self defense while stored.

 

[TurtleDude]

Correlation between crime and gun ownership is not a good argument as crime drives people to get guns.

The problem with guns is that their easy access puts them in the hands of people who shouldn't have them and creates a market that floods us with guns. So while we should never ban guns there are ways of mitigating the gun culture that drives gun crime. Gun ownership is settled law, as is the ability to have some forms of restrictions. However this is not something that can be done willy nilly.

well easy access is a loaded term because to normal people easy access means easy LEGAL access yet we see places where there is very little legal access to firearms having huge amounts of gun crime like DC and Chicago.

and what sort of restrictions actually impact criminals more than honest people? only those restrictions that increase penalties for having a gun during the commission of a crime or using a gun illegally. Stuff like "magazine limits" or how many guns you can legally buy or own only impacts honest people.

 

[Sababa]

well easy access is a loaded term because to normal people easy access means easy LEGAL access yet we see places where there is very little legal access to firearms having huge amounts of gun crime like DC and Chicago.

Chicago and DC border places where easy gun purchases are common. It is complicated.

and what sort of restrictions actually impact criminals more than honest people? only those restrictions that increase penalties for having a gun during the commission of a crime or using a gun illegally. Stuff like "magazine limits" or how many guns you can legally buy or own only impacts honest people.

Except that is not true and I am not arguing for that. But most mass shootings for example are done with legally purchased guns and often there are signs these people shouldn't have access to guns. Would I would like to see is that those people not get access.

I think however you are right, crimes with guns are in fact crimes first. But here is the thing, a lot of gun crimes are committed with guns that trace back to a handful of dealers. What if we go after those dealers? Is that okay?

 

[TurtleDude]

Chicago and DC border places where easy gun purchases are common. It is complicated.



Except that is not true and I am not arguing for that. But most mass shootings for example are done with legally purchased guns and often there are signs these people shouldn't have access to guns. Would I would like to see is that those people not get access.

I think however you are right, crimes with guns are in fact crimes first. But here is the thing, a lot of gun crimes are committed with guns that trace back to a handful of dealers. What if we go after those dealers? Is that okay?

NOT LEGALLY.

How do you keep people who have clean records under the 68 GCA not getting weapons

I used to spend some of my time dealing with corrupt dealers who had their licenses revoked who then filed a suit against the revocation. Most were scum bags.

but tell me-since criminals cannot possess ANY type of firearm, why do we need laws against "assault weapons" etc

If i trust a guy to own a rifle that can kill at 1500 meters, I surely trust him to have a 30 shot AR 15 which is often less "deadly"

 

[TheNextEra]

This is just a simple question that I don't recall anyone answering any time recently. Gun control is touted as a way of "crime control." Can anyone prove this?

It's a completely false premise. If people didn't have guns, they would use other objects to commit crimes.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Just another bait thread.

 

[TurtleDude]

Gun control has several founding reasons-crimie control was never primary

the first gun control laws were to allow racist klansman to keep freed men from fighting the Night Riders

the second set of gun control was to keep those who were the "legal" crime family in a city safe from competition

the third wave of gun control was to allow the establishment in city hall to shake down "Papist immigrants" who were arming themselves in response to corrupt police

and the fourth wave of gun control (60s) was by the Democrats to stave off claims they weren't hard enough on black street crime-Gun Control allowed the Dems to pretend they were DOING SOMETHING without actually hurting criminals

and the last wave of gun control was designed to punish and perhaps sap the power of the NRA to help conservative candidates

while low wattage sheeple might believe (and support) gun control as crime control-those who push it don't even believe that

 

[blackjack50]

Correlation between crime and gun ownership is not a good argument as crime drives people to get guns.

Ok. We clarify that. By your statement then...why would we do gun control to deal with crime? (Rhetorical as you have stated the answer below). We know guns don't CAUSE crime. Thus the only argument is that ACCESS is the problem.

The problem with guns is that their easy access puts them in the hands of people who shouldn't have them and creates a market that floods us with guns. So while we should never ban guns there are ways of mitigating the gun culture that drives gun crime. Gun ownership is settled law, as is the ability to have some forms of restrictions. However this is not something that can be done willy nilly.

I have a 2 part response:

1) So can you think of ANY law that would prevent a CRIMINAL from getting a gun, but allows a citizen to have access at the same time? Keep in mind that law ENFORCEMENT and not LAWS are what actually prevent criminals from getting guns.

2) What is the"gun" culture and why does it have to be mitigated?

Ps

I will add I saw your statement that guns should not be banned. Figured I should recognize that lol.

 

[blackjack50]

Just another bait thread.

No. I actually want honest discussion. How can we have it without asking specific questions...even if the answer to said questions are obvious? Sometimes clarification is a good thing.

 

[Crimefree]

Gun control has several founding reasons-crimie control was never primary

snip

while low wattage sheeple might believe (and support) gun control as crime control-those who push it don't even believe that

You forgot the Red Indian and gun control.

Gun control is not about crime it is funded entirely by those who desire ultimate control. George Soros OSI is the main source of gun control funding and he is simply a front.

One world government is not a conspiracy it is a fact. With disarmed people all that has to happen is deal with governments which can be bought becasue they are greedy corrupt power hungry people who can be bought.

What does this speech mean and why was it made?

David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg speech

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

 

[Crimefree]

Correlation between crime and gun ownership is not a good argument as crime drives people to get guns.

The problem with guns is that their easy access puts them in the hands of people who shouldn't have them and creates a market that floods us with guns. So while we should never ban guns there are ways of mitigating the gun culture that drives gun crime.

Gun ownership is settled law, as is the ability to have some forms of restrictions.

However this is not something that can be done willy nilly.

I have heard this easy access argument thousand of times and it still makes absolutely no sense. The same utterly ridiculous argument has been applied to every object seen by some paranoid group as harmful all with exactly the same result. Yet once again here it is being used to promote gun control.

If this so called easy access was in anyway a contributory factor it is ALSO A CAUSAL FACTOR which we know it is not. How can people possibly be fooled by changing a few words and selling the same false claim that has already been rejected.

Do we just want to believe objects can cause people to do things?

It really is time we saw through all the lies of gun control and examined what gun control really says.

Are you suggesting that laws which have been passed by fools who have bought into the idea guns cause crime so a little cannot hurt and may actually help is LAW. A law that deprives people of rights they are entitled to because some group of anti-social agony aunts fears something or hates something.

Have we not has enough trouble and death in this world due to such people?

We don't like blacks and fear them.
We don't like Red Indians and fear them.
We don't like pornography and fear it.
We don't like alcohol and fear alcohol.
We don't like heretics and fear heretics.

Seems each time we don't like some people millions get killed and we have absolutely no conscious about that in the least. When are we going to learn to address our fears instead of killing those we fear or who get caught up in our fears and demands?

 

[Crimefree]

This is just a simple question that I don't recall anyone answering any time recently. Gun control is touted as a way of "crime control." Can anyone prove this?

If anyone can it will be a world first.

There simply is no causal relationship between crime and levels of firearm ownership. No criminologist worthy of the title acknowledges this.

 

[Crimefree]

Not really. Most people in my town are owners - likely over half of households, probably more than one firearm in each. Their main focus is hunting and collection, not crime prevention.

You present a pretty good argument but only from the side of the firearm owner and ignore how the criminal element sees it which in this case is very important. To be fair one must look at both sides.

The criminal sees a house with people and guns in it, having no idea of what to expect if discovered. Would you just burgle the place or go find something that is easier to get? So the owners attitude and intentions has little to do with it. It is far more important to know what the criminals perceptions are.

Thinking to my ex (boyfriend) they had rifles stashed in every closet or room. Overall: they (his family) were collectors and enjoyed firearms. Their 'crime deterrent' concerns felt more like an excuse, as if simply wanting to own a firearm wasn't 'reason' enough they had to defend their want with 'and I can protect the family, too'. Overall: they never had a reason to be concerned about crime other than 'crime happens sometimes'.

Firearm organisations do one of the worst PR jobs in the world allowing ignorance and emotions to run wild instead of educating.

Home invasion - which is the only type of crime they would have been protecting their selves against considering that you can't conceal carry an M1916 - is a very uncommon crime that gets a large amount of news reporting.

Well then move to England and figure out why they have such a high home invasion rate.

So most people go 'but it's great for self defense' when a large number of people don't even conceal-carry and even more don't keep them readily accessible for easy self defense while stored.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Orlando Florida but this makes an interesting case we should consider.

I wrote this many years ago.

Firearms and women

With the current focus on safety for women I find it even more difficult to believe that the NGOs, SAPS, Safety and Security and Government are all blissfully unaware of Orlando Florida, which solved its rape epidemic problem.

In 1966 Orlando Florida had a rape epidemic, they did not declare the town rape free or crime free, set up safe zones, suggest women lay back and enjoy it, beg and plead or have busy bodies handing out pamphlets telling women to stay at home for their own safety. The police (considerably more enlightened and pro-active than the SA version) set up a training program to train some 3000 women with firearms, encouraging them to purchase their own if they did not own a firearm. This training program was much publicised in the media.

What were the results? The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women trained actually ended up firing her firearm; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. Five years later Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.

The cost of this intervention, which gave the phenomenal results, was insignificant. No other intervention has shown greater promise of drastically reducing rape and other crimes.

At least 40,000 other women of Orlando derived a direct benefit and owe a great gratitude to those brave women who undertook training and accepted responsibility for their own safety.

While the results of Orlando are subject to much debate the results of other similar publicised training programs for armed merchants sharply reduced robberies in stores in Highland Park, Michigan, and in New Orleans; a grocer's organisation's gun clinics produced the same result in Detroit. More recently the removal of gun control laws and relaxing or removal of right to carry laws has seen a revolution in crime reduction. The USA now has the lowest crime rate in its recorded history.

What can be said of any organisation that promotes gun control and advises women not to fight back and give everything including rape to criminals?