Why is the gun lobby's pet phrase "if we criminalize guns only the criminals will have guns" not true in?

Question

Japan, Singapore, England, Wales, Australia, Spain, etc.

All countries with either outright bans or very restrictive access and miniscule homicide/ suicide rates compared to the US.

And mentioning Switzerland isn't an answer to my question - it's just avoidance of it.

Answer 1

It is wrong because it is a false characterisation of the gun control position. It makes sense to outlaw weapons that have no reasonable purpose - tanks, explosive vests, assault rifles, 50 caliber guns, anti-aircraft missiles, etcetera. Other weapons would not be criminalized, but prospective owners will be vetted, and their ownership carefully tracked.

The reason why it's useful to do this is that you can arrest people for possessing guns they shouldn't have. It's a way to stop crime before it happens, which certainly beats waiting for the shooting to start. It also means that you can arrest and convict criminals that do much worse than have guns, even if you can't prove it.

So "Criminalize civilian possession of military-grade weapons and track responsible firearm possession, and violent crime will go down". And of course it won't only be criminals that have guns. Police and guard units still will have them, as will any civilian that is moderately sane, able to use his weapon responsibly and willing to make sure his weapons stay in responsible hands.

Oh, and on that old chestnut that dictators want their people not to have guns, please have a look around. There are plenty dictatorships in countries that overflow with guns. Many African ones, for instance, Saddam's Iraq, or Communist Yugoslavia. Privately held guns don't deter dictators at all, and it is a big mistake to believe that they do.

Incidentally, international comparison of crime statistics is difficult because the definitions of various crimes is so different. One example is Canada, where "violent crime" includes all kinds of assault, even the much more common "simple assault", where the assailant does not use a weapon and does not harm the victim physically. In the US, only "aggravated assault" is counted as a violent crime. In aggravated assault the intent is to cause physical harm, i.e. rape, kill or maim. That's a bit different from being groped, or manhandled, which counts as violent crime in Canada.

In England and Wales, making silent voice calls constitutes an assault (and hence a violent crime) if the victim is scared into believing that they are a precursor to physical violence. Then again, in England and Wales even harassment is a counted as a violent crime. So the comparisons that are offered in some of the answers need to be qualified.

If you look at the one crime that is almost universally defined the same - homicide - then the US sticks out like a sore thumb. Even though the homicide rate dropped precipitously under Clinton (from 9.8 to 5.6 per 100,000), it is still much higher than in any western country. And this crime is dominated by the use of guns.

Answer 2

I am pro choice for the same reason that I'm pro second amendment. I find the consequences of those positions less disgusting and scary than a government that would usurp those rights by force. While I find the prospect of destroying a fetus in the womb reprehensible, I would not want to live in a nation where a woman is forced to have a baby at the point of a gun. When it comes down to it, everyone has their own opinion on the value of a fetus at various stages of development. Some people believe that as soon as the gamete is formed there is a soul there too that needs protecting. Others believe that once a mother decides she doesn't want a baby that organism becomes a parasite feeding off her body. And, obviously, there is an entire spectrum in between. With such vastly dissenting opinions from anyone you meet, is it right to legislate one way or the other? What makes one opinion more valid than the next? I applaud your for applying rational thought to the issue. And I believe that you are correct. Making abortion completely illegal will only result in increased hanger sales. Kevin, why don't you ever choose a best answer? You always let it go into voting which is weak. Do you even read the answers you receive?

Answer 3

The criminals already have illegal guns in the millions. Making laws to stop people from owning guns would restrict only law abiding people from their constitutional right and not taking guns out of the hands of murderers because criminals could care less how many laws you write.
How did we get here? Ask the people who don't strictly enforce the laws on the books already and keep putting thugs,rapists and murderers back on the streets.
I don't know much about the laws in many of those countries but don't the authorities in Singapore cut off your hand for robbery? Now there is a thought.

Answer 4

Number Please?

Japan guns still land in Yakuza hands, look on Wiki dear. Singapore, gun trafficing and related crime is still high. And hand gun violance in the UK and Australia has climed 50% acording to Interpol's 2007 report.

Also Japan has the Highest suicide rate with 17 in every 1000 people commeting such. Same Interpol Report. Also in the US gun crime is highest in CA, NY., States with the strictest gun laws, while in the Southern states where its most laxed the incidents are far lower. Gee Lou, better detective work next time.

Answer 5

Do you know what happens to criminals in those other countries? Other countries have some of the most harsh punishments and the liberals in America won't allow s to treat our criminals in such a harsh way. They are fighting (verbally) for the criminal's rights. Be lieve me, if they outlaw guns only criminals will own guns cause I'll be one of them.

Answer 6

That is an out an out lie about areas banning guns having low homicide/suicide rates. Washington D.C. (Bans Guns) has the highest per capita Murder/Suicide Rate of any City in our Great Nation.

England has a high rate of Murders because citizens can not protect themselves. The Police are out gunned because they are not allowed to have guns. Only criminals in these areas have guns and they do not give a rats hairy behind about you or me. They would just as soon shoot us as look at us.

I guess if one of your family members was murdered by a criminal with a gun and you were not allowed to have one, you would just slap their wrist and make them promise to never kill again as you let them go free.

Yes, I know the pain of murder.

My second eldest sister was murdered by her law enforcement husband in the parking lot of The Downtown Atlanta Hilton as she walked toward her vehicle at the end of her work day. He dropped and killed her with one shot to the chest.

He died two hours later in surgery.

I am all for our right to own firearms.

Answer 7

Aside from gun possession itself, when you use the example of another country with low crime rates, it does not necessarily mean the same result will happen here. The low crime rates you mention are a result of the sum of all of their laws, their culture, their population numbers, the usage of drugs, the opportunities available to the poor and middle class, and probably even more variables not available to me off the top of my head. A simple gun law dropped into the quagmire that exist in America will not equal the same results you get in those countries.

Answer 8

Check your facts England's violent Crime rate has sky rocketed since they banned guns, as has Australia's,I'm sure it has in others as well!!
Ask any violent offender that is in prison what they fear, the answer is not Prison on the police, It is an armed citizen, I hope for your sake that when you become a victim, someone like me comes to your aide!!!
The mall shooter in Utah was killed by an off-duty police officer that was out of his jurisdiction and carrying his weapon in a "Gun Free Zone", He is lucky not to be facing charges for breaking the law and carrying his gun into the Mall!!
Gun Free Zones will become more dangerous as time goes on because cowardly criminals want easy victims, just as cowardly dictators want unarmed citizens(victims)!!!!

Answer 9

Gun crime is growing in the UK "like a cancer", police chiefs were warned on Tuesday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3043701.stm

The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.

Answer 10

Miniscule or not, the phrase still holds true. Just depends on how restrictive you want your freedom to be. There is absolutely no crime in dictatorships. Because all criminals no matter how minor are put to death. Why don't you live there?