As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....
Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......
Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......
And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...
We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?
Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.
I am always curious when people say they want more "Reasoned" gun laws. Not attacking, still curious.....what gun laws do you want...and how would they actually work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters?
Here are the first few ideas to pop into my head.
Reasoned:
1 in 100 chance of a death sentence for committing a crime with a gun. Not speeding with a gun in your car mind you, but a violent crime. Mandatory if you get arrested for a violent gun crime twice. My of a violent crime is a mugging type event. You don't respect the lives of others, I don't respect yours.
No difference in regulations for private and corporate gun sales. Same back ground check, whatever.
No being drunk or stoned in possession of your gun. Being less than humanly capable gives up your Constitution to human right to bear arms.
No difference in murder and attempted murder charges, you shot me, no lower penalty for having poor aim.
No difference in registration of different types of guns. I have to register my car, you have to register your gun.
Your gun gets "stolen" you better report it. That registered gun is your baby.
I don't care if the NRA keeps track of the serial numbers and the FBI or your Sheriff's department needs a warrant to get even one of them. We should have a simple national system that makes sense.
To speak plainly, this ain't no kinder gentler stuff. My family is out there.
Some of your ideas are fine....the others don't work....
The background check on private sales is a non starter for the 2nd Amendment....the reason? The only way to make that work is registration of guns.....
3 problems with that....
1) gun registration is the first step for gun confiscation and gun banning...this is why the anti gunners are so hot to get it......Germany, Britain and Australia are just recent examples of this...The Germans even registered their guns in the 1920s...in order to make people safer, and when the nazis came to power in the 1930s, they used the gun registration records set up in the 20s to disarm Jews and the political enemies of the nazis......that is why background checks for private sales are fought against so hard....and they just don't work. Criminals use straw buyers to get guns from gun stores....those same straw buyers who pass the current federally mandated background checks for gun store purchases will pass background checks for private sales....and private sales are the least likely way that criminals will get guns...since they have stated to researchers that they are concerned that private sellers will be cops.....they get their guns from friends and family...who buy them from gun stores where they can pass background checks....
2) The Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....it violates their right against self incrimination.....so, the only people who would be forced to register their guns? Would be law abiding citizens who don't use their guns to break the law....
3) Cars are not guns......owning a car is not protected by the Constitution...owning a gun is......owning a gun is a Right...and you don't have to register with the government to exercise a Right...if you do..it isn't a Right and can be ended by the government...
Reporting Stolen Guns....why? Other than wanting it returned if found.......? Research shows that a gun used in a crime usually has been on the street, in criminal hands for about 9 years......so there is no actual value in knowing who the original owner of the gun is.....and since criminals who use guns in crimes are the ones who committed the crime...you can arrest them when you catch them....so there is no reason to put the original owner on the hook for it.....
you may say..what about Straw Buyers.....right? If it is registered to them, you can get them for giving the gun to a felon..right? Well, not really. They report the gun stolen....then when the gun is found with a felon...you can't do anything to them....and right now.....they already catch straw buyers in police stings, using normal police work...and gun registration and reports on stolen guns don't help those efforts....
