Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.
1. Yet, in countries that have enacted an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, gun crime increased and they still have mass killings. The Clinton era "assault weapon" ban also had no positive effect on gun crime. The National Institute of Justice stated The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.
2. Your proposed solution overlooks the fact that bad guys will always get a firearm. You cannot stop that. You can only prevent law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, and that is a non starter.
1. Got some stats on that? I'm all ******* ears.
Sure.
Firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned (Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007)
After the UK ban, U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes increased by 14%. (British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002.)
The trend continued in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies. Meanwhile, crime rates in the rest of the western world were dropping.
Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms despite a virtual ban on private firearm ownership. (Illegal Firearms in the UK, Centre for Defense Studies King's College in London, July 2001.)
We can also look at Australia:
In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, April 2003.)
From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and home invasions were up 21%. Again, this during a period where the rest of the world was seeing crime rates drop.
Sure; but the shit they get their hands on might be less lethal. So there's that.
Less lethal how? You think a firearm that looks a certain way is "less lethal" than ones with a wooden stock or nice walnut grips? Why do you think that?
Besides, what makes you think banning guns would limit the supply of firearms to "less lethal" guns, whatever you think that means?
How did you put it? "You got some stats on that?"
Not to mention, bad guys aren't carrying guns near as much already. Crack dealers know that they get caught, eventually. They all have arrest records and jail time, frequently. And having a gun with them when it happens, makes the jail time about 5 times longer. They know that. So spotters, pals standing around providing cover, and a smart phone, is all they need. And of course, some rock to sell.
So you advocate for tougher laws when someone breaks a law with a firearm. We have no disagreement there.
Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things and criminals will continue to break your laws, no matter how many you enact. You can choose to remain unprepared and hope the police will save you. I choose differently.
