The Science is Settled: Gun Laws Do Not Reduce Violent Crime or Suicides

And if you look at violent crime rates since the 2000-2002 time period - they have fallen. Your article is pretty dated.

 

I'm not against private ownership of guns - I just don't think they are the panacea to crime that gun nuts think they are.

 

Damn you, you're right.

 

Of course I am, now go away.

 

So, your position is that although the Gun Ban was followed by crime waves immediately after the 96 ban, but that things improved after 2002.

This seems to contradict that conclusion:

“Gun crime has increased five-fold in some parts of the UK”

“In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.”

“The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.”

The latest UK solution: “Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets. The move means officers armed with **SUB MACHINE GUNS** are engaged in routine policing for the first time.”
By JAMES SLACK FOR THE DAILY MAIL,“Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade,” 27 October 2009.(** emphasis mine)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

By 2009 Bobbies had to have heavily armed protection when they ventured onto the streets.

 

There are no panaceas, but armed law abiding human beings are by far the most effective deterrent to violent crime.

 

No one present has described legal firearms ownership as being a panacea, however.

 

Nope

 

After the first destructive volley is fired - perhaps. But it could be easily said that modern medicine has perhaps prevented the violence from over 15 million mentally disturbed Americans is more effective than guns. It is impossible to measure either way.

 

Unless the medicine itself causes such violence to occur. Such as the over reliance on various psychotropic substances that are not properly understood, while still being dispensed without so much as a second thought, or even a proper medical evaluation.

 

It can easily be argued the same about guns - would that guy in Vegas have attempted to do violence if he didn't have the means to do so much damage? You don't know. You don't know if three other people who had once thought of committing such violent acts have been brought down through medical treatment.
You are making an assumption because it fits your narrative - not because you have definitive proof that guns are more effective than medical treatment.

And again, I'm not against private ownership of guns. I just think we have to be more realistic about the big picture.

 

When modern medicine does not work to stop psychotic killers armed citizens or the the most effective defense.

 

No gun law can prevent any criminal from obtaining every kind of firearm.. The UK gun ban encouraged criminals to obtain and carry guns.
As soon as the civilian population is disarmed by the state guns become far more useful and valuable for criminals.

 

Questionable. Many kill themselves before an armed citizen does. If you argued an armed law enforcement officer is a better defense - you might have a better stance. Actual armed intruders or mass murders killed by armed citizens is barely a blip statistically.

 

Statistically, the UK had higher murder rates prior to the ban (except 2000 - 2002). So I would call your statement questionable.

 

The same individual that was licensed and cleared to operate and airplane, and thus could've flown it into the assembled crowd instead?

The true "big picture" is that firearms are not the problem. Rather than problem lays with the people that make up society itself. But no one wishes to address how their own neighbor, their babysitter, or even their own family member, may potentially become a murderer without explanation as to why such a decision would be made. Such a concept of an impossible to identify enemy simply terrifies the public too much for it to be regarded as being a possibility.

 

So how would your having a gun prevent a mentally disturbed person from violence? How would a gun have prevented a man in an airplane from crashing into a crowd?

 

No such claim is being made. Merely that there is nothing that would have prevented the Las Vegas incident from transpiring in some form if the individual were truly serious about killing a large group of individuals. So long as an individual with such a mentality remains free in society, they will find a way of accomplishing that goal, regardless of the implement used.

 

Armed law enforcement is drop of law and order in a river of crime. Professional law enforcement can never be effective when criminals are not suppressed by an armed citizenry. Bobbies did not have to be protected by heavily armed security before the gun ban. As the NZ massacres, and so many others prove, the odds of the police being there in an emergency is miniscule.

 

The passengers, not the police, have stopped terrorists from taking over planes since 9/11.

 

Crime has soared since the gun ban and since 2002.

THE GUARDIAN, Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show, Police record 10% rise in crime in England and Wales, with 18% increase in violent crime and significant rise in murder rate, Alan Travis Home affairs editor, Thu 20 Jul 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/official-figures-show-biggest-rise-crime-in-a-decade

 

"The Science is Settled: Gun Laws Do Not Reduce Violent Crime or Suicides"

successful suicides I am sure it increases, though I support death with dignity laws for the terminally ill, forcing someone to suffer should be a crime

as far as violent crime, the reality is, if a criminal thinks I might have a gun, they may decide not to try and rob me

that said, I do not own or carry a gun, I let others take that risk, and it makes me safer

 

If an individual wishes to end their own existence, that is ultimately their choice to make, and their decision should be respected. It is not the business of an outside individual who believes they know better and should be allowed to invalidate the decision of another.

 

We have a Second Amendment; it is express not implied. The science is settled.

 

Don’t have to

Any more that you have to prove you proved me wrong

It seems strange you are still resistant to proving how a report on future research topics in firearm violence can somehow support ANY claim about firearms