Gun control totally lowers the crime rate guis
(www.rt.com)
Comments (25)
sorted by:
What we really need is common sense criminal control.
It does. Quite observably.
What it does not do, is come anywhere close to eliminating it.
Is that why places like NY and Illinois have significantly higher crime rates than places with more free gun laws?
Oh wait, it's those places fault because of the nonexistent gun show loophole right?
They have higher violent crime rates because they have more blacks, and the gun laws are ineffective because the country is already flooded with guns.
The UK is not flooded with guns, and so the gun laws are actually effective.
They are SO effective, that murders are primarily committed with knives. More murders in the UK are committed with bare hands than with guns. No, I am not joking.
Compare this to the USA. It's like living on a different planet when it comes to violent crime.
I'm saying this a UK citizen and US greencard holder.
But where is your evidence the laws - even if effective - lower the general crime rate, which is the original claim? (assuming that you're playing off the OP's title)
I think everybody already knows that if you could theoretically eliminate guns, there would be a 0% gun-crime rate. We also know that the US is a ridiculously violent country.
Well actually only like 5 cities are ridiculously violent. Remove the stats from those 5 cities and we're on par with most of Europe.
Weapons are force multipliers that make it easier to kill. The easier it is to do something, the more likely it is that someone will decide to do it.
There are cultural, demographic, population, and other factors that complicate comparing US murder rates to UK murder rates, but for the sake of posterity, the murder rate per 100,000 is
Chicago: 20.7 NYC: 5.5 London: 1.5
But as I said, there are too many factors at play to fairly compare these when it comes to the question of whether making weapons more scarce reduces violent crime. So I'll give the very simple answer that when the UK police are walking around 'randomly' searching brown people for knives, the violent crime rate starts to magically fall.
When the UK police are then prevented from 'randomly' searching brown people for knives because doing so is 'racist', the violent crime rate starts going back up again. This is a repeating pattern that has been going on since the 90's when the diversity started necessitating it.
Generally speaking, you don't go to prison for being found with a knife - so it's not like people are being removed from the equation. The knives are removed (or more accurately, somewhat reduced in number) from the equation, and the violent crime rate falls.
So yes, I am quite certain that reducing access to weapons reduces violent crime. I am also certain that reducing problematic diversity would be far more effective.
I realise the average gun-loving American only wants to face one of those realities, and I completely understand why, but that's no reason to deny the reality. Not for me, at least.
London was at 1.6, NYC was at 3.4. NYC has twice as many blacks as London. Now throw in another quarter of the population being hispanic and boom, London would be just as deadly as NYC, even without guns. Guns save lives.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/world/london-us-cities-homicide-rates-comparison-intl-gbr/index.html
London has muslims instead of hispanics.
Only lowers gun crimes, increases all other violent crime types. In the US, something like 500k crimes are stopped every year by reported discharge of a legally owned firearm. Eliminate guns, those crimes will no longer be stopped because those guns would become illegal to own and use.
Oh you're a britbong? Opinion discarded.
This is why gun control is ineffective https://youtu.be/sIhGCRIQnCA you cannot uninvent guns.
I am very familiar with both Luty, and that channel.
But the UK's gun control is highly effective, as I have already shown.
I am saying this as someone who is not particularly a fan of multiple aspects of the UK's gun control.
You haven't shown shit britbong.
What you showed was that gun control changed the weapons of choice for criminals, not that it lowers crime which was the original claim.
You're doing what every gun grabber does, deflect, obfuscate and lie.
Come and take it brit-boy.
I'll repeat what I said in another reply: When the UK police are walking around 'randomly' searching brown people for knives, the violent crime rate starts to magically fall.
When the UK police are then prevented from 'randomly' searching brown people for knives because doing so is 'racist', the violent crime rate starts going back up again. This is a repeating pattern that has been going on since the 90's when the diversity started necessitating it.
Generally speaking, you don't go to prison for being found with a knife - so it's not like people are being removed from the equation. The knives are removed (or more accurately, somewhat reduced in number) from the equation, and the violent crime rate falls.
So yes, I am quite certain that reducing access to weapons reduces violent crime. I am also certain that reducing problematic diversity would be far more effective.
I have no desire to take your guns away. I am not anti-gun. One thing Americans do not understand about the English is that we will, from an American perspective on debate, argue positions that we do not hold.
You see a statement that reducing access to guns reduces violent crime, and see an anti gun argument.
I see a statement that reducing access to guns reduces violent crime and see a statement of fact - but a fact I would simply deem irrelevant in a conversation about gun rights, because liberty and security are mutually exclusive and can only be balanced to one degree or another.
You're acting a fool and I think you know it.
Limiting access to guns doesn't change how many guns are in the hands of criminals, just look at a lineup of guns in evidence lockers. They're all .32acp and .25acp Saturday night specials from the 50s-70s and a few high points. Sometimes you'll see a stolen police issue glock. Criminals don't buy brand new guns because they're expensive and you have to go through a background check. Despite the fact that lawful guns are easily accessible to non-criminals crime overall has decreased since 1990.
You keep dancing around the point because you appear to not understand the point. Violent crime doesn't drop because it's harder to legally purchase a gun or even a knife. Violent crime drops with stop and frisk, which is catching people after they have illegally purchased a weapon.
After Australia banned guns their knife crime rose to the same level their gun crime had been before the ban.
You're not "playing devils advocate" you're back pedaling because your BS got called out.
Holy shit LMAO
I didn't even think of that.
This guy is clueless.
*More blacks running the courts
Gun laws are not effective at reducing gun crime.
Having a society that is content with not having any guns is effective. Having strict border security that can be used to enforce these guns laws is effective.
If gun laws were effective, Illinois and New York would not be flooded with gun crime. However, since they don't have the latter (allowing guns to come in from other states) and don't have the former, or at least are surrounded by states that really don't have the former, gun crime runs rampant.
The laws themselves are only one piece of the puzzle. Individual states and cities having strict gun laws is the stupidest thing. They're not "setting an example" for others, especially when the numbers just show that they do not work and sets an example of what not to do. We know plain as day that gun laws by individual states and cities do not work, and the leftists will be the quickest to explain exactly why they don't work. So why would they support them? Why would they support taking away freedom from residents of a certain state or city when they know that that particular action applied that particular way will be ineffective? It is bizarre.
This puts aside all the other obvious issues: reducing gun crime really just changes how crime occurs. Would you rather be shot or stabbed? It's a whole lot of effort and reduces freedom, meaning imprisoning otherwise innocent people, for a society that gets splashed with acid instead of shot with lead. Woohoo. Additionally, the whole government takeover thing when the citizens are disarmed.
Not in the US they're not, no. They can't be, because there are simply too many guns already in circulation. It would take over a decade, if not multiple decades, to change that fact.
There is some truth in this - if you really want to kill someone, you'll find a way no matter what. But anything that makes it even a little bit more difficult reduces the likelihood that you'll take that option. It also reduces the chance of altercations that would normally be a brief fist fight that both parties walk away from, from turning into someone (or both of them) getting shot.
I don't expect non-leftist Americans to react well to being told this for the simple reason that it's ammo for the left.
Having control of your guns completely eliminates future crimes committed by the target of your gun.
Yeah relative safety at the mercy of the government is totally worth giving up your individual sovereignty.
Hey, I never made any comment on whether I thought it was worth it or not.