I'm saying that there appears to be a correlation between the level and form of gun control in differing nations and the number of gun related crimes, specifically gun related homicides.
I was correcting your straw man argument that you seemed to think others were claiming there was a reduction in total crime related to access in guns and pointing out their arguments were in relation to specific forms of crime.
Please stop trying to steam roller my arguments in the direction of what you wish I said. And feel free, at any point, to follow your own advice and support your claim of net increase in violent crime in the UK.
You do realise, for example, that the most significant change since the fire arms restriction in response to Dunblain, has been a change in the way crime statistics have been collected and coalated in the UK?
If you insist on responding to my posts with an argument against something I have not suggested or stated, then please at least make it a good argument.
If on the other hand you want to respond to my point, it was that your discussion of the over all crime rate is a straw man representation, as it is not the point initially made. That has not changed.
First of all, if the tighter control of firearms is not responsible for the significantly lower number of firearms related homicides in the UK, what do you think is the causal factor?
Assuming that will continue to be ignored:
Let's assume that you have a nation where a commodity is legal at one stage, but made illegal or otherwise controlled by a change of law. Lets call them gnomes.
The majority of gnomes owned or exchanged illegally started out by being owned legally, by a store, individual, or even federal or military agency. These are then stolen, sold on, or otherwise passed into illegal hands, with others imported illegally. If the number of gnomes is reduced in the legal sector is reduced it stands to reason that the avenues for passing gnomes into illegal hands are significantly reduced. No system is perfect, there will no doubt be gnomes that were included in the armistice, or disarmed. There will be Gnomes that are horded, or otherwise remain underground. But the oppertunities for further gnomes to enter into the hands of criminals dwindle.
Further, tighter controls on Gnomes and Gnome consumables means that the essential ammunition for gnomes, such as beards or fishing rods, is also reduced. Again, there will remain limited numbers of fishing rods in criminal hands, which is why nobody has suggested that the Police or other services lose their capability of carrying gnomes. If gnome ammunition, the tools and components for producing gnome ammunition are placed under tighter control there is simply a far smaller oppertunity or ability for the ammunition to passed onto criminals.
Allow me to ask a question. Assuming tighter gun control was implimented, and the purchase of ammunition was placed under tighter regulation that significantly reduced the number of outlets that sold it, do you think that would have any baring on a criminals access to ammunition? If not, where will they continue to obtain their ammunition from?
Assuming that you are referring to GB, you might have a point.
OTOH, if you are referring to the US, it wouldn't make more than the tiniest difference for years.
The US has enough firearms already in circulation to arm every man, woman and child in the country twice, and that doesn't count legal but unregistered firearms or illegal guns. We also have a border that is both huge and porous.
To the South of us , we have Mexico, where they have extremely strict gun laws (and yet they have a higher murder rate than we do) , but apparently no qualms about purchasing large quantities of military grade firearms from international arms dealers and corrupt military officers in countries South of
them.
A ban would immediately take away the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves, but wouldn't even put a
dent in the criminals abilities to possess and use them.
Ammo is even worse. If every legal bullet in the US disappeared tomorrow, the criminal element would still have more than the entire arsenal of some mid sized countries, and that doesn't count the ability to reload previously fired ammo, which is a big deal here in the US.
So to answer your question (as it relates to the US) the answer is not just a firm "no", it is "what planet have you been living on for the last 80 years?".
I'm well aware that there have been changes in the way crime is reported in GB, I posted a link to an article on one of these threads. It seems that the authorities had a habit of under reporting crime before the change, which doesn't really help your case much.
as to if the tighter control of firearms isn't responsible for the significantly lower number of firearms related homicides in the UK,just how bad was the problem before the ban, and what do you mean by significantly lower?
I've asked you to provide data for a reasonable period before and after, but I haven't seen it yet.
As to whether or not ownership provides a deterrent effect on crime, I can't say for GB, or even the US in general, but I know it works here in North Georgia.
I live in Marietta, part of the metro-Atlanta area. Right next to us is Kennesaw. There are places where you can walk from one town to the other by crossing the street. For years I wrote bail bonds in both cities (and others in the area).
Marietta has a population of about 55,000, Kennesaw about 30,000. Demographically they are virtually identical.
Before Kennesaw passed its famous (or infamous) law requiring home owners to possess a firearm, the crime rates for both towns was , to all intents and purposes, identical on a per capita basis.
After the passage, while the crime rates for Marietta, and Smyrna, another town about the same size in the immediate area, went up slightly ( not much as I recall), it simply ceased to be a major factor in Kennesaw. Violent crime practically disappeared overnight. Murders (which had never been a major problem in Kennesaw anyway) dropped to zero (I think they've had one murder in the last ten years, and that was at a truck rental store where the owners prohibited firearms, which the City of Kennesaw will allow as long as it's posted for the customers).Murders in Marietta and Smyrna stayed about the same as they have for quite some time.
Crimes such as burglary, car theft, and car jacking went up in Marietta and Smyrna. The same crimes dropped markedly in Kennesaw.
I have spoken to more criminals than I can count in this area, and they all agree on one thing: stay out of Kennesaw, you can get shot there. They've told me on many occasions that they don't worry about getting arrested. The police aren't likely to harm them as long as they don't put up too much of a fight, and even if they're convicted, they know they'll get 2 for 1 on county time before conviction, and probably get their sentence cut in half (or more) even if they get the book thrown at them. On most crimes, even violent ones, they have to have three strikes before they are assured of drawing a long sentence, and they can often plea down to what is little more than a slap on the wrist. As example, I arrested a bail jumper in 2005 for aggravated battery, who already had one prior for robbery and several misdemeanors for fighting, simple assault, etc. He was a hard case that I tracked to Alabama, and I petitioned the courts to have him declared a fugitive. The courts denied the plea, and when he plead out (to simple battery) he got 12 months county time. I know because I was in the courtroom. He actually ended up doing six months.
But there isn't any time off for getting dead, and they know
that quite well.
Maybe Kennesaw is just some weird anomaly, but it's been a pretty consistent anomaly for many years now.
Go figure.
