Why do people think gun control laws actually prevent violent crimes when statistically violent crimes rise when strict laws are implimented?

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.
sorry i love putting quotes on here...

Discuss:

guns dont kill people....people with guns kill people

agreed, and people with any other tool that could be used to do violence (which is almost anything) and yes....guns do make it easier...

Gun control laws only keep the honest person honest because if an outlaw wants a gun he's gonna get it regardless of the situation...I feel that the right to carry is great and everyone should have it.......I DO!!! Another point is your drug heads if they want it they are gonna get it.....always have always will...

That is a very good point...if laws actually worked at controlling the populace than there would be no illegal drugs on the streets. Look how easy it is to get your hands on the stuff. That just supports Thomas Jefferson's quote.

Just wondering where you got your stats on this .. the United States has a much higher murder rate then most "civilized countries .. could you let me read your stats?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

http://www.wfsa.net/adobe_documents/Csaszar.pdf

well...i know these are random, i actually did a report on this a while back im gonna try to find it. It's hard to find actual good reliable information on the web about this stuff. Most of this statistical info can be easily manipulated to fit either view. Oh, just so you guys know, when i wrote that report i was actually taking the view of pro gun control until i started researching. Anyhow, im sure i'll find that report. I'll post back on this later.

and, in all fairness... there is more information that supports that gun control laws have little to no impact on crime rates..

Personally ,I believe that the Zionist ONE WORLD ORDER BUNCH are the ones behind all these gun control laws(don't really exist)( constitutional violations)(non laws)(Marbury vs. Madison) The Zionist One World Order Bunch is the BUNCH that set up the UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION to start with. The Zionists could take you over easier if you would ONLY hand your guns over first. America seems to be the only place left that is hindering these Zionists(favor Israel above the US) from realizing their dreams, of removing all the guns from all the people. These Zionists have got themselves a serious problem here in AMERICA( Land of HEAVEN) They want to keep chiseling all your rights away, even your right to protect yourself.(2 nd Amendment) They are totally against our Constitution and intend to ruin it(TREASONISTS) When they come to get your guns,BE SURE TO GIVE THEM THE BULLETS FIRST!!!

What's worse is:
Legal gun ownership has little to no impact on crime rates either.

if gun ownership has no impact then it has no impact. if this were the case, in my opinion, there is no reason, NONE what-so-ever to touch the 2nd amendment (it should not be touched anyway)

furthermore; looking at Australia's crime rates, they implimented some new gun ownership laws that are pretty strict and they had a huge buy-back program to compensate people back in 1996. Some people say crime rate went up, some say it went down. Here's a website concerning crime rates: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/tab01a.html

In an attempt to be unbiased and looking at it from a neutral perspective we could relate the increase in crime to an increase in population or 85089347589347 other factors. anyway, take a look.

if you guys can find other stuff supporting either view on the web post it here. Im interested as so much of this information is controversial.

South Dakota has approximately the same populatiion as Washington D.C. In Washington D.C. you can't own a hand gun. In South Dakota you can get a concealed carry permit for $10 with a background check through the Sheriff Dept. Look at the murder rate for both places then do the math and tell me gun control reduces crime. Is there a noticable absence of guns in Washington D.C.? Retorical question, answer only in the hands of law abiding citizens. The crooks have plenty of firepower. Prohibition does not work, it did now work with booze, it isn't working with drugs and it won't work with guns.

Mr Gardenforge, I think you explained that perfectly with perfect reasoning, I fail to see how an honest person could see it otherwise. Unless they are just not 100% honest. It is a simple matter of the Zionists wanting to take all our protection away ,so that they can make us complete slaves. More laws --less freedom,and less laws ---more freedom Hang on to those guns , there are more of us(NON Zionist) than there are of them.(Zionists) This Zionist(favors Israel above the US) govt can be upgraded to NON ZIONIST(AMERICAN) ,and FREEDOM!!!

You want a discussion? There have been several threads on this subject, wherein I posted my thoughts. So once again here is where I stand on the issue.

Restrictive gun laws were first tried in the late 1800's, not in Europe, but in violence prone states here in America. The laws failed and violence rates continued to rise. Those laws were repealed after World War I.

Stricter gun laws I am convinced will not prevent senseless killings, or even sensible ones. All they will do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms and infringe on their Second Amendment rights. There is a myth that most murders are committed by ordinary, law-abiding citizens who kill a relative or acquaintance in a moment of anger only because a gun is available. The real truth is that the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by career criminals, people with lifelong histories of violence. Even those people who accidently kill others with guns tend to have felony records and histories of substance abuse.

Studies consistently show that on the average, gun owners are better educated and hold more prestigious jobs than non-owners. Of course, criminals are not included in the afore-mentioned statement. Early studies that labeled gun owners violence prone turned out to be based on questions that addressed only willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. In other words, good citizenship was confused with violence.

There are only about 100,000 police officers on patrol at any one given time. That is 100,000 police officers patrolling our streets to protect approximately 300 million people. Unless you get lucky when you are attacked, the chances of a police officer being near enough to you to assist are practically nil.

This is a violent country. Until something is done about the conditions that cause our country to be violent, it almost makes sense to own a gun for protection than not to. In any case, every American has the right, thanks to our Founding Fathers, to make that decision for themselves.

shoes......

I will give you an interesting fact and that is the United States has had far fewer total murders than other countries over the last 70 years. You see, the reason why USA murder rates are so high is because advocates for gun control ignore the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people. That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the United States. America is safe from government murdering its citizens because our Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms.

smo.....

I believe you are a bit confused. The fact that you would throw in Marbury vs. Madison tells me that. I used to be in the legal system and am aware of that decision, and it has nothing to do with gun control. Marbury vs. Madison had to do with the appointment of a district judge. The decision established the doctrine of judicial review.

Figures vary substantially according to source, but these ones are fairly typical.

Percent of households with a handgun:

United States 29%
Finland 7
Germany 7
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom <1

Murder rate (per 100,000 people):

United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
Germany 4.20
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Finland 0.70


Murders committed with handguns annually:

United States 8,915 (estimates for all firemans are much higher)
Switzerland 53
United Kingdom 50
Sweden 19

United States 29%
United States 8.40

--------

Canada 5
Canada 5.45

--------

Germany 7
Germany 4.20

-------

looks like some other contries with A LOT STRICTER gun control have a lot HIGHER rate of usage for murder than the united states

for the number of households that own hand guns

fix those places b4 trying to take my legal handgun

-------

shall not be infringed

means you will not limit my ability to own

no limit on number

no limit on kind

if you are of sound mind and can afford it you should be able to own a tank

per the constitution

Murders committed with handguns annually:

United States 8,915 (estimates for all firemans are much higher)
Switzerland 53
United Kingdom 50
Sweden 19


This part of the quote can be chalked quite a bit up to population.

OBTW Do you think that other laws and policies may have a greater impact on murder rates than just making guns illegal?

A handgun saved my son's life. He has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Incidentally, he knows how to use firearms. My dead husband, who was a hunter, introduced my older son to guns when he was a young teenager. My son also attended I don't know how many hours on a seminar as to proper useage of guns and safety rules. Additionally, when I would take him to the Gun Club to shoot trap and skeet, I always paid extra money for him to have supervision so he could learn even more about using guns in a safe manner.

At any event, one late night about a year ago, my son had just left his girlfriend's house. As he was about to get into his vehicle, a hoodlum came out of nowhere and grabbed my son. My son shook the guy off and attempted to get into his truck. As my son entered his vehicle, the thug jumped in with him and got a strangle hold on my son's neck. My son tried to get free for what seemed to him like an eternity. Then my son started to black out since the guy's hold on my son's neck kept getting more and more aggressive. My son reached over and opened the glove compartment, took out his handgun, and manuevered it so that the direction of the gun was up in the air. He fired the gun; the thug was so startled he released his strangle hold on my son. At that point, my son used his fists to knock the guy out. Someone heard the shot and called 911 and the police came.

It turned out that the guy who went after my son was a known thief and drug addict. The police believed that he went after my son because my son drives one of those huge trucks with the extended cabs that sell for $40,000 to $50,000 and my son is a well-dressed man. The police felt that the hoodlum believed my son probably had money or an expensive watch on him. At any event, my son was taken to the emergency room since his throat/neck were so mean looking. The doctor said there was evidence that my son not only would have eventually blacked out, but also could have been choked to death. Incidentally, the police unofficially congratulated my son for having the good sense not to use the gun on the would-be thief, but to shoot it up in the air where it could not harm anyone. Of course, my son walked away scott free. The hooligan went to jail for I don't know how many years. The guy was out on parole and, of course, attempted robbery and assault were violations of his parole. Also, he was on drugs when he went after my son, which was another parole violatiuon.