Gun crime
 

Inspired by a point in another thread where it was mentioned that Canada has stricter gun control as evidenced by their lower crime rate. However, in America it is statistically true that more gun related violence takes place in "gun free zones" than any other place with exceptions maybe to the streets. How then is it evident that stricter gun laws make for less gun related violence? It seems to me that telling people they're not allowed to have a gun in a certain area makes it more likely that when someone does have a gun there that it'll actually make the situation worse. Shouldn't the solution be to allow people to have their self protection?

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too, or something. The backlash of the right to bear arms is that the arms inevitably find their way into the hands of the wrong people. Personally, I used to believe in the 2nd amendment. To be perfectly honest, I just don't understand the mentality that goes along with wanting to own a gun, so I'll try to leave personal preferences out of this argument.
There have been studies that showed when stricter gun control laws were enforced that gun crime in that area went down, but other petty crime went up(break-ins, robberies, etc.) It makes sense.
But, MO is that if we made guns illegal(hypothetical here) that there may initiially be an upswing in violent crime, and a huge political uproar. But, I think that once that subsides you would begin to see less and less gun crime, and all the while, authorities would be getting them out of the hands of criminals (gunowners, hypothetically). I believe most of the weapons in this country are made overseas. Well, there would have to be a way to restrict citizens from getting these, and keep them in the control of law enforcement and the military(where they would still be legal). Similarly, it would also be easy to do that for the weapons that were made here. What do you think about this idea, Unfan.? I'm curious to know, because I've never really expounded on it before until now.

The purpose of the second ammendment is to protect its people from the government and each other to a different extent. To not believe we should have such basic freedoms as the ability to fend for ourselves if the time of need arises seems a bit absurd.

Plausible.

The problem is that the people who want to do harmful things with guns are the kind of people who have no moral qualms from taking illegal action to do so. By disarming those with good intentions those with bad intentions who don't mine using illegal means to get what they want end up with easier prey.

Also, as mentioned above, they also serve a purpose. If the government were to be overthrown by some terrible world force than our right to bear arms should hypothetically protect us from them. Though in modern times that would seem highly unlikely.

How could this be any clearer?
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote...r/Beararms.jpg

i commented in the other thread before seeing this one so i'll reiterate.

this is false. a simple google search will prove otherwise. citing the juristat (a canadian provider of justice related statistics) and FBI as of 2002 there were 1000 incidents of violent crime in canada per 100 000 citizens as compared to roughly 500 in the US.

stricter gun laws but double the violent crime rate.... hmmm.... yesterday i read about stabbings outside a mall in ontario middle of the afternoon 2 people dead 1 in hospital. 2 weeks ago a senior got stabbed to death in the parking lot after having lunch with his wife. people don't need guns to be violent.

unfortunately for the bulk of the population living outside of urban areas who would use guns for hunting or protecting their crops / livestock from natural predators (coyotes / wolves / bears); they're the ones getting shafted with excessive registration fees for the valid and legitimate use of firearms. all so a bunch of bleeding hearts in the big cities can think they've taken a bite out of gun crime.... handguns (for strictly personal use) have NEVER been legal in canada, but i can only recall one incident in the last few years where a rifle was used over a pistol in a gun crime. it's not to say individual's can't have pistols but they need 2 licenses and need to be registered with an approved government organization or gun club.

absolutely 100% agree.

Keep in mind "violent crime" is far broader a category than gun crime. I still can't link anything but when statistics are compared using homicides committed where guns were used it is not even close. Canada about 32% of homicides involved guns, U.S. 65%. Overall homicide rate in U.S. around 6 per 100,000 vs. around 1 per 100,000 in Canada. Just because Canada's statistics on violent crime are better does not necessarily tell us that it is because of their gun laws. Establishing causality is extremely difficult.

as it is with any statistic. but the claim was that canada had a lower crime rate, just because we use chainsaws and knives to kill each other instead of pistols doesn't mean it's not violent death. it's a lot easier to sneak up on someone with an axe or a hammer than a hunting rifle.

there's no such thing as a pawn shop with a counter full of pistols in canada.

True, chainsaws and knives would most certainly qualify as a violent death. I guess it doesn't do a lot of good to compare gun laws and violent crime rates in one country to the same in another when violent crime, as you note, can be committed in a variety of ways. If you compare gun laws you should compare gun crimes is all I am saying. (and I realize you did not create the thread with that comparison)

The statistics say this:

1. Canada has proportionately less of its violent crime committed by guns than the U.S..
2. The homicide rate in the U.S. is several times higher than Canada's.

There are certainly loads of statistics where it is a pretty straightforward process to determine a cause. Stats that deal with complex societal issues like this though are not among them. The very definition of a violent crime might even differ between the two countries. Or it could vary by jurisdiction even within each country. If that is the case coming it is going to be even more difficult.

I don't disagree with that in the least.

it's all good. i figure where the results i found cited both canadian and american sources that they used similar definitions of violent crime.

Also, as seen by prohibition and even the more modern war on drugs, if something is introduced into society and people really want it outlawing won't prevent a black market from existing. To remove guns from society would probably only result in a black market and possibly a violent culture such as that which we see with drug pedlars. I'm not 100% sure that would be the result, but it does seem to be the likely outcome.