Do Less Guns Really Mean Less Crime?

I think the thread is sliding off topic slighty , the topic is "Do Less Guns Really Mean Less Crime?"

It does seems to me that the country has given up on getting to the root cause of crime which is poverty and the ever widening gap between rich and poor we are left dealing with the worst symptoms of this problem.

Is arming the people so they just shoot it out the answer to the problem or is it just a violent band aid? Its the government that is neglecting the people and its the people suffering because of it.

I would say yes. I live in the US, have never owned a gun, never plan to own one and have no problem with the guns that saturate this country. It's been said before but I think it warrants a repeat, even the chance that the target of a violent crime is carrying a gun deters the crime from occurring somewhat. I can walk down streets in some of the most delinquent cities in my state and never once have I felt in danger because of this. Hell the home I live in we never lock our doors and don't have a single gun in the house. Just an aging dalmatian and some kitchen knives and I sleep soundly every night so there goes the misconception that us muricans are just paranoid psychos.

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Daedalus

 

I dont necessarily disagree with you. In many ways what you say makes sense. I was thinking of consolidating police(like business does all the time) to save on costs, but on the otherhand it can lead to tyranny sometimes.

not to mention you're still gonna have the same number, if not more, officers, and then you have facilities, and cars, trucks, helicopters, weapons, equipment, stationary, etc....

the only thin that would change is instead of having several layers of local and state law enforcement, now they all wear the same uniform, and fly the same banner..it doesn't reduce costs at all, and only serves to consolidate power, and remove options..

ANY time you centralize power, you end up with problems..i mean, it sounds like a great idea on paper, and it could work, if only we could find a way to do away with corruption, and abuse of power....

but yes, this topic is not the topic of the thread...if you'd like to start a thread about this subject, i'd gladly participate

in

reply to post by PhoenixOD


What I was trying to point out in my original post was perhaps a little lost.

The thread is about whether guns reduce crime. I was trying to take it up to a level by pointing out that owning nuclear weapons has prevented destruction of the planet but it has hardly prevented wars, violence and terrorism on a conventional level. In fact the guys who own the nuclear weapons have often been the most eager to involve themselves in war. Quoting statistics about gun ownership and a link to crime figures is missing many other factors.

The problem is the underlying cause of the "crimes" themselves.There will always be a criminal element in any society but in general when people are able to feed their family, pay their bills and enjoy a bit of free time they are less likely to commit crimes. High levels of unemployment, low pay, drug abuse, poverty, urban decay, poor education,debt, inequality and the effectiveness of law enforcement can all have their impact on crime rates. Gun ownership is not the only contributing factor.

So in answer to the question "Do Less Guns Really Mean Less Crime?", the answer is that it depends on many other social and economic conditions as well. And that is why debates of this nature will go round and round in circles.

reply to post by Beavers


It is funny you should point at D.C. and other major cities. Those places have the strictest gun control laws yet they have the highest gun related (and ILLEGAL guns at that) crimes in the country. That statistic alone proves less guns DO NOT equal less gun crimes. You defeated yourself, and proved your entire argument invalid with that one statistic alone.

Grim

reply to post by Grimmley


does it seem to work in the USA? not always...does it work elsewhere yes sometimes so really all we have ended up with is that it may work depending on the location and local laws/customs which means its like comparing field goals in NFL with goals in the UK premier league football league as both passed the line and were within certain boundaries but the rest of the rules are totally different