jestingrabbit wrote:cphite wrote:jestingrabbit wrote:leady wrote:I think the point is that if guns are a strong factor in the overall causes of social issues, then to a greater extent all the registration, training etc in the world should have a minimal impact on the differences between societies.
Or maybe unregulated guns and ammunition have a strong effect on murder rates, but well regulated guns don't.
This isn't reflected in the real world. Some of the most tightly regulated areas in the US also have the highest rates of murder and gun violence. Tighter regulations in the UK and Australia have lessened the number of murders actually involving a gun - but the overall murder rates were not lessened.
What are you smoking. Look at the first diagram here
and the headline here
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... arch-shows
The murder rate initially held up after the big change in 1996, but steadily decreased, and then fell faster and faster. Compared to 20 years ago, and the twenty years before that, under lax gun laws, we had a murder rate of a little under 2 per 100,000 and now we have about 1.2 per 100,000 after a decade of steady decrease. That's huge.
Now, I'm not as familiar with the UK experience, but 1997 was the dunblane massacre, it introduced more restrictive laws. Murder rate then? 1.2. It kept going up, but then, I believe, the laws started to bite, and its now 1 per hundred thousand in the most recent figures. Another reduction. Now sure, they don't work immeadiately, it takes time for them to take effect, for the cops and legal system to adapt to them and properly enforce them, but to say that there's no reduction is bullshit.
As for the US: all that demonstrates is that if you have regulations in place in a tiny location, like a city or a small state, and lax regulations 100km away, you haven't really changed the situation.
Over the same time period, the US didn't do that, and experienced similar drops in homicide, etc.
Steeper, actually. US had an average homicide rate of 9.4 in 1990, and by 2006, it was at 6.1(Source: FBI).
The UK has a different pattern. They have a really big spike after the handgun ban, but then it settled back down to it's prior rates.
This is...not painting a very convincing picture when you actually look at the data. None of it maps to the rest of it. And neither case really provides support for gun control helping. The US actually looks like it's results outperform both countries you're comparing against. Granted, we had a higher base homicide rate both before and afterward, but if you're looking for actual trends, your examples are actually subverting your case.
UK metrics spoilered for size:
Tyndmyr wrote:I agree. Sound surpressors SHOULD be deregulated and purchaseable by anyone.
The absence of a regulation is not a regulation. How about licensing ownership, enforcing gun safe laws and calibre restrictions on handguns?
Do you have any evidence that any of those are important? A significant, solid real world effect?
The fact that you're ONLY looking at instances where they are more restrictive, and not instances where they are less is a wee bit biased, don't you think?