Gun Violence Poll

Question:

If guns were made illegal in the US (note: this doesn't mean that there are no guns, just that they are illegal, except for police and military), do you believe that the number of deaths due to assault (that is, not due to suicide or accidents) will increase, decrease, or stay roughly the same?

Please write "Increase", "Decrease", or "Same" in the subject line of your reply, and feel free to elaborate in the body of the reply.

Bonus question:

What about injuries (cuts, broken bones, etc.)?

Might increase initially. Criminals will be emboldened and act with impunity. Robbery, theft and assault will increase in the nicer communities with law abiding citizens. Homicide is not the only crime that degrades a society.

I think you're just looking at it from a body count standpoint. I bet most homicides are criminals killing other criminals, and that's a lot harder to give asht about.

The USA is populated with people that are much the same as those in comparable countries.  In those countries, less guns available leads to less murders.

Also decreased.

The amount of violence in a society is not determined by a single-factor, however the thinking that gun violence is a viable 'last resort' will push some people to be more aggressive given this level of 'protection'.  You may be less inclined to go too far in an altercation with a person that clearly outmatched you physically, but a gun 'levels the playing field'.

This also means that even those people relatively immune from unarmed or lesser-armed violence directed at them -- due to individual physical capacity or being in a larger group -- are still at risk from guns; hence they require a gun also for 'protection'.

The argument that more firearms leads to more personal safety is like arguing that if everyone walked around carrying a sword we'd all feel more secure from being attacked and potentially killed -- e.g. by swords.

Is there any reason to believe that the US population isn't more violent than in "comparable" countries?

On the other hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][19]

Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[20] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.[21] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],[22][23] even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[24]

The city's website[25] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

Because those who want to do violence with a gun will get a gun, no matter what the law says.

Same as it is today!

What would be the causes for being more violent?

There is some interesting research (dating back to the 1990s) that has linked atmospheric lead to the rise, then fall, in violence.  So far there have been no studies with contradictory data.  For example, the rate of violence was much higher in cities than in small towns as the lead levels were higher (impairing the development of the brain), whereas it is now level again.

Lead linked to violent crime

So, there can be causes.  But, what specific 'American' cause exists that does not affect e.g. Canada?  Do Maple trees confer immunity?  Is Ice Hockey so violent that Canadians get their 'fix' vicariously?

That is entirely plausible.  If you are wanting to do some burglaries then why not go elsewhere?

But, if all of the households are equally armed then you're back to choosing a least-worst option -- in which case taking your own gun with you for protection makes more sense.

Similar to how any deterrence works: alarm your car and the car thief will pick a car with no alarm.  All cars are alarmed?  Car thief picks the easiest / best benefit-to-risk target.  What the car thief does not do is give up stealing cars.

What if they want to do 'violence', but no gun is readily available?

Could the result be less lethal violence, as for other comparable countries with less availability of firearms?

I know GB this is a trick Question?

Gessssssss,---- five got shot at a gun show the other day, and by the grace of someones god there still alive but they could just as easily be another gun statistic. I all so heard that 900 people had been shot since the school shooting.

Andy

--
This is not a religious comment, merely a historical fact.

Very simply, the less tools for assault deaths = less assault deaths.

Then they would find another alternative, like hand grenades or 2-litre Coke bottle bombs!

Imagine what they would do in a movie theater or a school cafeteria.

You can speculate anything, but the ready and convenient availability of guns makes assault death more common. Worldwide statistics bear that out.

I would think cultural.  Americans are fatter than people from other countries, on average, so why might they not be more violent?

I would expect that may be a correlation between atmospheric lead and violence, but not causation.  For example, let's say that poorer areas have higher atmospheric lead contamination, and it is the poverty causing the greater violence, not the lead content of the air.

On the other hand, the poor usually rob their own, rather than go to a better neighborhood.

Guns level the playing field against different levels of physical fitness and conflicts that are not one-on-one.  For example, a woman might seem a much more enticing target if you knew she were not armed.

It's an interesting analogy.  If all cars had a Lo-Jack system installed, would car thefts go down?  I would expect so, since the number of thieves intelligent enough to steal the car would be significantly less.

Like you just said...you can speculate anything.

Which makes the rest of your statement null and void!

A hypothetical LOADED question with no answer.  Actually a TROLL post as the question is moot considering the Second Ammendment to the Constitution GUARANTEES the right to bear arms by private citizens ......So, TROLL, go get another lost cause to bait the forum with.

--
' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.

The largest segment of crime in the USA is B;ack on Black crime and that included murders with ILLEGAL guns, most all are illegal.

This is as ridiculous as asking "If you removed all the LEGAL guns from the L.A. gangs, do you think they would stop murdering?"  DUH!

--
' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.

...who could give the most worthless response, but I appreciate the effort. 

...some will find a way.  Indeed, was it not just over ten years ago that four planes were hijacked and three slammed into heavily populated buildings?  So I guess boxcutters and airplanes are rather more dangerous than guns.

However, for the boyfriend that finds out his girlfriend has been cheating, the driver who was cutoff and more angry about it than most, the employee who was fired for reasons he thought unjust, etc., might not these murders be significantly reduced?

Precisely why Kev has been banned from these places due to his flatulence. 

I see you're still posting in the thread.  Welcome!

In any case, the words were "Increase", "Decrease", or "Same" -- I don't recall "Stop" as being an option.

No trick.  Not looking for any "truth" here, just curious how many think making guns illegal will decrease, increase, or do nothing to the murder rate.



What's your point? 

...I would agree.  The firepower in even a 9mm pistol will allow someone to cause significantly more carnage than someone with a knife (except for Steven Seagal, of course!).  However, if you just want one person dead, a gun isn't even really that much more convenient, unless you're sniping from a distance, which, methinks, is rather unusual.