Quote:
|
However, the argument on the ground in 1997 was that gun control would reduce crime in the UK. In that, they were wrong.
|
Nope.
The gun ban in the UK was as a result of the Dunblane mass shooting. It was a move to reduce firearms deaths, not crime as a whole.
In that respect it appears to have worked... The only other mass shooting since, over a decade later was in Cumbria, 2010.
To say that crime has risen, because of gun control, one would have to ignore a whole range of other contributing factors. Pointless.
Yet, here we are going over the same old ground....
If anti-gun lobbyists do, as alleged, cite the UK as a working model for wanting gun control in the US, then I find it absurd for pro-gunners to jump on the same band-wagon but trying to show that it
doesn't work...
Focus on US problems, not UK.
Rather than taking the bait and trying to show them that the situation in the UK is different to what they have claimed, try instead to show them that comparing to the UK is in fact baseless.
Work to remove it from the equation... show them that the UK is the UK and the US is the US and they are different...
Surely there is enough variation across the States, with some being gun friendly and some not to illustrate, on home ground, whether or not there is a correlation... Why cross the Atlantic for less nationally relevant data?
Either way I feel that a guns=less crime analysis will yield little fruit.
As I've mooted in other threads: the presence of firearms will probably not affect the incidence of crime, but may affect the outcome, if the crime is committed... If that were the case the US, with all its privately owned guns, should have the crime rates of Leichenstein...
Want an alternative theory on violence in society? US studies seem to have uncovered a strong correlation between air pollution and criminal behaviour rates... And I don't mean lead pollution in the firearms sense...