simple answers from simple minds.

Not bad research Footman. I'll register my bias against the weekly standard right up front. I have a hard time with their journalistic ethics. But that aside, this article makes no mention of many of the complex social changes that Europe has gone through during the time periods cited as the highest rise in violent crime.

For example the removal of secure borders among the original 12 EU countries (now 25, is it?) Allowing greater ease of travel and mixing of different previously segmented cultures. Might it be possible that the great influx of eastern europeans, turks and the fall of the berlin wall had more than a little to do with this, rather than an absence of guns?

You would have a better perspective on this than most so I ask you to be measured and honest in your reply.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

I am posing this as a serious question:

If we were to ban hand guns, would they actually disappear off of the streets? Violent criminals by nature have no respect for the law or other people, and most crimes that are commited with a weapon are done so with a weapon that was aquired off the street or in the "grey market."

Gun related crime is actually going down in the U.S. overall, and are gun control laws have arguably been less restrictive in recent years.







Now, I'm not one to be blind to the other side of the statistical story, and I realize that more homocides are commited using a handgun



if you look at the early nineties, that is the time when most crime peaked. Crime has been plummeting in recent years, and this is probably attributable to better law enforcement technology and the fact that more crimes are now reported much more quickly (at least, that is my conclusion).

We could ban handguns, but criminals will still use any weapon of oppourtunity in a heated moment and will still be able to premeditate crimes using other weapons.

BTW, those graphs all came from the Berau of Justice Statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

__________________
“In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants.”
-Lewis Black

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "
-Thomas Jefferson

A great point. My sources did not isolate crime to guns, in turn I too stressed the presence of variables. I strongly believe that America's foundation is rooted in violence, guns or no. It's our mindset and culture that needs changed, not laws. With that said, might it also be true that our societal tendencies have more than a little to do with crime, rather than a presence of guns.

Curious as to where or how you arrived at this "fact".

Well seriously , it has been tried and the democrats lost their asses in 94 . Do you want your reps to introduce legislation ? By all means GO for it !

__________________
"If that's what it takes to keep the peace , then thank God for the bomb" Ozzy Osbourne Sat Cong !

Sorry James, I'm gonna jump in on this one... cause I'm bored.

His assertion is backed up by recent figures released indicating that a large share of gun crime is committed using hand guns. That's the saving lives part.

The argument against this view seems to be that the crime would be committed regardless of the gun, they perp would simply choose a different type of weapon.

However, I don't imagine too many of the criminals rush home to survey their weapons cache in order to select the right instrument for the job. Many gun crimes are committed due to the facilitation of convenience that a handgun provides. Easily concealed, attack at a distance, attack elements of surprise and/or stealth and in these scenarios, are committed in the heat of the moment.

This doesn't fit all scenarios, but far too many to be discounted. If this tool of impetus were removed (effectively and without infringing on the 2nd amendment, which does not specify what type of guns are allowed) and criminals were forced to use blades and the like, a reasonable number victims would be getting treated and live than having their lid sewn back on from a head shot for the funeral. It would also give the would be assailant pause to consider his chances of effecting his intended consequences and fleeing before anyone knew what happened.

The argument against this is that perps are less likely to attack you if they think you're as well armed as they are.

Been to Compton or South Central lately? If the only weapons gangs and thugs could obtain were guns that were much more difficult to effectively conceal, easy to whip out and use, and easy to ditch after, there just might be a rise in treatable stabbings and a decline of dead by gunshot cases. Ever try to wield a rifle or shotgun in a rice burner or even a sedan? Maybe an SUV.

As for the gun manufacturers, we can only assume by the amount of money they spend lobbying (millions) against gun laws is far cheaper than what they would loose in sales. Why else would they bother? Are we to think that they are so concerned with constitutional rights? Or profit?

The fact is that the trade in cheap unlicensed hand guns is increasing, especially along the eastern seaboard from Florida to NY. Someone has to make them, right? And someone has to deal them, right?

Okay all you 2nd amendment absolutists, let me have it with both barrels... lol. This is a deep and complex issue and there are many more arguments on both sides, I was just trying to touch on a few and give an extremely long winded answer to your question..

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

As you and he said, this is is speculation...theory. Not enought to change laws that will disenfranchise a great many people. Not without intensive study. I don't believe we have pursued this field to its entirety.

Unrealistic

All of these are possible with other forms of firearm(folding stocks, sawed-offs, etc.).

You are arguing this will change the mode/tactic rather than the reducing fatalities. Eliminating handguns may reduce close range attack, but will that increase drive-by shootings(far more hazardous to innocents)? Also, I was unaware that a majority of career criminals in Compton and South Central "ditch" their weapons after a crime.


The fact is that even licenced manufacturers will find ways around these proposed laws. Take a look at what they did concerning the MACK 10.

I dunno, personally, I support gun ownership, I was just playing devils advocate. Have you looked at the "Gun Control, Truth instead of... thread? there was a serious effort to try to hash out the causes of gun crime, the meaning of the 2nd, and find a solution acceptable to everyone.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

I'll take a look at the Gun Control thread. Our founding fathers, I'm afraid, have made it very difficult for us. I think many people are torn between gun control and gun ownership issues such as this.

Welcome aboard James Foristal. And yes, you need to get ready, as there will be opposing views. I won't be resorting to name calling, just stating an opposing view....

First off, I am a black american, and far from a redneck. I believe in responsible gun laws, not overbearing, government intrusive gun laws.

We have many areas of this nation that have some pretty overbearing, over the top laws in the books already, yet they remain crime havens (our nations capital, for one). Why is that?? It definately ISN'T because of a handgun; it is that persons mindset. Poverty, drugs, loss of the family (with a responsible, loving, and disciplinary-minded mother AND father) as an institution, and hopelessness amongst many are the real issues, not the handgun.

I can take a handgun, put it in the middle of a table right now with the ammunition laying right next to it, and it will not kill anyone.
Yet, placed in the hand of a criminal, who proceeds to "lock and load", and then decides to take out a few humans, is it the handgun, or the criminal's fault?
Most people will, in today's society, of course blame the gun and the manufacturer, while looking at the criminal as if they have some sort of mind debilitating disease, and in some sense, have sympathy for him or her. And we as a society have now taken it upon ourselves to "cure" these people.

The gun is a tool, much like an automobile, your average steak knife, a pair of school-type scissors (of which I was almost a victim of in grade school). A classmate thought it would be pretty fun to try and poke one of my eyes out with the very same blunt scissors that you can buy in any home/office section in any store. Thankfully I was able to hold him off until the teacher arrived. And these instruments are in the hands of millions upon millions of school age children!

A handgun, if used properly, is no more dangerous than a automobile, Yet, just as with an automobile, if placed in the wrong hands, it becomes more than it was intended to be used for. Yet there are no calls to ban automobiles, steak knives, scissors, sewing needles, fire place pokers, etc (or maybe they are all next??)

Bottom line? In my opinion, the handgun is a pariah, being used to excuse overtly bad behavior amongst criminals.

__________________
"A committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done."
Fred Allen

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
George Bernard Shaw

"Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
John Galbraith