A gun control zealot told me, "England prohibits all private ownership of handguns, and they have very little incidence of murder."
He was behind the times. The UK banned both handguns and self defense a few years ago, and their murder rate has soared since. In 2000, there were three times as many murders in London as in NY, even though London has only just over third as many people. What's more, Britain reports only murder convictions, while the FBI reports all suspicious deaths.
The British home secretary has estimated that there are more guns in the hands of criminals now than before the ban, owing to the fact that robbery has become so lucrative. Even on an island nation, the police can't keep guns out. What can America hope to do with thousands more miles of borders and coastlines?
Another recent claim: "People are also able to walk the streets of London at any time of the day or night without fearing an armed robbery."
Seriously out of touch. Even celebrities have been victimized by armed robbery in the last couple years, meaning that nowhere is safe in London, day or night. Not only can't you walk anywhere, but the robbers are coming into homes with impunity because, gun or no gun, it's illegal to fight back. By definition, if you prevail, then you used excessive force (because you overmatched your assailant). The police can't catch many robbers, but they can always apprehend a homeowner who's an immobile target.
London's problems are so bad that it's now safer for American tourists to go to Israel and face the Palestinians.
...and return to the noble days of swords and clubs. That's a romantic thought experiment, but even this is undesirable because it's impractical (and a rosy distortion of some very bloody history):
Guns, terrible as they are, are a great egalitarian force because physically unequal people can carry equally lethal weaponry. Women, paraplegics, and the elderly become nearly as potent as big young men, and at a range at which big strong men can't exert their size and strength. Hence the bumper sticker:
Granted... However, it is the criminals who create that environment, so it is the criminals that are stupid (what a surprise). We lawful citizens can either bury our heads in the sand and allow ourselves to become victims, or we can defend ourselves and each other. I say it is even more stupid to take guns away from potential victims when the need already exists.
A thoroughly peaceful society without need or want of weapons would be preferable to a gun toting society of amateur police, but at present it is just wishful thinking of the worst kind: the kind that gets people raped and killed. Banning guns doesn't ban crime. Laws against owning and carrying guns only directly affect people who obey laws.
Governments that ban guns are, in effect, holding down their law abiding citizens while criminals rob them. In other words, governments that ban guns (or self defense) are accomplices in each and every rape, robbery, and murder within their jurisdictions. There ought to be some wrongful death civil suits there somewhere.
When some people are feeling poor because they are surrounded by wealth that they can't get legally, they'll be tempted to take it by force or guile, even if it means breaking laws. The US has lots of wealth dispersed in lots of unfortified, unmonitored common housing, so it offers lots of enticement with little deterrence. Even though most of America's robbers are wealthy by world standards, they feel deprived and so are lured by envy into crime because they can see neighbors that are even better off than they.
Greed is the prime motivator in black markets, and black markets invariably lead to violence wherever enforcement is less than absolute. The opportunity for enormous profits tempts many people to defy the law, especially since there's no ethical inhibition in a victimless transaction. However, once outside the law, smugglers have little motivation left to not break other laws. Furthermore, they lose the protection of the law. Therefore, competition in black markets becomes dog-eat-dog violent. Black markets exist wherever governments prohibit certain goods and services but lack the power to enforce the prohibitions.
The US has loads of black markets with much attendant violence because it has stupidly enacted prohibitions in a nation whose system of government was not created for such a purpose. To cure this component of violence, either the US government must abandon its prohibitions, or the people must authorize complete enforcement.
Here in the US, there are people on either side of that choice. I just wish that those favoring the police state would move to one of the many that are already available around the world, rather than trying to overturn the freest country in the world. If civil liberties fall in the US, we libertarians will have nowhere left to live.
Civilian weaponry, surveillance, police power, and "efficient" courts deter crime. Unfortunately for that deterrence, the US is a "free" country. It doesn't put police or soldiers on every street corner 24x7. American police do not have as much authority to invade people's homes and search through people's personal items as the police in other countries. The courts can't introduce shady evidence, and a high standard of proof is required to get a conviction.
These hurdles leave citizens primarily to their own devices to deter crime. Businesses and some upper class homes install prominent (and some hidden) cameras, but such can still be foiled. Therefore, except for gun rights, freedom allows crime to pay. Limited police and courts make criminal activity less risky in the US than in other countries. We could virtually eliminate crime if we simply removed the restrictions on the police and prosecution.
However, we would no longer be free. That's one of the reasons that gun rights are needed to support other rights. Not only do we command their continued respect, but we compensate for their limitations. Individual liberty demands individual repsonsibility.
Unfortunately many US citizens seem to talk and vote as if they want safety before freedom. I keep telling them that there are plenty of other countries already out there that operate as socialist police states, so they should just move to one of them rather than transforming the last, freest country on the planet into just one more police state.
Unless we are willing to transform the US into a police state, we must allow citizens to defend their own lives and wealth. Citizens must be not just allowed to own guns that are locked away; they must be taught how and then encouraged to carry them safely and to use them to defend themselves, each other, and their property.
The government could even actively recruit the sort of people who would be trusted to police jobs if they applied. Public funds could subsidize firearms training the way many communities already subsidize automobile training. A fully enabled, mostly law abiding and responsible public would shoulder the bulk of the crime prevention load so that we would need only enough police to pursue incorrigible and crafty criminals. We could even subsidize firearms purchases.
A typical revolver costs about us$400. According to John Lott's extensive research, each gun carried concealed in American society contributes or replaces us$2500 worth of police protection per year. That means that the most cost effective crime suppression policy a government could follow (if it were wise instead of self serving) would be to buy guns for all lawful, sane, adult citizens and teach us how to use them. This would put passive law enforcement in millions of spot locations nationwide at relatively little cost. Why do so many prefer the police paradigm?
Is there something magical about a policeman's or soldier's uniform that confers nobility that ordinary citizens lack? No, the desire to uphold the law (not to mention defending one's own life and property) is imprinted on most of us from childhood. Putting guns into the hands of millions of law abiding citizens (after education and training) would create millions of armed, off duty cops. The violent criminals wouldn't stand a chance.
In the UK, the Queen could up the ante by promising to knight any commoner who come to the rescue of a stranger by shooting a robber caught in the act. A mere handful of well publicized new knighthoods would probably halt England's crime spree in its tracks.
The facts are in, and they confirm what gun "nuts" were telling me years ago when I was gun-phobic and all in favor of banning all pistols: When guns are restricted or banned, criminals become more bold because they know their victims are defenseless, and criminals will flout gun laws, even smuggling foreign guns across oceans (Britain's gun crime rate has soared since they banned guns).
However, when guns become more easily available, the numerous lawful citizens gain far more power than the outnumbered criminals who mostly had guns anyway, so criminals go elsewhere or change careers. Therefore, the winning strategy isn't to minimize the total amount power in circulation, but to maximize the power balance in favor of lawful citizens.
Footnote on statistics: Beware of comparison between the US and other countries. The US tallies all police reports, but most other countries tally only criminal convictions, as if crimes didn't even happen in cases where the perps get away or are prosecuted for one of several violations. This allows (especially European) countries to grossly under report their crime levels.
Only as a percentage of dwindling numbers of violent criminals; the raw count decreases. Many more feel the need to go into other lines of work. Some turn to non-violent crime where they won't be shot at, while some even get honest work. So few remain that crime is significantly reduced each time one is shot.
Granted. However, that's not nearly as important as "More guns in circulation means it is easier for a criminal to get himself shot." As I explained before, the balance of power shifts toward the law abiding because they gain more power than the criminals do. When guns are more difficult to obtain, criminals are more likely to go to the effort anyway (even manufacturing them sometimes).
Possibly true, but one does not always face criminals head on. If citizens defend each other, then criminals will be surrounded, outnumbered, and outgunned in most situations. Even one on one, a wounded victim can usually return fire. It's a harsh calculus, but the good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys. After a few firefights, there won't be any more bad guys.
There are more conflict scenarios than just the one in which an enemy draws on me. There are also those like the one in which an enemy draws on a store clerk while I am standing in the criminal's blind spot. There's also the one in which a criminal menaces someone with a knife or club and can be persuaded to back down by the mere sight of a gun (especially the front-sight).
There's also the one in which a scumbag smashes into my house through the rear sliding glass door and for a moment is hung up in the drapes. I can see his outline while he cannot see me or my 5 shot... make that 4-shot... pump action (wait, 3-shot) shotgun (with 2 shots left in case he has a stupid partner blundering in behind him).
If most adults in a population have guns and carry some, then most would-be criminals will be scared straight.
If most adults in a population have guns and carry some, then those who become criminals anyway will have very short careers.
Corollary to above: If most adults in population have guns and routinely carry some, then not as many police will be needed, both because not as many would be needed to deter crime, and because none would be needed to enforce gun control. Fewer police means less power to become corrupted and be abused.