ABC news...Gun Control Isn't Crime Control

[spin]

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

ABC news? Will wonders ever cease? Unbelievable. Has Hell frozen over? (Of course, you could argue that this is John Stossel. And the article dates from 2007.)

Stossel's specials tackle issues that face Americans today. They consistently rate among the top news programs and have earned him uncommon praise: "The most consistently thought-provoking TV reporter of our time" said the Dallas Morning News, while the Orlando Sentinel said he "has the gift for entertaining while saying something profound."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=126119&page=1

Profound indeed!

[tularetom]

1. I'm amazed that in 2009 guys are still walking around with '70's porn star mustaches

I dislike agreeing with assholes like this but there is probably some truth in what he says.

Whether or not the decrease in armed crime would outweighed by the increase in scared shitless armed idiots shooting at anything that moves (including themselves) is arguable.

But the knowledge that a prospective victim might be armed would probably deter a lot of would be muggers and rapists.

[jgraz]

2. This is an OPINION piece by corporate teabagger John Stossel.

Publishing this as "ABC News" is like something Bill Kristol column writes as "New York Times". Both statements are deceptive. This is an editorial that appears on an ABC news site. It's not the reporting or even the viewpoint of ABC News.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Its pretty clearly that it is an OpEd. He is aslo correct in his analysis

[jgraz]

13. It certainly isn't clear from the subject. Quite the opposite in fact.

If the post had (correctly) read "John Stossel: Gun Control Isn't Crime Control", I wouldn't have even bothered clicking on it.

[spin]

16. If you never read an opinion that differs from yours...

how do you expect to gain knowledge?

I often spend time reading the Brady Campaign web site and considering their views.

Perhaps some day they will come up with an argument that will change my views.

[jgraz]

18. Dude, I post on the gungeon

Do you really think I dislike reading opinions that differ from my own?

I don't like John Stossel. He's Newsmax dressed up in ABC pseudo-respectability. And your post is an clear example why this is a BAD THING. No one would give this clown's rantings a second look if he didn't work for The Mouse.

[spin]

20. Your opinion...that's fair. (n/t)

[krispos42]

6. It's more than an opinion

[spin]

7. Thanks for the research. (n/t)

[jgraz]

11. The opinion is that gun laws caused a rise in crime

One would also expect that with a new spate of firearms restrictions, there would be better and more focused tracking of these crimes by law enforcement. Do we have any data on how improved reporting has affected these stats?

Or, let's say we *can* show that these particular laws were not effective, or perhaps even detrimental. Does that mean we should never try any gun control measures in this country? Hardly.

As usual with Stossel, this piece turns out to be much *less* than an opinion.

[spin]

15. Truly reasonable gun control measures...

such as the NICS background check are effective.

Draconian control measures such as the assault weapons ban are "feel good" laws and mere fluff.

[jgraz]

17. So... in some cases gun control IS crime control

In other words, John Stossel is, once again, completely full of shit.

[spin]

23. Some gun control is indeed crime control...

For example the NICS background check which needs to be extended to a voluntary or even a requirement for private sales of firearms.

England's version is draconian gun control. They also have adopted draconian knife control.

[TheWraith]

19. Reporting of crimes hasn't improved in the UK, it's gone down.

Because the police are unable to stop it, more and more people are simply living with the effects since reporting it would do no good.

As far as "never try any gun control measures," we've tried a LOT of gun control measures in this country up to and including total bans on guns in many cities. It's done nothing.

[jgraz]

21. I've never seen any study that backs up your claim

Is this just supposition on your part, or are you getting this from some reputable source?

[TheWraith]

22. The Guardian had a recent article on it.

I'm absent a link at the moment.

[iverglas]

73. do let us know whether it was about GUN crime

It never ceases to amaze me how some people think (:rofl:) that gun control is going to stop shoplifting and breaking & entering and vehicular manslaughter and child sexual abuse and pimping ...

[krispos42]

26. In about 2003, the Brits switched over to a new method of tallying those crimes

As I recall (and don't quote me on this) they reviewed previous years' raw data and adjusted it so the same standards can be used for comparison purposes. I think the word I want is "normalized".

[Tejas]

25. don't hate the playa, hate the fact that the article is true

:rofl:

[villager]

3. well, yes, you *could* argue this is John Stossel,

which should've been more accurately reflected in the headline of your OP...

[spin]

9. I did point it out, which saved you the problem of researching...

the article.

Feel free to use the new unrecommended feature.

[villager]

31. already have, thanks! Only in the gungeon is Stossel considered "credible!"

n/t

[eqfan592]

32. Yes, because it's not possible for Stossel to be right about anything, ever.....*snark*

[villager]

34. well, you're certainly free to rush to his defense ("snark")

n/t

[eqfan592]

56. And you're certainly free to view the world as black and white...

...just don't act shocked when you find that not everyone shares the same world view.

[villager]

59. Some of us don't view him as a credible source. You obviously do.

Especially when it suits you.

Don't be shocked when you find that not everyone shares the same world view.

[eqfan592]

62. Cute..

..exactly where did I say I thought he was a "credible source?" I simply pointed out that simply because somebody is full of it 99% of the time doesn't mean they aren't going to hit the nail on the head 1% of the time.

You can't seem to see that though. Hence the black and white world view.

[villager]

68. well, of course, you are the "decider" as to when he "hits the nail on the head"

And somehow, your absolutism is less black-and-white than everyone else's.

Enjoy that new relativity! :hi:

[eqfan592]

69. Hahaha, you're funny!

Exactly where did I say I'm the only person in the world who decides when he is right? Oh, that's right, I never did say that! It's just another example of you BSing!

As much fun as watching you make an ass of yourself is, I think I've grown tired of it now. Enjoy the land of ignore. :P

[iverglas]

74. is it getting lonely in there

yet?

[frog92969]

5. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

You would think that anybody could understand that simple truth.

[jgraz]

8. It fits on a bumper sticker, so it must be true

:eyes:

[spin]

10. Same as ""Handguns are only designed to kill"...(n/t)

[jgraz]

12. Not true. With careful aim, you can use them to scramble eggs.

Sorry, but has anyone posted that slogan with the comment "you would think that anybody could understand that simple truth"?


However, I AM interested in your response: what else are handguns designed for?

[spin]

14. O.K., my reply...

<1> Handguns are designed for competitive target shooting. (Including the Olympics.)

(2) Handguns are designed for informal target shooting. (I enjoyed this sport for at least 40 years at numerous ranges.)

(3) Handguns are designed for hunting.

(4) Handguns are designed for self defense. (And have saved many lives over the years.)

(5) Many people collect handguns. (Often because of their value the firearms are not shot.)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Target shooting, plinking, collecting.

[jgraz]

29. Those are what you use them for, not what they're designed for

My girlfriend's dad collected cars. The cars he collected were designed to be driven on roads. Aside from dedicated target shooting pistols, aren't most private handguns designed to be used against another person?

[E-Mag]

30. no they are designed to shoot a bullet (N/T)

[jgraz]

33. Nice try. Shooting a bullet is a means, not an end.

That's like saying cars were designed to make tires revolve. They do make tires revolve, but to what end?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Guns were designed to shoot bullets, cars were designed to drive.

[jgraz]

43. So there's no conceptual difference between a Glock and a target pistol

OK, I guess if we only allow people to keep single-shot target pistols, we won't be violating their RKBA.

Works for me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. I'm pretty sure Heller shot that idea down. Besides Glock makes several target pistols.

[jgraz]

47. Irrelevant.

Why are all handguns not single-shot target pistols? What is the reason for the differences in their designs?

[E-Mag]

49. They are a tool

Just like a knife they can be used for many things just like any tool. The person that uses the hangun decides what to do with it. It is an inanimate object it cant do anything on its own it is not evil or good.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. The Constitution is never irrelevant.

The difference in designs is to increase the rate of fire. Some shooting competitions involve time. Single shot target pistols do not adequately meet some peoples needs.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Someone who carries a firearm for protection may need more than one shot.

I know some hunting guides who won't go out without a handgun. If things go wrong one shot sometimes isn't enough.

David

[Recursion]

58. Target pistols are rarely single-shot NT

[Recursion]

57. Glock makes target pistols NT

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. I have a nice Browning Buckmark, pretty much a plinking handgun.

I have another I bought specifically for a certain type of competition shooting. Lots of people are hunting with handguns now so more and more are made specifically for that. I don't hunt and I don't carry a handgun. Target shooting is all I do with any of my guns. Many handguns are designed for self defense, I wouldn't dare to guess at the percentages.

[spin]

53. Far from it...

Very few of the handguns I own are dedicated target pistols or revolvers.

Three might fit that description.

1) A Model 41 S&W .22 cal firearm which is widely used in NRA competitive shooting.



2) A Colt National Match Gold Cup Stainless .45 auto pistol. (Sometimes used for NRA bullseye competition.)



3) A S&W Model 25-2 .45 acp target revolver widely used in competition prior to the popularity of 1911 style pistols for NRA bullseye completion. (The handgun my daughter used to deter an intruder breaking into our house.)



But with the exception of the target sights and the slightly better trigger pull, these firearms are no more accurate than the other handguns I own. I own a number of very accurate handguns which I can enjoy target shooting with or even could use for hunting.

All of my firearms could be used against another person. Unless this involved legitimate self defense, this would be a misuse of what they were primarily designed for. Many people shoot a bow for target shooting or for hunting, but a bow can also be misused for murdering someone.

Many people carry knives for everyday tasks, but they are still a weapon and can be misused in a criminal manner.

I do own one handgun that is primarily dedicated to self defense. It's my primary carry weapon, a model 642 Airweight .38 +P



edited for misspelling

[frog92969]

27. Then prove that statement wrong.

Hint: It's not possible.

[jgraz]

35. That's actually incredibly easy.

Let's say guns are outlawed tomorrow. Would you go quietly down to the police station and hand yours over? Do you think every person on this forum would do so?

Just look at the "from my cold, dead hands" slogan. Does it say, "from my cold dead hands unless, of course, you pass a law and then I'll be happy to turn in all my weapons"?

Do you think everyone who would resist such a ban plans on using their guns to commit crime? If you can't say YES to that, then your nifty little slogan is flat-out bogus.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Hint: If they kept their guns they would be outlaws. You fail.

[jgraz]

40. Are pot smokers "outlaws"?

The intention of that slogan and the reason the poster quoted it is to imply that only "criminals" (you know, EVILDOERS) would have guns. It's pretty easy to see that that statement is in direct conflict with the NRA's other silly slogan.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. If they are breaking the law then they are outlaws, it's really not that hard.

[jgraz]

But apparently keeping context in one's head for more that 3 posts is

Go back and read the post that froggie was responding to (hint: it's up at the top of the page. Right up there ^^^).

Are you saying that the "simple truth" that "anybody could understand" was that you all would be forced to break the law if guns were banned? Is that really what you're trying to say?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. I'm not sure what's wrong with you tonight, you are usually sharper than this.

If guns were legally banned in the US and the law required confiscation, then people who refused to give up their firearms would be outlaws. I'm really not sure why you can't understand this.

David

[jgraz]

64. Because that's not what we're discussing

Froggy's comment was in the context of Stossel's ravings re: how gun control never works. The argument is not that "gun control never works because law-abiding gun owners will then be in violation of statute." The argument is that gun control never works because once a ban is enacted, only people with criminal intent will possess firearms.

What I'm saying is that it is patently untrue. Even if I accept your argument it is still untrue -- unless you believe that "outlawing guns" means taking them away from the police and the military. If you really believe that to be the case, then and only then would it be possible to parse the slogan in a way that makes it technically true -- albeit morbidly retarded.

Of course, it would still be a far cry away from a "simple truth" that "anybody could understand".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. It is quite amazing that you are able to screw up something so simple.

[jgraz]

72. It is quite amazing that you still think it's simple

That's the problem with mindless slogans. They only work if you never think about them.

[Tejas]

39. If all else fails, grasp at the out-of-context straw

[jgraz]

41. You may want to look up the phrases "grasping and straws" and "out-of-context"

Check back if you need help with the definitions. We're here for you, buddy.

[Tejas]

70. No thanks. No matter how foolish it made you look, you'd deny

that the earth is round if you thought it would help your argument.

[Statistical]

60. Um wouldn't not turning them in be a crime.

the statement may not be meaningful but it is accurate.

If ownership of firearms is illegal then any person owning a firearm is a criminal.
Thus the only people who have firearms are criminals = outlaws.

[jgraz]

65. So this slogan means that cops and military personnel would also be stripped of their firearms?

In which case, it's simply paranoid ravings unworthy of comment.

[Tejas]

24. gun-crime 60% higher than UK.gov says

Data provided to The Sunday Telegraph by nearly every police force in England and Wales, under freedom of information laws, show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. This really needs it's own thread.

[russ1943]

46. John Stossel is not a reputable source for anything.

OPINION PIECE by JOHN STOSSEL, from April 26, 2007.

His facts were crap when originally published over two years ago, and they're crap still.

Through a series of misleading claims, a lack of balance in reporting and interviews, and video clips apparently created primarily for entertainment,
Stossel's report failed to offer viewers an accurate picture of the debate over charter schools and voucher programs, and gave significantly greater coverage to the arguments of "school choice" proponents, with Stossel frequently criticizing public schools. At one point, the reporter warned, "Most Americans don't know what stupid schools are doing to American kids."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted (here and here), Stossel has a history of making misleading or false claims to make his point, and in "Stupid in America," Stossel and his guests made a series of false or misleading claims in support of school choice:
Stossel depicted skepticism about global warming as a viable response to respectable scientific research and opinion.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200601200003

FAIR found that the program was filled with so many factual inaccuracies, Limbaughesque distortions and unsubstantiated claims that it called into question whether ABC News applied any sort of journalistic standards to the broadcast. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1815

It became very clear that Stossel, Balaker, RISE, and Sanera were all working together to create what would, to the public, appear to be a "Scared Green" expose but what would, in reality, be a contrived, blatantly pro-industry piece………. In summary, if this glaring iceberg tip were not enough to set buzzers and bells vibrating when the name Stossel is mentioned, consider the following: In the article in "The International Objectivist," Stossel actually praises Rush Limbaugh as "witty and wise!" 'Nuff said! . http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=2648

Webster's Medical Dictionary defines a "pathological liar" as "an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder." Next to this definition should be this picture - a photo of a self-important, smarmy looking, all-too-coiffed ABC News "reporter" named John Stossel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/john-stossel-is-a-patholo_b_21903.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. The government in the UK is to be trusted though, eh.

Gun crime 60pc higher than official figures
The true level of gun crime is far higher than the Government admits in official statistics, it can be revealed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html

[iverglas]

77. as compared to the Daily Telegraph, fer sher

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=237888&mesg_id=238196

[pacman77]

54. disagree with that

organised gangs will always have access to guns no matter what
the gun laws are but if you have strict gun laws it does keep
guns out of the hands of common criminals in America even the
kids have guns(hand guns)and that would change with tighter
controls.

[benEzra]

55. If by "kids" you mean the gang members with guns, they have heroin, too.

How long has heroin been banned in the United States? As in, not even legal for Schedule II medical use? Yet it's easier to get in most U.S. cities than legal prescription foot powder is.

The aim of the U.S. gun control lobby is to ban lawful gun ownership by people like my wife and I. Anyone willing to go to the black market will always be able to get one, but their primary focus is lawful owners.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Sorry, I need a better source.

I've seen Stossel make mistakes before, specifically in firearms related pieces. This is op-ed, not News.

I would at the very least like to evaluate the original research this was based on.

[eqfan592]

63. Then do it....

...here's a start.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/law...

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Was that link working when you posted it?

Article moved or deleted...

[eqfan592]

67. Sorry about that...

...try this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html

Both of these links are from earlier in this thread. :)

[iverglas]

76. oooh, aaah, it's the Daily Telegraph!

Did you have a point?

The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to "pistol whip" victims, or brandished as a threat.

Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm - which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence - are omitted from the Home Office's headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.

... Uh ... yeah ... so?

These are two entirely different matters.

One is what is universally referred to as "gun crime" -- crimes in which firearms are USED to commit (e.g. homicide) / facilitate (e.g. robbery) the crime.

The other is offences relating to firearms -- crimes consisting of the unlawful possession, transfer, storage, etc., of firearms.

Very obviously they are very different things.

"Gun crime" is a subcategory of "crimes against the person": homicide, robbery, etc. Crimes of violence in which firearms are used.

The other things have nothing to do with crimes of violence, unless, say, a charge of unlawful possession is laid in addition to a charge of robbery in which a firearm is used.

Pretty much anybody with a brain can figure this one out.

Ah yes; I read past the obvious deception in the article, and oh look -- it says what I just said:

The Home Office crime figures document states: "Firearms are taken to be involved in a crime if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used as a threat."

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "Gun crime figures have only ever included offences involving the use of a firearm. These counting rules for these figures were drawn up by the Home Office in conjunction with police."

The Telegraph is attempting to make political hay through deception. Duh. Who'd 'a thunk that?

[iverglas]

75. the utter bullshit of it

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

NO ONE in the UK in the last many decades has EVER "packed heat".

NO FIREARMS LEGISLATION in the UK in the last many decades has prohibited ANYONE from "packing heat", because it was never LEGAL to do that.

Wot a lying asshole. I've never heard of him, but now I know. Is he really just really stupid, or is he an evil piece of shit?

This bit's interesting:

But it's foolish to assume that stricter gun laws will prevent maniacs like Cho from committing heinous crimes. A deranged criminal will find a way to get his hands on a gun. Or a bomb.

And yet:

- Cho DID NOT use a bomb
- Cho DID acquire a handgun through legal channels

Cho WOULD NOT have acquired a handgun through legal channels in the UK.

Damn. Bad example, eh?