Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

[sugarmaker]

If we could somehow un-invent firearms and totally banish all projectile launching devices, yes, murders, wars, etc. would decrease just because it's more work, riskier, and time consuming to kill people with edged weapons and blunt instruments. I must say that it would probably be in the greater common good if that had happened. However, that horse left the barn long ago and isn't coming back.

In that fantasy case, It would be the same arguments, the NBA might stand for National Bow Association and Brady would fretting about assault quivers with more than 10 arrow capacity. String silencers would be registered, as would any commercial bow with an arrow diameter over .5 inch. The saga continues from there...

 

[SDC]

Actually, we have some pretty good statistical evidence regarding this here in Canada, dating from the introduction of the FAC/Firearms Acquisition Certificate (a national firearms licence, required to purchase a gun of any kind); although GUN-related suicides went down after the introduction of the program, all OTHER suicides went up, so the net effect on suicides was nil (unless you believe that people who kill themselves by firearm are "more dead" than those who kill themselves by other means). No-one has yet managed to explain the other main component of the anti-gunners' argument, that "guns are why the U.S.'s murder rate is so high". If this was true, why are the vast majority of those murders happening in cohorts that have LOWER than average ownership rates (including young black males below 21) or why the US murder rate by kicking, stomping, and beating is so much higher than other countries'? As far as I'm aware, most Americans are born with exactly the same number of arms and legs as most other nationalities are.

 

[JustinJ]

Does the OP really expect objective answers? Jefferson said it best:

"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the trait which favor that theory".

 

[Sky]

“where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest,
and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the trait which favor that theory".

The statistical study of the report comes to the same conclusion as many have postulated in this thread. Guns are just a means to an end. If the end is your goal then many are smart enough to figure out a mode of transportation.

National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates
find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim
might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes.
“[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed
victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative
number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery
is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.88

The first concerns the 1980s increase in suicide among
young American males, an increase that, although relatively modest,
inspired perfervid denunciations of gun ownership.144 What
these denunciations failed to mention was that suicide of teenagers
and young adults was increasing throughout the entire industrialized
world, regardless of gun availability, and often much more
rapidly than in the United States. The only unusual aspect of suicide
in the United States was that it involved guns. The irrelevancy
of guns to the increase in American suicide is evident because suicide
among English youth actually increased 10 times more sharply, with “car exhaust poisoning [being] the method of suicide
used most often.”145 By omitting such facts, the articles blaming
guns for increasing American suicide evaded the inconvenience of
having to explain exactly what social benefit nations with few guns
received from having their youth suicides occur in other ways.

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in
that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent
of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show
that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in
2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed were done at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and
found almost all arrested murderers to have earlier arrests.

There is a lot of fact based info for those who care about such things and want to spend the time reading.

 

[JustinJ]

The statistical study of the report comes to the same conclusion as many have postulated in this thread. Guns are just a means to an end. If the end is your goal then many are smart enough to figure out a mode of transportation.

Like any event removing means prevents the end. While suicide is debateable there is no arguing that many who murder with guns would be unable or unwilling to do so by other means. Charles Whitman for example did not commit mass murder by throwing knives at people. The Columbine kids pipe bombs were essentially nothing more than noise makers. I could go on. Yes, mass murder has been comitted by explosives but realistically restrictions and technical difficulty puts this means out of the reach of most with nefarious intent. If this weren't true explosives would be used more frequently than firearms as they can be far more effective in creating mass carnage. The fact is a crazy person can perform mass murder with extreme ease due to firearms and the ease and availabilty of the tools needed are motivating factor.

In regards to general murder it is far easier psychologically, as well as physically, to apply a few pounds of pressure to a trigger than bludgeon a person to death. There is also the issue of ability to kill and chances of getting away with it. For example, i've never heard of a drive by stabbing. Survival rates could also be a factor but one woudl have to compare survival rates of gun shots to stabbings and other means of attack. Also, unlike bats and knives one can't outrun a bullet. Of course many murderers would be willing to kill via other means but many also wouldn't so in regards to total murder rates it is pure fantasy to believe they would not decrease if guns magically disappeared.

I'm not advocating a gun ban. Its not practical and i value liberty but i also value honesty and realism.

 

[Wanderling]

JustinJ is correct. While legally restricting firearms won't make a noticeable dent in gun related crimes (as the criminals don't get them legally anyway), completely banning them and taking them away from anyone by force will, in 30 years or so, reduce the overall number of murders - killing someone with a knife or a bat is way harder both physically and mentally, and defending oneself is way easier for someone in good shape.

 

[happygeek]

Like any event removing means prevents the end. While suicide is debateable there is no arguing that many who murder with guns would be unable or unwilling to do so by other means. Charles Whitman for example did not commit mass murder by throwing knives at people. The Columbine kids pipe bombs were essentially nothing more than noise makers. I could go on. Yes, mass murder has been comitted by explosives but realistically restrictions and technical difficulty puts this means out of the reach of most with nefarious intent. If this weren't true explosives would be used more frequently than firearms as they can be far more effective in creating mass carnage. The fact is a crazy person can perform mass murder with extreme ease due to firearms and the ease and availabilty of the tools needed are motivating factor.

The worst mass murder in US history that wasn't considered an act of terrorism used a can of gas and some matches as the weapon (the Happyland massacre). There were others that were even worse, but they're heavily suspected acts of arson whereas Happyland was confirmed.

 

[JustinJ]

The worst mass murder in US history that wasn't considered an act of terrorism used a can of gas and some matches as the weapon (the Happyland massacre). There were others that were even worse, but they're heavily suspected acts of arson whereas Happyland was confirmed.

You mean the one in which the building's capacity was far exceeded, there were no sprinklers, fire exits or fire alarms as required by law? Not exactly a common situation in which anybody wanting to commit mass murder will be able to find. And if it had happened today you can bet it would be called terrorism.

 

[happygeek]

Right, there's no illegal nightclubs in existence anymore.

I only mention that it wasn't considered terrorism because if we're counting terrorist attacks than it's no longer the worst, not even close. Of course the terrorists didn't use guns either.

All this is really just a theoretical exercise anyway because as you said yourself

Of course many murderers would be willing to kill via other means but many also wouldn't so in regards to total murder rates it is pure fantasy to believe they would not decrease if guns magically disappeared.

many countries have found that making a law banning guns doesn't make them magically disappear.

 

[abq87120]

Ask the Brits and Aussies. Violent crime sky rocketed when the gun-grabbers got their wish.

 

[JustinJ]

Right, there's no illegal nightclubs in existence anymore.

I never said they did. Only that it is apparently obvious that every person who snaps won't be able to find one at the time they are wanting to kill. The question is wether or not murder rates will be reduced, not eliminated. Also, many mass killers have specific targets. A guy angry about being fired is not going to go burn down a night club for revenge and it is highly unlikely that he would have any chance at all of lighting a modern office building on fire in a manner that would spread fast enough to kill multitudes of people.

Ask the Brits and Aussies. Violent crime sky rocketed when the gun-grabbers got their wish.

Its a bit more complicated than that: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

 

[Sky]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-Mount-Fuji-beauty-spot-100-bodies-year.html

The infamous forest of Japan

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Is ^ good also

 

[happygeek]

Only that it is apparently obvious that every person who snaps won't be able to find one at the time they are wanting to kill.

They seem to have an uncanny knack of finding "gun free" zones. They may not find an illegal building and kill 87 people, but half a dozen or more people get killed by arsons all the time.

I'm not aware of even an anti-gun "study" that has shown that homicide rates were reduced by any gun control law. The CDC tried to find just that awhile back and failed.

 

[DammitBoy]

If the premise that removing all firearms would reduce murder and suicide then the converse must also be true ie adding more firearms will increase murder and suicide rates.

Considering the massive increase in firearm sales of the last three years and a lacking big jump in suicide and murder rates - the premise is incorrect.

 

[B!ngo]

I tend to believe that if citizens were banned from gun ownership, murder and suicide rates (total and via gunshot) would be decreased.
However I'm not sure that is the point. When our Founders created the 2nd Amendment, surely they must have acknowledged that having a bunch of guns lying around might lead to people turning on each other with consequences more dire than throwing shovels at ten paces.
But the point of the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with murder or personal protection but was to ensure that the public could protect itself from an ill-behaving government, thus holding that delicate balance of mandate from a republic and personal freedom in check. And I suspect they found this last issue to be more important than the risk.
The question is whether we still do?
I understand that this is a controversial view not shared by all and left ambiguous at the time of the initial writing, but it's what I believe. And I guide my behavior and beliefs accordingly.
B

 

[Ky Larry]

I knew a man in California who had a long history of depression and mental health issues. He killed himself by tieing a rope around his neck and the other end to the bumper of a car. He was drug to death over the course of 20 miles of rural roads.
A neighbor in North Carolina , an 86 year old blind woman, was beaten to death with a cast iron skillet by a man on parole.
Guns had nothing to do with either incident. Banning guns makes as much sense as banning rope and frying pans.

 

[Loosedhorse]

For the interested, the other side of the "guns and suicide" argument is presented here:

There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. [emphasis added]

I suspect that this thread has expressed more certainty on the non-importance of guns in overall suicide rates than is justified by available evidence.

 

[lilguy]

Highschoolers are using the commuter rail road tracks in our area at an alarming rate. People will kill themselves with what ever is available.

 

[XxBulletBendeRXx]

This thread reads like a "how to" at times.....