Ammo For Sale

« « Wow, he can do that? | Home | They don’t even know the laws they expect you to follow » »

Gun crime abroad

Scotland has strict gun controls but is the most violent developed country.

Meanwhile, Switzerland has six million people and at least two million guns, yet the “gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.” And they get machine guns issued to them by their government.

Update: On the Swiss, Braisted says not so fast. The article is six years old and, since then, there has been an increase in gun deaths there. He also notes:

I don’t point this out because I’m necessarily a fan of new gun regulations (except for closing the gun-show loophole), however, I do say this because I’m tired of the MEME that more guns = less crime. There are lots of factors to gun violence, guns are one of them. If we got rid of all the guns, I think there would be a drop in crime.

Say it with me: sales at gun shows are subject to the same laws as sales not at gun shows. And, as the UK, Scotland, Canada & Australia have shown, banning guns does not lead to a drop in crime. A ban is typically followed by an increase in crime, particularly violent crime and a decrease in gun deaths.

14 Responses to “Gun crime abroad”

  1. Sean Braisted Says:

    SayUncle…I’ll concede your point about Gun Shows. I’ll amend mine to say that I think all gun sales should be run through the instant background checks…if the system needs to be improved or streamlined, so be it, but if a person has to go through a background check to buy a gun from a gun dealer; he or she should have to go through the same check to buy it from some random dude off the street.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    he or she should have to go through the same check to buy it from some random dude off the street.

    How would you enforce that? Like most gun control proposals, it would only impact the law-abiding. And that’s largely useless with respect to stopping crime.

  3. Sean Braisted Says:

    Thats assuming that both parties are not “law-abiding”. Under the current system, a criminal can easily purchase a firearm from a well intentioned, law abiding citizen. Requiring background checks would simply further reduce the amount of legal sales to criminals. This would simply aide private gun sellers in determining who they are selling it to, in order to ensure they aren’t selling them to criminals.

  4. SayUncle Says:

    Most crime guns are stolen.

    Where, then, would this law-abiding person go to perform a background check?

  5. Sean Braisted Says:

    I believe Ted Stevens calls it a series of tubes; otherwise known as the internet.

  6. anonymous Says:

    Sean,

    Before you exercise your First Amendment right to free speech, I believe you should have to go through these procedures:

    (1) Fill out and sign a form under threat of perjury and 10 years in prison and $100,000 dollar fine. This form (call it 4473s) will ask a bunch of invasive questions that are none of the States business.

    (2) Submit to a criminal background check. In some states having the privilege of paying for it.

    (3) Leave two thumb prints.

    (4) Have said transaction registered, depending upon state of residence.

    (*) Possibly more hoops to jump through depending on the state of residence like: obtain a license to speak first(going through more hoops to obtain), wait 10 days, etc.

    It would certainly cut down on hate speech, fomenting revolutionary thoughts against Nanny State, and generally uncomfortable, rude and obnoxious speech. Like calling you a nappy headed asshat.

    That’s what one goes through RIGHT NOW when buying thru an FFL to exercise ones so called Second Amendment right. If the Second is treated with so much disrespect, it’s time to start trampling on the other rights. Beginning with the First.

    The Second is no longer an “inalienable” right. So why should the first be? Prostrate yourself before Nanny and beg permission to speak Mr. Jackass.

  7. Sean Braisted Says:

    Anon,

    Well, the next time someone’s brain explodes from the “n-word,” I’ll consider your comment…until then, the two are not comparable.

  8. SayUncle Says:

    Speech kills too. 800,000 Rwandans and two journalists will attest to that.

    All rights are dangerous which is why they’re under attack.

  9. Sean Braisted Says:

    Unc,

    Fair enough, and inciting a riot is one of the restrictions to free speech we already endure. There are limits (some reasonable, some not) to many of our “rights”. There is a limit to speech in the form of obscenity, there is a limit to peaceable assembly in the form of requirements to obtain permits to march, there are limits to the press in the form of FCC restrictions.

    Instant background checks, and some other gun control measures, are reasonable to ensure that the wrong guns don’t get into the wrong peoples hands. Does it still happen regardless? Sure, but does that mean we should make it easier for them? The right to keep and bear arms may very well be inalienable, but the right to sell and transfer them is not.

  10. SayUncle Says:

    I concur, we do limit speech. We also, for example, require permits for peaceable assembly and licenses to operate radios. And other restrictions on other rights. (ETA: whoops, read the whole comment before starting a response).

    I oppose some of those, such as licenses to speak. taxing a right seems lame

    I’m mostly indifferent on background checks but oppose them to the extent they can be abused (i.e., see California). But such checks will have minimal (if any) impact on crime.

  11. Snowflakes in Hell » But Does it Work? Says:

    […] of SayUncle’s reader corrects us about Switzerland and says we ought to close the “gun show loophole” which is Bradyspeak for banning private sales of […]

  12. Dave Says:

    “I believe Ted Stevens calls it a series of tubes; otherwise known as the internet.”

    And 5 minutes after this instant background check is available on the internet, more people will be using it for running checks on their boyfriend/girlfriend/blind date/creepy friend of a friend/neighbor than will be using it for it’s original purpose.

  13. Masked Menace© Says:

    Well, something like 100 million people have died due to Marx’s philosophy, can we ban that now too?

  14. Sean Braisted Says:

    Menace,

    They pretty much did in the 1950s, didn’t work out to well.

    Dave,

    I don’t exactly see why that would matter, I don’t think the FBI needs to relay the background information, a simple yes or no would suffice.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives