The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

With the media full of the latest US Arizona shooting they all seem to indicate that more guns lead to more crime. Not one of them seem to highlight the amount of crime that is prevented by legal gun owners.

In this article from the Guardian....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... e-us-state

There is a table of gun crime in the US. Take the figures for the state of Vermont, (Pop. 98% White), they list Zero murders by Firearms and almost no assaults and robberies by Firearm. Yet Vermont, apart from the Federal NICS background check, has no gun buying restrictions.

Can anybody explain that?

For info about cime prevention by legal gun owners..........
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

25Pdr,
You're right in asking the question. That is a good table in the Guardian, but it would be better if the firearms restrictions ,if any, for each State was also listed. You mentioned Vermont, at the other end of the scale is District of Columbia, which if I remember correctly had until recently a total ban on handguns at look at it's murder rates.

Your right Sandgroper......DC has the highest murder rate per 100k population of the entire US states. So much for gun control. Of course most of our news media is owned by a handfull of people and they don't want us armed, but they will happily protect themselves with armed guards.

From.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... f_Columbia

District of Columbia
In Washington, D.C., all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.

The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.[62]

A lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2009, to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons.[63]

Found this link on Wikipedia - I think the same one you posted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... y_state%29

It's in the same order as the Guardian table, which makes it easy to compare. I haven't checked all the States, but of the ones I have, there "appears" to be a corelation between gun laws and crime. In some States it is clear and in others not so.

It's not any easy one to assess as there are some stand out states such as Vermont and DC, other such as Alabama would have you wondering. The other question you have to ask is it just the gun laws or are other factors at work, such demographics, setting (city/rural), or other social factors?

Sandgroper....
<The other question you have to ask is it just the gun laws or are other factors at work, such demographics, setting (city/rural), or other social factors?>

Gun crime isn't really affected by Firearms availiability IMO..The reason I say that is growing up in the 1950/60s Shotguns could be bought openly without any licence and FACs were much more easily obtained. You could buy machine guns converted to self loading, there were a few converted Brens and Stens in our club at one time, also Bobbies didn't carry guns only a truncheon and no ballistic vests, and there did not seem to be any major gun crime.

Now we have vastly more firearm restrictions, the Police look like storm troopers and we have operation Trident, set up to combat Black on Black gun crime.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but importing hordes of third world people with vastly different lifestyles I think was not a good idea.

I understand what you are saying. The reason I said that was that some States with quite permissive gun laws had high murder rates - so there must be some other factors at work.

I went through the rest of the State laws and in the main I would agree that permissive gun laws reduce crime. So much so, that after comparing the laws and the murder/crime rates I would rather live in a State with permissive gun laws than one that didn't.

Gun crime isn't really affected by Firearms availiability IMO..The reason I say that is growing up in the 1950/60s Shotguns could be bought openly without any licence and FACs were much more easily obtained. You could buy machine guns converted to self loading, there were a few converted Brens and Stens in our club at one time, also Bobbies didn't carry guns only a truncheon and no ballistic vests, and there did not seem to be any major gun crime.

What changed - maybe I'm being too simplistic, but that's usually my first question. What was the event or circumstance that caused this change? Something must have happened to change the way society uses and accepts firearms. The advantage the US has is that Firearms ownership is enshired in law but also their history was built on the back of gun ownership - the UK's wasn't.

The media are on abour guns cos the REASON or MOTIVE for this crime might not suit their warped loyalties and politics.


Society in the UK has been declining for years and succssive governments have shied away from the problem. Look at the sixties we went from open closes and friendly neighbours to controlled entry systems...WTF brought THAT about!

Labour were soft on criminals, tough on victims. Crime PAYS so maybe that's why it has taken off. We are TOLD to help criminals by "handing it over, it's only money"...unless of course you rob a bank and then plod are after you!

Criminals KNOW they are protected, the police keep the streets safe for themn by banning ANYTHING that could be used for defence and god help you when you DO defend yourself here! Plod WILL arrest you and the srote will walk away, not a cop bash -just unpalattable facts these days. All this bullshoit about "taking the law into your own hands" has to go, an idiotic statement that means nothing.

Crime is UP cos our society has let it. Scrotes have no need to fear using violene, no rope for them. Texas has the right idea, you kill one of us and we'll kill you right back.
As posted elsewhere.

Hey Gunners,

The Arizona tragedy illustrates there is so much wrong with the human condition. People can use objects to harm others. Ever since man realized he could take the life of another man we have been killing each other for benefit or revenge. Frequently we justify these actions on a disagreement of another's belief system.

What is so sad now is that people are using this tragic shooting as an opportunity to raise funds to help their political prospects or fill their organizational coffers. Yes, guns kill. That is what they are designed to do. Many are specifically designed to kill people. Murder existed long before guns were made and it exists in places where guns are outlawed. Guns take lives and guns save lives.

Someday there may be a world that doesn't need guns. Someday there may be a world where you don't need to protect yourself from someone that intends you harm. Until the human condition allows us to live in peace, we are dependent upon the sheepdog.

Be the sheepdog. Protect those that can't protect themselves. To those that want to harm others either for profit or for philosophy-to the best of our ability we won't let you. To those that would disarm the sheepdog, remember the wolves are out there and they will find you. You can't negotiate with them. You can only die. Life is precious; never deny anyone the opportunity to ensure their self preservation or the protection of the innocent.