No, Boston's laws are stricter than New York's, and violent crime has gone up recently there.Not that I'm for gun control laws, but shamwow is right. NYC has seriously cleaned up in the past 20 years. It's safer there than in some cities in the midwest. It is possible to wonder if the stiff regulations and laws in NYC are actually working based on these stats.
As far as Im concerned there is no correlation between rates of violent crime and gun control. Either way.
this. there are far too many other factors in play for gun control to be significant. what gun control does is affect violent crime at the individual level, namely the ability of the law abiding to defend themselves
not necessarily. violent crimes that are defended against with a gun still count as violent crimes. gun control does not have a significant effect on the occurrence of those crimes, merely the ability of a few individuals to protect themselves when said crimes happen.If indeed there is no correlation between violent crime and gun control, you can't assert this, because that would be an inverse correlation.
good pointI think there probably is a correlation between violent crime and gun control. But you're right that there are a lot of other factors and as any science, statistics or econometrics class will teach you: correlation does not imply causation.
not necessarily. violent crimes that are defended against with a gun still count as violent crimes. gun control does not have a significant effect on the occurrence of those crimes, merely the ability of a few individuals to protect themselves when said crimes happen.
I read a thing about AZ's lack of gun control laws, and all it did was make me ask one question.
Would stricter gun control laws have prevented a 22yo white male with no criminal history (that i know of at this time anyways) from purchasing a handgun well over a month before he used it for a deadly purpose? It's not like he paid cash on a street corner. He went through the proper channels, and even in illinois who has stupidly retarded strict gun laws he still would've had ample time and probably been cleared to purchase the gun he was carrying.
It's been pretty much beat to death that gun control laws don't work, canada and it's lack of enforcement/impossible logistics in enforcing it being the prime example.
As you can see the banning of firearms has not removed them from society. It has only taken them out of the hands of honest people. I do not wish to live in a society where only the dishonest people have guns.
Still, the fewer guns available in society, the fewer deaths/injuries from them there is likely to be.
Or are you saying that there would be exactly the same number of shootings no matter how easy it is to obtain a gun? I'm sure data could disprove that.
Incorrect. The fewer guns available in society means that only the law abiding that would use them for self defense will have a lower number of them. Those who obtain them illegally are not going to see a drop in access. Guns are here to stay. You can't uninvent it and it's simply impossible to rid the world of them. It's not going to happen. Trying to do so only removes the source for those that would use them to defend themselves.Still, the fewer guns available in society, the fewer deaths/injuries from them there is likely to be.
Exactly the same? Of course not. The problem is the assumption that you're actually making it more difficult to obtain one and it's simply not true. Any time you make something illegal you increase its availability in the black market.Or are you saying that there would be exactly the same number of shootings no matter how easy it is to obtain a gun? I'm sure data could disprove that.