Hmm... the UK implemented a handgun ban - how has that worked?
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
How about Washington, D.C.?
Although studies through the decades have reached conflicting conclusions, this much is clear: The ban, passed with strong public support in 1976, has not accomplished everything that the mayor and council of that era wanted it to. Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times.
(...)
In 1977, the first full year of the ban, the city recorded 192 homicides, a rate of 28 per 100,000 residents. The total rose to 223 in 1981 (a 35 rate), then fell to 147 (a 23.5 rate) in 1985 -- the lowest annual homicide toll in the District since 1966. also far exceeded the rates in crack-ridden cities where handguns had not been banned.
(...) In the peak killing year, 1991, the District recorded 482 homicides, or 81 per 100,000 residents, more than triple the 1985 rate.
Europe?
In Europe, four of the five countries that have handgun bans on the books actually have higher rates of homicide and other violent crimes than do neighbouring countries without similar bans. (Ireland is the exception.)
Okay... what about the opposite approach? What's been the experience in Michigan?
Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.
But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.
The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.
(...)
John Lott, a visiting professor at the University of Maryland who has done extensive research on the role of firearms in American society, said the results in Michigan since the law changed don't surprise him.
Academic studies of concealed weapons laws that generally allow citizens to obtain permits have shown different results, Lott said. About two-thirds of the studies suggest the laws reduce crime; the rest show no net effect, he said.
Now, David Miller would probably point out that there are more murders in Michigan that in Ontario, and he'd be right. But the relevant factor is the trend line - did the law or policy result in a downward trend in murder and gun crime or an upward trend? It seems to me that banning handguns is not the answer.
UPDATE: Florida, too:
When Florida passed a law in 1987 making it easier for citizens to get licenses to carry concealed firearms, opponents predicted that blood would run in the streets. "When you have 10 times as many people carrying guns as you do now, and they get into an argument and tempers flash, you're going to have people taking out guns and killing people," one gun-control activist said.
Since the law was passed, it turns out, Florida's murder rate has been cut in half. Instead of becoming more dangerous, the state has become considerably safer.
Posted by: Rob Breakenridge
