As I stated in my last post, criminals are the people who are committing gun crimes, not ordinary gun owners. That being said, of someone is planning to commit a crime with a gun, they will obtain it through illegal means because its easier, cheaper, and will not have the gun registered to them. So, what will happen if gun laws got stricter?
Since criminals are the ones who commit gun crimes with illegally obtained firearms, what is to stop them from doing the same thing because now there is a limit on magazine capacities? Criminals by definition do not follow the law, so putting more restrictions on the legal means of purchasing firearms, or on the accessories that people can put on guns will not deter criminals because they are already breaking more severe laws. Instead, all this does is decrease the number of law biding citizens that can protect themselves against malicious people who will have guns no matter what. This video does a very good job explaining why restrictions on accessories such as magazines will not create a functional difference when people use firearms to hurt people. If you go to 9:19 in the video, you will see how restricting attachments and accessories to firearms does not change the functionality or lethality of the firearm.
Now the question is will disarming the public result in less gun crime? Well first, this leaves the citizens completely vulnerable against any perpetrator who does have a gun. Second, will people be less likely to commit crimes if they know for a fact that their victims will be unarmed? It is highly unlikely. Clearly someone will have a higher chance of pulling a crime off successfully if they are armed and the citizens around them are not. That is just inviting in people to commit crimes.
Lastly, lets see if gun restrictions have any effect on crime in the real world. There are two very good test cases for this, being Australia and Great Britain, both of which have banned firearms almost entirely. According to Baker and McPhredran, correspondents to the Research Unit of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, since the gun ban and buy backs, there was no evidence of a measurable effect on crime. According to Robert Wainwright, even though there has been a decline in homicides since the ban in 1996, that decline is consistent with the steady decline of homicides since long before 1996. Also, there has been a rise in abductions involving firearms and an increase in attempted murder involving firearms. That being said, clearly Australia and America have completely different cultures and political climates that which means that gun restrictions will not have the same effects. However, if you look at the gun culture in America, we have been some of the biggest pioneers in firearms since the nineteenth century. Our country is also built on freedom, and we have developed into a hegemonic culture with a strong stance on self defense. So, if anything, gun restrictions would have less of a positive effect in America due to our heavy tie into gun culture. Although Austrailia is different, their country hasn’t been as tied to gun culture, and there was not too much of a protest when the gun bans took place, showing that gun culture is a lot more prevalent in America. Henceforth, I do not believe that gun restrictions will be as effective in America, even though the restrictions in Australia proved to be somewhat worse.