Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

USA is the top crime-prone country in the world. But still it failed to put any control on gun-sales. For example, even military grade rifles are available in gun stores for civilian use. That is quite strange and odd.

In 2012 in Aurora, Colorado James Eagan Holmes used Smith & Wesson M&P15 and Remington Model 870 to kill 12 others.

Where lies the origin of this gun culture? Who were the proponents of civilian gun sales market?

Why USA historically failed to put any control on gun sales?

share|improve this question
1  
Most gun crime in the US is with illegal guns, so I'm not sure that gun control is relevant here. The right question is why there's so much crime in the US. –  Joe Aug 31 '12 at 5:05
1  
Your question is about gun control related to crime, so the distinction between legal and illegal ownership of guns is relevant. –  Joe Aug 31 '12 at 5:21
5  
This is an attempt to start a discussion; falsely premised and loaded with false facts. –  Samuel Russell Aug 31 '12 at 6:39
1  
BROY, pick a single question topic and stick to it. This isn't the place to have a back-and-forth debate. If you'd like to have such a debate, take it to chat. –  Joe Aug 31 '12 at 6:54
2  
Have to say I'm amused at the attempt to make this an on-topic question just by bolting "(historically)" onto the end of the title. –  T.E.D. Aug 31 '12 at 14:10
show 3 more comments

closed as not constructive by Samuel Russell, Sardathrion, Joe, MichaelF Aug 31 '12 at 11:51

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The historical reason is simply that the US originated from an oppressed colony. Attempts to restrict guns were one of many ways the king attempted to keep the colonists under control. There is thus, an ingrained suspicion towards attempts to restrict guns. Even if greater availability of guns did lead to more crime, the people of the US felt that some increase in crime was worth the protection from tyranny.

In addition, while you seem to take it as a foregone conclusion that more restrictive gun laws would equal less crime, that is far from a proven fact. You mention the UK, which does have less crime and stricter gun laws than the US, but one data point is hardly proof of anything. Here are the murder rates per 100,000 from Wikipedia:

California: 5.4 (restrictive gun laws)
Canada: 1.7 (restrictive gun laws)
UK: 1.23 (most restrictive gun laws here)
New Hampshire: 0.9 (very few gun laws)
Switzerland: 0.7 (Most males have a military issued rifle in their homes)

My point is not to show that guns make a country safer, rather that there isn't much effect. Crime happens for various reasons, and availability of guns doesn't really affect it.

share|improve this answer
    
"Crime happens for various reasons, and availability of guns doesn't really effect it." I almost went in and corrected effect to affect... but no, I think this is one of the rare cases where both work! Bravo! –  SigueSigueBen Aug 31 '12 at 7:06
    
@SigueSigueBen Well I changed it because it was unintentional. I'm usually pretty careful about that too. Thanks for pointing it out. –  DaleSwanson Aug 31 '12 at 7:14
    
Murder rate =/= firearm murder rate. Those are irrelevant numbers. –  SevenSidedDie Aug 31 '12 at 8:12
2  
@SevenSidedDie I disagree. Clearly, if there are more guns, then there will be more murders with guns, but if the overall murder rate remains constant what does that matter? As an analogy, if we find the 'deaths from blue cars' rate is 10 per 100,000, and then eliminate blue cars we would not expect to see 10 fewer deaths. Instead the deaths will simply shift to other cars. –  DaleSwanson Aug 31 '12 at 8:26
2  
@SevenSidedDie You're correct that car color doesn't make a difference to the overall function, however, that was my point. The actual data comes in the form of the overall murder rate. There is no evidence that a reduction in guns reduces the overall murder rate, just that it shifts it to other means. It doesn't matter if it seems obvious to you that more guns will cause more murders; there is no evidence. –  DaleSwanson Aug 31 '12 at 9:18
show 5 more comments

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.