In the extreme, a lack of guns would mean no gun crime. Every crime requires means and the means of gun crime is a gun. Each gun that is not in circulation is a gun that cannot be used to commit a crime.
Empirically, every other developed country has less guns than the US and all have lower gun crime. The lowest gun crime is found where gun control is strictest.
The question is like asking if smoking was illegal would it reduce lung cancer: the answer is trivial.
Gun control will help reduce crime, less children, old people, and adults will get killed. Canada, Australia, England has gun control and they have less crimes. The United States should enforce gun control because it will help reduce crime. I think Assault rifle, Rocket launchers, Explosives, and machine guns should be banned. I only support Shot guns and normal guns like the Beretta Laramie.
Take a look at the crime rates of countries like the United Kingdom. Their crime rate is ridiculously low, compared to ours here in the United States. I am all for our freedom to bear arms, however, this is not about taking all privileges away. Just by simply putting stricter laws in place on who can own them, it will greatly reduce the crimes involving guns.
Some people like to say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and then compare death rates from guns to those of cars. There is an inherent difference between the two things, however. It doesn't make sense to say that a device which can bring fatal harm should not be regulated. Even cars are regulated, as are switchblades, swords, and other weapons. The Gun is one of the most dangerous weapons out there - of COURSE it should be difficult to get one! I'm not against having a gun for protection, but do you need a semi-automatic? Of course not! I'm not against guns for hunting either, but I do have a problem with allowing your children to use the guns without an official document proving their skills and training. If guns shouldn't be regulated at all, the evidence for such and idea would be overwhelming. It's the same thing for having minimal regulations on guns. The evidence doesn't meet reliability requirements.
No one needs assault weapons, if you're a hunter and you have a problem with reloading after twelve shots, you're a bad hunter. The cops don't use assault rifles (well aside from SWAT COPS) WHY should a normal person have a gun that could mow down the law?
Dear Americans ... how often do these terrible things have to happen before you finally change something about it? It's hardly surprising that America has one of the highest gun related murder rates of all countries! And of course guns don't kill people, but the more people own guns, the easier it is to get access to one, the higher the chance of people using it to kill somebody! In Europe we have really strict gun laws and only a few people own guns, and obviously we don't need them. There's no reason normal citizen would need a gun! Those are our children our parents, our cousins or grandparents who might get shot because of an idiot that shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. You all know your gun laws are a joke. Guns are made for one reason only, and that is to kill.
I am disheartened that there is even much of a debate on this topic. Stricter gun laws would almost certainly reduce the number of gun related deaths in this country. We MUST learn something from this tragic, senseless act at Shady Hook and do something. The guns used in this heinous act were all legally purchased/registered. The primary weapon used to kill these innocent children and brave educators was a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle. If that gun could not have been legally purchased, one would reasonably believe it would not have been in the house. If we ask ourselves this question - If that weapon wasn't in the house, do you think at the very least it is possible (if not very likely) that there would have been fewer people killed? Then doesn't that tell us something? If it is at least possible that there would have been fewer victims, shouldn't we do something so that these weapons aren't available? I for one believe that there would have been less carnage. I understand that motivated bad people will do bad things, but shouldn't we at least try to make it harder for them to get their hands on these kinds of weapons and hopefully as a result reduce the number of victims? I will end with this, the same day as the Sandy Hook tragedy, a man in China went into a school with a knife and INJURED 20 people. Nobody was killed. Compare that to the 26 people killed at Sandy Hook with a legally purchased assault rifle that is designed for military purposes for killing people. It is not a hunting rifle, nor a hand gun that someone purchased because they feel it is necessary in their home to protect themselves or their family. Let's not skew the issue. These things should not be legally allowed in the hands of regular citizens. Their is no practical purpose for it.
Many arguments for no gun control purport that criminals will get guns anyways. Well, what about all the guns in regular folks homes that get used improperly, by a rebellious or disturbed teenager, angry lover,etc. Better gun control means it is harder to get guns. Let's impact gun crime wherever we can.
Studies by the AMA and the Center for American Progress show states with stricter or more gun laws have a lower rate of violence from guns. There's no escaping the fact also that countries with stricter gun laws have lower incidence of gun violence as well. Constitutional arguments against stricter gun laws are nonsense since even Justice Scalia agrees that more restrictive gun can be written in such a way as to comply with the 2nd Amendment.
I've heard some arguments from people claiming that cars aren't banned because of drunk drivers, so why would tightening the rules on gun control do anything to stop gun related violence? To those who can actually justify this argument, take a look how drunk driving rates have dropped over the past decade due to stricter requirements, more policing, and other regulations that have been put into action. I'm completely against taking guns away and agree that gun violence cannot be stopped, no matter what, but who can sit there and actually say that we should do absolutely NOTHING to try and curb these horrible events from happening? It just doesn't make sense. The second amendment was written when bayonets were available, not the abundance of options available in today's world. I have a hard time thinking that the great founding leaders of our nation, if they saw what is available today, would all agree that zero additional gun control is necessary. If we can do even one thing to reduce these events, why is that a bad thing? Common sense...
Our problem is not about guns and weaponry its about our citizens.It is the person that causes the crime and commits the murders around the world. We need to figure out a way of decreasing the ill mentalities in our country. People in the community are unsafe and scared of what might be coming in their directions. Citizens we call friends and family are the ones we trust and also the ones that cause crimes. It is the individuals mindset that we must protect ourselves from.
I believe that there will never be a end to guns. But cutting them off/ making them stricter will not stop people from getting a gun and using it. Maybe we would see less "accidents". I don't think it will help with less crime, but may in fact increase it. Think about it, If we took guns away, but criminals still had them wouldn't that make it easier for them to rob/kill/shot one another. It doesn't make sense
Read above statement. Criminals will always get weapons, even if they have to smuggle them in. They will never care about the law or you. By taking away our abilities to carry and defend ourselves, you are allowing criminals to not only hurt or possibly kill you, but you are allowing them also to commit more crimes ad they will not be scared of anyone, except the police on which they know will not be out to help within a certain timeframe. By then its to late. As for me , when a criminal goes to break into my home where I have children , the criminal won't be leaving with my stuff I worked hard for and my kids will be safe. All those who want stricter laws for the good guys, I hope you have great health insurance and all your receipts, because your gonna be missing all your things while laid up in a hospital bed.
When gasoline prices rose to incredible highs, people spent less time driving and drove fewer places to avoid paying a premium at the pumps. The fact that there were less opportunities to drive their cars did not stop people from accomplishing their travel goals by other means. Some stayed home, yes, but others rode the bus, some car-pooled and still others walked or rode bicycles. If there are less opportunities to achieve ones' goals via a particular method, as a free and innovative people, we find another way. I am certain that this will only be true for the case at hand. Stricter laws may decrease the rate at which everyone attains weapons, it may even limit the types of weapons they can purchase, but it will never stop the person who is unhealthy and looking for a way to take their anger and hatred out on another person or group of people.
I have heard a quote many times about the fork and the gun. "This fork made me fat", etc. And while they fork was used to shovel grotesque amounts of food into the persons' mouth to support a food addiction, that fork still doesn't carry with it the "image" a gun does. guns are portrayed as weapons of violence, destruction and death in movies, books, games and television shows. The way i see it, a responsible "government" would try to support gun responsibility instead of making them the villains. After all, the fork never gets the blame on The Biggest Loser....the person does. They are then held responsible for overeating, pushed to learn a new way to use their forks...and then live a more healthy life.
Since I live in the real world, I understand that crimes are going to happen no matter what. I can understand that guns will be used no matter what. If gun laws are passed and guns are removed from legal purchase, it just means that law abiding citizens are unarmed and criminals are going to keep their guns. And murders and robbers will sky rocket now that we have so many beautifully weak unarmed. But what really baffles me is that people think people will stop killing, robbing and doing violence to each other just because they don’t have a gun. But if you want to stop that just take away all knifes. Or blunt objects. Hell why you are at it, cut off our hands so we as a society can do nothing to each other at all.
A miniscule fraction of bats, knives, metal pipes, chains, crow bars and tire irons that are purchased in the USA are used for crimes. The same rings true for guns, in fact an overwhelming majority of gun owners use firearms for target shooting, hunting, trap shooting, competition shooting and other sporting activities. As such, enacting further legislation restricting the sale of firearms only hurts and inconveniences tax paying citizens.
Criminals, will simply ignore these laws and illegally obtain firearms anyway. Though illegal as defined by federal law, many Americans report they can easily obtain marijuana for recreational use. This is just one of several examples.
Historically, the increase 'gun control' laws have not decreased crimes involving these weapons. "More Gun Control Laws" is a default response by persons who don't know any better after a tragedy or event. It is an thoughtless, fearful reaction to unfortunate situations. Other options should be explored first. Why are these persons committing the crime in the first place? What caused them to do what they did? I can assure you, 'i had access to a gun' will never answer these questions.
If you are a gun-control advocate, print and place a large sign on your front lawn reading: "There are no firearms in this home. You will not be shot on this property." Leave this sign up indefinitely. This is my challenge to you. Until you do so, you are a beneficiary of individual gun ownership and not holding true to your professed beliefs.
Canada tried a gun registry. The argument was if it could save just one life it was worth it. After ten years and billions of dollars spent the government of Canada found it could not document even one single life saved by this boondoggle. As a result the gun registry was scrapped and is no longer law in Canada. By the way, cries that blood would run in the streets were wrong. Violent crime has dropped in Canada since the registry was dropped.
We tried Prohibition, bootleggers got rich. We are attempting to wage war on drugs, cartels are making millions in drug money. If we try to ban or heavily regulate any kind of weapon, it will fail. The illegal markets will make MILLIONS off of the trade of weapons. They already do in fact. Most murders where guns are used, are committed with ILLEGAL weapons. Therefore, while most people have turned in their weapons, criminals and other dangerous people WILL be armed to the teeth. Even if you only ban CERTAIN weapons, the criminals will still have them. Civilians will not and they will be outgunned. That will be a great day, when civilians are defenseless in their own homes...
Chicago has some of the most (if not the most) strict gun control laws yet the number of murders there are mostly due to people illegally carrying guns to COMMIT crimes, leaving the law abiding citizens to become victims. Just try to counter that one. Besides how are you anti gun people going to get rid of all guns?