If you ban guns there will not be guns to be robbed or mugged or even killed.Pepole would also not need a gun to protect them selvs because there would not be any guns. All i am trying to say is that if you ban guns there wont be any to be attackted with.
We are a violent society in part because of the number of guns there are around because the numbers directly correlate. There are many accidents with guns and many times when a disturbed person finds he or she has immediate access and starts shooting. Gun control laws could not hurt.
If there are stricter guns laws, they can limit the sale and distribution of guns and decrease the number of gun related crimes. It is important to limit the sale of guns to people who have shown a history of mental illness or criminal violence in the past. Now is the time to start limiting the sale of guns.
Stricter gun laws can decrease the rate of crimes involving guns. This will make it so people who should not be allowed to get guns, such as criminals and the mentally unstable, will not be able to get them. With just that, it will make it so gun violence will go down.
Take Canada for example. Lovely country, much tighter gun laws, for those who don't know.
Now examine the statistics. I would be a lot more worried about being shot in the USA than I am here.
It's not about criminals obeying the law - it's about how they get them. If gun control is tighter, it is harder for criminals, and people otherwise unsuited to dangerous weapons to get their hands on them.
What makes crimes involving guns worse than crimes involving anything else? Violent crime has a correlation with gun ownership. The more people who own guns in an area, the less overall home invasions and muggings occur (http://www.Gunfacts.Info/). Criminals will think twice about targeting someone who might be armed. New gun laws, such as magazine bans, seem to only inconvenience the law abiding citizens of the US. Prior laws to control guns have been a failure and the NFA has only hurt law-abiding citizens.
I think stricter gun laws decrease the rate of crimes
involving guns. This is common sense. If guns are really hard to buy, people will
just find other weapons to use. Violence
is not going to stop, it will just take other forms. This has been proven by countries like
Stricter gun laws mean that there will be less murders robberies and crimes caused by guns,and it will be harder for drug dealers and other crime makers to get the guns they use to kill or mug or anything!
Cops and the army and other law forces should still get guns.
You want to take away people's guns because you don't want guns getting into the wrong hands, right? Who is going to take away people's guns, huh?
MEN WITH GUNS WILL.
Men with guns with fancy little badges will come to your house and theaten to take you guns. And then the concentration of guns will be where oh yeah in a tiny elite group, that can do whatever it wants.
But say a person likes having a gun for safety, well, he's going to be coherced to giving up his stuff or being put in a cage with a man holding a gun! Talk about contradiction.
Stricter gun laws have never been proven to reduce the rate of crimes involving guns. Politicians and morons have skewed the gun control debate in this direction. However, gun control weakens law-abiding citizens and empowers criminals. That much has been proven in the past few years as far as research is concerned.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 saw a 300 % increase of violent crime in Chicago. And besides do you idiots for gun control even know how criminals get guns? ILLEGALLY!!! They steal, smuggle, or purchase illegally off of the black market, their guns. Gun Control will only assure that law abiding citizens can't defend themselves from criminals. That's exactly what gun free zones do. They forcibly disarm the law abiding citizens. All school shootings have happened in gun free zones. Do you really think a criminal with a few pistols would want to fight back when there's a freakin AA-12 SHOTGUN (Fully automatic) pointed right at him? No. The same goes for any other gun. Criminals are bullies. They pick the easiest fight to win. When you ask how many shootings could have been prevented by gun control, I ask how many shootings could have been stopped with the use of the good citizens being armed? Oh and by the way. Australia tried gun control and their Violent crime went up by 26 percent. When gun control was stopped the violent crime rate went down 21 percent. Also a kid in Houston Texas stopped 2 armed burglars from robbing his house and attacking him by shooting at them with his dads AR15. If he didn't do that the kid and his sister would have been dead. Also his dad was in law enforcement and taught his kid how to shoot his gun and be responsible with it. When asked about it police who responded to the scene said that the kid did the right and smart thing. Plus due to our 2nd ammendment rights the right to keep and bear arms for the people shall not be infringed. It also guarentees the right to organize as a militia to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Our founding fathers knew that there will come a day where we will need this right to defend all of our other rights. So how dare you take away my ability to defend myself. Just because you don't like guns does not give you the right to infringe our right to have them
Banning guns will keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands. Criminals will still acquire them via illegal ways just like they acquire drugs today. In fact gun crime rate would go up because criminals see others as less as a threat because they don't have guns. I'll use the uk as an example. When they banned guns the gun crime rate went up by 35%. Proving that gun bans do not work. Same with stricter gun laws. You only restrict the good citizens while other criminals will continue to disobey.
One reason why I think strick gun control laws do not help reduce crime is Chicago. They have the strictest gun laws and the worst rate of gun related crime in the nation.
Another reason is Australia. They bannned guns and crime went up, even gun related crime went up.
Another reason is Washington DC, they enacted that gun ban and the number of gun related murders shot through the roof like a rocket.
Another reason I think strict gun laws, particularly gun free zones, don't reduce crime is the fact that most public mass shootings happen in gun free zones.
Another reason is that a gun is estimated to be used by a civilian to save lives 15 times more often than one is used to commit a murder (http://www.Justfacts.Com/guncontrol.Asp). Take away the guns or simply make it harder to get one and/or make it harder to carry one in order to be able use it when needed could potentially increase our murder rate by 15 times.
Another reason why I think stricter gun laws would not help reduce crime is the fact that a lot of the crime today is committed by gangs and a bunch of repeat offenders. The people that are contributing so much to our crime rate already don't care about the laws. Most of them are not supposed to have guns in the first place because that have a criminal history or don't meet some other aspect currently required by our background check system. Yet they still get guns some other way than a normal law abiding citizen would. Criminals don't and won't care about gun laws. So burdensome and restrictive gun laws will only apply to law abiding citizens that only use them to defend themselves.
I do not believe that stricter gun laws decrease the rate of crimes involving guns. It may make it decrease right at the onset, as guns are harder to come by, but eventually that void is filled by the black market, which can bring in guns and distribute them even faster. This actually leads to an increase in crimes relating to guns, because now more people are breaking the law than before.
For evidence of this just look to Mexico the country that has a ban on guns and yet has lots of violence involving them. If it is harder for your average citizens to get guns then more of them will not have them in the event that they will need them. Criminals will always have guns why not everyone else
Stricter gun laws would do little if anything to decrease the rate of crimes involving guns.The very nature of a criminal is that they are willing to break the law.It is not legal guns that are committing the crimes,its the criminals.Many people think that stricter prison sentences might be the answer.
If a criminal wants a gun, they will get a gun. Hell, a 12 year old could get a gun. All you really need is a computer. Order one off the black market, silk road, agora marketplace, whatever. And not just USA, but you can get them in Europe, Asia, pretty much everywhere. Banning guns just disarms law-abiding citizens. Just look at the statistics
Britain bans guns. Gun violence and Robberies increase 40%
Australia bans guns. Gun violence and Robberies go up 44%.
Both of these bills were passed after mass-shootings. Don't let temporary emotions lead to permanent mistakes.
Guns are for defending you, your family, and your rights.
In 1938, when Hitler rose to power, the first thing he did was collect all the guns. He knew disarming the public would make them dismissive, and would allow him to control them easily through military force. Many Germans were against National Socialism and the Mass-Murder of Jews, Gays, Blacks, and Poles. But what were they going to do? The French resistance did not gain momentum until the US air-dropped tiny Single-Use .45's over the country. They armed the French people with a tool, which allowed them to take back their freedom.
Kennesaw Georgia actually mandates that every household (except people with convicted felonies or people that are clinically mentally ill) own a firearm and their crime rate is exceptionally low, despite being roughly 30 minutes outside of Atlanta. I would also advise anyone to research the stats on legally owned guns being used in gun crimes. You will find that most guns used in crimes are illegally owned.