One of the first steps is forcing criminals to rely more heavily on the black market to find guns, which can partially be done by expanding background checks and limiting straw purchases. Then it's law enforcement's job to weaken the illegal trading of guns. We should also limit military style assault weapons and the amount of ammo people can have in their gun. Over time this would reduce gun violence. One of the reasons why it wouldn't work quicker is because groups like the NRA have successfully weakened gun laws, resulting in more guns in America. As we tighten restrictions we can whittle gun ownership down to legitimate ownership. The fact is, if there were an assault weapons ban in December, 2012, we would have lost fewer of those children.
Take a look at the UK for example, no-one has easy access to guns and therefore there are not nearly as many gun related crimes. It's true gun control laws only apply to law abiding citizens, but how many guns are stolen? A lot so by making gun control laws stricter there's less chance of guns being stolen. Getting rid of guns would also reduce the violent atmosphere in the US.
When people have easy access to guns, it requires only common sense to tell us that the mentally and emotionally unstable, and/or those with criminal intent, will also be able to obtain firearms. From that we can deduce that such ones my use them inappropriately because of their mental states. Stricter access to guns and more stringent checks reduces people using guns inappropriately. So, therefore, gun control laws do work to keep firearms out of the hands of those most dangerous.
Gun control does not make a difference. You can have strict or lax gun control laws and violence will still happen. People have always found a way to harm each other long before guns were invented. Firearms are only as dangerous as the people who wield them. The method for controlling guns is to control the motive, motive not the weaponless weappon g
Gun control laws limit the amount of firepower that crazy republicans can wield. This is good for the sanity of the country. There are way to many militant people out their armed to the teeth with assault rifles and grenades. They come into contact with law enforcement and law enforcement can do nothing. Gun control laws will allow law enforcement to lock up these crazy people.
“The bad guys, the criminals, don’t follow laws and restricting more of America’s freedoms when it comes to self-defense isn’t the answer.” – Sarah Palin. The main point of this argument is that criminals do not follow laws; therefore laws restricting gun ownership and types of guns would only hurt those who follow them. This implies that areas with more restrictive gun laws should have more crime given that an armed populace prevents criminals. This opinion is connected with the idea of “gun-free” zones and that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people will not make them less violent. It might make them more violent. Violent people can use anything to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people is no more than just taking one out of a thousand more ways to hurt, rob, or kill you.
For every study that appears to indicate increased risk or violence there is another study that shows the opposite. This is not a matter of funding bias but that there are so many variables involved.
For example, the studies that are often used to support that guns indicate more violence fail to control for the fact that those persons obtained guns because they considered themselves under threat or intended to place themselves at risk. Similarly, when the rate of gun ownership and concealed weapons permits increase and violence decreases or gun laws are enacted but violence increases, the results are interpreted without other co-factors considered.
When reviewed by statisticians, there wasn't substantive evidence that gun laws or use impacts violence when co-factors are controlled. The only compelling research is regarding suicides, of which, yes some transference still does occur.
There are simply too many guns in America for gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. New laws can make it more difficult for people to legally purchase new guns but with over 300,000,000 guns in circulation in America there are just too many guns to keep out of criminal hands.
If someone is willing to kill and rape do you really think they're not willing to purchase a gun illegally? Come on guys seriously. If someone Really wants to kill someone they'll try to do it no matter what-maybe with a different weapon or with a gun they got illegally but they'll try. Drugs are illegal but do people get them? OF COURSE and if we ban guns will people get them? OF COURSE. But gee why wound they buy guns in illegal ways...Um is it because they're criminals? But why wouldn't they listen to our laws? Hmmm that's a good question well maybe because criminals won't listen to laws no matter what. During prohibition people still got alcohol. Maybe it took longer but they got it and no matter what you do criminals will still get guns no matter what the laws are.
A lot of pro gun-control activists use England as an example of how gun control works. However the US is not England. First England did not have thousands if not millions of already illegal guns in the country. Second England does not have a 3,145 km (1,954 mi) border with a country ran by criminal gangs. If the drug wars have taught us anything is that if there is a demand someone will supply. The best way of stopping these violent crimes is solving the issues of unemployment and poor education.
Seriously? People are still debating about this? It should be totally clear that the more restrictions you have, the more crime you have! Liberals TOTALLY ignore large cities, who have ridiculous gun violence rates. Simple. Disarm the general population, and the general population will get shot by criminals more. I'm NEVER moving to Chicago, New York or any big city. OR the UK for that matter.
The war on guns is just like the war on drugs.
Even if you were to so how get every state to outlaw guns all you would do is create a new enterprise for criminals. The government can't stop Coke and Pot from coming across the border. You honestly think guns would be any different. Not to mention it is not that hard to make a homemade gun and bullets to go with it. Criminals are going to have the guns no matter what we do and it has been proved that violent criminals are far more likely to avoid people that may be armed.
What would help is mandatory sentences for felons caught with a gun. If you are a felon that get caught with a gun ...Automatic 20 years. This method has had a proved affect in states that have mandatory sentencing laws. It also allows law abiding citizens the ability to own guns. Why so many people are so willing to give up their right to own a gun is beyond me.
You should never ever allow anyone to take any rights away from you. Once you do the next group will focus on what other rights they want to take away from you. You should cherish the rights that were given to you by our forefathers and the American people that have died in the service of our country defending our ability to have those freedoms. Never give any of them up because you are afraid.
Also just because some government official says that gun control will make you safe that does not make it a fact.
There is no proof gun control works and in fact there's proof of the opposite, yes, sometimes gun control produces good results, but good is far from great or excellent, better education, better salaries, less unemployment, better education, all of those are linked to excellent results without taking guns out of people's hands (which usually is an unwanted side effect of gun control if you intend to be less vulnerable and have a safety net around you in case things get hairy with the government or other problems ... ).
I have spent significant time searching the Internet for examples of gun control laws that have reduced violent crime. There are a few (very few) sites that claim some gun control laws have reduced violent crime, but when I examine their evidence it does not support the claims. At best the laws they claim work have no affect on violent crime at all. In the majority of cases the gun control laws have lead to higher rates of violent crime. It seems this is because the laws do not keep guns away from criminals, they only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain weapons.
Look at the Philippines for example, people in the southern region of the Philippines have their own black market, just as we do. If you look up news reports about the southern Philippines, you would see just how easy it is for criminals to get a gun. Banning guns is taking away all guns LEGALLY purchased, which most criminals have not done. Take major cities as an example, all of their crime rates skyrocketed after guns were prohibited. Approving gun control laws would just be rendering law abiding citizens defenseless.