In Switzerland, crime is basically unkown. Why? Because it is required by law to have a gun in your home. Street crime in Israel is very low by American standards. It is plain evidence that the possession of firearms does not automatically foster crime. In Phoenix gun laws are not strict. In fact you don't even need a permit to carry (I do disagree with that). However, in Chicago, gun laws are very strict. A chance of a shooting in Chicago is double than that in Phoenix. You know why? Because people can't have guns. People in Phoenix can and this then presents a problem to the criminal who is going to plan the shooting. They know that 99% of the people around them have guns so they choose not to do it. NOT IN CHICAGO. It's the exact opposite. It's simple . More guns equals less crime.
Statistics don't lie. European countries and Japan strictly limit guns. Gun-related crimes and the overall murder rates in these places are next to zero. Yet, the United States has one of the highest murder rates in the world, mostly due to gun violence. Do the math. I'm not saying Americans should have more gun control, I'm just saying it's a matter of life versus freedom--which is more valuable?
I can understand gun nuts not wanting to lose their guns. Those are their passion. I get it. What I don't get is people saying that stricter gun control won't impact gun violence. This is very basic logic here, and the pro-NRA side seems to combat it by saying "it's a dumb idea because it won't stop ALL gun violence, some people will still be able to get their hands on them." And yeah, of course it won't, and of course they will. But some will fail. The numbers WILL go down, arguing otherwise is straight idiocy. Less things that kill people = less people get killed by them, wow!
I live in Canada, a place where gun related deaths are not all that common. So the question is, why are there less gun related deaths? The answer is easy. There are less fricking guns! And the populous that own guns in comparison to whom which don't, is very minuscule. What people fail to realize, is that sure.. People are in fact a problem. Sure, we could spend trillions upon trillions of dollars to try to "change" people into learning how to use guns safely, and also to help treat mental problems. Or, you could just ban guns. The thing is, guns are meant to hurt and kill. Knives on the other hand (for those of you who use this as an excuse) are meant for cutting. One other thing, it is harder to kill someone with a knife, (because of distance and such) and much easier to kill someone with a gun, due to their inability to escape the situation (Try running away from a bullet). The reality is, people refuse to blame the gun as the problem. It's like asking a home builder to build a house, with no tools or machinery. It makes it significantly more difficult to build the house, similar to how taking away guns (tool to kill easily) would make it more difficult for people to kill.
The only way we can solve the problem, is to try to change what is easiest to change. We can't change people's mind sets, (which nobody realizes), but we can help make it more difficult for people (with those mind sets) to commit those crimes.
If guns are less available to people for purchase, then it's possible that gun-related crimes will go down. However, people would still be able to buy guns second-hand or steal them. Sadly, there are other ways to commit crimes (including murders), such as bombings and arson. Poisoning used to be one of the more common ways, until investigations into it became better. Even if gun control is stricter, and even if that would reduce gun-related crime, people will still commit violent crimes if they're so inclined, either by stealing guns or by using other means.
No, I do not believe that stricter gun control laws will control or decrease gun related crimes. In the end if someone wants to get a gun they will get it from alternate sources. A lot of the gun violence is not be committed by those that have registered or legal guns, it is committed by those that have attained guns by other manners. Furthermore, even those that use guns for violence that are legal, they may have never had a violent incident recorded so the laws would not really effect them until they have committed a crime.
• Criminals don't obey the law. Like drug trafficking today, criminals will get guns through illegal means by theft, trafficking, and the black market.
• Gun control affects law-abiding citizens and law-abiding citizens only.
• According to an extensive report by the National Academy of Science, there wasn’t a single gun control regulation that actually reduces violent crime, suicides or accidents; they reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications.
• A study done by the University of Pennsylvania also determined that the 1994 “assault weapons” ban did little to reduce violence while in effect.
• Within a decade after England practically banned all firearms in 1997, crime with handguns had doubled and the country experienced a mass shooting. Additionally, the homicide rate rose dramatically for seven years after the ban—from 1.1 per 100,000 to 1.8 per 100,000.
• Glenn Beck, the host of an American television said “More gun control doesn’t mean less crime. More gun control just means more control.”
Stricter gun control may or may not decrease gun-related crimes, but the only guarantee that gun violence ends is finding a way to prevent people from committing the crimes in the first place. There are many factors including economic difficulties and mental health that are not being addressed with guns being used as a scapegoat.
Unfortunately, stronger gun control measures wouldn't decrease gun-related crimes. The fact of the matter is that gun control only takes weapons away from law-abiding citizens. Criminals are still fully capable of acquiring weapons through illegal means. Therefore, gun control measures actually cripple people that follow the law and want to own firearms.
One of the best cases I can think of to represent this topic is France.
France, along with several other EU members, are incredibly strict when it comes to gun control. Their are only around 3 million registered gun in the country (roughly). And yet France just so happens to be one of the most heavily armed nations in Europe with an estimated 16 million fire arms (roughly). The reasoning behind this is that most of these fire arms were obtained though illegal means (the black market) most likely from neighboring Spain (which has a serious black market problem).
Increasing regulations on fire arms does not reduce the amount of gun violence in a particular nation. (P.S. Mexico also just so happens to have a serious black market problem).
Criminals won't turn their guns in. Most criminals have gotten their guns illegally with out a background check or registering so it would be impossible for the guns to be taken away from them. The only people who will turn in their guns and not buy guns will be the law abiding citizens. When criminals use their illegal guns against the law abiding people we will be unarmed and defenseless with out a gun. A victim with out a gun is what a criminal wants. I don't know why people like piers Morgan want to be the criminals friend. Why would you want to help the criminal by disarming their victims? How safe would we be if only the criminals had guns and the good people were defenseless?.
The law abiding, responsible and mentally stable citizens with guns are not the problem. They are not shooting up places and killing people with their legal guns. Why would you take away their guns? All it does is make the good guys defenseless.
In this country, gun control is not the problem, it's our culture. Violent video games and movies are a huge component of our pop culture, and they desensitize viewers. Other countries do not have as many mass shootings simply due to the fact their pop culture is not made up of Grand Theft Auto or Halo. In the case of the recent debate on assault weapons, I see no practical uses for an assault rifle.