With a knife or any other weapon, the most you can do is creep up on a person in the middle of the night, and even then that person has a pretty high chance of surviving. People say that the criminals can just get their guns from someone else, but I know that it would be at least harder to get a gun, and I am for a ban on assault weapons, that means that store owners and people who want to protect their house can still have a gun, just not an assault weapon because assault weapons are completely unnecessary. If someone wants to rob your house, it probably won't be more than one or two, or at most three people. An assault weapon just sprays bullets everywhere, harming innocent bystanders as well. You only really need one or two good shots, and you can accomplish that with a rifle or a revolver.
A ban on guns would reduce crime rates in the US because there will be no other way to commit mass murders. It would also reduce crime rates because people who could commit crimes would have to spend an excessive amount of money because guns are the cheapest way to murder people.
Guns serve no purpose in society. You don't need guns, thousands die a year as a result of them though and a gun ban would lower gang violence. Guns serve no purpose and should be except in special cases such as for police, hunting a shooting ranges, but the amount of gun freedom we get in this country is terrifying.
If you ban guns things like the massacre in Connecticut would not happen. If guns were illegal then you wouldn't' need guns to defend yourself because no one else would have a gun. You wouldn't need one. Guns should be illegal!!!It could be you who gets shot nextHow would you like that to happen to you???
I've no idea how to get hold of a gun. Apart from a few shooting clubs and armed police at airports on diplomatic protection, I've hardly ever seen a gun in private hands. Farmers have shotguns and their are a few that go on clay pigeon shoots. The rich go for a Grouse shoot but really you just don't see any guns day to day.
But then I live in good old England, where gun crime is very rare. America is beyond repair and past the point of no return. The stupidity of the gun lobby is just amazing, but then America is not the envy of the world anymore -- poor healthcare, rubbish infrastructure and disgraceful levels of poverty.
New Zealand, Japan, and Australia are some examples of countries banning most, if not all guns and the crime rate is much lower than the United States. In New Zealand, for instance, it is so peaceful and safe. Guns are the last thing on the citizen's mind in that country. I would much rather have it that way then live in fear and feel you "need" a gun just to protect yourself. It can easily send with a complete gun ban and confiscation.
I live in the UK and feel safe here! Why, you ask? It's very simple. Guns are difficult to get here. I can completely understand the US people thinking it's for self defense. But self defense against what? Criminals with guns. Where to they get their guns? Down at the local shop of course! It's that easy to get a lethal firearm, it's unbelievable. No wonder you want guns for self protection. But however, if you start to ban firearms, the amount that the criminals will have in their arsenal will decrease, meaning that civilians don't need guns! In the UK last year 58 people were killed by guns. Yet in the US 60 were injured in just one event!
The ban on guns would force gun owners to believe in more peaceful solutions to problems because they would not be able to rely on their gun like a religious artifact in the belief that it is going to protect them. Carrying a gun is like wearing a crucifix around one's neck. The wearer and bearer of the gun live in an illusion that it will protect them whereas the reality is that gun owners are statistically more inclined to commit murder with their weapon than to use it to protect themselves. But the ban on guns will not only reduce crime. The ban on guns would change people's stance on how they view the world and how they take action upon it. The U.S. being a democracy must take into account the 50% of the population religion owning guns and solving problems with guns. The military action that America uses around the world has a direct connection with gun owners in America that want to solve everything with bullets not diplomacy. Gun owners voted George Bush into office and demanded that he resolve terrorism with guns. If Al Gore would have been elected president we would have had a more peaceful resolve that would have involved more diplomacy and less guns. BAN GUNS IN AMERICA.
The phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is just so stupid. The person does pull the trigger but without the gun there is no trigger to pull. It's much harder to kill a person with say, a pocket knife. No person who says, "Well if I don't have a gun then what if a person who does have one comes after me?" Well if there's a ban on guns then the said person wouldn't have a gun to shoot. America is forgetting the basic principals it was found upon. When the second amendment was created the founding fathers didn't predict the caliber of guns the military has created for civilian use. Back then the amendment was made to assure people that they could create and maintain a militia, but also back then people didn't want to depend on the military. I'm not saying get rid of guns entirely but change the amendments as the world changes. The law is the wisdom of the ages. The law should reflect the time that the country is in. And the second amendment was made about 300-400 years ago. Now to me, I think that the law should reflect the times. And right now it isn't. If gun violence isn't under control by 2017 I'm going to move out of the country. America just isn't the same anymore. Not because of President Obama, but because of the mess George Bush put us in. Now to all the adults out there, think about your actions because what you do effects generations to come and if you cannot clean up your previous generation's mess, than why do you think we can? Remember what you do effects us. Me. My future. It's in your hands, leave America as it is or change it for the better? America either changes now or goes into turmoil later. Your choice.
Guns are the source of over 11,000 death a year in America. Now, I know that all of you gun advocates say that knife crimes would go up, but the day before Sandy Hook, 22 kids were knifed in a school knifing in China and all of them survived. You don't need an assault rifle because handguns and manual firing weapons can be used for defense as well. Also, with semi and fully automatic weapons, you can just fire randomly at a bunch of people. But with a handgun and other manual reload weapons, you actually have to take aim and reload after every shot, giving the victims a chance to escape. And in Britain, thanks to the no gun rules, 35 British are killed by guns each year. The assault weapon ban in Australia has also helped; deaths from guns went from over 600 a year in the 1990's to just 210 as of 2010. If you do the math, that is a flat out 65% decrease in gun deaths. In addition to banning assault rifles, I support funding for mental health research, universal background checks, and overall, more strict gun laws.
It's been proven in various countries like Australia, Austria, Japan and even in the US with the assault weapon ban. I'm not for a complete ban on firearms, as I think we should have a right to defend ourselves and others. We don't need fully auto firearms or 100 round mags.
You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun. It very simple. A total ban is the only answer. The Second Amendment wasn't created so you have the right to kill someone. People need to wake up already. How many more shootings must we endure. We should also look at how many people are killed each year from gun discharge accidents. Lets face it. A gun is an instrument of death that has no place in a civilized society.
As someone who lives outside of the USA I find it hard to understand why people feel the need to be armed with automatic weapons for their personal safety. It is well known that carrying a weapon increases your chances of being shot. I understand that it is not a simple matter of banning guns -- everyone has them now -- but at least restrictions on automatic weapons would be a start.
Americans these days can buy guns anywhere like Walmart, some of them sells guns. The public has too easy access to dangerous weapons so those who want to kill people, they are practically free to do so. Also, if we compare with their northern neighbor, Canada, the U.S. who don't have a ban on guns have a greater killing rate than Canada who has a ban on guns. Guns are arms that are destructive, used to kill animals ... or people. Even though not all crimes involve a portable firearm. Would it REDUCE crime? Yes. Why? Because there will be way less access to guns, dangerous weapons, to the hands of people you never know.
A gun has no other purpose than to kill. It appear to me that the right to bear arms transcends the right of school children's right to live. As long as the public are allowed to own weapons of local destruction children's lives will be in danger. Make ALL ownership of guns a capital offence.
Protecting the citizens is the job of the Police. Just like treating medical illnesses is the job of doctors. Would it make sense for everyone to buy whatever pharmaceutical medicines they want, and store them in their house so if they get sick, they can cure themselves?? NO!
Everyone in this society has a role, a job. The job of the police is to protect its citizens. They are the only ones who should have guns. Yes, if guns are outlawed, then it will be a felony to carry firearms (at home or otherwise). Yes, there will be a few stupid, senseless brutes who have guns, but those people are now outlaws, and they are commiting a serious crime to not give away their guns.
Yes, there will always be instances of some guy coming into a house and robbing people, and the family has nothing but 911. But that is OK.
The greater good that will come out of this, is that there won't be school killings, or some lunatic going into a building and shooting people. The U.S. should be embarassed that something like that happens so commonly in such an advanced country.
Many criminals are opportunists, they commit the crime simply because they have the means, and its pretty easy. The harder we make it to commit a crime, we will flush out the lazy ones and be left with the hard-core criminals, which we had to begin with anyways. Banning guns will slightly reduce the amount of people who take advantage of them.
Essentially, according to Buddhist teachings, the ethical and moral principles are governed by examining whether a certain action, whether connected to body or speech is likely to be harmful to one's self or to others and thereby avoiding any actions which are likely to be harmful. In Buddhism, there is much talk of a skilled mind. A mind that is skilful avoids actions that are likely to cause suffering or remorse.
Moral conduct for Buddhists differs according to whether it applies to the laity or to the Sangha or clergy. A lay Buddhist should cultivate good conduct by training in what are known as the "Five Precepts". These are not like, say, the ten commandments, which, if broken, entail punishment by God. The five precepts are training rules, which, if one were to break any of them, one should be aware of the breech and examine how such a breech may be avoided in the future. The resultant of an action (often referred to as Karma) depends on the intention more than the action itself. It entails less feelings of guilt than its Judeo-Christian counterpart. Buddhism places a great emphasis on 'mind' and it is mental anguish such as remorse, anxiety, guilt etc. which is to be avoided in order to cultivate a calm and peaceful mind. The five precepts are:
1) To undertake the training to avoid taking the life of beings. This precept applies to all living beings not just humans. All beings have a right to their lives and that right should be respected.
2) To undertake the training to avoid taking things not given. This precept goes further than mere stealing. One should avoid taking anything unless one can be sure that is intended that it is for you.
3) To undertake the training to avoid sensual misconduct. This precept is often mistranslated or misinterpreted as relating only to sexual misconduct but it covers any overindulgence in any sensual pleasure such as gluttony as well as misconduct of a sexual nature.
4) To undertake the training to refrain from false speech. As well as avoiding lying and deceiving, this precept covers slander as well as speech which is not beneficial to the welfare of others.
5) To undertake the training to abstain from substances which cause intoxication and heedlessness. This precept is in a special category as it does not infer any intrinsic evil in, say, alcohol itself but indulgence in such a substance could be the cause of breaking the other four precepts.
These are the basic precepts expected as a day to day training of any lay Buddhist. On special holy days, many Buddhists, especially those following the Theravada tradition, would observe three additional precepts with a strengthening of the third precept to be observing strict celibacy. The additional precepts are:
6) To abstain from taking food at inappropriate times. This would mean following the tradition of Theravadin monks and not eating from noon one day until sunrise the next.
7) To abstain from dancing, singing, music and entertainments as well as refraining from the use of perfumes, ornaments and other items used to adorn or beautify the person. Again, this and the next rule.
8) To undertake the training to abstain from using high or luxurious beds are rules regularly adopted by members of the Sangha and are followed by the layperson on special occasions.
Laypersons following the Mahayana tradition, who have taken a Bodhisattva vow, will also follow a strictly vegetarian diet. This is not so much an additional precept but a strengthening of the first precept; To undertake the training to avoid taking the life of beings. The eating of meat would be considered a contribution to the taking of life, indirect though it may be.
The Buddhist clergy, known as the Sangha, are governed by 227 to 253 rules depending on the school or tradition for males or Bhikkhus and between 290 and 354 rules, depending on the school or tradition for females or Bhikkhunis. These rules, contained in the Vinaya or first collection of the Buddhist scriptures,, are divided into several groups, each entailing a penalty for their breech, depending on the seriousness of that breech. The first four rules for males and the first eight for females, known as Parajika or rules of defeat, entail expulsion from the Order immediately on their breech. The four applying to both sexes are: Sexual intercourse, killing a human being, stealing to the extent that it entails a gaol sentence and claiming miraculous or supernormal powers. Bhikkhunis' additional rules relate to various physical contacts with males with one relating to concealing from the order the defeat or parajika of another. Before his passing, the Buddha instructed that permission was granted for the abandonment or adjustment of minor rules should prevailing conditions demand such a change. These rules apply to all Sangha members irrespective of their Buddhist tradition.
The interpretation of the rules, however differs between the Mahayana and Theravada traditions. The Theravadins, especially those from Thailand, claim to observe these rules to the letter of the law, however, in many cases, the following is more in theory than in actual practice. The Mahayana Sangha interprets the rule not to take food at an inappropriate time as not meaning fasting from noon to sunrise but to refrain from eating between mealtimes. The fasting rule would be inappropriate, from a health angle, for the Sangha living in cold climates such as China, Korea and Japan. When one examines the reason that this rule was instituted initially, the conclusion may be reached that it is currently redundant. It was the practice in the Buddha's time for the monks to go to the village with their bowls to collect food. To avoid disturbing the villagers more than necessary, the Buddha ordered his monks to make this visit once a day, in the early morning. This would allow the villagers to be free to conduct their day to day affairs without being disturbed by the monks requiring food. Today, of course, people bring food to the monasteries or prepare it on the premises so the original reason no longer applies. As many of you would be aware, in some Theravadin countries, the monks still go on their early morning alms round, but this is more a matter of maintaining a tradition than out of necessity. Also, a rule prohibiting the handling of gold and silver, in other words - money, is considered by the Mahayana Sangha a handicap were it to be observed strictly in today's world. They interpret this rule as avoiding the accumulation of riches which leads to greed. Theravadin monks tend to split hairs on this rule as, although most will not touch coins, many carry credit cards and cheque books.
Let me now deal briefly with the Buddhist attitude to violence, war and peace. The Buddha said in the Dhammapada:
*Victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat.(Dp.15,5) and
* Hatreds never cease by hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law. (Dp.1,5)
The first precept refers to the training to abstain from harming living beings. Although history records conflicts involving the so-called Buddhist nations, these wars have been fought for economic or similar reasons. However, history does not record wars fought in the name of propagating Buddhism. Buddhism and, perhaps, Jainism are unique in this regard. His Holiness, the Dalai Lama has never suggested armed conflict to overcome the persecution and cruelty perpetrated by the Communist Chinese occupation forces. He has always advocated a peaceful and non-violent solution. Venerable Maha Ghosananda, the Supreme Patriarch of Cambodia has urged Cambodians to put aside their anger for the genocide of the Khmer Rouge and to unify to re-establish their nation. He has written:
The suffering of Cambodia has been deep. From this suffering comes great compassion. Great compassion makes a peaceful heart. A peaceful heart makes a peaceful person. A peaceful person makes a peaceful family. A peaceful family makes a peaceful community. A peaceful community makes a peaceful nation. A peaceful nation makes a peaceful world.
Going back to the early history of Buddhism, Emperor Asoka, who, after a bloody but successful military campaign, ruled over more than two thirds of the Indian subcontinent, suffered great remorse for the suffering that he had caused, banned the killing of animals and exhorted his subjects to lead kind and tolerant lives. He also promoted tolerance towards all religions which he supported financially. The prevalent religions of that time were the sramanas or wandering ascetics, Brahmins, Ajivakas and Jains. He recommended that all religions desist from self praise and condemnation of others. His pronouncements were written on rocks at the periphery of his kingdom and on pillars along the main roads and where pilgrims gathered. He also established many hospitals for both humans and animals. Some of his important rock edicts stated:
1. Asoka ordered that banyan trees and mango groves be planted, rest houses built and wells dug every half mile along the main roads.
2. He ordered the end to killing of any animal for use in the royal kitchens.
3. He ordered the provision of medical facilities for humans and beasts.
4. He commanded obedience to parents, generosity to priests and ascetics and frugality in spending.
5. All officers must work for the welfare of the poor and the aged.
6. He recorded his intention to promote the welfare of all beings in order to repay his debt to all beings.
7. He honours men of all faiths.
Not all Buddhists follow the non-violent path, however. A Buddhist monk, Phra Kittiwutthi of the Phra Chittipalwon College in Thailand, is noted for his extreme right-wing views. He said that it was not a breech of the first precept to kill communists. He said that if Thailand were in danger of a communist takeover, he would take up arms to protect Buddhism. Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai peace activist, reports in his book, "Seeds of Peace" that Phra Kittiwutthi has since modified his stance by declaring "to kill communism or communist ideology is not a sin". Sulak adds that the monk confessed that his nationalist feelings were more important than his Buddhist practice and that he would be willing to abandon his yellow robes to take up arms against communist invaders from Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam. By doing so, he said, he would be preserving the monarchy, the nation and the Buddhist religion. In contrast to the views of Phra Kittiwutthi, Sulak Sivaraksa reports that the Vietnamese monk, Thich Nhat Hanh is of the view that 'preserving Buddhism does not mean that we should sacrifice people's lives in order to safeguard the Buddhist hierarchy, monasteries or rituals. Even if Buddhism as such were extinguished, when human lives are preserved and when human dignity and freedom are cultivated towards peace and loving kindness, Buddhism can be reborn in the hearts of human beings.
In conclusion, I will briefly mention some other issues mentioned in the Syllabus.
The third precept on training in restraint of the senses includes sexuality. A Buddhist should be mindful of the possible effects on themselves and on others of improper sexual activity. This precept would include adultery because this also breeches the precept of not taking what does is not freely given. A relationship with someone who is committed to another is stealing. Similarly in cases of rape and child abuse, one is stealing the dignity and self respect of another. One is also the cause of mental pain, not to mention physical pain so one is causing harm to another living being. Therefore, such behaviour is breaking several precepts.
Marriage is not a sacrament in Buddhism as it is in other religions. Marriage is governed by civil law and a Buddhist is expected to observe the prevailing law in whatever country they live. In the Theravadin tradition, monks are prohibited by their Vinaya rules to encourage or perform a marriage ceremony. The rule states:
Should a Bhikkhu engage to act as a go-between for a man's intentions to a woman or a woman's intentions to a man, whether about marriage or paramourage, even for a temporary arrangement, this entails initial and subsequent meeting of the Sangha.
In many Theravadin countries, the couple will, following their marriage in a civil ceremony, invite the monks to their home to perform a blessing ceremony. They will offer food and other requisites to the monks and invite their family and friends to participate. In the Mahayana tradition the same rule conveys an entirely different meaning. It reads:
Should a Bhikkshu, seek to establish a conducive situation by means of which a man and a woman engage in sexual misconduct, either by himself, by order, or by means of messages, and as a result of his activities the man and woman should meet, he has committed an offence.
This rule does not preclude marriage but, rather, deals with the monk assuming the role of a procurer for immoral purposes. In Western countries, following the Christian precedent, many Mahayana monks become registered marriage celebrants so that, if called upon, a marriage ceremony can be performed in the temple. Generally, in countries where the law allows, Buddhists accept de-facto relationships. Promiscuity would be frowned upon as sexual misconduct but an ongoing relationship between two people, either within or outside of marriage would be considered moral conduct. As one of the essential Buddhist teachings is that everything is impermanent and subject to change, the irrevocable breakdown of a relationship between a couple would be understood in this light, so divorce would not be considered improper.
As far as bioethical questions are concerned, it is mainly a matter of the attitude of the different traditions or schools of Buddhism. This is tied to the concept of rebirth and when it occurs. According to the Theravadin tradition, rebirth occurs immediately upon death. The body of the deceased is no longer considered as a part of the former being, so such things as autopsies, organ transplants etcetera are allowable. In fact, many Theravadins, especially in Malaysia, encourage the donation of human organs as being the highest form of giving. Often, especially at Vesak, the celebration of the birth, enlightenment and passing away of the Buddha, blood donations are performed in the temple grounds. The Mahayana, on the other hand, believes that there is an intermediate state between incarnations, known as Antarabhava. Most people following this tradition try to avoid touching or moving the body for, at least eight hours after death. This, of course, means that the organs would by then be useless for transfer to another human being.
The Buddhist work ethic and business and professional ethics would, ideally be closely tied to respect for the environment. It is well described in E.F.Schumacher's book "Small is Beautiful":
"While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is the Middle Way and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well being. The keynote of Buddhist economics is simplicity and non-violence. From an economist's point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern - amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfying results."
Ken Jones in a paper called "Buddhism and Social Action" comments: "Schumacher outlines a 'Buddhist economics' in which production would be based on a middle range of material goods (and no more), and on the other a harmony with the natural environment and its resources.
The above principles suggest some kind of diverse and politically decentralised society, with co-operative management and ownership of productive wealth. It would be conceived on a human scale, whether in terms of size and complexity or organisation or of environmental planning, and would use modern technology selectively rather than being used by it in the service of selfish interests. In Schumacher's words, 'It is a question of finding the right path of development, the Middle Way, between materialist heedlessness and traditionalist immobility, in short, of finding Right Livelihood'".
Despite the theory surrounding Buddhist business practice, greed still seems to be the order of the day in many Buddhist countries. In Thailand, a monk in the north, Acharn Ponsektajadhammo, has been leading a campaign against the environmental vandalism of the timber industry. Tree felling in Northern Thailand has caused erosion, flooding and has economically ruined small farmers. For his environmental efforts, Acharn Ponsektajadhammo has had death threats and was recently arrested. In Japan, another country where the majority of the population is Buddhist, the killing of whales and dolphins is still prevalent. Animals seem to find no place in the group culture of Japanese society.
As may be seen from the foregoing, Buddhist ethical principles are very noble and in an ideal world their practice would lead to peace and harmony but, unfortunately, as the Buddha has taught, people are motivated by greed hatred and delusion - even Buddhists.
I disagree with the mentality that a good man with a gun would kill the bad man with a gun. It is simply unrealistic to say that once guns are made accesible to all, that any phsycopath can lay his hands on one and go out on a rampage. I believe that if more and more guns are produced and they become easier to buy that people will no longer be able to leave their houses to go to the marketplace or to take a walk in the park. American citizens will be in constant fear of being shot by a maniac who managed to find a gun and has just experienced a catastrophe of some sort and is out to kill the first man that comes into sight. A ban in guns would be the most reasonable solution to our gun control conflict. It will limit the amount of people who can own guns therefore creating a more safe environment for all our citizens. The only people allowed to carry guns should be men or women in the police force. In terms of the 2nd ammendment that gives citizens the right to bear arms.... Wasn't the constitution ammended when we gave women the right to vote....why cant we ammend it again???
A ban on -all- guns would of course reduce crime. If a person is found with a weapon, the weapon is confiscated and off the market. It will be a slow and gradual process, but at the end of the day, all guns (except military and police weapons) would have been removed from the street. Of course, this will reduce gun crime, and will have zero effect on crime involving other weapons.
If you go just across the border, you will notice than in Canada, where guns aren't banned but heavily regulated, there is much less gun violence. In most areas, they had to go back 5 years to find the last record of a shooting.
Even though banning guns for civilians would probably cause a new black market to emerge, it would at least lower the amount of people who carry them in the streets.
Despite what people may think, the problem isn't ENTIRELY criminals getting ahold of guns. The problem is also the fact that civilians feel entitled to carry firearms (which they are not - but that's a whole different discussion) and abuse this privilege. Why is this an issue? This is an issue because people make extremely bad decisions under pressure, especially with a murder weapon in their pocket. They may be perfectly sane people, but if they feel like they are threatened, their mind can go into adrenaline overdrive and they could shoot someone under the mistaken impression that it was self defense.
As for self defense, people seem to think that if you carry a gun, you are protected against guns. This is obviously completely untrue, unless of course you have a revolver that expands into a shield. If there is a shooting in the street and the people around have guns, they might panic and start shooting, causing more unnecessary civilian casualties. Take for example the movie theatre shooting in Aurora. If the people in that theater had had guns and had time to pull them out in the first place, many more people would have died because people would have panicked and shot aimlessly in the dark movie theater.
Many families feel the need to have a gun in the house to protect from eventual burglars etc. but a study has proven that if you have a gun in your home it is 30% more likely that is will be used AGAINST you than BY you.
So yes. Yes a ban on guns would reduce crime int he US, in my opinion.
If you asked for my view on the 'it's the man that kills not the gun' argument, I would call it a lazy and indifferent justification for the excessive amount of gun crime in the U.S., and easy availability of firearms constructed by purely profit motivated corporations and organizations. Although it is the man who ultimately makes the decision, guns make it easier. It's no debate that to kill someone with a knife takes premeditation and determination, whereas with a gun all it takes is a flare of anger and a quick pull of a trigger from a distance and poof! Just one more statistic. And this is only the lesser of many evils of firearms. I recently saw a news report from the nothing short of horrific events at the Sandy Hook school, and couldn't help but notice the killer. A scrawny, weak looking young man. It strikes me that without the use of ranged firearms that this obviously psychologically disturbed character somehow obtained, this person would not have been able to inflict the damage he did without them. If he had attacked the school with a knife, he would have immediately been overpowered and children would still be alive. So wake up people, it's time for change, and no matter what way you slice it, there's only really one argument.
A ban on guns means that there would be less dangerous weapons for people to use, and therefore there will be less killings. And people mostly die because the murderers get their hands on guns and then use them inappropriately, which kills other people. I think that if guns were banned there wouldn't be this problem.
If you check the Internet to find the statistics of gun violence around the world, you see that the United States has the highest amount of deaths by firearms of any developed country. All others above the US are very much develop ping and most of them have corrupt governments.
When you look at the UK, 0.25 deaths by firearms are performed a per year per 100,000 inhabitants. Compare that to the US, which has 10.2 deaths by firearms per year per 100,000 inhabitants!
Just compare the US crime and murder rates to the rest of the civilized world. It can't be that we're right and the rest of the world is wrong. Let's give our heads a shake and finally do something about this madness. Isn't 85,000 + shootings/gun incidents per year enough?
Many pro-gun people say 'I'm law-abiding, why target me?'. This argument is so flimsy it's hilarious. They fail to realize that they can become a criminal themselves at some point in their lives and as a result of perhaps a lifetime of buying guns either legally or illegally they have access to weaponry they can then use in criminal activities. They say the same for people with mental health problems but fail to realize that they themselves could have similar problems in the future and become a danger to someone else. You suggest monthly mental health checks to them and they scream 'infringement!' and start quoting the 2nd as if it's gospel. I think with the resounding constitution-quoting fervor I've noticed overall I think pro-gun advocates/owners feel they are immune to psychological problems or indeed any capacity for deviant behavior. They consider themselves peaceful but in the same breath threaten to kill people/incite civil war if their guns are taken away and seem to revel in that attitude overall.
What kind of retarded hillbilly really needs a gun? No I don't feel safer knowing backwoods hillbillies who can't read and write are carrying guns. Is America so stupid? Even if you could find a valid excuse for owning a gun, what stops people who shouldn't have one from taking it from you? Anyone who carries a gun, brings at least one gun to the gun fight. The wild west is gone and John Wayne is dead. I can't believe that we have not become more civilized and educated than this.
If we take away guns from people, then most of the murders will go away with it because if they can't get people killed before the cops can get to them,they will most likely give it up. So it is sort of worth it. It should stop most of it.
Our crime rate is the worst yet, and having guns around for anybody who is not an official ups the chances of more people getting killed, injured, robbed, etc. Just get rid of guns. And when I say that I mean for hunters, also. Sorry. If you have a license for hunting then yes, but you should only be able to have that license if you do not have a criminal record and are a good citizen.
I can't believe some Americans. Can you not see that guns are dangerous, Britain did, and we are such a civilized country (except for a few people). In the USA, 81 people die each day from guns, that's 29,569 people each year (2004). I can't believe so many Americans still want guns, WHY? ARE YOU ALL KILLERS? IF YOU WANT TO BE PROTECTED, DISPOSE OF THEM ALTOGETHER. I know you'll say hunting is also used for guns, but us Brits hunt too, we use guns provided by companies. Can't Americans do that? Guns are banned in Korea. There are very strong firearms laws in Britain. Yet still Americans listen to the declaration of independence where it says they have the 'right to bear arms'. This was in a time when there were so many wars going on, no WMD's, just guns and small scale bombs. Britain had this time too, and we acknowledge that it was not a good time, but we don't have guns in sale at ASDA (Britain's version of Walmart) or Tesco. Innocent children die EVERY YEAR in events like Columbine. GET RID OF GUNS IN AMERICA.
Regardless of how big or small the reduction would be, this questions asks if there would be a reduction of any form in overall crime in the US. Since gun crime is a constituent part of crime as a whole, crime will fall as guns are banned, ceteris paribus. Whether all other types of crime remain constant is another question. Perhaps more people would engage in knife crime rather than gun crime. However, it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that a ban on guns would increase crime and I would argue that it is highly unlikely that banning guns would have no effect on crime. Some people that would have committed crime with guns may now use knives instead, but I am confident that on the whole crime would fall. Additionally, it would make mass-murders far more difficult to undertake, since they are almost not feasible without the aid of guns. Clearly there would be a reduction in crime on this front. Frankly, I am aghast that many people are standing defiantly in the flow of reason and are maintaining that banning guns would not reduce crime even slightly. Do you really suppose that murders would be as frequent if nobody had a gun? It seems almost irrational to believe that it is as easy to kill with a knife as with guns. Furthermore, a ban on guns may result in a shift in mentality away from violent crime, since people would not have such easy access to lethal weaponary. To summarise, surely a ban on guns MUST reduce crime in the US, because not every person who would have committed a gun crime, had they not been banned, would commit some other kind of crime to compensate.
Most people do not even use the gun(s) that they keep in their house. Some use them to threaten others, saying that they have a weapon in the house. In most cases where someone shoots another person and gets caught, they usually have a gun which they acquired from their home. And that gun is the one that is usually used. I find no purpose in keeping a firearm in a household if you are to never use it, and if you do use it there might be bad intentions. I understand that as an American it is my right to bear arms, but is there really a purpose to do so?
The assault weapon ban expired in 2004. Since then, half of the mass shootings in our countries history have occurred. This ban is part of a butterfly effect, created by the tragedy in Newtown. The ban was created to keep our schools, theaters, etc. safe. Crime levels dropping just happens to be an additional incentive.
In the US there 270 mil guns and 300 mil people, so lets say 1 in 2 people have guns (Even though it is more like 3 in 4) where are you gun owners when a mass shooting happens, maybe you'll are just cowards. Adam Lanza's mother had a gun we all know what her faith was. As you pro gun people are so intelligent what is your remedy for being fat? Eating more fatty food.
Do we actually need assault guns for protection? I do not think so. Handguns are perfect for protection, but the assault weapons are only for mass killing nowadays. Shooting in Connecticut,Colorado, and Arizona was all used semi- automatic assault weapons. This is why I think if firearms are Banned, the crime rate will go down
I believe that having a ban on guns would reduce crime in U.S mainly because I live in Australia where there is a gun ban so nobody carries guns around which I like because I feel safe knowing that there is a very small chance that anyone I meet actually has a gun they could have a knife but at least a knife is easier to fight back against then a gun is, A group of Australian blocks would easy disarm a man with a knife if they saw him using it dangerously in public whereas if there was a man swinging a gun around people would be less likely to risk their lives disarming a man with a lethal wepaon also if anyone was actually stabbed they are still more likely to live then a person who has been shot.
What I am trying to say is that maybe if guns were banned criminals would find and use alterative weapons but it would never be as easy to commit a crime or kill someone without the power that a gun provides. e.g. I think it would be easy to pull the trigger effortlessly at a mans head but it would be harder to actually get close and personal with a man to stab him in the head.
I think the idea that if you take away the guns from everyone there would be no good guys with guns is stupid. I don't believe that every good or innocent man, women or child has a gun or has the knowledge to use a gun. I think that most good people will not find it necessary to buy or carry around a gun since a good or innocent guy wouldn't have any intrest in shooting anyone or anything.
Maybe it would be possible that criminals would be still able to get guns but at least it would be harder for them to get one and maybe more expensive so less potential criminals would go through the effort buy a gun. Police can easily do raids on or arrest illegal gun sellers so not only will it be hard to buy guns but it will be also hard to sell guns. Also if guns are illegal and a criminal is seen with a gun he can be arrested or have his gun taken away other then having a criminal walk around with a gun blending in with the normal citizens that are also carrying guns.
In light of the carnage in Newtown, I wish people on both sides - but especially the gun advocates - would stop talking right now about crime and criminals. In order to take one positive step forward, to save lives when there is a future incident, Americans need to take measures to eradicate ALL semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines from the marketplace and from public arsenals. It won't happen in a day but surely the logic can be seen that the less of these weapons and magazines there are, the less carnage there will be. It isn't about solving violent crime, it's about stopping the massacres.
The fact of the matter is, we in America have become desensitized to reality. There are mass shootings every month in the US, but in the UK there may only be one a year. What's the difference? They have a ban on guns. It's possible to kill people by other means, but those other means all have other uses. Guns don't.
Guns are made to kill. And we can't just let the issue be dredged up after every school shooting. There are 87 people killed every day in America. This isn't a rare occurrence.
Connecticut shooting. Another one in the US. Ban guns for goodness sake. Some people are just stupid and cruel to start shooting people. Banning guns will make citizens, authorities, etc take away, fine, or imprison people with guns. I don't want any more tragedies like this. No more guns... NO MORE!
80% of all crimes involve handguns. The people that own guns should, in fact, hand them over or there will be consequences if they don't. Self-defense? That is a lame argument. There are shotguns too. I am not banning shotguns am I? Shotguns can be used for self-defense at home and look big and scarier than handguns. Handguns are used every day to kill someone.
A ban on guns in the United States would reduce crime. More specifically, a ban on hand guns would greatly reduce the rate of violent crime. One can compare violent crime statistics between the United States and countries with strict gun control and see that the rate is much lower in those countries such as England.
I understand the argument of limiting our freedoms, and having checks on the government, but I don't think guns make a difference.
Where were all the freedom loving second amendment defenders when the Japanese Americans were put into prison camps? They were imprisoning US citizens for no reason other than their ethnicity! Were the freedom loving people using an armed takeover of government when US citizens were being sprayed by fire hoses? Or how about when the stock market crashed and Guantanamo Bay remained open, or when the president declared war without consulting congress? With all those guns, nobody did a thing. So instead of worrying about a hypothetical situation, maybe we should focus on the very real situation of millions of people dying from gunshots.
If the ban on guns is really enforced, I guarantee you the crime rate will be dramatically reduced. I believe that bad and crazy people are everywhere and they will never go away, but if you give them access to guns, crime is more likely to happen. I don't understand why people say or feel they are safer with a gun. What I would really like to ask those people is: have guns saved more lives than what they have taken? We have about 17 thousand police agencies in the country; it is their job to protect us and it is only them who should have access to guns.
Point blank. NO ONE needs assault rifles, or any of these other guns that are used in these massacres. There needs to be a ban on most of those types of weapons. I don't think taking away regular hunting firearms from people who hunt for the food for their family would be good, but all of these other guns that hold so many bullets are not needed. Some of the safest countries in the world have some sort of gun bans. How does this not trump all other ideas. Safe.. I want to feel safe to send my kids to school. This is enough.
People in other countries that cant get guns as easily still MASS murder using knifes. This has been documented many times. There are 90 guns per 100 people in this country. Do you honestly believe banning them now will make the ones already owned disappear? And making something illegal does NOT make go away. This will just make black market gun sales skyrocket putting money into bad guys pockets. Yeah that sounds like a good idea. NOT!
There's not much I can say here that's not already been said.
In 2011 in America 9,146 people were reported to have been murdered by a gun user.
In 2011 in the UK 39.
Now, since the UK is considerably smaller the the USA that is the equivalent to 195 US murders.
Guns are not something that is easily accessible in the UK , in fact, I genuinely have no idea on how to get one, And I've lived here for 30 years.
Yes. Murders and suicides will still happen with out guns. But At least if you're up against a knife, you have a fighting chance. Nobody can out run a bullet.
It's time to move out of the 18th Century and get rid of Guns from homes.
I think some semi automatic weapons should be banned. Hunting rifles shouldn't because some people hunt to survive. I think that the AR-15 semi automatic rifle should be banned. I hope more people agree with my decision and choose YES! TEC-9, Glock-17, and many more types of semi guns should be banned. I wish the U.S would go to peace.
What is wrong with people? Anyone should read the success that the smart people in Australia have accomplished. Ten years with substantial reduction in gun violence. Oh and for the people whose reason for having a gun is to protect them against the government? Your little AR-15 doesn't stand a chance against the U.S military. Might make you look cool in front of your wife and kids for the last few moments of your life Rambo, but that's all. Without guns maybe we can focus on the multi-million drug addicts hooked on prescription drugs and illegal drugs in our country. Maybe with the billions of dollars we save on sending people to jail, we can then focus on educating these kids so they don't grow up to be mass-murdering, crystal meth prescription drug addicted anti-social insane killers with AR-15 rifles in their hand!
The UK and Australia have experienced significant gun violence reduction after passing laws that restricted gun use. In China, where citizens cannot possess firearms, a man went into a school to commit murder but was only able to injure a few people because he could only use a knife. America is overrun with guns and even the police are out-gunned--this presents a ready danger for all US citizens. We would benefit by going the way of China, the UK, or Australia and restricting or outright banning private gun ownership.
All the British Commonwealth countries don't have mass gun killings so frequently. Because the culture is better built to handle itself it's children. The right to own arms doesn't also mean having an M16, there should be controls similar to countries that actually work. Use other countries as an example and stop getting on your high horse that a gun will be taken away from you. Let's face it, it's not for defense, how often have you actually used it in defense. Case and point.
I believe we need gun laws and regulations. It's kind of like having speeding laws. Some will obey the law and others won't. Guns: same concept. Some will obey the law and some will not. We have civilized consequences for breaking laws. That's what makes the USA a great country! Hunting and protection guns are in different class than assault weapons. The right to bear arms refers to military in the dictionary and was written hundreds of years ago. Please don't get sucked into believing the president wants to take all guns away. Those who make tons of money from gun sales and manufacturing guns are making you feel personally attacked and want you to fight for their bank accounts. They already got you believing we don't need laws regarding guns! Seriously!
Okay, yeah I understand, it's breaking the 2nd amendment. Sure. Well that's why we have amendments to the amendments. Like what happened with Prohibition. You can have your tiny little handguns, but there is absolutely no reason for you to have assault rifles. That's not for hunting, or self defense. That's for mowing down large groups of people.
Yes, people kill people but with instruments of death. And a instrument that was engineering to end someones life will do so. Guns are stupid. Japan had 11 deaths by guns while United states had more than 570 deaths just from discharged weapons. We can save lives, all we have to do is give up the hobby.
Yes, guns don't kill people. People kill people WITH GUNS. The US has the highest rate of gun possession in the first world. It also has the highest rate of gun crime. If we reduce the number of guns, we would reduce the rate of gun crime. Would the number of knife crimes go up? Possibly, but would Adam Lanza have been able to kill 20 kids in two minutes if he had only a knife? No.
In Australia, it took them 12 days to ban guns after a devastating mass shooting,
In the 18 years preceding that, there were 13 mass shooting and nearly 9,000 firearm suicides. In the (just under) 18 years since, there have been 0 mass shootings and just under 1,900 firearm suicides, with fewer than half of the difference (approx 2,500 suicides) coming by other methods.
This is the same in the UK, Japan, etc. Banning firearms steadily reduces the murder rate and dramatically reduces the suicide rate,
You cannot deny this. It is fact, Less guns, less death.
You crazy Americans, get rid of your guns, dump the second amendment. Times have changed, this isn't the wild west anymore. All you are doing by allowing regular citizens to arm themselves is bringing a firearm into every confrontation/argument. The result is incidents that end in death because a gun was present. LOOK AT CANADA. Canadian and American societies are very similar except for gun laws. There is crime and murder in Canada but nowhere near on the same level as the U.S. Toronto has a population of 3 million. There were less than 60 Homicides last year. Chicago has a very similar population and had over 500 homicides in 2012. When will your gun crazy nation finally get it. More guns in the hands of citizens = more homicides. Period. One more thing, the last Toronto Police officer to die from a gunshot while on duty was 20 years ago (1994). Can any large American city make that claim. Stop allowing regular citizens carry guns.
It and see ? I think it's absolutely incredible in a great country like the USA that you can legally carry a gun , what is a gun for ? Is it not a weapon ? Imagine instead if worldwide a decision was made to allow everyone to have the same rights would gun deaths increase ,I think so
How many people's deaths are caused by guns anyway. The answer is far too many. On average 289 people are shot and 86 of them die. You cannot tell me that is not a bad thing. Just think about it if you don't have guns then this won't happen. Look at Australia for instance there are large gun laws and hardly anyone has guns. The annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 1.06. That is amazing and hardly anyone dies from guns there. My last point is aimed at the opposition, how many of them own and love their guns? Probably all or most of them. However do they actually know what its like without guns? I don't think so. Therefore the shouldn't be able to say that it won't work because it DOES!
Just look at the rest of the world! Gun shooting may be infrequent, but the consequences are huge! We are talking about people's lives here. Yes, you can still commit a crime with a knife. But the police will be able to take you down before you even kill one man. With a gun, someone will be able to kill dozens of people within seconds! I just cannot believe a majority of people just don't know how to think logically and independently.
The countries with the lowest crime rates in the world also have the least easily available guns. Of course there would not be an immediate effect, because it is to late. There are a lot of guns already available, but over time there would be a gradual, yet consistent decrease in crime, as what happened in England when gun law became stricter.
The fact that guns are allowed in the US encourages criminals to take action. Imagine, if you were to assault a castle filled with soldiers, will you rather attack it empty-handed or will you want to bring a weapon along with you. In other words, having a gun in your hand makes you feel much safer. If guns were permanently banned from the US, the number of criminals who would dare to commit a crime will significantly decrease. Of course, some of the criminals might use knives etc. To commit their crimes. However, there will also be criminals who start to realise that committing crimes will not be as easy anymore.
Hand guns is one thing, but these mass murderers who use AR-15's are insane. The fact of the matter is no civilian NEEDS an AR-15, they just think it's cool to have one. In most robberies, the robber is looking for valuables, he isn't looking to kill you. I completely support the banning of guns, other countries tend to have lower crime rates.
It is completely absurd that people seem to think increasing the number of guns means less gun crime - this statement is outrageous and has had no such thought input placed into it by the average human being. It is a half-hearted statement, which is below par to say the least.
A lot of people say that where guns are banned in the States, the gun crime rate is at the highest. This is simply because guns are allowed in other states and people obtain guns from these states allowing gun crime to take place in States where it is banned. However, if guns were banned in EVERY state there would be no circulation of guns and crime would be at its lowest.
If no one had guns or was allowed to own guns, then no one could die from guns. Children would have the freedom to attend school without worrying that some crazed gunman will come in and shoot them. We would all have the freedom to live our lives without fear of guns. It just makes sense.
I find that guns naturally cause violence and lead to crimes. Obviously criminals break laws and will always do so but the ease at which they commit them is obviously the main issue. A criminal will only do something which can appear like a good idea.
With a gun in your hand, everything appears like a decent idea because guns have: RANGE, CAPACITY, STRENGTH, AND CONCEALMENT. A knife (which appears like the most plausible repleacement for a gun) does not have capacity or range. You can throw knife a now you don't have a knife and the speed at which you throw it can easily be dodged.
And as for guns to defend our selves against our government, I find that argument to be inadequate. In the event that our government intends on opressing us, the tehnology they will have (weapons, body, armor, and more) will easily outdo any small pistol (or if we are lucky shotgun or assault rifle) in our possesion. We are not capable of defending ourselves from an opressive government right now so I don't see any logic in guns.
No, our civil rights shouldn't be tampered with, and maybe our government is trustworthy of taking away our guns at the moment. But Just look at the stats of Japan where only .6 percent of citizens own guns due to insanely tedious tests and such to be able to have guns vs our 80 percent of citizens who own them because of tests that are easier. We have over 11,000 incidents per year while Japan has 11. ELEVEN. It's obvious that by these statistics, the number of incidents we have in America could go down by the thousands! I'm against the government taking away our guns and think that they should just enforce harder tests rather than taking away our guns completely. But, that's not the question asked by the poll. And the simple fact is, yes, our crime rate will definitely go down. It's pretty freaking obvious that it would, people.
As well of making it harder for criminals to get there hands on guns. It would also make people believe that they are not the law and people should not put themselves in danger by attempting to stop a crime in there house. That is the job of the police and they will dedicate there lives to it.
Although it won't get rid of all crime, banning some military style guns will have an affect on the total amount of violence. One could say that it doing this will not be significant enough, however small steps can be made to lower violence. Either way though, crime will remain in America, and that is inevitable.
I am now living in US, but born and lived in another country where the crime rate is NOW much higher than US mainly due to the poverty and of social economic factors they are facing now. However, in my birth country, the firearms were banned for more than century and the country was very peaceful for decades where only one or two murders were reported mainly done using knives or a dagger or by hitting with something. However, for past two decades my birth country faced a civil war situation and the firearms became almost available everywhere, even after the civil was was over. Now armed with firearms everywhere, people try to kill each other for the simplest disagreement since the guns are available and accessible. Crimes would not be vanished from the world for another few centuries, but if we make more convenient killing methods available for criminals, they surely will kill more than they usually do. So the guns should be banned.
Making an argument that bad guys will get guns anyway is childish. Isn't the same thing true with speeding? Won't speeders speed anyway? Of course they will but the law in general keeps 100s of thousands of people from speeding, doesn't it? Try getting rid of traffic laws and see what happens. Same with murder. Won't bad people still murder? Why have a law then?
A gradual move towards disarming people is the best way to go. In terms of the defense argument, it holds some weight but unless you are expecting an invasion of dozens of people into you're home (seems unlikely)! Then automatic weapons are totally redundant unless you want to walk into a public place and kill many people. The main issue is fear if people can gradually feel safer without guns they should go. The first step is to get rid of weapons that are designed only to kill a lot of people very quickly once that is done then maybe illegalize the rest.
If someone is intent to kill, it is likely that they will try and kill. But there is a huge difference between a murderer with access to a gun, and a murderer with no access to a gun. If your child's school was bombarded by a crazed person, intent on murdering as many children as possible, would you prefer they had access to a gun or not? It's disgusting that some people think that their 'right to a gun' should be considered as more important than their/other people's right to LIFE.
Endless studies and research has shown the direct link between gun availability and gun deaths. A gun owner is in much more danger from the gun itself than from a criminal. A gun free country would not reduce crime necessarily immediately (re UK similar crime rate to US but 200 times less death) but it would reduce fatalities from crime and fatalities generally. It is a tired cliche that people kill people not guns. Actually a person + a gun kills people, a person without a gun can use a knife, a stick, a rock but will have limited power. The gun is the enabling technology to massive killing power.
Once crime stops being so lethal it can be attacked with more subtle and intelligent policing methods and better understanding. Right now law enforcement is literally fighting a shooting war, not solving the crime problem. Criminals get their guns from private sales or steal them from gun owners who aren't locking their guns up, this is understandable as a locked up gun is no gun at all, so this sad paradox leads to so many guns in criminal hands.
In the end the idea of a method of attack used as a defense is a nonsense, a bullet proof vest is a defensive tool, a gun is not. None of this will change until people finally realize that guns are simply fabulously dangerous weapons, best left to trained police or military who have the time, ability and discipline to use them effectively. Thinking you can actually protect yourself against a gun with a gun is a delusion and to some a fantasy.
Without guns, you can't kill people with them, and, as a popular way to do murder, manslaughter, threatening, bank robberies, etc. You can't use them as a way to harm people. It won't abolish crime, but there will be a lot less. Plus, it's harder to do do a mass shooting without a gun.
Although the frequent mass shootings are dreadful, it is hard to sympathize when Americans have this ridiculous idea that anyone is entitled to have a gun!
Nothing the pro gun side say will ever convince me that anyone other that police or military should have a gun.
I am glad I do not live in the US.
The stats show that the states with the most relaxed laws have the highest homicide rates. Surely the follow-on argument from that is that the more guns there are, the more people are going to die. Yes, an illegal market will probably be created but it'll still be a lot harder to obtain for average members of the public. Adam Lanza just walked into his mum's cupboard and grabbed 3. It doesn't get much easier than that to kill a person with a gun.
The US should ban guns like in the UK. When the UK banned guns, gun crimes decreased a lot. This is because police officers do not have guns, so criminals will not need to have guns, of course some criminals may have guns, in that case the police will call the special police.
If it were enforceable somehow, banning guns would create a society that saw this activity as illegal. In countries like Japan where weapons are prohibited, the majority consider it barbaric now to use one unless you were a criminal or a policeman/woman. It would take several generations to weed out the notion that guns are also for recreation and protection here in the us. It would also be nearly impossible to stop the illegal use of firearms, just like people misuse drugs. I still believe, however, that if the nra didn't have any power, and most people agreed that firearms should not be used for anything, then I think we may yet discover a more peaceful society.
Violence breeds violence. Criminals that know for sure, or have a strong suspicion, that their intended victim is armed WILL GO ARMED. Remove guns from US citizens and make the the place much safer.
There will remain guns in circulation, but these will diminish over time, it will take a few decades to make the US a safer place like most other parts of the world.
Tonight as I type, we have the news that 27 are dead in Connecticut, 20 of the elementary children. It is a crass and puerile argument whether the perpetrator obtained the gun legally or illegally.
If guns were banned he would have had significantly more of a problem obtaining a gun.
It is even more puerile to defend the right to bare arms using the perpetrators mental state as an argument. Again if guns had been banned regardless of his mental state he would have had significant difficulty obtaining a gun.
He might still have gone awry with some other lethal weapon, but the damage and the victims would have been limited.
I live in Australia. We banned guns in 1996, in the decade after that the rate of fatalities by guns dropped by 42%. Yes, we still have crime like the rest of the world and if someone wants to do harm they will find a way to do it, but stabbing or crossbow will slow them down significantly. I read the headlines from the USA and see massacre after massacre and am deeply saddened and appalled that this could happen so often in such a 'high and mighty' country. Think of something like a home invasion or a robbery, instead of hearing on the news 'another shooting today left 3 men dead in.." We hear "a service station attended was robbed today with screw driver..." Making it a lot harder for the thief to get what they want, to kill and the victim to defend! Isn't it that most people who get killed by guns have their own gun turned on them? I honestly feel safer here and am grateful to our government for banning guns!
It seems overwhelmingly obvious that guns need to be more difficult to obtain in the USA and that permits need to be issued for people to bear them. I don't understand how so many presidents have sat by, not bothering to take a stand against the right to bear arms in case it damages their public image. Surely someone needs to be brave? Come on Obama, make your last years in office count!
Why are medicines are so regulated in this country, but guns are not? The rate of shootings is increasing at a steady rate. If you fear someone armed will come to your house, well revisit the security system you have put in place. Call the police to handle the situation rather than taking the matter into your own hands. Own a taser instead, own pepper spray, there are lots of non-destructive ways to protect yourself.
The latest school shooting in Connecticut would have had less fatalities if the perpetrator only had a knife. The intent would be the same, but the outcome most likely quite different. If gun laws are tightened to attempt to weed out undesirables obtaining hand guns legally it would just result in them being stolen from law abiding citizens and still end up in the hands of criminal elements with intent to harm. So a complete ban of hand guns is necessary to attempt to eliminate mass killings.
The main reasons that guns should banned are the flaws in the arguments to keep guns in circulation. Aside from any sporting reasons, Skeet etc let’s look at their reasoning:
1) Criminals don’t obey the law. What if we hand in our guns and the criminals keep theirs? This isn’t an “overnight” process. The knife amnesty in the UK took a long time to enforce. However, this doesn’t mean the principle isn’t correct! It would have to be a step by step process but you cannot use the argument “because we don’t have a process yet the principle is not correct”. The ideal step would be to tighten up regulations as to who has them first and then move towards a ban. 40% of gun sales occur through unlicensed stores!
2) We need guns for protection (lots of people have put this) - Look at the gun crime in other countries. If noone else is carrying a gun why do you need one for protection? On that premise, why not make driving tanks legal, and then you can buy a tank to protect yourself? Guns are a means to kill swiftly, without hesitation. This should be taken out of the equation when people are tempted to commit a murder. They should have to really consider whether committing the crime is worth it. Not simply pull a trigger. Ask yourself why 60% of homicides are committed with a handgun. People want a swift easy way to kill. Take the gun out of the equation.
3) Gun crimes in states with a ban are higher – Even if this is true, you cannot isolate a state’s gun stats if the country as a whole makes guns legal! There are always ways to smuggle guns in. This needs to be a nationwide objective.
4) Criminals will be criminals anyway – true, but they won’t have such easy and accessible means to COMMIT MASS MURDER! All bomb equipment etc should be being monitored anyway. You just don’t see mass shootings in countries where guns are banned. It’s a fact.
Finally, and noone has mentioned this, how can you have a police force that is only as well armed as the civilian population? Police are the ONLY people who should carry guns. Think about how many people die as a result of standoffs with the police after they have committed a crime. If they don’t have a gun, they surrender as they are out-armed!
The gun murder (not all homicide, just murder) rate in the U.K. is 0.07 per hundred thousand of population. The gun murder rate in the USA is 4.14 per hundred thousand of population. That makes our gun murder rate 59 times higher than that of the U.K. Our overall murder rate is 4 times higher. In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. Most homicides are heat of the moment, take away the ability to quickly and easily (without danger to yourself) that a firearm gives you and the murder rate naturally rises, which explains the higher rate in general and the much much higher gun murder rate. People kill people, guns don't kill people. That said, guns make a a far easier and less risky proposition for the perp and therefore, as a natural consequence, far more likely. It's not rocket science people. The countries that have the strictest firearm laws also have the lowest murder rates in general and the lowest gun crime rates. The only countries that have higher firearm murder rates than the USA are 3rd world South american and African countries. Don't try the Switzerland argument either, because contrary to what you've been told (or what you want others to believe), Switzerland is only two places behind the USA for its gun murder rate. Whereas the countries with the strictest controls are right at the bottom of the list.
Quite simply, maintaining the current situation does not solve the US gun problem. Even the most basic statistical analysis shows US gun crime is one of the worst in the world, particularly for a 'developed' country. The US 'right to arms' was written for a different time and the continued dogmatic approach to gun ownership in the country built upon this right is flawed. There is only one way to reach a culture of low gun crime and fear of gun crime. That is to vastly reduce gun ownership and to combine this with tight regulation of those who own firearms for legitimate purposes (sport and hunting). Unfortunately the US has the problem of having to deal with already sky-high levels of legal and illegal gun ownership. There should be a period of general voluntary disarmament and mandatory registration for a small percentage of gun owners. After that, anyone holding unregistered firearms should be considered an enemy of the state and prosecuted.
Yes, the right to bear arms for what ? Stopping an intruder? There is a greater chance of a public shooting vs an intrusion. This is a bull-crap law that needs to put to rest. Acquiring guns illegally is not as easy as some may think. Even if they do, banning of guns will drastically reduce the random shootings.
We should not try to justify a bad thing with another bad thing. If you see the recent history of USA, much more lives are lost rather than protected. I can give you example where guns are banned, lives are not lost the way we are loosing. Gun right was good at one point, but it's time to re-think. We should not be misguided by the gun dealers.
That's it. If you are holding a gun, you can point it at someone and kill them from a distance. Even if you are a responsible owner, you must realize how powerful they are. Do you think it's a power people should have in general? I personally think not. People die senselessly everyday all over the world, from having something pointed at them.
As for just in the USA in general, the country is very over saturated. Great efforts would have to be made to collect guns for disposal and laws being passed, but the people needn't be paranoid about their goverment. The world as a whole needs to step up and do something about it to achieve anything like this.
When terrorists attacked the country we turned the airline industry on its head. We spent billions of dollars on security that doesn't even work. We are prepared to ban ridiculous things like shampoo. But incident after incident of shooting of innocent citizens occurs by homegrown terrorists with weapons designed to kill human beings that are sold like candy. Ban guns or make it extremely hard for someone to justify buying lethal fire arms.
The prevailing argument in support of legal guns is that, "if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns." But the reality is that it will be only RICH criminals who will have guns. Often, gun crimes are committed by people who are not particularly rich. If guns were illegal, obtaining a gun will be more difficult and will cost more money. Fewer people will have them. Also, many of those who have committed gun crimes never committed a crime in their lives, nor had they any history of mental abuse. Of course there are many reasons why gun crime is so high in the U.S. and our crime rate is not entirely correlative of our gun ownership rate. But it really cannot be denied that overall, nations that have lower gun ownership rates have fewer gun related crimes. It is really surprising that so many people in this poll actually argue that banning guns will not reduce gun crimes. Many of the mass shooters we have seen over the years wore protective clothing, so they anticipated being shot at by police or someone else.
Then yes - most guns deaths are not the traditional robbery scenario. Many incidents are accidents / suicide / etc - so it would be very helpful to control access to firearms..... But then what do I know - I grew up in Scotland and never had to face the horror of a gun being pointed at me. In the USA it has happened to me once - and I pray we can elimnate these lethal devices.
If access for 'normal' people buying guns in supermarkets throughout America is restricted then these mindless shootings of innocent children will hopefully stop. Handguns are used to kill at least 10,000 people a year in USA, compared to about a dozen in the UK, and perhaps on average 20 per year in other European countries. Notice any correlation here?!
Yes people can get guns on the black market, but that is because the market has been SATURATED for decades with easy to obtain, basically disposable guns! It needs to stop now!
Can someone give me a valid reason why ANYONE needs to own an assault rife or some such weapon?
The NRA has one purpose, to support gun manufacturers. They do not care about the 'rights' of your country's citizens.
If banning guns stops even ONE Sandy Hook from happening, then it's more than worth doing it.
Everybody has rights and freedoms they hold dear. But guns? Come on people wake up. The tragedy yesterday took place because guns are lying about in over half if American homes. As soon as somebody has a grudge, gets emotionally unbalanced, or just plain angry they can reach out and get a gun and wipe away lives and loves without a second thought. Where are the rights and freedoms of those young children?
Guns require high levels of training to use safely - and without that the guns purchased to safe guard home security are just as likely to be used against the purchaser either in anger or in an accident. If there was any other malaise killing 30,000 people every year changes would be made overnight. You are not safer with a gun in the house- there is no evidence of that. Of course there will be criminals who get guns and they should be dealt with severely. But Mr and Mrs Average are safer and more secure leaving the guns to the trained professionals.
Banning guns in a society like America's will be difficult and dare I say impossible. But something different needs to be done. We watched what happened at Columbine, VTech, Colorado, and just recently Oregon just this morning, Connecticut. After a tragedy occurs then the gun control issue comes to the forefront. It gets argued into a stalemate and then it is forgotten and nothing is done about it. How many more massacres need to happen until we stay on this subject and try to work toward a solution? We have not changed anything and the obviously has not worked so why don't we try something different? Why don't we begin a process of eliminating firearms? No matter what you try there is going to be growing pains but we need to work toward the greater good. Our second amendment was written a long time ago, back when our country needed to defend itself. Do we really need a majority of our citizens armed in this day and age? People talk about terrorism and how we need weapons to "stop terrorists". Did all of us being armed stop 9/11? A huge majority of countries in the world have guns outlawed and the gun crime compared to the US is almost non-existent. Something different needs to happen and it can only start when we as American citizens come to our senses and work toward fixing this. It's up to us.
So many crimes involve the use of firearms, both premeditated crimes like robbery, and crimes of passion, where access to a gun increases the chance of fatality. In countries where guns are prohibited or severely restricted, the incidence of crime and especially violent crime is much lower than the rate in the U.S.
Guns are mostly misused when it is under wrong hands. Banning them will prevent such incidences. Youngsters mostly get carried away by feeling the power of a gun in their hands, which propels them towards crime.
If guns were banned in the U.S., there would be a decrease in crime, if we were able to enforce that law. Bringing a gun into a scenario changes things completely. It's way too easy to pull the trigger of a gun and end someone's life as opposed to the commission of other violent crimes. I think there would be a huge decrease in crimes, in the severity of crimes committed. I also don't think it will ever happen in this country. It would be impossible to get rid of all the guns that are already here.
In many countries, ban on gun has reduced the crime rates. US itself is an example of one of countries that passed a stringent law for gun control by the Brady bill, thus bringing down the crime rates.
Most countries don't ban guns they just make them harder to get hold of than you can in the US and as a result have lower gun crime rates. Since the US has this "right to bare arms" attitude a ban on guns will probably never happen but tougher laws should be put into effect. How can anybody argue with the fact that in UK there were 35 gun related deaths last year and in US, 11,000. Even if you adjust for size and UK had the same population size as US it would still only be 210 deaths in UK compared to 11000 in US. The fact of the matter is the UK (and most countries in the world) don't ban guns but they do ban assault rifles, automatic weapons etc as there is no need for them, a low caliber gun protects your family if you need it just as well as a monster assault rifle. Guns for sport, hunting and farming etc are still allowed and if you want a gun there are a lot of restrictions like you have to store it in a locked gun cabinet bolted to a secure wall and be checked up on before a licence is issued. I can't see how anybody can argue against this. If you want a gun you have to have a mental health evaluation, police checks and register the gun every couple of years to make sure it hasn't "gone missing". I take the middle ground for Americans, ban assault weapons, ban automatic weapons, ban anything other than a small low caliber, small magazine hand gun for "protection", allow other guns for sport and hunting etc and make more of an effort to ensure they don't get into the wrong hands.
I cant go and buy dynamite, I might kill someone or myself, its the same thing with guns. The gun nuts might get mad but will get over it in time. Don't get me wrong I used to hunt, but I would rather see animals alive then dead. There's no reason to hunt when we have grocery stores.
The second amendment was made so Americans could defend themselves from tyrants. If any citizen is still convinced they could fight the US army, even with assault rifles, they are delusional. Just because banning guns wouldn't prevent ALL murders, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it because it would most definitely reduce them.
It is easier to kill someone with a gun because you could kill from long distance. Even though they could kill a different way a gun is the easiest way. Think about it. You could get away being killed a different way but with a gun it is hard to escape. If guns are banned it will reduce the crime. Look in Britain, only 58 people are killed by a fire arm. That is nothing. It is only 58 people are killed because guns are not allowed.
Worked for us. Funny how you guys are against terrorists yet your gun laws kill more people. We did it in Australia and banned all semi automatic weapons and we have all been fine. Get some brains and and stop thinking with your balls. Love for all the people guns have killed. 1 million in last 10 years.
Merely having a weapon doesn't really turn people into criminals. What it does is it changes the nature of the crime. Having a gun is often the difference between assault and murder. Murderous people are also much harder to stop when they have guns as everyone begins to fear them. Guns don't stop or deter attackers, and don't serve as any defense when you are fired upon - they only let you fire back and multiply the bloodshed. So while guns don't make criminals, and the crime rate would therefore not change amazingly much, the violent crime rate and the damage that those crimes cause would definitely be reduced.
The only way to fight this problem both ways is to invest on mental health. And increasing the accessibility to guns. Will not lower the chances for someone to kill another for some irritating manner. I think that guns itself are the problem. We must invest in mental help guns legal or illegal will still be there, But selling it will not lower killing rate.
Most people who oppose gun restrictions only refer to "criminals." What they totally forget is that most mass murders with a gun are committed by "regular people." People involved in criminal activity do not target children at a school, or people watching a movie on a Thursday evening, or a romantic couple in a mall. I'm sorry but the argument "people kill, not guns," makes no sense whatsoever. If that was the case why don't we arm the military with kitchen knives? It would save us billions.
Most people who oppose gun restrictions are those who like to live in simplicity, thinking that people will use any weapon if they choose to kill. When is the last time a mass murder took place with a kitchen knife? An axe? A baseball bat? Explosives are illegal and difficult to obtain-- most Americans don't own explosives, but there are millions of assault weapons, and they're designed for one thing-- killing lots of people, and that's what we've got.
Americans are too mentally unstable to carry guns...it's that simple. Canadians, in contrast, own more guns per capita than Americans and yet one doesn't see these types of massacres taking place as frequently as they do in Yankee Land. But nothing is going to change, and we will see yet more of these senseless massacres taking place. Americans aren't just gun-nuts...they're nuts, period.
Over the past there have been uncountable number of tragedies in elementary schools, colleges, and movie theaters. Many lives have been lost at the hands of "common, everyday people." But why does this have to happen? Some people say it is not the gun that took the life of the person but the murderer. However, I think it is the gun and every bullet in it. Without guns these tragedies would not happen AS OFTEN. I emphasize AS OFTEN because I know that even with a ban, people would still look for ways to kill, such as knives. I know this for a fact. I am from another country but still live in the U.S. In my country only officers are allowed to carry guns. The death count is much lower compared to the equivalent of the U.S., therefore I think we can conclude if "everyday people" dont have access to guns the deaths will be lower. Another fact to consider is the mental health and stability of the owner. For example shooter Adam Lanza suffered from a mental disorder called Asperger's Syndrome. This causes the individual to have social "awkwardness." Sometimes it hides another diagnosis, SCHIZOPHRENIA. This is another mental disorder that causes the individual to have a double life, and double personality. People with this syndrome may be very aggressive out of nowhere. Keeping this in mind the government should study an individual's mental health before allowing possession of a gun.
I'm originally from England and I love America with all my heart, but I don't get what the need is for average folk to have guns. Why would a mother with a mentally ill child take that child to gun ranges and let him have access to her very unnecessary cache of guns and ammo? It's going to be like taking a toy away from a child, but for the greater good and safety of everyone, we need some serious updating of laws. And yes, England has crime, but they don't have massacres like we've seen here of late.
The second amendment talks about a "well-regulated" militia, not individual citizens carrying weapons. Also, why does the second amendment applies to weapons that did not exist back then? There is a huge difference between a musket and a AK-47. What might have been written with a musket in mind should not be apply to a more powerful weapon. Besides, all that crying about "infringing people's rights" is just a hypocrisy if we take into consideration that these same people are not concern about the Patriot Act. The Constitution is an evolving document and every generation should be able to adopt new laws that fit its circumstances. The Constitution was never perfect. It was amended to grant women the right to vote and to allow interracial marriages.
Gun reform in Australia lead to 0 mass shootings in 16 years.
In previous 18 years before gun reform there were 16 mass shootings in Australia.
In USA in the last 18 months there has been 65 mass shootings.
These mass shootings are occurring with registered LEGAL guns. Yes, in Australia there are illegal weapons. And yes there are shootings occurring involving drugs, motorbike gangs, and various disputes. BUT these involve a single person being shot with a handgun, and are contained before it becomes a mass murder.
It is a tragedy when a person is shot in any country. It is an abomination when many people are killed, and when children are killed it is an unspeakable evil. The blood of the victims is on every single person who does not take action against assault weapons and guns in general.
How can cops feel comfortable knowing there's a bunch of necks out there with assault rifles and drums? We need to have some common sense in this country quick. Wait...we've been in war for 10 years now, I forgot. The world is laughing at us. Who let the assault weapon ban expire in 04 again? Oh, there's even more to put on Dick and Bush's resume. Thanks.
A civilian of the United States has no legitimate purpose to owning a semi-automatic rifle, or more powerful of a gun. With that said I would like to state that I am all for the second amendment, but not when a civilian can buy a gun no problem, obviously without enough psych evaluation beforehand and potentially go out and commit a heinous crime. Guns like AK-47s, or M16s, etc. have absolutely no reason to be in the hands of any civilian of the United States, it only increases a risk to themselves and others. Statistically, owning a gun AT ALL will more likely end up causing pain and or death to a family/ owner than thwarting a home invasion. Semi-automatic guns will just aggravate this problem. Homicide, as well as suicide rates are higher in homes with firearms. A gun in the house results in 22 times more likely chance of unintentional death.
What makes it worst is that there's no national moratorium on gun sales. Just about any Jack or Jill can get a gun and have it in their possession the very same day in some states. The NRA is a hypocritical, fearmongering entity that cowers under the skirt of the 2nd amendment.
How come I don't feel the need to carry a gun? Because the chance of me getting shot by a gun is very low where I live because few people have them. (I live in a high crime rate area of London). I was given the analogy that you wouldn't take a toy from a child in a nursery if they hit another child over the head with it. Therefore you shouldn't ban guns just because one lunatic behaves badly.....The analogy of children using toys as weapons is not a good one. A toy is an object that's intended purpose is to be used as an item for play. Therefore it is principally a safe object in the first place and not comparable. The nursery would never hand out weapons or objects intended for harm to everyone. In addition, in this scenario you could argue that the nursery should allow children to "defend" themselves against this child by pushing back or hitting the other child that attacked them, which obviously isn't a good idea. The example used describes a nursery where one child seeks to harm others by using a toy as a weapon.....how about if that child actually had a weapon? It could have hurt so many more children.....then maybe all the other children should have weapons too to defend themselves? Fear breeds fear. I don't have to worry about defending myself or having a gun because in the nursery where I come from we don't have them so we can all play happy and safe!
Lets do something than nothing. Ban all hand guns and assault weapons and then see if we are any safer 5-10 years from now. At least we can say we tried to do something about it. less chance of accessing a gun will lead to less chance of injury to anyone. And violent acts committed without a gun have greater chance of survival.
Not all people are the same, some are crazy. If you give a crazy person a gun 9 out of 10 you are asking for trouble. If you ban guns and make it a tough life sentence penalty if found with any gun in your possession. It will surely make a big difference. Any difference is better than the situation that you have now. Make no mistake if you don't do anything about this problem, it will never go away and many more innocent people will surely die.
Since I believe that public dialogue is important and essential to a healthy democracy, here is my two cents regarding firearms. I believe that there should be a ban on handgun and assault weapon production, except for authorized purchases for law enforcement etc. Anyone currently owning a handgun would not have to give up their legally registered handgun. However, if a gun is used illegally, then it is confiscated and destroyed.
We have gun controls in Canada and we are a lot safer. If absolute personal freedom if your only concern, then would it be safer if everyone has a cannon in his backyard. Guns do kill people? The same argument would apply to nuclear weapons, wouldn't it? Guns are made to kill...
I'm not saying guns are bad, but too many unstable people are around wielding them. There is a marked difference between stabbing someone and pulling the trigger; it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. You won't let spatially challenged people drive, would you? No. That's not saying let's ban cars, but if the population has way too many spatially challenged people, it's just easier to ban the cars than do vision screens. Similarly, banning guns is easier than doing psych evaluations (and let's face it, psychopaths are quite adept at worming their ways out of those psych evals).
People get angry, and when there's a gun nearby, it's just too easy to grab it and pull the trigger.
How far do you want your freedom to go? Maybe we should all be allowed to drive tanks on the road and make nuclear weapons. If there is a chance I can reduce the death toll from 22 to 12, I am happy to quit hunting. Of course you can argue it is not the gun's fault, it is humans fault, but if that gun nut used a knife, I believe there wouldn't be so many people dead in the event.
It needs to be said that those who think not banning guns is a good idea, are morons. I just read an article that said they tried it in the UK and then (rather sarcastically) continued "though for some reason criminals don't hand in their guns", which was a moronic thing to say. They was a huge drop in the UK and other countries that outlawed them. The government discovered that the only guns the criminals were able to get their hands on were used by multiple gangs, but those will not last forever. What is definitely a great idea is that weapons are not available with such relative ease that they are now. To have signs in schools saying "no guns allowed" is laughable and every few years when their is a shoot out in America nothing is done. It is time to act. It WILL reduce crime, fact. It won't completely stop it but it will definitely help in no small way.
If you would all do your research, the safest countries in the world are those countries that outlawed guns. If a victim faces a gun bearer, that person would have no chance of survival. Banning guns would also dimish the numbers of mass massacres in such a short amount of time. A criminal carrying a gun is much more threatening than when he is holding a knife. Most regular citizens, even owning a gun have less experience than the criminals out there, nevertheless, have more hesitations when it is time to use it. Let's face it. Who's have the guts to even fire a gun at someone without flinching? That gunman with experience would surely gun you down first. Most citizens don't normally carry guns around, but guns are always present in criminal plots. As a woman, I would feel much safer walking outside at night and working with the public if it was a gun-free country; when one is less at risk of getting shot at randomly or snipped. People are not born criminals, criminals are made. Paradigm shifts happen all the time in people's lives and if their mindset becomes awfully disruptive, they may turn into a criminal. For every criminal's plots, a gun is involved. So who cares about what it says om the amendment. If you care so much about the United States, you'd want to improve our country by making it safer for families and innocent civilians. When I live my daily routine life, I don't think about "oh I should carry my gun around in my purse because someone might point a gun at me". I think about my family, my job, my future.. And if a gunman points a gun at me while i'm so distracted with my own life, he would have killed me first before I even have the chance to pull out "My" gun, or I wouldn't even notice it. Shootings are done randomly and unexpectedly. Even those owning guns right now that are against the banning of guns may someday get hit with a major change in mentality and suddenly use it, even at the spur of the moment. We have a strong army with the most advanced military technology. If war came, people owning small handguns would be useless against bombs and missiles. On top of that, what are the chances of that happening? Our military is strong, people still fear our army. Not the little citizens carrying handguns. Please~
The USA has by far the most lenient gun control laws in the industrialized world. The USA also has by far the highest rate of death from the use of guns. Does anyone actually believe these facts are just a coincidence? Does a hunter need an assault rifle to kill a deer?
Self-defense is commonly cited as a reason to own a gun. This is the explanation given by 20 percent of all gun owners and 40 percent of all handgun owners. But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.
Until the voters on the right column of this page find themselves in the position of a parent whose child goes to Sandy Hooks Elementary School, they will never fully understand.
I agree that our nation was built on the foundations of freedom and liberty. But just as we deserve the right to own and bear firearms, we deserve a right to not have our god-given lives taken away from us by irresponsible people who similarly have the right to own and bear firearms.
No one can do the amount of damage a gun-wielder can do. These arguments that guns kill people therefore we should ban everything from planes to cars to knives etc is perfectly flawed. Lets take the recent massacre for example, he could not have done the damage he did if he was without a gun, simply impossible with other objects that are not built to kill.
Banning guns would increase the number of lives because a lot of criminals use them not only to protect themselves, but to harm others when they are running away from the authorities. Banning guns is a safe thing to do for everyone. Banning guns would reduce crime in the US.
Criminals need weapons and most weapons they use are guns for robberies and shootings. Many of them kill people for revenge, anger and just for no reason. Others hurt them by shooting them in the leg or the arm so that if they get caught they wont be charged for killing someone.
Today,in Georgia, two boys aged from 10~15 fired gun at a mom and her 13-month baby, because they wanted money. It wouldn't have turned out this way if we had guns banned.
In Japan, gun homicide in 2008, the # was 119, which can't even compare to counts of 12,179 in USA.
Our kids can live in a much better safer environment if we give up the greed of owning guns.
I believe parents who are gun owners do not want to see their own kids get hurt by a gun when they are out in street. A gun crime can happen anywhere, theater, college campus, home, street, mall, anywhere.
I can't believe banning guns is this hard even with everyday gun incidents airs on TV everyday.
Lets stop this! Yes we can!
I myself do not own a gun of any kind but the ones who do should be able to keep them as a mother in Georgia saved her twins and herself from a break in. But anyone even a 5 year old would know crimals would always have a gun.I have always been afraid of guns and never owned one or even shot a gun of any kind. But someday I may wish I had one if ever I had a break in.it Is the crimals we should be worried about or those who are mental.not Just the regular person who hunts or has agun for protection as that mother in georgia.we Should worry about gangs and these kind of things and if someone has been arrested for murder and robbing those should be checked out not the regular person. But this is just my view alone. It is a right being taken and I do not feel that is the answer here . We need to keep taps on gangs and crimals more than anything the ones that have hold up records go after them they should not be allowed to ever have guns of any kind just like someone who drinks and drives .But the regular citizen who doesn't do anything why go after their rights .They have done nothing wrong look at all the crimals on the loose they will always have guns and can find a gun which makes it more dangerous for America not the citizen that are peace abiding ones.the Young man who killed all the innocent children and teachers was mental and that was his mothers fault for having guns around him and she was guilty of that even sis sad that she lost her own life and did anyone know how her mind was to have had guns left in his reach. If I had ever had a gun it would be locked away but I was afraid of guns when I had small children now I have grandchildren so I still have no gun but I see where they can save your life as that of the Georgia mother.Again the crimals air the danger and those who have held up at gun point. Those are the ones who need to be checked out state to stake by law forces.not Your regular folks. Who have never done anything.no It would not help crime for a gun ban!
The U.S. government should ban free purchases of guns. In order to stop violence and cruelty in everyday life, people must not have guns accessible at all times. People need to learn to solve their problems and conflicts using peaceful methods, such as conversation or debates. Maybe a ban on guns will not reduce crime immediately, but it will save a lot of human lives that would otherwise be taken during moments of heated aggression.
If you go just across the border, you will notice that in Canada, where guns aren't banned but heavily regulated, there is much less gun violence. In most areas, they had to go back 5 years to find the last record of a shooting.
Even though banning guns for civilians would probably cause a new black market to emerge, it would at least lower the amount of people who carry them in the streets.
Despite what people may think, the problem isn't entirely criminals getting a hold of guns. The problem is also the fact that civilians feel entitled to carry firearms (which they are not - but that's a whole different discussion) and abuse this privilege. Why is this an issue? This is an issue because people make extremely bad decisions under pressure, especially with a murder weapon in their pocket. They may be perfectly sane people, but if they feel like they are threatened, their mind can go into adrenaline overdrive and they could shoot someone under the mistaken impression that it was self defense.
As for self defense, people seem to think that if you carry a gun, you are protected against guns. This is obviously completely untrue, unless of course you have a revolver that expands into a shield. If there is a shooting in the street and the people around have guns, they might panic and start shooting, causing more unnecessary civilian casualties. Take for example the movie theatre shooting in Aurora. If the people in that theatre had had guns and had time to pull them out in the first place, many more people would have died because people would have panicked and shot aimlessly in the dark movie theatre.
Many families feel the need to have a gun in the house to protect from eventual burglars etc. but a study has proven that if you have a gun in your home, it is 30 percent more likely that it will be used AGAINST you than BY you.
So yes. Yes a ban on guns would reduce crime in the U.S., in my opinion.
A ban on guns would make the US one of the biggest police states in the world. Just look at the war on drugs. Look how the government invades into everyone's life just to see if they're lighting a plant on fire. In order for there to be a decrease in crime after a nationwide ban on guns, the police state would have to go on steroids. More crime, or bigger police state. There is a choice after a gun ban.
people might think by having drugs can secure the family members, but the evidence don't prove that at all, it bring more terrible criminalization. people don't have gun license, they cannot control their emotion. Can you imagine world without gun, it can be a peaceful place for everyone, I take an example, in Indonesia it is rarely found a person killed is caused of gun.
So that's why the government should ban guns.
We must keep several things in mind. Firstly, the alleged increase in violent crime in Britain was actually due to a change in record-keeping--the British Crime Survey revealed a drop in murder rates, and crime in general. Secondly, in general countries with fewer guns have fewer murders. Thirdly, studies from the New England Journal of Medicine /prove/ a decrease in crime is caused by enacting certain gun laws. All this means that the evidence is heavily in favor of the 'yes' side.
Ban on guns would decrease gun violence in the US. For example, Canada has better gun control than the US. Canada has roughly nine murders made by guns a year. Whereas the US has annually about 9,000. Do the math. Is it really a coincidence? Hmmm, I don't think so.
I just figure any effort created to make them a little less "available" would contribute to some sort of reduction, albeit, probably not a huge reduction. Something is better than nothing, even if it's only a few guns less. Merits for trying, and we continue to try for solutions until we resolve. Don't do nothing, do something...
The ban on semi-automatic weapons should have never expired, and it should have never been written to expire in the first place. The US should stop importing and exporting guns.
Anders Behring Breivik of Norway who murdered 70+ children on his shooting spree ... ordered his guns over the Internet.
The highest homicide rate made by guns is in the USA, where several people die every single day by publicly accessible weapons. NRA argues that if there have been more weapons in the victims "pockets", they would easily return fire and kill the shooter. THIS is false at its highest stands! I can't recollect any mass-murderer or mass-shooter ever being stopped by a bystander witnessing it. There may be a few exceptions, but that is all they are EXCEPTIONS. It isn't a systematic way of stopping crime, law officers are the ones that stop crime with handguns - NOT civilians.
On the other hand - if we look at countries such as Sweden or Great Britain, they have 4-5 times less murders per person than in USA. There is a clear connection between the two factors. The facts are clear and unchangeable - not some truth that emerges and we can agree on through discussion.
But there is a better way - a way to stop the homicides. Switzerland has adopted way to combine the two systems with - probably - the worlds lowest homicide rate. They only allow access to weapons to only those who have completed military training. In this way they make sure that only sane and responsible people get a weapon.
This is obviously the best way to stop crime...
A ban on guns would certainly lower crime, but it would make criminals feel the need for a gun, make people feel unsafe. My rule, anything they do in Europe works. While it would help with the availability of guns in the U.S., they would still be in the hands of gangs, or civilians who would be blurred still about violence.
The answer is better mental health care, background checks, and bans on semi-automatic weapons.
In the beginning, a ban may be scary. Criminals would have guns and law abiding citizens wouldn't. But it is a sacrifice that has to be made. Eventually the amount of guns on the streets would diminish and we would all be on the same playing field like we are now, except without the ability to end another persons life by simply moving your trigger finger. It may take a while to see the results, but there is no doubt in my mind that removing guns on the streets would reduce the amount of violence we see.
First, guns ARE made for killing. It wasn't invented for defense in the first place. If you want protection, buy a SHIELD instead.
Second, it's easier to kill with a gun than any other weapon out there. Someone can instantly shoot you and you drop dead. Unlike with a knife, you have a chance to protect yourself.
Third, there are more LUNATICS who own guns. Some don't even make it to court because they terrorize people.
Fourth, If people want protection, make martial arts mandatory. Enough basketball or football!
Guns are dangerous. Yes, people will say that anything is dangerous at a hands of a criminal. But I'll tell you this, why give a lunatic something more powerful to use upon our masses? Guns will always be guns and they were only build for killing.
I would not send any child to a school with armed guards. You cannot trust people like that. On the news, a guard left a gun unguarded in school facilities. One of the students could of picked up that gun and another 5-year-old would not have been able to get back home to their kitten. There is again the issue of hunting. Some people say that we may have guns for hunting, since we may probably not hurt anybody. Number one, that is completely false. Someone in the forest hunting deer could get frustrated and kill their partner, and someone's daughter could try to commit suicide because they want to see their father in another place that may or may not exist. Second, animals are living creatures, and shooting them is exactly like shooting humans, except humans have this vision that animals cannot miss their friends and family when they disappear from the world forever, because humans are not yet advanced enough to detect animal emotions. Next, there is the subject of suicide. Many people take their own lives with the very weapon in our constitution, that's right. Guns. Suicide is an epidemic in America, I believe it is mostly caused by easy access to weapons. No child or adult should be able to take his/her own life so easily and quickly. If you believe that what I say is false, then I suggest you take a deep, hard look at yourself and say " Why do I support killing machines that we invented to be able to destroy perfectly good lives?"
The NFA of 1938 and similar greatly reduced the accessibility of automatics for legal use, and ended up doing the same for criminal use. So why wouldn't the same result occur for handguns? And other arms are banned or extremely restricted (grenades, artillery, bombs), but they too are 'arms'. And criminals basically don't have access to those either, because they are so restricted. Use adult airguns if you want to shoot for recreation. Use adult airguns, rifles and archery for hunting.
The arguments for gun control that I agree with:
It seems to have worked in other countries who have banned them. But they have far less firearms circulating the country. Holding a gun gives you a dellusional reality that it makes you safer, and so does getting rid of whatever we can. We should question ourselves about gun regulation but improve on ourself as a whole (mental health, morality, equality, etc). Just because the 2nd institution is manditory, doesn't mean it's the solution. Has every decision we made 200 years ago stayed the same? If it need be, we need to progress and stop living in the past. Having a gun does not reduce crime fully, but changes the nature of it. From assault to murder. Adding fuel to the fire would also create more chaos and bloodshed. Most pro-gun users refer to people who are criminals, but forget they were considered a normal human being prior to that.
Now the arguments against gun control I agree with:
Criminals will not follow laws, so it is a high probability this will only affect law-abiding citizens.
Gun deaths are down in other countries, but personal and property crimes have jumped. Crime will continue regardless of the ban and people will find a way around it.
Opinions that are in the middle:
A better solution must be found. A ban on weapons won't take away the millions of firearms that are present in the U.S. Arming teachers and staff with weapons would not contribute to safety. As they already have enough educational problems to deal with. We should have annual mental checkups for stability and receive proper training if we wish to carry a gun.
If you kill the motive, you kill the crime. (But what is the motive? How do we do that?).
Arguments that no one should use EVER:
The weapon to common death method. Stop comparing a gun to water/oxygen/cars/baseball-bats/knives and such. It does not relieve the fact that guns are far more dangerous. It does not remove their original and continuous intent of harming or killing. If I brought a grenade to school and had it taken away from me. It would be quite moronic of myself to say, "well chairs can be used as weapons so we might as well take away chairs". No. The more dangerous, the more responsibile we should be.
-A world without guns is a world without chaos.
Why in the world would more access to real life violence be chaotic?
-Abortionists kill (___%) of children per year.
No. Firstly they are not children. Secondly, there has been a huge debate that has favoured that they are not living life forms. Thirdly, abortions are there to prevent the child from growing up unwanted. To prevent poverty, suffering and much more negativity. It is selfish to demand someone be born into misery.
Gun bans have worked in many countries including Australia, Japan, and most of Western Europe, but some say that the United States won't be able to handle such thing. Why are we Americans too scared to get rid of our guns? Because our older generations have taught us that by holding a gun, you're holding the protection and safety for your house, family, friends, and property. But when we look at statistics, the United States have had more crime rates than any other developed nations in recent years. How do we become a safer nation? Should we get rid of the walls, or should we create more walls? Maybe we should question not just our gun regulations, but also our morality, society, media, and education as well.
"Be the Change that you want to see in the World" -Gandhi
There are states in which you can buy guns without any previous requirement or test, this opens the door to many psychopaths, thiefs and murderers to arm themselves.
The fact that the original constitution of the US allowed that every citizen could have a gun doesn't mean that it will continue to be the right thing after more than 200 years; society changes, time changes and some things from the past must be left behind to progress.
While there would be a black market of weapons, the fact that there is a restriction to who can use guns can influence in the total amount of crimes that would happen; not to mention that you are hampering any would-be criminal from getting a harmful tool.
Another consequence is that people are imprisoned in a paranoic state in which you are safe if you have a weapon; forgive me if I have to say this, but that is a lack of gun culture.
Taking away the guns from the social system would eventually make a better society: There can be a higher amount of trust amongst the people if they don't have the pressure nor need of weapons to feel safe.
As an ending note, I do hope that the US passes a regulation for gun ownership, if not a ban at least a start for the coming presidents to continue, guns are weapons of war and the war has been over for a long time.
The US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't have a national standard for gun registration. While a ban may not happen, the first step to regulate is to repeal the second ammendment that makes gun ownership a right. There is a petition requesting the administration to initiate the process outlined in article 5 of the constitution to repeal the 2nd ammendment at http://wh.gov/QOG9
Guns are banned in several countries around the world, and there is significantly less mass killings. We continue to hear of mass shooting in public places in the United States. I come from Australia, where I don't remember hearing of ONE such mass shooting. In the last 4 years that I have been in the US, I have heard of mass shootings dozens of times over this time period.
Gun bans will take away guns from mentally disturbed people, who have the intent of hurting others, and themselves.
Yes, hard criminals will be able to get guns on the black market, and that is the case all around the world - but that is for whom we have the police system? Do Americans not trust that the police will be able to come their aid?
The reason I keep hearing is, if we ban guns that the common man cannot protect himself and his family. Ture protection of yourself and family is teaching your family good moral values, and surrounding family with people who have similar moral values as yourself. Shooting and killing to protect yourself is not the answer!! There is a group of responsible people (police officers) who have been provided the responsibility of looking after the people of this country, why does the common man need to have access to a weapon.
Guns being freely available to irresponsible people who have emotional ups and downs is a very dangerous equation.
Think of those innocent children who were killed - ask yourself, what could have been done to prevent this. If that 20 year old could not easily access a gun, would this have occurred? There are countless examples from all around the world, where similarly disturbed people have attempted to perform mass killings, but their ability to kill was limited because they could not access guns.
What kind of America do you want to see? I for one, love this country, but having this much freedom to have such a dangerous weapon easily becoming availble to any person on the street is shocking to me. It truely makes me think, whether I want my children to grow up in this country.
Let's be real, way more harm than good has been done by Guns in our society. A ban on Guns in the United States wouldn't prevent all types of crime (i.e. gang violence) since those people get their guns on the black market. However, if you look at the most violent outbreaks of violence in recent memory (i.e. Connecticut), these acts of violence are done by WHITE kids in suburban areas who are getting guns not off the streets but from their own homes, etc. There's nothing wrong with making guns harder to access and putting tighter restrictions down. If we were to ban guns in this country, the amount of school shootings and tragedies of that magnitude would decrease dramatically. Gang violence probably wouldn't change a whole lot, but reducing the risks of school shootings should be a top the priority of all Americans hence, we should do whatever we can to ban guns in this country. Realistically, we should get rid of the 2nd Amendment. It was instituted in 1791 by a slim vote of 5-4 by the Supreme Court on the notion that a well trained militia was necessary for the security of the newly formed United States. But now that we don't need militias anymore, and the US is more than secure, the 2nd Amendment has run its course and really it shouldn't be in practice anymore. We should just get rid of it. That way, innocent kids will be way less likely to get killed and crazy white kids in the suburbs will have to appeal to gangsters on the streets to get their weapons, and lets be real, I don't see many of them having the street smarts to get one from one of those guys because they aren't a part of the gang-banger culture.
Conflicting conclusions from a vast number of reports makes it almost impossible to answer the question, as can be seen from so many responses here. But to the question: would a concerted effort to eradicate automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines save lives? The answer can only be an emphatic YES. The ban itself reduces the number of weapons out there. Decrying their use, makes more law abiding citizens not want them. Decrying the depictions of them in media and video games makes a dent in the culture of violence. If only one life is saved by these measures, isn't that good enough reason?
A group of people took a written test meant to measure aggressiveness. Another group did the same, but at a table with a pile of guns. The results were startling. The mere PRESENCE of guns vastly increased aggressiveness. Having a gun makes you more likely to use one (obviously), hence family shootings, accidents, and suicides are way up in households with guns. How to protect yourself? You don't need to, any more than you need to protect yourself from sharks in the ocean. The odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.
Here's the solution: Mandatory psychiatric testing before the purchase of EACH gun. Guns/rifles only allowed in a locked box at a gun club. Not on your person. Not in your car. And not in your home.
Common sense is overlooked. Simple logic dictates that the less guns there are, the less guns that can be used in violent crimes. There is no need for any person to possess a gun, but if you must hold onto your outdated 2nd amendment which was written when the need was there, for a simpler weapon then ban all except air guns. You still have the "protection" that you claim to need and it removes a lot of the more lethal guns from the ordinary folk. If you hunt or do sports then have a specific licence for those that is rigidly tested and kept up to date. Yes there will be people who will get guns illegally but your country will be much safer overall. The main problem is though some claim they want change they don't want to make it themselves. Ban the guns, save lives it's that simple.
If there are less guns on the streets, it won't be as easy for a regular citizen to get a gun in case he wants to use against society. Let's address this shooting issue one way or another, this needs to be fixed whether is by banning guns or spending it on mental health programs at schools and institutions. It is impossible to control how all humans being behave but we can reduce the reports of massive massacres by reducing the amount of guns on the streets and by investing in education and programs.
If the US bans guns, the only people that will have them are the crazy murderers. The good, law abiding citizen will not. Now, I know people say "well most shootings are using legal guns", well if you take those away, the illegal gun market will skyrocket. In this version of America, some crazy killer can run around shooting people until the cops show up. But if somebody has a gun, the fatality of the situation can just be one. Imagine if in the Colorado shooting, somebody was carrying a gun. The only death would have been the crazy shooter, not the innocent civilians.
Guns should only be able to be acquired after a very rigorous test, (both theory and practical) that has to be refreshed every year. They should also require that the applicant has a valid reason for said license, not just 'self-defense'. This works incredibly well in countries like the UK where gun violence is incredibly low. Alternative non-lethal self defense methods should allowed instead such as tazers and/or pepper spray.
I don't live in the US and so therefore I struggle to truly understand the context and culture in the States. I don't like to force my views and create a biased argument that will prove nothing.
Where I live gun violence doesn't even cross my mind, if someone was to break into my house I don't have to reach for a gun... In fact never have I thought to myself 'I could really use a gun right now'. There is no gun culture in Australia and therefore no escalation for criminals or citizens to arm themselves. I'm happy to say that I've never seen a gun before and that gives me great security. It might seem ignorant from an American perspective, but perhaps it's this very difference in culture that is the difference. I can legally go out an get a gun (although it takes a bit more time and effort than in the states) but I just don't need to. I don't claim to have the answers but it definitely is possible to live without the fear of someone 'blowing your head off'.
I believe perhaps its not an issue of 'gun control' but of 'gun culture' or just culture as a whole.
A ban on guns, even certain types of guns, would lead to a reduction of crime in the US, however anyone with a sound mind knows that such a ban woudnt be very effective and would be an extreme way to try to fight crime. Just because it would be overall ineffective though doesnt mean that it wouldnt work. A gun ban would decrease crime, just not by enough to make it worth implementing, which is something that everyone over there ---------> Seems to be using as their main argument for why it wouldnt work.
A number of crimes are committed with guns so having no guns would surely reduce the number of gun crimes in america? A gun is an extremely powerful weapon and so if someone was plotting a crime and knew where to get a gun they would know the gun could cause serious damage and so opt for the gun.
You may say that this will increase the number of other crimes but tell me how a school shooting could be recreated with a baseball bat? Or a metal bar? Less intimidating of course. No one stupid enough would risk going in with that.
The reason the crimes are so high is because the gun itself is a powerful weapon and the user knows that everyone is afraid of it. Take the gun away and the user becomes, not significantly, but slightly less scary,
Banning guns is the only way to prevent gun crimes. It's impossible to have complete control over who could get access to a gun. Since the Dunblane shooting in Scotland, 1996, killing teachers and school children, there have been no other gun massacres since, due to firearms being banned in the UK. Yet time after time the number of massacres and deaths in America through guns keep adding.
Most crimes are not pre-planned, a lot of them involve weapons of opportunity. The fact that a gun is one of the most efficient weapons for killing and is common enough in America that an awful lot of people have immediate access to one, is an obvious factor. It's much easier to pick up a gun and fire it at someone in anger than it is to beat them to death with a poker or a baseball bat.
The same goes for most crimes.
The argument that criminals will circumvent a gun ban is moot. The only people with the confidence, contacts or knowledge to illegally import firearms are not concerned with petty crimes that would affect the average citizen.
Why should people have the need to carry a firearm at all times, or even have one in their home? We have to remember that the second amendment was ratified at a time when the original 13 colonies were at war with the British and, at that point, every man had to be able to protect his family against military forces. However, this is not the case in current times. Even though the US may be at the brink of military actions against North-Korea, there is no need for a gun in every single household.
In 1934, Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state."
Even though the court agreed with his statement, since the year 2000, there has been 74 school massacres in the United States. The most known ones are Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, among others. After each of the shootings, an emotional President has promised "meaningful actions", and saying that: "As a country, we have been through this too many times", etc etc. But even though impactful actions have been promised, gun violence in America is off the chart compared with every other country on the planet. The gun-homicide rate per capita in the U.S. Is 30 times that of Britain and Australia, 10 times that of India and four times that of Switzerland.
According to Times magazine, which I consider to be a reliable source, states that in the decade since 2000, violent-crime rates have fallen by 20%, aggravated assault by 21%, motor-vehicle theft by 44.5% and non-firearm homicides by 22%. But the number of firearm homicides is essentially unchanged. What can explain this anomaly result, except easier access to guns?
There are very few cases in which it is justifiable to own a firearm. Although by making them illegal you may see a rise in the gun smuggling trade, and I expect people who want to massacre still will, but you have to put up opposition to it else the problem wont be looked upon as one. The constitution is outdated, written in a time where the right to bare arms would mean you could have a musket , not an AK-47. I also feel that it is not acceptable form of self defence because, apart from scaring criminals, you have to fire a murderous weapon at someone, who if this law was changed, would be breaking the law before shooting and easy for a police force to discover and detain. These are not boys toys, they should never be a status symbol or a prized possession. Without well structured systems, in place for legitimate owners to get a license and then an arm which is suitable for its purpose the obvious destruction, pain and misery that they have brought upon the U.S will only get worse as the guns get more powerful.
It is the common idiots opinion that if you have a gun, you would be safer. This is completely false. If you base your knowledge off of news reports then it is understandable why you came to such a conclusion but In my experience carrying a gun brings more risks than they solve. The majority of the people in the part of Alabama where I am from, carried guns. It only made it more difficult for law enforcement to do their job and the need for the average criminal to carry a gun escalated. Most criminals don't know if someone is carrying a gun or not and often times, they don't care. If you were to shoot at and possibly kill a gang member, The problem doesn't end there. What will stop his friends or family members from coming at you with more guns for revenge? And what's to stop their friends and family members? Even a trained professional cannot win every firefight he gets in.Limit the amount of guns in circulation, keep track of the guns in circulation and it will be less likely these people will get ahold of guns. Th
More children in the USA are accidentally killed by guns in their homes than are murdered. Do you really think you are protecting your family by having a gun, or are you putting them at greater risk? Wake up and get rid of your guns. The second amendment is no longer appropriate to 2013. It needs to be repealed.
If you think you are safer because you have a gun in your house, think again. You have now provided access to a gun for someone to use against you. You may think that you are safer, but the reality is that guns can be taken from you and used to kill you. To the female living alone, and thinks she is safer, do you think you will be able to keep that gun away from your attacker? It is more likely that it will now be used against you.
Most people say that criminals would still find a way to get guns even if we banned them. But why should we allow guns? To make crime easy? A gun is a weapon for killing. Its allways has been. So why would guns be useful except in the case of crime?
Look at Canada. Look at Europe. Loot at any other country. It works. Do we have gun-related killing sprees almost every other month? No. Do people die due to weapon-related violence? Unfortunately, yes, they still do. But someone taking a knife to a school is bound to make less victims than someone taking a gun to a school. Simple logistics. Why can't Americans understand that taking away 'their' guns (what a horrible way to think about a deadly weapon!) also makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns? America, you need to grow up, or do you also believe that children should be bashing each others' heads in whenever they don't agree? Stop interfering with other countries and solve your own problems first. Ban guns, grow up and be a shining example for others, not the country that people laugh at or make jokes about and don't take seriously any longer.
Gun related homicides are 10-20 times higher in the US than in other developed societies where guns are illegal. It's a simple fact that is somehow consistently overlooked. If the majority of the population does not have access to guns, then by and large you don't need protection from them. Living in a gunless society does not equate to living in a police state.
Guns don't serve any purpose other than to destroy life. The "home of the brave" continues to display it's paranoia. Everyone should have the right to feel safe in their community, not the right to bear arms which contradict the means of a peaceful democracy which we try to promote.
Of course it would. Obvious reasons are already mentioned by other people so I don't feel like I need to add to that.
Some people will say it is their right to "bear arms". Well guess what, maybe we should deserve our rights and don't feel like we are entitled to them. There is too many people that are taking advantage of this right to commit crimes. Maybe just maybe we should deserve the privilege to own a gun. Anyway, what do people need assault weapons for???? What has to happen for people to finally understand that this is a right that we just might not be ready to handle (like a child with scissors or matches).
I think I have a right to send my child to school and knowing I will see him again, to go to see a movie and not to have to look during the movie if there is anyone suspicious...
Maybe there could be a compromise made: Very thorough screening for people that want a gun for hunting. Assault weapons should be banned from selling.
By banning guns in the USA it will lessen shootings and violent crime. I live in the United Kingdom and am appalled that this is still legal and your super markets sell bullets alongside groceries. Teach your children and the next generation of citizens that this is a dangerous and ignorant side to mankind and killing and injuring our fellow man is evil and appalling.
There are many crimes in which a gun is used: robbery, mugging, theft, murder, etc. Without guns, it eliminates a large percentage of crimes that uses guns. Guns kill many people every year. In 2008, guns killed about 12,000 Americans. There may be some ways to replace guns with other weapons for robbery, mugging or theft; however, there is still a vast majority of crimes that uses guns. So a ban on guns would reduce crime in the U.S. By at least a little.
Over 200'000 more Americans have lost their lives over the last 45 years than the total number of Americans killed during all wars involving the USA. That is a staggering statistic. The USA is an incredible country, I hope that gun laws can be passed that help to reduce gun deaths in the USA, whilst still allowing the people of the USA to follow their constitution.
1. For those who say gun laws are "useless" because they will be violated makes no sense to me at all. Last time I checked, Murder was illegal, yet people still commit it. So does that mean we should make murder legal just because people kill others?
2. If you own a gun, do you walk around your house with it? Chances are, no. So if your argument is that "a gun is protection" if someone breaks into your house, your gun is useless if it is actually properly and safely stored.
3. If you are that paranoid that someone is going to break into your house, either move or get a BRINKS system installed.
4. My single mother and I live in an urban area, neither of us own a gun, nor have we ever had to use one. For those who also live in an urban area as well, know that guns only cause problems and have yet to solve any.
5. Those who argue it is your "constitutional right" do not understand what reading in context is...When the second amendment was written, the concept of having a gun with multiple rounds was unheard of.
6. Guns are designed to kill... Unlike any other absurd object that was just listed that may have caused deaths. Therefore, gun deaths should never be compared to a vehicle or a dining utensil.
If you look at poor neighborhoods with high violence rate, you will see that almost everybody holds guns with them. If guns were banned, there would be no need for this at all. People hold guns in fear of attackers attacking them with guns. These people shoot whoever tries to shoot them. If there were no guns, none of this would be possible. Sure, there are other weapons to kill with, but the gun is the main weapon and if the government were to ban them, it would definitely reduce the rate of crimes because most crimes are committed with gun in hand.
Yes, why do we need pistoles? It is the police job to protect the community by having guns. Normal people do not need gun for any reason. Also, I want to point to the most safe countries in the world. US had almost 13.000 people killed by handguns in 2011, witch is 80% of the murders in 2011.
Of course this would help! Why do people in the U.S. Think it's normal to have a gun at home? Why do they let their children have a gun? To protect themselves for people with guns? I couldn't imagine everyone here in Belgium carrying a gun! And here, the ban on guns works just fine
Banning every single fire arm could be the single best achievement to America since WWII or the moon landing. People who defend guns usually live in this fantasy world where their mindset is still back in the wild west and they think they can defend every situation with it. NEW FLASH! That rarely happens. Most mass shootings committed are done by people with clean and clear background checks so they can get guns easily.
It breaks my heart looking up the Sandy Hook mass shooting, clicking on the names of children that had been killed. Most of the victims are not any older then 7 years. You can see their favorite colors, activities they like to do and subjects they like to study. Let us ban guns in the USA and stop giving new casters "breaking stories" to report. Lets make it harder for mentally ill yet "sane" looking psychopaths to obtain guns. Lets just end this pointless violence anyway we can.
Living in Australia, where we have strict gun control laws, I have seen a huge reduction on crime involving guns! It is astounding how the laws introduced in 1996 has reduced gun related crime significantly. After having multiple shootings and the Port Arthur Massacre things have changed. And it is depressing that the deaths of innocent children had to really kick start this debate. It should never have been left that late. Yes, people can still own guns if they have a proper license for legit purposes (such as hunting, etc.) These regulations would save so many people!
Adults suffer from a diagnosable mental disorders, in the USA which has population of 313.9 million people (in 2012) it is likely, therefore, that there will be many casualties. If we look at other countries that take this in to account, such as the UK, where there is background check and license is required. It is evident that there is less fire guns related crimes
For example if you take a car and drive through a park of people chances are you aren't going to kill that many people. However, if you have a gun and you can shoot from every angle you are going to kill a lot more people. Guns are the worst form of killing for two reasons they are so easily accessible and they can kill lots of people in a small amount of time. The argument that states people kill people doesn't hold ground. Yes, people do kill people but if they can't get their hands on guns killing people will become much more difficult. Mentally ill people should not be able to walk around with guns!!!!
This has been proven over and over again in all the countries that have banned guns. As a US citizen myself, I think the right own guns by citizens is a very outdated law, and this law needs to change. Laws like this might have been correct 100 years ago when crimes was high. This is 2013, times have changed, laws need to change with time to safeguard innocent people's lives.
The USA have among the highest reported crimes rates in the world. Obviously this data can be interpreted in many different ways, and it's due to many different factors, not just guns. You can perhaps even argue the reason it's so high is because they have more effective police compared to other nations. However, that doesn't explain why the US is also the highest murder by gun rate country in the western world. I believe that it's essential for the USA to start improving it's standards of living. It currently is a very wealthy country yet it fails in statistics when compared to countries such as Australia and Norway when it comes to standards of living i.E. Life expectancy / medical availability, average wealth per person, average education levels etc. So essentially the people living there are poorer and dying earlier than in other western countries. I believe that banning guns is an essential part of the greater challenge of improving Americans standards of living.
Cmon guys, a first grader could answer this. Less guns on the street=less shootings. If Adam Lanza did not have all those assault rifles sitting around in his house, there is a good chance he never would have been able to even get the guns for his massacre. If guns weren't sold so easily, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would not have been able to just purchase them from some guy at a gun show. The fact that a lot of crimes are committed with legally purchased guns means that there is no doubt crime would be reduced.
Gun simply have no purpose to server. Sure, some people argue about the nee for self defence. However, if guns were not allowed in the first lace, why would there be any attacks occurring? I am absolutely confident that if guns are banned from the US, the number of massacres that will occur will significantly decrease. On the other hand, the many parts of these guns can be used to create bombs and terrorism is definitely not something the people in US will want to encourage. Instead of being banned, the guns should be restricted to only those with very valid reasons and self defence is definitely NOT one of them.
Many people think that guns will protect you, however, guns are the very things that start the violence. In a gun fight, everyone gets hurt. But when those guns are taken away, nobody gets hurt easily. Some may say that knives and other stuff can still kill you but do you get killed as easily from a knife wound than a shot wound? Sometimes Yes....Most times no. Those who want to own guns are hypocrites who think that they can protect their family with guns when there should not be any guns at all! How can America be a free country if people are getting killed everyday by guns?
Not so free more...
I'm amazed at the research that shows a distinct connection between the availability of guns and gun related deaths and injury. Surely it is obvious that less guns equal less death and injury. The big issue seems to be the ease with which people get hold of guns - either legally or by misusing other people's guns - this is what happened in sandy creek. Why not get rid of them altogether? Why not make it law that only law enforcement, farmers that own their land (and only on their land), military and militia on current active duty can carry any type of gun . This includes hunters. And even law enforcement, military and militia need to have there guns locked up between shifts in centralized armories. Anyone else who is caught carrying a gun gets a 2 year mandatory jail sentence with no parole. If a person carries or uses a gun in the process of committing any crime get s minimum 10yr mandatory, non parole sentence. Then there will be way less opportunities or incentive for the angry, insane, or unstable to grab other peoples guns and kill people.
Almost all research in the countries of the world has shownthat availability of guns is directly linked to the rate and size of guns deaths and gun injury and gun crime. Reducing the total number of guns reduces the accessibility of guns available to people to misuse legitimately owned guns. This is what happened in sandy creek massacre and will continue to happen until guns are just taken away. The only way to reduce is to outlaw all guns being carried for everyone except those on duty in military, law enforcement and militia. This includes all hunters - lockable centralised amouries or better still no hunting. Even these guns must be stored in Armories. As a social experiment the USA's position on guns is a terrible failure. Over 30000 deaths a year and over 100000 injuries proves this. Do your kids a favour and get rid of guns!
If people would need to use guns for farms and hunting etc, I think that's agreeable. But if you are carrying a gun just for the sake of self protection, who knows what kinds of trouble you can cause? America is one of the leading countries that has no gun control, yet thousands die each year from gun shots.
If the U.S bans handguns then the bad guys will just get other weapons like knifes and rifles, also banning handguns will just make people who have them to defend themselves defenseless, and the bad people could just buy them illegally, like from the black market. Banning handguns will do nothing but create more harm.
To be fair, most counter arguments are built on nonsense. The fact of the matter is, a grenade will do more damage than a pocketknife, a lot more quickly and a lot more brutally. So, people ought to stop comparing guns to cars, knives, poisons, or whatever else will kill you.
Enough is enough already, the British are not coming. Stop feeding crime with your gun obsessions, this is getting annoying. There is no better reason to move to Europe or Canada than this.
A ban on guns would not only reduce crime it would also reduce America's overreaching war stance on the world. The ban on guns would force gun owners to believe in more peaceful solutions to problems because they would not be able to rely on their gun like a religious artifact in the belief that it is going to protect them. Carrying a gun is like wearing a crucifix around one's neck. The wearer and bearer of the gun live in an illusion that it will protect them whereas the reality is that gun owners are statistically more inclined to commit murder with their weapon than to use it to protect themselves. But the ban on guns will not only reduce crime. The ban on guns would change people's stance on how they view the world and how they take action upon it. The U.S. Being a democracy must take into account the 50% of the population religion owning guns and solving problems with guns. The military action that America uses around the world has a direct connection with gun owners in America that want to solve everything with bullets not diplomacy. Gun owners voted George Bush into office and demanded that he resolve terrorism with guns. If Al Gore would have been elected president we would have had a more peaceful resolve that would have involved more diplomacy and less guns. BAN GUNS IN AMERICA.
Most civilized countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada have banned the sale of many guns, including assault rifles and shotguns. However, South of Canada lurks a big threat: assault rifles. Assault rifles are legal in the United States of America, but, puzzlingly Kinder Surprises are banned to keep children safe.
The Newtown shooting made many people start making fun of the United States for not banning assault rifles like the one used in the Newtown shooting. If assault rifles were banned, I am certain that murders would decrease because murderers armed with a knife or a small firearm are easier to overcome because they don't have a massive killing machine in their hands.
DOWN WITH ASSAULT RIFLES!
Statistics show that without guns there will be a dramatic drop in the number of murders/suicides. Most of these actions are caused by guns. An example is a family in New Jersey. The mom wanted to kill herself because she and her husband were divorced. She didn’t have a gun, so when she tried to kill herself with a knife, she couldn’t because she was afraid of the pain. People prefer suicide by shooting because it is quick and painless. Supporting to the story, 10% who want to suicide without guns will fear of pain. State’s William Saletan said “Focus on keeping guns away from people who kill.” I think, this way, murders will drop. President Obama has also tightened gun laws. One of the reasons was that he got letters from 8-11 year old students from all over Untied States. These letters have been sent after the incident in Newtown. These kids have been inspired to ban guns after the lockdown in Newtown. If little kids want to ban gun, why shouldn’t the others?
Guns have proved themselves deadly weapons time and time again with the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora, Colorado shooting. Even Glee made an episode about the dangers of guns! I understand it is an amendment, but would it be so bad to ban more POWERFUL, DANGEROUS guns? Would it be so bad to have a very THOROUGH background check on people who purchase guns? That's just my opinion, so don't come complaining when a family member is killed In the hands of a killer.
People think that having a gun protects you. This can be true, but only under the rarest of occasions. Why do people feel they need massive, fully-automatic death machines? These guns are not designed for protection, they're designed to kill quickly. The only reason people think guns are necessary is because every where you go you see someone walking with a gun. The mindset becomes a case of if that civilian gets one, why can't I? As far as hunting goes, hunters should not need anything more than a two-shot hunting rifle, but they should have to pass a mental stability test first.
People think that having a gun protects you. This can be true under the most minute number of occasions, but why do you need to have massive full-auto death machines? The only reason people think guns are necessary is because every where you go, you see someone walking with a gun. As far as hunting goes, you should be able to own a 2-shot hunting rifle, but you would have to take a mental stability test.
A gun ban would really help out the economy and bring a lot more tourists here. Many people, even US citizens, will not even visit states like Texas where people are allowed to carry guns everywhere and allowed to have them hidden from view. I think guns are pathetic and those who feel the need to have them are paranoid and confused about life in general. Most of the guns in the private sector are sitting in a closet collecting dust. It would be honorable for people to give up their guns and have them destroyed.
Banning guns will reduce crime! Even people who have a clean record, have killed people in the past and probably will again. Cases of drunks killing are countless. And if a person doesn't have a gun, he or she is less likely to kill someone or at least it will not be as easy for him or her to kill someone.
When criminals spot guns all round them LEGALLY......They usually get tempted and feel no wrong doing because guns are being used legally, that basically states that law is allowing criminals to start their crime. Once guns get banned, criminal start feeling scared because they will be chances that they are caught with a gun..And guns are noisy so YES, they have 70% chance to get caught. And as an answer to the debate question-> Yes, a ban on guns will REDUCE crime in the U.S
I think making it harder for people to get guns would make a massive difference, I'm not really sure about how it works over-there but it is too easy to get a gun! But at the same time it could make people want to use other methods of getting guns which would provide other issues. Then again making a little difference and helping a few people is better than nothing.
Guns are weapons. Weapons are made to hurt people, whether you're using it in 'defense' or not the end result is the same. Look at all the shootings and the grieving families. Why don't we fill their shoes for a moment. How would you feel if someone you didn't know walked into your home and opened fire. It's a simple equation. Irresponsible user + firearm = innocent deaths. Obviously you can't take away the bad , the irresponsible, and the irrational, but you can take away the firearm. Why would you need an ACR in your closet anyway? The US is the 11th placed country for the highest rate of gun related death.
With all the negatives occurring in the US right now, many people result to violence and outbursts. Is it really a good idea to give these people a gun? I know what you're saying. "Oh, but I am responsible, most people wont do that." So the question goes back to why would you need a gun then? Take the guns away from the 'bad guys' and I promise you, you will save a child, a mother, father. We could have saved those children.
protection of citizens is to be assured by the police. That's what the police is for.
If you answer that the police shoots lots of people , that may be related to the fact policemen are scared of being shot.
If you answer that polcemen can't be everywhere to prevent people from being killed, well, yes, obviously.Duh. Thank you for pointing that out, captain obvious. But it is much harder to kill 50 kids with a kitchen knife without being stopped first, than with an assault rifle.
If you answer that people will still be able to get weapons illegaly; Yes, they will. Again, thank you, fieldmarshall obvious.
But it will be hard, it will be expensive, and some drunk guys from texas who think their (un)common sense is better than justice won't be able to go out and shoot anyone, and some mental kid who worships satan (seriously?!) won't be able to to his mothers GUN COLLECTION (SERIOUSLY?!)to go kill kids.
If you answer there are still knives: ok, you've just been promoted to El Presidente of obviousland. Yes, there will be knives. But most knives don't have an automatic fire mode available.
If you answer this will NOT put crime rate down...errrrr....ummmm......
WOW! PEOPLE! AMERICA IS ON TOP! And, oh my god! France, the United Kingdom, Germany, all those countries where guns ARE NOT FOR SALE. (and which, by the way, have subsidized health care, unemployment pensions, etc) seem to have a lower prison population.
I'll let your brains churn away at that. But frankly, I'm not at hopeful.
So I know you might be sitting thinking “well what about the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms.” Well when that was created was 1776, there were no automatic weapons. There were muskets. So yes I agree, you do have the right to a musket. They fire 1 round not 100 rounds, heck you can have as many muskets as you desire.
The right to wield firearms has been around for years has it not? But there is a fine line between abusing the right to have firearms, if anything ban high caliber weapons because you sure as hell don't need and .44, .357 or a .50 to 'defend yourselves'. Banning firearms would improve the whole 'school shootings' problem by a large amount. These events have been going on since exactly the 1700's, but then again this is 2013, and evidently it has become a lot worse than 300+ years ago.
Look at the rest of the world and the crime rates in the countries with an effective gun-law and those countries where it's not illegal or they are upholding the gun-law. 90 guns per 100 citizen in the U.S says enough, there's way too many guns here. A problem would be the black market and it's not done in a day, but we have to start somewhere!
Guns should only be able to be acquired after a very rigorous test, (both theory and practical) that has to be refreshed every year. They should also require that the applicant has a valid reason for said license, not just 'self-defense'. This works incredibly well in countries like the UK where gun violence is incredibly low. Alternative non-lethal self defense methods should allowed instead such as tazers and/or pepper spray.
Yes, restricting age limits with careful background checks will insure an increase in any types of gun related crimes. This would be the best place to start. Changing the Constitution is not an option, but one can modify how old one must be to carry a gun, and a mandatory background check.
I really don't understand the argument that if guns were banned only criminals would have guns. Almost all guns in the black market were at one point legal. They are usually either stolen or sold into the black market by gun owners because of either the lack of background checks we have or because of the owner's failure to enforce them. Do you really think that most black market guns are just built by gang members and others who sell illegal guns?
If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws? People, not just Americans, have the natural right to live, to live without the constant threat of being murdered, robbed at gunpoint, raped, etc. What can we do about this? I say BAN GUNS. I don't think it will be easy in the short term, but I do believe it will help. Give me an intelligent argument that guns are good for society, that guns are good for the world. I will concede that law enforcement and military personnel should have guns, but not your everyday citizens. Give me a good reason that doesn't cling to some antiquated law set centuries ago, and I will consider your opinion.
I've heard many pro-gun people claim, "gun's don't kill people, people kill people." While i admit this is technically true, lets be realistic. Guns are an instrument of death (murder really). I'll start my argument with the claim that people are generally not killers. At some point something happens that makes them killers; I won't get into the cause but will claim that guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Now, hypothetically, take guns out of the picture. Any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that less death would take place. Simple solution: BAN GUNS. There would be less death, less murders, less suffering. Is it not a natural right for a person to live. Why make the a main reason of death legal? Why shouldn't we ban guns? If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws. Give me one reason, one reason that doesn't cling to antiquated laws set centuries ago, and I will listen. Until then, I adamantly agree that a ban on guns would reduce crime. Thank you.
The second amendment was made back in the day when people used guns for different reasons. Also guns cause about a fraction of 333/680 deaths in the U.S. When England used gun control gun crimes when down like 60%. The only reason why people now have guns is to protect their family when more people kill family members than criminals when they have a gun in their household. It's a stupid and emotionless reason to not ban guns over what happened in the recent shootings.
Many people fail to realize that the constitution does not protect your right to guns. The constitution states that the right to own guns are given to a well regulated militia. The average joe on the street is not part of a militia. The government is still allowing militias to have guns. You may who this militia is it is the state guard and local militias in your states. For example Australia has gun control, and they have the lowest gun related crimes recorded. One final point as quoted by Harvey Weinstein "If we don't get gun-control laws in this country, we are full of beans. To have the National Rifle Association rule the United States is pathetic. And I agree with Mayor Michael Bloomberg: It's time to put up or shut up about gun control for both parties." One union should not be allowed to dictate the rules of our country. If unions are allowed to do that would would that lead to?
At this point, the idea is not to reduce crime, but to prevent Newtown-like situations in which people can walk into a public place with a semi-automatic rifle around their back and shoot people at will. Sure, our founding fathers said that there is a right to bear arms. But they sure didn't mean that people can walk into public areas and shoot the place up. Granted, banning semi-automatic weapons may be along process. But, it's one step closer to ensuring people like James Holmes don't walk into movie theater and kill.
I'm from the UK and crime is here to. I recall one shooting here this year, last week in Birmingham. It's not every other week and we don't have mass shootings either. Knife crime can be an issue in some of our built up areas, but it mainly happens in rougher areas, where adolescents think its cool to carry one, I have never been a victim of crime nor know any victims. Statistics say it all to me, until the USA ban and confiscate guns, mass shootings and gun crime will not decrease. I also don't believe in police carrying guns, in the UK a police officer is as effective with a baton and cuffs.
My name is Marco, an Italian citizen, and I live in the UK since 2003. During the course 10 years, I had a good chance to get acquainted with your British "cousins". Consequently, having more access to read your culture, understand your government, study your history too.
I am sorry to say that from a foreign eye, your nation is the stereotype of materialism along with egoism and self-centred mentality. The "American Dream" is nothing but the wish of self realization and money owning to be more powerful and rich than your neighbour next door. The clear message that I get from the news, the movies, the interviews is that you people want to defend your possessions as much as you want to prevent a dog to invade your lawn because it could dirt the grass. In the US nothing is for sharing, not even the freedom. How then can we even consider to take this subject on board if the very concept of freedom is misunderstood? "Freedom" means to have no restraint and have the power to determine an action with no interference whatsoever, but this is the very problem. By claim the resounding right to be free to carry a weapon you claim the right for the next criminal to carry the same weapon.
Remember that criminals are clever and they will always (or nearly always) jump to their guns earlier than you could.
I am a martial art instructor and with empty hands the worst that can happen is that someone may throw a punch before you can block it. If we translate this to a fire gun, the consequence is much more severe.
I lived in London for 3.5 years and in Brighton for 6; in London alone, 3 times were the attempts to mug me and none of them was successful for the thieves, but this is because they were empty handed. In the case someone would have pointed a gun at me, I wouldn't have played with my life for a few quids, a mobile phone and an MP3 player.
Recently, the business that I work for came up with the proposition to move to Miami for some of us because a new branch is opening. Because here in the UK guns and rifles are far from accessible, the first socially related question that I asked to myself weather I will decide to move was: "What would you do in the case that someone will point a gun at you? Would it be better to buy one myself?" and so, I now understand better where you are coming from: you Americans will never free yourselves from the shootings, the killings, the slaughters and the massacres because your population enslaved itself with the false belief that carry a gun means "Being free", while you are living in the constant fear that your neighbour can shoot your back just out of the blue.
If you take away the virus, you take away the illness.
Bans on guns would definitely reduce the crime rate. Statistically speaking, 29% of crimes were associated with firearms, therefore, if guns were unavailable to the general public the crime rate would unquestionablely decrease. Why would the public guns anyways? To protect themselves from other people.. With guns. No guns, not that much problem as before. It's quite simple.
Ugh, you silly people. Not wanting to ban guns. Are you crazy. If NO one had a gun them maybe this world would shape up a bit. If no one had a gun then everyone won't have to worry about protection and all this non sense and excuses. I am vey disappointed in those who want guns. You should be ashamed. This is from a kid you know. It seems like some people don't have a brain and are clueless on some things. How come I can think up of a way to help a big problem? Oh that's right, some of you people who want guns don't have a brain
The law abiding gun owners provide the economic demand that fuels the huge gun industry in the US. With a ban on guns and an aggressive buyback program, the total number of guns extant in our society could be greatly reduced.
The "only the bad guys will have guns" argument is a gross oversimplification. There will definitely be a black market, but we can make it much smaller than the current situation in which guns can be obtained easily from gun shows, private sales, or theft. Before you mention drugs, this is not analogous to the drug issue because drugs are addictive.
We have to be careful when talking about crime rates because of the relative severity of different crimes, which is hard to define let alone agree on. However we all can agree that homicide is the most serious crime tracked, and easy to define. Nations with aggressive gun control (such as the UK) have been successful in keeping homicide rates low. To suggest that the US would somehow react differently is to admit that Americans are about four times as violent than citizens of the UK, which seems unlikely.
Millions of guns are being sold every year in America meaning more and more people are having access to guns. By banning guns you won't be able to take those sold guns back but prevent more people from obtaining them. Wouldn't this just reduce the number of shootings in America. What happened to good old fist brawls with each other when they are mad?
Firearms are not safe, yes because of whom ever is behind the gun. But think about it, you have a gun loaded, and your child, kids, or your little baby grabs the gun that can make a or horrible nightmare. They can think guns are cool, they play with it and when you least expect it they shoot themselves or someone else. Due to the owners of the gun for being irresponsible of leaving the gun in a place where the kids can grab the firearm. Accidents like this can be reduced if we ban all firearms.
I think you guys should ban guns. Honestly I love going to bed at night and not having to worry about waking up with a gun in my face or going to the city and shopping without having to look over my shoulder again and again. Don't you want a safer life for the future of your country? Think about all the little angels that died whilst in school because someone thought they could solve all their own problems with a tool they had in their cupboard! Ban these murder weapons before this gets more out of hand than it already is. Thank you for reading my opinion and I hope that your country will do the right thing.
Guns don't kill people, people do. Taking guns out of Americans hands will only leave us defenseless against attacks. How could you defend yourself if someone burst into your home with any type of gun and all you could do is watch as they made off with your valuables if not your life? Taking guns out of American hands does NOT keep them out of criminals hands. You cannot successfully take weapons from loyal American citizens, and at the same time successfully reduce crime rates. Look at any stats you want, crime rates will most definitely go up. They may be less violent since no one would bring a knife to a gun fight, but there is a definite higher risk of death and a definite increase in crimes everywhere. Besides, like I said, you cannot successfully take guns away from Americans, government would just be ASKING for a second Civil War, leaving the U.S. vulnerable to outside attacks. In all, the cons outweighs the pros, so why don't you just leave Americans and their guns alone Gov?
If you ban guns from ordinary citizens, than ordinary law-abiding citizens will obey even if they might not like it. But those who already don't follow the law are going to find a way to get guns and kill. And that makes the citizens more likely to be killed if they have no way to protect themselves. Like I said, laws are meant to be broken even if you put them on the people who already don't follow the law.
This question infuriates me. Like I said, I am a female who lives alone, and what's to stop someone from breaking in my home to rob me, seeing me, raping me, and leaving me for dead. There are so many evil criminals out there who will get their hands on guns no matter what.
The only line of protection I have from someone killing me and raping me after they break in is my 38. Special revolver. Without my gun I would never sleep peacefully at night. Before I owned a gun, I felt like a sitting duck, insecure and helpless. If someone broke in, I would be a victim to whatever kind of pain and suffering they would want to put me through.
In fact, if you are a parent and you have kids, it is your duty to own a gun. If someone breaks in to hurt them, you will be able to protect them and save your own kids' lives. Anyone who ever tries to take away my sense of security and protection should re-evaluate their logic.
Criminals will always have guns. A law-abiding citizen like me should be able to have a gun to protect my life.
There are still knives. With guns it is easier to protect yourself, and a gun shot would alert people in the area to trouble. Without guns there would be more silent kills, and there would be a higher crime rate in the U.S.
Military combat knives are in popular demand and would be put to use if there were no guns. We will not lose as many lives if we have guns.
Plain and simple, it's a tool, just like a knife or a baseball bat etc. Stop blaming guns for the actions of stupid people. If the government seizes the public's guns we have no way of fighting back when this government turns to tyranny. Open your eyes, and get Obama out of power. It doesn't end there; arrest the bankers who run this country and give the republic back to the people for which many Americans fought and died. This is America, not Great Britain or China. Open your eyes before it's to late. Crime happens and will continue to happen regardless of laws put into place. I love this country, but I don't care for the government, especially the leaders of it. This isn't your country to make these decisions, and to Obama all I can say is good luck!
History has shown that with every weapons ban, young or old, that it always fails and does more harm than good. Yes, banning guns lowers the average gun death, but raises the other statistics of murder. Gun bans make criminals invincible. No government has the right to tell citizens that they are not worthy of adequate protection. Now, the argument that modern weapons such as AR-15's, AK-47's, etc have no purpose because they are modeled after weapons of war. This argument is flawed as every human invention has in one way or another been tailored for war. Should we ban cars because the military use them? No, the answer is not banning inanimate objects from everyday use for law abiding citizens. The answer is to go after the criminals, which by definition do not obey laws. So, in closing the idea of passing a law hoping that a criminal will obey it, knowing that by definition criminals do not obey laws, in the hopes that making average law abiding good people of these United States defenseless against said criminals will make everyone safer? I see no logic to those statements and STRONGLY oppose every one of them. Thank you.
People have to remember: there are more deaths per year from drunk drivers then from guns. If the government tries to take ours guns away, then they'd better take away automobiles if they're talking about saving lives. Guns don't kill; the person shooting the gun kills. When will everyone wake up and realize this?
if we ban guns, only law abiding citizens will obey those laws. Criminals by nature don't obey laws and will continue to use guns no matter what. In fact they'd use guns even more because it gives them power over the law abiding citizens thus making committing crimes less risky. Law abiding citizens need to be armed or else the balance of power will be horrible out of proportion.An armed society is a polite society.
If the government bans guns, then what will stop the criminals from getting ahold of them? Just because there are certain human beings out there that have a quest for blood have used guns, does that mean that everyone's rights should be impeached? Because one person uses a gun does not man that all guns are bad. When someone buys a gun, there is always a chance that it will be used for harm, but just a small chance. So when you go to the hospital to have surgery there is a small chance that it could go wrong and you could die from medical malpractice, should hospitals be banned?
The people that break the laws do not follow the laws. These people will still find out ways to get guns. A ban would only be hurting the people that follow the rules and use them to hunt. A ban would be the worst thing to do. It would also take away the SECOND AMENDMENT to those who follow the rules!
Only the cops and bad guys would have firearms. I would not want to be in the middle of that. I don't want to entrust public and personal safety to the same government that lets kids on Indian reservations go hungry while funding foreign war machines. That's just for starters.
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country yet they had 500 murders last year alone. If taking away guns worked then Chicago should have zero murders. I live in Illinois and refuse to visit Chicago because honestly the idea of going to a major city and not being able to defend myself scares me.
If the above headline ("Legal prohibition of X does not prevent the procuring of X.") is true, then criminals will still get guns if they are banned, because they are not afraid to break the law. However, what banning firearms will do, is preventing honest citizens, the very group we wish to have guns, from having them. Effectively, by banning guns, you will not change whether criminals have guns or not, but you will disarm the honest citizens who would have stood up to them, so criminals will more easily prey on citizens, leading to an increase in deaths and crime.
A ban on guns in general, pistols, shotguns and rifles alike, would never happen, but in the theoretical event that such a thing did happen, it would most likely make the situation worse. A gun on its own does not kill, it is a hunk of junk. The man behind the gun, the criminal with a violent mind, kills. If guns were not available, he would resort to blunt objects or knives, as a man in China did, with a knife he stabbed 25 children around the same time as the Newtown shooting.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Don't blame the guns. Guns are what made this country great. We shouldn't turn our backs on the past. If anything, taking away guns would only make it worse. Only law-abiding citizens will adhere to a gun ban, so the criminals will still be armed and dangerous.
All you have to do is look at the crimes that are being committed with firearms in cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. They have some of the strictest firearms laws in the country, and yet they also have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Figure it out.
Clearly, this would not be evenly distributed. I'm positive that most crime causers would find a way to claim a gun one way or another in all reality. Even if there's a ban on guns it would most likely not effect the rate of crime in the US overall, obviously.
Some people do not follow the law, so I think that banning guns will not reduce crime. I live off hunting so I think that there should be guns. It is going to be hard to hunt if guns are banned. Then I will have to make a spear and hunt like that, and that is not as easy as it sounds.
Our civil rights are not negotiable. The government fails at everything it tries. Attempting to ban something only leads to more crime. How is the war on drugs going? How did prohibition work out? It is not about gun control; it is about people control. They want you disarmed and defenseless, good little subordinates off in pursuit of financial grandeur in their rigged game. The more you play, the richer they get.
There are drugs that are illegal, but people still have them. People have guns without having them registered, which is illegal. People also carry guns without having a license, which is illegal. People will always be able to get their hands on a gun, no matter what laws the government puts into place.
No, it would not. The temptation will be there - it will maybe for a while, reduce the crime rate but people will always be there to find a back door. To find some way to sell and to retrieve guns from others. There's always a black hole that people will force their way through to get what they want.
Tell me this, who commits crime? Criminals.. And since when do criminals follow the law? Oh, never, so why is there the thought that if there is a law against guns, that the use of guns will stop.. Criminals will still use guns, there will just be more illegal use of guns..
For some reason there is this farcicle argument that if firearms are banned, then society will be a better place. This is simply not true. Britain, for instance, has had extremely restrictive (by American standards) firearms laws since the late 1990s, and they are the most violent country (in terms of violent crime) in the European Union. Chicago also has absurdly strict firearms legislation, and has more than 530 gun homicides in 2012 to show for it. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the police were seemingly more concerned about illegally confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens than they were about the societal breakdown and looting around them. How many people were murdered, assaulted, or brutalized because they were forced to turn their weapons over at gunpoint while looters ran rampant (and, despite the police decree, remained armed)?
So-called "Gun Free Zones" are an absolute failure, eliminating the legal option (and basic human right) of self-defense in the face of someone intent on simply killing as many people as possible, whether they have a grievance or are doing it for whatever sick thrill they derive from murder. In defense of these "free-fire zones," politicians hell-bent on enacting ever-stricter gun control laws make the claim that "if another person had been armed, you could've had a firefight and killed more people." These same politicians exploit the tragedy and use the victims as political martyrs to further laws that even they admit wouldn't have prevented the massacre in the first place and would have had minimal to no effect on the number of casualties, laws that fail in their stated end-goal of "keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals" while making it illegal (or at least more difficult) for those who are responsible and abide by the law to be similarly armed.
We have seen throughout history and throughout the world that when the populace is disarmed, they become easy prey for criminals, to say nothing of corrupt dictatorial government. History has shown us that angle as well, from the Armenian Genocide to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. At best, the arguments in favor of banning firearms - whether "Saturday Night Special" handguns or AR-15 and AK-47-style rifles - are naive and idealistic, and at worst would give violent criminals a clear monopoly on lethal force.
If the reality were different, if total disarmament were not only possible but would eliminate crime, I would be in favor of it; but since it is not, I do not believe that law-abiding citizens should be forced to give up their inherent human right to defend themselves and their families with whatever firearm they deem necessary and adequate to do it.
A ban on weapons does nothing more than force law-abiding citizens to turn in their weapons even though they did nothing, I can't believe the liberals honestly think that if they pass their anti-gun laws, that criminals will actually turn in their assault rifles, if case they didn't realize, THEY ARE CRIMINALS, if anything it would increase gun violence
Do not let this cloud your judgement. Gun bans do not work. This was a gun free zone. When someone has a mental illness they do not care about the law. Banning guns is not the answer. I cant believe that people are bowing down. It is time to stand up to the government. Read your second amendment and understand why its in place. Wake up America!
There's a very good reason for the second amendment. Think about it. For all you anti-gun people, yes, guns are dangerous weapons and they will always be the number 1 choice to commit a homocide....build a bridge and get over it or move out of my country. People with guns have the combat advantage and survival advantage in harsh times. Go live in a country where guns are banned. Give me a call when you get invaded by a bunch of Koreans or Iranians and you have nothing to defend yourself. You know North Korea has a nuclear program right? Wouldn't you feel a little safer if you had something that gives you an advantage over a bunch of crazies? At least go down fighting. Screw the guy who murdered all those kids. If I woulda been by his house when he shot the person in the house I woulda put one between his eyes.
Illegal and ilicit drugs have been illegal for quite some time now. The last time I checked, illegal drug manufacturing, trafficking, sales and abuse still happens everyday. This is the greatest country on earth and the whole world would rather live here than anywhere else because we are free. Take away guns from Americans and you take away freedom from AMERICA! Banning guns for civilians will do nothing. PEOPLE WHO WANT GUNS WILL GET GUNS! If there is a ban on them you now have guns circulating even more without proper registration and liabilty and accountability from the registered owner. Our gun control may need a revision but in no way does a ban even sound like a good idea. That instantly gives criminals an upper hand and citizens a slap in the face.
Banning guns is not going to make people stop killing each other. And sure, you're more likely to be killed if you have a gun because you're more likely to try to protect yourself. But it's not guns that get up and kill, it's people. What happened to those kids was wrong, there's no doubt. But it wasn't the gun's fault. I could kill myself right now with my breakfast fork. Okay, crazy fork now needs to be banned. What about blades? People commit suicide with knifes, razors, and even pencil sharpeners daily. My cousin was hit by a car and killed; did anyone ban automobiles? No they made them faster since then. So again, guns don't kill. People do. Banning guns will only cause more illegal action.
Ban human interaction. Not guns.
It isn't the gun that kills. It is the man who holds the gun. For all we know, the same man could have killed those kids with a knife. A simple thing like a spork or butter knife could be used to kill someone. I think the crime rates will still be the same because people are still out there who don't care whether they kill someone with a gun or a knife. It doesn't matter what weapon is used, but what man is using it.
If guns are taken from the public there would be a lot more crimes being committed, if you think about it. If there was someone who came to rob a bank and was killing people, no one in the room would have a gun, but if we did have guns there is a good chance someone would have one, and the killer would be shot.
If police can use weapons of the caliber they are banning, I want to be able to use them in my defense. If they need these weapons as regular tools to fend off criminals, disarming the law-abiding public will only make them easy targets. Just like the War on Drugs, the War on Guns will be just as pointless.
Boy, countries like the UK, Australia, and Japan must look impressive with their significantly lower homicide rates! But, no. The thing is, the homicide rates before their gun bans were already really small. Some of the stats report that crime and gun crime rates actually went up in the UK after the ban, but I think it's declining again now, which isn't really impressive since the US violent crime and gun crime rates have been decreasing since 1980-something. It's not like the UK went from American levels of gun homicide and suddenly got the not-really-that-impressive-anymore figures that they do now.
If we were to ban guns, criminals could easily access guns via the black market. Plus, we could not protect ourselves without guns of our own. A criminal could walk into our house and kill our children, and all we would be able to do is watch it happen. No self defense. All-in-all, banning guns results in a Lose-Lose situation.
When people kill someone using a gun it is automatically assumed that we should get rid of guns because they are "the problem". But in reality they are not. If we assume we should put a ban on guns, then why don't we assume we should put a ban on cars? Are they not one of the leading causes of death due to drunk driving?
Most criminals would find another way to commit their crime. Taking my gun away will not help protect me either. Plus just because they make all the law abiding citizens turn in their guns doesn't mean the criminals will. Look at the past. Look at other countries that have implemented gun control. It didn't work and it put the law abiding citizens in more danger. A criminal is more likely to attack someone who is unarmed than someone who is armed.
Or the elderly World War Two United States Army veteran who was just recently beaten to death buy two thugs.
"The world is filled with violence. Be
cause criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will loose."
James Earl Jones
If you ban all guns then criminals are going to get guns anyway, so then what happens? All the honest Americans are unarmed and all the criminals own guns that they smuggle in from Mexico and get on the black market. Anyway, they can just kill you by strangulation, poisoning, and stabbing. But the main reason for the second amendment is so that the American people can keep their liberty against a tyrannical government. Actually the forefathers said that the 2nd amendment is there only to defend yourself when they start taking them and that when they start taking them you need to foreshadow at a tyranny is possibly in play. Every democracy before America fell to tyranny. Why do you think America is so special that it won't happen to us? We the people have to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny/dictatorship! The more they want your guns, the more tyrannical they are becoming (they know crime rates will increase, they are not idiots). Anyway, believe in your 2nd amendment rights to fight against tyranny (and hey it helps with those burglars too) and believe in what our forefathers warned us of! You people who want to ban guns go live in the UK where women are getting raped exponentially and violent crime is out of the roof and also if you want to ban guns and it happens, I want you to look back on this message one day when we are under a dictatorship and then go kill yourself.
It is my understanding that hammers and bats account for more deaths in the US then guns. What about knives? Criminals will be able to get guns illegally with no trouble. Why doesn't the media give the number of deaths using hammers, and bats. Just take a look at Chicago where our excuse for a president comes from. The figures will blow you away.
By Collyn Hawes
The Negative Future.
2016 As Jimmy was going through the mall he notices one of the stores has bodies that aren't very life-like, but certainly real bodies. With everyone who's alive but one man on the ground.
The one man standing has a P99 a large clip handgun .
Jimmy quickly runs into the store, he reaches down towards his holster.
Grabs for his handgun and remembers he left his Desert Eagle at home because the new
Gun Control Law didn't allow him to have any arms.
He decided to Run. He looked up and realised there is no way to escape as the criminal has already aimed his gun for Jimmy's head.
As Jimmy stares down the silencer equipped on the gun he thinks of how he is about to die and hours will go by until anyone even knows he's died he hears a click and no more is left of Jimmy’s life.
Jimmy’s son Dan never really cared about gun control he just went with what the law asked, although Jimmy always fought for the rights to bear arms and Jimmy was the one taken down and after Jimmy’s death Dan has to bear the pain for his father's right to bear arms to be crushed down.
I could keep using these terrible play on words or put it simple, the criminal is simply just a distraction figure who stands for criminals but the hostages and dead bodies are those who by stand this topic is so strong that even those who ignore it get affected and Jimmy is those who fought for gun control. Sounds ironic, but he made the mistake of letting the guns be taken away and in the end the result was crime could take control, this can be shown by an example of Mexico.
Mexico, Mexico used to be a very peaceful place until the government got a bit corrupt and did something a lot of corrupt government does, creates gun control. Mexico currently has the highest gun control in the world but also has the highest murders by guns, seems a bit backwards but really it's not.
Creating laws to disallow guns only affects those who follow the laws, meaning those who murder and kill with guns clearly don’t follow the law and will continue to bear arms.
Now there's a good chance you're thinking that if there's gun control the criminals wouldn't be able to get guns in the first place, but here's the thing: by a FBI statistic 94% of murders by guns are done with illegal guns in the past 5 years.
If someone were to want to go and commit a crime then banning guns would not be able to change their stance. They would be able to find a way around the laws, as criminals have for decades. If someone wants something they will get it, for example drugs, if someone wanted to have drugs that are illegal they can still have a way to get them, so the same could apply for gun control and banning guns.
Gun control wont solve anything. Countries all over the world have tried and have been successful in doing so.
And the in the process over 56 million people have died all over the world because of it. Also, what makes you think that if "assault" rifles do get band that criminals aren't just going to use a regular semi auto shotgun or a semi auto rifle? either way you look at it there all guns.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars
Criminals don't follow the law... common sense people... Removing guns from law abiding citizens will only make them easy targets. Criminals are criminals because they DO NOT follow the law and even if you ban guns they will find a way to obtain them. In a perfect world, this would work but the fact is, our world is far from perfect.
Just look at Australia, their government banned guns and guess what happened? The murder rate went up, not a little bit it increased a lot and is still going up. The same goes for D.C. and every other place that has made it illegal for the law abiding citizens to own guns. And most Americans do trust our police system, but if someone is trying to do harm to you, how long will it take for help to come? You call 911 then you have to wait until they respond, do you really have that kind of time if someone is trying to kill you, rape, or rob you. If your lucky they might get there in time to save you. Our problem is that the mental health system is lacking poorly, there isn't enough help for people with mental illness. The mother of the Connecticut shooter should have never let her son use guns and should have had the guns stored better. They make gun safes for a reason, so that the responsible parent can still own guns and not have to worry about their children getting a hold of them. The NRA president has a very good idea, every school should have a police officer there not just to prevent shootings, there are other benefits there too. When ever there is an event that draws in lots of people there are always police officers around to police the event. Schools range from a couple hundred to a couple thousand students and staff so why don't we have police officers there? Just because they are under 18 years of age doesn't mean they can't commit crimes, most mass shootings are caused by students or young adults. Mass shootings only account for a small number of deaths, alcohol and drugs kill way more people than guns do. So why don't we put more resources into stopping these deaths instead of augrining
If you read the second amendment it can be interpreted in different ways but I challenge someone to tell me a ban on gun ownership would not be a violation of our right to own firearms. What type of firearm really is the issue at least for now? Once you go down this slippery slope of infringing on constitutional protections from governmental tyranny you may wake up one day with someone breaking down your door in the name of the people and arresting you. You can rest assured that the people who arrest you will have a GUN. For those old enough to have been actually taught history in our public schools, read about the rise of the Nazis and their laws about registration of firearms and subsequent confiscation. For those who would dismiss this as nothing more than conspiracy paranoia, do you think the majority of Germans were so evil that they willingly stood by and allowed the Nazis to carry out their plans of extermination. Don't pretend it can't happen here. It can and will if we aren't vigilant in protecting all of the first ten amendments.
It is already illegal to murder someone. If you ban specific guns or high capacity magazines you don't solve any problem whatsoever. If someone wants to commit violent crime, they will commit it. They ready have intent to break one law, why wouldn't they break another to obtain a weapon? The weapons used in the recent school shooting were STOLEN! He did not just go out to a store and buy them. The laws against theft did not stop him. Just because they can't have one magazine that hols 30 rounds, they will just have three that hold 10 instead. More guns = less crime. Criminals will always have guns, but they will think twice about commiting a crime against someone who may have a gun. Criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed victim. As more citizens arm themselves, the danger to criminals increases. Australia spent half a billion dollars to get rid of everyone's guns and it resulted in a very high increase in violet crime. The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
Let's examine the overall murder rate and the gun murder rate in Australia. Take note both are virtually unchanged and unaffected by the gun ban.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. Criminals in Australia now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws ONLY adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
An armed society is a happy society. We are garunteed the right to bare arms! This would just cause an antiutopian society. Do you honnestly think that criminals will obey a ban on wepons, well then you must be a certain type of stupid. Besides if guns kill people then how do people make it out of Gun Shows alive.
Not only does it take away a means for private citizen to defend themselves from criminals, but it's our right as a U.S. citizen to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government if need be. The first step of a tyrannical government is to restrict it's citizens of weapons. As seen during WWII when the Nazi's began stripping the freedoms of their citizens prior to the evil reign. Taking away this right is the first step to a nation oppressing their citizens.
Guns would become the same thing as alcohol in Prohibition: contraband. And Prohibition had the bloodiest gang crime in American History. The law of Supply and Demand determines that when something is rare, it is valuable. Great Britain banned all guns, and now they have the highest violent crime rate in Europe. 3 times the amount than before. In the past 20 years, from 1992 to 2012, violent crime has dropped 49% as people were able to access more advanced firearms. 0.6% of shootings are with assault rifles. No criminal is going to try and break into a house where the homeowner owns a G4, or M16, or Military grade shotgun. And if they do, they die. Hence crime is reduced. Women in India are petitioning the government for firearms because of all the crime that the police can't stop. The government can VERY easily become tyrannical, and actually, already is by doing this. "The people's right to keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The founders wrote "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", not "SHALL BE ALTERED". They knew what happens when the government controls life and death like a God. Tyranny. Mao Zedong said "Ultimate power comes from the barrel of a gun." Citizens already are screwed over in the courts and congress, remove our right to Bear Arms, and nothing stops government from doing WHATEVER they want to us.
Criminals and tyranny need to have some fear factor, not to mention the mounds of statistics in other nations that have been down the "ban guns" road. There is enough history to prove that countries are NOT safer, but rather less safe. The data is not just clear, but it is compelling. And also, history is clear in those nations that had their weapons confiscated by tyrannical rulers. Deplorable results.
A ban will do nothing more but fuel a black market for firearms. Drugs have been illegal for years, yet you can still purchase them. A ban will only increase criminal activity across the board. It doesnt matter what kind of gun it is, it takes a person to pull the trigger!
No, the only thing a ban on guns would do is to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals don't worry about obtaining a gun legally, but knowing that intended victims are unarmed because of strict gun control would be a great promotion for the criminal to commit the crime.
Study after study has shown that violent crimes increase in countries where guns are banned. Criminals are bold knowing their law-abiding victims are unarmed. Look at Brazil for instance, in the time span that guns were banned, the murder rate DOUBLED! There were similar trends in the UK, Austrailia, New Zealand, and pretty much every other country that made the mistake of banning guns.
Guns may be legal or illegal but they will never be done away with, and neither will the killers simply by doing away with guns. In the big picture, cigarettes kill more people each year than murders, car crashes, gun crime and alcohol put together, yet we feel that for the government to take away such a tool for self-destruction would be heavy-handed, so why should a tool for self defense be restricted? We have an establishment that has proven itself to work against the people's interest and so now we should give the growing NDAA police state a monopoly on force? Welcome to dystopia. Self-defense is an inalienable right.
Simple criminals will find a way to get whatever they want, they don't follow the rules to begin with. Banning them would only make us rule followers more weak and susceptibale to crime. I believe there should, however, be better screening before guns are purchased and perhaps yearly mental health screenings for gun owners before they can purchase bullets or accessories for their owned guns.
This is an unbelievably sad story. My prayers are with those who lost so much in the wake of this horrific event. As for guns make them legal for all citizens. These types of events will always happen, but at least give the victims a fighting chance. The police will always be a moment or two behind the criminal. They can only provide security after the fact. And as for the idea stated earlier by the other side, the common good does not justify the loss of life of one innocent. Collective thinking is just what fascism needs to thrive.
We have the RIGHT to bare arms. If someone comes into my home, they will have a nice 40 cal waiting for them. It is important that we are able to protect ourselves. If someone is that determined to kill someone, they will obtain their gun illegally if they cannot get it legally. I am a female and do not live in a great area, I feel secure knowing that I have protection if need be.
First of all look at Switzerland it is mandatory for citizens to get trained and own a gun and are given a box of ammo they cant open for homeland security . And there crime is low . Second the FBI put out there yearly statistics there is more guns in the united states then there has ever been owned by law abiding citizens then there has ever been and less crime . Fact by the FBI more guns les crime . In in Utah a guy bought a Knife from a store and at that store he started stabbing people a citizen with a concealed weapons permit drew his gun and told him to put the knife down and stop the stabbing spree. no matter what people will find something to hurt other people. ban guns and it only takes away from the citizens to have the right to defend themselves that are not criminals .
If you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws. So, to say that this will help the situation at all is ridiculous. It will simply make law abiding citizens unable to protect themselves from criminals. Also, you think taking away guns will stop them? Even the evil man repsonisble for the Aurora shootings had bombs set up in his appartment. It didnt matter how, this man was out for blood, he didn't care how he got it.
The U.S produces far to many firearms per person. If law abiding citizens a limit of firearms, example 2 pistol, one shot gun, and one rifle per house hold is more than efficient for protection and recreation. It would be a little more difficult for criminals to acquire firearms but will not stop them. Yes gun control is needed, to prevent lazy criminals from acquiring a firearm and training law abiding citizens with knowledge and safety of their firearms.
Gun laws would prevent people from owning guns much like drug laws prevent people from doing drugs (which is to say it doesn't). People want guns. They will find a way to get them. Furthermore, I would venture a guess that the majority of gun crime in the US is committed with illegally procured weapons. Those who obtain permits, register guns legally, lock up their weapons, and do everything by the book account for a very, very small percentage of gun violence. I would also venture a guess that most gun violence is "bad person on bad person" (ie: one drug dealer shooting another drug dealer, or one gangster shooting another gangster). I doubt there is much gun violence by the way of bad person shooting innocent person, or stupid person shooting innocent person. I think there are other ways to drive down gun crime. I would guess that most gun violence is gang-related, and gangs usually make money by selling drugs. They defend themselves (or attack rival gangs) using illegally procured weapons. If we took away their income source, they would have no reason to exist and thus gun violence would decline.
A good example are movie theaters here in the U.S.. Why would you ban guns from a movie theater when someone committed a crime such as the batman shootings. Do you think the criminal is going to
Say oh it says no guns I guess I won't take mine,no. They think easy targets because law abiding citizens won't take a gun in the theater if it says no guns. Arm the citizens and watch what happens when a low life psychopath tries to murder innocent people. It'll make the criminals think twice about committing a crime.
Gun bans are proven to be useless in all states and countries that have insituted the strictest of gun bans. Gun related crimes rise since 2001 in UK with a particular jump to 48% in 2010 in London where POLICE aren't even allowed to carry guns. Australia gun related crimes are rocketing; Mexico; US cities such as DC and Chicago with gun bans are the highest murder capita per the nation! Guns bans only succeed in emboldening criminals who know their victims are defenseless. When asked in a poll, criminals who commit violent crimes such as rape, robberies, home invasion, etc. have said that if they knew their was a high potential that they could be shot at or killed by their armed victims,, it would deter them from doing the crime....they will look for a defenseless person. Criminals LOVE gun bans...it makes their crimes easier to perpetrate!
there is a study that you should read put out by harvard and the basic primas of it is while yes there are fewer murders by gun in places like england there are far more murders my strangulation, bludgeoning and stabings. the report is on acru and it is called gun control counterproductive. basically in places where guns laws are loose there is less crime because the know that there is a greater chance that there victom could possable be armed. in texas 1 in 18 people have a license to carry and there crime rate is much lower than in places like D.C. where guns have been basicly completly banned.
Guns level the playing field. CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE LAW. Criminals don't care if the government says that they can't have guns because they will find a way to get guns. Banning guns will lead to AN INCREASE in crime because only the criminals will have guns.
I'd rather rob somebody who has no defense than somebody with a gun. Criminals become more confident to commit crimes like robbery and murder when they know they won't get shot. If we ban guns outright, all the law abiding civilians will give up arms, but lawbreakers are lawbreakers. They won't give up their guns, leaving us defenseless. That's why you are more likely to get stabbed in countries where guns are banned than get shot in the US.
There are many other weapons at criminals' disposal. Knives are very common in robberies. Also criminals', if posed with the opportunity, could make their own guns. In fact a study showed 1/5 of crimes involving guns in Washington DC the guns were made and not bought at a store (http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/guns-safer.html). So the law abiding people would be at a greater risk of being victim to guns even if they were banned. Most of the opportunistic criminals also use guns as a "threat," and they rarely use them, so even if they have one they will most of the time back down if they see some one else (whom would be a law abiding citizen) were to pull out a gun.
Seriously, just read the FACTS! Don't just have someone tell you how bad it is to have a deadly weapon in your house or on you in public. Don't let some jacka** tell you if your friend owns a gun he will kill you or go shoot up a mall. Better yet, don't believe government lies when they tell you they're disarming you for your own safety. They're disarming you so you can't fight back.
Even if all guns were taken magically from the world, the people looking to take advantage of another will find a way. There is always a discrepancy of force in these situations, and while guns make that discrepancy larger and more quickly that some other weapons.. even knives or the appearance of a large mean looking man do that same thing. Guns are not the solution, nor are they the problem.
Criminals don't show their firearms license at Joe's Gun Shop to buy guns...banning guns will only affect (negatively) the lawful gun owners. Criminals may even be empowered by knowing there is a lower chance their victim is armed. "Ban all guns" is a short-sighted Utopian point of view with neglects reality and common sense.
Why can you say gun bans would reduce crimes? Those criminals can get their guns illegaly through black markets or by any other means, such as making zip guns. Then they can use those guns to fire on civilians indiscriminately when they feel they need to. That's how it works. And if guns are banned for civilian, they won't be able to defend themselves from criminals, that will just breeds more crime since civilians will become weak. Finally you don't always need a gun to commit crimes.
This simply boils down to whether or not people should be considered responsible until proven otherwise. Most in favor of gun control are in usually in favor of deregulation of illegal drugs. If you assume the average person is sensible enough to decided what they can or cannot put in their own body as an adult than doesn't the same apply to what they can or cannot own without turning it into a weapon of murderous rampage. A vehicle is an incredibly dangerous piece of machinery however most legal operators do not go on a killing spree and run over people at a strip mall.
Firearms will always be available to the criminal element. If they can't buy them they will have them made. The zip gun for example is a crude weapon made from components that are creatively constructed out of available materials, (if you have a pipe you can make a gun, you can make a bomb, or you can just use it as a club). Making guns illeagal is typically followed by an increase violent crime. The crime rate in England has always been lower, gun control had nothing to do with lowering crime in England. What does an English policeman do while pursuing a criminal? He yells Halt, or I'll yell Halt again.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I kill someone with a gun (ablative of means). You can pretty much assume someone willing to commit a crime will be able to get their hands on illegal weaponry, so right there you've leveled the playing field so that the one criminal has weapons and no civilians do, that's not going to end well.
All evidence for that assumption is based on cross-sectional data... Cross sectional data misses many variables and, much of the time, falls under the problem of endogenity. Countries that have lower crime have gun bans, true. But they always have had lower crime--even before they banned guns--meaning their low crime is unrelated to gun bans. The only way to interpret crime is by trends. And let's look at this: "Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29 percent higher than 1996; robbery was 24 percent higher; murders 27 percent higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States.
Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32 percent higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74 percent, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's."
Every time a gun ban is passed, crime increases. Many studies find guns reduce crime (Lott 1998) or have no effect (Mauser and Kate's 2007). After Kennesaw Georgia passed a law forcing gun ownership, crime fell 80%. http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
Walter E. Williams writes a strong theoretical case on why guns save lives.
Studies show guns are used in defense more often then in crime (Kleck 1995). And a DOJ study found even MORE defense usages then Kleck. In other words, the DOJ supports Kleck study and enforces it a lot.
Guns save lives, and gun bans take them away.
Criminals and outlaws will get guns through the black market. They always do. But the people who follow the law what will they do when someone breaks into their house and they can't defend themselves. They wont be able to. That's why all those places with gun bans have so much crime. Its also a proven fact that when citizens have the right to own guns, crime rates reduce.
Criminals can always get guns. Remember how Brian Terry died? Our own government ran guns (fast and furious) without consequence to those behind the program. The only deterrence to crime-and a authoritative government-is an armed law-abiding citizenry.
In allowing the population to own guns it places in the criminal mind, "is this person armed to repel my actions?" Just as a burgular will go to the home which he knows has no alarm system, so goes the same thought of assualting one who might also be armed. It makes the "bad guys" think twice as well.
Our founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights and wanted that to be the basis of this country. I feel that all the citizens of this country need to remember that and not take advantage. That is being very optimistic, I know. So the more obvious reason is the people that are using guns for bad in the US are going to use them whether they are banned or not. Most of those people are obtaining guns illegally anyway, and a law is not going to stop them since they are using the guns to commit crimes anyway.
It is estimated that there are up to 3 million illegal guns in New York City. Those guns will be just as illegal if firearms are banned. Do you think that the people are going to give them up then? There should be stricter punishments on unlicensed firearms, and less laws on licensed firearms.
There are many parts of the United States where people use guns for a subsistence lifestyle. By banning guns, those people would not be able to hunt or protect themselves. Others who use guns for illegal purposes would only find a way to buy them illegally, causing more work for law enforcement.
Criminals, by definition, are breaking the law. Why not be more effective by using a gun, when you now know no one you attack has one? Or, why not commit the act with a knife, instead of a gun? England outlawed guns and now has a higher assault and mugging rate than New York City did. Australia outlawed guns and saw both armed and unarmed theft skyrocket. Mexico has outlawed guns, but its murder rate and the rise of be-headings by its drug cartels have made it far more dangerous than the western United States, which has the highest gun ownership rate in North America. Guns don't cause the crime, criminals do. But, armed law-abiding citizens are safest against criminals.
if we ban guns, only law abiding citizens will obey those laws. Criminals by nature don't obey laws and will continue to use guns no matter what. In fact they'd use guns even more because it gives them power over the law abiding citizens thus making committing crimes less risky. Law abiding citizens need to be armed or else the balance of power will be horrible out of proportion.An armed society is a polite society.
If a gun ban would lower the crime rate, why dont we just ban crime all together? Lets just tell the criminals "you cant commit a crime anymore, because we have just banned that." Criminals dont obey the law and the only ones who would turn in their guns are law abiding citizens, leaving them defensless against the armed criminal. In the columbine shooting 18 gun laws were broken, i guess two more would have done the trick.... liberal morons
There is no possible way to remove every single firearm in the country. By banning firearms, you are just disarming law abiding citizens who use their guns for hunting, recreation, self-defense, etc. CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS!!!! They will keep their guns, acquire new weapons threw illegal means and continue to commit crimes. Gun control is an idiotic liberal fantasy. FuArock!
Banning guns simply won't reduce crime. It will just take away peoples rights to own a gun and make it tough for people to have recreation activities such as hunting. In taking away weapons it only makes it easier for a criminal to take actions towards civilians. They can always use something other than a gun and more often than not they would be able to find a gun anyway. Take marijuana for example. It is illegal and yet many people use it day to day. This will occur just the same with the ban of guns. Criminals will still be able to get them.
Banning guns would not solve any crimes because statistics show that criminals are able to get guns through several means - they do not need it to be legal in order to get those firearms. Banning guns would also go completely against the constitution, and would ruin several of America's pastimes such as hunting and target shooting.
People commit crime because of their criminal mentality. Police, armed forces and some individuals are in possession of guns, but that does not turn them into criminals. Guns if used responsibly can be toll to protect society from crime.
A ban on guns only affects those citizens or individuals that would obey the law. Criminals by definition do not obey laws and therefore, would still have guns. Besides the second amendment to the Constitution allows for the right to keep and bear arms, and any gun ban would violate this inalienable right.
I think that if someone has a strong enough desire to commit a crime, he or she will find a weapon to do it with. And while they may try to ban guns, there will just be an underground market for them. When someone gets one of these guns and walks into a Walmart and starts shooting, no one else will have a gun to stop the maniac. Everyone has a right to protect themselves and their family.
By taking guns away from people that legally own them, you are taking away from a bunch of things, first, they cannot defend themselves against an attack. People, there will always be crime, where there is a will, there is a way. People will always have evil intentions, and a utipian socitiey can never exist. So second, criminals can and will still obtain guns even if they are banned, the black market, you can buy almost anything there, they will still commit crimes with illegal guns, the only difference now is that its alot easier to commit crimes knowing that law abating citizens don't have them.
Banning guns only means that the good guys won't have guns. Criminals will alway have guns. Period. 54% of criminals in over 150 prisons say that they did not rob, assault, ect. A person because he or she knew that the victim owned a gun (2009). Just facts: gun control
If you take away law abiding citizens weapons they will be vonurable to criminals who abuse weapons. The people kill not the guns and mostly the police are to slow and if some robber was in my house i would not wait for them to get there. I will defend my property. As americans we should be able to defend ouselfs.
People, educate yourself. First, look at AU's crime numbers before and after they disarmed the public, and then tell me this makes any kind of sense that crime would go down. Who's going to protect you against the police, or a possible invasion? Look at EU and their numbers, and the shape they are in. Most of you think your environment is just fine, yet what happens when there's a hurricane. Let's use Katrina and the few in MX recently. Who's going to protect you against looters/robbers? The government? FEMA? Who can you really rely on during a crisis? That's right, your family and friends. Do you not realize that every time there's disarmament there is genocide? The Nazis did it, and Japan didn't invade because we have guns. Guns aren't bad, it's crazy people that are. Guns one means of protection that you have. So is your freedom of speech. Don't let them take that either! If you live in TX, image the drug cartels, and how easy of a time they will have once they know the masses were disarmed. You think you live in fear now? There is nothing to fear, nothing has changed except more cameras to report it, and people twisting the facts. If you think you live in fear now, imagine knowing that you have no guns and there's crazy people out there who do. You tell me if that's the America you want to live in, and your children for that matter.
There will always be one person that uses lemons to make lemonade and someone else to throw them. The actions of one should not mean the damnation of the many. Get yourself a gun, learn how to use it, hope you never have to, and live your life happy knowing that you can protect yourself, loved ones, and country!
Why would a murdering criminal voluntarily turn in their ILLEGAL guns????? So let me get this straight.... Wackos can do mass shootings at any time so we should not be paranoid about arming ourselves for that possible scenario? Anyone heard of prohibition? War on drugs anyone? How's that working out for you?
There are no statistics pointing to a reduction in crime after a gun ban. In fact, statistics actually suggest the exact opposite (http://godfatherpolitics.Com/8975/australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-gun-crimes-not-lower/).
Here is what happened in Australia:
-Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
-Home invasions increased by 21%.
-Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
-Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%
And I've read elsewhere that these numbers came after a 20-year consecutive reduction in crime rates.
However - although I am pro gun ownership, I strongly feel that it is WAY TOO EASY to obtain a gun in the US. There should be a federal licensing process required to purchase or own a gun, complete with FBI background check, psych evaluation, and mandatory training/demonstration that the citizen is capable of safely using a firearm.
But banning them all together is a bad idea.
The people who pull out guns and shoot other people won't heed gun laws. A sign stating "Gun-Free Zone" will have no impact on those carrying a gun for violent, intentional purposes. If we take guns away from law-abiding citizens, the only people left armed will be those willing to step outside of the law.
I find the media to be very ignorant about guns. First of all, why do we call an AR-15 an ASSAULT rifle? An AR 15 is simply a scary looking black gun that fires semi-auto rounds designed to maim. We have semi auto hunting rifles designed to take down a bear. Also, there are many instances where homeowners have successfully defended themselves against home invaders using firearms. Of course, a man slaughtering school children with a big scary gun makes a better story than a 14 year old boy defending his house and family with a handgun. Virginia's increase of gun ownership has in fact decreased crime rates in that state. To put on top of that, Switzerland is the fourth least violent country in the world. Why? Because every military aged family man owns a full auto military grade rifle. Everyone in Switzerland is required to have at least one military rifle in their household should their beloved country ever be invaded. I will never state guns are only used for good, but they are a necessary evil used to preserve lives, not destroy them.
Guns will always be available for criminals whether they are banned or not banned. Gun control only affects law abiding citizens on sale of weapons. Weapons already in use for hunting will never be given up by hunters whether or not the government will try to collect them. These will have to be collected over their dead bodies.
Illegal drugs has not kept addicts from using them. So what makes people think that banning guns would keep criminals from still getting guns. Lets think like a criminal, say you want to rob somebody, which place would you be more likely to go to, a family that is armed or a family that is unarmed? An unarmed family. I think it's my right to be able to own a weapon to be able to protect my family and myself from these bad people. No matter what happens, the people that are commiting the crimes are still going to find access to the things they need.
It is easy to forget that violent crimes have been committed by people sense the day the first humans walked the earth. Let's just look back a few centuries before the firearm was invented. What was life like for people? Let's look at Europe for example. The common man could not own a sword and in places where you could, they were too expensive. As a result, armed raiding parties would simply ride in with swords, bows, daggers, and spears. They would kill all of the men, rape the women, murder all of the children, take what they wanted, and then burn your quiet little village to the ground. It would be like the city where you live now being obliterated in a matter of minutes. Things like this continued to happen until the common man was able to arm himself with the invention of the crossbow. It was easy to learn how to use, cheap to make, and it can pierce plate armor. The common man had a way to defend himself. Nobles (who could afford armor) were outraged. So much so that the Pope himself demanded this evil weapon of the devil be banned. Sound familiar? The common man no longer had to live in fear of someone taking everything he held dear. Be it a raiding party, some nobleman, or a foreign enemy. This happened in China as well during the Mongol invasions. Everyone had a crossbow and when they would raid a town, they would get a very nasty welcoming party. Banning the private ownership of firearms would only put the common back where he was centuries ago. Living at the mercy and under the heel of those who are armed. I shudder at the thought of living in such an environment.
Simple as that. Crime happened before guns and it will happen with out guns. A firearm allows an individual a greater chance to defend ones self from crime. Argue all ya want. False statistics tell you that more guns equal more crime. I could set five handguns on a table and they will never get up and walk away to commit a crime.
Criminals would always find a way to get a gun. I just think background checks should be more thorough and have a sanity test to see if the individual is capable of owning the firearm. Criminals will always find a way to get the guns, and this ban would cause more illegal trades and the government would loose a lot of money for taxes. More than 100 Million dollars come from taxes related to guns. And if a criminal did have a gun after they are banned and they committed a crime, nobody would be able to defend themselves. People say the police would be able to save them but that is not the case. It an take a long time for police to get to the situation. If they could stop the shooters immediately then those kids in Sandy Hook would have been saved. Don't take guns away from law abiding citizens, Put more police out in the public so that nothing can happen and give the citizens there right to bear arms.
This is simple logic but seeing that I need 50 words or more I'll explain my position. In the old West, we had many bank robbers and others who were law breakers. In the early part of the 20th Century we had countless of bank robberies made famous by some we know by name in our history books. Let's turn the table of history, if this was the 20's, do you think bank robbers would have been unable to rob a bank? No. They will still be able to possess a gun, or even in the old West, robbers would still found a way to possess a gun. This is why they are criminals because they commit the crime, so enforcing a law doesn't stop a law breaker. Simple.
If we had a ban on guns, it would have a drug like effect. There would be illegal dealing, more street violence, and loss of money through taxes. You wold be taking away the weapons from the law abiding citizens and leaving them with the criminals. Also, there would be no way to keep track of the guns and gun owners like we do today.
Honestly if you think that a crime cannot be commited with out the gun take it from me it can. I have seen people with military weapons and law enforcement weapons commit crimes. This will happen more often also look at the inmates the do it all the time and I have even seen hand grenades and could have bought a dozen for $100 a piece so tell me how taking the weapons from the good people will fix anything.
With the amazing number of illegal weapons in the world, and the fact that around 40% of weapons used in violent crime are illegal, even if we eradicated legal weapons, we would still have at least 40% of the crime we currently have. An astonishing figure that you can read about in Forbes magazine, is that with the increased number of sales of firearms over the past 5-10 years, there has been a significant decrease in crime. Also, of the most crime ridden cities, they have the toughest weapons laws, which means the laws aren't working. The good guys are still good, and the bad guys are still bad, despite the weapons laws.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Removing a weapon from the hands of the American public isn't going to make it harder for people to kill other people. If a person wants to threaten/kill/injure another person, the person does not need a gun to do so, so crime will stay the same.
If you strongly believe that banning guns would reduce the crime rate, you're wrong. If anything, the crime rate would go up. People would break the law, getting their gun. If they break the law for drugs every day, what makes you think they won't break the law for guns? People would riot. In our second amendment, it states "the right to bare arms" so we can protect ourselves from lunatics who try to harm our families and friends. George Washington also said "A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them. Which would include their own government." We have the right to protect ourselves, especially from our own government.
Anti gun people act like guns are the only way to kill someone and that guns with tactical rails make them more deadly.Without guns, people will have a harder time defending themselves. Most gun owners are extremely safe and take them seriously. Drugs are illegal but people still find a way to get them. The same thing will happen with firearms.
Guns don't pull their own trigger. People would just get creative in the way they kill. I would say if you got rid of CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews from promoting fear and racism that would do more good for our country than getting rid of Guns. Why would MSNBC hire Al Sharpton for a commentator unless they wanted to race bait? Why would CNN have Piers Morgan as a talk host if they didn't want to anger many Americans on American Issues?
A ban on guns wouldn't reduce crime in the U.S. If you think about a large portion of the time if you take a child's phone and ban their tenting, then they'll probably find a way to either cope with it or to find there phone and text anyway. Lots of places ban meth, doesn't mean people still won't find a way to get there hands on some and use or sell it. Besides that guns can be beneficial for things such as protection. Say you take guns away from police, what are you going to use? Throwing knives. Very unlikely. The chances are though that cops will have there guns but, you see my point. The gun is a powerful weapon. In the use of protection it is a beneficial form of protection against other weaponry. I could babble on and on but really all I need to say is that a ban on guns probably wouldn't reduce crime much in the U.S. Because people can always find ways to cope with it and keep on raging their havoc.
Let's face it. If you are crazy enought to kill someone, no ban would stop you from getting a gun. What are you going to ban next? Knives? Such a ban would give the government a sickening ammount of power. We have the right to have a gun. What? Are you going to ban people from hunting? So that we must rely on big companies to supply us with meat that who knows were it has come from?
I'm not saying we should reduce the laws & regulations we currently have on getting firearms. I actually believe you should have some form of training such as through your local law enforcement or be in our have been in the military before you own a firearm. A properly trained and knowledgeable firearms owner is better then a ignorant drugged out criminal any day.
Yes, I understand that guns 'have range', but you can kill people with many things. NO matter what, if you ban guns, or just assault rifles, people will still get their hands on them. Weed is illegal, people still get it. So, the point im getting at is, people that want to kill, will get guns. Then, since no one else has guns, they will have no self defense. There will always be guns/assault rifles in the U.S., no matter what laws their are to ban them.
Making guns illegal would not only not work, it would more than likely increase crime rate. For example, Marijuana is illegal in most states, however most people still manage to get there hands on it. Just like Marijuana, people will just as easily get their hands on a gun. Not only will crimes with guns continue, but the thought of it being illegal will make more people want to possess one so that they have that "cool" persona.
A ban on guns for citizens probably wouldn't decrease any amount of crime or illegal things (example: buy guns illegally) but increase the amount of crime. Since a normal person or criminal cannot buy guns legally, criminals or normal people would just get them illegally if they really wanted to.
Guns don't kill, people do, and we all know that, by having our rights to bear arms we protect ourselves from criminals, animals, and government, it is our right and it gives us the ability to defend ourselves. Obama should be arrested for committing such crimes against our second amendment and so should these glob list bankers
If guns were to be banned it wouldn't be protecting anyone but the criminals. Regardless if guns are banned the criminals will one way or the other still get their hands on guns and how are the victims of these crimes supposed to protect themselves and their families then? It would do nothing but increase sales from illegal handlers and take money out the pockets of legit sales.
If there is a will there is a way and criminals will find a way to break the law. This leaves people helpless and unable to protect themselves. Knowing the threat levels would be reduced in homes now because of the lack of guns, break-ins and robberies will increase. A gun can be used for both good and bad purposes. We need to focus on how we can reduce crime and protect the innocent, not increase their vulnerabilities.
Police can’t be everywhere. They also can’t necessarily be at the scene of a crime right when, or as it happens. When the victim has a gun to defend himself against an attacker, he can stop it right then. It’s more effective and safer to stop the problem right then, rather than later when the police get there
There will always be the underground case and then what? People can't protect themselves. Then what? We are in the same boat. (Murder.) What the people in office don't realize is that guns don't kill people. People kill. It is not the fault of the gun, just the unstable person behind the gun.
This is just common sense: if you take guns away from those who are law-abiding citizens, the only people left that have guns are criminals leaving the innocent citizens virtually helpless. People use the excuse that cops will protect them, but that's not entirely accurate. It could take the police to arrive on the scene of a crime 15-30 minutes after the fact while it would only take you 15-30 seconds to draw, load, chamber and empty a magazine. There are countless of other things I could say to support my claim but I'll leave you with the thought that guns in the hands of responsible citizens keeps a country much safer from criminals and a tyrannical government.
Do people really think guns are the only thing out there that can take a human's life? Absolutely not! There are more deaths caused by car crashes than guns. Crime isn't only supported with guns. Knives are one of the more popular. Baseball bats, bombs, cars and even yourself. Even if you ban guns, people will still break the law and carry guns around just like people did before it was legal to have concealed carry. So no, banning guns won't do anything. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's not the gun's fault, it's the stupid people that live in our society today that are the problem!
To all of you who think it will, you're brainwashed simple as that and you're an idiot. Criminals will find a way to get guns. The stricter our guns laws are, the more danger civilians are in. Criminals get guns from smuggling and immigration. Criminals don't get guns from "gun stores" that's just blatant ignorance right there. Nor will illegalizing guns lower crime rate. If anyone 21 or over could have an unconcealed weapon crime would drop drastically. I live in Chicago and we have the strictest gun laws and guess what? THE CRIMES THE HIGHEST IN THE US! It's not because of the POPULATION, it's because of the LAWS! Banning guns will just cause more problems than fixing them.
If a killer wants to kill he will kill. A killer don't need a gun. There's combat, fire, cars, knifes, rocks, bow and arrows, glass, water, ammonia and bleach, etc. There's endless ways to kill a human being guns just make it quicker but still, they shouldn't be banned. A gun doesn't kill people, the killer kills people. Might of well just ban people from using they're fists and ban cars as well. Actually, ban everything and prepare for a war.
It's not the guns that are wounding and killing people, it's the people that are wounding and killing. It is very simple actually. If someone wants to wound or kill someone or something, they will find other ways to, because that's how the world works. And banning guns wouldn't do much; there is a law against drugs, does that mean people still do not use them? No. Laws will not do anything but make people more crazier by dismantling our amendments.
My reasoning is that if you put a law on banning guns, people like criminals simply WON'T follow them. If they are already breaking laws, what makes you think they'll actually follow this one? My evidence is Adam Lanza from the Newtown shooting. Plus, he broke these laws: Murder-Mother
Assault with a Deadly Weapon-Gun
Committing a Felony With a Firearm
Possession of a Stolen Gun-4 Counts (either state or federal charges, federal gun stolen charges, ten years per count)
Unlawful carrying of a loaded pistol with out a permit and underage the age of 21-driving to school with gun.
Underage adult in Possession of a loaded gun-4 counts or 3 counts depends on if the rifle counts
Bringing a gun into a gun free zone-the school
Criminal Trespass-coming onto school property
Car Theft-stealing his mother car
The impact of this statement is that we are basically adding a new law for new criminals to not follow.
Just look at a country where guns are banned: Great Britain. Criminals in Britain are obtaining guns and murders are up. Guns should be legal to protect the innocent. Criminals should be banned from having guns but they just get them anyway. Law enforcement needs to go after the criminals and give them very tough Jail sentences.
Why does the fault lie with the weapon and not the person wielding it? A gun requires a person to operate. It is no more lethal than any other weapon. In addition; It requires ammunition and a reasonable amount of skill to use properly. If someone went on a rampage with a knife should we then ban all knives? More people are killed annually from drunk driving than firearms. However, statistics aside, we should not demonize firearms simply because they're being used in illegal ways.
Look at the UK, they took away their guns, and the crime rate went up. The criminals still have the weapons but now the people are less likely to be able to defend themselves. The police will not be able to do much either, they now have to wear stab proof vests as part of their uniform because the criminals still have weapons, but all they have is pepper spray and a baton.
Look at the U.K. They took away their guns, and the crime rate went up. The criminals still have the weapons, but now the people are less likely to be able to defend themselves. The police will not be able to do much either. They now have to wear stab proof vests as part of their uniform because the criminals still have weapons, but all they have is pepper spray and a baton.
It would be unconstitutional to ban firearms in the U.S. It would also be unfair that the government forbids us from having what they give freely to Mexican drug lords and the Taliban. Perhaps if we weren't spending all of our money perpetuating war, we could afford to keep our citizens happy and employed.
Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws on the entire planet, as well as one of the planet’s highest annual death tolls as a result of gun violence.
A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Joyce Lee Malcolm: “After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime has doubled.”
The Australian Bureau of Criminology states its murder rate in 2006 with firearms was the highest ever at 16.3 percent. The ban started in 1997.
Also since the ban, here are the crime increases:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent, robbery 6.2 percent, sexual assault/rape 29.2 percent and overall crime rose 42.2 percent. And since the ban, Australian women are raped three times more often than American women.
People will not be able to protect themselves against criminals. Individual citizens should be able to protect themselves against attackers. Look what gun bans do in other countries. In Australia, gun crimes were reduced, but not crime itself. The criminals used other ways to achieve their goal. We should prevent criminal activity in other ways, such as extensive background checks and mental illness checks. We should spend the time and money to hire judges to try criminals in court, prosecuting attorney lawyers to prosecute criminals in court, police officers to check suspicious criminal activity, parole officers to regularly check up on criminals, money to build prisons, and add better security to many places. We should also recreate the mental healthcare system because most of the criminal is prisons are mentally ill, which would give more room in prisons. We should hire well-trained armed guards for all schools.
Due to the United States, China, and Russia selling millions of firearms to countries involved in civil wars, there is an extensive black market that will never go away. There is an estimated 500,000 fully automatic AK47s on the black market at any given time. The average cost of one of these rifles in Honduras is $400 USD. Guns have surpassed illicit drugs as an export from Colombia. Thinking that banning law abiding citizens from owning guns while leaving our borders open to cartels and terrorist cells is absolutely ludicrous.
The fact is that guns help save lives more than they take them. Imagine if an insane person comes in with a gun, would you rather have equal firepower to kill him or less or nothing and get killed. Most common crimes are used WITHOUT guns. Also, in most cases where the victim has a gun they do not even have to use it. It can be used to scare the attacker away.
Politicians are clueless to real life, they have bodyguards and other security measures. Criminals have always had weapons, illegal weapons including EVERY form of gun. Politicians would, if allowed, go door to door confiscating legal law abiding citizens guns, but notice they would never go door to door looking for criminals and their illegal weapons! Politicians and Hollywood are hypocritical liars. The Second amendment was made to protect America from what government is doing now. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are very clear, and politicians are in violation of their oaths, they are basically traitors. Having guns is not a privilege, it is a God given right as an American.
The semi-automatic weapon is 130 year old technology. It predates the two-wheel "safety" bicycle. In 1929 Carbine Williams built a carbine in a Prison Machine shop. There is a nice internet article about how someone built a working AK-47 out of a Shovel (look up shovelgun), and now with 3d CNC and 3D printing guns can be made by anyone, anytime(defcad.org). A ban on guns would only insure the defenselessness of the law abiding. ANY criminal even moderately motivated could have a gun within a day, and be emboldened knowing his potential victim is unable to mount a defense.
Criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what laws are in place. They don't obey gun laws now and they won't obey guns laws in the future, regardless of what laws are and are not made. Therefore, the American public needs to be armed. A gun is far better than any rape whistle. And don't tell me we can just say to rapists "don't rape women". They are already being told that and they aren't obeying it now are they?
Criminals don't listen to laws, and will take advantage of the newly unarmed law abiding citizen. As shown in statistics and studies, cities with more gun control have more gun murders, due to the fact that a law abiding citizen can't carry a gun with him, but a criminal will.
Mexico, the UK, Australia and Canada all have severe gun control and their per-capita violent crime rates went up after they imposed gun control. Yes, they have fewer gun murders, but (adjusted for population) they have more armed robberies, more rapes, more home invasions and more carjackings than we have in the U.S.
Many stats saying otherwise do not adjust for population and just use total numbers, or they exclude many violent crimes and just focus on shootings. They also often include justified and police shootings and suicides to skew the numbers.
You can buy almost anything legal and illegal in this country. It's just as easy to buy sex, drugs, stolen car parts/electronics as it is to buy a gun. Criminals don't obey laws so having more laws will do nothing to curve the violence. Taking away law abiding citizens their rights to keep and bear arms will only help the criminals.
Based on Great Britain statistics, there are more violent crimes than in the United States. If we follow their steps, our violent crime rates will explode to as bad as theirs. Also, it's not the guns fault. Do they think or fire by themselves? It is the holder not the item.
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." This age-old adage holds true now more than ever, and is testament to the fact that criminals have never obeyed a single gun control law that has been enacted in this country. To ban guns of any kind is to remove them only from the hands of law-abiding gun owners.
With the passing of every new piece of harmful legislation, droves of citizens who own their firearms for legitimate reasons are reclassified as criminals overnight, while the real criminals have greater freedom to prowl amongst the defenseless unhindered. Gun-free zones and cities such as Chicago are shining examples of this, yet this current administration has done nothing to make real common-sense progress by eliminating the laws that turn these places into bona fide killing grounds.
Of course banning guns would not reduce crime in the U.S.. Just like when alcohol was banned decades ago, people still had there alcohol and got into more trouble because of it. Now-a-days if guns were outlawed, people would still have their guns and people and if you were caught selling or purchasing or just flat out owning a gun, you would be considered a criminal. Crime rates would skyrocket due to that. The reason this topic is even up for consideration is because of there idiots who say "guns are bad". Well you know what.. Guns don't kill people; with sick minds kill people. If they outlawed guns then insane people would still find a way to murder. They could get in a car and go run over 30 people if they felt like it. Banning guns would not be an answer to having a safer country.
Guns are stolen by criminals, and if they don't have a gun they kill or commit crimes such as rapes and breaking into homes. Gang initiations involve killing someone to get into the gang. If you have a criminal record you can't purchase a gun. So stolen guns are what these people do. Law abiding people are checked for criminal records, even at gun shows. Surprise! False "facts" are thrown around by liberals who don't want guns around. There are always people who kill that are mentally ill. Not all mentally ill, usually those who are not medicated when needed. Not all veterans are mentally ill, and now there is a threat to not allow them to have guns. Guess what? Gangs are in our military. When they come home, most likely they return to their old gangs. So don't punish people who do not have a criminal past. That is like taking guns away from all people 6 ft tall, or have brown hair. It is ridiculous. And it is down right WRONG.
As much as we would like to believe, criminals aren't stupid. They won't put their lives in danger. In a armed society criminal rates go down because criminals know a high percentage of the surrounding populace have weapons, primarily pistols, and if they go to attack or steal from another person, that person will most likely have a gun and shoot the criminal to death. If we try to regulate guns criminals are not going to register that gun, they don't want to get caught and the regulation is ultimately going to nothing since criminals will disregard that law.
I grew up in South Florida where there is a lot of crime. A lot of it is drug related. The government has had a war on drugs for years, and that has never worked. The gangs and drug dealers always manage to have guns. When gun laws and restrictions are passed, the criminals start to move out of their element and attack the law abiding citizens more. When the criminal knows that the law abiding citizen has been disarmed or restricted, they are more willing to go after them. When they know the law abiding citizen may be armed, they are less likely to attack them. The criminals seem to be able to acquire firearms that I can not even purchase, and are not sold in gun stores. A lot of them have fully automatic weapons, which I cannot even purchase. Since they don't obey laws, and get their firearms from places other than gun shops, how would any laws affect the criminal.
In the 1920s a ban on Tommy Guns was proposed. It did not reduce the crime rate. Criminals were able to gain possession of these assault-type weapons. People that choose to do harm will find other ways if they do not have a firearm.
The founders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wrote the Second Amendment to protect civil liberties. Don't throw it away.
Where weapon concealed carry laws and "stand your ground" laws are in effect, crime and violent crime is much lower. If there is a gun ban, the criminals will still have guns. People have to come to the realization we need to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Gun bans only effect responsible law abiding citizens. Guns don't go crazy and kill people, people go crazy and kill people.
Mexico has stronger gun laws then us and look at the crime in Mexico. I don't even need a gun to commit a crime. Why do I live in a world where my government tells me how I can defend myself? The second amendment was designed to allow power to the people to keep the government from infringing on our freedom. Well guess what folks... they just chip away. We all know that handguns account for most of the murders in the us, so why band assault rifles? If you take out suicides, accidental, gang shooting and killings from handguns, more people are killed each year by hammers. Why ban assault rifles? Because the government wants to take your arms away. Think about it.
Ask yourself this: where did Prohibition get the US? Violence in our major cities skyrocketed as gangs started to bootleg liquor and beer and kill each other off in our streets to take out the competition. A huge black market started in the US and in the end Prohibition was ended due to the fact that it was a total failure. If guns were banned, the same thing would occur but on an even more violent level. Gangs would be selling the weapons illegally and fighting each other for territory in the hearts of our cities. All along, the law abiding citizen who gave his gun up is sitting in his home cowering in fear as the police force in his city goes corrupt and he knows that he will receive no help if attacked. American citizens would be at he mercy of criminals.
Bad people can kill you with their bare hands if you give them the chance. If you want to live in a gun free society, (which they actually have a worse crime rates than the U.S. if you look at real statistics.) Then move to one yourself. The Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms.
Guns are nothing more than an effective tool which heinous people use to carry out heinous acts of violence. Banning guns from law abiding citizens does not solve anything. Man will always kill. Sadly, it is in our nature to fight and feud with one another, even to the point of murder. Did we ban the rock that bludgeoned Abel to death? Did we take away the arrowheads from the Native Americans that slaughtered many people in their time? No. We didn't because we couldn't. In order to solve this great problem our nation is facing, we need to investigate the real killer: the people. As a gun owner, I am 100% in support of stricter background checks. Why? Because that actually begins to address the real issue. Look at the individual instead of the tool.
It is true that I wouldn't use a gun to stop a hurricane. It is also true that I would use a gun to legally hunt game. It is not true that the gun controls my hand. I don't need a gun to commit murder. I can take a hammer, some nails, a saw, and a plank of wood, and craft a weapon. It's not loud like a gun and I can always make another. I can use the hammer itself to kill. True, having a gun in my hand makes killing easier, but the fact is that I can kill WITHOUT a gun. Humans have used a great many items to kill. A rock may have been the first and I have no doubt it would be easier to kill with a rock in my hand instead of using my fists and feet. It is our MIND that can be our greatest weapon. Give me a gun to murder and I'm pretty sure I'll spend the entire clip or magazine missing my target (because I'm untrained). Instead, I would get up close and shoot at point blank range.
It is true that guns main PURPOSE is to be a weapon and it may always stay that way. A hammer is often used in construction sites and in the hands of a DIY dad, but a hammer has been used to SERVE AS A WEAPON. You want to ban guns? You should jump to the extreme and ban everything that can be used as a weapon in general! You might as cut off my hands because I can use a great many items as a weapon. At that rate, just kill me because I can keep thinking of ways to kill.
I don't want to kill. I pray that I may never need to hold a gun. But I will not hesitate to defend myself. People understand a gun can mean instant or slow death. So if I point my firearm at an intruder in my house and he knows I have a gun pointed at him, then either fight or flight. He may not give one rat's butt and charge at me anyway, but when I pull the trigger and he's dead. I just saved myself a whole world of hurt.
So to protect my family, I will keep my gun hidden away from children, unloaded to prevent a lethal discharge, and I can whip it out and load it to defend my self and my family.
It is completely impossible to round up the guns that are in private hands now. The criminals will always have guns, so sane law abiding citizens must have a way to protect themselves. We should control who has guns, not infringe on the right to bear arms. In just about every case of mass murder with a gun, it was known by locals that the criminal was not right in the head.
Most of the time murder weapons are illegal. I seriously don't understand how people are missing this. Obviously I'm not for people owning a Browning .50 cal., but SEMI AUTOMATIC weapons? Sure, why not? Fully automatic guns are illegal, yet people still have them. So why come down on people who legally own an AR for a reason that's no one's business but their own?
Guns are not responsible for human actions. It depends on what users want to do with them. Guns are very helpful to protect ourselves. One day, if a buglar jumped into your home with a knife on hand, we could kill him instead of doing nothing to deserve a death. If you banned using guns, you would ban all devices which have double effects.
I'm sick of hearing "weapons make killing easier", "people who want guns are paranoid", or anything like that. This is ridiculous, you people who are for this are crazy! We need our weapons, how do we trust one group of individuals with something we can't trust ourselves with? Why are we continuing to give up our power and rights? Getting rid of guns will only take away from law abiding citizens, criminals are NOT going to care about law, last time I checked. It is always possible to get guns, it really isn't hard. I had friends back in junior high with unmarked weapons, kids. It isn't hard to get a gun that isn't registered, so please for those of you who think it will be more difficult, don't argue that. I refuse to give up my weapons.
How is taking guns away from law abiding citizens going to improve our crime rate? Many citizens own guns for one reason and that is for their protection and their family's protection. Crime rates would most definitely increase if defense weapons were taken away from the innocent people in America.
People that commit crimes don't follow the law, What makes you think they'll follow a law that bans their guns? Banning guns will only affect those who follow the law, also known as the innocent people. If the only people with guns are the police and criminals, there would be an increase in gun crimes and it would leave the lives of innocent people in the hands of the police that take more than 15 minutes to arrive at a crime scene nowadays. The solution here is not to ban guns, but to regulate the sales and owners of them instead.
The Second Amendment is the only thing that keeps us "equal" with the government. But if the Second Amendment should be nullified, crime would not stop. Everything is considered a weapon (think about it) and will only make criminals be more creative and use different ways to commit the crimes. Banning guns will not make it harder to commit crimes, it will just be different.
No, no, no. Guns don't kill people, okay? Not by themselves. I find it hilarious that people think that banning guns is going to stop things. People can still get them off black markets if they wanted one badly enough. The thing with guns is, they're easy. Not too many people would come up and actually stab someone. You have to get close to do something like that and that's a real personal way to do it.
A total gun ban will never fly in America, but even if it did, you are only fooling yourself if you think that it would have any impact on mass murders. A car can be used to kill just as many people as a gun. Crime will skyrocket just as it did in the UK. There will be many more rape victims and the gang problem will become worse. People will be defenseless again mass murderers.
I have been to at least 19 different countries during my career. The countries that have a no guns law still have some of the highest crime rates in the world, and many of those countries have a higher incident rate than those countries that allow private gun ownership!
Also, the majority of violent crimes with the use of a gun is 9 times out of 10 an illegally acquired gun. Notice I did not say purchased. That is because criminals never go into a gun shop and buy their weapon. They either buy it on the underground market or they steal it from someone else. Criminals who are caught or killed while using a weapon are usually using guns that are unregistered or that even have the serial number filed off.
When are people ever going to realize that criminals just do not abide by any written law? They either steal their guns or they buy them on the black market. So please explain how requiring all citizens to register their gun purchases is going to help the honest folks? Isn't a criminal someone who refuses to abide by laws?
Do spoons make people fat? No they do not, it is people that make people fat. The same argument applies to guns. Guns are only tools and used responsibly they can be used as that, a tool. Banning guns is not a valid solution to problems. Criminals, if they are actually wanting to commit a crime, are always going to find a way to get weapons, and at that, more powerful weapons. There will always be a demand for criminal weapons.
If guns were to be banned, people who already own guns could still use them for killing. Also even if they are banned, there are still other ways that crimes can be committed, such as with knifes or vehicles. Also, as previously stated, people would still find a way around the ban to use guns to commit future crimes.
As studies have shown in the past in other countries, banning guns does not decrease crime, but increases it. And, it goes against the second amendment of the United States Constitution, "the right to bare arms." We cannot have this end up like the prohibition of the 1930s. That certainly did not end well as the prohibition was later lifted.
The gun control only benefits the criminal if they know people are less likely to have gun protect themselves. Instead of relying on others to save your life, we need to have the right to protect your own life. The criminal will have more crime if a ban on guns. That's not going to work to reduce crime.
While epidemiologically speaking, banning guns does in fact reduce violent crime in the long run, there are many more ways in which the assertion is false. First, in the short run, rapidly imposing a blanket ban would leave criminals still armed and law abiding citizens unarmed. Though data suggests many crimes may be less violent in that situation, property crimes would initially increase and there is no reason to believe it would ever return to a lower level than before the ban. Secondly, aggregate crime rates don't tell the story of which crimes occur and which crimes are averted and how much they matter morally. While it may be balanced out in epidemiological statistics, the fact is that there would be some individuals made into victims of violent who otherwise would have been protected. Perhaps a similar number of feuds, in which two individuals both contribute to escalating a conflict, would end less tragically. Most moral calculus would not value these two situations equally, but epidemiological data does. Finally, by adding new criminal offenses to the books, you are, by definition, creating an increase in crime. This may sound silly to the untrained observer, but it is well understood that criminalization of one act increases other crime in a number of ways. That said, policies to require licensing, training, and liability insurance, impose firepower restrictions, and strictly regulate the transfer of weapons would generate much of the same epidemiological benefit as a ban but without most of the flaws.
No, abandoning guns wont reduce crime because not to many people own a gun.Guns are hard to find in the us.there are so many crimes in the US but not too many have a gun. They us guns to robe or to kill but they should banned but from every city or state and country.
As soon as we would turn our firearms in, criminals will begin to rob everyone with their guns. That statement alone should suffice, but I will add the following: Why has America forgotten that every citizen is a standing army? Each citizen is responsible for protecting their own life against invading armies, in addition to emergency situations such as natural disasters. This is important so that we may protect our lives, as well as our food/supplies from others that may try to steal them to survive. We live in a great country with a very high standard of living, and some think that nothing bad can happen. I would like it to stay that way, and God forbid if anything awful were to happen, I would like to have a firearm. If or when there is a time where people must hunt for their own food, or protect themselves from harm because the police or military can't help because they are overburdened, they will want firearms. I don't understand why some would want to take the freedom of owning a firearm away, as I grew up with them. I love shooting targets, as well as hunting. Banning firearms is similar to banning the Internet or cars because some people use them for evil. I grew up with the opinion that a firearm is a tool for gathering, and defending oneself from evil doers - not to use for randomly killing others. I am not mentally deficient because I own a firearm. The overwhelming majority, 99.9 % of gun owners, are peaceful Americans that do not want to lose the right to have fun at their local shooting range, or shooting targets with an AR or AK, or the fun of hunting. Think about being in a situation in which you would need a firearm. A firearm might save your life one day. So, consider that before you decide that you are in favor of gun control. Bad things will happen, but that is an unfortunate consequence of life. Even with gun control, some criminals will ignore the laws and continue to carry weapons and kill others with them. Would you really not want to have the option of self defense against someone trying to harm you or your family? Just imagine that situation and tell me you are still for gun control. Also, please do not tell me that I should only own a shotgun.
I know its slightly off topic but I didn't feel like making a debate for it. It bothers me that no one has asked why nearly every shooter involved in a mass killing is crazy. The news hides the fact that they were druged out of thier mind with pharma pills which openly say may lead a person to want to go out an kill someone as a side effect. I respect people who want to make a difference and want to ensure that events like Sandy Hook don't happen again, but doing so by attacking people who have nothing in any way to do with violence (law abiding citizens) is not the answer. If people truly want to make a difference then work to stop pumping people full of pills that make them insane.
Back on topic: After England's gun ban the violent crime rate skyrocketed, and the same thing happened in Australia. People who want to take guns away argue with statistics such as the number of gun murders in an area where there is a gun ban. Yes while the number may be low because there are less guns it certaily doesn't to anything to fix the overall problem...people kill people and that is why people keep dieing in areas where there are gun bans. Gun control is the idea that a women found dead, raped, and strangeled to death in an ally is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how she shot her attacker.
We do not need another black market for firearms. Usually when something is banned, criminals start to capitalize on the demand and try make gangs to ship guns everywhere and it is these times when the mortality rate is higher (see the prohibition era and the drug wars). We may need to try other ways to dissuade criminals such as improvements in the health system.
If you make a law banning guns it will not help. Criminals don't obey laws. They WILL get their hands on a weapon. If you really want to put a halt to murder, encourage guns. If you go door to door collecting guns what will someone use as defense against an intruder? A knife? Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
A ban on guns will only stop those who follow the ban from owning guns; those with the intention of breaking the law will not care if they break the law to obtain their guns. Furthermore, the prohibition of the '20s should have been a warning: prohibitions don't work in reducing that action.
A gun ban would not reduce the chances of you running into a madman in the middle of the night. Guns are merely tools, as there are other tools for crime. Also, a study by criminologists concludes that gun control laws ARE counterproductive: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Let's look at this through an example: Being excessively or unnecessarily strict with a child may drive him or her to rebel, protest, and oppose disciplinary action. The same goes for bans on guns, or restrictions on anything for that matter.
Just because you put a ban on guns doesn't mean that people won't still find a way to get it. It's nearly the same concept with marijuana. It was illegal but then they found a loophole around it. Convicts don't register their guns so how are we to know who has a gun and who doesn't?
Guns in the hands of criminals or law abiding citizens gone badly are the same thing. If a registered gun owner with a clean record for 50 years loses his mind, his home, or his family and goes on a rampage, could anyone have seen it? No! If gun laws are passed in the way the US is planning, it won't make one bit of difference. So I can't go get my AR-15, so I grab my glock handgun. Either one kills people just as well, so what does it matter. 30 shots in the AR, 15-17 in the glock. So instead of 30 people dead, there are only 17?! Did that make the government feel better! Is all the cost related and infringement on rights worth saving let’s say 13 people that would have died anyway if the perpetrator really wanted to kill them by reloading? You can never ever stop gun crime! In fact, here in Canada over 95% of gun crimes are committed with illegal, unregistered and/or stolen weapons anyway. Here in Canada we are doing away with our gun bill, because it made no difference, except stress innocent people’s lives by worrying over every little thing. All it did was turn innocent hunters into criminals for wrongful storage, excessive ammunition, etc. The cost to value ratio was so skewed with no positive benefit, so it is now in the process of being de-commissioned.
Look at it this way...If a law abiding citizen decides that he or she wants to commit a gun crime, do you think it matters if the weapon is stolen, illegal or registered?! Not one bit. If someone wants to shoot someone, they will find a way. It's as simple as that. I for one think guns are a waste of time and money, and most likely all should be banned except for law or military purposes. But that will never happen, so leave it alone.
How about making the punishment for gun crimes death! A guaranteed death sentence would change quite a few minds about using a gun I think. How about enacting a bill, where if you use a gun for any illegal purpose (felony), you are put to death. Yes maybe it wouldn't have stopped these suicidal rampage shooters, as death wasn't a concern for them anyway, but it would make others think.
How about instead of focusing on the number of people killed by guns in a year, to the number of people dying from incorrectly prescribed or dangerous side effect pharmaceuticals? They kill 10 times or more than the amount of people killed by guns, but no one is going after big pharmacy! How about Instead of spending billions and on the military, we spend it on education, medical and the poor. Maybe that will turn around people to stop wanting to go out and kill people. There are so many better things to do than focus on than something that really won't make any difference.
It is a scientific fact that banning guns does not decrease murder and suicide rates.
A Harvard study very clearly shows that,
“the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.”
Harvard University is not an institution known for being rabidly pro-gun, but it does carry out impartial, peer-reviewed, scientific research. In its closing statement, the paper cites another study with similar conclusions containing the admonition that,
“If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to ‘exonerate’ handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.”
It only takes one good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. There are more normal people out there that can handle the rights to a gun and wouldn't abuse the privileges of it. If a crazy psychopath killer arrives at a public event or even a school with a gun it would only take one good guy who also has a gun to stop him.
I say it would increase because the only people who would give up their guns, are those who abide by the rules and believe it will be safer. But then those who keep their guns would be the criminals, and then all the criminals would overpower the good citizens making it so there will be more robberies in homes and the homeowners would not be able to protect themselves from a gun because they believed in the government. But then they would notice that the government wasn't too smart on this decision.
If you banned guns you know there is just going to be people who still have guns and will use them. Also the people who don't use guns for illegal things will have lost one of their hobbies. Also it won't stop gun man it might just increase the count of criminals.
To stop a bad guy with a gun you have to have a good guy with a gun. It's always the person behind the trigger that does the killing, the gun just makes it easier. Guns protect everything and everyone. We protect the President, with guns. The White House, with guns. EVERYTHING IS PROTECTED WITH GUNS.
I don't believe banning guns would reduce crime because it is all part of our human nature to react out in rebellion because we don't get our way. I believe that if the guns are banned, that the government should be prepared for some kind of increase chaos coming from the citizens because America has always been "The Land of the Free"... In those rebellious eyes and hearts, they might say or think how dare the government do such a thing because that would go against the Second Amendment (Constitution), displays communism and would definitely cause division in the US. I understand the purpose of why the Government would want to ban the guns, but let's be logical here, You can't expect everyone in the US to abide by those standards because if you do, then you will definitely have a serious problem once you see the results. You won't know what to do, except to retaliate which is exactly what the citizens will do if the guns are banned. Can't hide from reality! I personally do not own a gun, nor would ever choose to own one, but that doesn't mean I can't discern what may take place if the government does ban the guns for good. Before the Government decides anything for good, I would really urge the Government to rethink things before putting it out! Either way though, no matter what the final decision is, there will ALWAYS be some form of crime!! We live in a sinful world!! Its expected... We'll see what happens!
Pro: Banning guns would keep someone from killing others as easily. Banning guns would make it a bit harder to intimidate a shop keeper or clerk/cashier if they can't even reach over the counter to get at them. Banning guns can make it all better because we don't have to bring up arms to stop an argument.|Con: Banning guns would put us in the hands of our government with their rules and the way they want it to be done in force. Banning guns would mean we are defenseless to those that do own guns and have the ability to hide them. Banning guns can bring us to our knees and deny our natural rights.|My statement: Sure the common person wouldn't be a threat anymore. Since when did a common person murder someone though? You have to own a certain state of mind to kill someone and live with it. I don't think you or I could actually KILL someone and go about our lives. In short go after the people that can since they are doing wrong. Plus the government is wanting to do this. What will they do once this passes? everyone has free reign that owns a gun and power is unbalanced. Nothing is equal or higher to those without a gun to check and balance it. I say this would be the fall of Democracy in America if given time.
If someone has the initiative to hurt another person, not having a gun isn't going to stop them from trying. There are still other ways that person can harm others. Banning guns would only make matters worse because the person being attacked would have no effective way to protect them self.
I am from the UK where we have been subjected to a total ban on all types of firearms (guns) since 1997, with the exception of shotguns that have a magazine capacity of 3 cartridges; this requires issue of a license to purchase a shotgun and/or cartridges. Air guns can be purchased in the UK without need for a license. The ban in 1997 came about as a gut reaction decision by the UK government after a similar event in the UK to your recent Newtown, Connecticut shooting. However the facts are: since 1997 gun related crime/incidents in UK has DOUBLED so removing guns from the majority of people DOES NOT result in reducing gun related crime/incidents. Your government (and its pawns) want to remove your guns so that you are less of a threat to whatever they wish to impose upon you in the future – we in the UK were fooled into the gun ban under false pretenses. Don’t be fooled as we were.
If guns were to be banned, criminals or potential criminals would just obtain them illegally like they already are and continue committing crimes. We need to have more background checks and make sure criminals aren't able to obtain guns illegally. Marijuana is banned yet people still get it illegally. What makes it so different if guns are banned?
Guns support the commission of crime, they are not the cause of crime. As long as there is greed, want or jealousy, crime will continue with, or without, firearms. Washington D.C. and Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the country, yet have the highest rates of murder and violent crimes. Gun control does not work because only law-abiding citizens follow the law. Your average felon is not going to register his firearms or submit to a universal background check.
I realize that there have been many out there, including children, who have been victimized by gun violence. However, banning guns will not solve this problem. Criminals do no obey the law, otherwise they would not be called criminals. Banning guns will not stop criminals from having them. In fact, you will be empowering criminals with more power in doing such.
Drugs are illegal, yet they are still sold. Banned guns would be no different. It will just stop law abiding people who want them to protect themselves and their family from owning them, while not even slowing down the criminals. Criminals would just obtain them off the black market. Seriously, do you think a felon is buying a gun at Wal-Mart? It's against the law for a felon to own a gun. However, many of them have them. This shows you that they are getting them from other sources other than through legal channels. Like I said before, they are criminals, so why would you expect them to OBEY the law?
People that are unfamilar with firearms are easily convinced that firearms are bad because they are not familar or accustomed to using them. My kids are actively involved in shooting sports such as skeet , olympic trap, Scholastic steel challenge handguns , ect... , last year in the United States more people died from drowning in swimming pools than from firearm accidents. Should we ban swimming pools because people drown in pools, should we ban vehicles, knives, ect... No, it is all about proper use and accidents can and will happen.
The problem in todays society is people have gotten away from the values and beliefs that this county was founded on. Our country was founded on Godly principles that if compromised will lead to a loss of
not only morals but the very value of life. If we want to get back on the right track these principles have to be renewed and we have to punish the criminal and not everyone else or we will lose all our rights as american citizens. Guns do not kill people any more than knives or cars or even bombs, it is the person and we must provide swift and harsh punishment to anyone commiting acts of violence whether with gun, bomb , knife or whatever means they decide to use. Do you know that gasoline is used to produce powerful bombs, lets ban it. ----- If you use something properly you do not want it taken away do you. It is all about freedom,
Weather guns were banned or not it would not have a impact like people think. The fact of the matter is this, people say if guns were illegal these mass shootings would not occur. WRONG! Killing is illegal and that still happens, stabbings, beatings with bats. Etc. Why not ban knives, bats, crow bars, axes, chainsaws, machetes, etc. And everything people use to kill. Taking guns away...Better yet making them "illegal" wont make them disappear. The difference will be that the bad guys who want the guns will still have access to them and the good man trying to defend his family will not. Drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, etc. Are all illegal and how much of that is out there. Guns would be the same way. Illegal but still accessible, do you really think these killers will be stopped because the law says its not legal. We are all smart enough to know these killers do not care what the law is. A ban on guns would solve nothing.!
There is absolutely no way that controlling guns is going to stop issues with guns from happening. The law abiding citizens would do as they are expected and not have guns and the criminals who typically cause the problems with guns, would STILL HAVE THE ILLEGAL GUNS!? This is the most absurd idea I have ever heard, on top of being unconstitutional. Once the government begins infringing on our rights as citizens they will slowly (or quickly) go after each and every right that we have. Soon enough we will be living in a society where everything is completely controlled by the government.
The United Kingdom is an example of the issue of weapons being banned, and little progress in preventing shootings, and other forms of murder with the use of a gun from occurring.
Banning guns in the United States would also be useless because 7% of the population in the United States hunts, and owns a weapon. That in itself comprises 22,0977,44 people as of April 15, 2013. Banning guns would create havoc, increasingly empowered protests, and a lot of angry people with guns, although their discipline which is widely demonstrated daily would prevent them from choosing to shoot someone. Normal people don't shoot people, mentally ill people do. (That encompasses anger, disorder, malfunction, confusion, disease, and mutation in the brain). To prevent murders from guns, people must be more interconnected, and more mentally sane. Not without a gun in their hands, they'll only fill their hands with another weapon such as a knife, crowbar, etc.
Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. We need more people to lock up their guns and we need to increase gun education...Not ban them. Guns have been used many times for self defense and it makes criminals think before entering someone's home whether or not they have the potential to get shot.
Taking the guns is dangerous beyond dangerous. Crime would go up. Government which is too large now would really go out of control. We would never be safe. I would never use a gun on anyone or even point it at anyone. BUT this could become a real mess with lets say the Bible. Might as well be the anti-Christ.
When this law would be made, would the criminals obey the law? Or would they disobey it, because they are criminals. You would be stupid if u said yes this would make crime go up. This is because no one would be able to defend themselves from the criminals who do not obey the law. In addition, criminals would use knives or bombs(if they wanted more causalities). Taking away guns would not deter criminals, they will remain criminals.
First, nearly every gun murder in the country is committed with an illegally obtained firearm. Secondly, if a man is evil enough to kill why would he be afraid of a gun control law?(Hint: He wouldn't) Every mass murder in the last 50 years with the exception of two, have been in "Gun Free Zones." Why? Because the people in these places will be defenseless, and these people are MURDERERS!
Guns do have a purpose in a free society, to defend against the threat of Tyranny. Yes I know it is not a threat now or in the foreseeable future, but if we give the guns up now, when will we get them back? If a government is tyrannical enough for you to need firearms, it is way beyond the point where they would let you have them back.
In East St. Louis Illinois, they had established some very strict gun laws in 1977, today, this city has the highest crime rate in the country. This shows that by banning guns, the crime rate could very much rise. And by banning guns, it will violate the second amendment (the right to bear arms) and these rights were established over 200 years ago.
Weapons don't turn people into criminals the person decides to act this way. Although most criminals do have weapons this does not make them a criminal. Banning guns would just make criminals angry and make them want guns more. They would start making and selling guns illegally and this wouldnt help the problem at all.
People get pot, switchblades, cocaine and many other things that are illegal across our borders. Making guns illegal wouldn't stop that. A few percent of the population would obey, but the hunters and gun enthusiasts would just hide their guns. The price of guns would also go up because they are now illegal. But making them illegal would not stop it at all. There is no way America could cover all its gaps and ensure that nobody gets them. Murders would still happen. Banning guns would just take away our defenses.
Without the proper armament, the people of the United States will not be able to keep themselves safe. Your average criminal will be able access a handgun from the black market while the law abiding citizen will be at a tactical disadvantage. The gun is not the dangerous weapon but it is the person who chooses to misuse the tool that is the dangerous one. Taking away the tool will not stop idiotic people from using other tools as irresponsible weapons.
Just because you take away the guns, that doesn't mean people wont get them. The people that will get them will be the people we had been trying all along to keep them from. It will create a black market for the goods, and it will only be that same problem.
Why do you people think by banning guns will fix all the problems in a snap of a finger. Look at Mexico, guns are banned and it's a war zone down there where only police and military have guns. Why did their murder rate not go down??? Do you really want the US to be that way? Criminals will rob you in your house because all you have is a stupid knife are you serious what if that guy is 300 pound muscle machine do you really think you can stop him by throwing punches and stabbing him with your butter knife or mace?? If they ban guns you take away not only protection but freedom as well many people enjoy shooting as a sport. Why should you enjoy what you do for a hobby when you take mine away? Why do you have the right to enjoy what you do? Why do you have the right to have a smartphone and log onto your stupid Facebook while driving? There are more killings by driving your car while texting then all the responsible smartphone users should have to suffer starting with a ban on internet access on your smartphone how does that sound. You can still get internet at your home but that will be so bad that life will be over for you because you don't have a stupid cell phone in your hand!!!!
Obviously, if you ban guns, you do not have anyone to defend against bad guys with guns which is dangerous for the people. Sometimes, it can take police a while to reach someone and they could be dead by then which means that no one was there to protect them since a good guy does not have a gun.
It is mental illness...The gun cannot grow legs and go shoot people. There are plenty of other weapons people can use to kill people. It's not the weapon, it's the person. If we banned guns, people would not have a way to protect themselves if they needed to, for instance if their house got robbed.
We already have background checks, they are not enforced. The Sandy Hook shooter had been turned down by a background check so he went and killed his mom to steal her guns. So tell me how would a gun ban or expanded background check have stopped Sandy Hook. Why don't you people let those children rest in peace and let their families move forward in their mourning process.
Criminals do not obey the law. Criminals will always find a way to get any gun they want and without having to go through any background check. In fact, criminals buy their guns from government officials on the Black Market the government created. What criminals and the government have in common, besides stealing from people, is that they prefer their victims unarmed.
With a ban on guns this would change the crime change but when you think about it if criminals can get guns illegally, now then what make you think that they can't get them if they are banned? Food for thought. READ the second amendment. I am a 15 year old that probably knows the pros and cons to both sides... Read please.
There are many drugs that are illegal, but they are all over this country. The reason for this is that criminals just make them here or smuggle them in from other countries. A gun ban would just do the same for all firearms. Which means criminals would still have them but everyone else would just be a victim! I live in the Chicago land area (strictest gun laws in the country) and it took local police 45 minutes to come when a drive by happened. What would have happened if they got out of their car and decided to go into houses? 2nd amendment = I would've grabbed my gun and defended my family. Gun Ban = I would've prayed that they killed us quickly so my children wouldn't have to suffer. No part of the US Military is not on every block, and there is not a cop around every corner, so taking away guns is not only a bad idea, it's a dangerous idea. And F. Y. I. the reason it's in the constitution is not only to protect yourself from criminals but also so the government doesn't get any ideas that they have complete control over you, try actually reading the constitution, if the government starts infringing on personal rights then we have the right know the responsibility to take control out of government hands and reappoint new leaders!
There is already 270,000,000 million guns in public hands. That's 88.8 out of 100 people in the United States. I've been a gun lover and started shooting since I was just a boy. It's a family hobby and a love of mine. The key is to find the criminals out there and stop them. Not going after law-abiding citizens like me who put my time in the military already. I've done nothing wrong, along with millions of other responsible gun owners. Don't punish me.
Banning guns would not recue the crime rate. Criminals being criminals will still find another way to carry out their task. Only now, the victims would have no way to protect themselves. And just because the law says that people aren't allowed to use guns doesn't mean that criminals will not find another way to obtain a gun illegally. Banning guns would not make it impossible for them to get their hands on one, it just makes it harder. The reason they even want to ban guns is because of the recent shootings. But in actuality, the problem is not really the guns, it is the security. Why weren't police officers around to stop the shooters? The answer is not tighter gun restrictions, but tighter security. But if in fact security does not become better, shouldn't people be armed instead of defenceless in case of times when police officers are not around? The ban on guns will just make innocent poeple more helpless and criminals have an advantage over them if they obtain a gun illegally.
Criminals do not follow laws. If we ban them they would still manage to get them. If more people had guns, criminals would be less likely to use them harmfully. Also, it is our god given, unalienable right to own guns. No man has the authority to stop me. We, as Americans, have a bill of rights for a reason. The 2nd Amendment's purpose is to protect the 1st.
The simple fact is: their will always be criminals. It doesn't matter how gun-controlling a society is, those who wish to harm their fellow man will continue to do so if they have that intention set in their minds. Banning guns in America will do nothing more than disarm the citizens. It will not do as those in Washington think it'll do and decrease crime; rather, a civilization whose citizens cannot defend themselves from both the criminals and the injustices of their state shall see a large increase in crime. Those who cannot defend themselves are not free, they are slaves who bend to the will of the Authoritarian state and live in fear at the hands of the criminal gangs that roam the streets looking for easy prey. Criminals are able to but a Glock from the black market as easily as I am able to buy soap and deodorant from Target. Gun bans will do nothing more than disarm the American citizen.
A ban on guns would not reduce crime in the United States because no matter what, people will find guns. If they really want to have a gun, they will find one, either through the black market or from a dealer. They also may not give up their guns when the government tries to enforce the ban.
Many Americans have guns, most of them are people who want them for hunting and self defense. If a criminal walked into a bank, and one of the people had a gun, most likely, more lives are going to be saved if someone just shot the robber the second he caused trouble then if the guy robbed the place and took innocent lives. What about if a kidnapper was about to take your kid or a kid. You'd wanna shot the guy and stop him. The kid would be safe! Also, if someone came in and robbing your house, you most likely will want to shoot him or scare him off. In the end, it's simple, no we can not ban guns. We used them to defend our country and now we must defend ourselves and others in this nation.
Logically, a ban on guns wouldn't reduce crime since socio economic conditions of many peoples in the US would be the exact same. If you believe that taking guns away will reduce crime, you are sadly mistaken. The same amount of people in poverty or same income inequality would exist. Income inequality spawns criminals. A gun ban would encourage more knife violence. I believe there should be no ban on guns in the United States now since most American firearms owners are responsible. Think about it; with all the guns we own (300 million) compared to actual deaths by firearms, gun violence is extremely low. In 2009 I believe there were 6,000 firearms related deaths. That's 0.00002 percent of people who own firearms. Consider Russia and Belarus; firearms are banned in both countries, yet the murder rate is actually higher in both countries compared to the US.
If guns are banned, it will probably be fairly easy for criminals to get guns illegally while the rest of us law abiding citizens would be defenseless. Usually, before a criminal robs a house, the thought that "I could possibly get shot, because the homeowner might have a gun" crosses their mind. If guns are made illegal then somebody looking to make a quick buck by stealing a TV won't think twice. Correspondingly, crime rate will go up.
Guns are an inanimate object just as a vehicle is. There is as 10,000 to 1 chance you are going to get killed by a car than getting shot. So if we want to stop violence let's ban alcohol and cell phones so people so people are not drunk or distracted, but no, you hypocrites that don't own a gun would never give up your cell phone or car, so stop trying to ban the guns. I hope those people who believe in gun bans have someone break into your house and hold a gun to your kids and say, oh, I am glad guns are banned, because you know in your heart if you had a gun you would have shot and killed the intruder.
No guns will increase more crime from happening such as a robber robbing a bank without getting stop by a gun. Using a gun will stop crime from happening yet there should me more to buying a gun. they show your ID . Guns will be guns.It might save your life
Criminals do not obey gun laws. Banning guns only removes the right of law abiding people to protect themselves. Would you rather have a gun if you need it, or call someone with a gun to come and help you? I wonder if they will get there in time.
The cold hard truth is, criminals will always obtain guns. Do you want to make their job easier by disarming the population, so they know no one will fight back? Why do all of these mass shootings seem to happen in so called safe "gun free" zones?
Other than the inherent constitutional issue, the theory that we are all responsible for the acts of one and should be treated as a collective using behavior modification to control the individual violent acts is beyond an overreach. We have Federal gun laws and we have gun laws at the individual state level that aren't being enforced now and "new" laws are being proposed? Many of these laws already address many of the same issues as the current day bills ask. The rhetoric that statistics show that most legal gun owners are more statistically inclined to commit murder than protect themselves is antithesis. Regarding Military grade vs non military grade guns, they both may have some similar characteristics. M-134 3000 rpm, GUA-8 4200 rpm, GUA-21 180 bullets per burst, AR-15 700 rpm. Still deadly, but this issue should be debated on the merits and logic, not from fear and the unknown.
Banning guns is not the answer. Legal gun owners are not the issue here. To be a legal gun owner you have to pass a State and Federal background check. Criminals don't care, hence the name criminal, someone who by definition does not follow the laws of a given legal entity.
Several towns have passed city ordinances that require at least one person (if legally able) to own a gun, ammunition, and have training (which the police will provide) in the home. In the two city's this has been done in (no I do not remember the names but one is in Oregon, one is in Tennessee I think) the statistics show that crime in both of the towns dropped.
When you look at statistics related to gun deaths, every gun death is included. That means suicide, homicide, justifiable homicide, even police shooting criminals are included in those statistics. Now should everybody own a gun, I don't think so. Owning a gun is a big responsibility. You have to ensure several things. 1. You need to be able to operate, clean, store and use the firearm effectively. 2. You need to have already thought through the consequences of taking another human life. Not the legal consequences, because if you are doing the right thing, there should be no legal issues to worry about. But are you willing to kill another human being? You had better be very sure of that before you buy a gun for self defense. I have killed people, I am trained by the U.S. Military, and I was in a combat zone. Even then it is not an easy thing to do, and I still live with those doubts.
The problem is that people think the police will help them and be there when they are needed. If that was the case we wouldn't have people dying in drunk driver related crashes, there would be no detectives (no need) and there would be very little crime. Now, does this mean I leave cash laying around and my house unlocked? No. I have an alarm system, I have dogs, I have regular lights that stay on at my house at night and motion activated lights as well.
Why if the police are so effective then how come they couldn't stop Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora? Why is it that if you take a self defense class they don't teach you to scream police, or help, they teach you to scream fire?
If your unsure of this, go somewhere and scream police several times at the top of your lungs. See not only how many people come to help, but how long it takes them to get there.
Try this again, except scream fire, much better response not only from individuals but from the fire department as well. Now obviously if you do this you are going to get in trouble, but if your so positive that the police will be there to help then try it out.
Chicago and Washington D.C have the strictest gun control but the highest crime rate. Defend the second amendment! It is not for self defense but mainly for PROTECTION FROM TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS! Hitler took the guns, Mao took the guns. 1776 will COMMENCE AGAIN!! Prozac and anti-depressants actually make things a lot worse. And DEMOCIDE is the number one killer!
A gun ban today would not protect our school children tomorrow, the next year or in the next 50 years. As long as there are "gun free" zones our children are in danger. Regular semi-automatic rifles shoot the same as so called "assault rifles" with only seconds needed to reload.
Wouldn't you second guess yourself from robbing a bank or store if there was a greater chance that a majority of the place you were attempting to commit a crime were armed? Think about the higher probability that you would come out dead as opposed to having a bag full of cash because most everyone else at the location of your "attempted armed robbery."
Since the military is a primary example that was used, think about nuclear action. Because other countries have nuclear powers, it keeps the U.S. in check from using them whenever they want, because they could face the same repercussions.
Therefore, more guns is better, not worse.
There's always going to be violence. Whether guns are legal or not, its not going to stop people from owning them. It may end up like it did when there was a ban on alcohol. People will sneak it so much that the governments only choice is to make it legal again. People will always have violence because even if there was no such things as gun, it'd be another weapon. Besides, its the guns that kill people,but its the people behind the guns that pull the trigger.
Did banning guns in other countries reduce crime?
In the four years after the United Kingdom banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40 percent. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51 percent, unarmed robberies by 37 percent, assaults by 24 percent and kidnappings by 43 percent.(http://usatoday30.Usatoday.Com/news/comment/2002/05/09/ncoppf.Htm)
Banning guns would not stop crime. People will still have guns if you ban them and people will still use them as well. Just like drugs, drugs are illegal but millions of people still use, make and sell drugs every day. Not everyone who has a gun is commiting crime
The question is "Would a ban on guns reduce crime in the U.S.?", but the yes votes only refer to gun crimes and gun deaths. They are ignoring the other types of violent crime. Its assuming that criminals will now just find work because they can't get a gun.
They give the numbers of the number of people that were killed by guns, but don't give the number of people that are saved by guns, which the lowest number I have heard has been 500,000 times year.
Also there was a statement that the a person can feel safe because the criminal will not have a gun. I will contend that it's the criminal that will feel safe, because he knows that the law-abiding citizen will not have the best way to defend themselves.
If guns cause crime, Switzerland would be a shooting gallery.
If guns cause crime, why have violent crimes been declining as gun ownership is rising?
Keeping guns out of the hands of liberals and other children is an admirable goal. A ban on guns will solve absolutely nothing. Nothing positive, anyway.
Just take a look at Chicago, keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens leaves everybody but the criminals and the police defenseless. Quite honestly, I do not trust either group. Criminals will obtain guns regardless if they are banned, so why take them from the rest of us?
I am stealing this from a gun blogger but the whole enchilada is this:
Trying to say that gun control and gun bans will make people safer is like saying that declawing a housecat will make it safer outside.
You can't take away guns from nonviolent people to make violent people not have guns.
There was a time, centuries ago, when guns didn't exist. Are we to believe that those times were peaceful and non-violent? Quite the contrary, those were VERY violent times and the weak were ruled by the strong. Might controlled all.
Do we really want to return to those medieval times?
Banning guns would not help reduce crime because lets face it, most violent crime uses ILLEGAL firearms. The libbies use the school shooting as an excuse but he got his gun illegaly. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. If guns kill people do pencils misspell words? Lets take a look at britain, since it banned guns crime rates are up 35%. It would not help here.
Just because you put a ban on something, it doesn't mean people will follow the rules. What would probably happen if they put a ban on guns would be, all the good people who use guns wisely would do what they were told and give up their guns. Meanwhile, all the crappy people in the U.S who thinks its fun to murder other people would happily keep their weapons hidden and continue to murder people.
This concept is just like putting a ban on cellphones at school--- you ban it, but, all the bad people totally disregard the ban and keep using the phones like there was no ban. This is what would happen if there was a ban on guns in the U.S. IT WOULD NOT REDUCE CRIME AT ALL!
No. An outright ban is not the way to solve the U.S. Problem with guns. There are several components. The first is ending the drug war, which would cut down immensely on gang violence. The second is investing in education and getting kids out of poverty, which, any social or economic scientist will tell you reduces crime. The third is gun regulation, not bans. Universal background checks, a national gun registry, waiting periods, and above all training on how to use and especially store a gun in your house. Concealed carry should require a particularly high amount of training.
Making outlawing drugs did not stop people from using the. What makes people think that people will stop using, buying, and selling guns if you make it illegal? The fact of the matter is, if you take something away, the more people want to use said item. Guns are not excluded.
It would forcibly disarm our law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless against those who don't care about the gun ban. Even if you don't want to carry a gun, you benefit from those who do, it is better that a would be attacker believe he is facing an armed population, whether than knowing that the law has left them without means to defend themselves. That is why schools have been targets for gunmen...They know that firearms are forbidden on school grounds. I'll tell you where there are never any gunmen type shootings...Gun and knife shows!
First of all, banning guns violates the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, so it is unconstitutional and therefore a crime itself. The ban would only affect the good citizens of the United States. The criminals would take no note of the ban on guns and they would find a way to get them. So what would be caused is an inability of honest citizens to defend themselves against murderers, thieves, and other criminals who would possess a gun. Crime rates would go up, and we would achieve the opposite of what we intended.
I believe that creating more laws restricting the use of guns would not help keep the crime rate down. Criminals obviously don't follow laws to begin with, so why would this be a deterrent? A ban like this would only be punishing responsible, law abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm for protection. However, I do believe that there should be a psychological test that every citizen must take (and pass) before obtaining a gun, just to be sure that they are mentally stable enough to handle the responsibility of gun ownership.
While guns would reduce crime in smaller communities that would be easier to enfore the ban, the effects in more populous areas would be nill, if not worse. Get into the shoes of those who misuse guns, would you rather go out to commit a crime when there is a possibility of getting shot back at, or would you rather go out when you know that all law abiding citizens will be defenseless except for possilbly a knife. One must realize that criminals, being who they are, DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS. A ban would simply increase black market size and hurt the goverment more. I do agree with many of the points that anti-gun people make, but I also can propose a counter aurguement that makes their statement null. I think that there is a certain amount of gun control that should be put into place because all things have their limits, but many of the proposed regulations are outrageous. We need politicians that will work together to have guns, but keep them out of the wrong hands. Wrong hands are what is causing this whole fiasco anyways. Some idiot decided to walk in to a public place and start shooting a couple years ago and now every since gun control person is trying to use that. Not only that, but that single event has caused a slow domino effect with other people that also have gone out and did similar actions. Don't get me wrong, I love guns, use them everyday, and I am almost always carrying a gun of some sort, from a 22 long rifle to a .308 (7.62x51) or 25-06. I do obey laws though, and everybody did so, then we wouldn't have an issue. Those who are trying to ban guns are often mainly concerned about the stupids who dont follow the laws, and so if a ban on guns is placed, do pro-gun control people really think those same people who law breakers are gonna care? A ban is another law, and that same law is another law to break. A book can be written about it from both sides, good points can be made on both sides, but in the end, a gun ban will not fix or even reduce the crime as a whole. Other methods will have to be taken to reduce crime on the big scale. I really wish I could cite this source, but I can not seem to reproduce it. I read about a place that required everybody to have at least one gun, and crime instantly dropped. And Switzlerand, a country that almost everybody has a gun, has the lowest gun related crime in the world. So remeber, its not the guns, its the people who misuse them. Yes, I know, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" phrase is over used, but with proper support, it is true.
Banning guns will not reduce crime. Criminals are called criminals because then don't follow the law, so what makes you think they would respect a gun ban. Most criminals who already have records legally can not buy guns, but through the black market they are still able get them. In reality a gun ban would only take guns away from law abiding citizens, and the only people who have guns would be the criminals. This would not reduce crime, it might even increase crime because it would be harder for people to defend themselves.
I would most likely agree that banning guns would reduce crimes, but not inside the United States. Every country has different people in it. In this country, people are used to guns and we need them to protect ourself due to the fact that our population has different attitudes and styles. In Europe, crime is low and guns are banned in some countries, but those countries have more compact populations. The USA doesn't have the same rules as other countries. We cannot ban guns to reduce crime.
It is my right to be able to protect my family from an intruder but if I didn't have my .45 I would feel unable to protect my family. With out my gun I have nothing to protect my family with, there for the crime rate would jump because there is still black markets that sell guns. Criminals are fantastic at finding or getting their hands on illegal stuff in the would. Take away guns and you will find your self a fight with against criminals that can get their hands on guns. Take guns away and their will be hell to pay for that and Obama is not to blame its the government, but Obama is the puppet it so he will get the full affect of the outcome of the gun control.
Bad bad bad idea! Look at how well that worked out for Chicago, they ban guns and look at how much the crime rate went up. You are dumb if you think criminals are actually going to follow the law? Because criminals follow the law right? Oh yeah because criminals are saints.. Hmmm. You've got to look at the bigger picture here. The people who can have a concealed weapon permits are not going to be stupid about how they use their guns because they don't want them taken away.
People say guns do not kill, people do. Agree, but a gun is a tool to aid you and to commit crime including to kill/injure people. Guns are solely invented to kill/injure living animals, which includes human. If you restrict the access of guns, which majority of the countries across the world does except the US, then the number of casualties and deaths from crime will reduce.
Because their are so many illegal guns in the us . They are real easy to get a un-registered firearm in the US today . I have over 15 guns and im trying to get another for XMAS . They wont take them until the army is knocking on my front door a aims all their weapons at me .
Are we going to make cleaning products illegal since homemade bombs can be made with them? Bombs kill. How about knives? Those things kill too. How do you expect to cut your turkey at Thanksgiving if knives are illegal? How about we make bats, axe's, sledgehammers, and anything else that is hard and can cause violence illegal too. Yeah that sounds like a smart idea. It's the people we need to focus on, because those people are smart. They don't need guns to hurt or kill anyone. They just need their brain. Do you want to make brains illegal too? Guns are our PROTECTION. If we didn't have them, imagine what could happen if someone with that knife, or sledgehammer could do to you and your family. I want to be protected, but that's just me.
Banning guns would make things way worse. It will just provide criminals with more crime just so they can get their illegal gun. Plus, once they get their gun, the "good" people will be left defenseless. Now there will be more deaths along with increased crime rates in the United States.
Guns don't kill people. People kill other people. Cliche? Yes. But let's be realistic. People can kill other people with rocks, knives (which are really dangerous), or their own hands. So if you really want to reduce crime in the U.S., then get rid of the rocks (good luck), knives (including the butter and plastic ones), and cut off everybody's damn hands.
P.S. If you really want to be thorough, the get rid of pencils and pens because Heath Ledger, may he R.I.P., proved that pencils kill people.
Lets just assume that every good U.S citizen gave away our guns…. Do we really believe that every criminal will willingly give up their guns? Now lets just SUPPOSE they gave away there guns and all guns were gone. How do people get drugs? I mean those are banned aren't they? People still are able to get drugs illegally, like through black market. Where is the evidence where this will be any different than guns? A ban on guns just means banning U.S citizens from their right to own arms. THIS IS ASSAULTING THE US CONSTITUTION!
If the government passes a law saying guns are banned, that'll be just great. After all, criminals really tend to pay attention and abide by laws. If they're told not to get a gun, they sure will not go out of their way to get one. I mean, that's how they got the title 'criminal,' right?
Imagine you are in your house, it’s nighttime, and you are about to turn in for the night. Suddenly, you hear a sound from the front door, but you’re not expecting anybody. You become suspicious and worry, for what awaits behind the door? You fear for your family, your little three-year-old baby girl. As an instinct, as a parent, what is the first thing you grab? Not your son’s baseball bat or your golf club, what if the intruder is a burly, six foot tall man? Anything aside from your dependable gun, you feel, would be ineffective to the safekeeping of your precious family and security of your loving home. You grab your gun and stand in front of your family. Your spouse begins to cry and holds your children tightly within their arms. Suddenly you hear a pound, a crisp crackle, and a shout from behind you. You hear the intruder stalk down the hall to the room where you and your family wait, and soon he stands facing you in the doorway. The door creaks open, you hear a click from his gun, and he opens the door. He looks at you, and he realizes you have a gun pointed at his chest. He begins to run away. Now, at this point, would you not be glad that you had this reliable gun? Guns aren’t the catalyst of crime ladies and gentlemen. Criminals are. The problem is NOT the gun control, but the criminal control. Don’t you agree that any disturbed person is far more dangerous than a loaded gun? A gun is predictable, while a disturbed person is not.
To begin with, guns aren’t the ONLY source of crime in America. There are many fatal car accidents as well, and they kill around 40,000 people annually, so should we ban cars too? Should anything and everything that causes deaths be banned as well? The government and the anti-gun lobby need to understand that guns should not be blamed for everything and people should be trusted with guns. No matter which tool is used in the homicide, the bottom line remains the same. Weapons do not kill people; people kill people.
Statistics show that since 1950 most mass shootings that have happened in the United States have happened in states with really strict gun control laws. So is taking away the guns helping them? Doesn't look like it. Harvard has found that countries with more guns have less crimes, and car wrecks have killed more people than all guns combined annually so are you saying we should ban cars? Medical errors kill about 98,000 people per year medical malpractice kills twelve times as many people than are murdered in the US each year. That is more than 300 times killed by all rifles not just the "assault rifles". Yet no one talks about limits on doctors or hospitals.
Now because if you look at the statistics nine times out of ten the guns that are used are illegal. If you see a leopard chasing down a gazelle are you going to deny the right of that gazelle to use its antlers to defend its self? You guys are saying that by some how taking away the gazelles antlers that the leopard will stop and by making it easier for the leopard it will just go away. Im sorry to tell you but that is insane.
No, not at all. It might even make the crime rate increase. Crime will never cease to exist... People are different from each other. Some people have mental conditions that cause them to be violent, and some people need supplies or money. Also, the economy would get worse than it already is. :P
Honestly, if we could somehow get rid of all guns forever, that would be brilliant. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in right now. Even if we did put a ban on guns, criminals will still be able to get a hold of them, for they could buy them illegally in the "Black Market". In addition, we can't really do that because the 2nd Amendment cuts off our ability to ban guns. To ban the guns we would need a NEW amendment, which is extremely hard to do. Maybe putting gun "restrictions" would be good, but banning them would just leave us defenseless.
A ban on firearms, would most certainly lead to a HUGE amount of violence. In fact we'd likely see a revolution. Most gun owners that I know, are willing to fight, and if necessary, die for our rights. A total ban on firearms would absolutely and utterly destroy the USA as it exists today.
Poverty is the reason why we have such a high crime rate it has nothing to do with guns. If a person can't work then they will be bored and entertain themselves while also finding a need of money. How can expect someone not to sell drugs if they'll get more money that way then getting a minimum wage Job
A ban on guns in the United States is not going to solve anything. Murder is illegal, why do you think criminals and murderers are going to care if guns are legal or not? Murders will happen no matter what and probably more so if a ban were to be put in effect.
If the U.S outlaws the use of guns, it won't stop these people. They will find a way to get the guns anyway, illegally by the black market . And if they can't get guns, they'll use bombs. Banning guns will have nothing to do with it. And if guns are illegal, a criminal who has an illegal gun can make the prediction that no one in this little, innocent house in the middle of nowhere has a gun to protect themselves. So I think that if guns are illegal, the U.S crime rate will actually go up instead of down.
America has a long history of gun culture in which people legitimately use firearms for hunting and recreation or use them to 'protect their family' despite countless studies (and I mean countless) that say that a firearm is far more likely to kill a family member than a criminal. There are 270 million guns in the U.S. If they were banned tomorrow crime rates wouldn't drop for another decade or two. When guns and gun culture are so proliferated, guns are easily trafficked from legal to illegal markets. If you banned guns in America one of the world's largest black markets would open and guns would flow unchecked, untaxed and unregulated throughout the U.S. What needs to happen is that gun trafficking is clamped down on hard, mandatory background checks are enforced and loopholes in the system are closed. The answer in America unlike the rest of the world isn't to ban guns it's to make sure every firearm is checked, regulated and kept out of the hands of criminals.
Guns should not be banned is because of our rights as American citizens. We rely on guns for sport, food, and as a right of protection. Taking away this right would not only anger citizens, but leave them helpless. One story that seems to strike my mind is that of
18 year-old Sarah McKinley, a widowed teen mom living in Oklahoma. Sarah was home alone with her 3-month old son when she noticed a man trying to break into her house. Sarah tried to call the police but was told by the operator that officials were more than 45 minutes away. The operator that she should whatever she needed too to protect her family. Sarah took matters into her own hands, and when the intruder came through her front door, she shot him.
You make guns illegal, you're opening a door that you cannot close. People will find a way to get guns and in doing so, can put themselves in even more danger.
I also don't like the idea of the government taking away something that can keep me and my family safe. It's my right to protect my home.
Even in places with gun bans the crime doesn't stop. The United States has been known for its creativeness and ingenuity. If someone wants a gun they will get it. Criminals dont care for the law thats why they are criminals. If you disarm the people then criminals get a free ride for crime.
Guns will still exist. They can be made, and criminals will get their hands on them. I think it is a very dangerous idea to disarm the general public, since the public will not be able to defend themself in any way, shape, or form. It is a terrible idea.
If there was a ban on firearms, most normal people would not have guns. But a criminal is a criminal, and if no one else had guns, they would find a way to get a hold of a firearm and most definitely be able to over power others without a gun. So banning guns would most likely make the crime worse.
Banning guns will not reduce crime. People who are not lawful or law breakers are most likely the people who commit crimes. People who do commit crimes and decide to use a gun, are not going to be deterred to stop because of a law.
The only people who benefit from gun bans ARE the criminals, as they will be the only ones with guns (as they will not follow the law).
This is the easiest question in the world, and the fact that people say yes baffles me. This isn't even an opinion, it's a statement of fact. Has banning anything, anything at all, ever stopped it from still being there? Cocaine for example, it is illegal, but do you know how many people use cocaine? Same with marijuana, if guns were to go illegal, it wouldn't matter because people who are willing to use a gun in a crime is probably willing to get a gun illegally.
I don't know if anyone has forgotten this but there are other deadly weapons in America that can do more damage than a gun. Yes, it would help a little but not enough to keep everyone safe. I believe the crime rates will go up if they banned them because that just makes it easier for a criminal to get people, a gun is automatic but knives aren't so quick because you have to actually fight with it. Either way, there are still going to be crimes all across the US.