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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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!
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?