Countries with low/no gun ownership have very few gun related deaths. Let's take the most common example of gun control - countries like Britain which have low gun ownership and America which has little restrictions on gun sales.
Last year in Britain 14 people were murdered with firearms.
Last year in America 9,369 were murdered with firearms.
This is clear evidence that gun control works. Think about this logically. If people have free access to guns, then clearly more gun related incidents are going to take place as a consequence.
Gun control can only truly be effective if the policies are implemented. Look at the current laws in America. They can't be policed by the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) for a number of reasons. They firstly don't have the numbers to police guns effectively, as they only have 2,400 Special Agents who also have to worry about Alcohol and Tobacco at the same time they're worrying about guns. Secondly, Republicans slipped a number of laws into acts that were totally unrelated to guns which now prevent the ATF from doing its job. An example of this would be laws which allow the sale of guns to people who are mentally unstable.
Their are many more areas I could go into that show the success of gun control, but I'm trying to keep this short so I'm simply going to give you my conclusion. Gun control is effective, but only when, as I have said, it is implemented effectively and correctly.
Guns don't have to be entirely illegal like in Japan, where the annual gun related death is less than 50, but for sure if there are restrictions and better governing of guns there will be less crime, because guns would be harder to obtain. Of course criminals will find other ways to commit crimes like murder but there will be a huge drop in gun violence
Yes, gun control CAN be effective if done properly. A restriction to prevent anyone from buying a gun of any power without a background check, or a restriction from buying a gun until going through a gun safety course can both be effective ways of still allowing only those responsible to own guns while still allowing guns to be sold.
My Facebook page blew up with anti gun control postings right after the news of the Sandy Hook massacre broke. We live in a world where people are so concerned about themselves and their rights. Gun control, given the chance, could prove to be very effective in not only making our nation safer, but also in educating citizens about gun safety. I do not see why it is something that seems to be so feared amongst gun owners.
I'm surprised that only 18% say yes. It is obvious that gun laws are effective. Studies demonstrate that gun control can work, but it needs to be intelligently designed, effectively implanted. And since the enactment of background checks, it has blocked 2.4 million prohibited purchasers like domestic abusers. People are saying that it doesn't help, but the homicide rates have been drastically decreased. Some might say that gun is not killing but crazy people are, well anyone can suddenly become crazy especially if their mad. Why not just ban guns, it doesn't take away our freedom, but helps us gain freedom. Anything can become a weapon, but using guns is much easier than anything else. Even if crime rates are still high, taking away guns or enacting laws surely help it decrease even if it's by little.
Everyone assumes that gun control is about banning certain types of guns. WRONG. Have you ever heard of background checks? That kind of system helps find out who is the "bad guy" before he/she gets armed in the first place. You don't need to ban guns to have gun control. Just make sure you study the person and you'd be able to make sure the wrong people don't get their hands.
Have any gun supporters noticed that America is the only developed country having this debate? Our homicide rates are as much as the next 26 first world countries combined. And holy shit, over seventy percent of homicides in the US are caused with firearms, with a fifty-fifty chance of a mass shooting on any given day (This is a real statistic, a mass shooting is defined as four or more people killed by firearms in a single shooting.) When people don't realize when they claim that "guns don't kill" is that guns are literally designed to kill things. Thirty one percent of gun related homicides happen in the US while it has only thirty one percent of the world's population. Yes, other things kill people but that is virtually always either something being intentionally misused for something other than it's primary usage (using a knife or a pencil to kill someone.) or an accident or stupidity (drunk driving.) Pretty much every other first world country has realised this. Australia had a huge mass shooting in 1996 which was basically their equivalent of columbine, and they almost immediately proposed gun legislation. Despite people claiming it "wouldn't work" or that "guns aren't the issue" it too effect in two and a half months and the homocide and suicide rates fell exponentially. This has been repeated in basically every developed country in the world. Remember when Canada had that huge mass shooting at a government facility couple years back? Remember when they had tons of other ones, just like the US. Oh wait, no, they didn't make stupid arguments about needing high capacity magazines to hunt deer, that the "sport" of hunting justified the human cost, or that the illuminati would take over after their guns were gone, They got shit done, and so should we. High homicide/suicide rates and lax gun laws have a direct, proven correlation. "But Mexico has strict gun laws," some senator who is paid by the NRA says, "and they have widespread cartel violence and a pretty high homicide rate." Yes, Mexico does have strict gun laws and a high homicide rate. But ours is higher, and over eighty percent of firearms in Mexico can be traced back to the US. The reason gun laws have been so ineffective in the US is because the neighboring state (or country in Mexico's case) lets you buy guns at a show without an id or background check. Chicago has strict gun laws, but gang violence is so common because Indiana practically lets you hide bodies I gun shops.
There is hard evidence that gun control laws are effective in reducing crime related to guns and gun violence.
In 1968 a gun control law was made and it was reinforced in 1994. This was known as the Brady law which made background checks necessary to buy guns. Following the Brady law Assaults related to firearms declined 12.4% between 1994 and 1999. The background checks also prevented more than 500,000 people with criminal records from buying guns. In addition, violent crimes related to guns decreased by 35%. In 2007 Missouri repealed the state law which requires people who want to buy guns to pass a background check. The murder rate jumped 16% - an additional 55 to 63 murders per year. A hard statistical example that shows the impact of gun control. Many people will say how other countries have tons of guns and less crime than America so America should be more like the other countries. NEWS FLASH! America is unique and NOT LIKE the other countries. What might work in one country might not work in America. Therefore, America can look to Gun Control laws, which have statistical proof of their success.
Look at the facts. Countries with lower rates of gun ownership & more restrictive gun laws not only have less gun violence, but also have less homicide in general. On top of that, look at the lesser gun control measures in the US. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence reached across party lines & was able to get congress pass needed legislation on guns in the early 90's. Since then, rates of gun ownership in the US have declined significantly. By no coincidence, the rate of homicide in the US trended downward along with gun related crimes.
People need to be able to protect them selves in case of danger. Mostly all deaths caused by guns are because of improper concealment or storage. Most people own concealed firearm license or own a hunting rifle/ shotgun for home defense.
So if you agree with me please like this post
Yes, England had far fewer murders by firearms, but the rate of their crime, including rape, murder, and sexual assault, are increasing at an alarming rate, earning England the nickname, "Crime Capital". A video was recently released showing British gang men sending their girlfriends into home supplies shoppes, and having them buy blocks of kitchen knives. So should England ban kitchen knives next?
Removing guns from the citizens only removes them from the LAW ABIDING citizens, (the ones who would use them for good purposes anyways). The "outlaws", as the name suggests, will not follow the law anyways. A law banning guns is not only unhelpful in its main purpose, it is only going to make it easier for innocent citizens to be killed, assaulted, or abused with no way of protecting themselves.
I have a family. I would never vote for something that could put me in a position where I might have to watch them be hurt, and be unable to do anything about it. If someone was trying to harm my family, I would do everything in my power to stop them. I will do everything I can to keep my family safe.
First off I would like to say when did criminals ever start obeying laws?
Huh let me see...Never! That's exactly what makes a criminal!
So if there were gun control laws would they follow them? Not at all. In fact it would most likely egg them on to see if they could get away with it.
A good example of this is the prohibition in the 1920s. Laws were put in place to limit and ban all alcohol consumption. Thus making a black market for alcohol. People got their alcohol still it was just illegal. In fact it made crime skyrocket!
I find anytime something is limited people will find a way. This happens at my high school all the time. Yes I am a high school student. At my school no gum is allowed. Students always see if they can get away with it. Then this makes everything more dirty at the school because people will hide the gum under desks thus making the problems the school board wanted to fix worse than before!
Whether it's gum or guns limiting them won't solve any problems. Intact it just creates more.
If you can show me one place that has benefited from Gun Control I will change my Opinion. This is just a bad idea for the Government to disarm the public. When they disarm us then we will be in the same position that Hitler Germany was in. And tell me how that worked out.
Look at switzerland. No army, just a militia. And over 95% of the citizens are armed. Yet they remain as one of the safest countries in the world. In 2010, they only had 40 homicides all together. America had over 10,000. If criminals know that the citizens are armed and dangerous, why would they try and attack them? Same goes for the U.S. If there are no guns, the criminals have more of a reason to attack. Use your brain liberals.
It doesn't matter if you ban guns or not. People will still kill people whether it with a car, a knife or a bomb. The only guns this law is gonna effect is legally owned guns for protection. While illegal guns that are used to kill are still out there.
The problem America is so worked up about is criminals using guns to cause harm and destruction. They think banning some of them will cure this problem. But to begin with, the criminals did not respect gun laws. So what makes them think they will respect it after new laws come around?
Of course not. Nobody on the gun control side wants a serious discussion about gun violence. They want it banned and banned is what they want to see and hear. It's sad but since America is majority for. That day they so wish for, I hope shall never come!
Think of Chicago, the city with the most uptight gun control laws, and yet it has the highest gun crime rate. The Newton shootings, what if all the staff had been carrying guns? Would the shooter even have gone there, would there be 23 dead children if the teachers and staff been armed? I'm not suggesting no gun laws at all, but certainly no federal gun laws. Why? 'Cause the feds don't know us. Most laws should be regional.
Guns don't kill, crazy people do, if some crazy guy didn't go in to a school and if he didn't pull the trigger while aiming at innocent kids, then there's no problem and the gun didn't do anything. I can just as easily run a car into a school and kill as many kids as a madman with a gun could.
As to whether a gun can serve as an equalizer is debatable, because in certain situations it can make things worse. The real argument here should be over gun control itself, and whether it fulfills the promises it's legislators say it will. Well, it doesn't. We have over 20,000 different pieces of gun control legislation and there is still violent crime in this country. We could add an additional 20,000 gun control laws and there would still be gun violence. Why these violent acts are taking place are a deeper issue than just the gun. Blaming a murder on a gun is nearsighted and terribly misguided. All you're doing by taking away guns is taking away our freedoms, and our right as Americans to protect ourselves from each other, but more specifically the government.
Sure, banning guns is obviously going to account for fewer gun related deaths. However, as demonstrated in England, violent crime overall tends to skyrocket when people are left defenseless. Britain has garnered the title of the most violent country in the EU.
In America, another shining example of the failures of gun control is on prominent display in the nation's capital, and with even greater bravado in Chicago. These two cities have the toughest, most restrictive gun laws in the entire nation yet have the highest violent crime and murder rates. Illinois is the only state to not have concealed carry, and the consequences of this affront to liberty have been dire for the residents of Chicago. Furthermore, all of the mass shootings occur at GUN FREE zones, or victim disarmament zones as they should be deemed. The assailant knows that he will be free to take as much time as he wants to slaughter as many innocent, helpless victims as possible. When confronted with even the slightest sign of resistance, these cowards typically shoot themselves before being apprehended.
If you believe gun control works, you haven't done proper research. Countless evidence shows that where guns are prevalent, violent crime plunges. Criminals no longer have the luxury of being able to feed on the citizenry with impunity. Now they must choose their targets wisely or face the possibilities of being shot for their nefarious deeds. The vast majority of these offenders are cowards who prefer to target those who are smaller and weaker than them. The gun is an equalizer that grants its user the ability to defend themselves in an efficient manner against a violent maniac who has no value for human life. Many times a gun is more often used in self defense. Seldom does it even need to be shot as the presence alone is a strong deterrent. How could anyone, in good conscience, deprive someone of this God-given right to self defense?
The gun is an inanimate object incapable of doing harm of its own accord. It takes someone with no moral compass to commit atrocities with this tool. 100 million gun owners in America hurt no one yesterday, and they won't tomorrow. An armed society is a polite society.