• Might as well be the smart one in an opinion for once

    Seeing as how every pro-gun political hack decided to say no and leave their opinion without using a brain cell to think about the question im gonna go ahead and give my honest opinion rather then simply troll this.

    The opinion isnt asking if gun control would make the US safer, nor did it ask if banning guns would make the US safer. It didnt say a single thing about the US government intervening to enforce lesser guns, but none of the idiots who answered no cared to pick up on that.

    If there suddenly for some inexplicable reason were less guns in America, then that would make Americans safer since the number of death machines used purely for killing others would have miraculously dropped.

  • Yes, so would improving education.

    The title should be 'would FEWER guns make America safer'. If America improved its education and gun laws, it would be better for everyone. Who are you to subject ME to this atrocious grammar. Absolutely disgusting, you are. Improve your grammar, then you are worthy of sharing your opinion with the DDO community.

    A Grammar Nazi.

  • Guns are created with a sole purpose of taking someone's life.

    Many of the countries that reduce the amount of guns in the circulation have experienced the decline in homicide rates. The argument of people that are against gun circulation is based on the following premises: 1) Criminals will always find ways to murder their victims (with or without guns) 2) The right to bear arms is prescribed by the US Constitution. 3) There are responsible gun owners that use weapons exclusively for self-defense. Let's review these points one by one. The first point is actually quite convincing. If you enjoy killing people, you will probably find a way to do it. In fact, it is possible to murder people with bare hands. The problem, however, is that guns make the process so much easier. Don't you think that by using a gun, one can kill far more people than he/she would with his/her bare hands?( a knife, a rope, etc) Guns are created with a sole purpose- to take someone's life. They belong in the hands of trained professional like the law enforcement officers or soldiers, but they have no business on our streets. The second point is one of the most irritating ones. The right to own weapons is often depicted as a constitutional right, just like the right of self-expression or freedom of religion. However, one has to take a historical context into account. The constitution was created right after the war of independence, when the US successfully fought off the advances of the British. At the time, US military was not even close to what it is today, and therefore, bearing arms was essential to the Americans in their struggle against the British. It was this mentality with which our constitution was composed. The Founding Fathers were afraid that the British or others might attack as again, thus, bearing arms was seen as the man's right for self defense. However, these events occurred 200 years ago and British are no longer our enemies. It is absurd to argue that we must live exactly the way we did 200 years ago and ingoner all the socio-political changes that took place during that period. Additionally, Founding Father never considered the constitutions to be a stiff, Bible-like document that had to remain untoched for the rest of eternity. In fact, they understood that the document must be flexible in order to adjust itself to the circumstances of the era, and thus, they created various mechanisms that enable us to make amendemnet to the consitutiion.

  • Yes, fewer guns would make America safer.

    In my mind, there really is no question about this. It seems to follow logically that fewer guns equates to fewer violent crimes, but I am not concerned with deductive reasoning when there is myriads of empirical evidence proving my point.

    The fact remains that, it has been shown time and time again, fewer guns equates to fewer violent crimes, even when other variables like socioeconomic level are taken into account. For example, in 1996, Australia massively tightened their gun laws. Want to know what happened? The rate of gun-related homicide fell by 60%, and other methods of homicide did not change - this means that murders didn't decide to murder with a different weapon. Without a gun, they just decided to not murder. No other variables: it was as simple as restricting guns.

    This is just one example, and it only applies to homicide. There are, quite literally, dozens of other examples and almost none that suggest this method does not work. There are also, quite literally, dozens of other real-world examples in the same vein that apply to non-homicidal violent crimes related to guns and suicide.

  • The question isn't about legality, but availability.

    To put it as simply as possibly, America would be safer if there were less/no guns. Just look at pretty much any other country; less guns means less violence. Of course, there's no realistic way to reduce the number of guns at this point, so it's a moot argument. .

  • Yes it would

    Yes, less guns would lead to less violence.
    Less murder, less crimes commited.
    Anyway, a gun is not the way you solve your problems with.
    With a gun, you can get into even worse problems than your current ones.
    The point: Have a gun and you're gonna have problems with it.

  • Less guns would make America safer.

    The main reason other countries think we're crazy is because we have so many guns floating around in this country. I think to obtain a firearm, you must go through a series of tests such as background check, mentality check, and asking the people around you such as your friends and family if it is safe to let you have a gun.

  • Effects presuppose causes.

    Americans shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun. I personally live in where guns are not permitted to own. We don't have any crimes that related to guns simply because there is no way to have a gun in here. I think fewer guns wouldn't make America safer but I'm sure that no gun would have made America much safer.

  • Just look at facts

    Australia, bans guns, significantly reduced crime rate.
    ''but criminals don't obey the law''
    omg you're right ok lets make murder legal, lets make rape legal and lets make theft legal after all criminals don't obey the law so why have them anyways.
    No you're being stupid, stop being stupid, if you can that is, fact of the matter is less guns less crime Australia is proof of that.

  • World traveler with changing viewpoint.

    After a visit to Japan, I have come to realize one important fact. America is not safe.
    When you see a police officer in Japan, they do not carry guns. Their sole purpose is to serve the public and protect when necessary. At first I thought this system was not practical, until I spent 2 weeks traveling across the country. From Tokyo to Fuji, I did not once feel threatened. Even when I traveled by train for hours on end, or transported through a metro rail terminal. I could walk through alleys in the dead of night and never feel afraid. I did not hear the sounds of random gunshots like I have heard nearly everywhere I have lived in the states, from suburb to country to inner city.

    America is not the greatest country because of the second amendment. America is the greatest country (highly debatable) because of the first amendment. We are so busy protecting the second amendment, we are neglecting or ignoring our quality of life from a safety, community, and cultural standpoint. If the world is to grow and thrive, we must learn to trust one another, let go of our defenses, put down the weapons, stop the mistrust and insecurity.

    America is great, but it has a long way to go. As a gun owner myself, I am completely willing to say, lets give em up.

  • Research shows more guns equals less crime

    Some folks still seem to think that limiting guns will limit guns in the hands of criminals. Gun control mostly limits the law-abiding citizen. If you do some research, you will find out that more guns equals less crime.

    Just look at Chicago as a perfect example. The most restrictive gun laws in the nation with the highest crime rate. Just look up John Lott, the leading expert on gun control.

    Also, for the millionth time, the Second Amendment is about protecting the people from a tyrannical government, and not about hunting and target shooting.

    Finally, to clear things up, there is no civilian rifle capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a couple seconds. They are all semi-automatic. Get your facts straight, folks.

  • Without Guns, Only Criminals have them.

    As cliche as that argument is, it's true.

    Chicago is a flawless example of the dysfunctional nature of gun control, having both strict firearm regulations, and a sky high firearm homicide rate. Gun control would be nearly impossible to implement and enforce, making it a total farce.

    As for the theoretical idea of less guns existing in America without government intervention, I still say no. Nothing about a gun instigates violence, just like nothing about food instigates obesity. We live in a violent country, and a fat country. Isn't it possible that the people in this country culpable instead of the tools to those trends? I think so. Without guns Americans would still be stabbing, bludgeoning and assaulting one another.

  • The gun is just a tool...

    1. Removing the tools 'might' have an effect IF they were removed from the right people. However, if they are not, and fewer people have them for self defense, it might actually make America less safe.
    2. There seems to be a false premise by those on the "yes" side that believes gun are made for one purpose - killing people. The truth in real examples is that guns can be used for either an offensive or defensive purpose. I don't have the reference handy, but the vast majority of guns (excluding hunting and competition, which are neither) are purchased for defensive reasons!
    3. So far, that I know of, no gun limit/ban has tried to get rid of ALL guns. If NO ONE ELSE had guns within our borders, there might be something to discuss. Otherwise, criminals will always get access to guns, and there will never be enough police/agents to protect all of the non-criminals.
    4. Take the reverse...If 1 in every 2 adults had a concealed carry weapon, how far would ANY criminal, especially in the mass shootings, have gotten? How many lives would have been saved?

  • Look at Chicago

    Why would less guns be safer? The major cities have the toughest gun laws and still people die everyday from gun violence. If more responsible people had the means to defend themselves, then criminal would think twice about who they decide to rob or screw with. More people die in gun free zones than in places where they don't have strict gun laws

  • Criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what.

    Criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what. If the US government took away more guns all they would be doing would be taking away guns from the decent people while leaving the guns in the hands of the criminals. A criminal would not shoot someone in the middle of the street because he knows that everyone is carrying a concealed gun and is just itching to use it. Now if he knows that almost everybody has gotten their gun taken away he knows he will be in power if he starts shooting and no one can do anything about it. Criminals don't obey laws, that's why they're criminals.

  • Look at Chicago and Detroit

    Major cities have the toughest gun laws and yet still have the highest rate of violent crimes committed with guns. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would do absolutely nothing to help curb the violence, it would in fact do the opposite because the criminals would know that their potential victims are unarmed. Criminals who want guns are still able to obtain them no matter what local law says, even a nation-wide ban would not stop them.

  • Right to Bare Arms

    America was built on the constitution, and our constitution states that one of our rights is the right to bare arms. We as citizens need to have the opportunity to defend ourselves if the situation arises that calls for such measures. One of the safest countries in the world is Switzerland and they have an obligated program for all 18 year old males where they have to go through military training and every participant is issued a Sig 550 rifle and/or a 9mm Sig-Sauer P266 semi automatic pistol. Switzerland crime rates come in at 1.0%
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin

  • It wouldn't make a difference.

    Take drugs as an example. They are completely illegal, yet more than a quarter of the world gets high every day. As for the psychopaths who do shootings and such things, they would obviously find a way to get a gun without paying for it themselves and legally owning it. If they can go shoot a school full of kids, they sure as hell can get ahold of an illegal gun.

  • Absolutely and definitely not!!!

    If we take away guns the rate of killings in America will sky rocket. Criminals are kind of like outlaws. They never fallow the law. So what makes you think they will fallow the law of not having a gun hm? I sure wouldn't like to fight against a gun. I would have 1% out of 100% to live. You really need to think about this stuff before deciding this. Guns are a way of protection for us, and if you take that away you take our protection away.

  • Fewer guns would not make America safer.

    The amount of guns America has is without a doubt huge. However, the amount of guns is not directly the issue. The issue is who has the guns. Guns that are already out there are going to be hard to control, but it inst that hard to start with the guns being distributed daily. Anyone with a violent criminal or domestic record should not be handed a gun. This should be common sense. This fact needs to be applied to all forms of distribution. After such, guns that are already registered should be monitored for violence, even if the violence did not occur in a death. Such violence with said gun should be justification enough to confiscate all guns owned by the offender.

    Also, guns are not one use weapons such as bombs. A gun can be used many times over in several offences. This fact makes the number of guns available irrelevant. The only way that the number of guns would not be irrelevant would be if you discarded absolutely every gun in the country. That suggestion alone is problematic. In the event of a successful invasion, during war, citizens would be left defenseless. We also hold our guns in the right to form an army or militia against our government in the case where the people see the government unfit to govern as was the case of the American Revolution.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.