On balance, banning guns would saves lives?

Posted by: Kreakin

Given criminal use far outweighs defensive use.

  • Yes

  • No

55% 12 votes
45% 10 votes
  • Yes, on balance, banning guns would save lives by reducing the number of firearms overall, and the majority of gun deaths are accidental. So, after a number of years, it is possible that banning guns could save lives by drying up production. However, this would be a lengthy decline, and the black market for illegal guns would boom. In the immediate future, we would see an exponential increase in crimes involving guns, with no first line of defense, and police response times being hopelessly high. So it comes down to whether or not you are willing to allow more civilians to be victimized in the hope that overall gun deaths will decline.

  • Sure it would.

    Posted by: TBR
  • Facts don't lie. And factually speaking, developed countries that have a gun ban have a significantly lower homicide rate, as well as accidental death rates. Guns are used to kill with much more efficiency than any other weapon, so it's kind of a no brainer that if it was harder to kill people, as well as less people being able to own guns, the death rate would drop.

  • I'm not supporting a ban. But on balance a ban would make murder and certainly mass murder less likely than not banning guns. Most civilized or first world countries that have bans the gun murder rate decreases. Common sense/science shows the more you restrict or punish a behavior the less it occurs. And yes some criminals would still get guns, but there would be less and be much more expensive and if used much easier to prosecute

  • Only nobody is proposing a total ban.

  • Common excuse by saying that criminals with still get guns...

  • Banning guns = more defenseless citizens = higher vulnerability = likelier chance of death

  • The criminals will still be able to get them. In most cases gun control simply removes guns from law-abiding citizens.

  • WeII, until you can close down the black market, guns will continue to flow. Now, those previously well-armed citizens have to sit back and watch as their neighbor/family is shot in front of them by a crazed lunatic who bought a Saturday Night Special on the black market.

  • Totally, because criminals obey laws XD. Seriously, look what banning drugs did.

  • Blaming guns for murders is like blaming cars for drunk driving.

    Posted by: benhos
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
tajshar2k says2015-06-19T16:20:13.8753018-05:00
If you manage to get them out the hands of criminals also, then yes for sure.
Craighawley215 says2015-06-19T16:24:16.9289895-05:00
@tajshar2k, That's a big IF. And one that the ATF openly admits they are powerless to make into a reality. I fail to see how adding more regulation would make it easier to enforce preexisting regulation.
Najs says2015-06-19T18:22:39.2141556-05:00
The answer is yes and no.
Kreakin says2015-06-19T18:25:28.3526082-05:00
You mean it would be equal to not?
TBR says2015-06-19T20:06:47.8675197-05:00
The question has nothing to do with disarming all criminals. The question is straightforward. Less guns would mean less loss of life.
russian_metaphor_man says2015-06-19T23:23:29.2773815-05:00
I have come to the conclusion anyone who says "no" actually doesn't know what they are talking about
Forthelulz says2015-06-19T23:57:05.6014444-05:00
How so?
Forthelulz says2015-06-19T23:57:56.7996314-05:00
People can already buy black market endangered species and whatnot. It's not much of a stretch to assume that guns could be slipped in over those routes.
Kreakin says2015-06-20T00:02:09.6824920-05:00
Would only be a few grand for an African made gun then.
Forthelulz says2015-06-20T00:02:47.9344276-05:00
And we're assuming that the guns already here will simply go away, right?
russian_metaphor_man says2015-06-20T00:05:06.5430931-05:00
Why is it that every developed country that has restrictions on guns does not have massacres. It's not a coincidence.
russian_metaphor_man says2015-06-20T00:07:13.5229887-05:00
Australia did it, after their last massacre, 30 years ago, has not been a 'massacre' since. Implement a buy back system, exchange guns for food stamps or some such equivalent. It works, it is known.
Forthelulz says2015-06-20T00:07:33.7117771-05:00
But America does have restrictions on guns. The massacres continue. Whoops.
russian_metaphor_man says2015-06-20T00:09:00.3436572-05:00
Restrictions? One can buy assault weapons ak's and the like, what is this?
Forthelulz says2015-06-20T00:10:36.2643152-05:00
Well, I can't buy a machine gun anywhere legally. Nobody can as of 1986. I believe the term for that is... Wait for it... Restrictions. Dun dun dun!
russian_metaphor_man says2015-06-20T00:16:12.0885906-05:00
But you can buy assault guns, correct? I don't see anyone who said machine guns. In australia you may still buy pistols as long as you attend I think every 6 months a safety course. Buy low power rifles and shot guns after several 'tests' and various applications, and often you cannot take them off your property. But you cannot buy assault rifles, what is the need anyway? These are restriction.
Forthelulz says2015-06-20T00:19:20.6764320-05:00
Check the numbers. How many homicides are carried out with an unregistered/stolen gun compared to those carried out with a registered gun?
Kreakin says2015-06-20T00:21:49.2835762-05:00
Can't you just post them?
russian_metaphor_man says2015-06-20T00:23:52.8847531-05:00
And from whom does one steal a gun? Usually from someone who has a gun. Less legal guns means less people can turn them into illegal guns. Also if my memory is as good as it once was the buy back system in australia asked no questions.
Kreakin says2015-06-20T00:28:19.1350732-05:00
Not sure but in the UK people could hand them in anonymously over an amnesty period. After that the sentence for firearms became severe. They took it a bit far though as members of gun clubs also had to hand in pistols which people still miss. Those responsible owners were even happy to leave them at the club armory but they were still taken away. There is a limit.
Kreakin says2015-06-24T16:30:06.4357306-05:00
@benhos - guns are not like cars, that's the weakest argument ever.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.