do you think out lawing guns will result in less violence? and why ?
101476
No. I live in in a rural area of the country where it is commonplace for the farmers and avid deer hunters to have guns. It is common for teen boys to be given a gun and taken out to the woods, dad and son, to learn how to hunt and be responsible with it. Considering how prolific the guns are here yet there is very little crimnal use of them, I don't see a correlation of quantity of guns to use of them in crime. \n\nThat doesn't mean crime is non-existent here. Shortly after moving to this state I was called for jury duty. It was a murder trial. Of interest to this discussion, the man murdered was hunting and had a gun in his hands when the confrontation began. The murders had ready access to guns themselves. Though there were several guns present when the man was murdered, the guns were not used. The man was beaten and kicked to death. You don't need guns to kill. You just need hate mixed with alcohol to dull your self restraint.
614424
I see where you are going with this (after re-reading it like five times) \n\nI think that often yes, we do spend an awful lot of time defending laws against things that don't really have a clear victim. But you need to trust that those laws are there to deter worse crimes. Drugs breed violence, think of all the murders that happen over drugs.\n\nI can't answer this question with any authority, perhaps you should take an associate justice class at your local community college. I'm sure they cover all of these issues.
438274
why should law abiding citizens turn in their guns? \n\nits the criminals that the govt should be focusing on...plus if you require everyone to turn their guns in...do you really believe that criminals will follow suit just because they have made a new law? i doubt it...
763670
Well there's the whole 'it's illegal' side of things. There's also the fact that you can then stretch that argument to any crime not hurting other people. But another key argument is that if you let bank robbers off, it'll encourage more of them to do it. And when you have panicked people wielding guns trying to get money, it would only be a (short) amount of time before someone did get seriously hurt.
396034
Just because I'm in high school people (especially on this site) think I don't know anything about these kind of issues. I known alot about guns(I'm on several youth marksmanship programs, along with the NRA) and am aware of the affects of guns yet I'm a huge gun enthusist because believe it or not, not all gun oweners are crazy assassins. I don't see why people especially congressmen have a hard time seeing why people might find an assault rifle or military rifle fun? Any way, most criminals and gangsters usually have records making their guns illegal as it is. So banning guns won't effect them at all, just hurt law abiding citizens. \n*** my point- do you want to live in a country/world where the only people with guns are criminals leaving you to defend yourself with sticks and stones.\n\np.s. gun lovers have a duty to stand up to the anti-gun lawmakers, because allowing them to chip away at the 2nd amendment little by little(i.e. assault rifles and .50cals) will eventually lead to the 2nd amendment saying I have the right to bear .22 rifles.
962380
Unless you live in a Utopian society, there will always be crime. As long as there is poverty along side wealth, there will be crime.   It's true, guns are illegal in Canada, and you certainly can't buy one at Walmart like you can in the States. But guns are still smuggled in from the States and are used to kill.  \n\nIt's my position that if you have a gun, you're more likely to use it at the first sign of trouble than if you only had a knife or your fists to rely on.
243405
Without a doubt, absolutely!  More people use carry concealed guns.  More Guns, means less crime.  Less guns, more crimes.  Sounds backwards.  But guns are banned, the honest people will turn them in, thugs and criminals will won't turn in their guns.  So only the Criminals will be armed.
975320
Someone already mention the gunfight at the OK Corral.  How about the recent (during the nineteen hundreds) Dade County FBI shootout?  This one pretty well proved that the 9mm with subsonic ammo was very inefficient and led to the development of my favorite duty-carry pistol caliber, the .10mm automatic.  (My favorite revolver duty-carry caliber is still the .357 Magnum.)\n\nAnd, of course, there's the Hollywood debacle where the bad guys wore full body armor and robbed a bank.  If some gun shop hadn't loaned rifles to the police the bad guys might have just pulled it off!\n\nH
154665
Only in the minds of people who don't own guns.\nAs I stated in another question, criminals don't go to the store to buy their guns. Only law-abiding people do that. And they're not the ones you need to worry about.\nIf the laws were ever to become ridiculous enough to effectively ban all weapons, the criminals will still have theirs. They will simply get them from gun smugglers, as they've always done.
199397
I think we should forget about the three strikes law, and keep all first time violent offenders in prison. Unfortunetly, that's like asking for a pot of gold. I think stricker criminal backround checks for prospective gun owners is one way. Better parenting at home is another. And truely, those who are already in prison for violent offenses, should never be let back out into society. Rehabilitation does not work.
167920
I don't believe so.  I believe that standards and laws are what make much of our crime today.  When aomeone is constantly told not to do something then that makes them want to do it even more.  You know what I mean?  Even so, more rules means more people and forces to enforce these rules, and I don't know about where you live but Detroit had layed off much of their police officers and Detroit is known for being full of crime.  The more police there are the worse things seem to get!!!  Just my experience.
24097
I don't believe it reduces violent crimes because to me capital punishment is a crime in itself. I believe it is unconstitutional and unjust. Is it leagal to kill someone, and get away with it? Its ironic in its self.
900686
No.  The incidence of crime can be studied from many angles.  You can count the number of occurrences in a time period.  You can count the number of occurrences in a time period divided by the current population.  In general, a very small population has less crime than a very large population.  A medium sized population will have more crime than a large population simply because of opportunity.  Gun's are tools.  They have little influence on the amount of crime.  They only influence the means of committing crimes.\nAnother idea.  If everyone were trained and equipped with guns, would you be very quick to pull a gun?  The idea has been suggested that if everyone could be trusted with such responsibility, that no one would risk having a multitude of guns pointed at him because he got mad or wanted to commit a crime.  If you are the only one with a gun, it is easy to pull it out and threaten others from a safety point of view.  Down-side; I don't trust everyone with a gun.
1082905
I would say so in a abstract way. I know the vast majority of Americans are law abiding citizens. I see an armed America as the ultimate homeland security.\n\nMassive drops in crime, and the ability to cut much homeland security spending = better economy + preservation of the constitution.\n\nBUT, imagine a limp wristed family who defecates themselves at the mention of a firearm being forced to have multiple firearms. Dead weight citizens become fund consumers via court system.
14050
Recently, the National Academy of Science and Department of Justice reviewed more than forty years of research on gun control.  Their conclusions can be read one of two ways:\n\n1) The entire body of prior research is so thoroughly horribly flawed that it is useless.  This is a statement that there are so few quality research papers that no conclusions can be drawn.  There have certainly been many studies performed, though their results do differ from study to study.  Whether they differ because of methodology, sample, or design is something researchers should be able to sort out as long as some research is of high quality.  The panel does not mention any particular criteria or studies as being better.\n\n2) There is neither consistent nor convincing credible evidence that gun control laws reduce crime rates.\n\nIt is possibly of interest that all but one of the members of the panel is known to favor additional restrictions on possession and ownership of firearms.\n\nGiven the panels composition, and that it excluded the foremost researcher on this issue, (Dr. Gary Kleck, whose books should be available in your local library), I am inclined to believe the latter (particularly after having read several of his books).\n\n"...Consequently, when medical journal authors report that there is little evidence on a given topic, it may often really mean only that they made no serious effort to find any or chose not to report what they found.  For example, in an article published in 1996 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Douglas Weil (research director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, affiliated with Handgun Control) and a colleague claimed that "there is little published research on the effectiveness of gun laws" (Weil and Knox 1996:60).  In fact, there were, at the time this article was published, at least forty-five empirical studies of the impact of gun laws on violent crime, suicide, and gun accidents (Tables 8.4 and 11.1).  Weil then proceeded to inaccurately claim that "with little dissent, these studies are generally supportive of the thesis that well-tailored gun laws can have a beneficial impact" (ibid.:60), when in fact the studies have generally indicated that gun laws, whether "well-tailored" or not, have no measurable impact on violence rates (Chapter 11; Point Blank;Chapter 10)...." Page 42, Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns, (Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1997)\n\nI think the strictest possible Federal gun control is already on the books.  But that law remains unenforced.  That law is the Second Amendment.  The Federal and State governments have studiously ignored it and the courts have been derelict in resolving the issue.
854902
It won't affect behavior in any negative way, but you have to realize that "violence" is actually the survival instincts that human beings have had for 300,000 years or more. People try to suppress it, and all it does is lead to more crimes and murders.\n\nViolent movies are pretty dumb. Like, the Chlid's Play series... I watched that growing up, and slept in the middle of the movie, and you know how I turned out? 6'7'' tall freakin teddy bear, that's what I am.
464167
I think the second amendment is just that, the right to bear arms.  I honestly think if murdered people had a gun in their home and had time to get it, they would not be dead and their murderer would be, or at least injured and in jail.  In some of these homicide cases, the murderer is never found.  I would rather have the comfort of knowing that way up in the corner of my closet where no child can reach is a my life saving .45 automatic then nothing and being slaughtered.