Would crime go up or down IF there were abosolutely no guns?
479279
down obviously - their are so many cowards out their who think theyre big men when they have a gun take it away and theyre wimpering little girls
121780
Pros - it makes us think we are safer\nCons - We wont be safer.  The criminals will still get the weapons illegally and the innocent will not be able to defend themselves.
1137734
I hadn't thought about that. But then I live in small town, USA so the crime rate is small compared to the rest of the country. But it is a valid point - and I can see that. \n\nBut the main thing I'm worried about is a recession.
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.
279423
http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm\nCONCEALED CARRY\nFacts & Statistics\n \nToday, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system.  \n\nStates with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) \n\nRight-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:  \n\n• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.  \n\n• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.  \n\n• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.  \n\n• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.  \n\n• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.  \n\n• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.  \n\n• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.  \n\n• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.  \n\n• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."
924998
I'd get a samurai sword.\n\nlol\n\nGun laws only affect law abiding citizens.\n\nCriminals aren't law abiding therefore, for the most part, gun laws don't affect them.\n\nGun laws only succeed in disarming the wrong people and giving the advantage to criminals.
1093467
Let me see, guns don't get up and decided to go rob or shoot someone. They are not possessed and can't think, walk, or see.  So I'm going to go with "b": The people using the guns kill people.\n\nAnd before anyone tries to argue that having a guns makes someone more prone to shoot, that's not so. There are far too man gun owners in the USA that do not misuse their guns. There would be a whole lot more dead people in the country if that were the case. Knives kill more people with more efficiency than guns. Watching TV would leave you to believe otherwise, but it's not the case.
587142
It would depend upon many factors.  Anything from a community order for a youthful offender where no weapon was shown and little violence was involved to 12 or more years custody where serious injury to the victim occurred is possible.
736463
The real reason for the controversy is the fact that the British have been systemmatically disarmed and neutered over the past 8 or 9 decades and so firearms are not a part of the culture here.\nNow that violent crime is rising, thanks in part to uncontrolled immigration from African states and Jamaica, and criminals are carrying guns, it is becoming increasingly necessary for some members of the police force to be armed.  When they shoot and kill, as in the case of the alledged bank robber, the media goes hysterical.  However I have a feeling that the average man in the street would approve of the robber being shot.\nWe are being slowly and surely undermined by left wing liberals.  It is a rot in British society.
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.
95505
I believe it does, because most criminals do not buy there guns legally. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, by gun control you just take them away from the people who are defending their homes. Look at Australia for example, gun related violence as went through the rood since they banned guns!
883373
my whole town is full of gangs and graffiti and what not. you cant go a single day with out hearing sirens. and its not a shocker to hear gun shots. if police refused service then sad to say half the town would be dead, even innocent by standers.
804282
do you want for or against? \n\nFor gun control:\nIn countries with strict gun control there is much less gun related violence. E.g. clearly fewer school shootings. If the parents don't have a gun sitting in their cupboard ready to be used most kids won't figure out easily where do get one from. \nAlso less danger of accidental shootings if there are less guns around.\nI think the bobbies in England stopped carrying a gun and somebody figured out that the risk for a Bobby to get shot actually went down. If the criminal knows they are not going to get shot they actually seem to be less inclined to shoot first and rather run first. Though I've never seen the study, only hearsay, so I don't know how accurate the rumor is. But you probably can figure that out.\nAlso I think there are studies that guns in the home end up to be used much more rarely in defence against a burglar situation than are involved in accidents or murders by people living in the household. People with no or little control over their temper seem to use a gun if it happens to be around and shoot their spouses or friends and think about consequences later. \n\nagainst: owning a gun seems to give some people a sense of security (or of being macho)
621264
No, I wouldnt.  Because criminals would still have guns, only the law abiding people would turn their guns in.  Then think about this ... if you were a criminal would you prefer your victims to be armed or unarmed?  Unarmed of course, but with the second amendment criminals know there's a good chance that their victims can shoot back at them.\n\nAustralia enacted strict gun control measures in the '90s and afterward they saw their crime soar.  A recent study by Hollands Leiden University on crime rates in industrialized nations found that Australia is now the most dangerous nation in the industrialized world.  The US didnt even make the "top 10" list, and I presume that's because of the second amendment.
910399
Do you ever hear stories of the good ole days when every one had a gun? I do and there wasn't much law breaking cuz your neighbor would shoot you. ooooh the good ole days \nMy point is:: there wasn't much crime back in the day so to speak everyone looked out for there family and friends. I feel gun control is a disaster.
267847
It may be possible as long as your crime was not a violent crime and was not a crime against children.
131588
Depends on what you mean by balance.  If you mean no fighting and everyone is loved, it won't ever happen.  However, in developed countries like the USA, we are safer than ever before.  Job related deaths are low, though there is the occasional murder, you don't have to fear for your life every day when you step outside, etc.