Guns: will a ban reduce crime?

[Abyssalwhip]

The world would be better without them. They cause more trouble than they help.(except for hunting because better they get killed in 1 hit rather than 10 not that I would ever hunt)

[Marco]

 

 

 

If one of them was semi-automatic then why is it that a fully automatic gun (assualt rifle) isn't allowed?

 

Another example of the complete and utter stupidty of America's laws. -.- Idiot nation..

 

 

 

 

There is a HUGE difference between a semi-auto pistol and a full auto rifle.

 

 

 

A semi-auto pistol means that every time you pull the trigger a shot is fired; there is no need to [rooster] it back for each shot.

 

 

 

A full auto rifle means you can hold down the trigger and unleash hell very quickly. Also, rifles have much better aim...you can mount a scope and they are made for engaging multiple targets and targets at medium range. Furthermore, a rifle's clip and be modified to hold over 100 rounds (typically about 90), whereas a pistol usually holds between 7 and 19 shots.

 

 

 

A rifle is much, much more deadly. The law is not stupid, trust me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does the Second Amendment not allow the American citizen the right to bear arms?

 

What I'm trying to say is why does it matter how deadly each gun is? Are they not all made for the same princliple, that is to kill someone? If you really want to get into the specifics of each type of gun then why are Assualt Rifles not allowed if, like you say, they have a "much better aim". Isn't it better to have a rifle that will hit your target rather than a clumsy pistol?

 

Also what difference does the bigger clip size make in this debate? If you're going to kill one, maybe two people for your own "self-defence" then why does the legal pistol hold up to 19 shots? Will you really miss 18 times and have time to get off your nineteenth shot?

 

 

 

The law is stupid, why have all these school shootings occured if the law worked as it should?

[Ambassadar]

They cause more trouble than they help.

 

The US wouldn't exist as we know it without free citizens having the right to bear arms because the revolution against Great Britain couldn't have happened in the first place without those guns. That is why we have the 2nd amendment. It is to protect the citizens against the government should the government one day become tyrannical and trample the rights of it's people.

[1_man_army]

 

If the US government is more strict with the regulation (as in force people to undergo some sort of training) and make the penalties for having illegal guns more strict at the same time, it would be better that way IMO.

 

 

 

But by your rationale criminals would just ignore the regulations so there would be no point.

[agresser]

 

 

 

If you know EVERY one of your neighbors has a gun in his/her house, you'll be much less motivated to break in or try to kill someone. That's how it is in Switzerland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason every home has a gun is Switzerland is because every male under the age of 45 is a soldier; military service is compulsory. They are required to keep weapons in their home so the military can go into action in minutes in case of foreign invasion.

 

There aren't shootings in Switzerland because the people who have access to them (almost everyone) are disciplined soldiers and know what those guns are for.

 

However in America the culture is different and neither outlawing guns altogether nor giving everyone a gun is a viable solution. Rather, more education and research should be done into why shootings occur and how to prevent the vast majority of them.

[Abyssalwhip]

They cause more trouble than they help.

 

The US wouldn't exist as we know it without free citizens having the right to bear arms because the revolution against Great Britain couldn't have happened in the first place without those guns. That is why we have the 2nd amendment. It is to protect the citizens against the government should the government one day become tyrannical and trample the rights of it's people.

Completely missed the point of what I said. Were not talking about army or any of that crap, we're talking about like people having guns in their house without a job that requires them to have them.

[indy500fan]

Rational debate on the internet? You are kidding me!

 

 

 

Well I am not going to ruin it with my no item should be illegal viewpoint :P .

 

 

 

Will point out about everyone posting statistics, correlation does not necessarily equal causation, and I don't know if any gun studies have been done in a controlled environment with just one variable changing.

[Defender2516]

It doesn't matter if you ban guns. That will really only endanger you more IMO.

 

 

 

Because when the insanity of a person has one and not a single weapon can be found in your home or location.. your skrewed.

 

 

 

I think everyone should have a gun for protection.. the kids in the college didn't have any protection, when they should have, which is where the problem came to be.

 

 

 

Had those kids in class had a gun, he wouldn't have killed as many people as he did.

 

 

 

Guns are still a highly responsible object and just should not be passed as toys.

 

 

 

Yet.. there definatly needs to be more protection in schools. Where the hell was the security and police that patrol campuses..

 

 

 

If they was going on break early eating donuts.. hopefully they will get fired!

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Ambassadar]

It is interesting to note that in the US when you go out in the country EVERYONE has multiple guns. The murder rate and violent crime rates are also next to nothing.

 

 

 

When you go in the city the number of guns per person drops drastically and the violent crime and murder rates go way up. I know where I am from even though it is one of the ten most dangerous cities in the US according to the latest statistics pretty much all the violent crime and murder is in the ghettos.

[agresser]

 

 

 

Does the Second Amendment not allow the American citizen the right to bear arms?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, only in case of foreign invasion so that the citizens can defend themselves and form a militia...that clause is outdated and the only reason it still exists is because of gun companies and the NRA bribing congressmen.

[Ambassadar]

Completely missed the point of what I said. Were not talking about army or any of that crap, we're talking about like people having guns in their house without a job that requires them to have them.

 

I wasn't responding to you or anyone else. I was informing everyone of the reason the US has the second amendment.

 

 

 

It was made for the precise reason of giving everyone even if they aren't in the military a gun in their house. It was made so that the government and the military wouldn't and couldn't have absolute control over the people in case they started to trample the rights of the people.

[1_man_army]

It is interesting to note that in the US when you go out in the country EVERYONE has multiple guns. The murder rate and violent crime rates are also next to nothing.

 

 

 

When you go in the city the number of guns per person drops drastically and the violent crime and murder rates go way up. I know where I am from even though it is one of the ten most dangerous cities in the US according to the latest statistics pretty much all the violent crime and murder is in the ghettos.

 

 

 

Thats because in the countryside people tend to live in much smaller tightly knit communities than people in cities do. You know - the sort of places where everyone knows everyone...

 

 

 

It's far easier to commit a crime against a generic stranger in a big city than it is towards somebody you know well (which is often the case in small rural communities. This is why crime rates are higher in urban areas than they are in rural areas. Plus poverty (another key contributing factor in crime rates) is far more prevailant in densely populated urban areas than it is in the countryside.

 

 

 

In a strictly urban vs. rural argument regarding crime, the ownership of guns bears little significance.

[Marco]

Does the Second Amendment not allow the American citizen the right to bear arms?

 

 

 

Yeah, only in case of foreign invasion so that the citizens can defend themselves and form a militia...that clause is outdated and the only reason it still exists is because of gun companies and the NRA bribing congressmen.

 

 

 

I don't think that amendment is right in any way by the by.

 

 

 

I personally think the whole 'banning guns will do nothing' argument is ridiculous, you yourself have shown that people cannot bring in Switzerland into the debate because the people with guns actually know how to use them there.

 

 

 

What exactly is the punishment in America for shooting someone causing GBH or death? I know here in England the punishments for certian crimes are amazingly leniant. Life imprisonment here is on average 15 years.

[insane]

Banning guns will only increase crime.

 

 

 

Criminals aren't afraid to break the law. Do you think a criminal is going to say "oh shoot, it's illegal for me to own a gun?!? If only it was legal, I could commit that murder that is also illegal and holds worse consequences for me".

 

Yeah, right.

 

 

 

Banning guns will only increase crime as those that commit crimes with guns will now be breaking two laws - the crime they committed and they will be evading the gun ban law.

[Viktorkrum77]

What exactly is the punishment in America for shooting someone causing GBH or death? I know here in England the punishments for certian crimes are amazingly leniant. Life imprisonment here is on average 15 years.

 

 

 

The punishment is the about the same. What we need is capital punishment if you are guilty of taking another life.

 

 

 

Banning guns will only increase crime.

 

 

 

Criminals aren't afraid to break the law. Do you think a criminal is going to say "oh shoot, it's illegal for me to own a gun?!? If only it was legal, I could commit that murder that is also illegal and holds worse consequences for me".

 

Yeah, right.

 

 

 

Banning guns will only increase crime as those that commit crimes with guns will now be breaking two laws - the crime they committed and they will be evading the gun ban law.

 

 

 

Exactly, it will give them an advantage because no one else will have a gun so they will be free to shoot without reprecussion until authorities step in.

[gonpost]

 

 

 

If you know EVERY one of your neighbors has a gun in his/her house, you'll be much less motivated to break in or try to kill someone. That's how it is in Switzerland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason every home has a gun is Switzerland is because every male under the age of 45 is a soldier; military service is compulsory. They are required to keep weapons in their home so the military can go into action in minutes in case of foreign invasion.

 

There aren't shootings in Switzerland because the people who have access to them (almost everyone) are disciplined soldiers and know what those guns are for.

 

However in America the culture is different and neither outlawing guns altogether nor giving everyone a gun is a viable solution. Rather, more education and research should be done into why shootings occur and how to prevent the vast majority of them.

 

 

 

Yes, Agresser, I completely agree with you. Tbh I wish the US had compulsory reserve service for a year or two after high school. Our society needs a hell of a lot more discipline. Just look at all the fat people we have...lol. Obviously we need self-discipline.

 

 

 

It's got to start somewhere, and we obviously can't ban guns (for reasons mentioned earlier). I say teach people how to use them responsibly, and teach them some discipline while they're at it.

 

 

 

Although, I have to admit, if our president keeps these pointless wars up...well...I'm assuming we'll have smart presidents.

[jackalope14]

 

 

 

Does the Second Amendment not allow the American citizen the right to bear arms?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, only in case of foreign invasion so that the citizens can defend themselves and form a militia...that clause is outdated and the only reason it still exists is because of gun companies and the NRA bribing congressmen.

 

 

 

That is still in effect today. Didnt you hear about the woman who was being robbed and she shot the mugger to protect herself, her two year old daughter and her unborn baby here in the Twin Cities? It was all over the news and if you ask me, that proves the part about defending yourself is not out of date.

[Marco]

Banning guns will only increase crime.

 

 

 

Criminals aren't afraid to break the law. Do you think a criminal is going to say "oh shoot, it's illegal for me to own a gun?!? If only it was legal, I could commit that murder that is also illegal and holds worse consequences for me".

 

Yeah, right.

 

 

 

Banning guns will only increase crime as those that commit crimes with guns will now be breaking two laws - the crime they committed and they will be evading the gun ban law.

 

 

 

Okay, let's use Victor's example from below. If the punishment for using a gun to kill someone was death, d'you think it'd have no effect?

 

How about we take it another step and lets say the punishment for unlawfully owning a gun was death too. Just like a damn police state, if you get caught possesing a gun you get death, there would be no 'Oh! But he's innocent!' crap, because there are very very few reasons for anyone to ever actually carry a gun without malice aforethought.

 

Would there or would there not be a huge reduction in gun crime?

 

 

 

America is so addicted to its gun culture that it will simply never change.

[gonpost]

Banning guns will only increase crime.

 

 

 

Criminals aren't afraid to break the law. Do you think a criminal is going to say "oh shoot, it's illegal for me to own a gun?!? If only it was legal, I could commit that murder that is also illegal and holds worse consequences for me".

 

Yeah, right.

 

 

 

Banning guns will only increase crime as those that commit crimes with guns will now be breaking two laws - the crime they committed and they will be evading the gun ban law.

 

 

 

Okay, let's use Victor's example from below. If the punishment for using a gun to kill someone was death, d'you think it'd have no effect?

 

How about we take it another step and lets say the punishment for unlawfully owning a gun was death too. Just like a damn police state, if you get caught possesing a gun you get death, there would be no 'Oh! But he's innocent!' crap, because there are very very few reasons for anyone to ever actually carry a gun without malice aforethought.

 

Would there or would there not be a huge reduction in gun crime?

 

 

 

America is so addicted to its gun culture that it will simply never change.

 

 

 

Yet similarly you could not pass that law. People would view it as atrocious. Hell, that'd be viewed as absolutely atrocious in most part of the world.

 

 

 

(it would probably work, however)

[Marco]

Yet similarly you could not pass that law. People would view it as atrocious. Hell, that'd be viewed as absolutely atrocious in most part of the world.

 

 

 

(it would probably work, however)

 

 

 

Could you tell me why it would be so atrocious to be killed if you carry a gun?

 

If absolutely no one was allowed to carry a gun, then there would be no need for anyone else to carry one. Yes, people would still find and use the many other ways of killing a person, but why make it easy for them and legalise one of those methods (guns).

 

 

 

Anyway, I just want to know your reasoning for why it would be so horrible. :)

[gonpost]

Yet similarly you could not pass that law. People would view it as atrocious. Hell, that'd be viewed as absolutely atrocious in most part of the world.

 

 

 

(it would probably work, however)

 

 

 

Could you tell me why it would be so atrocious to be killed if you carry a gun?

 

If absolutely no one was allowed to carry a gun, then there would be no need for anyone else to carry one. Yes, people would still find and use the many other ways of killing a person, but why make it easy for them and legalise one of those methods (guns).

 

 

 

Anyway, I just want to know your reasoning for why it would be so horrible. :)

 

 

 

Well in my opinion it wouldn't necessarily be horrible. One could also say that we chop off the hand of anyone who steals, and as long as you don't steal, you have nothing to worry about.

 

 

 

The point is that tons of other people would a) object to the outlawing of guns B) object to a "police state" c)object to a law which is nearly unenforceable under current property laws (ie can't go onto someone's property without proper suspicion) d)object to having such an incredibly harsh punishment for merely carrying a gun e) object to killing anyone at all as a punishment, seeing as they don't have the death penalty in any European nations, even for the worst of crimes.

 

 

 

There are simply too many caveats.

[warri0r45]

Interesting issue.

 

 

 

There are guns, therefore there is crime. Would a complete abolishment of guns eliminate crime? No. Would it lessen it? I'd say so.

 

 

 

If a man has a gun, he has the power to take your life. If you then use a gun to protect yourself, anyone has the power to take your life. It's sad that we have these things that are designed to kill each other and then use them to protect ourselves from them. It's kind of like one country having a nuclear arsenal, then the enemy being forced to make them to defend itself, apart from the fact that the trigger on that gun is real comfortable and easy to pull without the knowlege that the world will basically end.

 

 

 

It's sad that we even invented the bloody things.

[No_OnE]

Banning guns will only increase crime.

 

 

 

Criminals aren't afraid to break the law. Do you think a criminal is going to say "oh shoot, it's illegal for me to own a gun?!? If only it was legal, I could commit that murder that is also illegal and holds worse consequences for me".

 

Yeah, right.

 

 

 

Banning guns will only increase crime as those that commit crimes with guns will now be breaking two laws - the crime they committed and they will be evading the gun ban law.

 

 

 

Okay, let's use Victor's example from below. If the punishment for using a gun to kill someone was death, d'you think it'd have no effect?

 

How about we take it another step and lets say the punishment for unlawfully owning a gun was death too. Just like a damn police state, if you get caught possesing a gun you get death, there would be no 'Oh! But he's innocent!' crap, because there are very very few reasons for anyone to ever actually carry a gun without malice aforethought.

 

Would there or would there not be a huge reduction in gun crime?

 

 

 

America is so addicted to its gun culture that it will simply never change.

 

What about hunting. Hunting isn't bad so there's no reason to restrict someone from doing it. Also, creating a death penalty for owning a gun is going way too far. That's like saying, "Let's create a death penalty for petty theft. Then no one will do it,". The punishment doesn't fit the crime and America is supposed to be built on freedom and fairness.

[Marco]

Well in my opinion it wouldn't necessarily be horrible. One could also say that we chop off the hand of anyone who steals, and as long as you don't steal, you have nothing to worry about.

 

 

 

The point is that tons of other people would a) object to the outlawing of guns B) object to a "police state" c)object to a law which is nearly unenforceable under current property laws (ie can't go onto someone's property without proper suspicion) d)object to having such an incredibly harsh punishment for merely carrying a gun e) object to killing anyone at all as a punishment, seeing as they don't have the death penalty in any European nations, even for the worst of crimes.

 

 

 

There are simply too many caveats.

 

 

 

a. It wouldn't be completly outlawed. If you're legally entitled to a gun, you would have one (the police for example, but to be honest I can't really think of any other groups that should in any way have such a weapon apart from Farmers for dealing with animals). But I don't really get your point here, are you saying the murderers who want to go shoot someone would complain... and that's a bad thing?

 

 

 

b. If you're innocent you've got nothing to fear. I'm also only using the example of a police state to be used with gun offences, so it's not like the punishment for robbery would be any harsher.

 

 

 

c. If it were a law then of course other laws would change with it. For example if there really was a crackdown on carrying guns then the ol' stop & search laws would certainly be loosened. As I've said before, if you never carry a gun then you wouldn't mind being Stopped & Searched in the street as long as you knew that no one was ever able to unlawfully carry a gun again.

 

 

 

d. Well there's simply no need to ever carry a gun unlawfully, so why does the punishment matter? Just don't do it, you don't need to posses something specifically designed to take someone's life.

 

 

 

e. Maybe that's the problem.

 

 

 

I'm glad you're a nice person to debate with. :P

 

 

 

It's sad that we even invented the bloody things.

 

 

 

What about hunting. Hunting isn't bad so there's no reason to restrict someone from doing it. Also, creating a death penalty for owning a gun is going way too far. That's like saying, "Let's create a death penalty for petty theft. Then no one will do it,". The punishment doesn't fit the crime and America is supposed to be built on freedom and fairness.

 

 

 

Hunting - Lawful. As it is now for farmers to carry guns without prosecution. Hunting of course wouldn't ever happen in an urban area, so it's not like anyone could use it as an excuse. Licences and proper training would be needed to hunt, just like it is now.

 

 

 

The punishment doesn't fit the crime? How does that make any difference? You shouldn't ever be carrying one! Don't do it or you'll die, you have no need to ever carry one man..

 

It's a weapon made to kill.

 

 

 

"America is supposed to be built on freedom and fairness."

 

And look where it got them.. Some freedoms should never be given, like allowing people to carry around grenades, in case you need to defend yourself from a group of 3-8 people.

[ktmcf121]

to answer the question posed in the topic thread, no.

 

 

 

the reason? if guns were to be banned, myself, and most other people I know, who are now law-abiding citizens who have never commited a crime in thier lives, would become criminals.

 

 

 

and who's going to take our guns away? you?