Guns: will a ban reduce crime?

[No_OnE]

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.

 

 

 

I just can't see being killed for carrying a weapon. I can't really argue because it would be opinion against opinion. I just think that the death penalty for the carrying of a gun is taking it too far to the extremes.

[Moonshadow]

No, it wouldn't reduce crime by much. There would still be a black market for guns. The honest people would give the guns up, but the people who had wrong intents would just hide them. This is not necessarily true, but I think it is typical. They wouldn't ban guns outright in the United States because it goes against the second amendment.

[ktmcf121]

No, it wouldn't reduce crime by much. There would still be a black market for guns. The honest people would give the guns up, but the people who had wrong intents would just hide them. This is not necessarily true, but I think it is typical. They wouldn't ban guns outright in the United States because it goes against the second amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

most of the people i know, including myself, would not give up firearms without a fight, and we have never had bad intentions by owning guns.

[Ambassadar]

most of the people i know, including myself, would not give up firearms without a fight, and we have never had bad intentions by owning guns.

 

I know a lot of people that wouldn't give up their guns that have been law abiding and responsible people their entire lives.

 

 

 

Everyone keeps failing to see this point. If the people don't have guns and only the government has them then what is to stop the government if it decides to take more power than is rightfully granted to it by the people?

[Continuum]

Oh, great. Instead of quick homicide, now we have to drag it out by beating the target to death. Possible DNA evidence left behind as well.

 

 

 

Yeah, I think it would, but it would help the black market too.

[hohto]

No, it wouldn't reduce crime by much. There would still be a black market for guns. The honest people would give the guns up, but the people who had wrong intents would just hide them. This is not necessarily true, but I think it is typical. They wouldn't ban guns outright in the United States because it goes against the second amendment.

 

 

 

Then why countries with stricter gun laws tend to have a lot less violent crimes? It's true that guns can be gotten every where around the world if you just really want it, but making them harder to get reduces the chances of them being used. Look at the massacre in the school for example; How on earth can a school student get a damn rifle?

[rocketman089]

How on earth can a school student get a damn rifle?

 

 

 

Who knows, maybe that's why he used a handgun.

 

 

 

EDIT: Yeah, it's not the point though

[hohto]

How on earth can a school student get a damn rifle?

 

 

 

Who knows, maybe that's why he used a handgun.

 

 

 

Last time I heard it was a rifle, but oh well. The main point wasn't what gun he used, the point is that he used one.

[HiLetsFight]

 

But what about these bullied teens who do this most often? With no gun in the garden shed, or on the mantlepiece, or whereevr you people hide them, the kid can't simply snap, and then take the gun to school to kill his tormentors.

 

 

 

Do you think the sight of gun makes them 'snap'? That's weird. If they have the ability to kill someone, they won't hesitate using another lethal weapon.

 

 

 

And read this http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-480.html

 

 

 

Who knew that criminals ignore the law?

 

 

 

And fyi, guns are banned in campuses. Guess how well that worked :\

 

Indeed very nice point criminals dont follow the law, with the guns banned in campus it still happened.

 

If they have no guns, they will use knives :-#

[pompey_spud]

Shadow, you're a manipulative arse. You take my posts, only quote a section, and spin it to make me look an idiot.

 

The rest of you, you don't even read the topic. Pretty much every point made has already been made by me or Shadow, and you don't even listen to the answers.

 

 

 

For these reasons, I'm with Bubsa, I'm out, have fun getting no where in this thread...

[Barihawk]

No, it wouldn't reduce crime by much. There would still be a black market for guns. The honest people would give the guns up, but the people who had wrong intents would just hide them. This is not necessarily true, but I think it is typical. They wouldn't ban guns outright in the United States because it goes against the second amendment.

 

 

 

Then why countries with stricter gun laws tend to have a lot less violent crimes? It's true that guns can be gotten every where around the world if you just really want it, but making them harder to get reduces the chances of them being used. Look at the massacre in the school for example; How on earth can a school student get a damn rifle?

 

 

 

The nation with the lowest crime rate on Earth is Switzerland. Every household is required by law to have at least one military issue assault rifle.

 

 

 

And the Second Amendment is vital to the survival of the United States as someone stated magnificently above. We can not let the only legal guns be held by the government.

[Somnambulism]

We can not let the only legal guns be held by the government.

 

 

 

That is a bit extreme though, there are plenty of places (like here in the UK) where citizens CAN own guns, there are just stricter controls on ownership as someone said before about having to keep them locked up. I think one also has to prove that they have a 'good reason' to have a gun.

 

 

 

So there it hinges on what you call a good reason - obviously lots of Americans think that self defence is a good reason. Here, they don't accept that (and I can't say it's affected or bothered me).

[Barihawk]

Well, you have to remember that England's the primary reason FOR the Second Amendment. :P

 

 

 

We could start doing psychological profiles for handguns on top of criminal background checks.

[One Too Far]

But we're talking about bullied, sad teenagers. Not professional assassins. The gun is the only really harmful device anyone can use.

 

 

 

Teenagers aren't even allowed to have guns, are they?

 

 

 

their parents are in the U.S. and im pretty sure that any teenager on the edge would find a way to get to its parents gun.

[Barihawk]

But we're talking about bullied, sad teenagers. Not professional assassins. The gun is the only really harmful device anyone can use.

 

 

 

Teenagers aren't even allowed to have guns, are they?

 

 

 

their parents are in the U.S. and im pretty sure that any teenager on the edge would find a way to get to its parents gun.

 

 

 

The shooter in VA Tech was a first-generation student from Korea. His parents would be 6000 miles away.

 

 

 

The thing is, he was 23. I am only 21 and I could have both the Berretta and the Ruger he used in 14 days.

[hohto]

The nation with the lowest crime rate on Earth is Switzerland. Every household is required by law to have at least one military issue assault rifle.

 

 

 

And the Second Amendment is vital to the survival of the United States as someone stated magnificently above. We can not let the only legal guns be held by the government.

 

 

 

And countries like Iceland and Finland got the lowest murder rates in the world according to this site: http://mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/co ... rates.html

 

Why? Strict gun laws. If that source isn't trustable I can try to google for another one.

 

 

 

I would really take Switzerland as an example here. It's one of the richest countries in the whole world, has low immigration and really small social gaps. You can't compare that to USA for example, both coutries got totally different backrounds.

 

 

 

The only ways to reduce armed homicides, murders and crimes are to reduce social gaps, invest on security and making it harder to get guns. You can't reduce shooting by allowing people having guns. It might reduce armed robberies but same time affect really badly to murder and homicide rates.

[Barihawk]

We can't take them away, either.

 

 

 

For the US, all I can think of to legally tighten gun laws is a psych profile along with the criminal background check.

[hohto]

Just make stricter laws and only allow to own them with proper licences. An unlicenced gun should cause you a rather big bill. This is currently working well here in Finland. Currently you can get a licence to certain guns if you're part of an official shooting or hunting or got clean history and good reasons why. Also being in army helps there and for semiautomatic guns it's really hard to get permissions.

 

 

 

I believe most of the people would get rid of their guns if they started to need special permissions. This way many crimes could be avoided.

[MYSTERYX]

Banning gns would just increase the ammount of stabbings etc.

 

 

 

It would also create a lrger Back Marker for guns.. I don't think Banning them would do any good at all :S

[Doomster]

Ross Kemp (played a "tough guy" on TV) has been doing a series on gangs.

 

 

 

In London he asked one of the gang members about getting a gun, and the answer was "what make do you want... back in a tick".

 

 

 

Criminals and gang menbers who would consider a gun a "tool of the trade", are not going to be stopped by restrictions on public ownership, and while a reduction / elimination of legally held wepons reduces the possibility of the owner or someone else going crazy with one, it's doubtful how many (if any) of the weapons involved in mass shootings were legally and honestly held.

 

 

 

One problem with weapons for "home defence", is that it would imply that they are within much more ready availability for use or abuse than a sporting gun in a locked cabinet.

 

 

 

 

 

Knife crime is a problem too, but generally not in the form of mass killings.

[Sumpta]

The nation with the lowest crime rate on Earth is Switzerland. Every household is required by law to have at least one military issue assault rifle.

 

 

 

And the Second Amendment is vital to the survival of the United States as someone stated magnificently above. We can not let the only legal guns be held by the government.

 

 

 

I would really take Switzerland as an example here. It's one of the richest countries in the whole world, has low immigration and really small social gaps. You can't compare that to USA for example, both coutries got totally different backrounds.

 

 

 

 

I would agree not to compare the USA or any other country for that matter with Switzerland. With all respect, but Switzerland is a plain weird country. It's an alien country in the heart of Europe, a blind spot on the map to put it dramatically. The world could be completely divided by war, nuclear bombs may tear the earth apart, and the Swiss would still not so much as blink and sit it out in a bunker. Quite frankly, I would feel very uncomfortable and unsafe living in a country where everybody owns weapons.

 

 

 

Obviously, the availability of weapons is not the cause of extreme violence. But it is a condition for it. I don't understand what is so hard to get about this logic: make it harder to obtain a gun and you will have less accidents. Of course there will always be people who do get their hands on the weapons and of course you need to take actions against the root of the violence as well. But removing a condition for it, is a first and -in comparison with getting to the core of the problem- a quite uncomplicated step in lowering the violence.

 

 

 

I don't get this distorted logic about (lack of) freedom when it comes to owning weapons. Having a gun, doesn't make you free. Not being able to buy a gun as you would buy vegetables is not the same as lack of freedom.

[transcript80]

We should have guns for everyone, but this is highly improbable at this point. However, both Switzerland and a small town in Georgia do this, and their crime rate is the lowest in the world. You're not going to shoot someone who has a gun.

 

 

 

Someone who doesn't have a gun can't use it!

 

 

 

A ban on weapons WILL help, but only if that law is enforced! You can't just say "don't do that", you have to enforce. I think the government (e.a. the police) should be the monopolist where fire arms and violence is concerned.

[Marco]

Obviously, the availability of weapons is not the cause of extreme violence. But it is a condition for it. I don't understand what is so hard to get about this logic: make it harder to obtain a gun and you will have less accidents. Of course there will always be people who do get their hands on the weapons and of course you need to take actions against the root of the violence as well. But removing a condition for it, is a first and -in comparison with getting to the core of the problem- a quite uncomplicated step in lowering the violence.

 

 

 

Thank you.

[Faux]

I don't get this distorted logic about (lack of) freedom when it comes to owning weapons. Having a gun, doesn't make you free. Not being able to buy a gun as you would buy vegetables is not the same as lack of freedom.

 

 

 

Read up on America's history and you'll understand why it's important for them to have the ability to own guns.

[hohto]

I would agree not to compare the USA or any other country for that matter with Switzerland. With all respect, but Switzerland is a plain weird country. It's an alien country in the heart of Europe, a blind spot on the map to put it dramatically. The world could be completely divided by war, nuclear bombs may tear the earth apart, and the Swiss would still not so much as blink and sit it out in a bunker. Quite frankly, I would feel very uncomfortable and unsafe living in a country where everybody owns weapons.

 

 

 

Obviously, the availability of weapons is not the cause of extreme violence. But it is a condition for it. I don't understand what is so hard to get about this logic: make it harder to obtain a gun and you will have less accidents. Of course there will always be people who do get their hands on the weapons and of course you need to take actions against the root of the violence as well. But removing a condition for it, is a first and -in comparison with getting to the core of the problem- a quite uncomplicated step in lowering the violence.

 

 

 

I don't get this distorted logic about (lack of) freedom when it comes to owning weapons. Having a gun, doesn't make you free. Not being able to buy a gun as you would buy vegetables is not the same as lack of freedom.

 

 

 

That's exactly my point, even tho there is a typo (should be "wouldn't" instead of "would" in the first sentence. Switzerland isn't a proper country for comparing the gun laws to USA. You're also one of the few on this thread who seem to have understood the way how to reduce violent crimes.