Guns: will a ban reduce crime?

[Ambassadar]

Ok, so I need to brush up on American war facts. I'm not american , so my knowledge of the american wars is at bit impaired. However, I trust my government with violence. Why don't americans? You chose your government through the democracy you like to preach in other "oppressed" countries, yet now you seem to admit that even the people you choose yourself are not to be trusted with violence.

 

 

 

Because eventually every government falls and eventually every government gets corrupted. All you have to do is look at the history of the world.

 

 

 

When governments get corrupted or fall then lots and lots of people die. Millions upon millions of people have been murdered throughout history by their own governments. The second amendment is there so when that day comes in the US even if it is 500 years from now the people can stand up for themselves and defend their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[hohto]

It would be entirley impractical to ban guns in the US. Britain has always had very tight rules as applying to the provision of weaponry to its citizens, but the US has not, and this means there is a saturation of unrecorded or monitered guns in the USA. There is a massive supply that could not be removed easily, even if the shops stopped selling. Thus, by banning citizens from having guns, the criminals would find that they have a huge supply of weapons and a load of unarmed victims. Because the UK was strict from the begining, the same does not apply in the UK, as there is a strong anti-gun culture and supply of illegal arms is much more restricted.

 

 

 

I wouldn't personally feel myself safe if I lived in a country that has so pro gun culture as you are telling me that America has. This schoolboy for example was mentally sick and still he could legally buy a gun. Rest is history and so are over 30 people.

 

 

 

Your point of criminals having an advantage over unarmed citizens is good if you allow shooting in the name of defencing your property. Personally I'd rather see my tv go than kill a man. And anyways with a proper permission system the criminal would sit a lot longer in jail plus he now has a better reason to actually use the gun; it's pretty likely he'd get shot if he doesn't shoot first. Thanks to these wild wild west laws you got.

 

 

 

I could stop laughing at the dude who said stabbings would increase. Yes, they probably would and homicides&murders would decrease. First of all I'd like to see a mentally sick schoolboy who can kill over 30 people with a knife. I'd also rather chose a criminal with a knife at the street than a criminal with a gun. Cutting or stabbing wounds are a lot easier to cure than bullet holes, you can't kill from a long distance and the shock effect is totally different; with a knife someone most likely would dodge the criminal after first hit.

[Dalcyte]

UK population: 60000000 Shootings per year: 200

 

US population: 300000000 Shootings per year: 11000

 

 

 

Those figures are rough but approximately right.

 

 

 

If that doesn't prove gun laws work i don't know what does. I know there are many more factors to take into account but surely restrictions on guns is probably the biggest factor.

 

 

 

Maybe that the fact that if you take into consideration that after the handgun ban in the UK, handgun crime rose by the thousands... :?

 

 

 

to put it simply, it'd only increase it. If you ban guns, um...guess what? the U.S. has more guns than adults. I'd like an explination on how these guns would go into the government, and what'd they do with them, and how these wouldn't seep into the blackmarket, which is inevitable. Crime would significantly rise. When alcohol was banned...we still got it, and it was done in numerous amounts. Another thing to consider is the jobs lost if you banned guns. Tens of thousands of jobs, and the economy would bite the dust. Just something that most people overlook. I did a debate recently on this, and i'm 100% convinced that the U.S. has right to guns.

[Locke_Superbus]

the definition of insaity is often quoted as the repetition of the same behaviour and expecting a different outcome. unless the vast majority of the population of the world change their opinion on guns then these massacres are going to keep on happening until the end of time. im not condoning what these lunatics do, but guns give too much control to the undisciplined and those unworthy of such responsibility.

[venomai]

Maybe that the fact that if you take into consideration that after the handgun ban in the UK, handgun crime rose by the thousands...

 

I agree with Dalcyte, putting an immediate ban on guns would only make things worse. Demand would skyrocket, people would still have them, and people would use them more.

 

 

 

Personally, I believe the only way to lower gun crimes is to actually change the opinion of the general public.

 

 

 

Right now the general thought in America is: "I need a gun for protection."

 

This thought needs to be reversed. If nobody wants guns, then demand would decrease, and eventually so would gun crime. Only then could gun laws could be passed without causing problems. Eventually the country would become a safer place, and there would be significantly less shootings.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really understand the whole idea of "guns for protection." Anyone care to explain that?

[No_OnE]

Maybe that the fact that if you take into consideration that after the handgun ban in the UK, handgun crime rose by the thousands...

 

I agree with Dalcyte, putting an immediate ban on guns would only make things worse. Demand would skyrocket, people would still have them, and people would use them more.

 

 

 

Personally, I believe the only way to lower gun crimes is to actually change the opinion of the general public.

 

 

 

Right now the general thought in America is: "I need a gun for protection."

 

This thought needs to be reversed. If nobody wants guns, then demand would decrease, and eventually so would gun crime. Only then could gun laws could be passed without causing problems. Eventually the country would become a safer place, and there would be significantly less shootings.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really understand the whole idea of "guns for protection." Anyone care to explain that?

 

I think you pretty much explained the correct idea of the "guns for protection" theory. It's a general opinion of people. It's not really needed since I rarely ever here of someone who actually saved lives because they had a gun. I did here of one event where a gunman went out on the street with a shotgun and a guy stopped him with his gun which he got from his home.

 

 

 

I just don't see how banning guns would stop shootings. I've said it 2 or 3 times before on this thread, and so have other people. Sick minded criminals like Seung-Hui Cho are not going to let a gun ban stop them from going on a rampage. Sure, the gun ban may stop people from committing small homicides with a gun, but they can just use knives or their own hands. To sum my ideas up, the people who are going to kill one person at a time (serial killers, etc.) can use knives or other objects while the people who want to kill a group of people can use guns which would probably be easy to find if you look.

[ktmcf121]

Maybe that the fact that if you take into consideration that after the handgun ban in the UK, handgun crime rose by the thousands...

 

I agree with Dalcyte, putting an immediate ban on guns would only make things worse. Demand would skyrocket, people would still have them, and people would use them more.

 

 

 

Personally, I believe the only way to lower gun crimes is to actually change the opinion of the general public.

 

 

 

Right now the general thought in America is: "I need a gun for protection."

 

This thought needs to be reversed. If nobody wants guns, then demand would decrease, and eventually so would gun crime. Only then could gun laws could be passed without causing problems. Eventually the country would become a safer place, and there would be significantly less shootings.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really understand the whole idea of "guns for protection." Anyone care to explain that?

 

I think you pretty much explained the correct idea of the "guns for protection" theory. It's a general opinion of people. It's not really needed since I rarely ever here of someone who actually saved lives because they had a gun. I did here of one event where a gunman went out on the street with a shotgun and a guy stopped him with his gun which he got from his home.

 

 

 

I just don't see how banning guns would stop shootings. I've said it 2 or 3 times before on this thread, and so have other people. Sick minded criminals like Seung-Hui Cho are not going to let a gun ban stop them from going on a rampage. Sure, the gun ban may stop people from committing small homicides with a gun, but they can just use knives or their own hands. To sum my ideas up, the people who are going to kill one person at a time (serial killers, etc.) can use knives or other objects while the people who want to kill a group of people can use guns which would probably be easy to find if you look.

 

 

 

exactly my thoughts.

 

 

 

maybe it was unconfirmed before, but after watching those videos he sent to nbc, i'm convinced that this person was determined to kill as many people as possible. if there was a ban on guns, many people have said that he would have simply used a knife. i doubt it, as disturbed as this person was. he would have found a way to obtain a gun, or even worse, possibly explosives, which could have been even more deadly.

[venomai]

I'm sure Cho would have used explosives if he had them.

 

 

 

However, since the general opinion on explosives is "I don't need them for protection," the demand is very low. Lower demand means they are much harder to get, especially for a student.

 

 

 

If the demand for handguns was as low as the demand for explosives, then there would be far less shootings simply because most people wouldn't have the resources needed to acquire such illegal weapons.

 

 

 

Just my two cents.

[No_OnE]

Though people don't generally use explosives to kill. Guns, on the other hand, are probably the most widely used weapon in murder so the illegal demand for them would be a lot higher than that of explosives. This would make criminals like still have an easy time at getting a gun. So, in my opinion, the only thing this ban would do is take away guns for the law abiding citizens because the criminals would do what they do best to get the guns, break the law.

[WolfhunterXZ]

No, it won't.

 

 

 

There's many many contributing factors in crime and violence in America especially. There's countries with the same gun laws and or less laws, and yet they have no huge problems with crime.

 

 

 

One factor could be the media, media in other countries is nowhere NEAR as violent as the media in America. American media always reports BAD things, violence, etc. And spends like 2 minutes on something GOOD. That is one reason, there are also many others, which I'm too lazy to spend time talking about.

 

 

 

But in all honesty, restricting it more would not decrease it. Heck, whenever you ban something completely, the problems worsens. Prohibition? Drinking INCREASED not decreased. Same goes with illegal substances, it may work for awhile, but there will always be a way for it to get in.

[britrockdude]

I agree with several things said in this thread.

 

 

 

A ban won't reduce crime, but perhaps roadblocks to getting guns would. It's too easy and that's the biggest problem. I think the USA would be tons better without loads of guns (one reason I don't plan to move back, at least right now) but too many people have the idea that if you can own guns, then you should own a gun. That, in my opinion is a dumb thing to think.

 

 

 

Oh and:

 

 

 

Are your boarders leaking more than Windows Vista?

 

 

 

Simply Brill! =D>

[x76]

I'm pretty sure the US age limit is something like 15.

 

 

 

Before you comment, No I didn't read the whole topic.

 

 

 

The legal age in the USA to use a gun is 16, but that is only when hunting with somebody over 18. You must be 18 to legally own a shotgun or rifle. The legal age to bear a handgun is 21. To legally bear it in a concealed manner requires you to go to a courthouse or sheriff's office and give 2 references and a bunch of other information and get approved for a concealed weapon license.

 

 

 

To all of you people saying it'd be hard to kill multiple people with a knife, I have a couple examples for you: throwing knives, throwing axes and throwing stars. Not quite as quick as a bullet but if you have enough skill you can throw them without the person getting a chance to move.

[Sumpta]

When governments get corrupted or fall then lots and lots of people die. Millions upon millions of people have been murdered throughout history by their own governments. The second amendment is there so when that day comes in the US even if it is 500 years from now the people can stand up for themselves and defend their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

 

 

And the only possible method to do this, is obviously with weapons. :-k

 

 

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Give me a bucket to vomit in right now, please.

 

 

 

maybe it was unconfirmed before, but after watching those videos he sent to nbc, i'm convinced that this person was determined to kill as many people as possible. if there was a ban on guns, many people have said that he would have simply used a knife. i doubt it, as disturbed as this person was. he would have found a way to obtain a gun, or even worse, possibly explosives, which could have been even more deadly.

 

 

 

This logic is flawed. The guy snapped and grabbed a weapon that was at hand. He wasn't thinking rationally "Hey, I need to kill as many people as possible, what are the options?" I seriously doubt that he carefully planned his rage.

 

 

 

If he hadn't had a weapon available to him, he might have done other freaky stuff, but he simply wouldn't have been able to take 33 people with him. He would have raged, physically attacked people, but things would probably not have been this bad.

[rocketman089]

Sumpta are you kidding? He didn't "snap and grab what was at hand". He pre-meditated to the point of buying the 9mm a month beforehand and the .22 2 weeks before.

[____]

To all of you people saying it'd be hard to kill multiple people with a knife, I have a couple examples for you: throwing knives, throwing axes and throwing stars. Not quite as quick as a bullet but if you have enough skill you can throw them without the person getting a chance to move.

Skill that 99% of the population do not have.

 

Using them and killing on the first throw requires skill which exceeds that of a champion darts player. It's not a matter of just hitting them, it's a matter of hitting them in organs like the heart, liver, throat, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Now a knife in the hand, that's another issue. A lot of people in close proximity... he could walk through a crowed room with a 4" blade or something close and stab people in the abdomen as he passed them. Probably get close to a dozen before the first person was down, then more in the panic that followed.

[ktmcf121]

Sumpta are you kidding? He didn't "snap and grab what was at hand". He pre-meditated to the point of buying the 9mm a month beforehand and the .22 2 weeks before.

 

 

 

yeah i'm sure he's been planning something of this nature since he was in high school, if maybe not conciously, i bet it was always in the back of his mind somewhere. the thing that separates this from most other school shootings is that he didn't even hint at his plans, and didn't have an accomplice, so the only forewarning was his dark nature and state of mental health.

[Striker6]

I think you should be allowed a gun in your house to protect your family. You should be allowed to kill any burglar that enters your house. Its logical that this would cut down on crimes.

[Ambassadar]

Ambassadar wrote:

 

When governments get corrupted or fall then lots and lots of people die. Millions upon millions of people have been murdered throughout history by their own governments. The second amendment is there so when that day comes in the US even if it is 500 years from now the people can stand up for themselves and defend their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

 

 

 

And the only possible method to do this, is obviously with weapons. :-k

 

 

This is a perfect example of why you need an armed population so guys like this cannot take over a perfectly good prosperous country and run it into the ground.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04 ... topstories

 

If all those people he stole lands from, had beaten, hurt or killed had been armed and the whole population had guns do you think he could get away with all of this for so long? He wouldn't last very long in the US... I can assure you of that. He couldn't just go into neighborhoods or towns and drag people away. People would band together and get their guns and fight back.

 

 

 

You can say right now that the US wouldn't have a dictator and that the thought is just silly but the reason the 2nd amendment is there is can you guarantee that the US will have the same government in 300 years? Can you guarantee that there won't be some kind of horrible event where the citizens will need to defend themselves? Eventually the US government will fall and that is when guns will be needed by the citizens. Would you prefer to just be dominated by a dictator instead of fighting for your freedom?

 

 

 

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Give me a bucket to vomit in right now, please.

 

And someone hasn't read the US Constitution before...

 

Nice of you to call the core principals of arguably the most effective Constitution in the history of the Earth something to vomit over.

[No_OnE]

This logic is flawed. The guy snapped and grabbed a weapon that was at hand. He wasn't thinking rationally "Hey, I need to kill as many people as possible, what are the options?" I seriously doubt that he carefully planned his rage.

 

 

 

If he hadn't had a weapon available to him, he might have done other freaky stuff, but he simply wouldn't have been able to take 33 people with him. He would have raged, physically attacked people, but things would probably not have been this bad.

 

You're definitely wrong about that. Sueng-Hui Cho had been planning this attack for months and he'd probably been thinking about it for years. I would go so far as to say it's been a fantasy of his for a long time. He did not go and grab the first two guns he saw and successfully kill 32 people. He planned the events of that day so much that he had the confidence to kill, go mail a package to NBC which he had already put together before hand, and go kill some more two hours later. I doubt it would have been possible for him to have successfully killed so many people and evade capture without having planned ever step he would take before hand.

[warri0r45]

When governments get corrupted or fall then lots and lots of people die. Millions upon millions of people have been murdered throughout history by their own governments. The second amendment is there so when that day comes in the US even if it is 500 years from now the people can stand up for themselves and defend their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

 

 

And the only possible method to do this, is obviously with weapons. :-k

 

 

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Give me a bucket to vomit in right now, please.

 

 

 

maybe it was unconfirmed before, but after watching those videos he sent to nbc, i'm convinced that this person was determined to kill as many people as possible. if there was a ban on guns, many people have said that he would have simply used a knife. i doubt it, as disturbed as this person was. he would have found a way to obtain a gun, or even worse, possibly explosives, which could have been even more deadly.

 

 

 

This logic is flawed. The guy snapped and grabbed a weapon that was at hand. He wasn't thinking rationally "Hey, I need to kill as many people as possible, what are the options?" I seriously doubt that he carefully planned his rage.

 

 

 

If he hadn't had a weapon available to him, he might have done other freaky stuff, but he simply wouldn't have been able to take 33 people with him. He would have raged, physically attacked people, but things would probably not have been this bad.

 

 

 

As others have commented on, I doubt that this attack wasn't planned. He bought the guns in the weeks leading up to the attacks, made videos, took pictures, wrote his own eulogy/elegy of sorts, directed his distaste for the culture of rich kids and commented on his future actions i.e. 'you forced me to do this, the blood is on your hands/whatever' and had the plan to take five and mail his little package of hate to NBC during killings.

[Sumpta]

As others have commented on, I doubt that this attack wasn't planned. He bought the guns in the weeks leading up to the attacks, made videos, took pictures, wrote his own eulogy/elegy of sorts, directed his distaste for the culture of rich kids and commented on his future actions i.e. 'you forced me to do this, the blood is on your hands/whatever' and had the plan to take five and mail his little package of hate to NBC during killings.

 

 

 

Yeah, I just read it in the newspaper. My bad.

 

 

 

What really shocked me, this guy was known for being very unstable. He was on anti-depressants, had undergone psychiatric assistance. Teachers had signalled that he wrote scary stuff, other students reported him for stalking,... The guy was a walking timebomb.

 

 

 

How can anyone defend making it so easy to have people like him, with known records, to buy weapons? How can anyone defend this system of buy-a-gun-in-your-local-Walmart? It's insane...

 

 

 

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Give me a bucket to vomit in right now, please.

 

 

 

And someone hasn't read the US Constitution before...

 

Nice of you to call the core principals of arguably the most effective Constitution in the history of the Earth something to vomit over.

 

 

 

The most effective constitution in the history of earth??? Oh please, drop the American ÃÆÃâÃâüber-attitude and look around you.

[Harrington]

Gotta say... I've never heard of any "Drive by stabbings", so yeah, making guns illegal will definately reduce the number of gun deaths/crimes.

 

 

 

You realise that Canadians proportionally own more guns than Americans, despite this fact, 12k Americans died from gun crime whilst in Canada it barely reached double figures.

 

So although removing guns will have an impact of sorts, it's clearly a social problem as much as anything else.

[Ambassadar]

The most effective constitution in the history of earth??? Oh please, drop the American ÃÆÃâÃâüber-attitude and look around you.

 

First I said it was arguably the best. I can back up my statement. I would like for you to give me a list of better Constitutions as well and they can't have been based off the US Constitution.

 

 

 

Facts about the US Constitution.

 

Since its creation some two hundred years ago, over one hundred countries around the world have used it as a model for their own.

 

It is the oldest written constitution of its type in effect in the world.

 

 

 

The US Constitution broke the mold of Old Europe. It was the foundational text that influenced most of the free societies of the world today. It is one of the most groundbreaking documents ever penned. I would put it up there with the Magna Carta. I mean come on... you are going to sit there and call it American ÃÆÃâÃâüber-attitude when over 100 countries have copied it in some form? Are you sure you aren't just being anti American? Have you even studied the American Constitution and it's impact on history?

[britrockdude]

Yeah man, if we wanna debate the usefulness/uselessness of the American constitution, lets start another thread.

 

 

 

A quick note though, people have been tearing up the constitution, throiwng it on the ground, stomping on it an burning it as of recent. Ever heard of the patriot act?

 

 

 

"Drive by stabbings" lol, weird....

[Ash6110]

I dont think criminals usually follow the law. THerefore they could just get it illegally.