Do you the think the right to arms causes more murders than it prevents?
Some people say that the right to arms is for defence purposes, if this is true shouldn't there be less murders because everytime someone would try to kill someone they would produce their gun and defend themself hence preventing their own murder. im just a bit confused
oh and im not from the states
yes, most murders might be carried out by illegal weapons but doesnt the right to arms and gun shops make these illegal weapons more readily available? in my country just about the only people who have guns are farmers and people in the criminal world, we don't have problems with gang violence nor is it easy to get or own a gun, resulting in low instances of gun related murders
yes, most murders might be carried out by illegal weapons but doesnt the right to arms and gun shops make these illegal weapons more readily available? in my country just about the only people who have guns are farmers, policemen and people in the criminal world, we don't have problems with gang violence nor is it easy to get or own a gun, resulting in low instances of gun related murders
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
More murders are committed by drunk drivers than by legal gun owners. Drinking is legal in most countries I presume.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I guess you have a logical point, if you aren't concerned about WHO (criminal or citizen) gets "murdered", because yes, you raise the chance (insignificantly) that someone is going to die.
In most cases, just hearing a gun getting ****** is enough to avoid the confrontation - as most criminals will run.
But self-defense isn't murder, and shouldn't even be compared to murder. Self defense is used to avoid your own murder, which is much different than killing for profit or motive.
Two million times a year, Americans thwart a robbery or home invasion by legal gun ownership. Depending on which state someone lives in with very few exceptions, nearly everyone is guaranteed the right to own a firearm.
But if you take that right away and cause the legal, law-abiliding citizens to turn in their guns, that means only two classes of people will own firearms: criminals and police.
Studies ACTUALLY show the opposite, that is to say, the more likelihood of a particular region that had a high firearm ownership (high gun per capita), the LESS likely crime was to happen.
Simply put: Society is safer when criminals don't know who is armed.
In Washington DC, America's Capital, there are so many laws against owning a gun that nobody does. The murder rate is astronomical.
What you are referring to us the "Gun Supply Myth", and I've included an article with statistics to help explain that while even handgun sales rise, homicide and suicide rates don't rise with any significance to the level of gun sales.
Hope that helps, and thanks for reading my point of view. :)Source(s): http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html
- escapingmarsLv 41 decade ago
Actually, the majority of murders committed by hand guns, are done by illegally obtained hand guns. There is a process to buying and selling a gun. Guns are just a tool to protect, defend and kill. Man is the user of tool. If someone REALLY wants to kill someone else, there are other weapons (tools).
- Anonymous1 decade ago
this notion that people have that they should have this stock pile of guns in there home is insane.
the idea of that law i think was to allow for the people to defend themselfs agaist enemies from other countries or from there own federal goverment gone crazy. that idea is not completly stupid still today there seems to be reason to think people with guns could manage to prevent the federal goverment army from turning crazy and trying to rule them in a manner different then what the agreement is.
having the guns at home that would be a capable to being usefull in a war gurella situation just does not work . even if the owner is this really nice guy who wont harm a fly but just keeps the guns for the one perpose and maybe uses them at a gun club to shoot at paper targets.the danger that comes from that man having the weapons in his home is just too much. i keep hearing oh blah blah the crooks will get the guns by stealing them and the good guys wont be able to buy the guns as a supporting poiint for this home gun storage. well the people are right the crooks will still just steal the guns and making people fill out forms and things wont do anything to prevent a bad guy from just making off with your gun.
here is what i think should be done. simple easy cheap local
system that would prevent gun theft and still allow people who are not crooks to have the big powerfull guns and i think maybe even more weapons like heavy machine guns.
the system would work like this first yes everyone would have to show a paper from the goverment showing they are not banned from owning a gun as a result of some crime they did.
next gun stores would be built for one purpose and that is the sale of guns. that means the building is the key . walls would be extemely difficult to break through as they would have a layer of steel as well as all the concrete. the doors would be like that of a bank vault . the roof to would have speacial fetures that would make breaking in a big huge job.
next mr ok man goes there with his paper showing he is not some criminal that has been banned from owning a gun . he buys a gun even a great big machine gun if he can afford it and wants it .
the store then does not give him the gun or ammo instead they take from him the destination of the gun and they deliver it . this would be done using armoured cars trucks. the armour i think would be better more like that of a tank then a truck . the people who work at this job would be paid well and so not easily tempted to team up with bad guys.
the destination of the gun would be the town or neibourhood the new owner lives in.
the gun would never go to his home . instead the gun would go to a building similar to the gun store place. this place would have gaurds and would be for the use of locals only .
someone who attempted to get a gun out fo there would have to be part of a big time megga gang that had special traning .
the guards and the key holders would be only local people some might be voted in to do this . whatever the people wanted but no feds would be in on it and the state would not be involved in who may have the keys.
this puts the guns in the hands of the good guys keeps them out of the hands of the bad guys and allows for a real ability of a community to defend its own town.
well that is what i think should happen .
that and anyone found with a gun away from the safe building would be sent to prison for life first offence.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The right to keep and bear arms has limited flexibility, but, yes, I do believe that it does prevent murders and violent crimes. Most of the murders and violent crimes are performed with ILLEGALLY-POSSESSED firearms, and to strip the weapons away from legal gun owners and denying the opportunity to defend themselves is only further enabling the criminals.
- corkLv 71 decade ago
right to bear arms....
it prevents....that is a known fact...
where guns exist--guns must exist to protect..
where guns don't exist then that problem doesn't exist.
USA guns are just common everyday items in most homes....
we don't sit around playing with guns--they are put away--unless needed.
- uknowmeLv 61 decade ago
I think most murders happen w/ illegal weapons so no I don't think it causes more murders.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
In states that have passed right to carry laws that allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, the violent crime rate have universally gone down.
Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun control laws and also has the dubious distinction of being one of the most violent cities in America.
Criminals by their nature do not respect laws or the rights of others. They LIKE unarmed victims. We have over 22,000 gun laws in America. Criminals ignore them. Further, legally owned firearms are used an estimated one million times a year for self defense.
No two situations are alike. I would prefer to have a gun and not nedd it rather than need it and not have it.
- 120 IQLv 41 decade ago
of course, i cannot believe guns are even legal.