Gun control a good or bad idea?

Some people judge republicans for wanting to keep America's gun rights, but if there was an actual gun regulation I wonder how much good that would even do. It sounds like another item that would be up on the black market.

For example, during the prohibition what resulted? Gangs and mafia came to power. Illegal drugs are still very accessible, and by what means? Means that cause violence, drug wars, and more money to the corrupt.

It may sound like a good idea..but when you think about it, will it really lessen the amount of homicide occuring?

I'm sure if you asked a gang lord their stance on gun regulation, they'd be all for it. It's just another means of control and revenue for them.

People will get their guns if they want their guns, via the black market. Gang members and criminals aren't suddenly going to heed to the law and drop arms. That's not how they work.

Thoughts?

18 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Second Amendment of the United States Constitution –

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Thomas Jefferson

    Britain Backfire.

    "A litany of failures were apparent as early as the year 2000, when CBS news reported that law and order in Britain was deteriorating at a rapid rate, while the country was experiencing a crime surge much more severe than any recorded in the U.S."

    "use of handguns to commit crimes rose 40% two years following the total ban on guns."

    "In 2002, the chance of being mugged in London was approx. 6 times greater than in New York City, NY." (which as strict gun control as well).

    “In fact, the motherland was indeed racing ahead by a substantial lead, sporting a crime rate in England and Wales that at times peaked at as much as 60% above the crime stats here in the U.S., with gun crimes being especially prominent?”

    Lantz, Gary (2/2008), Backfire in Britain,

    American's 1st Freedom, Feb 2008,

    p27 and 28

    Chicago's murder rate is up and they have a ban.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi...

    The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

    Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

    Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

    (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

    Guns

    The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

    Yes, that is 80 million.

    The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

    The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

    Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

    according to the 2006 IL UCR.

    Illinois had a population of 12.8 million w/ a murder rate of 6.1/100K (780)

    Chicago had 22.2% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 60% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 16.4/100K

    Cook County had 41.4% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 73.6% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 10.83/100K

    The Cook County murders in raw number/per capita increased 4.4% and 4.9% respectively while arrest numbers and rates dropped over 18% from '05 to '06.

    If Chicago were to fall into Lake Michigan, the Illinois murder rate would drop to 3.14

    Were the rest of Cook County to follow suit, the rate would drop to 2.74.

    So far this year, murders are up 13%.

    And where are the strictest gun laws?

    Thumbs down is a poor attemt at trying to fight the truth. Gun Control does not work.

    Source(s): Gun Owner, NRA member, Crook (cook) County IL victim NObiden '08
  • 1 decade ago

    There already IS gun control. The problem is that it doesn't work.

    I've got a shot gun, but I want something easier to carry. If I were to buy another gun (I've been thinking about it because we just bought a house further in the country and we've got LOTS of snakes, mountain lions, coyotes, wild dogs, bobcats, etc) I would go take another gun safety class, learn how to shoot at a shooting range, etc. Then again, I am a responsible person who only intends the gun for protection from wild animals. Obviously, if there was a trespasser, I might use it for protection in that case, too.. but a criminal would be hard pressed to so much as find my house, much less rob it... and he'd (or she) would have to get past the dogs that protect the horses (Hungarian Kuvacs are VERY protective of the horses and if they don't know you, they make a huge racket... and if you try to approach the horses, you're in big trouble).

    I have a theory about drugs. Think about this. Take meth, for example. Pretend that it was legal. Say you could buy meth at Wallgreens. Now, meth does some horrible, horrible stuff to you. Most people, especially after seeing the meth scabs and sores, would stay FAR away from it. We'd also have less people in jail. Let people ruin their own lives with drugs if they want to. They're going to do it regardless of legality.

    Now, for guns. Foreigners can't buy a gun. There's an age restriction on guns. Certain guns are illegal. Blah, blah, blah. I happen to NEED a gun. If they took away my right to have one, my horses would be dead. I had a mountain lion come onto my property a few months ago. The dogs were going nuts and preparing to engage in battle. Well, I don't want my $1500 guard dogs to get injured by a lion (the dogs would NEVER let the mountain lion get close enough to so much as sniff the horses), so, I shot my shotgun into the sky. It worked, luckily, because I'd hate to have to shoot a mountain lion. I will, but I don't want to. Some of the workers here have kids under the age of 10, so they know how to shoot the guns, too. If I ever get attacked by a mountain lion and the only person nearby is an 8 year old girl, I want her to know how to work the shotgun! I also want her to be afraid of the gun and not curious.

    You don't get to choose. Obviously, I don't want a murdering gang member to have a gun. I also don't want a drunk to have a car. I don't want drug addicts to be fertile... but you don't get to choose who gets rights and who doesn't. Just because I think that hookers, drug addicts and other unsuitable parent material shouldn't be able to have kids doesn't give me the right to prevent them from doing so. Just because I don't want drunks to have cars doesn't give me the right to take their cars away. All we can do is punish people who break the law.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Voice of Liberty, I'm sorry but your logic is totally irrational. You are advocating the arming of teenagers in school, which is the kind of drivel I would expect from only the most extreme gun loving fanatic. Is that how you see yourself? Also, to compare automobile deaths with gun deaths is both facetious & irrelevant. Cars are designed to carry people from point A to point B. Handguns are designed to kill people-not for any other reason.

    I've had a similar exchange of views with bobbo on this subject, and I notice he has quoted the same NRA-biased statistics he used with me. The NRA can manipulate statistics as much as it wants, but there is no escaping the fact that in the UK for example you are around 46 times less likely to be shot dead than in the USA, even if you allow for the USA's larger 305m population to the UK's 61m.

    Sadly, the USA is now past the point of no return with guns, and I now believe it to be the exception to the rule. In any country I would normally advocate a total ban on handguns, and keep tight controls on the sale of hunting weapons. The USA is way beyond that point, and it would be interesting to see what would happen if every citizen of the USA carried a gun.

  • 1 decade ago

    Gun control is a bad, bad, bad idea. It's the first step in disarming most people who live in a country. The other is with ammunition. That way, everyone is at the mercy of the ones who are permitted to have firearms.

    People who commit murder and use firearms for anything other than personal protection are a different story.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I agree and that is certainly the best reason to avoid stringent gun control. I can see both sides on this one sometimes, the jury is still out for me.

    The older generation, right or not, feel that they need to have weapons incase of an invasion, and don't scoff too loud at this, 9/11 could have turned into such a time.

  • 1 decade ago

    Voice of liberty lies.

    A real look at violent crime stats will show New York isn't even on the top twenty.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

    Tired of NRA freaks misrepresenting? Me too.

    Yes, there should be adequate gun laws that maniacs cannot get guns.

    No, we need not dismantle the second amendment... it serves a good purpose.

    But do guns make us free and safe? Jury is out, with statistics showing that there are huge numbers of deaths from guns left unlocked in a house with children around. Do they prevent crime? Maybe, but they also escalate the chance of incidental harm to others.

    Somewhere between the crazy law of the old west mentality, and the rational need to keep guns out of maniac's hands, there lies an answer.

    But people like Voice of Liberty, above, need to be called on their bogus statistics.

  • 1 decade ago

    no one is suggesting that anyone be banned from owning guns.

    i fail to see how placing some controls on sales at gun shows equates to wanting to take everyone's guns away.

    the loopholes that exist in these gun shows makes it way too easy for people in gangs, people with records or crazy people to aquire guns with literally no check whatever.

    the people in cities with violent crimes very frequently go to states with lax gun laws - buy up guns and then resell them to gang members and criminals - who i think everyone can agree - should not be able to so easily get guns.

    i simply don't understand the right wing mindset that says the govt should be able to so easily violoate other constitutional rights - like warrantless wiretapping - but how the right for anyone (and i mean ANYONE) to own any high powered rifle with armor piercing bullets is beyond bizarre.

    but i think it would also explain why the murder rate (in spite of the phony stats above) in places like south carolina is more than twice the rate in massachusetts...

  • Dan
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    There is actual Illegal gun regulations all over the place.

    To Myself, gun control means using two hands

  • 1 decade ago

    20% of U.S. Violent Crime occurs in 4 cities: New York, Chicago, Washington D.C., & Detroit. These cities have near prohibition laws regarding handgun ownership.

    1976- Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Effect: Murder has risen 134%while the national murder rate has dropped 2%

    .

    New York City - Up 15% between 1998 and 1999. The SAME timeframe that new handgun restrictions came into effect.

    In 1986, Florida Adopted the Right-To-Carry law, allowing citizens to carry firearms. The results from 1987-1996:

    Homicide Rate: DECREASED 36%

    Homicide by Firearm: DECREASED 37%

    Homicide by Handgun: DECREASED 41%

    (Statistics showed a National average of 2% decrease in homicide rate during the same time period)

    93% of Police officers believe law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase a firearm for self-defense or sport.

    Following the virtual complete gun ban in the UK, great success was reported... The claim is that violent crime committed with firearms decreased by 76%. This is probably true, but what about violent crime NOT committed by firearms?... That rose 230%. What this means is that while criminals were not committing as much gun crime, they were committing more crimes using other methods. In the same timeframe however, the US violent crime rate (where there was no such gun ban) decreased by 3%.

    Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals over 2.4 million times every year -- or 6,575 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used 60 times MORE OFTEN to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. - National Safety Council

    According to the CDC, the total number of gun deaths by homicide, suicide and accidents in 2004 was around 29,000. Now, keep in mind that the gun was only the means of violence. In 2004 there were only 1,100 accidental deaths from guns in the US, meaning that if guns were not a factor, there would still be around 27,000 violence-related deaths and suicides which occured by using other means.

    Last year, 42,000 Americans died in automobile accidents, so logically, you would have to outlaw cars before you can outlaw guns, because they are responsible for way many more deaths than a gun.

    Virginia Tech is a prime example of how gun laws fail. The university strictly enforced a no weapon policy on its premeses. Consequently, the honest students were not armed, even if they were licensed, it still was not permited. One criminal broke the rules with a gun he bought illegally and slaughtered 32 students. Had any one of those students or witnesses been armed, they would have been able to neutralize the threat and saved at least some lives.

    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

    http://www.truepatriot.com/crime_stats_p...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You are thinking and that is good. An important thing to keep in mind is that criminals who think, will prefer an unarmed, defenseless victim and will steer clear of a potential victim if they suspect that the victim is armed and capable of defending "itself" . That is why a few towns in the US have tried to pass laws that encourage all citizens to be armed and able to defend themselves. There is a history of less crime in areas where the citizens are armed, like in Switzerland, for example, where virtually every home is armed..

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    gun "control", good. gun "ban", bad. because guns are everywhere and all the bad guys have them, the free and law abiding citizens of this country actually have a right to defend themselves, and this right is called the "second amendment". you see, the long and bitter battle over this amendment being waged by the totalitarian leftists in this country, when boiled down, is all about removing the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from both the bad guys AND A GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED BY THOSE TOTALITARIAN LEFTISTS. why do suppose our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, put it in the constitution in the first place? to protect us from THEM! never give an inch on the second amendment my friends...if you know what's good for you that is.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.