Do you really think that banning firearms is the answer?

Question

If firearms were banned, what would prevent a criminal from attacking me with a sword, knife, bow, slingshot, catapult, brick, screwdriver, rabid dog, hammer, board, flashlight, shard of glass, fist, pen, poison dart, handfull of mud, large book, moldy cheese, CD, venemous snake, pointy stick, frying pan, pinecone, bedsheet, wet towel or any other sort of weapon that I'm not going to bother to type?
By the way, I have a sword and I know how to defend myself with it.

Answer 1

No way...People kill people by firing the weapon.
Any of your above examples could be used in one way or another to harm or kill someone so why not ban them?

Answer 2

Guns are more devastating and can be fired from a relatively long distance( Ok, maybe you can use throw and arrow or a Ninja star, but that is not the same)

Banning guns will not help, there needs to be a buy back program of sorts. And even with that it will need a few years before there is any measurable effect on the crime.

Banning guns should be done along with other things that would help reduce crime rates, like education, more effective fight against drugs, a better economy, etc.

Answer 3

No, banning firearms is not the answer. Only law abiding people turn in their guns, criminals keep them -- thats what criminals do, they disobey laws including gun laws.

Then think about this: if you were a criminal, would you prefer your victims to be armed or unarmed. Unarmed of course. If honest people suddenly didn't have guns that would make it that much easier for criminals to victimize us.

Gun bans have actually been instituted in other countries and they've been collosal failures. Australia implemented a big gun ban in the '90s and saw crime rates soar afterwards. There was a major crime study done by Holland's Leiden University that concluded that Australia is now the most dangerous nation in the industrialized world -- the US wasn't even in the "top 10"

Answer 4

Guns kill people. People kill people. But only kids with guns can kill other kids on accident. You can tuck a gun in your waist ban, the sword would be a little difficult to hide. Of all the weapons you listed, the gun is the only weapon that the easiest to operate with little knowledge. It is also the only weapon that you listed that can be used a mile away with killing power and accuracy. I would rather guns be banned and criminals find other ways to commit crime. Meanwhile, I'll still defend myself and my family with my bare hands and nothing else. I will adapt and overcome!

Answer 5

i'm with the majority right here. Banning firearms won't do a damn element. we would desire to circulate after the folk who dedicate crime. you understand...the criminals. For starters we would desire to fasten up the crazies for all times. they'd desire to be in a company, no longer walking the streets. we would desire to construct greater prisons and require each inmate to serve daily they are given. additionally we would desire to execute the worst of the worst. Make life in reformatory so poor that no one will choose to circulate there. No television, no libraries, no activities, and bring back the chain gangs and rock piles. supply them surplus nutrition and the only drink they'd desire to get is water. Take a lesson from the Sheriff in Arizona he has the dazzling theory.

Answer 6

God no! As it happens, a very interesting "The Simpsons" episode was on last night on this very topic. It was one of the later "Treehouse of Horror" shows. The basic premise is that Lisa convinces everyone that guns are bad and they should all give them up. They do (by turning the guns into playground equipment! HA!) and then they are taken over by gun-toting lunatic zombies. While I realize this is a cartoon, it is EXACTLY what will happen if we are forced to give up our defense.

Archie Bunker had one of the best ideas ever to prevent plane hijackings: give everyone on board a gun.

Guns are good. It is people that are bad.

NOVA: You'd be willing to sacrifice your freedoms for a few measely bucks?

Answer 7

No they will never be able to ban fire arms at least in the United States because there are too many outstanding in the public. I myself have 5 hand guns and 7 rifles so if they band fire arms here I can just keep one and sell 11 to criminals.

Ha I'd like to see the government try to take them away without paying me!

Answer 8

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...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

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice : Robert H. Parker

The government is merely a servant — merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Mark Twain

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
George Washington

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Answer 9

It wouldn't decrease crime, f course, but it would reduce the number of deadly assaults. Those kids who start shooting at schools couldn't have so many victims with a knife. You can kill with guns too easily. Without them I'm sure there would be less deaths.

Answer 10

Criminals don't care about the law; that's why it wouldn't matter if firearms are banned because only law abiding citizens would honor the ban. Criminals would keep their guns, and the ban would ensure regular people are defenseless.