Gun Control - How does taking guns away from law following citizens help lower crime?

Question

law abiding citizens are forced to get rid of their guns(following the law)...... while criminals who never registered for their guns(stolen most of the time) keep their guns to commit crimes on a gunless public.

Fact: guns aren't going anywhere even if they weren't sold anymore(criminals aren't going to turn their guns in)

Gun control:
law abiding citizens are forced to get rid of their guns(following the law)...... while criminals who probably aren't registered for their guns(stolen some of the time) keep their guns to commit crimes on a gunless public.

Answer 1

IT DOESN'T. SEE ARTICLES, BELOW:

The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, CA, 05/13/06
State: ca
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2006
Mike Smith was napping when the sound of someone breaking into his home jarred him back to consciousness. He clutched a .38-caliber pistol with one hand and dialed 9-1-1 with the other. According to reports, when he stepped into the hallway, he saw the silhouette of a man through his window blinds and an alleged female burglar in the foyer. When she stepped toward him, he gripped the pistol with both hands and fired several shots. Both suspects fled. The woman was apprehended by police and was taken to the hospital, where she was listed in stable condition. Her male accomplice was still being sought. "There's no doubt that committing burglary is extremely dangerous ... because you don't know ... if the homeowner is going to be armed," said Sgt. Terrell Marshall of the Sacramento Police Department.


The San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, Calif., 02/28/06
State: ca
American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/2006
Sandra Phillips was about to take her two dogs for a walk when, according to police, an armed assailant dressed in black and wearing a ninja-style mask grabbed her outside her garage. The woman struggled, broke away and ran screaming into the house with the attacker in pursuit. Her screams awoke her husband, Lou Phillips, who grabbed his .357 Mag. revolver and fired three times. The intruder died at the scene. He had been carrying a gun, handcuffs, tarps, a blindfold and, curiously, a pocket full of hot dogs. The local police chief said the incident was "completely out of the blue" for the town.

Answer 2

Personally, I always love this question.

Did you ever stop to think how many things are banned in America? Speeding? Running a stop sign? Skipping school? Murder? Drugs? Jay Walking?

How many of these things occur everyday? How many do you do personally? Every morning, I am guilty of speeding on the way to work. In college, I never used a cross walk. When I lived in the city, I could buy drugs if that was my thing. Murder....just open the newspaper.

Banning things does not work. It didn't work for alcohol, drugs, or anything else. I'm not saying that everything should be legalized, I'm sinply pointing out that breaking the law is a fact of life.

People ask where "criminals" will get their guns if guns are banned? How many cocoa plant field are there in America? How many opium poppies are in America? Not very many if any. These items are ILLEGALLY imported.

There will always be a market for guns. In a defenseless society, guns would be the ultimate weapon. There is little defense against a gun versus a hand held object. If there are no law abiding citizens carrying guns, an armed criminal with a gun has nothing to worry about.

Banning guns is nothing more than putting a band-aid on a severed artery. It is treatment of a symptom, not a fix for the problem. Why is gun-violence occuring today? Your guess is as good as mine. If a person can find the answer to this, they'd be a hero in society. My guess is the breakdown of basic social services and social norms, but I am an Engineer, not a sociologist.

Personally, I'd argue for a federal CCW permits valid anywhere in the US. Neither a totally armed population nor an unarmed population is good for society. Either would change the dynamics of crime in a negative way (an unarmed population would encourage violent crime due to defenselessness, a totally armed society would encourage criminals to kill victims instead of letting them walk away). I think somewhere in the middle is the happy medium. If a criminal doesn't know if a person is packing heat or not, would it be worth taking the chance to rob them if it means possible death (my thinking might be flawed as many criminals aren't exactly rational people to begin with)

The teachers always said we must learn history so we don't repeat it. Banning anything has not worked. This fact can not be disputed. Regulating industries has been far more successful at keeping the companies and consumers honest.

Answer 3

First of all thanks to the previous poster for getting another poster's facts straightened out. 2nd, in 2004 the CDC did an extensive amount of research and despite the fact that gun control has been around in this country since 1938 they claimed they couldn't find enough data to show that gun control has a positive impact on crime. I just have to wonder how much data they need.

The answer to your question is that gun control does not directly correlate to less crime in any provable way.

According to Professor Gary Kleck, a criminologist who did extensive work on the subject with intent of proving that more gun control would equal less crime, the fact is that the more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is.

Gun control does not work. But the effect of gun control is that more and more people become more and more dependent of government and that what is gun control is really about. Many people in government can't tolerate the idea of independent citizens.

Answer 4

"Well traveled" is not well read or well researched. Let's see what a DOJ study says about criminals getting weapons:

"... gun control measures that attempted to interdict the retail sale of weapons to criminals through legitimate channels miss perhaps as many as five-sixths of the criminal firearms transactions." - James Wright and Peter Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, (Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1986), p19

Even gun banners occasionally give in to honesty:

"One tenet of the National Rifle Association's faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization [Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc.] is wrong. Criminals don't buy handguns in gun stores. That's why they are criminals." - Josh Sugarmann, then the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns ("The NRA Is Right," The Washington Monthly, June 1987)

To answer the original question, forbidding citizens from owning firearms does not lower crime.

Answer 5

It doesn't do anything except make people more vulnerable to crime. It is a fact that states allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, have lower crime. I believe that this is because crimes are able to be stopped or prevented from ever happening because someone near by had firearm to stop the criminal from doing the crime.

Gun control makes people control a lot easy for the government. If the government restricted firearm possession in America to the extent in countries like Britain or Australia, there would be nothing stopping them from becoming oppressive. I mean you can't vote a dictator out of power.

Answer 6

"Complainers must simply borrow their neighbor's gun unless their determine clears." right. And in many states, that right there's a criminal. "weapons that democrats want outlawed or anything are weapons that don't serve a valuable cause for hunting or whatever." The 2nd modification shouldn't be about searching. It's in regards to the correct of the people to have the weapons essential to overthrow the federal government if it turns into tyrannical, as the Founding Fathers had simply completed. If we simplest had looking weapons, we would not stand a risk in opposition to extra robust weapons of a future tyrannical govt. As of correct now, anyone purchasing a firearm has to provide identification and move an instant background determine, and a few states have a separate verify of their own. Common gun control legal guidelines are fair and sane. The ones which can be being offered are a knee-jerk reaction to a quite small main issue. The worst a part of the whole deal is that strict gun manage laws only harm law-abiding individuals. I own firearms, and that i needed to leap by means of a few governmental hoops to make the purchases. It could were a lot simpler for me to purchase them on the black market, which is what criminals do. Criminals don't care about gun manipulate laws. Make weapons fully illegal, and criminals will still get weapons. Gun rights advocates recognize and recognize this, and because of this we're in opposition to additional gun legal guidelines. There will have to be no ready period, no nothing. When you meet the criteria to possess a firearm, you will have to get it virtually instantly (assuming, of path, that you can pay for it).

Answer 7

Several answers to your question...

First, where do you think the "criminals" get their guns? Answer: most of them bought them legally (something like 65%) -- they weren't "criminals" when they bought them, they had no record -- they only became criminals after they used their legally purchased guns to commit a crime. The ones who didn't buy them legally usually stole them from somebody who *did* buy them legally. So basically, nearly every single gun ever used in a crime was at one time purchased legally. Stop legal purchases of guns, and the "criminals" won't be able to get guns anymore -- at least not as easily as they do now.

Second -- can you show how a law-abiding citizen owning a gun prevents crime? Because statistics say it doesn't -- and in fact it makes crime worse. The areas of the country with the most liberal gun ownership laws have in general the highest crime rates, while the areas with the most restrictive gun laws have in general the lowest crime rates. Other countries that completely forbid private gun ownership have crime rates hundreds of times less than the US -- consistently. Private gun ownership makes crime WORSE, not better. That's a proven fact.

Your thinking is much like early cold-war thinking by both the US and Russia -- they have this weapon, so I have to have a bigger one! That led to nothing but an escalation of tension and close calls that nearly led to outright war. It was only when disarmament began that things got better -- if you have a weapon around easily available, there's a good chance you'll use it. Same applies here. Do you know that less than 1% of ALL privately-owned guns are ever used for self-protection or to prevent a crime? Do you know that well over 25% of privately owned LEGALLY owned guns are used to COMMIT a crime? The numbers are most certainly not in favor of your argument...

Answer 8

Good question! I'm not sure how to answer you question. But I will tell you what I think Gun Control should be!

I think that gun shops should have more extensive back ground checks done on their customers. I feel people who want to own a gun, must go through gun safety training and pass!

Most of these accidents are PREVENTABLE! Gun control is locking up guns and properly handling them. Guns do not go off and shoot people. People shoot people.

Answer 9

Criminal Record Search Database : http://SearchVerifyInfos.com/Info