Do lax gun laws in America lead to more lives being saved or more lives being lost?

Question

That really is the million dollar question for me in the gun debate: Does the ease of obtaining firearms in this country result in more lives saved or more lives lost? From what I've seen over the years, the number of gun deaths seem to far out-number gun "saves." And the stat that only 46 gun deaths occured in all of Britain (which has super tough gun laws) last year as opposed to 579 deaths in New York city alone certainly is eye opening. What's your take on this contentious issue?

Answer 1

Excellent question!

I have read so many biased reports that I have given up on trying to find an answer.

But no matter what the answer is, gun ownership is a constitutional right, and it would take a constitutional amendment to substantially restrict those rights.

Answer 2

There aren't any honest answers to this question. It all depends on your ideology (except for an extreme minority).

Does that number of gun deaths included the bad guys that got killed? If it does, then your 'saves' number should be bigger and the 'deaths' number smaller. I realize dead is dead, but lumping all the deaths together gives a misleading result. At the very least, there should be a distinction between people murdered with a firearm and perps killed by a citizen while committing a crime.

As far as Britain's gun laws and ours: Britain hasn't allowed private ownership of firearms for a very long time. The US has allowed such ownership for an equally long time. There are millions of firearms loose in the US. What is the likelihood that they all get confiscated if guns are banned? Who would adhere to such a ban? Criminals? not likely! It would be you and I that have to obey the law. Now, if criminals, who don't care about any silly bans, know nobody else has a gun in their home, do you think it more or less likely that they'll try something? Right now, most burglaries happen with nobody is home. Why is that, do you think? Perhaps its because the homeowner might own a gun and the criminal doesn't want to be a statistic.

Answer 3

Forget guns for a minute;
Compare other crime statistics . Your are talking apples and oranges comparing Briton to the US.The history is different.
The peoples mindsets , the sizes of the countries, the obvious economic differences, the varried cultural differences, all add up to apples and oranges.
One hears of most of the gun deaths that occur. Do we even have an inkling of how many times a life was saved by a gun? I don't. In most cases the threat of a gun is enough to back someone down. 2 lives saved. Would you advertize that if there were no witnesses ? I don't think many would , not the ones in their right minds.

If this guy had used another method, would you have that tool or object banned, and don't say no other object or tool could have accomplish this event. I could put forward at least 3 , readily available.

Answer 4

Lax gun laws lead to more lives being SAVED because criminals rarely used legally acquired weapons anyway.

Guns should be widely available to all law-abiding citizens for the purpose of self-defense. There's no greater weapon and no better deterrent to crime. It's ridiculous to think that banning firearms would make them less available to those who are determined to acquire one. If that were the case, then there would be no illegal narcotics in this country. Put a gun into every household in America and train the family living there to use it safely and crime would plummet. Criminals would be so much less likely to enter a home to rob or hurt people if there was a high likelihood of the people living there being able to defend themselves.

Stricter gun laws would not have prevented the killer in the recent VT tragedy from acquiring a weapon, for example. If he was determined enough to actually perpetrate this heinous crime, he would have found a way to purchase one on the black market, the same way a dope fiend can always find their next blast.

Answer 5

Violent crime has been dropping in the USA and major city's for over a decade. Yet, private gun ownership and gun sales have increased.

When I was a Police Officer (retired now) I was in hundreds of homes (responding to complaints) that were occupied by law abiding armed citizens. Never once was I attacked, assaulted nor was the intent implied. As a matter of fact, I too am a firearms enthusiast and often shared this with the armed home owner. It was good for Police - Citizen communication, breaking down false barriers and stigmas.

I have faced guns in the hands of criminals. These were people who by law are banned from even being around guns. ( The law didn't stop them)

I also faced a man with Molotov cocktails of which he manufactured himself.

I faced teens with bombs made from house hold items and mental cases with mail order ninja swords.

I've also seen dozens of cases where a home owner defended his property but displaying his gun and never firing a shot and a few who did shoot and won.

Are you aware that kids who are taught to hunt and fish are less likely to become involved in drugs and crime?

Answer 6

Your question has one important flaw in it. both confiscating guns and in no way confiscating guns won't be able to be performed concurrently in California or everywhere else to attempt for consequences. If lets in a roundabout way isolate one state and characteristic gun administration measures applied and together have yet another isolated state with out those measures, then perhaps i ought to respond to your question. in the different case, i should be in basic terms guessing. i will guess that attempting to confiscate guns from the mentally disturbed and criminals would reason some lack of life. the article you referenced says: “we may be able to maintain lives by technique of having guns and ammunition out of the fingers of the incorrect human beings. we may be able to maintain lives if each gun proprietor knows the thanks to wisely cope with those guns. And if we may be able to maintain lives, we ought to act to take action.” That sounds suspiciously like what Wayne LaPierre, the mouthpiece for the NRA, stated as sturdy measures for governments to undertake.

Answer 7

what do laws have to do with this? Legally obtained guns are not the common weapon of choice for committing crimes. they are usually either stolen from a local house or purchased on the black market.