What do you think would happen if guns were outlawed?

Question

What do you think would happen if guns were outlawed from citizens,but military and police were still able to bear arms?Would this be good or bad,and why?

Answer 1

There would be a massive increase in armed robberies, rapes, and hot burglaries.

Police would respond after the fact.

Answer 2

Bad. In the long run the public would suffer as the bad guys would also still be armed. In many places such as the UK, they have asked citizens to turn in their guns. What happens is the citizens do, but the bad guys dont. And once the bad guys realize that they dont have to worry about breaking into a house and getting shot, the number of Burglarys will go up. What needs to take place here is there needs to be harsh penalties for gun violations. Unfortunately there arent enough jails. And although I am a huge pro-gun fan, I do believe that they should be registered like motor vehicles. You dont get a tag with them but if the serial number is entered you know who it belongs to. This would also help with the firearms are stolen. Though people with no criminal background do commit some heinous crimes such as VA Tech and Columbine, disarming the citizens would cause a much greater loss of life in the long run. There just arent enough police to control all the bad guys that would be running around with guns when the citizens arent armed

Answer 3

If guns were outlawed, criminals would still get guns. Case in point; many drugs are illegal, but look how many people obtain them. Another case in point; Columbine. Those boys did not obtain their guns legally. How about gang members. Did they go through the 3 day waiting period and buy their pieces all nice and legal? No of course not. Essentially they are outlawed (in many cases) but those not allowed to have them, still do.

It was someone carrying a legal concealed weapon that stopped the Trolley Square massacre in my town recently. Many more would have died if that gun had been illegal.

If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.

Answer 4

Look, 90% of the whole planet work this way, and US have more and more criminality problems... So if you think that getting 400 millions guns in a country of 300 millions will prevent an army to invade the US... Then you are sleeping with the dinosaurs!! Guns are useless in winning anything.
Just look at what may happen if you go in civil war again... Not too much will survived it!! Even during Katrina, instead of helping each others in face of adversity, they bring out the guns to steal stores and threaten others. I don't call it a society at all when you see this. Over here we got a ice storm a few years ago, 3 million peoples did miss electricity for about 2 weeks, everything was shut down, polices were expecting a huge rise in crime rate, but we were surprised, almost no crimes has been commited during this emergency period!! I wish all Americans do the same in such period, but then in such period an honest american with a gun, will think he can do something, and this something is often the wrong thing... This is they way criminality rise, and this society is perfect for it!!

Answer 5

There is already a black market for guns... the high-powered, ultra-lethal ones such as machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.

If guns were outlawed for citizens altogether, this black market would only expand, and criminals would still be able to get their hands on them.

The only thing the government would be accomplishing is giving criminals more ways to make more money.

Answer 6

This would be BAD. Guns in the hands of reponsible citizens who own them legally are not causing problems. Those are the guns that would be gone. Criminals have illegal guns, not registered ones, it wouldn't affect them at all, except it might be easier to rob or kill people, knowing that the general population is unarmed. What needs to be done is to utilize the laws already in place, not to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns.

Answer 7

there replaced into no longer a combat against the confiscation of gold based upon the Fourth substitute while that got here about. Now there are attorneys who combat for the terrific of photographers to leap on the hood of a moving automobile to take an up skirt photograph to coach the shortcoming of undies on youthful starlets under the 1st substitute freedom of the click secure practices. they gained't confiscate weapons by using fact A. attorneys have already fought it and gained, B The preferrred court docket has stated the persons does no longer propose government authority, and C Gun proprietors will KILL with the intention to maintain their weapons. squaddies comprehend that being ordered to circulate to a city with orders to confiscate and shoot resisters potential that somebody is going to their homestead city with an identical orders. could you do it? As a customary, could you order squaddies on your place city to do it?

Answer 8

Bad - because then criminals would still have guns and we'd be more subject to a military coup, which is the reason the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment.

Answer 9

Criminals would still have them. Gun laws only affect the law-abiding. Criminals are not adhering to existing laws of any sort, including gun laws. Alert the criminal element that you are disarming your citizenry and he interprets it as an invitation. Criminals are interested in easy opportunities, which is why they are criminals to begin with.

Answer 10

Bad. Only criminals would have them. And a few cops. There would be lots and lots of crime. People defend themselves with guns alot more than most people realize. The liberal media doesn't like to report it. They much prefer to report about a child accidentally shooting himself or someone else. (extremely rare).