Do you really think so? Thinking back to the Wild West I would beg to differ.. Don't get me wrong.. I'm a gun owner and my definition of gun control varies between hitting what you aim at and admitting that people don't need a Howitzer for their Hummer... but seriously.. historically speaking I don't see this as a valid argument.. your thoughts?
2007-07-11 07:03:24 · 13 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because everyone would be dead, having shot everyone else. It would be very peaceful. So I guess you're right.
This is the stupidest thing I have read today. I'm going to go to bed now.
2007-07-11 07:08:20 · answer #1 · answered by Ben 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I personally don't have a gun because I prefer to stay non-violent because I know how sad death is, no matter who it is. I really do agree with you, but if less people had guns (and such was enforced) it would naturally follow that there would be fewer gun crimes. The other side is that gun laws don't work, which is sometimes a valid argument. For more info you might watch bowling for Colombine, and research into the gun laws of other nations like Spain, France, Germany, and Canada. They've got it pretty much figured out.
2007-07-11 07:18:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's difficult to project, because the examples around the world show no single way is right.
If we look at Japan, with a homogenous population, a peoples that have been oppressed & repressed for centuries, where they were to be obedient subjects to whatever emperor or war-lord claimed them, then they have almost no gun ownership and little crime.
We can also look at Switzerland, less homogenous than Japan, but with compulsory military service that requires keeping one's weapons at home, so a very high % of homes with guns, and very little crime.
But, statistically, in the US it has been shown that the more law-abiding citizens own and carry guns, the safer the streets become, since most criminals want to survive their crimes.
All the wild-eyed claims that letting law-abiding citizens have greater leeway in carrying concealed weapons will result in the "Wild West" have not only NOT materialized, but crime has actually decreased.
It doesn't necessarily mean that 100% gun ownership would continue that trend, because not 100% of people are law-abiding or responsible.
2007-07-11 07:18:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Historical evidence whould indicate that society now is much less violent than it once was.
The problem is not with legitimate gun ownership, but with several other factors:
Straw buyers - people who buy guns *for* criminals. In my area, (Philly) this is a major problem. Last I looked we we approaching 210 murders this year in the city proper, the vast majority committed with handguns, and far too many the deaths of innocents.
Poor control of legitimately owned guns - If they aren't locked up, children and teens get them, and that's a problem not necessarily reflected in murder statistics.
Gangsta chic - you ain't nothin' if you haven't got a 9
General anger - people seem to want to fight at the drop of a hat nowadays.
2007-07-11 07:25:45 · answer #4 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The international statistics on this are totally mixed.
Some countries have lots of gun and almost no violent crime, some countries have lots of guns and exist in a state of quasi-anarchy where violence is out of control.
I think there are more fundamental variables tied to violent crime rates and gun laws have little effect compared things like poverty rates and culture.
With no proof to show me that gun restrictions prevent violent crime and theft, I will err on the side of the most freedom.
2007-07-11 07:21:15 · answer #5 · answered by freedom first 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, crime would go down, and has gone down in areas where the population is armed. Don't believe me? Then consider this: Why do you suppose all the looney toons chose to shoot up schools instead of police stations? Schools are soft targets. In a cop shop, everyone is armed and dangerous, and the looney toon isn't going to get too far before somebody bags him! There is such a thing as a deterrent effect. Having it oftentimes means you don't have to use it! So it really does reduce violence and crime!
2007-07-11 07:13:53 · answer #6 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldnt be here if it wasnt for my gun, I was run off the road years ago coming home after getting off work at hospital about 12 in the am. It would never be right if only criminals had them.
2007-07-11 07:16:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately the opposite has been tried where they have disarmed the law abiding citizens in DC, Chicago and New York City.
These areas have the highest murder and other violent crime rates in the country.
"Other than the murders our crime rate is pretty low" Marion Barry mayor of DC and convicted crack head.
It makes a criminal think twice about robbing a bank when he doesn't know which one of the nice little ladies is going to put a bullet in his head.
2007-07-11 07:12:04 · answer #8 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
there are a few place where it is a law to have guns and they have lower crime. Also where there is carry conceal it is very low crime rates so get the facts strait before you ask. And any one who tries to harm me or some one else will find out what carry conceal means the hard way.God Bless the 2nd amendment and the NRA
2007-07-11 07:12:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think crime would go down. The only people who will comply with "gun control" are law abiding citizens who, by their definition, do not break laws.
Criminals will not follow the rules. Why shouldn't I be able to defend myself and my family?
2007-07-11 07:09:05 · answer #10 · answered by nom de paix 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I wish that I could carry gun. The criminals carry them, I want a fighting chance
2007-07-11 07:17:13 · answer #11 · answered by John 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋