With 294 murders in Philadelphia this year,80% involving handguns, is it time to ban handguns and put in more

Question

gun control measures as recommended by the city? Or do we fall back onto that old chestnut about the constitution allowing guns so that we can keep killing each other?

Answer 1

So if 80% of the murders were made by steak knives,

Would you be thinking we should ban steak knives also ?

Maybe we should ban Philadelphian's, since they seem to be the one's killing people.

Answer 2

Sorry about the "old chestnut" but I really do not think doing away with the Bill of Rights is what the solution is. And yes the 2nd Amendment does apply to citizens and not just to the military and the National Guard-Militia at the time of the writing was defined as all free able bodied males between the ages of 16 to 65 (might have the ages a little off). Since criminals are not allowed to purchase weapons legally to start with what makes you think banning them would work? The prohibition of alcohol worked and you must believe that illegal drugs don't exist since they are illegal. If a market exists then some one will fill the market. Philadelphia already has more restrictive gun laws then many other locations with lower homicide rates, as does New York, but it has not solved the problem. The problem is the people using them; make a long mandatory sentence add-on to a crime committed with a firearm, no shortening and no parole or probation-You use a firearm in the commission of a crime then you get whatever sentence the judge hands down plus 5 or ten years mandatory in prison-you pick the length. If people want to kill people they will do it; the means might change but then what do you do? Outlaw knives, baseball bats, or whatever they use. You don't talk about banning cars because drunk drivers kill people-you talk about the drunk drivers, why should this be different?

Answer 3

Yep! And not just in Philadelphia, but everywhere too.

In Australia, you can't own semi-automatics anymore, and handguns can only be taken to a range.

And yes, statistics show a lowered murder rate, as people are more likely to survive stabbings, poisonings and beatings than gunshots. That and some potential murderers would only try it using guns. Even if it only saves a minority of potential murder victims a year, it's still worth it - guns are good for only killing people, animals and range targets.

There's talk that criminals wouldn't obey a firearms ban - probably. But without a fresh source to obtain new ones, they'll be eventually starved of them over time. Yeah, it seems all those thugs weren't able to illegally obtain firearms after the Australian gun control laws were put in place, contrary to what some gun nuts predicted.

Control guns for everybody except the police and the military. A criminal decides the terms on which a crime starts - there's no guarantee an armed citizen is going to win a gunfight with an armed criminal.

Answer 4

If I thought this would work, I might be willing to take your side. I think the constitutional issue is debatable in regards to handguns.

However, with federalism in the United States, we have had a variety of different sets of gun laws in different states. There is no evidence that gun laws prevent murders. This is likely because murderers obtain their guns illegally most of the time anyways, and there are so many guns out there that it will be a very long time before a criminal has a hard time finding a gun. And even if you do get rid of all the handguns, you'll just end up with sawed off shotguns and rifles, instead, and these are even more deadly.

The result, then, is that you are proposing to outlaw behavior, gun ownership, which, in and of itself, is harmless, because it might potentially lead to behavior which is clearly already illegal.

I suppose this might lead to a small reduction in murders if criminals caught for some other sentence also get locked up for an extra year or two for gun possession, but it seems to me that most people in favor of stricter gun control laws are also people who refuse to believe that keeping criminals off the streets through tougher sentencing is the one tried and true way to reduce crime through government actions.

Answer 5

A gun will never hurt a person until it falls into the wrong hands. Taking gus away from honest citizens scores a huge victory for the bad guys, as he now has the edge over all of us. Give the bad guy a reason to fear the people. People greatly outnumber cops so, it's more likely the bad guy will meet his justifiable demise at the hands of a good guy.

Banning guns puts all of us at the mercy of the bad guys. That's not acceptable. End of argument. The answer is:

No more "let's make a deal" in court.There should be no nonsense jail terms for those who committ crimes with ANY WEAPON, not just guns. Get rid of the bleeding hearts and play good ol' country hardball with bad guys. Let the bad guy know who is in charge, and what happens if he or she puts us to the test.

Answer 6

Hitler was in favor of total gun control. Look where that led the Germans.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, because they simply steal them from legitimate owners and dump them when the get too 'hot'. Certainly, the old saw, "an armed society is a polite society" was put to the test durning the days of the old west in the USA. History shows us just how impolite society can get when everyone carries a weapon of such power.

Saddly, there is no ultimate solution to this, beyond the total evolution of all human kind on a global scale. However, the total restriction of gun ownership only makes it easier for a government to oppress its people. Again, just look at any historical situation where the 'people' are not allowed to own weapons outside police and millitary.

Japan is about the only country where guns are banned in the general populace, and is still a fairly peaceful country. Of course, they're only peaceful now, after thier miserably failed attempt to conquor us. They, like Al Queda, made a spectacular opening shot with the attack on Pearl Harbor. A terrible mistake, for which they paid a terrible price. Also, please note that they are now one of our closest allies, with megabucks worth of trade between our two contries.

The ultimate irony of all this is that my father-in-law was a Pearl Harbor survivor; and in his last years he owned a Toyota. A great 'swords to plowshares' story.

China once said the US was only a paper tiger; to which Japan replied, "...yes, they are a paper tiger; but a paper tiger with nuclear teeth..." And we are still the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons in a war, and on citizens. We remain the country with the most nuclear weapons still in storage, ready for use should any country present sufficient threat to our national security.

And, yes, if you take away citizens' guns, they'll just find other ways to maim, mutilate and kill thier neighbors for all the same reasons they do it now. Guns simply make it a little easier for any loose nut to point and shoot. But without guns, they will still use knives, broken bottles and baseball bats for the job. It is near impossible to make life totally safe. It is part of the package deal, and the sooner we quit being paranoid over it all, we can get on with living, and pray we don't run into this sort of problem.

Answer 7

Here is a novel idea, lets keep the handguns and get rid of the people who commit these crimes. There are way more people who own handguns and use them responsibly for recreation and hunting than people who use them to kill. Why should the responsible people have their rights taken from them for the scum of the earth who commit murder. Utilize the death penalty. Sentence these people and actually carry it out, I guarantee those numbers will decline. Lets hold the criminal and not the law abiding citizen accountable. And why is this posted in the military forum?

Answer 8

There are millions of handguns around, probably a million in Philadelphia and the suburbs alone. How about finding the 294 murderers, taking them out in a field and blowing their brains out with their own guns?

Answer 9

I don't have a gun or do I plan to get one. But cities with gun bans traditionally have higher gun crime rates.
Banning guns will not prevent a criminal from committing crime with them. Ever heard of the black market. Banning guns only takes them away from the people who actually obey they law. So when you ban guns you end up with criminals carrying guns taking advantage of an unarmed law abiding peoples. Which is why crime levels are higher in areas who ban guns.
I am no gun advocate, just an advocate for logic and reason.

Answer 10

I'm a liberal

It's time to let all law abiding citizens to pack

Then no one in their right mind would dare attack another because they may get blown away in the process.

So how many people would die because half the people are packing?

Probably considerably less then the 294

Remember, put anti gun laws in place, only outlaws will have guns.

There are plenty of gun laws -- America doesn't need more. The current laws only need to be enforced.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 11

Now we're getting into "fundamental rights" issues. However, with the extremely high murder rate, the city may be able to pass an ordinance regulating hand guns (maybe not banning them completely). That is, they may be able to pass the strict scrutiny test applied by the courts.

These are tough issues with lost of questions: "will banning handguns really lower crime?"; "Will only the 'bad guys' have the guns?"; and so on.