ANSWERS: 29
  • No, just less gunplay. If a person is violent, they will be violent with a gun or without it.
  • No! I have a concealed carry permit but the bulge on my right hip shows. That alone has deterred some bad guys.
  • No, in fact it would increase. A lack of weapons means that those who don't care for gun laws, have nothing to fear from those who obey laws. http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html
  • yes. studies have shown that when it is harder to commit a crime, less people do it.
  • Not necessarily - The violence inherent in people does not originate in their technology, but in their own hearts.
  • nope...If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
  • No, the level of violence would increase because criminals and thugs would realize that the common man can no longer defend himself. This is precisely what has happened in many places that have banned guns.
  • Bear arms? Why? There so hairy.... Oh you mean guns... No there would be more violence. The only people that would have guns would be the criminals. If any or all people have guns the criminals will not know who or when to commit a crime.
  • The harder it is to commit a crime, the less that crime is committed. The problem with America is the current number of guns, both legal and illegal. There's no real way to get Americans to turn in their guns. The "they can have it when they pry it from my cold dead fingers mentality" prevails here.
  • Possibly. But the cost would be that nearly all of the remaining violence would be perpetrated against the innocent.
  • Bear Season is in December in these parts.
  • You can never make it impossible to bear arms. You don't have to have a gun to arm yourself. I think Tim McVeigh did a good job of proving that. He only needed fertilizer and diesel fuel to commit one of the worse mass murders we've seen. What are you going to do: outlaw semis, trains, farming and lawn care in your quest to stop violence? Street gangs in the fifties were known for using "zip guns" made out of car antennas. They blew up and killed the user as often as their prey, but it didn't stop them trying. Once upon a time, you had to work pretty hard to get your hands on a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook, but now from what I understand, it is easily available on the web, so anyone can download it and figure out how to make weapons from easily available household materials. That is the first problem with trying to ban weapons. The second problem is that if you ban them, the only people who are going to turn them in are law-abiding citizens. Which means that every crook, thug and gangster out there is still going to be armed, and is now going to know that every citizen isn't and is easy prey. You can't unring a bell. We have 250 years worth of weapons out there, and you aren't going to get rid of them all. The third problem is that when the citizenry isn't armed, the government usually becomes the aggressor. That is why the founding fathers put the right to bear arms in the constitution. Throughout history, every tyrannical leader who planned to oppress his subjects first banned weapons. Then, after he'd collected the weapons and knew the citizenry couldn't defend themselves, he attacked. Read up on Hitler, and you'll see what I mean. As long as the government knows that we can defend ourselves, it keeps them honest. If you remove the right to bear arms, you get more violence, not less. Knowing that any given house may contain a heavily armed homeowner keeps both the crooks and the government wary and on their toes. It doesn't stop them altogether, but it slows them down, and that helps keep the violence down, not raises it. Anyone who tries to talk you into disarming to lower violence probably has an ulterior motive. So when someone tells you that removing that provision from the constitution would lower violence, you need to question closely what their motives might be: do they want to rob you? Do they want to take over the country? What exactly do they want to do?
  • more violence.....and also promotes a new underground business....like drug trafficing. they believe by legalizing marajuana a 300 billion/per/yr organization......will eliminate 2/3 of drug cartels from mexico. and that would be the only reason to legalize it(besides medical)
  • the assault weapon ban is not in effect. gun ownership is at an all time high. 48 states now allow concealed carry of handguns. gun crimes are at a 10 year low. Why would anyone want to reverse this trend?
  • well you know the saying,guns don't kill people,people kill people. you take the guns they will get a knife,take the knife they will get a rock. it will come down to choking you with their hands.our laws are not strict enough on people who commit a crime with a weapon. i had a perp who said,when he was put away. whats the worst? free room and board for the rest of my life?????. don't tell me that crime don't pay!!!!!!!!!.WOW. weapons are just a tool they use,if they were gone they would simply find something else.
  • No it would not man is naturally aggresive there would just be more stabbings or something of the sort and plus people having guns is a great thing from some perspectives like did you know that we would be the hardest country to invade do to the fact that we have the worlds largest no militarized infantry by that I mean that every one has or knows someone with a gun and can help protect there family and friends. but there should be better laws though I will agree with that
  • no, just different violence. human nature is still human nature, there would still be violence
  • this would be less of a country.
  • no, just less people with guns legally.
  • No, I do not beleive so.. as a criminal is not afraid to find an illegal arm or just use a baseball bat or tire iron or some other way to harm others and if anything they might be emboldened as they would know there victim would be unarmed... as it is far to few few people carry arms and perhaps more should....
  • No. Even if you managed to eliminate all weapons (an impossibility), people would just use their own arms (or legs or heads) to do violence against others.
  • I think that was a good and fairly asked question. Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding NO! Those who have criminal intent will intentionally prey on those who they think are defenseless. If you were going to committ a crime, would you choose to do it against someone you thought could be armed? Obviously, the answer to that is NO! Guns are inanimate objects, and by themselves do not committ crimes.
  • No, because then only the criminals would have the guns. Thats why gun controll doesnt work. Its easy to bring in illegal guns across the boarder or to get them some other way for criminals. It would deprive the people of their god given, founding fathers willed, right to self defense. There will always be ways for criminals to get guns, but if you ban the average citizen from having guns, crimes will still be comitted, because your banning the people who wouldnt normaly commit crimes any ways.
  • No there would not be less violence. There would however be more unprotected citizens in a world where poverty and greed prevails, because if those people are the only ones with illegal guns, the unarmed will become the unprotected and crime will escalate, given how easy it would then become. Also, the government knows this, and is actively trying to get the people's guns away from them, before they bring in martial law in some areas. The last thing they want is a citizen who is armed to have any advantage at all. Actually, armed or not, the last thing any citizen should want is a gun fight with the law, because sure as shit, they would lose. The law's guns outnumber the citizens, and so does the number of of enforcers.
  • nope. violent people will still buy guns from mobsters or the military or they'll use steak knives or sling shots. violent people just ought to, as in saudi arabia, have their arms chopped off. no more worries, mate.
  • There is a really simple set of statistics: There is way way less gun crime and fewer murders in countries with few guns and gun control than the USA. In the UK, a murder with a gun makes national headines !
  • No. The criminals and drug addicts will always have weapons. Taking away the law for the good people to bear arms would be a massacre about to happen. This is the only reason that crime has been kept in check to a degree, people allowed to bear arms to protect themselves.
  • Only if bears were armed. I support the right to arm bears as well as the right of humans to bear arms. II'm not ready to be a meal for a grizzly.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy