Poll: Gun Control: Does limiting who can get a gun reduce crime?

[Lithium381]

if guns are available SOMEWHERE we can get get them into the untied states and use them. guess who does that if it's illegal? criminals. sure a more substantial background check would help but if someone wants something, they'll get it.

 

[Saint Nick]

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no



*Roughly 16,225 nos removed. Don't be an... a jerk, it's very annoying for others to scroll through all that. -Admin DrPizza

 

[edro]

Keep in mind, most criminals are stupid and poor.
That alone helps prevent them from obtaining guns (legally or not).

 

[JulesMaximus]

If you could limit it to just law abiding citizens... sure.

But even then, you still have whackos who haven't broken any laws yet who can get guns legally.

 

[DrPizza]

Nope wouldnt work. If someone intent on killing people cannot legally buy the guns they will just go into the illegal market and get their unregistered gun and still commit the crime they set out to do.

However, I cannot think of anyone who would reasonably say that 100% of all people who wanted to commit a criminal act, but had difficulty purchasing a gun would go to greater lengths and effort in order to procure a gun. At least some would-be criminals would give up after an attempt to purchase a gun legally.

Or, as mentioned, felons have a higher rate of violent crime than non-felons. Statistically, since it would likely take at least a few days longer to obtain a weapon from illegitimate sources, at least one of them is going to be run over by a bus, die of a heart attack, etc.

So, of course, limiting who can get a gun reduces crime. Though, not by an appreciable amount.

 

[boomhower]

No. All gun control is limit availability to law abiding citizens. Criminals don't obey the law, hence why they are criminals. I'm in law enforcement and am for loose gun laws and non-permit concealed carry. If your not a felon, not convicted of a domestic, not crazy, and not under the influence you should be allowed to carry. People should be able to defend themselves.

 

[olds]

Criminals don't follow laws.
Is crack illegal, can you get it?...

And, if the criminals don't know who is carrying, they tend to be politier.

 

[jhansman]

Since only the law abiding abide by the law, the lawless resort to any means necessary to arm themselves, and succeed. This is the one thing gun control advocates cannot seem to grasp. If you think the law protects you, you are living in a dream world.

 

[moonbogg]

Even if people carry weapons, they won't be ready when they are attacked. Allowing people to carry will lead to confusion as to who is the enemy and who is just defending themselves. There will be story after story of innocents being shot in the confusion of a situation.
A guy with a hand gun is going to be ready for a crazy guy with an AR-15? No way.
Is the solution to nuclear proliferation more nuclear weapons? Is the solution to kids getting bullied the supplying of each child a wooden baton or stun gun? What the hell is wrong with gun freaks? I know what it is. They are selfish and have no empathy. They are just dying to have their G.I Joe hero moment where they save the day with their trusty sidearm. Screw you guys and your stupid old western fantasies.

 

[olds]

Even if people carry weapons, they won't be ready when they are attacked. Allowing people to carry will lead to confusion as to who is the enemy and who is just defending themselves. There will be story after story of innocents being shot in the confusion of a situation.
A guy with a hand gun is going to be ready for a crazy guy with an AR-15? No way.
Is the solution to nuclear proliferation more nuclear weapons? Is the solution to kids getting bullied the supplying of each child a wooden baton or stun gun? What the hell is wrong with gun freaks? I know what it is. They are selfish and have no empathy. They are just dying to have their G.I Joe hero moment where they save the day with their trusty sidearm. Screw you guys and your stupid old western fantasies.

Your fantasy and the real world are two different things.

 

[moonbogg]

Your fantasy and the real world are two different things.

If guns were banned, and people reported to police every time they saw someone with a gun, or heard about someone with a gun, and police found them and repeated this process, there would be MUCH less gun crime here. If you can't see that then thats your problem. The issue is people not having enough empathy to get rid of something they like.

 

[HN]

what we need is bullet control!

 

[BrightCandle]

It isn't really a theoretical question unless you think America is fundamentally different to other countries in this regard. Plenty of data from around the world to base appropriate research on.

The banning of gun sales in much of Europe did drop Gun crime dramatically for those countries. The further reduction of guns in the UK, for example, in the last 2 decades has dropped the number of shootings to a fraction of what it was before the law changed. No lunatics have walked into a school and killed children in over a decade, before that there was a spate of such shootings. Guns do not factor in crimes very frequently here at all, and subsequently only a few of our Police officers are even armed with a gun.

Sufficient gun control does reduce gun crime, it is a provable fact from hundreds of countries all over the world. If the US didn't have a "right to bare arms" I suspect you would have done the same thing as almost every other "civilised" country.

 

[moonbogg]

It isn't really a theoretical question unless you think America is fundamentally different to other countries in this regard. Plenty of data from around the world to base appropriate research on.

The banning of gun sales in much of Europe did drop Gun crime dramatically for those countries. The further reduction of guns in the UK, for example, in the last 2 decades has dropped the number of shootings to a fraction of what it was before the law changed. No lunatics have walked into a school and killed children in over a decade, before that there was a spate of such shootings. Guns do not factor in crimes very frequently here at all, and subsequently only a few of our Police officers are even armed with a gun.

Sufficient gun control does reduce gun crime, it is a provable fact from hundreds of countries all over the world. If the US didn't have a "right to bare arms" I suspect you would have done the same thing as almost every other "civilised" country.

I quote it just so people will read it again. We CAN fix this issue. People WON'T fix this issue because they are unable to put themselves in the shoes of a victim or a victim's family. If they were able to do that, they would experience sufficient pain to motivate them to ditch the guns. They would rather hold on to the dream that they can one day be the hero and save the world with their trusty sidearm. Selfish, sad, inexcusable.

 

[pontifex]

I quote it just so people will read it again. We CAN fix this issue. People WON'T fix this issue because they are unable to put themselves in the shoes of a victim or a victim's family. If they were able to do that, they would experience sufficient pain to motivate them to ditch the guns. They would rather hold on to the dream that they can one day be the hero and save the world with their trusty sidearm. Selfish, sad, inexcusable.

if they had a gun they might not be a victim...

 

[pontifex]

It isn't really a theoretical question unless you think America is fundamentally different to other countries in this regard. Plenty of data from around the world to base appropriate research on.

The banning of gun sales in much of Europe did drop Gun crime dramatically for those countries. The further reduction of guns in the UK, for example, in the last 2 decades has dropped the number of shootings to a fraction of what it was before the law changed. No lunatics have walked into a school and killed children in over a decade, before that there was a spate of such shootings. Guns do not factor in crimes very frequently here at all, and subsequently only a few of our Police officers are even armed with a gun.

Sufficient gun control does reduce gun crime, it is a provable fact from hundreds of countries all over the world. If the US didn't have a "right to bare arms" I suspect you would have done the same thing as almost every other "civilised" country.

yes crime where a gun was used. they'll just use something else instead...crime won't drop.

you cite the UK, but when they banned guns, didn't crimes with other weapons increase?

 

[schneiderguy]

The banning of gun sales in much of Europe did drop Gun crime dramatically for those countries. The further reduction of guns in the UK, for example, in the last 2 decades has dropped the number of shootings to a fraction of what it was before the law changed. No lunatics have walked into a school and killed children in over a decade, before that there was a spate of such shootings. Guns do not factor in crimes very frequently here at all, and subsequently only a few of our Police officers are even armed with a gun.

Wrong.

Sufficient gun control does reduce gun crime, it is a provable fact from hundreds of countries all over the world. If the US didn't have a "right to bare arms" I suspect you would have done the same thing as almost every other "civilised" country.

Countries which don't allow their citizens to defend themselves are not "civilized".

 

[micrometers]

Nope wouldnt work. If someone intent on killing people cannot legally buy the guns they will just go into the illegal market and get their unregistered gun and still commit the crime they set out to do.

Not if you take away the unregistered guns. Over time, they would be seized in criminal investigations.

I think people just say "it won't work" in a knee-jerk fashion too much. They think that they're being individualistic and insightful or whatever, but they're just repeating what the NRA tells them.

 

[micrometers]

yes crime where a gun was used. they'll just use something else instead...crime won't drop.

you cite the UK, but when they banned guns, didn't crimes with other weapons increase?

Then let the criminals use "other weapons". I'd rather have someone come at me with a baseball bat than with a gun. At least I can run from that.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Sorry, the Constitution gives us the rights to our firearms. If you don't like it, too bad. You are permitted to leave and go to your wonderful Europe that you lust after so much. You know, we left Europe for a reason so why would we want to become exactly like them again? Like Europe so much, go live there and leave the rest of us alone

And I'd much rather have the option of being armed to defend myself rather than cry in a corner waiting for the police, hoping I don't get murdered by the criminal. FWIW I don't carry (don't have my CCL for one thing) but I fully support someone else's rights to carry. And the people who have CCLs are the ones that we are least concerned about committing any sort of crime.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Sounds cliche but it is also true.

 

[HypX]

Wrong.

Kinda misleading. Homicide rates are pretty low to begin with (due to lack of gun homicides).

Countries which don't allow their citizens to defend themselves are not "civilized".

CONFIRMED : Japan is the least civilized nation on Earth.

 

[SparkyJJO]

And you do realize that the USA being a melting pot and all is naturally going to have a lot more tension between people of various backgrounds and ethnicities, the likes of which you have very little of in most other western countries. Especially as fewer and fewer actually want to assimilate into society for some reason.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Drugs and sex are easily obtainable.
Most criminals can't build guns.
It would take a while (10 years?!), but after a 100% ban, guns would be rare.

Do you think most criminals know how to make cocaine? There will always be a small minority of criminals capable of making guns.

 

[bfdd]

Then let the criminals use "other weapons". I'd rather have someone come at me with a baseball bat than with a gun. At least I can run from that.

lol you're worse than the kooks who want a gun so they can shoot the home intruder! basically you're saying "i don't fear criminals, criminals are criminals. what i fear is the regular person because i don't know they're a criminal, just that they have the potential to be" so thing that is, ignored, thing that could be, the issue. you're a fucking retard. there's a name for people like you and it's "scaredy cat".

Also look up raw numbers please and compare metropolitan areas to metropolitan areas, not nation to nation as nations vastly differ in their construction. it's much more fair to compare new york to london and look at their laws and homicide rates than it is USA vs England.

 

[HypX]

And you do realize that the USA being a melting pot and all is naturally going to have a lot more tension between people of various backgrounds and ethnicities, the likes of which you have very little of in most other western countries. Especially as fewer and fewer actually want to assimilate into society for some reason.

UK, Canada, and Australia are all melting pots. The EU is have huge trouble integrating Muslim immigrants as well.