Should guns be banned why?

Answer 1

Many people believe that the ownership of a firearm should be banned. Their intent is a good one. With no guns in circulation, the idea is that there would be less crime such as murders if guns did not exist in say the USA.

Therefore passing laws against gun ownership could have the intended affect of less gun violence.

There are several problems with banning guns to reduce gun violence.

One problem is that at my last look at the number of guns in the USA, there were over 200,000,000 million handguns legally owned. The number of legally owned rifles exceeds the handgun number by even more millions.

Thus we come upon the situation of this: Will the ban outlaw the manufacture of guns, OR will the ban include that all guns that can be "found" be turned in.

With all good intentions considered, the viability of a "gun ban" must face the fact the confiscation of guns is a hurdle that simply cannot be reached. A law's validity must come close to its enforcement or the law appears useless.

Other Problems with a gun ban.

handguns and rifles...

....these weapons are used by the US Military and State & local law enforcement officials. Thus there will be a continuing need to manufacture them. This presents the problem of now "policing the police" to make sure the guns they have do not fall into the wrong hands.

For arguments' sake let us assume that the weapons held & received by the military and law enforcement persons is "perfect". By perfect I mean that no firearm falls into the wrong hands.

Let me digress a bit. Some years ago 2 high school students in Colorado killed almost 20 of their fellow students. The guns were obtained illegally. The crimes committed were ugly beyond belief. Bottom line in this quick example is that teenagers acquired guns to kill & maim despite Colorado's gun laws.

OK, let us assume that the gun ban is so effective that high school kids cannot obtain weapons. In this same paragraph it can be said that highly dangerous drugs such as cocaine and heroine are illegal in the USA. Despite Government's

spending on anti drug advertisements, their formation of organizations such as the DEA, the heavy risk that drug runners take, ( risks are from among their own groups as well as from the Governments) illegal drugs flow into the USA.

With the wish that gun and/or drug related violence be curtailed, a gun ban brings on a "new crime". The crime is illegally importing firearms into the USA.

People are wise to try and figure out the best way to curtail gun violence. It's a worthy cause for sure. And thankfully many US States have strict gun control laws, yet the problem won't go away.

Politicians reacting to the elementary school shootings only confuse their constituents. A few weeks after this tragedy, one NY Metropolitan legislature placed sanctions on assault rifles. Well, the deranged mind that killed 20+ innocent kids were killed with a hand gun (s). The other proposal was to limit the number of cartridges that could be kept in a semi automatic guns clip. It proposed dropping the limit from 10 to 7. The criminal mind set on evil destruction simply brings along a few extra clips.

I need to remind myself that even when the size of the clip was downsized to 10 under President Clinton, there remained as I was informed on TV, millions of semi automatics with clips as high as 18.

Laws to prevent the destructive power of guns are a worthy cause, however, in my opinion only make "everyone" happy. Then next maniac decides that a pipe bomb is a better weapon.

Answer 2

Many people believe that the ownership of a firearm should be banned. Their intent is a good one. With no guns in circulation, the idea is that there would be less crime such as murders if guns did not exist in say the USA.

Therefore passing laws against gun ownership could have the intended affect of less gun violence.

There are several problems with banning guns to reduce gun violence.

One problem is that at my last look at the number of guns in the USA, there were over 200,000,000 million handguns legally owned. The number of legally owned rifles exceeds the handgun number by even more millions.

Thus we come upon the situation of this: Will the ban outlaw the manufacture of guns, OR will the ban include that all guns that can be "found" be turned in.

With all good intentions considered, the viability of a "gun ban" must face the fact the confiscation of guns is a hurdle that simply cannot be reached. A law's validity must come close to its enforcement or the law appears useless.

Other Problems with a gun ban.

handguns and rifles...

....these weapons are used by the US Military and State & local law enforcement officials. Thus there will be a continuing need to manufacture them. This presents the problem of now "policing the police" to make sure the guns they have do not fall into the wrong hands.

For arguments' sake let us assume that the weapons held & received by the military and law enforcement persons is "perfect". By perfect I mean that no firearm falls into the wrong hands.

Let me digress a bit. Some years ago 2 high school students in Colorado killed almost 20 of their fellow students. The guns were obtained illegally. The crimes committed were ugly beyond belief. Bottom line in this quick example is that teenagers acquired guns to kill & maim despite Colorado's gun laws.

OK, let us assume that the gun ban is so effective that high school kids cannot obtain weapons. In this same paragraph it can be said that highly dangerous drugs such as cocaine and heroine are illegal in the USA. Despite Government's

spending on anti drug advertisements, their formation of organizations such as the DEA, the heavy risk that drug runners take, ( risks are from among their own groups as well as from the Governments) illegal drugs flow into the USA.

With the wish that gun and/or drug related violence be curtailed, a gun ban brings on a "new crime". The crime is illegally importing firearms into the USA.

People are wise to try and figure out the best way to curtail gun violence. It's a worthy cause for sure. And thankfully many US States have strict gun control laws, yet the problem won't go away.

Politicians reacting to the elementary school shootings only confuse their constituents. A few weeks after this tragedy, one NY Metropolitan legislature placed sanctions on assault rifles. Well, the deranged mind that killed 20+ innocent kids were killed with a hand gun (s). The other proposal was to limit the number of cartridges that could be kept in a semi automatic guns clip. It proposed dropping the limit from 10 to 7. The criminal mind set on evil destruction simply brings along a few extra clips.

I need to remind myself that even when the size of the clip was downsized to 10 under President Clinton, there remained as I was informed on TV, millions of semi automatics with clips as high as 18.

Laws to prevent the destructive power of guns are a worthy cause, however, in my opinion only make "everyone" happy. Then next maniac decides that a pipe bomb is a better weapon.

Answer 3

In the USA around 10 thousand people are murdered every year with guns, but in the USA there are 2million defencive uses of guns every year. Guns save far more lives then they take. When the first multi shot revolvers came out it made everyone equal, the first revolver was made by the Colt company, and people descibed the gun as the great equalizer and would say "God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal". This is due to the fact that no matter how big or strong someone is the multi shot revolver could make a weak small women stronger then a large violent man so everyone is equal, and guns to this day allow people to be equal and stop crimes and violence. If people do not have guns then they will have some other tools to commit harm except there will be less people to stop the crimes. People can still use knives and bats to harm people but without guns for good people there will be more crimes harming the weak. Guns allow the weak to stand up for themselves and it makes the criminals fear oppressing the weak. The strong good people are not effected they will usually be ok either way because the criminals would mutch rather victimise the weak especially when they know that there unarmed. Also using america as an example, it can not ban guns, the Constitution forbids it, but it has been ruled that people can restrict the right to gun ownership even though many argue that it is also unconstitutional. For gun bans in a specific targeted act towards one type of gun, the AR-15 or any other rifle actually kills a miniscule ammount of people yearly, in the hundreds, while hand guns kill around 2/3 of all gun homocide victoms. Though there is no reason to ban these guns, some people use them for bad but they make so mutch good happen and they stop far more crime then they cause. If guns were banned it would only harm the weakest in society, women and minorities and children who would have less people able to defend them and people who are small and weak. If guns are banned that would open the door for any type of tyranny and it would allow for criminals to not care about the ban and just keep there guns or make more and then victimise the weak. There is no reason to ban guns or even make them hard to get, the laws now in america are more then acceptable and even over zelous in some areas. More armed people can defend themselves and there area better. There would be no mass shootings or crime if the criminal knew that everyone around them possable could be armed.