0
Outlawing guns could potentially make streets safer by reducing the number of firearms available, which may decrease the likelihood of gun-related crimes and violence. Without access to guns, conflicts may be less lethal, leading to fewer fatalities and injuries. Additionally, a decrease in gun prevalence could foster a culture of non-violence and encourage alternative conflict resolution methods. However, the effectiveness of such measures depends on enforcement, societal attitudes towards violence, and the presence of illegal firearms.
What else can I help you with?
Would America be safer if private citizens couldn't own guns?
Your question asks for an opinion. My opinion is no, it would not be. Places that have outlawed private ownership of firearms have had INCREASES in violent crime. This is due, at least in part, in the loss of the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. This would be similar to dealing with drunk driving by outlawing the ownership of cars.
Should guns be outlawed and why?
No. Outlawing an object and expecting it to change people's behavior is not rational
Would a ban on all guns make the streets safer?
Yes, of course it would, assuming that EVERYONE would obey the ban. However, it is an absolute certainty that "the bad guys" would not obey the ban and the "good guys" would simply be helpless sheep, fit for the killing... robbing... raping... mayhem and other forms of brutality. What would (and has) made the streets safer for people, from gun violence, is to make our Constitutional right to own and bear arms, the law, without licensing or other infringement. The "bad guys" would soon realize that raping, robbing and rapine would have seriously painful or deadly results. Eventually, perhaps then it would no longer be necessary to "outlaw" guns, as there wouldn't be any more outlaws.
Are buybacks the answer to get guns off the streets?
no
Why are guns placed just behind the front line?
because they are so big, they would be easy targets on the front line. With the front line defending the machine guns, the machine guns have a safer place to assault from.
Why machine -guns placed just behind the front line?
because they are so big, they would be easy targets on the front line. With the front line defending the machine guns, the machine guns have a safer place to assault from.
Why are Machine guns place just behind the front line?
because they are so big, they would be easy targets on the front line. With the front line defending the machine guns, the machine guns have a safer place to assault from.
Is the impala or the mustang safer?
The P-51 Mustang is safer because it's armed with six machine guns.....
Why should guns be banned from the streets?
Legal ownership is not the problem.
What do liberals think about gun control?
Some are for it and some are against it. Most believe that they know what is best for the rest of us.
Do guns make us safer at home?
In many instances, yes.
Would cops be able to carry weapons if guns were banned?
If you take the example of the UK (where guns are banned), the normal police on duty on the streets are not armed with guns. There are UK police trained to use and carry guns but they only do so when responding to a situation where a criminal is seen to be armed. Based on this tried example, is is clear that if guns were banned effectively, the police would not need to carry weapons.
