Wouldn't outlawing guns drive them underground?
Wouldn't that put it in the hands of so called "criminals", with no protection for the "law abiding citizen"?
Wouldn't this make the unarmed individuals completely dependent on 911, creating more jobs, and less thought?
Also, if guns were outlawed, wouldn't people just use knives?
Wouldn't you lose a huge chance to tax and regulate gun sales and overly help the economy?
[Correction, you could do like cops do with weed, and ban them so you can sell them illegally on the street for a higher amount, circulate them back underground, and then have more to arrest, keeping the cycle going. Of course, this method technically boosts the economy a bit, so if they compared the economy in regard to when the guns were banned and when they weren't, they would get similar numbers, giving them another case to ban them.]
Look at England, for example.
Yes, it would cut down on some crime, but at what "cost"?.
It would make the "criminals" less reluctant to commit crimes, considering the fact that there is little chance of being shot by the "victim".
It wouldn't lower the crime rate, and the crimes would be even more dangerous than they already were.
Here is some more information (that apparently proves my points after the fact):
The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.
"Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51?unarmed robberies by 37?assaults by 24?nd kidnappings by 43?While murders fell by 3?manslaughter rose by 16?
"Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."
"England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40?n the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997."
"Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low.""
It's obvious that making the citizens more powerless, overly dependent on "911", and more likely to get in "danger" is one of the many purposes of banning guns. (Others include more jobs for cops, less chance of retaliation, and underground money-making.)
NOTE: I am extremely tired, and hazy. Leave this question up, and tomorrow I'll come back and make sure this makes logical sense, and make the necessary changes accordingly.
@Alice Grey, you can make the law, "no guns", but it's just on paper. Someone who would rob a bank in the first place probably wouldn't care about the gun control laws.
"Well I guess getting rid off all the guns is the equivalent of world peace."
First of all, there was war before guns.
Second of all, in regard to physical weapons, you're forgetting gauntlets, brass knuckles, swords, nun chucks, daggers, knives, batons, electric batons, axes, flamethrowers, Molotov cocktails, grenades, bazookas, crowbars, rocks, hands, feet, atomic bombs, nukes, hydrogen bombs, C-4 explosions, land mines, dynamite, stun guns, chains, chainsaws, manual saws, power saws, hatchets, razors, hammers, nails, screws, cinder blocks, bricks, shoes, horseshoes, mace, pepper spray, broken glass bottles, intact glass bottles, a metal water bottle, a plastic water bottle, a metal pipe, plastic bottles, various types of poisons, attack animals, rockets, jets, planes, helicopters, cannons, EMP's, torpedoes, stupidity, bow and arrows, crossbows, catapults, horses, bulls, iron man suits, light sabers, a Christian's head after being exposed to reality, (the rogue pieces have been known to knock out a corporate executive or two), or the Sunday New York Times. (George Carlin list ending idea.)
...or, you could just look at how the world is doing in regard to it's natural resources, among other things, and wait a while.
From the looks of it, it would not benefit the average citizen. It would make it 50x "worse", from the crime perspective, and the economic perspective.
If you disagree, feel free to correct me.
Answered By: - 9/14/2010