Guns lead to more or less crime? your opinion.

Well, more guns means more 'unintended' crimes because they, making the crime easier, are more accessible and thus more likely to be used... but less guns means less deterrent to 'organized' or 'planned' crime since their is less risk involved in committing the crimes.

I agree, if they were to (illegalize) guns it would open a huge market for gun sales amongst criminals.

Please correct me on my spelling because spell check is doing a sh*t tastic job.



I believe this to also be true, there is a difference between a citizen having a gun and a criminal acquiring one. The difference being life and death in many cases, also the environment that the guns is in.
For example there is a difference between Oakland, CA and Quincy, CA.
"If you look up Quincy ca on a map its just near the upper eastern area of CA."

I'm a pro-gun advocate, but to be fair I do think the severity of crimes is correlated to gun possession. The environment the guns owners are in seems to be a major fact as well. Suburban and rural areas appear to be safer on the surface. I know that boys were even afraid to visit a girl's house at night for fear of being shot at by the father. So criminals do think twice and thrice about any kind of crime. Even robbing a Mcdonald's would be potentially deadly back in my hometown as the chances that someone with a rifle in their truck was going through the drive thru was substantially high.

Guns are man-made things designed to kill someone or something. We cannot change that fact. Even if you are trying to suppress someone there is still a tendency of killing him by using it. It all depends upon whoever possesses such weapon. However, even the authorities abuse it that leads to unexpected killings. As you can see, firearms control is really crucial in maintaining order in society.

That is true, so I guess the real question is how in our society could we reduce the amount of individuals wanting to abuse their right to own a firearm?

To boot, our country's [USA] education and welfare system is pretty fucked-up. We fail alot of kids growing up and then don't help them later on. Remove people's incentive/need to rob/steal and you remove alot of violent crime period. One of the few things about Europe we need to adopt is something like thier education system.

Now, personally, I'm a 2nd-amendment believer. I believe the purpose of civilians owning guns is to provide deterrent against a government getting 'too big for it's britches'. Gun ownership is also a symbol of personal responsibility, especially in today's age where such a symbol is so desperately needed.

I'm a moderate in most things, I dislike both extremes. The Brady Bunch and VPC, along with Mikey Bloomburger can take a hike for all I care for their opinions and tactics. On the other had, I like aspects of both the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. Yes, I think you should be able to own machine guns and grenades/launchers. But at the same time, the responsibility and risk of those weapons is so much higher than what one can currently buy from Dunhams or Cabelas. I appreciate that extra level of filtering the NFA provides for individuals desiring to buy such items. I mentioned before; remove the economic reason for violence? Well, if we can get the background check system fixed, that takes care of future Seuing-Hui Chos and Nadal Hassans as well.

On the issue of carry...again, I'm a moderate. I believe that anyone who isn't going to use the gun nefariously has the right to carry. On the other hand, I don't like de-licensing carry. If someone's going to carry, I want them to have proven to the state that they can reasonably control a weapon.



Yeah...no surprise. anyone who has their eyes open sees the cops for what they are. And even if you actually have an ounce of faith in law enforcement to 'keep you safe', let alone keep themselves honest, who do you think will have better control of a gun? A road-cruiser who only fires his gun for his annual quals, or an enthusiast who visits the range every Saturday?

In the long run yes, I'd say that guns only lead to more crimes committed.

In my eyes the "Guns don't kill people, people do" -slogan is a completely retarded attempt to justify owning a tool that, ultimately, is made for killing or hurting one thing or the other somehow. Sure, people won't stop killing and threatening each other if the guns were to suddenly disappear, but they would suddenly have a much harder time doing so.

Now I'm not trying to say that everyone that owns a gun are stupid, especially not now, when so many guns are in circulation that outlawing them wouldn't make any difference, just create more 'criminals'. Neither am I saying that everyone with a gun runs around killing his fellow man, but they have the possibility to do so, with a weapon both more lethal and more easily used than someone running berserk with a hatchet.

Sometimes giving up a bit of freedom to get a bit of security isn't a bad thing.

I'm afraid you're wrong about both those men. Neither were bat shit insane or religious radicals. The media has done everything in their power to trump up their irregularities, when they were actually pretty normal and forced to work in extremely hostile environments.

Granted Cho may have had issues... so yeah, maybe Cho could've been filtered out.

Hassan? No fucking chance. It was the army's fault all the way. I mean the guy was getting harassed on a daily basis for being of Arabic descent, he wanted to quit the army no matter what - he was even willing to pay all back all the money the army pumped into him, down to the last cent - but no, they wouldn't let him go as there was a pressing need for interpreters in Iraq...
...a war Hassan felt ever more doubtful for, and was frequently raising his conscience problems with participating it.

All reports and evidence in the media pertaining to Hassan efforts to peacefully get out of what was shaping out to be a living hell were carefully scrubbed:

http://exiledonline.com/scrubbing-major-hasan-the-strange-silly-media-rewrite-of-the-fort-hood-shooting-spree/

As for school and workplace shootings, you should really read stuff from Mark Ames, like his book "Going Postal". America has brewed an extremely venal and nasty environments that literally push people to the brink. The shooters can't be profiled... what profiling has been done, has proved that *anyone* could become a shooter. There was no racial, religious, education or even family status trend among the shooters.

However Ames did something different: he tried to profile the schools and workplaces where the shooting took place. He always found the same; injustice, humiliation, in-groups playing their little power-plays and making life a living hell to those who are perceived as "not fitting in".

[font=Verdana][color=green]In all honesty, I'm an anti-gun advocate. If you were to ask me, I'd say that guns merely results in people forgoing the negotiation/discussion process and just jumping the gun - literally. I know the - very stupid - argument of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is often spouted by pro-gun advocates; sure that's true, but it is also true that with a gun many people will kill rather than discuss.

One of the - many - reasons I'm glad I'm British rather than American.

I think guns lead to more violence. Because weak minded humans think their all powerful now that they have guns. Many terrible leaders stay in power because they control the military. I think guns are like AIDS, once it exists it can’t be exterminated. If there were no guns then there would be no reason for guns. But because the bad guys have guns we have to buy guns to protect ourselves. It really sucks, especially for the people in Mexico.

I stand a bit...okay I'm easily the most extreme person here on the topic. For me, I think America should mimic or copy the Swiss & Israeli models. I believe every American who is deemed physically, mentally and emotionally fit to own a firearm should be allowed and required. I believe the standing army of the United States should be disbanded and replaced with a mandatory militia. Essentially I think every U.S. citizen should be on the level of an army reservist. No (sane, desperate) individual person would dare contemplate robbery when they know every citizen around them is carrying a SMG or even an assault rifle. The Swiss have the highest gun ownership rate in the world and have one of the lowest crime rates. While this isn't solely because of their gun ownership rates it does play a factor in the overall safety of their country.

An example in the U.S. is the city of Kennesaw Georgia passed a law nearing a decade ago that made it mandatory for every household to own a gun. Crime rates dropped drastically after that law was passed. Why? Because everybody knew to behave themselves as someone around them was armed and wouldn't tolerate any shenanigans. Threat of mutual destruction is a powerful deterrent.

I believe some of the anti-gun ownership both here and around the world have a misconception of guns and crime. Increased gun ownership does not cause more crime. Washington D.C.'s crime rate increased after the gun ban and dropped after the ban was repealed.

With that said, I believe there is a misconception about gun crime. Increased gun ownership wouldn't cause more crime those who'd cause crime would commit it with or without a gun which is why the good Ole U.K. well..see for yourself

Knife ban

Anyways, increased gun ownership does not increase crime but, instead increases the lethality of gun crime. This lethality comes from either the assailant or the victim being armed and using their fire arm on the other. Another example as Flaser pointed out is people simply not being mature enough to handle the firearm and using it because someone swung a car door into the side of their car.

At my current location, firearms are illegal. Only soldiers and those employed in the police force are allowed to possess them. Of course, crimes still occur but I would think most residents feel relatively safe.

That being said, I don't think firearms lead to more or less crime. Like what many members have mentioned, it is how people use them that matter. I would think the happiness level of a society as well as its culture play a part too. If most people are content, they may not see a need to commit crimes in order to survive, but this could simply be an idealistic and naive view of mine.

No, No Gambler it's quite true. If one wishes to reduce crime one has to look at the social and economic reasons for people to commit those crimes. Curing those ailments to society causes crime to drop. Also other deterrents such as alarm systems, neighborhood watch, active police presence,etc all decrease the level of crime. The problem relying on police (from the U.S. standpoint) is our police forces are not required to protect us. An officer can easily sit down with a cup of coffee and watch me be murdered and my loved ones would have no legal way of punishing the cop for his negligence. I recall a case in Washington D.C. a few years back of two women who were brutally raped by 2 or 3 assailants and the police failed to protect them not once but twice despite a multiple 911 calls from one of the girls as the other was being raped. First time a police officer simply drove by the house. Seeing nothing amiss he drove away. The second officer knocked on the door. When he received no answer and he left. Events such as that is why so many citizens of the U.S. reach for a personal firearm for protection.

" An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

~Robert Heinlein

On the surface I agree with the quote, but I can't help but remember that people are assholes, and we can't really change that. Giving people guns just makes them more dangerous assholes. I lean more on the pro-gun side though, as long as there is proper training and regulation for gun-owners.

[font=Verdana][color=green]I don't agree with this quote at all. I've said it before, but a society of guns are quick to jump the gun.

considering your viewpoint, would you care to explain why Israel and Switzerland have the highest gun ownership but lowest gun crime rates in the world (actually I'm not sure on Israel but, I know the Swiss have the one of if not THE lowest gun crime rates? If you can't, I politely suggest you reexamine your views.

Also consider this, if only police and military can carry weapons. What prevents the police from using those weapons against the populace? The answer, nothing. Many of the greatest dictators in the world from Stalin, to Mao ban the ownership of weapons amongst their people before perpetrating genocide. If you desire numbers I can provide them if you wish.

More illegally owned guns increase crime. More legally owned guns decrease crime. As simple as that.

[font=Verdana][color=green]I'm sorry, but I must have some statistics to back up your argument. If you do that, I might be willing to concede. Maybe.

They are 20 years old but, if it was true then, it still holds true now.

BBC article

Percent of households with a handgun, 1991 (1)

United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Handgun murders (1992) (2)

Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05



1. Where We Stand, Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289.

2. Handgun murders: Handgun Control, Inc. Population Figures: July 1992 count for each country as reported by CIA World Factbook, 1992.

Swiss Crime Statistics 2002

If you wish for date of gun bans/restrictions and Genocide in the 20th century just ask.

Guns make it easier for people to kill each other and themselves, whether purposely or accidentally. It's hard to say how guns affect crime rates, because you can't control for a lot of other things. I agree with Gamblor that the primary root of crime has nothing to do with guns and arises from societal issues.

That said, I like the stance the US has generally taken on guns. Those who want guns can purchase and own them, and those who don't are not required to. People should be allowed to purchase guns, within reason, for hunting or for their personal protection. Those who don't want guns in the house because they are worried about the potential for accidents or their children getting in to them should not be forced to own guns.

Of course, firearms should also be regulated. I don't believe that average citizens should be allowed to own military heavy firearms. And, of course, we want to prevent guns from being sold to convicted violent criminals for obvious reasons(though most attempts to do this have failed, for various reasons). I think the NRA has often been a bit obtuse when dealing with gun regulations(such as pushing for a law to allow people to have guns on K-12 school property), but I have no problem with peoples' right to bear arms, within reason.