Guns lead to more or less crime? your opinion.

I'm assuming many people before me have said the same thing but it would just simply depend on the person that owns the gun and his intent. In the case of the gun "ban," I would agree that there should be certain guns that shouldn't be ownded by the common citizen for the safety and well-being of society.

Poll is to black ,and white...taking away guns will only reduce GUN RELATED crime...not necessarily crime overall.

Guns are often times a necessary evil when you live in a country as large as the United States of America, and you'll at times be without the immediate protection a police department affords you if you live far from town, or etc. Also, there's a matter of not trusting the federal government. Of course, it's been shown that the voices of a country's people can topple a dictatorship, so how do we place guns in terms of safety from our federal government?

I believe it's a part of the soul of the United States of America to not trust the government. It's been proven too fallible for my tastes, and what's to stop it from turning on it's people? That is what concerns me about an outright ban on guns. Our goverment is so vast and so many Americans have lost the concept of how the USA came to be in the first place. We did not like our government, so we kicked them out, and declared ourselves a sovereign state. Will that be necessary in the future? I believe so, hopefully very far into the future.

I can't help but think were the USA to go to the way of Mubarak's government, we would need more than protesting to slay the beast that is our federal government. And hey, don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. Feel free to criticize what I'm posting, but keep in mind that I also believe that a major aspect of the world maturing is outright support for all people, regardless of financial, political, or social status.

I believe if a person has decided to cross the line of attempting to kill someone he/she WILL find a gun if that is their weapon of choice.

More people lead to more crime. A gun is only dangerous when put in the wrong hands.

If someone wants to kill, that person will kill. It that someone happen to have a gun it'll be easyer for said person to kill someone.
Same goes for robbery, rape, and hurting other people in general.

It has been said so much already, A gun is just the tool, it is the person behind it that pulls the trigger.

If you didn't have guns, it wouldn't stay peace free, people would use something else, taser/baseball bat/flamethrower(potentially a gun I know)/grenades/molotovs/landmine/c4 etc etc etc...

It's not just guns that lead to crime unfortunately it is the misguided people behind the tools being used.

I am reminded of that youtube video of a man who tries to rob a gun store and, quite predictably, the COD was multiple gunshot wounds to the torso and head.
As of recently I read somewhere on the net about a new law trying to be passed by congress. It specifically makes it so that gun manufacturers are legally required to micro-stamp a serial number onto the firing pin of all guns. At the same time making it illegal to own a handgun manufactured before the bill was passed, unless you use a specific type of ammunition. When/if the bill is passed it is possible that the crime rate in major cities will decrease slightly until, as always, the criminals get smarter and find loopholes and/or shortcuts around that law.
Whether or not this information affects your opinion is up in the air. But my opinion will remain solid, guns do affect the crime rate, indirectly, they are merely a means which criminals use to achieve a goal. Until another means to achieve that goal appears it will continue to affect the crime rate. Mind you before guns were readily available to the public people still did criminal things, merely with other things. In the same way a quill evolved eventually to the modern computer for a writer. A knife evolved into today’s semi-auto handgun for the criminal (or full-auto assault rifle/shoulder fired rocket launcher depending on the breed of criminal)

This never gets any steam regardless who introduces it or where it's introduced. Faaaaaar too many technical and legal hurdles to make it remotely popular anytime soon.

Guns are only tools just like a scewdriver or a hammer. It all depends on the person using them. I mean guns can't jump out of the rack and go on a rampage. Criminals do.

I checked this morning, the bill has already made it through congress and is now sitting on Obamas desk waiting for either a veto or pass stamp. Hmm aparently he has at any given time 20-30 bills sitting on his desk awaiting one of those stamps... Guess hes just lazy, like me lol.

Question answered.

I say as I always say; having guns legal is stupid and - while it may not increase the amount of CRIMES - it will surely increase the fatality rate of them.

First, I would like to address the fact that weapons do not have the primary function of self defense, they are made to be the tools to murder. That said their purpose can be bent by discretion of the user. Guns are definitely hard to use for self defense however because as a projectile weapon, the only option with that is to shoot. And also the ease of use creates a dangerous mindset to cowardly men who get their hands on a gun. In that sense it definitely increases crime. However, it can be useful to defense yourself, however this would require quite a bit of training. Killing someone with a gun is easy, (cool, calm, collective, breathing control, skeletal support, situational awareness, hammer pair, then if needed failure drill) however creating a nonviolent resolution is incredibly difficult with another gunman, and even more so if the firearm is influencing his decisions.
So my conclusion is yes, gun lead to more crime. It also takes a unique mindset to force a surrender, for the most part, it would be safer if private ownership of firearms were to be prohibited, but you know, I know you mutherfuckers love shooting, I do too, in fact my JOB is to shoot, so keep it, but you better go through some thorough training.

It depends on the person and the status he's with. If he has a good status, its sure that he will use it for self defense. If he's broke, then probably he'll use it for crimes. But well if every household has a gun, criminals would think that something might happen to them the moment they do their dirty work.

Unless people would undergo a psychological test before getting a gun, I think there will be war for power etc. as people may think that they are invincible or something because of their weapons.

Studies have proven that guns have no coloration with crime. "Gun crime" yes but, that's a arbitrary category. Obviously gun crime would reduce if guns were banned but "Gun Crime" is just crime committed with the presence/possession of a firearm.

Crime comes from social conditions. If someone wants to rob a store they will try with a gun, knife ,axe, Stick, palm tree or whatever they can get their hands on.

Want to reduce crime? Improve societal conditions rather than ban a tool.

A gun is a TOOL.
the only difference in a gun is the owner of it. I own a gun and i have a concealed carry license too. The gun is not the problem with crime the problem is how they are used. It is the same with knives and anything else that is considered a weapon. Guns may be a factor in crime but they can also be a deterrent against crimes too so in some ways guns can cause more or less crime but they are not the main factor.

I believe less guns will not lessen the crimes because its not the guns that kill but people. If there are no guns then people will resort to other weapons. The problem with guns is that its somewhat easy to aim and shoot, and when one loses his temper, specially arrogant ones, they will likely draw their guns and shoot whether your near or mid range, not giving the gunman time to think about their actions and its consequences. Anyway I believe guns will not protect us that much because we need to survive the initial shot of the assailant to fire back. I believe if one plans to kill someone he will likely shoot him on the back, when his back is turned, and is not looking; never giving him a chance to retaliate. But when it comes to home protection, I believe it is fairly effective because at least you will somehow be alerted when someone tries to break in your house, and your gun will likely intimidate them.

This falls into cultural psychology, but my vote is on less crime. Social behaviour experiments have shown that in a soceity were individuals are freely considered well armed, crime significantly fell as the supposed "risk factor" of affronting a person increased.