By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 22 December 2012
Edit Thread
A_C_E said:
sc94597 said:
A_C_E said:
sc94597 said:

Providing Mental Health Care IMO is the best answer as you stated above for the reason that you also stated above.

I like your wording in your first sentence where you state, "Death by guns will decrease but violent crime will increase". I myself would subtitute death for crime in my country if I were President.

Then certainly you'd love to live in China! They have a much higher crime rate than the U.S, but a lower homicide rate than half of Europe - with the people lacking freedoms, might I add. It's bad enough when the criminals are commiting crimes, but when the government does too, it's worse! In China they have no laws protecting children from teacher abuse, for example.  Yet their children are relatively safe from death, I suppose.  Is that a better society?

Also, we have no idea what the effects could be. Yes, death by guns would decrease, but who's not to say that death by other means won't increase with a gun ban? 

Your pretty insightful on this subject it seems, more-so than me of course as I know nothing and have not studied. I'm just using my own sense and putting it forth and thats all you really need to do to understand that America could be so much better if government actually took care of their people as opposed to just giving their people a reason to stay.

Death by guns would decrease so obviously death by other means would increase slightly in each category. But does it not seem sensical to think that overall crime/homicide would go down after years past?

I guess that's just a cultural difference. In the U.S we think our government is meant to do what the constitution says and that's it. At least, paleo-conservatives think that way and this has been the historical thought-process. It is up to the individual to change things if they want them changed, and government interference might not always or likely isn't in the best intentions of the people. That's the whole basis of the American revolution and the liberalization of the colonies. "Ask not what the government can do for you...." is just the magnification of this individual liberity view. Today we see a trend toward more people wanting more government dependence, and that's not always a good thing. The government is there to act as a medium for the people to express their freedoms, not as a means to control others. 

Gun control hasn't decreased crime rate very effectively in the U.S in the past. Washington D.C experienced a slower decrease in crime(and homicide) under gun control restrictions than when guns were made legal again and in comparison to similar cities. Furthermore, we've seen increased crime rates in the United Kingdom and Austrailia with the ban of guns, the first having a higher crime rate than the U.S as of 2009. Just look at the assault rate, rape, and victimization. Yeah with guns there might be a few more deaths of criminals (the ones commiting these rapes and assaults) but at the same time there would be less rapes and assaults on honest and respectable peoples. Also, the illegalization of guns or control of guns might not even stop massacres, at least not entirely. We've seen this with Brevik and Winneden in Europe and Columbine in the U.S. It might decrease their frequency, but they already make up a small percentage of total gun homicide, so a decrease in frequency might not mean a decrease in the frequency of all homicide, it just means there is less of these massacres, but not necessarily less crime overall. 

It's a complicated issue, and that's why "ban all guns" is too drastic a fix and can act as a detriment (as evidence by the harvard study.)