Question:
With super-restrictive gun laws, there would still be as many or more shooting incidents in America, correct?
2021-03-23 18:00:50 UTC
With super-restrictive gun laws, there would still be as many or more shooting incidents in America, correct?
119 answers:
?
2021-03-26 23:14:41 UTC
Certainly, as felons partial to guns don't abide by code and their targets would be hard-pressed to obtain defensive measures.
?
2021-03-26 05:59:13 UTC
With the elimination of freedom and the constitution and permanent forced locked downs by an armed totalitarian  government against a cowed population that feared every shadow then your preposition might work.



It would be better to put criminals and jail and the mentally ill in hospitals then execute murderers. Then we keep our freedoms and our constitution while eliminating the shootings.
2021-03-26 05:51:03 UTC
No way of knowing.  Mexico and Chicago and Washington DC have strict gun laws.  Mexico has a higher homicide rate than the US.  Chicago and Washington DC have higher homicide rates than most cities in Arizona and Vermont.



However, imagine any and everyone being able to get a gun.  Just like imagine any and everyone being able to get heroine or alcohol.  
Ann
2021-03-25 21:52:55 UTC
The only people who will have guns will be the criminals. 
daniel g
2021-03-24 17:38:49 UTC
So far, 30,000 gun laws haven't done squat,,what makes you think more of the same will do anything.
?
2021-03-24 13:30:51 UTC
The problem with existing gun legislation isn’t that they are t effective at achieving “A” legislative purpose,



It’s that they don’t generally go about achieving the intended legislative purpose of reducing gun violence that could be avoided effectively as they should because the laws and new restrictions are wheeled out as political tools that are negotiated and reactionary.





The number of bullets in your clip doesn’t reduce gun violence and the majority of gun violence is through illegally purchased firearms. 



However, illega sales is a diff animal but there are a lot of moving parts that one regulation will not stop.



You have a wide range of issues ranging from legal private sales and illegal ones to open carry and licensure And registration to red flag laws.



Without taking a side on any of this (another detailed discussion entirely better suited dl to a message board than yahoo answers),



It’s plainly clear that the main problem is that what is done isn’t targeting the result it’s supposed to achieve. Some deterrent in a limited sense yes. 



But our legislatures should work harder to reach a system that makes both gun owners and anti gun crusaders unhappy.
Phil M
2021-03-24 13:12:09 UTC
Colorado has restrictive gun laws already. They have for a while.
gibbsmb
2021-03-24 05:04:06 UTC
A judge rules in favor of a gun lobby & strikes down a Boulder, Colo. city ban on assault weapons.. Ten days later a crazed killer with a newly purchased assault weapon kills ten people in Boulder.  Go Figure
?
2021-03-24 01:45:15 UTC
Probably so as the criminals do not bother with obeying the gun restriction laws. When the law abiding people are deprived of their guns then criminals can have a field day, like in Robot cop". And like in this movie I thought I would never see the day when policemen in some cities would not work while being on duty. The everyday law abiding citizen might be in real trouble when the right to defend himself is taken away from him.
2021-03-23 22:29:18 UTC
Given that every "mass shooting" has been committed by criminals, criminals don't obey laws (hance the title "criminal"), and enforcers don't enforce the laws, I don't see an alternative.
Wapon MSC
2021-03-27 14:55:57 UTC
If guns were completely unavailable I'm certain we'd have a major increase in knives being used more in homicides.
Trevor
2021-03-26 04:56:14 UTC
don't you find it ironic? the more gun laws the more shooting that happened?!



maybe you should approach guns laws like Portugal drug laws!

once all drug were legal in the year 2000 heroin users declined drastically in a period of 20 years!

so it seems like the biggest problem in life are the laws it self!
?
2021-03-25 19:10:10 UTC
Criminals and crazies will find a way to do their bids no matter what. The answer as far as I am concerned is to punish those that commit crimes. If someone is mentally ill get them off the street and keep them off, same as criminals. The bleeding hearts want to keep giving people a chance to return to society and commit more crimes. No, not all will do that but how many is too many? Just think about that the next time a con returns to the street and kills a member of your family !!!!
The Global Geezer
2021-03-25 15:44:26 UTC
On their own they may not achieve too much, what’s needed is to sort out the mindsets which cause people to go on shooting frenzies. Things like the meritocracy of US high schools which creates alienated individuals. 



The US also needs a blanket approach at federal level rather than fractious laws state by state. A gun can be outlawed in one state, but then a crazed individual can go and buy a weapon across the border I can another, return to the original state, and massacre people. 
Tea for two
2021-03-25 07:08:24 UTC
Yes, the only people the gun restrictions  would effect are people who purchase their guns legally. If someone really wants to buy a gun they can do it off the streets. Preferably a trap house. Where desperate junkies will sell guns for dope that they either have  stolen, or owned themselves to their dealer, the dealer in turn to make a profit can sell the gun if he chooses to someone who has the money.  There's also the black market, and small arms dealers. If they do enforce the bans the only thing it's doing is preventing buying guns legally. 
?
2021-03-24 21:57:28 UTC
On Tv the latest shooting did look pretty fake to me.
The Fish
2021-03-24 17:18:16 UTC
There would be none. It’s almost impossible to get a gun in the UK and you hardly see shootings here. It’s more than coincidence. 
?
2021-03-24 16:43:18 UTC
Not at all. Societies with tighter laws have much less gun crime 
Mark J
2021-03-24 14:48:21 UTC
Even if gun ownership is (further) outlawed the problem that remains is that there are so many guns in North America, even more if you start iuncludng the gins sold by the ATF to Mexican drug cartels under Obama era 'Fast and Furious' program.





There's a heck of a lot of guns in the hands of criminal elements.



But there are a heck of a lot of guns in the US, far more than the UK, ort Australia. Arguably theres a lot more fireamrs in circulation in the UK thaks to the propximity of Belgium where many illegal firamrs and ammunition come frm.





its is a truism that guns by themselves do not kill, but in the hands of bad actors they can. Legistlaiting legitimater ownership away mereely leaves a void for the illegal criminal use of guns.
?
2021-03-24 14:26:29 UTC
I don't know about "super-restrictive gun laws"  (though certain kinds of guns no civilian needs), but requiring gun owners to take classes on gun safety might be a good idea.  Also stressing that mass shootings don't solve problems; they create them.
?
2021-03-24 14:05:16 UTC
Not necessarily as many *shooting* incidents. Europe's super-restrictive gun laws led some of the mass murderers to switch to other types of weapons. 
?
2021-03-24 13:20:04 UTC
We would have to give it a try to see if you're right.
2021-03-24 12:37:30 UTC
The real issue is not the gun laws because outlaws get guns illegally AND, most importantly, MENTAL ILLNESS is the  root cause of the shootings as well as criminal activity.



There needs to be a cohesive nation wide system for gun ownership. Like where I live. We are required to take a NRA course witha written exam and shooting test, an FBI background check, a 30 day waiting period and fingerprinting is mandatory. Also, If my gun is stolen, I am required to report it to the authorities because if that stolen gun is used in the commission of a crime, I am an assessory to that crime and will be charged as such!



Law abiding citizens do not commit crimes. I have a right to own a gun to protect myfamily and myself from all the crazies out there.
2021-03-24 11:46:18 UTC
Yes; Cons are too lazy to learn martial arts.
kswck2
2021-03-24 11:26:58 UTC
The mistake politicians make when screaming for tougher gun laws, is that criminals don't Obey gun laws. 
xxx000au
2021-03-24 09:38:08 UTC
Rubbish.



I recall a representative of the NRA in an interview.

It was put to him that Australians do not enjoy the freedom to have guns as Americans do,  Australia also has very few gun deaths,  he was asked how can he explain that.  He said,  that is simple. 



Australians don't have as many guns as we do in America so clearly Australians wont have as many gun deaths.  



Did you know,  every year in the USA more people die by guns than have every died in all of the terrorist attacks in all of Americas history. 



Its madness how you lot get your nickers in a knot over 9/11 when you kill more of your own every single year. 



19,000 people killed in shootings and firearm-related incidents in 2020.



Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year for the US it is 12.21 while for Australia it is 0.88.  Japan has 0.02
Hopeful
2021-03-24 06:56:21 UTC
Well more innocent people would die as they would have no protection against the criminals with guns that is for sure. 
Aspen
2021-03-24 01:08:28 UTC
No. That would imply gun owners are potential criminals waiting for an excuse to go criminal. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens so you are wrong. They obey the laws. 
garry
2021-03-24 00:31:09 UTC
lol your funny , biden talks crap , its up to each state to bring in gun laws , not federal governments . next thing you will be saying is get guns from criminals .lol
towwwdothello
2021-03-24 00:22:16 UTC
First allow Americans to use their inherent rights, and see what the outcome is.



I believe you'll see--diplomacy has failed. Rational Americans don't shoot to solve a problem, and those who cannot behave themselves will learn manners just a little quicker. Thirty years is entirely too long.



Pray for peace--I am warning you.



A little homeland security.
2021-03-29 18:57:50 UTC
Liberals, why do you A.) Always & automatically think the police & military are guilty of barbaric extremes & B) Think THEY are the only people who should have guns?!  

Criminals would not be able to LEGALLY purchase their weapons, but what makes you think they won't IL-Legally do so in some back alley?!Why does France have more vehicular homicide than other places?!The ban isn't impossible, ENFORCEMENT THEREOF IS!!!!!!! Under what rock in what cave on what other world in the solar system while high on what drugs have you been,,, not to know that TERRORISTS, CRIMINALS, MASS SHOOTERS ALREADY HAVE GUNS AND/OR OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS REGARDLESS OF THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ALWAYS HAVE SUCH THINGS, SINCE BY DEFINITION, THEY ARE BREAKERS AND DISREGARDERS OF THE LAW!!!!!!! And on those RARE occasions when they don't out and out break the law, they go around it and/or, still commit terrible acts while STILL TECHNICALLY FOLLOWING whatever laws are already on the books!!!! Remember the truck massacre in France?!!?!? Or the fact that Mass Shootings typically happen in particular places in the US,,,, WHERE POSSESSION OF A GUN IS ALREADY ILLEGAL!?!?! Like public schools?!?!? Just like banning alcohol will stop alcohol-abuse-related-ills? For the same reason we had so much alcohol related crime during Prohibition ?!?!?! Mass shootings happen most often,,, in places where guns are already banned, ie public schools, and, for that matter, mass shootings themselves are already banned. Well, for what it's worth, to prevent mass shootings in THEIR immediate vicinity, they hire armed, firearmed, guards. More armed, licensed, security? Will opinions change about an unarmed populace being the first requirement for mass shootings change, when the Vegas security guard was unable to stop the shooter, due to being unarmed himself???????? In the Constitution, or in practical reality?? Indeed, indeed there will be,,, just as there are less mass shootings in Nice, France!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe THEY should have fewer semis?!?!?!?! Maybe we should consider how BOTH kinds HAPPEN, namely, LARGE NUMBERS OF THE GENERAL POPULACE WERE UNARMED!!!!!!!!!! Well, that is due to Cities such as Washington DC, Chicago,,, which have very strict gun control laws,,,, and the most gun crimes. Remove THEM, and we are fourth from the bottom!!!!!!!! Oh, you think that's bad? Sharon Stone is pro-gun control, but had a standoff with a home invader, that she successfully resolved, by cocking a shotgun. SHE don't live in a shantytown, and she had to resort to a gun for personal defense,,, how do they expect us to defend ourselves? Liberals, why do you A.) Always & automatically think the police & military are guilty of barbaric extremes & B) Think THEY are the only people who should have guns? We believe in everyone's right to keep their own money, and we believe in every free citizen's right to bear arms, which MAKES ALL OTHER RIGHTS POSSIBLE!!! Liberals, why do you A.) Always & automatically think the police & military are guilty of barbaric extremes & B) Think THEY are the only people who should have guns? If gun ownership itself was the problem, wouldn't Switzerland, world leader in per-person legal gun ownership, have the most. Are forgetting that many of these take place in/on/around public schools,,,,,, where possessing/carrying firearms,, ,,, ,,, IS ALREADY ILLEGAL?!
Mr Chowdhury
2021-03-27 14:15:07 UTC
Probably not. Most of the mass shootings were done with legal weapons. The carjackings, deli robberies etc are mostly illegal/stolen black market weapons. 
Ron Akia
2021-03-26 19:26:41 UTC
If guns were completely unavailable I'm certain we'd have a major increase in knives being used more in homicides.
W
2021-03-26 08:06:05 UTC
Probably not. Most of the mass shootings were done with legal weapons. The carjackings, deli robberies etc are mostly illegal/stolen black market weapons. 
?
2021-03-25 22:20:21 UTC
With "super restrictive gun laws", you'd have about 50 million new criminals.  Actually, current legal gun users who would refuse to turn over newly banned weapons, or to register every single weapon they have and let the government know where each one is at every single minute. That's the agenda of leftists for "reasonable gun control".  



And when that happens and the leftist government asks you to go knock politely on people's doors to enforce it?  You don't want to be on the receiving end!
james
2021-03-25 16:41:37 UTC
You know that's not true the murder who killed those Asian women wouldn't had gotten his gun that day . 
Obi Wan Knievel
2021-03-25 13:35:44 UTC
It's already illegal to shoot people, and the shooters know it.  If someone is willing to commit murder, why would they have a problem buying an illegal gun?
2021-03-24 22:22:23 UTC
Wrong.         
vic
2021-03-24 20:14:57 UTC
Incorrect we need to restrict some guns
Pat
2021-03-24 19:01:48 UTC
Not necessarily. Studies show the more guns, the more gun violence. A law that requires all gun owner to register their weapons and making them responsible for the use or abuse of those weapons would go a long way stopping gun violence. Crimes with unregistered guns should carry severe penalties. Assault weapons, gadgets that make other gun into assault weapons, and large clips should be banned and bought back. Universal background checks without exception would stop felons and mentally ill citizens from obtaining one. 



Nothing will stop all gun violence, but sensible laws and information will go a long way toward curbing it. For instance, studies show if you have a gun in your home there is more chance of you, or someone in your family, being hurt by gun violence than if you don’t own one.  With a gun fatal domestic violence rises as does suicide. Also there is a rise in accidents involving children or teens. The chance of a stranger making you a victim of gun violence is less than one percent. Sounds opposite to what you assume? Please Google: “Are you safer owning a gun in your home?” There are multiple studies online answering this questions.
2021-03-24 17:17:55 UTC
No, there would be less..it would not stop the shooting incidents but it would diminish them just by the inconvenience to killers of making it a little harder to obtain them..every little bit helps. Wearing seatbelts did not stop fatal car accidents, but it did decrease the number of deaths.
2021-03-24 15:45:18 UTC
yes, there are too many guns in circulation for more gun laws to work.
2021-03-24 12:54:50 UTC
Australia introduced the compulsory purchase of certain classes of guns after the Port Arthur Massacre. The gun control laws introduced by that country resulted in homicide and suicide rates plummeting.  I can't see that happening in the USA where the right to gun ownership is so religiously defended. But there is something seriously wrong when somebody whose brother and former classmates describe as having mental health issues can buy a semi-automatic weapon that they use in a mass shooting six days later. If there isn't an outright ban on the purchase of semi-automatic weapons there should at least be a requirement for a qualifying period of safe non-automatic gun ownership.
Jim2
2021-03-24 11:48:31 UTC
No. Australia and the UK have restrictive laws and far fewer gun deaths.
2021-03-24 10:14:05 UTC
MORE!!!!! Gun laws wont do anything to stop crime, it will be a lot worse since people wouldn't be allowed to defend themselves! How about they enforce the laws that already exists and keep the boarders closed to illegals! Makes more sense to me! Nothing wrong with law abiding citizens to be able to own firearms including ARs and other semiautomatics. We DO NOT NEED ANY NEW GUN LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YB Logical
2021-03-24 10:09:46 UTC
America has had one failed experiment with prohibition.

The prevalence of 3-D printers and computerized metal working equipment makes it possible for practically anyone to build guns in their basement.

We already have a serious "ghost gun" problem in the US with the homemade guns which lack serial numbers.

Super-restrictive gun laws would only add to this growing problem by creating a criminal industry in gun trafficking much like the unintended consequences of creating criminal enterprises during the days of alcohol prohibition.

Guns have little, if anything, to do with the real problem.

The problem is not that manufacturers are turning out more guns in the US.

The problem is that our society is turning out more disturbed youths who are willing to use guns to commit the mass murder of their peers.Something is amiss within the social engineering plan for our Country, which has given rise to a growing segment of our society who are finding themselves filled with so much anger and hatred that they become desensitized and oblivious to the real world consequences of the action of the mass murdering of others in cold blood.



And, that "something" which is amiss in the social structuring of the youth of America is the real problem to be isolated, addressed, and solved.

The real question is not, "Where are these guns coming from?", but rather:

"Where are these young murderers coming from?".

 
2021-03-24 05:32:02 UTC
Given that every "mass shooting" has been committed by criminals, criminals don't obey laws (hance the title "criminal"), and enforcers don't enforce the laws, I don't see an alternative.
Elwood Blues
2021-03-23 18:08:59 UTC
FALSE.  The best data we have is from the 1994 assault weapon ban which significantly lowered gun deaths.  https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration  “Gun massacres of six or more killed decreased by 37 percent for the decade the ban was active, then shot up 183 percent during the decade following its expiration.”
✟ death ship crow † ⚔
2021-03-23 18:03:37 UTC
there are so many guns in america, there will always be some nut that finds one.
?
2021-03-23 18:02:22 UTC
Yes. Because criminals don't follows laws. And the resulting civil war over the violation of 2nd Amendment rights would cause a lot of shooting. People need to understand that the loss of the 2nd Amendment means we lose the Constitution. And every veteran and active military has sworn an oath to protect the Constitution.

joshua, sorry but without guns there will be knife fights and knife murders. The UK has proved this.
kktoml
2021-03-29 04:23:11 UTC
People even need a distance that is out of the reach of fire.
2021-03-27 14:27:56 UTC
I believe so.  Restrictive gun laws aren't stopping criminals from getting guns, nor will any new laws.  IMO if you have enough money - criminals can always buy a gun. 
2021-03-26 05:31:35 UTC
Of course not, and only a complete idiot would claim that there could be.



First, no one would go on a mass shooting *because* they were restricted in getting guns. So, we already know there is not mechanism where a restrictive gun law, however relaxed it might be, would worsen the conditions we see when there are no such laws. At most, it would be equal.



Then, we can prove a reduction by finding a single case where restrictive laws would have prevented a carnage. And we do not have to go far for that: the shooting that took place in Boulder that left 20 people dead -- including an armed police officer -- was done by a mental patient who had no problem buying guns less than a week before. Introduce a law that says that if you are a wacko, you can't get a gun; what would he have done? Either he might have found a way around it and still do it, or he would not.

But the point is that, in his step to try and get weapons, that would have triggered a warning, making the police aware that a wacko was trying to get guns.



Therefore, this shows that restrictive laws could have prevented at least one mass shooting.
?
2021-03-26 03:56:20 UTC
yes.  lilly white people bury guns in airtight cases allover the place with gps trackers on them-- and NOT on their own property.  i'm talkin stuff buried in parks and fields and beside interstate highways ect. ect.
Merlinn
2021-03-25 19:15:31 UTC
Since criminals don't obey laws, regardless of how "restrictive" they are, NO law will have any effect on the number of shootings until they are ALL enforced.
T
2021-03-25 08:11:21 UTC
Its not the guns, its not the laws.. its people who has no consequences in their behavior. Until the justice system is fixed.. unfortunately there will not be any less shootings.
Andrew Smith
2021-03-25 02:12:03 UTC
It has never been tried in the USA.  If the people are self entitled with zero respect for the laws or the constitution they would continue to feel justified in shooting and killing others.  They wouldn't even wear a mask to prevent a pandemic killing half a million Americans so far ( and counting).
?
2021-03-25 00:07:19 UTC
i intend to make sure there no longer is a "society" 
?
2021-03-24 21:56:50 UTC
You have eyes to see and ears to hear, yet you still ask the obvious.
2021-03-24 20:00:44 UTC
Yes, there are already 300 million+ guns out there. Besides that, murder laws are pretty restrictive and no one seems to care.
WillyTK
2021-03-24 19:29:36 UTC
No, there would not.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
2021-03-24 18:25:48 UTC
No. That makes no sense what so ever. The restrictions have not be SUPER YET.  Pretty sure the "Redcoats" are not going to try to take over the country, and the "natives" are peaceable...and you killed off all the "buffalo" so what need is there for a gun? Most people buy their food in a grocery store.  Banking is done electronically...so there is nothing to rob. Arguments are settled by discussion or LAWYERS. "Space Aliens" do not exist on our rock.

. Question 1- are you an easily swayed idiot or mentally disturbed in some other fashion?

Right off the bat that gets rid of a ton of guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. (most of which do these shootings.)(many of them shooting themselves).

. Every person is not trained at handling a firearm so they can't protect the country from foreign invasion from SOME foreign invader. Besides that, the law allows the "invader" the right to Legal Counsel(a lawyer) so extra paperwork.

. Then there are those invaders you can't see.  They are so tiny, they float in the air currents the height of your nose.  There are many of them and we have been innoculated  against some of them "for life" that we do not even think about them. Most have been innoculated against "small pox" , "measles", "mumps" etc as it is a big list WE don't think about it.

.  Our guns has to be the size of a needle and the bullet a vaccine or cure.

Bullets will not stop Tonadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, Tsunamis.

Cars& speed have been our weapons of choice.
jehen
2021-03-24 15:57:14 UTC
No one is proposing super-restrictive gun laws.  But a ban on high-powered, rapid fire weapons with supersized ammo clips would have saved most of those who died in mass shootings in the last 20 years, even if the shootings still happened with pistols or hunting rifles.  In the most recent two a even a 1 week waiting period before acquiring high powered weapons designed only for mass human slaughter would have completely prevented the attacks.

  
kurt
2021-03-24 15:40:35 UTC
The City of Boulder has a ban on Assult weapons and high capacity ammo mags.

It is impossible that this happened in Boulder. We need to pass harsher laws like we have done to stop illegal drugs. Now there are no more addicts and the cartels have gone out of business.Only idiots think that passing more restrictive gun laws will stop crime. 

Only Americans will be hurt and reduce their ability to protect themselves.



Just like Drugs, if you want them, you can always get them.

We have no control on the border, anything and anyone can get in the US
2021-03-24 15:09:58 UTC
Gun control in Australia dramatically reduced shooting incidents.
2021-03-24 11:14:32 UTC
incorrect.....unless you are talking of immidiately after the legislation.. or unless some butthurt cons  NRA  members decide to act so as to intentially make it appear the laws are not working.......like the pathetic jilted immature mama babies  you all are...



just as the cartels , mafia etc  would cause a stir if certain  drugs ever became legal....
2021-03-24 07:28:05 UTC
I'm afraid so. We already have 20,000 gun control laws. Local, State & Federal. Another law isn't going to save anyone. The talk of banning Assault Weapons is ridiculous.  Assault Weapons have been band since the 1930's. An AR isn't an assault gun. The AR is a copy right of Armalite (makers of the military M16). Personally, I'd be embarrassed to been seen with one in any caliber.
2021-03-24 03:54:13 UTC
With more restrictive gun laws in the UK there was a drastic increase in knife attacks.
?
2021-03-24 02:44:32 UTC
Of course there wouldn't be as many shootings. We all know that criminals strictly follow the law of the land, including gun control laws. Criminals know that if they use an illegal gun to commit a crime, that it would be a crime itself to do so. So I'm sure that instead, they would more likely go fill out some job applications or take those extra GED prep classes they have been putting off while their pistol permit application was being processed.
2021-03-23 18:05:37 UTC
It's not just the laws, they have to be uniformly enforced. There's no point banning guns in one state if you can simply cross into the next and arm a platoon
dakotaviper
2021-03-27 10:01:22 UTC
Well, you should refer back to the Safest Super-Restrictive Anti-Gun urban city by the name of CHICAGO and see how successful those laws have been there for your answer.
Jake No Chat
2021-03-26 12:53:21 UTC
I do not think so.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws out there, and they are essentially the murder capitol of the US. 
Alice S
2021-03-25 14:41:08 UTC
The problem is that your gun lobby has a lot of financial clout when purchasing political backing.  This would make it very hard to implement any viable gun legislation.  Also, with over 3 guns per person in the US, trying to disarm America in one fell swoop would not be viable.  Not without a lot of bloodshed.  If America is serious about sorting out its gun problem, then they want to look at a long term solution that gradually takes guns out of circulation.  



Kennedy set a challenge to get men to the moon within a decade.  This was something that American worked hard to achieve.  If you can set a ten year timetable to get to the moon, then you can do the same for reducing guns in circulation.  Nothing is impossible.  All it takes is an act of will.  So a 20 or 30 year timetable, similar to green policies set to irradiate petrol and diesel cars from production would be viable if your governments so chose.  The problem is that most politicians think in 4 year blocks.



You do not have to totally get rid of guns, but a reduction of capability and numbers would not restrict your 2nd amendment rights.  Consider if you passed a law that allowed one gun per person.  Firstly, not every person is eligable for gun ownership, being under 21, or having a record.  So you would automatically irradiate a vast number of weapons.  Licensing combined with this law would allow you to track weapons and to make it harder for criminal elements go get their hands on the weapons.  So there is a solution that does not involve prizing the gun from your dead, cold fingers.



Is it so bad not having guns?  Watching channels that show what happens when an American lives and works in Europe, one of the commonalities is that they are not afraid.  There seems to be an underlying fear of gun crime in the US that, apparently is like a weight off of their shoulders.  I found that quite interesting.



Anyway, what about knife crime?  Yep, we have it in the UK.  The main difference is that you can overpower a knife wielder and the damage done by a knife wielding criminal is negligible compared to a school age teenager with a 30 round banana clip.  Taking out a guy with a knife is hard, but you can run away.  Try running from a bullet.



Anyway, the citizens generally feel safer and do not feel the need to arm themselves.  There are other issues as well.  One thing that we do in Europe is to integrate social housing with private housing.  In America there is a distinct geographical difference between rich and poor, including walled communities.  Seems to me that you have made boogie men out of hard working, honest people, whose only crime is not have access to plastic.  So just removing guns may not be the only reform that you need in order to feel safer.



Yes, Americans do need guns, especially if they live off the grid.  There are still some nasty predators out there.  But as soon as that turns to needed to defend against other people with guns, you do not have a cohesive nation, you have them and us separation and the groundwork for another civil war.



But ultimately it depends upon the type of world you want to live in.  If you like the idea of your kids playing in the street with other kids and not worrying about being shot, then you might want to consider again your stance of unlimited gun usage.  Do you like fear?  Do you like mist trust? Do you want to bring your kids up to live with their neighbors, as a part of a dynamic social group?  If the answer is yes, then you need to acknowledge that your love of toys that go bang is actually having an impact on your children's well being, both physically (If they get shot) and psychologically.  Sometimes being aware that people get shot every day does not make for a happy childhood.



I hope this answers your overly simplistic question.



 
Yoi and Double Yoi
2021-03-25 04:40:51 UTC
I shall answer your question with another.  How are Chicago's super-restrictive gun laws working at curbing shootings there?
L.N.
2021-03-24 23:09:53 UTC
Maybe not as many shootings, but probably more killings, mostly of robbery, rape and mugging victims. A lot of the shootings are in self defense and the bad guy is the statistic.
?
2021-03-24 22:34:24 UTC
Super restrictive gun laws are limiting the sell of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Weapons and weapons with large capacity clips.   You still have other weapons that can be used, like the 12 Gage shotgun which has no restrictions. There are so many guns already in circulation, new gun laws will make little difference.
?
2021-03-24 22:27:03 UTC
Criminals would not hand in their weapons, but in time they would find it harder to find weapons to steal, there would be no replacement parts to buy so more would become useless as time went on, it would take many years for them to phase out but eventually they would and it will then save lives. 
Blue Skies.
2021-03-24 20:25:20 UTC
We have more gun laws on the books then we could possibly enforce,

And that is the problem we do enforce half of them.
Uncle Pennybags
2021-03-24 19:50:21 UTC
There were 393 Million guns in the USA back in 2017 according to this article.



In the 3+ years since, about another 50 to 60 million guns have been added.



Even if you banned the sale of any new guns, there will still be a flood of existing guns on the black market.
2021-03-24 15:46:24 UTC
There would be more shootings.  Government goons would start shooting even more people indiscriminately.  Especially white policemen shooting African-Americans.  
?
2021-03-24 14:52:55 UTC
There are super restrictive gun laws in multiple areas of the country and there's still shootings there. If it were to go national I believe the shootings in the country would rise overall while lowering the percentages of a few select areas. Stopping crime like this is more complicated than taking away an implement.
2021-03-24 14:31:59 UTC
True,but to conquer a nation first disarm its citizens.
2021-03-24 11:12:32 UTC
Less and automatic assault rifles were never to be in hands of citizens not even at gun shooting stores.  WHOEVER let that be in hands of anyone except military and police is a DEMON. Hell's Angels will make them pay. 
David
2021-03-24 11:12:32 UTC
Well in actual civilized non corrupt first world countries ( not Mexico ) gun crimes and violence are extremely low when guns are extremely restricted. Criminals in Japan have resorted to using crossbows ( less than 40 people shot with crossbows in a year ) .



America needs to fix its poverty and crime problems. Restrictive guns laws would work here if poverty, homelessness, and the crime rate were all significantly reduced. We just keep stacking problems on top of each acting like they don’t exist.
2021-03-24 07:30:13 UTC
If we keep on doing what we're doing, we'll keep on getting what we're getting.  Most Americans favor stricter gun laws than we have now.  In issue after issue Republicans do their best to assure Americans don't get what they want.



https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Judy and Charlie
2021-03-24 02:04:14 UTC
It's a lot like ENCOURAGING rats to reproduce and multiply in America.  They spread disease and filth and we know it but we've allowed it anyway.  This is the same that has occurred with the gun lobby and manufacturers pushing guns in our society,



TRUTH:  NOT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO A GUN.  That's just common sense. 

FACT:  At least one quarter of the United States Population will suffer from a treatable mental or emotional illness in their lifetimes.  And this doesn't include alcoholism or substance abuse.



The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution forbids our government from taking our possessions from us.  And so, the glut of drugs and guns in our society cannot be automatically corrected or cleaned up.  And so sensible restrictive gun laws are long overdue now, but may do nothing to clean up a long standing problem.
2021-03-24 01:18:46 UTC
That, or a quadrupling of the crime rate, as happened in the UK in 1997. 
Nemo S
2021-03-24 00:07:14 UTC
Correct just look at the states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws now only criminals have guns and they do use them and if they can't get guns they will use any other kinds of weapons just look at history BEFORE guns were invented....



A gun is nothing more than a tool - Shane...



N.Shadows
Black
2021-03-23 22:24:02 UTC
The rest of the world's experience completely invalidates your hypothesis. Every other country with strict gun laws doesn't have the level of violence that the US does. Choose to believe me or not, but the US is a complete outlier in the world, and not a good outlier.
joshua
2021-03-23 18:05:10 UTC
It’s not the gun laws themselves, it’s the fact that we have too many guns already in circulation.....It’s not possible for a ban to work when you have 3 times as many guns as people



In a perfect world, if no one has guns, it would be safer but we past the point to make that possible decades ago, if not a century 



Vote me down but that’s the truth. Guns will never be eliminated in America. It’s simply not possible 
?
2021-03-26 08:13:27 UTC
Look at examples such as Australia, to prove you wrong.
2021-03-25 22:03:26 UTC
Coronavirus and Jesus Cup: you can NOT get infected. There are a great many evidences that the Sacrament of Holy Communion cannot serve as a source of infection.



Many priests carry out their ministry in places that, in terms of hygiene or adherence to medical standards, are, to put it mildly, not entirely safe. For example, Father Alexander Klimenko had to give Communion to the prisoners of the Berezan penal colony for 10 years, where there were people with HIV and an open form of tuberculosis, and after all the participants, he had to consume the Holy Gifts (that is, to eat the Holy Communion remaining in the Jesus Cup).



At the same time, he did not get sick with HIV or tuberculosis. The press secretary of the Zaporozhye diocese, archpriest Alexander Ovcharenko, calculated that over the years of his ministry, he consumed what’s left in the Jesus Cup (after previous participants) about 2600 times.



 The priest states: “As you know, completely different people come to church with many diseases. On average, two times a year in Zaporozhye there are epidemics of influenza and acute respiratory infections in general. Not once after consuming the Holy Gifts did I get sick!





On the other hand, I would only get sick if I either sat outside in the cold too long, or sat in a draft, or turned on the air conditioner. The Holy Gifts are a spiritual fire that scorches not only human sins; take my word for it.”





Deacon Irenaeus writes about this problem simply and convincingly: “At each Liturgy, people who are sick (with whichever disease) take communion. After each use, the Jesus spoon plunges into the Jesus Cup. And the remaining Gifts are consumed (eaten) by the deacon.



 About the possibility of getting infected through the Sacrament. I will say very simply, as a deacon, we (deacons) simply would not exist if infection transmitted thru Jesus Cup. We would have died out like extinct species of animals long ago.



 In our world, there are a huge number of different viruses that are transmitted both through saliva and by airborne droplets. And it's not only about tuberculosis, hepatitis, but also about other diseases, of which there really are many.



Taking this into account, the Church would have long ago switched to such forms of communion that would maximally protect a person from various infections [disposable cups, disposable spoons, personal wipes for wiping lips (preferably also disposable), sanitizers for hands and icons] - all this would be in the Church if the infection was transmitted through the Jesus Cup.



Infection is NOT transmitted through Jesus Cup.



COVID measures = heresy = blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. pochaev.org.ua/?pid=2249
Uig
2021-03-25 15:15:30 UTC
Not correct fewer guns = fewer shootings
Sparky
2021-03-25 14:57:33 UTC
We have the free enterprise system in America so if in the future we can't buy a gun in a store , a merchant will figure out a way to bring guns to anyone who wants to buy one.
?
2021-03-25 13:08:36 UTC
A substantial waiting period between purchase and actually taking possession of a gun would help, as would a training and safety-class requirement, as would banning the sale of certain types of guns.



The shooter in Boulder seems to have purchased his gun only 6 days earlier. What if he'd had to wait a month?  What if he'd had to take a class first?  What if he hadn't been able to buy that sort of gun at all?



Most guns used in mass shooting have been obtained legally, by the way. We may not be able to reduce your average number of criminal shootings -- gang violence, armed robberies -- but we can definitely reduce mass shootings.  Australia did it after the Port Arthur massacre, in which 35 people died.



By the way, if I were a gun store owner and someone with a middle-eastern name bought that type of gun from me, I'd be on the phone to local police and the FBI expressing some concern. The latter would certainly have sat up and taken notice, since his name was already known to them.  A gun instructor might also have expressed some worries to law enforcement, had a class been required.
Armchair Goddess #1
2021-03-25 12:29:47 UTC
The hyped up phrase "super-restrictive" when it comes to long-needed gun laws which do not yet exist is misleading, anonymous.  How can requirement for universal background checks on would-be gun buyers be seen as "super restrictive" when those who pass such background checks get to buy the gun?  



People with the type of mental health problems as the 21-year-old massage parlors shooter should not be able to buy any guns, but especially not the rapid-fire semi-automatic rifle he bought just a few days prior to the massacre of eight innocent people.  Same goes for the deranged gunman at the Kroger subsidiary.  The modest proposal for checks-and-balance gun legislation includes a ban on automatic (rapid-fire) battleground weapons only (there are still more than 300 types of guns the little penis guys can hoard to compensate for their physical or sexual inadequacies even with the ban), a ban on high-capacity ammo clips so any deranged would-be assassin has to RELOAD, giving targeted folks a better chance to either get away or capture the killer; and the hugely popular (even among NRA members) universal background check prior to a gun purchase.  



Mass murders would indeed be less frequent.  
2021-03-25 07:26:29 UTC
I think people who want to kill people will find ways to do it.  



The people wanting this legislation forget what a failure the war on drugs was.  Why was it a failure?  Because we didn't address the reasons why people do drugs.



I don't know why people refuse to look at history to see the lesson here.  If you want the gun violence to stop, you have to address the root of the problem.



We've had lots of guns in this country for many years, and yet somehow it was rare to hear of these shootings when I was in school.  The availability of guns is clearly not the root of the problem.



One thing that has changed is that people don't feel responsible for others anymore.  And they are entitled AF.  Nobody wants to compromise.  They just want to throw a violent tantrum and kill people when they don't get their way.  That isn't just the cause of gun violence, it's the cause of a lot of problems here...from people on BOTH sides of the aisle.  People need to grow up and realize they are not the center of the universe.  The U.S. is not the center of the universe either.  



Stop parenting your kids in irresponsible ways.  Stop teaching them that they are more special than the next kid.  Stop doing everything for them and letting them have their way all the time.  Don't be abusive either.  Teach them to be disciplined, to care about their community and help others, but also to not let others abuse them. 



Be a good example.  Do public service.  Treat others the way you want to be treated.  Learn to compromise.  When things don't go your way, handle it like an adult.  Children are watching and learning from us.



I would love it if the extremism could stop and we could go back to being reasonable.
oldcraggyguy
2021-03-25 07:14:59 UTC
No, not correct.  Most guns in mass shootings were purchased legally within two weeks of the tragedy, not out of the back of a car trunk in a ghetto like the NRA wants you to believe.  Because of the NRA, we have never tried more restrictive gun laws.  
Randy Bodandy
2021-03-24 20:15:43 UTC
Fal$eroider! Why do you racist cons do the drug$? If we did the right thing and threw out that ancient racist document the Constitution the socialist doves could just outlaw gun ownership once and for all! We will never have our socialist utopia until we outlaw guns you Nazi scum!
?
2021-03-24 18:14:33 UTC
I think the short answer is just as many.  Criminals don't really care how many laws get passed. Perhaps we should make crimes illega ... oh, never mind. 



I don't know that you can run a background check and ask "are you an easily swayed idiot", but we could ask if your Yahoo ID is "Anonymous".  Same outcome? 
2021-03-24 18:04:14 UTC
Here in GB, the gun laws are very strict. We have armed robberies etc, but far fewer than in America. This takes into account the fact that as a smaller country we have a smaller population. The per capita number of guns here is much lower. We have not, had a school shooting here for 25 years, and other rampage shootings are also, thankfully, rare.
2021-03-24 16:47:41 UTC
There would still be as many or more "incidents", yes.



People who are angry and/or mentally ill will use vehicles, bats, knives, bricks, rocks, etc, etc, etc to cause injury and trouble to others.  It doesn't matter what is restricted. 



Liberals just don't "get it". 



LEFTISTS want as little opposition as is possible. 



Conservatives* seem to be sleeping. 



*Conservative politicians 
?
2021-03-24 15:34:11 UTC
Yes .Laws never stopped anyone. Didn't "stop" the OK Corral shootout. Murder has been illegal 5,000 years. Prohibition made Al Capone  millionaire

  Idiots that spew things like" shooter had an 'assault weapon'', or "He bought an 'assault weapon' " etc are ignorant There  are NO: " Assault  Weapons". Shooter had an AR -15 variant; means "Armalite   Rifle". A True assault rifle is very restricted, 6 month wait. Named the M-16, A4, FN-FAL, and AK variants. Besides, a Ruger Ranch rifle shoots  Exactly the same as an AR, its just doesn't "look" like a "big, bad, black gun"

 No ; "trying it " is No Good. Laws are Rarely rescinded. Even if they  don't  work.

  We  Have universal background checks, except private sales in Two states.
Jim Crockett Promotions Fan
2021-03-24 13:42:29 UTC
If you're not going to do The Background Checks and Enforcements of existing laws, passing more legislation would be just a band aid to make people feel better. Be more thorough and forceful in enforcing existing gun laws and prosecute people to the fullest extent of the law with the laws you already have in place.
?
2021-03-24 11:51:28 UTC
As long as you can buy them, off market or steal them, yes.
?
2021-03-24 09:32:33 UTC
Bearing in  mind the age of the Constitution it should be treated like the 10 commandments, ie a general set of giudelines rather tha hard an fast laws. No civilian needs assault weapons of any description.
?
2021-03-23 18:13:32 UTC
The use of firearms in a crime is illegal, so is murder, so are illegal drugs, so is illegal immigration.  Will more laws stop any of those things? Hell no.
2021-03-23 18:13:24 UTC
Correct.  Only the shootings which involve the law abiding defending themselves with a firearm would dwindle while criminals doing shootings would skyrocket.  Because when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have 'em.
Flora Post
2021-03-23 18:09:58 UTC
That would probably depend on the gun laws. If the laws permit the government to confiscate the majority of guns there would probably be fewer shootings. That was the result in countries that restricted gun ownership.
2021-03-23 18:03:16 UTC
Yes. Criminals will always have guns.
?
2021-03-26 04:39:21 UTC
No. In countries where gun laws are stricter, less shootings (especially mass shootings) occur. There would be considerably less violent incidents when people can't access guns so easily.
Orangepoke
2021-03-25 15:50:32 UTC
I don't know, we've never had a "super-restrictive" gun law, so how would we know.
Sexy
2021-03-25 14:46:02 UTC
LAW BREAKERS....don't care and HAVE THE GUNS. There will be MORE SHOOTINGS. The solution is EASY...more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and no more gun free zones. THEY DON'T WORK.
Boheme
2021-03-25 12:00:37 UTC
Removing guns form USA would only have a negligible affect on gun violence 
2021-03-24 16:51:02 UTC
Nope, only the Government might be safe  The people will just use blades and pointy sticks, eventually bottles and rocks.

** save a life, surrender your knives, ** and then

** save a life, surrender your pointy sticks and rocks. **
?
2021-03-24 14:52:06 UTC
yes because ONLY criminals would have the guns and we innocent law abiding citizens would have absolutely no way of defending ourselves why can't democrats realize that AR in AR-15 does not stand for automatic rifle nor Assault rifle
Jimmy C
2021-03-24 06:03:57 UTC
Incorrect. Australia and Japan have 'super-restrictive gun laws' and they have no shooting incidents. No guns= no shooting. 
?
2021-03-24 03:30:22 UTC
Chicago is proof that gun laws do not work and democrats run that city.
RICK
2021-03-24 02:05:19 UTC
False

Totally 100% false

And the proof is that during the Assault Weapons ban mass shootings were way down


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...