be it  resolved that gun control helps criminals?
95505
I believe it does, because most criminals do not buy there guns legally. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, by gun control you just take them away from the people who are defending their homes. Look at Australia for example, gun related violence as went through the rood since they banned guns!
700839
Heck no, the people that kill otehrs with guns are going to figure out a way to get guns and kill people with them thats all there is to it. If you take away our guns then how in the heck are we going to protect ourselves from the people who have bad intentions with the guns. Yes I will be joining the NRA soon. Its the democrats that are trying to take away our guns.
456433
I don't think it does, the death penalty shows offenders what may happen to them if they kill.  I don't see why that would cause an increase in crime.
1117644
Guns serve the people who have them in the hands of terrorist they serve terror in the hands of free Americans they deter crime and terror...So no....
894196
No.  \n\nI am more concerned about the drugged up criminal with a gun that could try to break into my home.
943523
I think it does help.  Just not all the time.  When my house was broken into, I gave the cops the descriptions of everything taken and less than a week later they called me because they thought they found my camcorder.  It turned out to belong to another family that got robbed, but yes I do think they recover things that get stolen.
113483
Gun control is the ability to shoot a fly off a cows backside from 100 yards with out hurting the cow!
101476
No. I live in in a rural area of the country where it is commonplace for the farmers and avid deer hunters to have guns. It is common for teen boys to be given a gun and taken out to the woods, dad and son, to learn how to hunt and be responsible with it. Considering how prolific the guns are here yet there is very little crimnal use of them, I don't see a correlation of quantity of guns to use of them in crime. \n\nThat doesn't mean crime is non-existent here. Shortly after moving to this state I was called for jury duty. It was a murder trial. Of interest to this discussion, the man murdered was hunting and had a gun in his hands when the confrontation began. The murders had ready access to guns themselves. Though there were several guns present when the man was murdered, the guns were not used. The man was beaten and kicked to death. You don't need guns to kill. You just need hate mixed with alcohol to dull your self restraint.
882968
Guns are used to prevent over 1 million violent crimes a year.  That is far, far, FAR in excess of the minor amount of problems they cause from irresponsible use.\n\nWherever you find guns in widespread ownership, you see crime evaporate.
804282
do you want for or against? \n\nFor gun control:\nIn countries with strict gun control there is much less gun related violence. E.g. clearly fewer school shootings. If the parents don't have a gun sitting in their cupboard ready to be used most kids won't figure out easily where do get one from. \nAlso less danger of accidental shootings if there are less guns around.\nI think the bobbies in England stopped carrying a gun and somebody figured out that the risk for a Bobby to get shot actually went down. If the criminal knows they are not going to get shot they actually seem to be less inclined to shoot first and rather run first. Though I've never seen the study, only hearsay, so I don't know how accurate the rumor is. But you probably can figure that out.\nAlso I think there are studies that guns in the home end up to be used much more rarely in defence against a burglar situation than are involved in accidents or murders by people living in the household. People with no or little control over their temper seem to use a gun if it happens to be around and shoot their spouses or friends and think about consequences later. \n\nagainst: owning a gun seems to give some people a sense of security (or of being macho)
113253
I agree that one cannot always count on the government for protection.  I believe in using the best tools to maximize my safety and the safety of my family.  Firearms happen to be some of the best tools for personal defense.\n\nYou might encourage your family members to look at the website below.  Much of what people believe about the dangers of firearms is inaccurate.  The link includes references, so you can always send them to the sources.
1093467
Let me see, guns don't get up and decided to go rob or shoot someone. They are not possessed and can't think, walk, or see.  So I'm going to go with "b": The people using the guns kill people.\n\nAnd before anyone tries to argue that having a guns makes someone more prone to shoot, that's not so. There are far too man gun owners in the USA that do not misuse their guns. There would be a whole lot more dead people in the country if that were the case. Knives kill more people with more efficiency than guns. Watching TV would leave you to believe otherwise, but it's not the case.
14050
Recently, the National Academy of Science and Department of Justice reviewed more than forty years of research on gun control.  Their conclusions can be read one of two ways:\n\n1) The entire body of prior research is so thoroughly horribly flawed that it is useless.  This is a statement that there are so few quality research papers that no conclusions can be drawn.  There have certainly been many studies performed, though their results do differ from study to study.  Whether they differ because of methodology, sample, or design is something researchers should be able to sort out as long as some research is of high quality.  The panel does not mention any particular criteria or studies as being better.\n\n2) There is neither consistent nor convincing credible evidence that gun control laws reduce crime rates.\n\nIt is possibly of interest that all but one of the members of the panel is known to favor additional restrictions on possession and ownership of firearms.\n\nGiven the panels composition, and that it excluded the foremost researcher on this issue, (Dr. Gary Kleck, whose books should be available in your local library), I am inclined to believe the latter (particularly after having read several of his books).\n\n"...Consequently, when medical journal authors report that there is little evidence on a given topic, it may often really mean only that they made no serious effort to find any or chose not to report what they found.  For example, in an article published in 1996 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Douglas Weil (research director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, affiliated with Handgun Control) and a colleague claimed that "there is little published research on the effectiveness of gun laws" (Weil and Knox 1996:60).  In fact, there were, at the time this article was published, at least forty-five empirical studies of the impact of gun laws on violent crime, suicide, and gun accidents (Tables 8.4 and 11.1).  Weil then proceeded to inaccurately claim that "with little dissent, these studies are generally supportive of the thesis that well-tailored gun laws can have a beneficial impact" (ibid.:60), when in fact the studies have generally indicated that gun laws, whether "well-tailored" or not, have no measurable impact on violence rates (Chapter 11; Point Blank;Chapter 10)...." Page 42, Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns, (Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1997)\n\nI think the strictest possible Federal gun control is already on the books.  But that law remains unenforced.  That law is the Second Amendment.  The Federal and State governments have studiously ignored it and the courts have been derelict in resolving the issue.
380211
You would have to define that question a lot better for anything but a hostile response.  The answer of course is no, but if you are a third world country who government needs a scapegoat, it is easy to point at us and say things that are untrue and get them to believe it because we have it, they do not, hence we must be doing something dishonest to get it since they do not have too right?\n\nIf people started educating themselves and stopped shooting at one another, they too could have what we have.\n\nJohn B.
849705
For certain crimes, I believe it is beneficial.  I won't start a big rally here but if you look at countries and states that have capital punishment in place for violent crimes, their crime rates are incredibly lower than ours.  Eye for an eye......sorry.
658154
i think it is because if guns are registered, some criminals can be tracked down. not all people are born criminals, so they buy guns, register them, go hunting, etc. \nLike in murder case of Dr. John Branion, 1967. He shot his wife four times, picked up his son from school and came home to pretend to "find" her dead. The eidence from the autopsy and evidence found in the Branion home showed that the murder weapon was a .38 caliber Walther PPK handgun, which Branion clamied to not own, although he owned a brochure, a Walther PPK target, an ammo clip and ammo for that exact gun. they took the serial number from the products, and found that the gun was registered to a friend of Branion's who had given Branion the gun as a gift. Thanks to the registration of that gun Branion was convicted of his wife's murder.
71126
Your facts are true.  The criminals will get guns whether they are legal or not.  We have a right under the constitution to bear arms. Period.