Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have BIGGER GUNS than that here sonny better check out my prior posts ...tanks ain't much good in the hills you can't protect all vital infrastructures get real....besides you have military that would side with US.
Before some of you get your pink panties in a wad with unmaned drone strikes you can hijack them if you know what to do and I know lots of people who could do that and much much more.When you stomp on others FREE WILL there are no bounds, rules , or laws that will stop FREEDOM loving patriots.
Veterans or not do you really believe a weekend militia unit will have any chance against the resources a modern Army/Marine/Seal unit can bring to bare if thats what it came down to?..
Or your 21 million individuals could be a cohesive enough battle force to take on a dedicated US military?
To answer the Op's question i think less guns would result in less people being killed by guns.
If this administration ordered our military to take up arms against the public I don't know if most would comply. Most active duty folks are pretty conservative and order or not, they aren't going to kill their fellow citizens for Obama, Pelosi or Holder. Most likely, any order of this nature would be to crush civil disobedience related to a hugely unpopular law/order/court decision (total gun ban, 401k redistribution, slave reparations from whites, blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc...) that most active military would also be against.
I think it is farfetched that this would ever happens. Hope it never does. For the record I lean to the left but this is one issue where I agree with the right. My right to defend myself and those I care about is more important than the rights of criminals. You don't want shot? Don't try to steal, rape and murder people.
Except for law enforcement and the military what problems would arise if there were no guns in this country? I suppose we would have 30,000 more people alive every year. What's that, about a million folks in some 30 odd years? I guess people couldn't go hunting. Well, there's always the grocery store. So, what would be the major problem if there were no guns in the citizenry?
You can look at countries without guns, at least very limited guns, for some ideas. Though United States is a little different than europe (i.e. social economic/border mexico/etc).
I would say most gun deaths would decrease significantly. Accidental shootings, escalations at bars, those things would be ended.
I would say gun violence (bad guy on bad guy/etc) would probably stick around. So you wouldn't get rid of EVERY gun death, just most.
From a social stand point, can't see any real issues. Gun is a right is a fabrication by our constitution and is not a common liberty.
Veterans or not do you really believe a weekend militia unit will have any chance against the resources a modern Army/Marine/Seal unit can bring to bare if thats what it came down to?..
Or your 21 million individuals could be a cohesive enough battle force to take on a dedicated US military?
To answer the Op's question i think less guns would result in less people being killed by guns.
In case you're not paying attention, a handful of uneducated camel jockeys have managed to keep the US military at bay for 10 years in Afghanistan. 80 million legal gun owners in the US...would be pretty hard for even the US military to effectively suppress. Especially considering that many firearms owners shoot firearms that are similar (if semi-auto) versions of the same weapons used by the military, and often superior ones. Assuming that the military would even be willing to obey an order of questionable legality by turning weapons on their fellow citizens.
Coming back to the OP, I would expect violent crime to skyrocket. Criminals would get more vicious, mere physical force is sufficent against an unarmed victim. Potential victims with a means of defending themselves is the most effective deterent to violent crime. Firearms are used to stop or prevent crimes between 1 and 2 million times per year in this country. Banning legal ownership simply gives criminals free reign. Given our unwillingness to actually provide meaningful deterrents to crime via our revolving door "justice" system, criminals have learned that they have little to fear from the police. Armed (potential) victims are another matter.
You can look at countries without guns, at least very limited guns, for some ideas. Though United States is a little different than europe (i.e. social economic/border mexico/etc).
I would say most gun deaths would decrease significantly. Accidental shootings, escalations at bars, those things would be ended.
I would say gun violence (bad guy on bad guy/etc) would probably stick around. So you wouldn't get rid of EVERY gun death, just most.
From a social stand point, can't see any real issues. Gun is a right is a fabrication by our constitution and is not a common liberty.
Chicago is one of the most restricted cities in the country for firearms ownership. Has that correlated to a low crime rate and safe neighborhoods?
I'll take being shot over being beat to death any day...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
