it would decrease look at other "civilized countries) for an example of that

Switzerland has a low gun-related crime rate, yet 1 in 6 households own automatic firearms.

I can't say for certain whether it would increase or decrease but I think that there certainly would still be persons owning guns, and then you would not have the option (legally) of defending your home with a gun. I think violence might increase, if people who had guns illegally realized the power they over the rest of the population who were defenseless.

I seriously doubt it. We are a violent people and I don't see that stopping just by removing guns from the equation.

maybe, but if so only a little. there will always be those that find new and inventive ways of hurting others. making guns illegal will only stop a small minority of the violence, but it will not stop it entirely.

I don't know, the loss of many hardworking legal American's second ammendment right might actually induce some violence.

I'm not entirely certain it would decrease. It's true that many countries where guns are illegal have lower violent crime rates but many of these countries have had firearm restrictions in place for years. In the US, if gun ownership was criminalised, many honest citizens would hand in their weapons but criminals could very well keep their's. I think it would take many years for the amount of guns in circulation to be reduced significantly and at that time you might or might not see lower violent crime rates. The bigger issue is why these acts of violence are occurring. What in society is triggering them? The availability of weapons may be one factor but I don't think it is a huge one. There are deeper problems that are causing these crimes and these must be addressed before we'll see the figures go down, in my opinion. Whether people are shooting, stabbing or simply beating each other in the street is not the key matter. It's what is influencing people to be violent in the first place. If the violence is to stop or be reduced dramatically, it must be confronted through education and the like rather than it being blamed purely on the weapons available.

I rather doubt it would stop or decrease. Violent criminals would assuredly NOT BE turning in THEIR weapons; because, that's the way it works! Honest people follow the laws. Dishonest people do not! I think what would serve us better would be for Judges to get tougher on Gun Related crime. Make it hard edge. use a gun at all go to jail. And all those wasting time on death row...sorry, but ya gotta go! Three appeals if you have new or unseen evidence to share for each appeal...after thee if the case isn't overturned...then bye bye, maybe you shouldn't have murdered anyone at all...it might have been a bad idea. I realize this is neither Christian nor is it PC...but I'm kinda sick of paying for murderers to receive medical and dental treatments that I can not afford to attend to because I don't have health insurance....Are we supposed to commit a crime to be covered? I think not.

I suspect that crazy person who killed all those people today was not a violent criminal. Take a look at the gun deaths in other industrialized countries which have extremely tight gun control laws and compare the figures with the U.S. It is an eye opener.

One would think so. However, Canada has an extremely large gun-owning population and their gun-related crime rate is very low. It goes beyond gun ownership; it takes a violent and defensive culture to cause the kind of statistics America has. How does a kid who grows up playing Grand Theft Auto, watching violent rated-R movies and listening to gansta rap learn to apperciate the grave potential of actual firearms. How does he learn to respect life as precious? I love the argument that the bad guys would still have guns if we robbed the innocent of their right to own them. Yeah, maybe. How many of us have shot muggers or home invaders? The fatality rate among children 0-19 hovers around 3,500 a year. More than 800 of those death are accidental. And that's just kids. I don't think you'll ever pry guns from the hands of the typical American. I do think that better gun control is necessary. Guns can remain legal and still be regulated, just like prescription drugs, automobiles and other conveniences than can also be deadly.

The answer is already available. For the effects of gun control, we must look at geographical regions to see the results of changes in gun control laws within those regions. In areas where stringent gun control laws have been passed, there has been no positive effect on violent crime rates. In fact, in many such areas violent crime has increased, sometimes drastically. (Great Britain, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Taiwan are examples). The United States is one area where gun control laws have been relaxed. Over the last two decades, "shall issue" license laws in about 40 states now provide for any law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon if he/she so desires. Millions of firearms have been sold over the last two decades. And in the United States, especially in the shall-issue states, violent crime rates have decreased over the last two decades. (See FBI records.) Gun control is not about reducing crime. It is about reducing freedom. What other purpose can a law which has no good effect have? Crime reduction is the (easily disproven) excuse.