But what you're saying is impossible to accomplish. There are a lot of bad people in the world and there will always be bad people in the world and they want guns and they'll get them one way or the other.

I understand. In Canada guns are illegal and we have a very low gun violence/death rate. Compare our statistics to the US where guns are legal...it's astounding!!

It would be impossible to eliminate every gun from the face of the planet. The reason that bad people and criminals are called such is because they don't obey the law. What gun-toting criminal that you know is going to willingly hand over a firearm? I would rather hold on to my right to bear arms and defend myself than relinquish that and be subject to the criminals being the only ones with them.

That's like saying, No autos=no auto accident deaths. Yes, we could do without them. But the machine is not the problem. It's mostly the operator of the mechanism that is at fault, and most gun owners are responsible and law abiding. Have you heard the saying that you can't put the genie back in the bottle? We could try and go back to clubs and pointy sticks, but it wouldn't work. We could also try to go back to horses and hiking. In today's world this would never be accepted.

the world is filled with terrorism and jealousy,so no one can seperate arms from people and using them...if neighther arms they use other sources......

People can, and always will, make guns. Think about it, if we took away guns from the average, everyday people, then we would have nothing to defend ourselves from God knows what band of Nazis that have found out how to make their own guns. No guns = a society overturned by terrorists/revolutionaries/blah blah blah

I am so tired of people that think no guns no death listen the guns don't tell you to shoot someone and it don't pull its own trigger it is not the guns it is the person behind the gun you have these bleeding heat liberals that say get rid of all guns they kill I would love for someone to come and try to take mine what is going to be next knives kill we have to get rid of those to? it will never stop until stupid people quite blaming the object and blame the person behind the object. We need to teach our children the value of life and hold the people accountable that do these crimes instead of saying it was the guns fault there bad get rid of them and no one else will die because the gun made them do it it wasn't their fault at all please people put the blame where it belongs

It's a false statement...people die everyday from other means..

I absolutely completely agree with you. Yes, there would still be violence by other means, its part of nature but other than hunting I do not see any use in guns at all... and to kill an animal I do not see the need for machine guns, etc... The only other point that I agree with is that it would be very difficult to eliminate all guns and if a country eliminated guns completely then they may just become targets for terrorism b/c how are you goint to defend yourself. Anyway, I dont see much good in guns and I think if more people think llike you, our world would be such a better place. Good post!

no guns does not = no deaths no matter how you try to calculate the equation.

So we shouldn't even try!!! That's crazy logic

i'm from Italy and we don't have the problems that the US has. It's not that guns are completely illegal but they are registered and you need to have a liscense. You can't carry them around without a specific permission which will not be given without reason. It makes sense to me. What would happen if people drove cars without a license? I used guns in the army and they don't scare me, but sometimes people don't use the brain and hold a gun in their hands...

thats some bad math right there... I am of the mind if you outlaw guns, only out laws will have guns. I believe in Gun Control.

The fatal flaw in your plan to confiscate guns is that (at least in MY case) when you try to take my gun away, there will definitely be a death involved in that transaction. I am not alone as a defender of freedom and liberty, you must leave this fantasy of yours alone, it will lead to massive destruction. If for example there were a semi successful push to unilaterally disarm, there are so many with imagination to plan a successful counter to such a move, experience to train and command others, and the balls to get er dun. If during a neighborhood to neighborhood running gun battle do you think you will not be caught in the crossfire? Think Stalingrad during WW2 and you can imagine how horrible your plan is.

That doesn't even make sense because if someone is mental enough (or sick enough) to commit a murder they will find other means of doing it instead of using a gun. They won't just go "OOPS, I got my gun taken away, oh well, I guess I'll just invite her over for ice cream instead"..... And by the way, if guns were TOTALLY banned from people INCLUDING policemen, what would the cops be armed with? Their toes? And even if you give the case of only letting cops have guns then what? There is such thing as twisted ex-cops....or simply just people stealing them from cops.

And no knives = no knife deaths, and no pillows = no smothering deaths, and no sledgehammers = no sledgehammer deaths, and no pills = no poisoning deaths or o.d.'s, etc.! If someone is of a mind to kill someone, they WILL find a way. While the availability of guns makes this the favorite and easiest way to kill, it is STILL the perpetrator who does the crime, not the instrument. And, as said previously, if you outlaw guns, then only criminals will be left with them. There has to be a better way.

THen we return to the days of swords or bow and arrow. Knives, clubs, baseball bats, axes, rope, wire, fire, and poison would not kill a soul I suppose if we got rid of all the guns. It is a ridiculous statement that the guns are the problem.

What you display is a total lack of logic. First, the guns you speak of (38 of them are mine) are the personal property of someone who is NOT YOU. What would your response be if I said that YOU are not allowed to own a book of any kind and that an armed government should come to your abode and remove your books? I think you'd take the heaviest book you have and whack that jackbooted thug in the mug! And then you'd probably try to find ME and hit me with your copy of the Communist manifesto by Karl Marx for coming up with the idea and lobbying my congressman to enact the law in the first place. Think about the retribution that comes your way after you piss off 80 million men with guns and endanger the peace of everyone else who were minding their own business.

1.i've had a gun for 42yrs. 2.my gun has never moved under its own power. 3.my gun has never shot anyone. 4.my gun has no hands to load itself. 5.my gun has no eyes to aim itself 6.my gun has no fingers to pull its trigger personal responsibility=no gun deaths.how hard is THAT to understand????????

It's pretty simple, and actually true. No guns mean that no one will die in a fatal gun related injury. Using that logic, no one should be able to carry any kind of weapon at all, which would eliminate weapon related deaths. So, it makes sense. BUT! People find ways to kill others using more effective and violent means than guns - take the case of the young woman who was tortured for a week and forced to eat animal feces and drink from a toilet, electrically shocked, raped, and beaten. Unless I missed something in that story, there was nothing about gun play - just a bunch of sick, twisted individuals who were full of hate. I say a better solution is eliminate hate and twisted people from society, and eliminate senseless deaths, period.

well we in Australia had our guns taken off us ...and guess what ..knife attacks have gone through the roof so where is your logic now ....

Your question holds a truth, but achieving it is, I think, unachieveble, and there are many reasons for this. Weapons manufacturers are not in a morally led business. They know people die, and accept that they make a profit out of it. Capitalism in it's purest form perhaps? Culture also plays a part. To remove guns from (for example) the USA would require not just a change in the law, but a change in culture, which is far beyond all western governments, at least in the short term. I have no doubt that easy availability of guns contributes to an increased number of people being killed. That's a no-brainer really. But how can this knowledge simply be removed? The answer is that it can't. If one accepts that it can't, then there are really only two options. First, for governments to hold all the guns, and to have all pervasive access to people's private lives/homes etc. to make sure they aren't hiding anything. If the first doesn't appeal (and it doesn't to me at least) then the only thing that can be done is to restrict access, and make obtaining such weapons far more difficult. In most of the western world, including America, it isn't guns that are a problem, just some of the people who have access to them. It is often pointed out by the American pro-gun ownership lobby that there are millions of responsible owners in the US who are law abiding and careful with their arsenal. This is undoubtedly true, but the ease with which the irresponsible can obtain weapons is where the real issue (at least in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK), lies.

Handguns are pretty much banned in the UK but from what I've gathered on this board, kids are still getting shot in South London. That alone answers your question. The problem lies not with an inanimate object but with the attitudes of people and the total lack of personal responsibility they've been brought up with. Remember, the genocide in Rwanda was carried out pretty much with machetes. Shall we outlaw those as well?

If someone really wants to kill someone else, they can use other methods. Baseball bat, machete, bow and arrow, bomb, their fists, rope, poison, hit with a car. Even if guns are outlawed, that doesn't mean they won't be used or manufactured. Armies will always have guns, they aren't going to just come to an agreement and say they won't use guns anymore. And if theres armies that need guns, there are gun manufacturers. And if there are guns being made, they will find their way into the hands of someone who wants to use it for evil purposes. Now, thats not to say that laws concerning guns are good. They should still be tightened to make it more difficult to get a gun. But that will never be perfect, and guns will always be around.

Very hard to understand.

Easy. But now enforce No Guns. Including amongst hardened criminals who have already probably killed dozens with drugs they sold them, or with iron bars. Guns are a symptom, not the disease. America believes that violence can solve problems. Whether it is John Wayne or Spiderman, a single man (or Wonderwoman) can solve problems by bopping enough people. Until this belief goes away, America will suffer when people take it literally.

No guns = no money to win with selling guns. That's even easier to understand, I think.

Theoretically, yes. But it's impossible to eliminate all guns from the world, or even from a limited area, the technology exists, and that can't be changed. All anyone can do is outlaw it's use. And consider the probabilities involved with a "Zero-Tolerance" gun policy: If no one is allowed to carry a weapon, then all it takes is one psycho breaking that law to cause the deaths of dozens or even hundreds of people. If someone is putting serious thought and effort into killing people, they aren't exactly going to be above breaking a simple law, now are they? And there's no foolproof way to enforce anti-gun laws to insure that they can't. While I don't support as loose of gun regulation as some, I think being too firm and absolute at either end of the spectrum is a recipe for disaster.

Not hard at all. So...what's your point?

Here is the major problem with the US gun control movement, the people writing the legislation don't even understand what they are trying to ban. A barrel shroud is a piece of SAFETY EQUIPMENT! She thinks it goes on your shoulder. As a result of people like this, gun owners rightly have no respect for the opposing side. At least in the US, I cannot speak about gun control advocates in other countries as I do not know their experiance and it would not be fair for me to do so. Kudos to the reporter that exposed her ignorance! She finally admits that she doesn't know what one is at the end. Notice all the scary language she uses before that. Remember kids, she WROTE the legislation to ban barrel shrouds and she DOESN'T even KNOW what one is! Oh BTW, modern pistols and rifles use MAGAZINES not CLIPS! I'll give her that one though because even gun owners get mixed up on it.

First Lenin took their guns, then he and Stalin murdered millions of their own people. First Hitler took their guns, then he murdered millions of his own people. First Mao took their guns, then he murdered millions of his own people. No guns=millions of murders by your own government, especially if it's controlled by the likes of MoveOn.org, which is effectively both (1) the leadership of the Democratic Party and (2) the Communist Party USA. Compare the websites of MoveOn.Org and CPUSA.org and you won't find a dime's worth of difference.

Anti gun laws ≠ no guns no gun deaths ≠ no murder How hard is THAT to understand?

that may be true, but then we can say, no cars, no car deaths, no steak knifes, no steak knife deaths, no baseball bats, no baseball bat deaths, and no drugs, no drug deaths. It isn't hard to understand the statement, just hard to rationalize it with any seriousness.

Apparently its very hard. I get it.

NO FINGERS=NO TYPING STUPID POSTS

You take away the guns from all the husslers, street prowling thieves and criminals.. and I will have no problem with your logic.

i thought this might be intresting to read: Wow!! Over 12 percent!! Thank you all very much!! Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets tysk news ^ | 1997 | Baldwin Posted on 04/17/2007 12:29:03 PM PDT by doug from upland Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia Crime Rate Plummets by Chuck Baldwin The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998. With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but guns do help. ;) How about, more guns, and less innocent deaths. Less guns, leaves illigal guns in the hands of bad people. So more guns, mean more bad guy deaths. A premeture theory of mine.

So how do you propose to eliminate every gun in the world, along with people's ability to make one? Sure, if there were no guns, people wouldn't kill people with them. However, just about as many people would die... probably more, because it would be harder for the law-abiding and police/military to defend themselves.

That is easy to understand. But how are you going to get rid of gun? Banning guns only prevents law abiding citizens from using guns. Of course, the law abiding citizens are rarely the ones who are killing with guns. Also, no guns means a reduced ability to protect yourself. Many assaults, rapes, burglaries, and thefts are prevented by someone brandishing a gun and scaring the would be attacker away. Look at the sattes with "make my day" laws. They have the lowest burglary rates in the country.

FTA: In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender. Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban.

please read this and i will rest my case: http://digg.com/politics/Mandatory_Gun_Ownership_Town_Sees_Crime_Decline_despite_5x_pop_inc

Your equation is so over-simplified and impractical that it is worthless.

The problem I have with the right to bear arms is that the very real risk these weapons pose seems to outweigh the value they offer. The value seems to be "I enjoy shooting them". While that's nice, it's the kind of value that's very much a "me first" thing. When "me first" conflicts with "what's best for the whole", the standard of value needs to rise to justify it. I don't hear this in the usual pro-gun arguments. There's a lot of abstract ethical argument, but that sort of thing gets very convoluted very fast on both sides and leads to no real clarity. However, as a practical matter here in the U.S., the pro-gun lobby is very powerful and well organized, and is not going away. Those of us who favor tight restrictions on firearms need to take a pragmatic approach to that -- gun owners as a whole are decent, law-abiding people who believe their view sincerely, and are entitled to be engaged in respectful discussion. The problem with your question is that it's basically sarcastic and suggests that the pro-gun faction is lacking in intelligence. That adds provocation to the discussion without adding real value. So while you and I are on the same side of the overall debate, I think this tactic is counter-productive and can only play into the existing hostility and mistrust between the opposing parties.

One of the funniest bumperstickers I ever saw was "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guy has." :o)

This is definitely a hot topic to bring into Answerbag! There's two camps in this, those who wish to bear arms, and those who don't (we'll keep the neutral party out to make things simple.) Bearing arms has been in the U.S. constitution practically since its inception. (If you are not from America, I'm sorry to go on a U.S. rant, but I'm rather ignorant of other countries' gun laws.) However, many will argue that this is just leftover anger from the close tabs that the British kept on them. And that's very possible, but does that mean that we should throw away something our country has been built on for centuries? Guns are harmful creations, though, if used correctly, can do much good. Snuffing out human lives for personal gain obviously isn't one of them, but due to our human greed, some are compelled to walk this line of life. As long as there is greed, there will be guns, even if you outlaw them. They may not be physical guns, but if there's an object that a person can use to get to the top, even if it means taking another's life, it will always be there. So the real question is, how can we remove greed from our human selves? Though we could get into a big discussion about how that could quite possibly make us more than human, as greed is arguably one of mankind's most prevalent traits, I'll just end the answer here. Alas, the bonds the hold us.

Wow, you are stupid. If we called guns a different name, like kackers there wouldn't be any gun deaths either, there would be kacker deaths.

According to the CDC and an article published by the NY Times, the leading cause of gun related death was actually suicide. Not homicide or accidents. So isn't true that the cause of these deaths was mental disease not firearms? The next largest category was homicide of which most were drug related crimes. So isn't true that the cause of these deaths was criminal behavior. Of the daily number of deaths (81 in the USA) the number of accidents or homicide not related to crime is very small. So how is gun control going to eliminate the mental disease or the drug wars? http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

That is the dumbest thing I ever herd.If the government said tomorrow everyone has to turn in there guns,Who would have them?Criminals I don't think they would turn theirs in,they would love it,they would have no fear of running up in a house raping and taking what they want.If this would happen all hell would break loose.How hard is that to understand?

OMG!!!think about what you just said real hard for 30 seconds,now you cant believe that making every potential victim give up his best self defence is going to help,sounds like murder to me.

no guns, only the criminals will have guns, I will keep mine and use it if needed.

No Cars = No Car Deaths. Now go take a Hike to Work & the Store!!! OBTW, Doctors kill more people than GUNS!!! John

Go ahead and eliminate all the guns from the planet. Start with the criminals first and then every government. Make certian that they are all re-educated to "play nice" and promise never to hurt any one ever again. Make the governments do a pinky swear not to oppress the people. After you do, get back to me. This may prove to be a more difficult task that it appears at first. Is that hard for you to understand?

you see, there are these people called criminals, they dont listen to laws, so basically what they do is use there guns on citizens who dont have them because of gun laws, if thats too hard for you to understand ive included a picture.

Accountability to the individual. Most gun owners are responsible, and most likely could teach you a few things on the subject. Willing to listen?

OK lets say that today the gov took everyones guns away.Do you think that criminals would turn there guns in also?The criminals would love it,I think that gun crimes would go up,because they would know that most people turned in there guns so what would they be afraid of? We will just say this time that the gov did manage to get every gun off the street(do you know how long that would take)?and there were no guns.People would find a new way to hurt and kill people with.For example there are no guns in prison or weapons,but they still find ways to kill each other in record numbers.What you need to do is think about what you are saying,before you say it.

people kill not guns

people kill not guns

No guns for private citizens = guns in the hands of criminals who get them illegally. How hard is that to understand? How hard is it to understand that if private citizens have no guns then it is only the police and military who do? How hard is it to understand that the predecessor to almost every genocide is the revocation of gun rights? How hard is it to understand that as citizens of the U.S. we have a Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Come on....

criminals understand you are unarmed.

Then No Cars=No Car Deaths??? So with that "Gem" I presume Ur against "Death"??? So have U helped stop Death by turning in Ur "Car" cause more cars kill people than "Guns", IDIOT!!! I wonder if they allowed Idiots in Merry Old England to say things like this about Bows & Arrows. Knives, Axes, Rocks??? U must be a very Frustrated person feeling impotent within Ur "Lot in Life"??? Suck it Up, go buy a Gun & get Lessons & become useful & be Proud that U Mastered Something!!! John

You will get all the usual answers, cars kill, fireworks kill, home accidents kill, etc. Unfortunately none of the gun supporters will offer the information that guns are designed for one thing alone - to kill.

no knives=no knife deaths no bats=no bat deaths no cars=no car deaths do you see where this is going, when you have banned everything someone can use to kill you, when it comes down to you and an evil, ruthless, cold blooded killer, what will you do? Me, Im not a fighter....but, I am a survivor. I will keep my guns for safe keeping until the next time someone tries to accost me and he will get the same response as the first one that tried it.

No cars = no car accidents I don't get your point?

The question you should be asking is. Why does the Government want law abiding citizens weapons when they cant get them away from the criminals? Why? One sure way to improve the economy is to have fewer people competing for goods.

Knives kill too. Do you want to take away steak knives too? Oh wait, I'll bet you're a vegetarian. Yeah, that's mean, but the sentiments seem to go together.

You haven't thought about knives, spears, clubs, bows& arrows, cross bow and I am sure I could go on....Guns do nothing without someone to do it. Removal of all guns will bring on more Hitlers and his like...Most do not know it here in the USA but all the major gun laws have been taken word for word from Hitler's gun laws with only names changed. Rember this: It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one.

Emma needs to be banned form AB

Impossible.

No guns for us means, bears break in and kill all in the house, the wolves take infants from their beds and the parents have no ways to stop them, the natives in the bush starve for not being able to hunt, and more This is what we understand up here.

GUNS SHOULD BE CONTROLLED AND NOBADY WILL DIE

Not hard at all. Gun control = more complex situation than you just described. How hard is THAT to understand? (And for the record, I'm in Australia, where only farmers have guns. I'm anti-gun.)

No knife= no knife deaths. No rope=no rope related deaths(strangle/hanging) No cars=no car related deaths. No people=no people related deaths. Stuff happens. If people will always find ways to kill other people.

Surely you don't really believe that?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *** the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ***" (2nd Amendment, adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) How hard is THAT to understand?

I mean, if there were no guns on the planet, sure I could understand that. But that's probably not going to happen.