thats what i mean. would it be a better world if there were no guns, like other modern countries.
but i'm wondering how it'll be from going having guns to no guns, without factoring in black market, would be to USA. where as guns have always been banned in other countries.

 

Only school yard decapitations...

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0040311a1.html

 

he was just being japanese

<puts flame suit on>

 

How many countries have guns bans that are successful ? The one that stands out the most is Japan, and someone said earlier. Its not very successful, the Yakuza still use guns like there isn't gun control.

I'm Cambodian and when I went to visit my home country there were billboards that said "no guns" and all this anti gun billboards because they were banned. But in the cuts there were all kinds of hoodlums with AKs.

If I can remember correctly Pol Pot disarmed Cambodian be fore he pwned it.

 

that's what I meant by modern country...like japan korea and most of europe. u don't hear students and innocent people dying from random shootings. yakuza doesn't go around killing random people, for the most part. guns can acquired under ground, what I think is that if guns are banned in usa, you'll still be able acquire it like pot, whereas in japan or korea, it'll be like trying to acquire super rare jdm parts.

 

in england the rate of violent crimes comitted with knives has increased sharply. so much so that they are now contemplating knife bans and regulations for kitchen knives to have blunt ends so they aren't as "stabby".

what's next, crimes commited with rocks and sticks, and then banning those too? maybe we should all just ban criminals...

 

A gun ban would be worse than Prohibition and alcohol, and alcohol isn't in the constitution. We have a right, as a citizen to own them. Banning them would have been pointless anyways. People build on technology, we went from Rocks and wood spears carved by our own hands to bows and arrows, shields, and swords with iron, etc. Goes on and on.

That is why the Atomic Bomb exists, and that's why so many places are still working on their nuclear program. A gun ban, with the current situation, is like stepping on an ant you won't kill the whole colony, not even close. There aren't enough jails to imprison everyone anyways, let alone law abiding citizens who don't want to give up their guns vs crooks who smuggle anywho.

 

i understand the meaning behind why we have the right to bare arm; to protect ourselves. if gun was banned, it would be the criminals and police that would have guns. ordinary people will have to rely on the police. ultimately, the people will be powerless against various type of intruders.

i just wanted to know if the negative outweighed the positive from banning. for example, there will definitely be lower number of people dying just by simpling being at the wrong place at the wrong time, though other accidents will still be there, the over all number will be lower. however, that also brings in other issues such as black market. thats why i wanted to know, what effect will it have if it was enforced in a way so that acquiring it through black market will be very hard, like some countries or simply, like the previous person mentioned, enforced by superman.

so, will enforcing stricter laws towards legal ownership be better than banning it all together?

 

Hardly. Only law-abiding people buy guns lawfully. Black market circumvents any legal hurdles you place in the system.

 

I don't think you do. And I don't see the point of debating the 2A issue with someone that can barely spell and compose sentences.