Agree or disagree, Banning guns will stop mass shootings?

Question

Agree or disagree, Banning guns will stop mass shootings?

Answer 1

I agree because after guns are banned, there will be nothing to shoot people with.

Answer 2

No, while I do agree we need restrictions like the amount of guns one can have and background check is needed, banning won't stop mass shootings, like marijuana and alcohol during prohibition, they'll find a way to get guns. And there's two sides of the "owning a gun" for protection.

Answer 3

Bonafide criminals KNOW how to get guns when they want them, AND THEY ALWAYS WILL !



Why would anyone ever think about a gun ban when they know this is absolutely true. You need only to look at Chicago - some of the most strict gun measures and hundreds of people are shot weekly !!!



NO NRA members have ever shot anyone. Law abiding gun owners, of which there are MANY, have never shot anyone nor do they even have the inclination, unless some idiot decides to hurt their families.

Answer 4

Well I think that banning guns won't as no matter what, there will still be a black market out there that will still sell guns but here's to hoping!

Answer 5

Making possession of military grade automatic ordinance an automatic penitentiary offence would be a start. The citizen does not need to be able to outgun the police, nor was that the intention of the authors of the Second Amendment. Since these weapons appear to be addictigve we should treat them exactly as we do opiods: possession or sale of automatic or convertible weapons should be treated as major felonies with major penalties. Handguns and hunting rifles are different, because they cannot kill hundreds of people in a few seconds of surpise firing.

Answer 6

For the people who think that restricting are for the most part ignorant. Places like brazil and mexico can't be compared to the U.S. because they are uncivilized and brazil isn't even a first world country (second world). Places that are uncivilized and corrupt obviously won't be affected by restrictions. But if you look at actual statistical examples of all the other first world countries having restricted gun laws do work. You don't even need to ban guns but you can see that in places like Canada, owning a weapon is perfectly legal as long as you have a license to bare arms. And ones who say "giving them to bad guys" how do you even think they are going to GET guns. It isn't easy when it's illegal, and what do you think that police are going to only take guns from good people and somehow not bad? And the average american only has a 0.5% chance of being robbed so If you really think you need an Ar15 to protect your house you most likely will never need to.

Answer 7

Interesting question. I can tell you that Mexico is right on the line of banning guns. Their laws are so strict that there's only one store in the country that sells guns because they are so hard to get. However, there is shooting upon shooting there, because all those gun control laws did was make sure that only the bad guys have guns, because they aren't going to get them legally, anyway. So no. I believe it will do more harm than good.



Let me add to that that guns are not a problem. People promoting gun control laws have blinded themselves to the issue. The first murder was with a rock. People were killing each other with swords, knives, tree branches, bare hands and whatever else before guns existed. The problem is the human heart. Not which thing that heart uses to express itself.

Answer 8

It will definitely decrease them. The gun nut wacko already have. America is going to turn into the Turner Diaries if the Gov't tries to take already existing guns.

Answer 9

no because its human nature to want to do what your told not to. This may make people want to shoot even more and they'll get mad anyways so bad idea

Answer 10

No, but strictly regulating the sale of guns and closing things like the gun show loop hole might.

Answer 11

No chance.

Nothing that has ever been "Banned" has stayed "Banned".



If you want to see real carnage just ban guns.

The folks with guns may pay a serious price in defending their right to ownership but since there are nearly 100 MILLION gun owners who is going to take them?



And man or group who even started that mess would never see it happen.

Answer 12

Banning firearms will not stop mass shootings but would reduce their frequency. Nobody should possess a firearm without a valid licence and there should be severe penalties for illegal possession of a firearm.

Answer 13

Knives,cars,trucks,throwing humans off cruise liners,machetes,bricks,ban them all.

Of course not...The U.S.A. Is the third largest Army in the world (citizens).

Guns are here to stay...

People....the nuts will ALWAYS find a way to terrorize the weak..

Answer 14

No, but it will reduce their frequency. It is true that people intent on doing harm will find a way to do so. But the additional cost the black market imposes on things will put serious hardware out of the price range of most people, reducing the chance that someone can, in a moment of lunacy or anger, do something horrific.

Answer 15

I agree

Answer 16

im glad i live in canada

Answer 17

This is absolutely the wrong question for several reasons: 1. Guns are not going to be banned 2. It focuses the debate on the wrong aspects of gun control 3. There is no way that "banning guns" is going to stop mass shooting & any one with half a brain knows that ( even if they are strong gun control advocates )

Answer 18

People kill, not gun.

Banning gun ownership altogether will not stop mass killings.

I'm a Londoner, I held a firearms certificate (permit) for 13 years, I owned a gun that I loved, a Smith & Wesson .357 cal Magnum and I never did anything wrong with it. I was a gun club member and enjoyed socializing wit other gun club members. There is omething very wrong with American society When we find out what that is, mass killings will end.Until then, we will continue having school mass killings at the apparent current rate of two a year. It's just crazy.

Answer 19

I think having guns promotes it so getting rid of them should help

Answer 20

It won't stop them completely nothing can but it will make lower the risk. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since gun laws were put into place

Answer 21

we will never know

Answer 22

Disagree. If you ban guns, than the black market will just take over. And then, only criminals will have access to guns, while the general public will be restricted from them - legally speaking. And then, to make matters even worse, that means if an average citizen desperately needs a firearm to protect themselves or their family; they'll technically become a criminal just for owning one. Banning guns will only give the black market and criminals an upper-hand in society, leaving the general public defenseless. And to be honest, we've crossed a line, as far as owning guns go. There's no turning back. The second amendment was put in place for a very specific reason. And that reason is for the general public to defend themselves against a "tyrannical government". All great tyrants throughout history have banned guns and left their citizens unarmed. An unarmed society is 100% vulnerable to experience the wrath of a pure government controlled take over. That's the side of this situation that leftists and gun grabbers just don't understand. The right to own a firearm is protect "them" - themselves, their family, etc. against tyranny. It's not all about hunting. And plus, the left is always complaining about police brutality and police shooting innocent people. Guess what? If we ban guns...guess who's going to be legally packing heat? The police. Which don't get me wrong, I support law enforcement...but this concept seems rather contradictory to what the leftists preach about. Do you really wanna leave all access to guns strictly for law enforcement and the military? Think about it. Guns have the potential to save lives. Banning guns would only allow our government to become more corrupt and more controlling like never before. That's what makes America so special. We have that right, unlike so many other countries around the world. We have the right to 'stand our ground', when we feel as if we're being threatened by a corrupt system. The Founding Fathers are probably spinning in their graves, knowing that our Republic has become tainted with globalist control freaks, who want to ban guns, and control everyone's lives. And to think that some people actually support that. It's just baffling to see the submissiveness that some people conclude to. There's so much to be said on this issue. But for now...that is all. Peace.

Answer 23

Communists disarmed people and this enabled them to do a holocaust (their own name) on 50-100 million people.

So the question is not if to have arms but who controls them?

I will ask another perhaps the more relevant question: did criminals in uniform or without uniform killed more people in Australia with guns?

helping question. If you wear the bullet proof vest, you can be charged and put in jail. Lawfully you must allow to be killed by uniform officer.

Do not believe me. Check it with police or a lawyer.

Answer 24

Stop? No.

Significantly decrease? Yes, absolutely.

Answer 25

I mean it worked for Australia so we might as well give it a go

Answer 26

Disagree it would not stop mass shootings. These people who commit these deeds knew full well what they were doing was wrong but did it anyway.

Answer 27

DISAGREE

Answer 28

Disagree, the guns used will just come from illegal sources and be untraceable. Like cocaine and heroin. Laws banning things never works.

Answer 29

It may reduce mass shootings but will do nothing to address the reasons why they happen.

Answer 30

Maybe not stop but reduce

Answer 31

The US should stop worshipping violence, and killings, especially, the killings that created the nation-cult, but that will never happen, since that threatens the US's very existence. The US believes killing others in the name of freedom, is right, and they should't be stopped from doing so. Just like Islam. The US and Islam are perfect together. They are both founded on, and celebrate, killing.

Answer 32

It will help

Answer 33

Too late , the cow has already left the barn .

Answer 34

Strongly Disagree

Answer 35

Interesting that there's not much comment comparing USA gun control with other 'first world ' countries including UK and European continent, and looking at stats between countries on both individual homicides involving firearms, and mass shootings.

I don't understand why a citizen would need to own a firearm unless they live in a clear and present danger and there is no trustworthy available defence force in the community that communities can rely on. Is this what America is today?

Answer 36

That would just be part of the solution.

People can buy guns, for example, on the internet.

There is also a mindset to overcome especially in America,

where it is part of their constitution to own guns and

unfortunately this has been spreading throughout the world.

Answer 37

no

those who have in mind anything that will involve mass shooting will be able to get them one way or another

banning something does not make it unavailable, DDT is banned but can be had outside the banned area, guns a banned in some areas but those who want them badly enough can get them

Answer 38

no regulation or action will eliminate 100% of all crime but it will significantly decrease it

Answer 39

**** erectus is my favorite type of monkey.

Answer 40

100% agree

Answer 41

It worked for many European countries so it will work here too. You can't expect one or two states to have tough gun regulation to make things work when the neighboring states have loose gun laws. Chicago frequently pops up. They have tough gun laws but the surrounding states don't. This makes buying guns and selling guns to and from easier which defeats the purpose. If you look at European countries most of them have good regulation on firearms that deter the neighboring countries from being able to abuse the dealings of firearms. From exporting to importing firearms to making the process of owning firearms a huge headache that would make the potential gun owner think twice. It's proven, it works. Mass gun regulation works.

Answer 42

Totally disagree.

Answer 43

I agree..



Guns are extremely dangerous.



Source(s):

.....I am a retired police officer. I retired as a sergeant, after 29 years, from a very large department, about 12,000 officers. I was a patrol officer for 4 years in a very diverse area. I was a tactical officer in the high rise project areas of my city. We called it vertical patrol in that we walked the the stairways of the high rises most of the time. I did that for 5 years and was promoted by test to detective. I worked violent crime (homicide, sex, officer involved shootings, robbery, kidnapping, serious non property incidents) for 11 years until I was promoted to sergeant. I worked as a street supervisor, a bicycle patrol supervisor and a desk sergeant/watch commander. During my time as a tactical officer and a detective I was a unit representative for the police union.

I have a B.A in English and an M.S. in Law Enforcement Administration....

Answer 44

Oh I TOTALLY agree! Of COURSE banning guns will stop mass shootings/murders! Just like banning drugs stopped people from using them. No one shoots up heroin or snorts cocaine anymore, right?! Oh wait...Ha that's right, it doesn't work.

Answer 45

Disagree.

Answer 46

Disagree, if someone wants to shoot up some place, they're going to do it with legal or illegal guns, they'll still find guns to use whether they're banned or not

Answer 47

We should also ban large trucks because you can run people over with them

Answer 48

Disagree. Let's not forget the right to bear arms.

Answer 49

Disagree

Answer 50

Nope. Just shut down the ammo supply.

Answer 51

i agree, it should be banned

Answer 52

Disagree.

It will not stop mass 'killings'. Pple will still kill. Taking our guns leave is defenseless against our corrupt leaders. Look at how things have been. Do u feel safe without a gun and our weapons being tooken away? Come on dude. The media is crooked,banks, etc.

Answer 53

Agree.

Answer 54

Completely as it is in other countries. Countries without guns being a religion there are far far far far far far less random murders to mass killings.



Entire 'america' thing is a failure.



Bill of rights - FAIL

Amendments - FAIL

Classless society - OMG LAUGHABLE



But even thats not the whole answer as america has these shootings and 3rd world countries dont.

Answer 55

Banning them wont solve the issue - taking them away will and then you are still left with the problem of the American People who basically hate each other. To cure their stupidity, it might be better to give them all guns and ammunition and then let them fight it out. Then you kill off the survivors. Simple.

Answer 56

There is a sickness within the culture, the guns are a symptom of it. Change the culture then you could even keep the guns.

Answer 57

Disagree. As someone said, black market would spread.

Answer 58

Not entirely, but it will certainly reduce the number of mass shootings, and deaths by guns. Another thing that needs to change is the fact that people don't seem to have empathy anymore. There is some movie with Kevin Bacon, where his kid gets shot by a wannabe gang member at a convenience store. Kevin Bacon's character retaliates, and kills the gang member. All the other members are sitting around griping, " He was a good guy. He didn't deserve this. Someone needs to pay." Hello, idiots!!! How do you think the dad felt!?!? Exactly the same way. But nobody seems to realize that simple fact: If you wouldn't want it done to you, nobody else wants it done to them.

Answer 59

Disagree. But it could reduce them.

Answer 60

If you ban guns, mass murderer's will just switch to other means to kill. Things like pressure cooker and pipe bombs, knives, or Sarin. In communist China no one can have a gun. I remember hearing of an incident where a train station there was under attack by a man with a knife. 22 people got their throats slit. Had any of those 22 people had a fire arm, the outcome might have been different. Point is: Do you see how banning guns benefits society? What you have done by banning guns is created a bunch of sitting ducks waiting to be slaughtered.

Answer 61

If we ban silencers, machinery guns, and assault rifles, and give American’s who has a permit to carry a normal gun yearly background checks, then yes, mass shootings will decrease.

Answer 62

It would take decades to have an effect. But it is still worth doing.

Answer 63

We banned murder, it didn't stop mass murder.

Answer 64

No it won't , in any immediate sense. It will reduce the number on the short term and reduce it to an even greater degree in the long term which a fifty year period or longer. No one needs an automatic or even semi automatic weapon for hunting and that just needs a three shot magazine ( if you can't take down a deer with 2 shots that's lame , takes 3 shots you may be a danger to yourself).

Answer 65

Disagree. Somebody MADE the first gun. You may ban all guns - impossible - but somebody will make what they need to kill if they feel the need to kill.

Answer 66

Disagree.

Answer 67

Banning guns will stop mass shootings when criminals start obeying laws.



You can ban and destroy every gun in the world and these wackos will use bombs, poison, acid, germs, vehicles, or killer bees, etc.

Answer 68

Disagree.



Let's say there was suddenly a law put in place that made all guns illegal. That wouldn't make peoples' guns magically disappear. Police would have to go to the doors of gun owners and take them away, and/or get people to give up their guns. Bad guys would still keep their guns.

Answer 69

They should make murder legal since people do it anyways.

Answer 70

A total ban would eventually it would do that, yes or make them so rare as to be irrelevant. But that's an unrealistic solution and there is no politically viable path to an outright ban, so it would have to be rejected as a solution.

Answer 71

Banning guns is blaming people that had nothing to do with the mass shooting.

Answer 72

No, while I do agree we need restrictions like the amount of guns one can have and background check is needed, banning won't stop mass shootings, like marijuana and alcohol during prohibition, they'll find a way to get guns. And there's two sides of the "owning a gun" for protection.

Answer 73

.

Answer 74

No, no, no, and NO!

Answer 75

disagree

Answer 76

Albeit unrealistic to even suggest a law successfully passes, shutting down the U.S. gun / rifle manufacturing industry---or even successful passage of law(s) rescinding the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, these two critical factors of debate contention would NOT prevent guns and ammo from falling into murderous insane psychotic criminals.



1) It WILL however, drive up the price of illegally obtained ( black market ) guns / ammo. But then again: desperate criminals WILL ALWAYS find their means towards arming themselves.



2) It WILL refuel already established "organized crime" entities--resurrecting the Mafia, IRA, Yakuza, Gulag 17....well, you get the idea.



3) Don t forget the hobbyist gun maker ( many already exist right here already )---think how more in DEMAND his skills will become IF LIBERALS were successful in outlawing guns in civilian homes.



The more logical approach to this issue of public safety? Recognize and accept the U.S. Criminal Justice System is rife with cozy "loopholes". created 20-30 years ago by corrupt elements within Congress, designated to protect "special interest groups" who had the $$$ to buy their "insurance outs".



In short: A complete clean out overhaul of the U.S. Criminal Justice System is much needed. But this would clearly draw debative ire from the corrupt and now well wealthy criminal sympathist lobby groups in Washington D.C.---well exercised in softening punitive elements of our current Justice System.



Essentially, we are at a chessboard stalemate; further debate is moot / useless.

Answer 77

No. Prohibition didn't stop drinking, banning hardcore drugs didn't stop them from being smoked, so gun ban probably wouldn't stop shootings. It'd limit them but not end them. I don't believe we should ban guns, it's a crazy liberal policy people are pushing. People kill people not guns. You can kill someone with a damn rock.

Answer 78

Disagree. If a maniac is really determined to kill a bunch of people, he's going to find a way. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer to make that bomb of his. The 9/11 hijackers didn't use guns, but used box cutters and airplanes. The root of the problem is that we now live in a godless society. America has always had a lot of guns but America also had a fear of God and morality at one time. The further this country gets from God, the worse things are going to get.

Answer 79

Disagree. Addressing the violence problem would stop it.

Answer 80

Disagree. People will ALWAYS find a way to get weapons, illegal or not.

Answer 81

In Australia the banned guns and right now in Australia you can buy a gun for 22 thousand American dollars but if you have that much money you don't need to be a criminal so. Nobody would really have guns if they were banned

Answer 82

Tweaking the buying regimen of certain guns would be worth while to

address. This man bought 34 rifles from Oct 2016 to this year. Once

he was seen to have purchased more then 20 or 10. ATF should have

had flags jumping all over this guy. He was not a dealer or a collector.

Answer 83

No one is suggesting banning all guns. Americans have a right to own guns. Military weapons should not, however, be sold to the general public.

Answer 84

South Korea bans guns. There are no shootings in South Korea. End of story.

Answer 85

It will not, because criminals will still have guns. Andwhen the world is disarmed I can go around with a squirt gun filled with URINE and become a great menace to society. I guess a lot of people would become real "pissed" at that wouldn't they. Huh hu haaa haaaa!!

Answer 86

Somewhat agree

Answer 87

Of course it won't. Criminals will still be able to get guns and ammo illegally.

Answer 88

Disagree. This is a people problem, not a gun problem. Look at the attacks in Europe, some of those were done with trucks for crying out loud.

Answer 89

making the gun manufacturers pay liability for every person shot would stop assault weapons from reaching the market.

Answer 90

No

Answer 91

Agree. And even if it won t, I don t see why would ordinary people have guns. In my country in Europe, no one has guns, it is forbidden, and everyone feels safe walking the streets during the day and night. I wouldn t feel safe living in the USA where all of your neighbors have guns and one day one of them can snap and use that gun on innocent people.

Answer 92

No, more than likely not. But it will drastically reduce them.

Answer 93

No it will not, and there is not going to be a gun ban in the US anytime soon.

Answer 94

It may stop mass shottings but not necessarily stop killings guns are not the only way to kill for those who want to they will find a way

Answer 95

Yes I think so.

Answer 96

Disagree.

Answer 97

yes

Answer 98

Reducing the use is best solution

Answer 99

No

Answer 100

What gun did Timothy MCVEIGH USE?

Answer 101

It's a common sense issue, no guns, no deaths.

Answer 102

People tend to think that if you make it illegal the existing guns will just magically disappear, but they wont, they are already out there and the bad guys will still have them, and no one will be able to shoot back at them.

Answer 103

It MIGHT curtail mass shootings. But criminals don't obey laws and gun can be made in one's basement with a Bridgeport and a metal lathe. - And if they were banned, then mass car bombings, poison gas attacks and the like will INCREASE. If someone wants to murder badly enough they will find a way.

Answer 104

yes I live in Australia and it worked here

Answer 105

No. This is a ridiculously far-fetched, and nearly impossible, proposal. Also an outright violation of the 2nd Amendment, which is every bit as vital an amendment as any other.

However, as a few others suggested, advanced background checks and stringent mental-health evaluations are both highly plausible proposals AND within' Constitutional bounds. So let's start there

Answer 106

If you're really commited to commit a mass shooting, you will be able to get a gun no matter what the law is. Criminals don't abide by the law! that's why they're called criminals in the first place. Ever heard of the black market? Also, fun little fact: more than 90% of ALL guns used in crime in the US are obtained ILLEGALLY

Answer 107

agree

Answer 108

Disagree, criminals don't care whether it's against the law or not.

Answer 109

disagree

Answer 110

Disagree, it could certainly make them less likely or common.

Answer 111

Restriction will serve the purpose.

Answer 112

The US decided that "freedom" is better than any preventative measures, and have every excuse in the book for why gun control is not the way to go. The new thing to blame is "mental illness", which, obviously, anyone who wants to kill a bunch of people has something wrong with them, but wouldn't it make sense to then increase access to mental health facilities while decreasing their access to guns? I don't know...

Answer 113

It’s not guns who kill people, it’s people who kill people.

Answer 114

Murderers will just find another way to kill.

Answer 115

100% YES - TAKE AUSTRALIA FOR EXAMPLE

Answer 116

Banning guns means that many criminals WILL have them and then the shootings really pick up.

Answer 117

Disagree totally!

Answer 118

Yes

Answer 119

Agreed

Answer 120

Agree. If they were banned no one would have any guns to shoot people with. The problem would be destroying all illegally held guns, impossible.

Answer 121

The equation is really quite simple. When guns are widely in circulation, easily available and will little or no control the number of shootings, mass or otherwise, accidental or deliberate will be him. If there were less guns in circulation, they were less easily available, carrying them in public was prohibited and proper and effective controls were put in place there would be far less shootings.It does not require a total ban but sensible controls.

Answer 122

Ever heard of the black market?

Answer 123

100% Disagree. Could not disagree more if I tried.

Answer 124

All that would do is prevent law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from criminals with illegally obtained weapons. Also did the prohibition stop the consumption of alcohol?

Answer 125

Disagree its the people who Sell those guns need to be held responsible.

Answer 126

Danger is everywhere guys, not sure a ban is our solution

Answer 127

DISAGREE

Answer 128

Disagree. Did the dictators of the 1900s only use guns?

Answer 129

Nope ! See Europe !!!

Answer 130

Agree



It won't stop all but it will ban many.We also need military at public events for security.

Answer 131

Having a firearm should not mean that you lack the responsibilities necessary for its use. However, It appears in many cases that the linkage between having a firearm, and having the intelligence rehired to own it is not given any consideration.. This is obviously a recipe for disaster. though how you would be able to differentiate between the 'starting to go slightly mad' , and the 'totally pissed out of his mind'. is unknown.

There is also the argument that some societies are of a calm and disciplined nature whilst others are quite the opposite. This would indicate that it is 'the society' that requires the treatment, and that modified gun laws would make very little difference to a society that hasn't quite grown up yet. and probably never will.

Answer 132

NO

Answer 133

no because its human nature to want to do what your told not to. This may make people want to shoot even more and they'll get mad anyways so bad idea

Answer 134

Unfortunately not

Answer 135

Hopefully

Answer 136

If you ban guns no one will be able to defend against a gun wielding maniac. Plus criminals will always be able to get guns.

Answer 137

Personally no. Only people that will turn in their guns will be law-abiding citizens meaning criminals will then have the guns leaving the population unarmed

Answer 138

I disagree. George Soros and Barack Hussein Obama will have more people slaughtered if all guns are banned.

Answer 139

I think it would significantly lessen the amount of mass shootings. It would make guns less accessible=less malevolent people owning them, that's my opinion anyway.

Answer 140

banning guns will do nothing drugs are banned look where that got us there has to be some way to maybe cut down but banning guns or more dumb gun laws aren't it backround checks are a joke but that's all you hear as long you aren't a felon or been in a nut house your good I think paddock just lost it and that one you will never stop

Answer 141

Completely disagree. What about mass stabbings, like in Chinese train station, or the attack in London and Finland? What about that incident in Florida that happened around 11 years ago when a bunch of psychopathic teens broke into a house and killed everyone with bats just to get their x-box back???!!! (extremely disturbing). France has stricter gun laws than the US, yet that did not stop the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Banning guns mean nothing since criminals use other weapons/methods to kill people, and can just get guns in the black market. Second of all, ITS NOT ABOUT THE WEAPON, ITS ABOUT THE MORALITY!!! Seriously, you need to use your logic and facts rather than purely on theory and emotions.

Answer 142

Probably not. Someone who wants to kill is deranged and probably would find a way. I do think we could eliminate a large number of deaths, by not allowing war guns, in private life.

Answer 143

irrelevant question. there is no proposal to ban all guns.

Answer 144

Disagree. When in the world would a criminal ever obey gun laws?

Answer 145

Disagree.

Answer 146

If people want to commit a mass murders they will not give a **** about gun laws. They will find ways to obtain guns and do the same thing they've been doing.... shoot people. So no it will not stop mass shootings.

Answer 147

banning white people in America would change the crime rate

Answer 148

uh.?

Answer 149

. . . it's like I'm the only person who remembers 9/11, where no guns were involved . . .

Answer 150

Disagree

Answer 151

I think the should stop making those crazy guns that can shoot 600 bullets in a few minutes. Why are they necessary?

Answer 152

Why would anyone ever think about a gun ban when they know this is absolutely true. You need only to look at Chicago - some of the most strict gun measures and hundreds of people are shot weekly !!!

Answer 153

i think it will reduce the amount of mass shootings, but not stop them

Answer 154

Banning loonies from getting guns will go a long way to stopping mass shootings.

Answer 155

I disagree banning guns will not stop mass shooting it will just make people that follow the law not able to protect the house and the fam they live with if someone breaks into the house

Answer 156

It might help, but i think its more because of mental health

Answer 157

disagree its people who do it not guns

Answer 158

Just like banning alcohol will stop alcohol-abuse-related-ills? Mass shootings happen most often,,, in places where guns are already banned, ie public schools, and, for that matter, mass shootings themselves are already banned.

Answer 159

People kill people......

There have been mass killings since BC (before Christ). It seems to be about the determination of man to be self righteous. How many sons and daughters are given weapons in the military everyday to destroy other sons and daughters? The better question is when will we no longer need our sons and daughters to kill other sons and daughters? From before Christ to 2017, sadly human beings are not better. Maybe instead of improving on mechanical technology we should improve human behaviors. Maybe humans have a chemical in balance that needs corrected

Answer 160

It would reduce the numbers of people who potentially will become a mass shooter. Not that it would stop someone who will do whatever it means to become a mass murderer.



I don't know anywhere else in other peaceful countries where a civilian is shooting guns to other civilians, killing so many. At least, not in my country. We don't have guns culture. Guns are owned by authority. But a syndicate can still get their own guns. They are most likely related to either islamic terrorist group, separatist, or military.

Answer 161

Disagree, the guns used will just come from illegal sources and be untraceable. Like cocaine and heroin. Laws banning things never works.

Answer 162

Only stupid brain dead indoctrinated liberal idiots would believe that banning guns would stop mass shootings. But I bet you believe that banning illegal drugs stopped people from using illegal drugs too, right?

Answer 163

No. It's just ******* idiots out there that get ahold of guns. People stab people all the time and knives aren't banned? Men rape women all the time and they still have their dicks. It's just the ******* idiotic mind, not the gun

Answer 164

Old school Constitutionalists, could never have depraved hearts like the communists have, with all that fear they have over being shot.......I totally disagree with communists who can never have a true American heart for they are frauds upon the earth......

Answer 165

Agree

Answer 166

ok

Answer 167

Disagree

Answer 168

agree

Answer 169

Disagree. It may reduce

Answer 170

Most are already illegal

Answer 171

Seems to have worked for Australia. Without a gun licence, you cannot attain a gun in AUS and because this regulation has been in place for so long, it is impossible (legally) to attain a gun without a licence. I heard that people just walk around on the streets with guns in America for "personal security;" kinda makes me not want to go to the US. What America needs is to ban guns (which aren't licensed) but before that, have a gun amnesty to get as many guns off the street at once so people won't need the "personal security" of which a gun provides.

Answer 172

it worked pretty darn well in Australia but i mean i think it would have advantages and disadvantages

Answer 173

banning gun completely is almost impossible,this is entrenched problems ,we know that after the shootings,many people buy firearms in self defense ,this incidents show the shooting will only lead to the increase in gun sales, ,after all,US is country with high crime rate,baning gun require the cooperation and coordination among the many group,such as gun manufacturer,gun lobby,what's more,if gun control law is passed,it will put a lot of people out of work,a series of problems will arise,and will have ripple effect

Answer 174

I think it would reduce them- but not stop totally. While it works for Australia and Japan, those nations are islands. The US has Mexico right on the border- fresh supply of black market guns. All in all it would be taking people's rights and defensive means without purpose.

Answer 175

why bother when doing nothing seems to be working so good

Answer 176

Yes it will drastically minimalize shootings. Just look at europe for proof.

Answer 177

No.

There are so many guns floating around that anybody determined to get one can do so.



Remember what happened when they banned alcohol to stop drunkenness in 1919?

The only effect was that the quality of the product went down and it's price went up!

Answer 178

It always seems to cause people to go buy guns in a panic. I do know of a guy who's dad died with a class 3 collection prior to 1986. They were both honorable soldiers but think about that, some stoner all of the suddenly has access to the guns they banned 30 years ago.



I'm sure there's about a million bump stocks and suppressors flying through Amazon.com right now, only to be discovered again when your kids go nuts in 45 years.

Answer 179

I think banning guns will maybe start to help the problem of mass shootings however i don't think it will stop it as if the people cared about what would happen to them after they have committed the crime then they wouldn't of done it in the first place. I personally don't think the people with the guns would care more or less as they know after the shooting that they are going to get caught and so even if guns were banned then they would still do it as it would be a similar punishment.

Answer 180

I think yes it will help but not at all, because some people can get guns to other people or in the black market without any license or illegally, so, they should do more actions more than banning the guns.

Answer 181

Here in Australia back in the mid 90s we had a guy shoot up a tourist destination killing 35 people including children with a military style automatic assault weapon. The Prime Minister of the country declared he would limit the type of guns so there could be no auto or semi automatic guns allowed and ran a country wide gun buy back program where by law only bolt action guns are allowed. Only gun club people are allowed to use handguns and I think they have to leave them at the club and are not allowed to take them home. There was a huge outcry by gun owners affected by the new laws but the government would not back down.

These days there are huge fines and imprisonment for any person who does not have the necessary exemption for weapons of this type who are caught with them. We have had a couple sieges since then but since the mid 1990s we have never had a super bad shoot up as they get in the USA. With guns that cannot spray large numbers of bullets quickly it is much easier to disarm the gunman and limits the number of possible victims before the gunman can be overpowered.

The rest of the world laughs at the US and it's super lax gun laws as governments are scared to lose too many votes if they upset the American rifle association. It just amazes us with the shocking mass shootings that come up much too regularly there that the government does not have the "balls" to say enough is enough and accept people running around with handguns and automatic and semi automatic guns is just not acceptable. Americans seem to treat guns as toys. We see American TV shows showing people using guns for entertainment, and getting such enjoyment and fun blasting off a few hundred rounds in a couple seconds.

Get real America as the massive over ownership of rapid fire guns is unacceptable and America should feel great shame of the number of mass shootings that happen there. The laws on guns were necessary during war of independence but 200 years later they are disgraceful exhibition of the minority bluffing the government that they need these ridiculous high powered rapid fire weapon. Americans bow your heads in shame whenever there is a school massacre, or a shooting like the one in Las Vegas and stop this obsession with these weapons that really have no place in a modern society.

Answer 182

No it won't help

Answer 183

Tightening up the laws related to who can buy high powered semi auto weapons has to make a difference. Stopping the ability to buy upgrade parts online will also help. Seriously, what household or normal family need to have guns of this calibre in their homes.

Answer 184

It might or might not

Answer 185

Not immediately, but it is the first step down that road.

Answer 186

Not really, the sale of guns would just go underground

Into the hands of the most undesireable

Who would you choose?

Terrorists?

Gangsters?

Drug Barons?

We could go back to the 1920's or the Wild West

Good old Cowboys and Indians

When I was Growing up my attention was gripped by the Apollo Programme.

It even took attention away from Vietnam

Something big like that is needed to inspire the young

Not Murder and War

Answer 187

no

Answer 188

no

Answer 189

OBVIOUS, Agree.

Answer 190

Agree, but it's not necessary to ban all guns. Just ban assault rifles.

Answer 191

Disagree. If guns are banned criminals will still be able to acquire guns illegally. Not all mass attacks have used guns. Oklahoma City attack used fertilizer. The Boston marathon attack used pressure cookers. Vehicles have been used, etc. Killers will still find a way to kill people even if they have no guns but most likely they will be able to acquire guns anyway. Many shooters gave used illegal weapons or weapons obtained illegally

Answer 192

NO

Answer 193

Thugs and criminals wont surrender their guns.

Answer 194

it will definitely decrease them. thats a fact. no questions

Answer 195

Disagree

Answer 196

No, there are corrupt coppers and soldiers who smuggle weapons and sell them illegally.

Answer 197

Nope, Liberals only want to call for gun control aka banning guns if a Conservative does them. Thus, Liberals love it when the gun control bogus laws only apply to Republican people. Democracy is in the C-R-A-P-P-E-R with all their never ending protests spilling over on the streets, burning down neighborhoods and wasting millions and millions of dollars in reparations and damages.

Answer 198

reduce but not stop people will find other ways to inflict terror

Answer 199

Ok

Answer 200

Disagree

Answer 201

No one is saying to ban guns, even some democrats and liberals are gun owners. Frankly I'm getting kind of tired of people blaming liberals, they are just as human beings like anyone else, we are all scared of crazy people doing crazy things.

Answer 202

Agree to some extent

Answer 203

America has the most open gun laws, and have the most gun shootouts in of the public, must be why. But the Americans will never agree !

Answer 204

no

Answer 205

stop? no

reduce?

maybe

Answer 206

I disagree mass shootings will continue! If theres a nation wide gun ban people will go to the black market for guns and ammo people forget about that one element it seems! mass shootings depending on the state of that person will continue wether banned or not! chris

Answer 207

There are approximately 85,000,000 U.S. citizens who own a gun. Who is going to take the guns away from 85 million people?

Answer 208

Banning alcohol will stop people from drinking it. That was the idea behind Prohibition.



As you can see, banning something does not make it go away

Answer 209

agree, you tend to need a gun to shoot it.

Answer 210

yeah, see, no guns = no shootings

Answer 211

Maybe, but i’ll willingly be turning mine in after the people in authority turn theirs over, AND I get my own personal flying saucer.

Answer 212

Banning guns just means law-abiding citizens won't be able to get them. There will still be a black market, and criminals will STILL get guns. Hence, there will still be mass shootings.

Answer 213

NO, because those in mass shootings are set up by muslims. It will also put American's in harms way when the muslim's attack openly on the streets like they have been doing in the south Mike

Answer 214

I dont think that will solve it

Answer 215

Agree

Answer 216

Complicated, but obviously not having guns would not allow shootings. But then again people can buy them off black markets if they would want,right?

So then what about guns to protect ourselves? How about just stun guns?

I personally think there should be many obstacles to be able to attain a gun 100 percent and only certain guns at that should be sold.

If i had it my way they would be banned. Feel free to comment on this if you would like to talk about it

Answer 217

Yes it would, you don't get mass shoots in the UK do you?

Answer 218

Strongly Disagree. When there is a will, there is a way. Weed for example is Illegal in most states but people still get it. So criminals can illegally get guns so taking away guns would give them the upper hand.

Answer 219

Agree. Only Law Enforcement should have Guns. Whats the purpose if everyone had guns? Defending them self, well if people could co-operate with police instead of taking matters into their hands. Gun can always end up in wrong hands. I am Australian and we have good gun restriction and that why our country is safer compared to America

Answer 220

Everything that is legally banned has not and will never stop. And the law abiding people are the only ones who lose.

Answer 221

yes

Answer 222

Agree, strongly.

Answer 223

of course not

Answer 224

Disagree, they could still get guns somehow.

Answer 225

maybe but guns are also used as self defense. Depends on your point of view

Answer 226

disagree

Answer 227

Agree, over the long term. But it'd probably take more than that to truly stop shootings.

Answer 228

No banning won't stop the mass shootings because there is always some bad seed in the bunch thats not willing to walk the straight line and where there is a will there is a way. So no banning don't help just stop civilians from using them altogether.

Answer 229

Disagreed

Answer 230

obvious

Answer 231

Disagree, General public being able to have guns has saved a lot of people. If someone sets out to kill they will find a way. Getting rid of gun control will only endanger the good people.

Answer 232

Realistically no but I would support a ban on owning guns, it would at least help.

Answer 233

Don't be daft of course it won't bad people will always get their paws on guns it's the good people that need them unbanned

Answer 234

I am liberal minded most of the time but I am also an independent thinker. I think there is some merit to the the Rifle Association's statement that everybody carry a gun. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". It could have prevented a bunch of massacres but would probably have been hopeless against Las Vegas shooter.

Answer 235

No, people are going to find a way anyway

Answer 236

The problem is that there are too many guns in private ownership to make this viable. After market upgrades that turn semi automatics into full autos are another matter. However, the 2nd amendment did not talk about guns in individual ownership.. It did talk about owning weapons as a part of an organised militia. So if you reverted gun ownership back to what it actually says in the legislation, you would have much greater gun control. But again, too many people like their toys to want to give them up.



The sad fact is that you can pick up guns in walmart. It is just so easy to do. Anybody can get a gun. If you started making it harder to get guns and stopped selling the ammunition, you would have less deaths. It is not rocket science to figure out that if you take guns out of the equation you will have less gun related deaths. But getting your hands on the guns? Nah, just phase them off of the high street and look at using licences and gun lockers. Just by locking your firearms up at night will save a lot of childrens lives because you leave them around the house.



So legislate to limit and phase the gun out over a period of time Stop selling them like sweeties.



Luck

Answer 237

Disagree with the gun bans.

Criminals will always get their hands on a gun if they want too.

The black market will flourish more than ever and unarmed citizens will be at the mercy of those that have guns (good guys or not).

The gun banners always miss the point of the 2nd. Amend. as well as ignore all the rulings the U.S. Supreme Court has made regarding it.

The 2nd. Amend. is for the citizens to use (if necessary) to keep government in line,as a last resort.

The real issue is gun violence,lawmakers pass all kinds of laws restricting gun sales and ownership,but they really don't do much good.

Answer 238

You know that every time gun control is brought up, gun sales spike. It seems so self defeating when the more it is discussed, the bigger the problem becomes.

Whenever people think a ban is imminent, they buy up whatever is on the shelves, then hoard them. It isn't that much different than when people buy 200 gallons of water before a hurricane



There are people who never even thought about owning bump stocks buying up whatever they can find right now. In time they will realize they have no use for them, and sell them to someone who has a use for them (mass shooter?). The difference now is that this is an unlogged person to person transfer of property with no background check, waiting period etc.



After the next shooting, people will cry for more gun control...again.

...and the shooting after that

...and the shooting after that

...etc.



The short answer is no.

Answer 239

I think banning guns will not eliminate gun related crimes perfectly, but it will help us decrease them.

Answer 240

Disagree.

Answer 241

Disagree. Criminals and terrorists will always be able to get guns. We have to root out the causes of the mass shootings, not focus on the means or the method.

Answer 242

Disagree. Guns don't kill people. If guns were ever banned. People would still kill.

Answer 243

don't know

Answer 244

no they say people just get guns on the black market

Answer 245

I think it wouldn't hurt to ban certain types of military weapons like assault rifles and machine guns (the kind Kersey used against the gangs in Death Wish 3) there's no reason why civilians need enough ammo and firepower to start a small war they aren't hunting ducks or antelope with that stuff.

Answer 246

You mean the way banning crack cocaine stopped drug use?

Answer 247

Heavily disagree. For multiple reasons. Laws can and will be broken and terrorists will use whatever is at their disposal whether they be guns, bombs, knives, or whatever else they can get their hands on. The GOP will never sign a ban and the hardened second amendment supporters will rather die (either through a wave of terrorism or a full blown civil war) than hand in their guns. Historically, banning or threatening to ban something only leads to more getitng out (like how organized crime kicked off due to prohibition or how AR-15s flew off the shelves after Sandy Hook).



The problem is much more complex than a ban, that boat passed after the Oklahoma City Bombing took place. There are too many copycats and outside influences now, and the intentions behind these attacks vary but most have seeds within flaws in our society whether they be grievances with the country, the people, or an ideology. We need social reform more than anything, from general improvements to our quality of life to the way we do things like how officers pull people over or maybe some actual self-defense laws people can use in situations like these.

Answer 248

Nope. Mass shootings are still gonna keep happening either way.

Answer 249

disagree. it may slow is some, but the shortfall will be picked up with bombings and trucks running people down. etc.

People are the problem.

Answer 250

Yes. 100%

Answer 251

Disagree

Answer 252

No there are so many guns out there they last another 100 years. In European countries you don't get many shootings because guns are really difficult to get. In China nobody has guns - but that is a different story.

Answer 253

Yes, because eventually in about 20 years guns will not be readily available.



Other countries have given up guns and gone through the imbalance. If America is too weak to do the same, that is sad.



Allow tranquilizer guns. Individuals can still protect themselves without being fatal kills. Cops won't be on edge so much and not kill as many people.

Answer 254

I disagree cuz if u ban guns, the bad people will still find a way to own them, just like drugs. Then, that creates another problem. No one has protection

Answer 255

Disagree

Answer 256

No, it will not stop mass shootings. But better regulations could be focused toward providing better information for use in identifying potential threats, such as a nation-wide record of gun purchases showing all places where specific individuals have made purchases and the types of guns and ammo which were purchased.



The disease which causes this problem is in the mind's of men. To prevent it now is going to be a slow process as we have to work at teaching our children better ways from early on in their lives. And it is very difficult to retrain the thinking of older people. Perhaps humanity training could be attached to the violation of other laws, like driver's education is with the DWI.



Edit: Mass world-wide re-education by teachers with sound answers is the only thing that can be effective and even that will not happen over night. As long as our references are defective our results will also be defective.

Answer 257

In the New Democrap World Order, when only the police have guns ..... I doubt it. Look at NK.

Answer 258

(1) If a madman wants to kill people, he doesn't need guns. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. The 9-11 terrorists used box cutters and airplanes. The Nazis used cyanide gas. Every year there are many murders using baseball bats, gasoline, drugs, knives, bare hands, and many other weapons.



(2) Are we going to make fertilizer, box cutters, baseball bats, gasoline, knives, and bare hands illegal for the same reason?



(3) Just because something is illegal, that does not mean it will stop the criminals. Murder is illegal, but many people still commit murder. Also, just because it is illegal to sell something, that does not mean people will not sell and buy it. People still buy drugs. Alcohol was made illegal during prohibition and people still bought and sold booze.



(4) Many crimes are PREVENTED every year using guns.



(5) A majority of the mass murders are committed in "gun free zones". Places where it is already illegal to have a gun, but the only ones that obeyed the rules were the law-abiding citizens. The murderers didn't care about what the law said, and they continue killing until someone else with a gun showed up (police, etc.). The danger occurred when only the criminal had the gun. When additional guns arrived, safety was restored. (Did you ever hear of a mass shooting at a gun show?)



(6) Did you ever notice that some of the famous and powerful people who want to restrict guns, are themselves surrounded by armed guards? They cry there are too many guns, but they protect themselves with guns! Take Obama for example. He called for gun control, but he was surrounded by armed secret service officers. Guns protected him, but he didn't want anyone else to have a gun for protection.



(7) How would such a ban on guns be enforced?



(8) Guns don't cause murders. Murderers cause murders. If guns cause murder, then pencils cause spelling errors; cars cause speeding, and spoons cause people to be fat.



(9) The vast majority of gun owners have never, and never will, kill anyone.

Answer 259

disagree, it will allow tyrants to do mass killings easier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc

Answer 260

Disagree

Answer 261

No way in hell. Gun control should be considered treason.

Answer 262

Err. ..maybe not but there will be less...I'm sorry and I know it's gun culture but how many people die every year from guns in America? Kids shooting kids ...kids shooting and adults promote it gangs with guns and the crazy who can just get them without a licence !you'd kill a heck of a lot less people with a knife!Don't you think now is the time to start not banning but making new laws ,laws where not everyone can have a gun?What are you gonna say I'm a American citizen and I have a right to own one what your saying really is I have to protect myself from all the other people with guns?you think it's cool well it ain't ...I think the gun culture is sick and when you have a loved one who dies from some bloody idiot you may think the same.The world is stuffed up enough it's not too late these things can be changed but it's the people who have to agree and demand this crazy culture to stop....It won't though and it's so sad ...

Answer 263

It may reduce mass shootings but will do nothing to address the reasons why they happen.

Answer 264

No , remember Prohaditon (sorry cant spell) , we would be worse off if that happened ,

Answer 265

disagree

Answer 266

What about Tasers

Answer 267

Agree

Answer 268

It worked in Australia

Answer 269

It's not the banning of all guns, since GWB allowed the public to acquife AR-15's 20 million are in the hands of someone, the someone who shot out of the 32nd floor, the someone who shot in Orlando, the someone who shot at Virginia Tech.

Answer 270

Disagree, because you can't get rid of 250,000,000 guns already in circulation.



At least SOME of the gun nuts might do this again.



As , "rebellion" or something



~Aizen

Answer 271

Strongly Disagree, "drugs" are illegal and I would be willing to bet I could buy almost any illegal drug within 5 miles of where I am this very minute. As the old saying goes, "When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them". All banning guns will do is disarm the honest law abiding citizen.

Answer 272

Disagree

Answer 273

No, while I do agree we need restrictions like the amount of guns one can have and background check is needed, banning won't stop mass shootings, like marijuana and alcohol during prohibition, they'll find a way to get guns. And there's two sides of the "owning a gun" for protection.

Answer 274

Maybe

Answer 275

No it won't work.

Answer 276

ojk

Answer 277

I don't think this will help regardless the person who wants to shoot will and find a way to find a gun so it doesn't help

Answer 278

NO! Seriously? What needs dealing with is the elite who play us like pieces on a chess board. The efforts to deny rights to bare arms is to make the population more vulnerable. That IS the plan. If you don't think so, bone up on Agenda 21: plan for one world government and global slavery, and see "JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick." And do it FAST. Time running out. Also see Wolfgang Halbig on S Hook. Check more closely on Wako, on and on and on.

Answer 279

Disagree.David DUKE IS Not my hero.I Have no patience with cruelty and injustice of any kind including blaming one crazed angry man if that be the case who performed nothing short of a miracle pulling off this crime as it is broadcast. and killing 57 people. Let me remind you that Samson slew 500 Philistines with the jawbone of an ***. I am so sick of gun banning laws. Anytime a vacuum is created IE gun banning, something far darker moves in to take it's place.. If or better when we have to fight terrorism in our own country and make no mistake that time will come and you have surrendered your weapon and supported gun bans, while you are being beaten and hauled to god knows where your wife and daughters are being raped and your sons kidnapped and trained to be suicide bombers, then you can call you local liberal Democrat and thank them because they certainly won't come to help you.

Answer 280

Disagree



☆ Sent from iOS Dr. Know! 1.0.03

Answer 281

You can't expect that it will stop all shootings, but if you ban guns, I'm pretty sure it will have some impact.

Answer 282

It will definitely decrease them. The gun nut wacko already have. America is going to turn into the Turner Diaries if the Gov't tries to take already existing

Answer 283

People like what's his face will simply go to Colombia and buy an AK-47 with thier money and then carry out mass shootings so no.

Answer 284

Banning Guns would be just as effective as banning Drugs was. In the US it would also require an Amendment to the Constitution to Void an existing Amendment. I don't see that happening.

Answer 285

Yes I live in the UK, we dint ban all guns but we ban the vast majority of wat criminals gangs and terroists like to use. Knives Swords bows mmm ok if property paperwork and checks on place mental health tests ect should be fine shotguns and air pellet guns .22 lots more restrictions. Desert eagles m16s AK47 and big heftyou GPMG 200 rounder belt clip things no chance you only need adequate weapons for self defense fully automatic assult rifleso and high powered pistols should be banned.

Answer 286

Disagree because if someone is hell bent on committing despicable acts of violence, they'll find a way to do it. Bans will not make the guns go away, just force them underground onto the black market worse than what happens now. You liberals think there is a lack of government oversight and regulation now, push your prohibition narrative and see what happens when legitimate firearm businesses are forced to close and the firearm trade is solely handled by underground criminal enterprises. And in order for the bans to be totally effective, you would literally have to find every single black market dealer, shut them down, and prevent other people from taking their place, you can't.

Answer 287

No. They can get guns illegally. Most registered gun owners don't shoot anyone

Answer 288

Disagree on a civil basis. Banning guns could bring mass shootings of civilians.

Answer 289

People would find other means to get the publicity, glory, and prestige that American Media gives to mass murders.

Answer 290

Disagree. Neo-nazi Anders Breivik proved these people always find a way.

Answer 291

Disagree. Criminals will illegally obtain guns because they don't abide by the laws.

Answer 292

Agree

Answer 293

"Banning guns" will not ban guns, so it's a stupid question. I am looking forward to more rampages as aging baby boomer gun nuts become demented and less able to control their homicidal impulses.

Answer 294

Disagree

Answer 295

Yep

Answer 296

Well Australia had the worse mass shooting in the country's history in 2009. Four months later they banned all semiautomatic weapons and handguns. 2010 homicide dropped by almost half and they have not had a mass shooting since. In the US we have more guns than people and we have had almost as many mass shootings as we have had days in the year this year alone. You do the math.

Answer 297

No.

Answer 298

.

Answer 299

hmmm

Answer 300

It is true that guns are not the problem but some of the humans that have them. Just as it is true that cars kill more people than guns each year. We have to step back and put aside our political ideologies and pass common sense gun laws that allow responsible gun owners to keep their guns while somehow weeding out the ones that shouldn't have them. That may be wishful thinking, but if anyone has some suggestions now is the time to speak up....hopefully before the next shooting.

Answer 301

No

Answer 302

NO! It hasn't in Europe and it won't here. By the way, in Europe the new mass killing tool now is a butcher knife or a rented truck. I'm sure that if we ban guns here, those tools won't be used. And we, the unwashed masses, can continue to be at the mercy of insane people and religious fanatics. Of course, the rich and famous will continue to keep THEIR hired guns to protect themselves. Someone will call 911 after you're dead for you. Not to worry.

Answer 303

They did this in australia now only criminals have guns

Answer 304

Disagree. It won't.

Answer 305

agree

Answer 306

Disagree.

Answer 307

strongly disagree. In some cases gun crimes will go up for criminals obtaining illegal weapons

Answer 308

Disagree. People can still buy guns illegal. It might reduce the amount of mass shootings but it will never fully stop it.

Answer 309

Disagree.

Answer 310

Agree. Why do you need a gun? Uk is the safest place on earth

Answer 311

Disagree, unless a universal strict gun control through out all states will be adhered.

Answer 312

the best way and i reckon the ONLY way is to make it illegal to NOT have a licenced gun on you at all times in the public, that is the only way people can defend themselves in a state such as america...what can you do when someone starts shooting willynilly?? wait for teh police to defend you...stuff that they will defend themselves and help you is it is safe to do so...get packin' save yourself.

Answer 313

Well people get guns one way or another. Especially traveling to another country and getting them

Answer 314

disagree; heres why; in the british isles,you cannot buy a handgun let alone an assult rifle. but every criminal & terrorist have them.

Answer 315

Of course it will. We banned drugs and no one does them anymore, it ll be the exact same for guns. (Sarcasm)

Answer 316

No. Law-abiding people don't engage in mass shootings. What makes you think more gun laws will stop them?

Answer 317

Agreed!

Answer 318

Disagree - guns will ALWAYS be available --- and with the CAD machines, people will make their own guns, and there will be MORE fully-automatic weapons :)



Besides, a couple cans of gasoline and matches on the bottom floor of a condo or hotel.......



Even Mrs O'leary's cow in old wooden America...............

Answer 319

Disagree

Answer 320

Not really. Criminals always have ways to smuggle Illegal weapons into the country.

Answer 321

Banning something never stops it. People always find ways to work around bans, if you want to stop mass shootings you have to find the source. Is the source guns or is it the problems facing the gunners?



☆ Sent from iOS Dr. Know! 1.0.03

Answer 322

just ban machine guns and all ammunition . hand guns/pistols OK

Answer 323

Yes it will for that particular type mass murders, but it will only hash other diabolical means to produce the same type of deadly action.

Answer 324

Guns are no problem, gun powder is problem. Somebodies can make bombs.

Answer 325

When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Scotland?

Answer 326

Yes! Why does someone need an automatic assault rifle? You can’t hunt with them? So why? I get people use handguns for protection but why does somebody need an automatic assault rifle. If the shooter had a handgun there would be less deaths. But he had automatic rifles causing more casualties.

Answer 327

Disagree. It might reduce them but people find ways around laws all the time, if they can't obtain them legally they'll just obtain them illegally. Not to mention they'll just find other ways to kill people (e.g. knives, bombs, etc.)

Answer 328

The guns that were used for this shooting are ALREADY BANNED, so obviously it only makes sense to disagree.

Answer 329

Disagree.



The number of mass shootings has increased since gun control laws were put in place.

Answer 330

They should make murder illegal, then no one would do it.

Answer 331

Will it stop them, probably not but it sure would reduce them and save a lot of lives. I'd ban private ownership of guns in a minute if it were up to me.

Answer 332

Take a copy of the Second Amendment and use it to wipe your @rse.

Answer 333

No not at all, this is not a solutions it will never stop even if you destroy all the gun on the face of this planet people still won't stop shedding blood of others

Answer 334

disagree, only stops people from defending themselves. criminals don't care about laws

Answer 335

Disagree... the sat shooter was white.

Answer 336

No.

Answer 337

i am disagree

Answer 338

No. It is really easy to make weapons at home. I can even make a bow and arrow out of legos so strong that it can put holes in doors. A good solution would be to instead ban guns that can shoot rapidly. The guns I have shot at my boy scout camps are 22 caliber rifles, which I think is strong enough for self defense or hunting most animals, but I don't believe that having to reload your gun after each shot will make it possible for a massacre.

Answer 339

Well yeah!

Answer 340

I agree

Answer 341

The guy in Las Vegas was a millionaire. A multi-millionaire can sit chair made out of cocaine, smoke a joint with a full auto ak with the cops he paid off sitting poolside. Laws have worked for drugs can't find that anywhere...lol.

Answer 342

not gonna work

Answer 343

It is the whole mindset that is wrong here. Of course everyone should have a right to self defence, but it should not be nescessary. Empathy seems gone...

Answer 344

only silly yanks will disagree

Answer 345

Of course it will, that's why mass shootings happen because certain people want the amendment removed. No one flips and decides to go murder everyone they can. These people have been programmed by those who want an easy take over of society by the military. Look how rare mass shooting are in the UK.

Answer 346

You can try to ban guns or drugs but if there is a gun culture or a drug culture that children are raised in, it's too late for them. They get comfortable with unhealthy things around them. There has to be a drastic change in people's attitude to stop 1,300 children from dying from guns every year in the USA. It should be extremely unusual for a child to see a gun in any house or anywhere around them (like on the street in open carry states) because there is no need for people to have so many guns or flaunt them in public. Unlimited or weakly-restricted gun ownership allows too many guns to be all around in our culture, and open carry laws contribute to the USA having a gun culture where children grow up thinking guns are a normal part of life. They are not. And open carry is near to the stupidest law ever passed.

Answer 347

Disagree. Guns will one way or another, always be accessible on the black market

Answer 348

Maybe not but it is an attempt to control this madness.

Answer 349

No, but strictly regulating the sale of guns and closing things like the gun show loop hole might

Answer 350

Disagree. If simply passing a law stopped things from happening, then we would have ZERO crime right now.

Answer 351

Disagree. Even if guns are banned, there will still be guns out there. With the ban, there are still going to be people out there buying and using guns. Just like how most drugs are illegal/ banned, but you still see people using and selling drugs. The ban could reduce the number of guns purchase, and used, but with or without the ban people will still be effected by guns whether it's major or minor.

Answer 352

Disagree. Lets look at it this way. Criminal A and Criminal B got guns of the black market. There is a whole block in a rich neighborhood. Criminal A and Criminal B know these families are loaded with cash. Each family has 4 family members. Criminal A and B managed to kill all the families in the neighborhood with guns they got off the black market. they kill 50 families total. so that's 200 people because each family has four people. These families could have had a shot at living if they had a gun to use to shoot in self defense. Unfortunately gun buying is illegal now. that's 200 lives lost cause of ONE law. Criminal A and B got guns of the black market. These families weren't aware of these markets so couldn't get access to a gun, they also didn't wanna get in trouble for illegally owning a gun. Since this law has been in effect, more people have been killed by criminals because they had no gun to use to defend themselves in their family. Crime has increased. The good people who use guns the right way (in self defense) cant get them. The bad ones can because they know the black market and where it is. see what I mean? crime still exists, people still die, because criminals manage to get access to guns

Answer 353

Well I think that banning guns won't as no matter what, there will still be a black market out there that will still sell guns but here's to hoping!

Answer 354

Disagree

Answer 355

Disagree

Answer 356

I disagree, although it won't happen as regularly as it does now but still won't all together stop it

Answer 357

I live in the UK and not in the US, so I am not sure you even want my comments, but I have a feeling they are rather different from most peoples opinion here in the UK. The world is full of DANGERIOUS and MAD people... Why do you think they will change their behaviour in killing people just because a government says it is 'illegal' to buy some o all guns? The gun law in the UK is much more strict than in the US and we still have serious shootings in this country (UK)... If they can't get hold of a gun, they steal a car and drive into people (read London/UK and Nice/France). To make it harder to buy or own a gun laws doesn't save us from dangerous people.

Answer 358

Of course, it will work, no guns no shooting but there must be a severe punishment in place for those who disobey. An armistice by the police should be given to collect all guns and maybe a severe fine for those that don't hand in their guns. There should also be some kind of payment given as guns are handed in as lots of people bought in good faith and should not suffer because of the mentally ill

Answer 359

Yes, this definitely decrease them.

Answer 360

Duuuuuuuhhhhhhhh........ I think not, mind.

Answer 361

It will not stop mass shootings, but it can make them uncommon or rare

Answer 362

False

Answer 363

Banning guns wont stop mass shootings.

And even it it did, still remember what happened during the Prohibition? Things got worse. Blackmarkets flourished. Somehow, people will find a way to distribute guns, and crime levels will rise and chaos fall deeper into its crevasse.

Answer 364

I disagree, These days I think if guns were banned then the people planning mass murders would find other ways to do so, here in the U.K. You can't just go and buy a gun, it's extremely difficult to get a gun but we have countless bombings instead using homemade explosive devices. If people are wanting to cause hurt to people they will find how to one way or another :(

Answer 365

Yes

Answer 366

It won't stop it entirely but I do believe it's a start.



Australia banned guns after a massacre in 1996 and the number of mass shootings that has happened since then can be counted on one hand.

Answer 367

Well, its too late for Americas, I guess.

But I think controlling gun availability will largely help to decrease incidents like this. So I agree to an extant.

If guns are controlled, the jobs of cops will also be easier. In USA cops have no idea who have guns or not. So they have to be extra cautious. Sometimes they end up in gunfight which may results in the injury of an officer. Sometimes cops shoots out of panic resulting in the death of an innocent. All this can be avoided.

I live in a country where guns are mostly unavailable and I couldn't even imagine what could happen if people had a right to own guns.

Look we human beings can be irrational and rash at times. So background checks matters less.

Right now Americans may need guns since lot of nutjobs may already have it. And common folks need protection against these nutjobs.

But the fact remains. More deadly weapons to the common folk will only cause more chaos.

Answer 368

I live in UK where guns are illegal anyway and I agree it should at least improve the gun situation. Why do you need a gun if you aren't going to use it without breaking the law? Unless you have a license for hunting or a good reason. A gun doesn't make you any safer, it just makes the people around you less safe.

Answer 369

yes

Answer 370

Agree. No body except police and defence personnel should be allowed weapons and that too nor personal but only service.

Answer 371

. From: A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real

figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own

government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,

Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria.....alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady

decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....'

You won't see this reported on the American evening news.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Answer 372

disagree . criminals have lots of ways of hurting people

Answer 373

...Banding guns or any other types of weaponry will not stop people from harming one another, every since Cain killed Abel there has been killing after killing of humans by humans. The grim reality? it will never stop, Sadly, it's the nature of things.

Answer 374

No. There re already so many gun laws out there. But, anyone can still get a gun if determined enough. More laws only stifle the law abiding. There is no "gun show loophole" nor any loophole for that matter.

Answer 375

It's not about mass shootings, it's about mass killings.

Answer 376

obviously

Answer 377

It might not completely stop them from happening but if guns get banned, mass shootings will definitely happen less frequently.

Answer 378

Disagree.

Answer 379

Disagree, they certainly didn't stop the killers in Paris. Paris bans guns, to no effect. Only law abiding citizens will obey the law. Killers, terrorists thugs and gangbangers will not.

Answer 380

That worked so well for alcohol didn't it, dumbass.

Answer 381

Banning guns won't stop it. But at least it will reduce it.

Answer 382

NO but will reduce : the damage has been done its all horrible factors involved.....