But rather than revert to more primitive weaponry like spears, swords or bows and arrows, modern nations would likely shift to other forms of killing, including explosives, tanks, missiles and chemical and biological weapons.
Nuclear war, however, would likely remain unappealing given its extreme destructiveness, Gabor says. Nations also may invent new types of weapons to fill gaps left by guns, Brooks adds, with the wealthiest, most powerful states likely being the quickest to innovate the most effective new means of killing.
The same probably would not hold true for non-state actors. In places like Somalia, Sudan and Libya, where firearms are readily available, a sudden disappearance of those weapons would reduce the capacity for militias to emerge and operate.
But in some cases, counter-militias are composed of fighters resisting violent, repressive governments, Brooks says. Should guns disappear, there also would be mixed results for animals. On the one hand, the poaching and trophy hunting of endangered species would decline greatly. On the other, control of problem animals — whether rabid raccoons, stampeding elephants, venomous snakes or charging polar bears — would become more difficult.
If guns disappeared, there would be extra potential challenges for both hunting and agriculture Credit: Getty Images. Guns are also integral for invasive species management , he continues. Thousands of cats, pigs, goats, possums and other harmful non-native species are shot each year to try to preserve delicate ecosystems, especially on islands. Doing away with guns would make that already-steep uphill battle all the more difficult — and less humane.
Mercy killings of injured livestock and other animals likewise would be made more brutal without guns.
Guns are made for killing, but their influence extends to additional facets of life and society, all of which would change. In terms of the economy, the US stands the most to lose if guns disappeared. In fact, there would likely be a modest net economic gain if guns disappeared.
Indeed, while the overall impacts to the economy would be negligible, Miller points out that the less tangible gains would be significant. For one, many people would feel safer. Americans of all ages are increasingly terrified of being attacked in a public place, Gabor adds, whether at school, a movie theatre, a nightclub or on the street. Many would be able to breathe easier with guns no longer in the picture, but some gun owners would experience the opposite effect and feel more vulnerable without their weapons.
Whether guns actually help people stay safe and defend themselves is a controversial subject. But the limited research available on this topic tends to indicate that guns have the opposite effect.
A study of 1, homicides found that the presence of guns in a home significantly increases the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance, for example. A meta-study likewise found that access to firearms is associated with homicide and completed suicide attempts. In India, some women are learning self-defence and shooting to protect themselves — but whether guns actually help people stay safe is controversial Credit: Getty Images. Gun culture also would be something that many firearm owners would miss.
But Miller points out that recreational hunters could shift from rifles to other means of killing, such as bows and arrows. The same goes for those who visit shooting ranges for fun, or who collect guns as a hobby — they simply could find a replacement activity.
Though for someone for whom guns are a passion, that is unlikely to be much comfort. Since the second amendment discusses people owning firearms for their safety, this would be able to solve that problem and get rid of the majority of the mortality rate. While problems still arise with these technologies, if we are able to develop a safe enough weapon that immediately knocks out an opponent, it would be a great substitute for guns. See more blogs. July 8, By Venus Aradhya.
Like Post Submit a post. Image Credit. United States of America. View the discussion thread. I agree with this report and think that the object of the Amnesty is to reduce the number of guns people have. The amnesty is, perhaps, improperly applied here. Like what color cup do you want for your milk red or blue it tricks them into drinking the milk without thinking about it. Its because you distracted their disgust in milk by letting them believe they had a choice and so they focus on what color they want they are happy they have a choice without realizing they never had a choice of what they wanted to drink but how they drank it.
This is my example of what has happened to are real freedom and rights as people. What rights do we really have?
How is this freedom as humans at all? Commercial compensation was paid and all handgun licences were cancelled. There was opposition from gun owners but not the public who were wholly in favour. There have been subsequent gun amnesties, where you turn your illegal weapons to the police. There is a level of gun crime, all self respecting drug gangs have a few 9mm guns usually for hire to other drug gangs, but the level is low.
A Question for you. If Osema Bin Laden or another person not allowed to fly, got off a plane in the US, went into t gun shop and bought a machine gun, or a pistol, would he be allowed to? No, If a person is not a US citizen with a clear criminal background check then he cannot buy any type of firearm in the US.
No one in the US can just buy a machine gun. US citizens maintain the right and ability to resist tyranny, unlike foreign subjects. You clearly do not understand US gun laws. NO ONE can just walk in and buy a machine gun or even a pistol. We are strict with cars because car crashes kill twice as many Americans as gun homicides. Maybe we should ban cars instead. Mass shootings just follow the lead. It was the least debated of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change it, and no matter which of the two ways the Constitution allows an amendment to be presented, and it must then be approved by three quarters of the states. Some people give guns away as Christmas presents in the US. Many employers understand that Deer hunting is pretty much a Human Right, and many of their employees simply will not be at work for part of deer season, though they may find hunting seasons for other species in other states negotiable.
Many will be missing some work. Maybe more than the Monday after a Superbowl Sunday. Yet, there are less assaults and less violent crime where guns are allowed. We do note the rise in knifing assaults in the UK, for example and in the US most of the shootings happen in places where guns are not allowed.
Mass shooters prefer unarmed victims. There simply is no way that 38 states will agree to amend the Constitution to get of guns on a National level. It is 2 on the first 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights and 2 was the least debated of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights when the Constitution was first signed and implemented. If people legally own ugly black rifles and somehow Congress passes a bill that forbids a citizen to own such a gun and the President signs it into law, what would be the effect on the citizens who own those guns now?
Even though Obama and the NWO had been pumping those kids full of chemicals that would make them more subservent to their needs by mind control. You would have rather had a murdering devil worshipper as president just because she was a woman.
I guess you wanted to make sure that Obama got a use all them coffins american tax payers went more in debt for? Shame on you! Blame yourselves for burying your brains in the backyard and letting it get this bad! The deceived are going to the same place as the deceivers. Ignorance of the law, is NO excuse. Guns save times more lives than they take. The amount of people who die from gun homicide is a statistical zero compared to other forms of death.
We have a second amendment for a reason and if they try to take our guns there will be a second American revolution and this time they will seal up the loopholes that the anti American power grabbers try to use to take away our rights. If the right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed, why do we have any gun laws, and why the need to abide by them?
You must be logged in to post a comment. Get Rid of Guns What have other countries done to tackle mass shootings? Can they change the second amendment? By Jaya Harrar Last updated Dec 18, You might also like More from author. Family Law. Prev Next. Raymond Swenson says 4 years ago. Login to reply. Nate says 4 years ago. Jane says 3 years ago. J says 3 years ago. Jimmy D says 2 years ago. Dave says 2 years ago.
0コメント