Gun Control

[bacon]

Gun Control


One issue that many are currently debating are the use and purchase of guns. Guns are one of the leading and most well-known weapon in cases of homicide. Though, guns are also used for recreational purposes as well.

• Do you think the government should set higher and stricter gun laws?
• Do you think the government should ban guns all together?
• Do you think gun controvery is over-rated?
• Do you have any ideas of thoughts about what the world should do to lessen the crimes involving guns?

 

[Brewmeister]

Funny, the one purpose of firearms that gets left out most such testimonials is "defense". Think of the millions of guns carried by law enforcement & owned legally by licensed citizens for personal protection. A VERY small percentage of the guns get used for homicide. And if you really want to kill someone & don't have a gun, you'll find another way.

"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."

Criminals will always be able to get guns. Gun control might make it a bit more difficult, or more expensive. But if they want them they will find a way. Anyone with access to a primitive machine shop can make a gun.
Attempting to eliminate guns would only serve to take them away from law-abiding citizens, making the problem worse.

"Those who beat their guns into plows will plow for those who don't."

I believe the only ways to have a positive impact on gun crime is to increase gun ownership, that is: responsible gun ownership, and through education. Teach legal gun owners proper firearm safety, and train them to act accordingly in a situation where they need to use their weapon.

The gun laws are already strict enough. They, like other laws are not enforced enough or are not enforceable.

The controversy is not over-rated. It's a serious issue. It is, however over-debated. Many a finer mind than mine have argued the merits of gun ownership & gun control yet we are still unable to come to a consensus. To me, it's as simple as "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Our forefathers understood that when they penned the 2nd amendment.

BTW, the latest addition to my armory....

Man, I love this weapon! It's heavy, it shoots very well, and it sounds (& feels) like a cannon when it goes off.

 

[Truly else]

Do you think the government should ban guns all together?

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Besides, If a person shoots someone, the problem isn't where they got it, but who would give it to them. I agree with the former poster in these regard, and also My country is stricter on weapons in general to the point that there are only an handful of tazers being issued to police, and firearms are not at all. still, criminals get guns, and those who don't, well...

• 299 stabs with a pair of scissors "in self defense" a
• crazy with a katana a few years earlier.

Firearms are much more humane because at least they're fast.

 

[Stardust]

I think there are way too many laws restricting guns. I can see the logic behind not letting us having rocket launchers, but it's so fucking hard to get something to use for protection in New York. My aunt tried to get a pistol for self-defense (where she works she could use it) and the amount of stuff she had to go through was insane. Not to mention the cost of the license. 0_0

I still remember something one of my history teachers told me. When she went down to Florida to visit her parents, she was surprised to see that most people carried around guns. Because the state is more lax on gun laws, most people can get one as long as they're trained properly. And there's not as much crime because of it. Would you try to rob a store when the owner and all the other customers have a gun strapped to their side?

My stance on this issue is that gun laws should be peeled back. Maybe include more training requirements, but make it easier for citizens to get a gun. No, not everyone can be trusted, and not everyone will make good decisions while carrying a gun, but it would certainly reduce crime in certain areas. And, like Brew said, criminals will find a way to get a gun, anyway, so why can't we defend ourselves?

Do you think gun controvery is over-rated?

I don't think this is being made a bigger deal than it should be. It's an important thing to discuss and debate because it affects everyone. I think there are strong pulls from both sides, like with any other issue, and facts should really be present (and not fake/altered facts) in making a decision. If it can be proven that more lax gun laws decrease crime, then I think it would be foolish for people to ignore that. But I haven't looked at those statistics so I can't comment too much.

 

[Ellie]

I believe:

- All guns should be banned for personal use
- Firing ranges should still be legal, provided they are registered and guns don't leave the premises

While yes, guns aren't the only thing that kill people, (knives, chainsaws, etc), they are designed with one purpose in mind: to kill people. That's completely unlike the other items (in most cases). They are designed to kill. Not designed to slice the Christmas turkey with the unfortunate side effect of making a good shanking tool.

I am completely and utterly against gun ownership and I cannot see any reason to have one other than killing, hunting, and firing ranges.

(Though, I still don't know what to think about hunting... all the same you don't need a pistol to hunt, you need a shotgun - again, built for a purpose rather than purely built to kill HUMANS).

 

[Venetia]

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”

“Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

''A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.''

The above quotes, as worn-into-the-ground as they may be, sum up my opinion on gun control roundly.

It doesn't matter that they are a danger to others in the hands who might do them harm, they are a form of liberty.

Back when the 2nd Amendment was brought forth, it was due to the fact that America in general was a wild and dangerous land. We were fighting everyone off our turf tooth and nail, and we were setting out into territories unknown and without law. We are no longer in that position but the fact of the matter is, guns still exist, and so self-preservation is still in order.

Even were the police to say "ok fellas, give us your guns" and walk door to door with a collection basket, they would be unable to search every person's home. Even if they shut down every weapons shop, they would still be around. But then, they would ONLY be in the hands of people willing to go against the law.

It's an obvious statistical trend that countries with heavy gun restrictions suffer less gun-related deaths (suicides and homicides combined). However these stats are always weighed against America with liberal European countries, which have MUCH smaller populations and better access to counseling and education. Certainly gun-related ACCIDENTS account for a percentage of deaths per year, but when a man is CONVINCED he is going to kill himself or others, it matters little what instruments he uses. It would likely be a more wise investment in bringing down costs to produce better mental/social health over all than in regulating yet another thing banned because of a few bad eggs spoiling the pot.

In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

Between 1993-1999, gun deaths in the United States have declined 27%. (SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm, WISQARS, National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, accessed March, 2002.)

In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides. (SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

Of all suicides, 57% occurred by firearm (SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, accessed March, 2002.)

In 2005, 42,636 died in car accidents. This does not include injuries.(Source: caraccidents.com)

According to the above stats, one can deign:

- There are twice the deaths in car accidents than in gun incidents. Should we outlaw cars as well? Or perhaps invest in safer driving methods? And, in the same vein, invest in safer gun control education or standards?

- Over a period of years in the 90's, gun-related deaths went down SIGNIFICANTLY. This is due in part to a new regulation of performing background checks before selling weaponry, and in an increased investment in education and PSA's related to gun safety.

- More gun-deaths are suicide-related than homicide. Perhaps instead of implying guns are to blame for deaths, we should be taking an introspective on the mental wellness of the populace. And, I am of the opinion that it is a man's right to take his own life.


Lastly, and most of all, I dislike the idea of banning guns for the simple reason of liberty. Every day more regulations and laws are heaped onto us and every day we lose the freedom that this country was established for. It is lamentable that SOME people are ignorant and foolish and cold-hearted. But I should not have to pay for other peoples' misdeeds. Sweeping bans are simply a method of control of free will. It's what teachers do in kindergarten when a couple of brats act up and I refuse to be treated as thus as a well-informed adult.

 

[sojournen]

I don't know if stricter gun laws would help really. If there's no guns available, people just find other ways to kill each other. It's a sad commentary on humanity. I laugh at people who look down on animals and see us as civilized. We're much more hedonistic then the average dog.

 

[Stardust]

I am completely and utterly against gun ownership and I cannot see any reason to have one other than killing, hunting, and firing ranges.

Protection.

If you make guns illegal, the people who would use them for killing will still get them. But then homeowners or the average citizen will be fucked because the best thing they have to protect themselves is whatever they can grab around the house.

Bans fail. Period. Yes, it'll stop the average person from getting their hands on it, but those who are determined or don't like the law will find ways around it. Look at Prohibition. Look at the ban on marijuana. (I have no idea what laws outside the U.S. are but I'm sure you have bans on some things that people get anyway.) In my opinion, bans are completely and utterly useless because, like it or not, the government (or at least a non-oppressive one) can NOT tell us what we can and cannot have. There will always be people selling guns and anyone who truly wants one will get their hands on one. And then law enforcement will waste their time trying to enforce the laws when they could be doing better things (like stopping drunk drivers).

From my point of view, it's not a matter of philosophy. It's a matter of practicality. And in my opinion, banning guns isn't practical.

 

[united washcloth express]

All bans do is drive up the prices of neighborhood dealers. Finding a neighborhood dealer is not that difficult either. The selling of illegal objects and substances will always occur as people in power that have outlawed a substance or object receive a cut of the profits. Obviously, not all do. Still, there are underground groups and organizations selling things under the table constantly without fear of being caught.

A large portion of my family on my mother's side were involved in Moon-shining. (My grandfather actually learned how to drive at the age of 8 as a result of this.) My great-great Aunt was the head of a crime ring. She ran prostitution circles, illegal arms sales, car sales, and various other illegal circles. She was able to operate freely due to the fact that many of the people in power were more than willing to look the other way for a slight cut of the profits. In turn, they would occasionally bust a group of grunts employed by my Aunt and prosecute them to make it look like they were enforcing laws.

To put it simply, the idea of gun control is a sham. Firearm bans will never work and they are designed not to. As others have said, guns should not be taken out of the hands of citizens anyways. Disarming the innocent does nothing but make life difficult for those who wish to protect themselves. Guns *are* designed to kill as people will kill others until the end of time. Rather than impose pointless laws, why not spend money on educating others how and when to use a firearm?

 

[dadevvtsvre]

- There are twice the deaths in car accidents than in gun incidents. Should we outlaw cars as well? Or perhaps invest in safer driving methods? And, in the same vein, invest in safer gun control education or standards?

But cars are necessary for our daily lives. We have to use vehicles to get to our jobs, buy food, transportation, etc. We couldn't live the lives we do without cars. Can the same really be said for guns?

No, I don't think banning guns in the United States is a good idea. But not because I think it's a violation of one's personal freedom, or that you're taking away self-protection. I think it's a bad idea because there would most likely be a lot of retaliation and rioting.

I'll admit, I've been raised with a lifestyle that is very against firearms. So my opinion may be biased. But I don't think guns are necessary. Hunting is the only reason I can understand one owning a firearm. How much safer does one feel with a gun, anyway? Okay, I live in a safe place. I've never even been close to being in a potentially dangerous situation. But from my point of view, I see no need for anyone to possess a firearm for self-protection. To me it seems excessive, risky, dangerous, and not needed. Not trying to promote Canada or anything, but very few people here own guns and the only reason most do is for hunting purposes. And are thousands killed by criminals because they don't own a gun? Are our lives put in any more danger because we don't have the ability to whip out a pistol and shoot somebody? :|

 

[bacon]

I agree with wyatt and Devy on this one as well. Sure, cars may kill more people than guns, but guns are still causing more homicide related death, which is really unnescessary. When someone gets in a car accident, it probably an unintentional accident, death or no death. If someone shoots someone, that's mainly intentional. Furthermore, guns such as pistols and heavy duty guns should not be allowed. The only guns that I can see being somewhat useful are a shot or a rifle, thats it. Pistols, machineguns, and other guns as well should be banned. I also agree we need a stricter laws in many areas of our country. Of course, there would be some negative effects as well from this, such as illegal guns dealing and so forth. o:

 

[Truly else]

... When someone gets in a car accident, it probably an unintentional accident, death or no death. If someone shoots someone, that's mainly intentional. Furthermore, guns such as pistols and heavy duty guns should not be allowed. The only guns that I can see being somewhat useful are a shot or a rifle, thats it. Pistols, machineguns, and other guns as well should be banned. ...

Take note: If somebody shoots someone and it wasn't intentional, it goes down as negligence.

Also, Why ban the pistol? The pistol is mostly issued to police due to it's non-encumbering and less-than-daunting nature. Imagine a police officer prepared for the worst while trying to calm down an armed criminal (who got their guns from some other source, as stated how simple that is previously). do you think it would be easy to convince a guy you aren't going to hurt you if you have a rifle strapped to your back? Not really. I can understand about limiting the Machine guns and RPGs and other BFSs to strictly wartime uses though.

 

[So fist]

Stricter gun laws will not help curb gun violence in this country. Hitmen don't go to Greg's Gun Shack to purchase their silencers and hollowpoint bullets. Gangster's don't mail order tek 9's from guns and ammo. Criminals in gangs and organizations deal with underground suppliers by and large because the weapons have an untraceable history if left behind.

MS 13, LK's, Crips, Mafia, ect. won't suddenly become unarmed because you ban guns in this country. They're importing them illegally for themselves anyway. Their trade in firearms isn't part of the legal trade of them. And its that reason that most law enforcement doesn't see gun control as much help in the matter.

Venezuela has had strict gun control laws since 2006 as its answer to curb spiraling gang violence in its inner cities. The result, Caracas is the murder capital of the world, boasting 130 murders per 100,000 citizens in 2008. And note that this is the best of all possible figures considering the figure does not include prison murders and killings by policemen. Fact is no matter what it says on the law books, where you find ghetto's and organized gang activity, you will find guns for murderous purposes. It won't matter how authoritarian the regime is.

 

[Kuahewa huki 'ino]

"Those who beat their guns into plows will plow for those who don't."

Yeah, self- or home-defense is always a good point, though I'm not such a fan of governmental analogies, fun as they are.

But when it comes to gun control, I personally think that it should be less "control" and more "education." Instead of teaching kids about how evil guns are, they ought to be teaching them about how they're dangerous, sure, but not bad by any stretch of the imagination, and maybe even gun safety. I don't want to bring politics into it, but honestly the furthest-left families that would sooner take an acid bath than pick up a firearm would shit a fucking brick over this, but everyone else would probably be like "hey this is smart."

Demystify something through education and you get a lot fewer accidents, too, because kids won't be like "oh shit check this out it's my dad's GUN," it'd be more like "yeah my dad has a gun so". My grandfather came from redneck-ass Colorado and raised my dad to think of guns as just another tool--just as potentially dangerous, and takes just as much caution to handle--and my dad raised me the same way. I was never like "HOLY SHIT GUNS WOO" because I was educated in such a way that this kind of reaction is just stupid. When I was in boarding school, we had a rifling course in ROTC, which was mandatory for male students. A lot of idiots went into the class really excited about firearms in all the wrong ways, but most of them left the course with an educated outlook on them. The rest... well, some people are just too far exposed to the glorified and almost-mythical interpretation of the gun, or are just too stupid to learn in the first place.

So yeah, no control, but lots of education.