In the extreme, a lack of guns would mean no gun crime. Every crime requires means and the means of gun crime is a gun. Each gun that is not in circulation is a gun that cannot be used to commit a crime.
Empirically, every other developed country has less guns than the US and all have lower gun crime. The lowest gun crime is found where gun control is strictest.
The question is like asking if smoking was illegal would it reduce lung cancer: the answer is trivial.
Gun control will help reduce crime, less children, old people, and adults will get killed. Canada, Australia, England has gun control and they have less crimes. The United States should enforce gun control because it will help reduce crime. I think Assault rifle, Rocket launchers, Explosives, and machine guns should be banned. I only support Shot guns and normal guns like the Beretta Laramie.
Take a look at the crime rates of countries like the United Kingdom. Their crime rate is ridiculously low, compared to ours here in the United States. I am all for our freedom to bear arms, however, this is not about taking all privileges away. Just by simply putting stricter laws in place on who can own them, it will greatly reduce the crimes involving guns.
Some people like to say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and then compare death rates from guns to those of cars. There is an inherent difference between the two things, however. It doesn't make sense to say that a device which can bring fatal harm should not be regulated. Even cars are regulated, as are switchblades, swords, and other weapons. The Gun is one of the most dangerous weapons out there - of COURSE it should be difficult to get one! I'm not against having a gun for protection, but do you need a semi-automatic? Of course not! I'm not against guns for hunting either, but I do have a problem with allowing your children to use the guns without an official document proving their skills and training. If guns shouldn't be regulated at all, the evidence for such and idea would be overwhelming. It's the same thing for having minimal regulations on guns. The evidence doesn't meet reliability requirements.
Dear Americans ... how often do these terrible things have to happen before you finally change something about it? It's hardly surprising that America has one of the highest gun related murder rates of all countries! And of course guns don't kill people, but the more people own guns, the easier it is to get access to one, the higher the chance of people using it to kill somebody! In Europe we have really strict gun laws and only a few people own guns, and obviously we don't need them. There's no reason normal citizen would need a gun! Those are our children our parents, our cousins or grandparents who might get shot because of an idiot that shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. You all know your gun laws are a joke. Guns are made for one reason only, and that is to kill.
I am disheartened that there is even much of a debate on this topic. Stricter gun laws would almost certainly reduce the number of gun related deaths in this country. We MUST learn something from this tragic, senseless act at Shady Hook and do something. The guns used in this heinous act were all legally purchased/registered. The primary weapon used to kill these innocent children and brave educators was a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle. If that gun could not have been legally purchased, one would reasonably believe it would not have been in the house. If we ask ourselves this question - If that weapon wasn't in the house, do you think at the very least it is possible (if not very likely) that there would have been fewer people killed? Then doesn't that tell us something? If it is at least possible that there would have been fewer victims, shouldn't we do something so that these weapons aren't available? I for one believe that there would have been less carnage. I understand that motivated bad people will do bad things, but shouldn't we at least try to make it harder for them to get their hands on these kinds of weapons and hopefully as a result reduce the number of victims? I will end with this, the same day as the Sandy Hook tragedy, a man in China went into a school with a knife and INJURED 20 people. Nobody was killed. Compare that to the 26 people killed at Sandy Hook with a legally purchased assault rifle that is designed for military purposes for killing people. It is not a hunting rifle, nor a hand gun that someone purchased because they feel it is necessary in their home to protect themselves or their family. Let's not skew the issue. These things should not be legally allowed in the hands of regular citizens. Their is no practical purpose for it.
Many arguments for no gun control purport that criminals will get guns anyways. Well, what about all the guns in regular folks homes that get used improperly, by a rebellious or disturbed teenager, angry lover,etc. Better gun control means it is harder to get guns. Let's impact gun crime wherever we can.
Studies by the AMA and the Center for American Progress show states with stricter or more gun laws have a lower rate of violence from guns. There's no escaping the fact also that countries with stricter gun laws have lower incidence of gun violence as well. Constitutional arguments against stricter gun laws are nonsense since even Justice Scalia agrees that more restrictive gun can be written in such a way as to comply with the 2nd Amendment.
No one needs assault weapons, if you're a hunter and you have a problem with reloading after twelve shots, you're a bad hunter. The cops don't use assault rifles (well aside from SWAT COPS) WHY should a normal person have a gun that could mow down the law?
Although it is impossible, imagine no guns in our society. When the 2nd amendment was drafted there were no high powered assault rifles or such deadly accurate handguns. I hear many gun advocates say they have the right to protect themselves. I agree but a shot gun will do the trick and a lot easier to shoot and use for hunting. I am a hunter. I have experiences with all types of guns and assault rifles I cant believe we allow your average person to own one. Less than 1% of guns are used in protection situations. These mass murders have to stop.
Alot of people who obtain guns for crime are young people in crisis, make it so that you have to be a certain age limit and you will see how the crime decreases. Because more mature and able people will be the ones handling the guns, also make it a requisite to take a state given gun test.
I've heard some arguments from people claiming that cars aren't banned because of drunk drivers, so why would tightening the rules on gun control do anything to stop gun related violence? To those who can actually justify this argument, take a look how drunk driving rates have dropped over the past decade due to stricter requirements, more policing, and other regulations that have been put into action. I'm completely against taking guns away and agree that gun violence cannot be stopped, no matter what, but who can sit there and actually say that we should do absolutely NOTHING to try and curb these horrible events from happening? It just doesn't make sense. The second amendment was written when bayonets were available, not the abundance of options available in today's world. I have a hard time thinking that the great founding leaders of our nation, if they saw what is available today, would all agree that zero additional gun control is necessary. If we can do even one thing to reduce these events, why is that a bad thing? Common sense...
I think it is a bit misleading by the conservatives to suggest gun control won't reduce to some extent gun violence. Yes some people break laws, but fewer people will shoot up a place, if they didn't have a capable gun in the first place, and if there was a penalty on having a gun, then they wouldn't take the risk. This increases as the penalty and oversight of guns increases. If you could go to jail for 20 years for illegally buying an assault rifle, that is an obvious disincentive to doing the action.
However this is not an endorsement of such gun control laws, or gun control laws in general. Usually if the gun control law will be effective in reducing gun crime (i.e. 20 year sentence for buying, or owning any gun, and the implementation of a federal database) they will usually hamper people's freedoms, disarm innocent civilians who are now left defenseless, and encourage other types of violence. After all, a year after the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, the Oklahoma city bombing happened.
It won't cease violence in our nation, because there will always be bad people doing bad things. And it's not just guns that add to our culture of violence but if it's harder to get guns, or keep them them, and they can be monitored, then of course. And there is no reason for any citizen to own a military style weapon. Never. Our 2nd amendment might guarantee our right to own a gun, but there is nothing that says we can't legislate gun control.
Do they insure their weapon? Do they keep them out the hands of their children? Will they pay the medical expenses of the victim when gun was used accidentally or domestic violence? What is the percentage of gun violence compared to protection as the constitution states?
I was eight or nine years old walking to school with a fellow student about the same age, showed me a gun as we were walking, he dropped the gun on the ground and it went off and the bullet hit the stop sign about 10 feet away from me. This happened in 1968 thereabout, and we were in elementary school. Thank God for watching over me that day, but does the definition of responsible gun owner apply here? It is not the first time you read or watch the news on TV and you read about gun accidents that hurt and kill innocent people. So let's push for stricter gun control laws, have guns in all ammunition purchases be done only if they have insurance policies first, and for those people who don't abide by the rules, mostly criminals, stricter penalties and jail time without parole. Now that might seem out hard to enforce at first, but we do have high unemployment and we may be able to put people to work, create data bases between insurance companies and law enforcement agencies. All those people with registered guns will be given a grace period to get them insured. If this is not responsible, then explain that to the victim or their families, when unexpected medical costs, careers ended, families devastated, funeral costs etc happen and all we do is turn our blind eye. Let's be responsible in our actions not by lip service.
I'll answer this question with another: Why does the United States government need 5,500 active nuclear weapons? The answer is to fight fire with fire. If it ever came to your having to fight for your right to freedom, would you want to fight someone with a 50 caliber machine gun with a single shot rifle? I don't think so.
Just look at the liberation of Kuwait and how the U.S. marched right through their army with ease. Thats because they were fighting against superior weapons with out dated weapons. It wasn't even a fair fight. This is why it is important that citizens of this great country be armed with weapons equal to those that could one day be our enemies. There was a time and place where the only one's with guns were the government and police. They made a great movie about this. It was called "Schindlers List."
I love going out and shooting just as much as anyone else but it's not right whets going with all of the guns that are out there and its especially not fair to the recreational shooters out there quite the bus and get over your self if you wan shoot something go to the target range
To all the people arguing against further gun laws I hope you get shot.
The only developed nation to be so stupid to think that the only way to counter gun violence is by having more guns.
Less guns = Less gun crime.
Yes drugs are illegal and people still use them. But if people could buy cocaine in walmart then a much larger percentage of the population would be sniffing up lovely lines of cocaine every day.
The deadliest weapon should be regulated. America has proven time and time again that they can no longer uphold to the amendment.. All the foolish murders, all because there was a gun available at hand. The regulation WILL lower the number of deaths by gun a year, simply because there will be less of them. People liken the outcome to when alcohol was band. But this is also different because you cant just go into your backyard and whip up a batch of guns.
Strict gun ownership laws definitely decrease gun related violence, one only need look at the U.K. and Canada for correlated statistics, however, to achieve the same or similar numbers would involve mass confiscations of firearms as well, which strikes me as a pretty nonviable plan of action. One also need consider violent crime in general, contrary to knee jerk reactionist ideas the more lax gun ownership laws of America does reduce certain forms of crime, break and enter and home invasion rates are FAR higher in both the U.K and Canada, along with violence resulting in piercing and stabbing (knives) and good old fashioned brutalization (beating someone to death with your fists).
Easy availability of guns encourages gun use. Persons with criminal backgrounds, mental health issues should not have easy access to guns. Children should not have access to guns. Persons who own guns should be required to secure them with trigger locks or other devices. Persons who own guns should be required to have training in safe use of firearms as a condition of ownership.
Harder to get guns = less guns in the open = less firearms related deaths. It works, as its proven by european and asian countries with strick gun laws. When you cannot easily acquire firearms you have less changes of using one, even if criminals "will allways" have them . Most guns that are used in crime are legaly obtained.
Logic and historical data from other countries that have gun control regulations. GB, Australia and several other countries have implemented common sense gun control regulations that has drastically reduced gun violence. Personally, I think they should require all gun owners to carry liability insurance on every firearm they own, in addition to universal background checks, and banning assault weapons and high capacity clips.
The school shooting in Connecticut could have been prevented if the person who sold the gun asked for a gun license or registration to carry a gun. Or the suicide of the kid in Colorado who shot himself right in front of all his classmates and the teachers there .
I think we should have people checked for any mental illness before they are allowed to purchase a gun. I personally have a father with schizophrenia and he is also a narcissist. It scares me to think he could go off the deep end one day. We really need restrictions!
No one person should have the power to inflict the level of damage possible with guns. We can try to educate people, but there's nothing more effective than making them inaccessible. Period. At the end of the day, it's too easy to pull a trigger than it is to kill using some other method. Therefore, we can only speculate about how it would reduce crime, but we can make it harder to kill a person.
I think that by enforcing stricter gun control measures, the crime rate in the United States would drop. I do not feel that there is ever going to be a complete end to gun related crimes because individuals with ill intent will use any means to obtain unregistered weapons. I do feel that by having stricter guidelines we could potentially see a drop in the number of accidental shootings, especially among small children. I have seen a recent increase in the number of accidental shooting where no only was the gun accessible, but also unregistered. Those accidents are 100% preventable and I do feel that gun owners who are registered take more precautions with their weapons and safekeeping.
The argument that a criminal will use any tool (be it a gun or a blunt object) to hurt another, is quite valid. However, it seems that pulling a trigger requires less effort than a repetitive beating. Therefore, it demands a completely different state of mind or motivation to kill with other objects. Also, to use a metaphor, by keeping sweets out of my house, I am less inclined to eat them- even think of them. I think that reality applies to gun usage. Perhaps I have a naive way of thinking, though.
If laws were stricter on the sale of guns and the possession of guns, the amount of gun crimes would decrease. If the laws to purchase a gun, whether it be from a pawn shop or dealer, were stricter, they would be harder to get, and there would most likely be a waiting period. Stricter laws will never stop the problem, but will help with controlling it.
Restrictions on who can own guns, where they can be used, and what type of firearms are allowed would all combine to lower the incidence of crimes involving firearms. It seems pretty much a matter of common sense and simple math. Ideally, no one would own or use guns. But, barring that, restrictions are the best alternative.
For gun control to be properly implemented, everyone should learn proper grip, trigger discipline, sight picture etc. Proper gun control can help people defend themselves against criminals who will be using guns against them to commit their crimes.
If you more effectively control your gun, when firing upon criminals, you will score more hits and they will be more effective hits. Thus, crimes involving guns and crime in general will be reduced reduced.
Strict gun control must be implemented to control terrorism. It should be mandatory for a gun license to be checked. Black market supply of guns must also be eradicated. Seeing students shooting other students reminds us that strict gun control should be implemented immediately
Stricter gun control laws are certain to reduce the number of gun-related crimes. If guns are not available, then they obviously cannot be used for a crime. Also, if merely having a gun is illegal, a potential criminal can be arrested for that before ever having the chance to commit a crime. This is shown in the many countries that have strict gun control laws. Of course, whether such a limitation would be Constitutional, or politically possible, is a totally different question.
Lanza wasn't a criminal until he snapped. That is what I'm worried about; the people that you don't expect to do something like that, your neighbor, your friend, your brother. When they do snap; being limited to a small clip will save lives. But, hopefully stricter background checks will prevent that before it can happen.
While it may not decrease VIOLENT crime it will decrease GUN crime. Especially gun murders. Doesn't mean it's worth it but its the truth. The debate I always hear involves people quoting countries like England against countries like the US. England has low gun crime, and really low gun death rates but it has high violent crime. The US has lower violent crime rates than England but much higher gun crime rates.
The other day, in Iceland, a criminal was shot by a police officer, the entire nation was put in shock, this is a normal thing in the U.S., I live near a place where shootings occur every night, most of these shootings do not even reach the papers in the morning.
It is just common sense, as an analogy, if we were to limit the quantity of apples in the U.S., people would be eating them less, right. It applies to guns, if we remove guns from the equation, people would not be using them anymore.
Last year alone, the Huffington Post estimated 24,000 gun related deaths, with 11,000 of them confirmed. In Canada, only about 50, and they have implemented serious gun control measures like most of the Common Wealth. Wait a second, to those numbers correspond at all with the Right's claims that if we loosen or stop gun control, their will be less crime, no.
After a loner armed with assault weapons turned a scenic resort into a mass of mangled bodies and thrashing injured in 1996, Australia took quick and decisive action. Twelve days later, the government pushed through a tough ban on semiautomatic rifles. Britain cracked down after gun enthusiast Michael Ryan massacred 16 people and wounded 13 others in 1987 in the rural English town of Hungerford. The slaughter led to a ban on semiautomatics like Ryan’s Kalashnikov rifle. Canada overhauled its laws after gunman Marc Lepine killed 14 women and himself at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique college in 1989. It’s now illegal to possess an unregistered handgun or any kind of rapid-fire weapon.
The gun control laws that we have right now are not stopping gun violence at all. I would say that every person needs a background check done on them. If someone has a past of using guns improperly or are violent with the gun they should not be able to own a gun.
Owning a gun has linked to higher rates of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun. 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm. In a survey, nearly 1% of American reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. We question stricter gun laws well stricter gun laws include background checks. Why well because a straw purchaser that is a person with a clean record will buy a gun for a friend or relative legally. Sometimes it's sad that stricter gun law is against he second amendment, but the second amendment doesn't specify individual gun rights. Here is a statistic in 2008 roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the US about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms. This statement is solely my opinion using statistic provided on the Internet and not a judgment on others opinions.
I live in Australia and we have very strict gun control laws. I agree with the point that if you make guns illegal, people can still access them, just through illegal means and that this would potentially encourage illegal activity. HOWEVER, if you look at the shootings in the US that have made the news recently like Sandy Hook or the more recent LAX events, the perpetrators arent hardened criminals. Stricter gun control laws may not stop hardened criminals who understand how the black market and illegal arms networks work, but they most likely will prevent 11-y/o Bobby from having access to a gun. The problem with advocating a pro-gun approach is that all you are doing is trying to respond to the consequences of the problem rather than actually trying to eliminate the problem. Introducing more stringent background checks is also unlikely to help if you are dealing with psychopaths who, for all looks and appearances, will be normal people with no criminal background.
Stricter gun control may not be the 'perfect' answer that is both cost-efficient and effective but reduces the supply of guns available to people in the US, which would have an indisputable correlation with gun violence. I know sort of rambling now but... I know one of the amendments is 'a right to bear arms' (bear arms get it?) and that the amendments are very important to what it means to BE American (which I dont think a lot of non-Americans understand) however, and this is an open question, is it so important to America to be able to own a firearm that you would potentially put the lives of others at risk?
The UK has a population of 65 million. We have some of the strictest gun laws anywhere. We have 162 fatal gun shootings per year. That's 0.25 deaths per 100,000 people. USA has 10.3 deaths per 100,000 people. No one over here wants guns and few own guns. Case proven!
I have stated my opinion because I want America to be a safer place to live for little children and adults. Also, we don't know if little children can walk to school alone because they might get show by this random person. I believe that innocent people should not be punished for nothing.
Almost every week I hear about a shooting incidence in the US. Most of them happen in schools. With stricter gun laws you will reduce the amount of guns. The law will not help at first but after a year or two you will see the difference. It means less guns in total and then fewer civilians killed.
Example: only 1 or 2 guns per house, no open carry, only handguns/shotguns (not Ak's etc.), weapons safely stored, 10-15 round mags... And I can keep going.
Guns are weapons that should not be available to just anyone. If you know your child or any loved one has mental issues, please don't hide it and pretend it will go away on it's own. Get the loved one some help and lock up your guns and ammunition to prevent others from getting hurt. I respect your right to have a gun, please respect my rights and those of my loved ones to live. Thank you!
We are not saying background checks and strict gun laws will reduce crime rate. It is a precedent that will be in place a LAW. That will prevent the mentally unstable with guns. Such as anyone who has been admitted to an asylum will not be allowed to bare arms or anyone who is in psychiatric care will not be allowed to carry guns. Justice must be served to those who lost loved ones from careless and violent gun crimes. The NRA spent 25 million this year to senators just to get their vote. Had it not been for money there would have been a law in place. The NRA claims "more paper work" yeah right, It should not be that easy to get a gun in the first place. Why even have guns? They are violent and ignorant.
We the 'sane' are saying there needs to be a background check in place so the 'insane' will not have guns. It's not about helping the mentally ill, mental patients will be mental and restricting them from guns will reduce harm, yes they can find other ways to harm but why a gun? Especially now in such tragic times. ALSO to the person who said your father had a gun and he showed it to two guys starring at you guys all weird, you would have passed that background check and still have your gun. OH AND NEH SAYERS "TOO MUCH PAPER WORK MY ASS" granted corruption is corruption but a law in place is a law in place. And it is a law that will be stood by if the people feel strongly about it. The NRA is buying out senators and giving them millions to vote no, this is all about money and economy. There needs to be something done and justice for the people who have lost loved ones.
In the U.K guns are illegal. The U.S however, allows guns. The rate of crimes involving guns in the U.K is a lot lower than the rate involving guns in the U.S. Guns are lethal weapons, their only function is to kill. The fewer people have them, the better it is.
There is no doubt that most Americans feel that guns are not a problem in their society, they usually try to blame the violent media and gaming industry. But, what's interesting is that across the border, there are people who are watching the same movies, playing the same violent games and yet, they are much more civilized than the average Americans. Why? Is it because we are so stupid and egoistic that we love our guns so much and think that we can protect ourselves from the bad people easily if we possess a gun? Gun nuts have to take one step further to refresh their mind and start thinking what is the root cause of all these mass shootings. People do kill people, but it's almost always the people with guns that kill people. I am tired of hearing that we have a right to bear arms. WE ARE NOT LIVING IN THE 18TH CENTURY. WAKE UP BEFORE YOU BECOME THE NEXT VICTIM!
The only way to see an instant reduction in gun related crimes is to go after the source, which is where the guns are coming from in the first place. You can argue all you want about the government having too much power or taking away your right to bear arms, but none of that will do anything for the safety of your children. You may argue that you can protect your child with a gun, but you cannot be there to protect your children forever. Whether you're at work, a hospital appointment, or your child is in school, there will be times where your child is left out of your range of protection. Out of the hours in a day your child is out of your sight, it only takes seconds for a person wielding a gun to kill your child. Also, there is no way to foretell if someone wielding a gun intends to kill your child. Chances are, the seconds it takes for a shooter to kill your child does not give you the time to realize what they're doing, react, and try to stop them before it's too late. Unless your pride to hold a weapon created to kill mass amounts of people in a short period of time is greater than your concern for providing a safe environment for your children and others you care for, you should realize that limiting access to guns may infringe on one of our rights, but is necessary in order to make sure that another elementary shooting does not take place. Otherwise, if no change takes place to limit gun possessions, realize that another elementary shooting can happen again at anytime. If we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always got. In this case, if we keep allowing civilians to own guns, we'll keep allowing the possibility that anyone in the public can have the power to kill anyone around us.
Being a police officer in Illinois, I have seen on numerous occasions suspects being offered lesser class crimes for a guilty plea. If you use or are in possesion of a firearm, unlawfully, there should be mandatory sentences. I HAVE BEEN SHOT IN THE LINE OF DUTY, IN A BANK ROBBERY. AFTER ALL THREE SUSPECTS WERE ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH BANK ROBBERY AND POSSESION OF A FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. NONE OF THE SUSPECTS WERE CHANGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER OF A POLICE OFFICER! LET ME REPEAT THAT, NONE WERE EVER CHANGED WITH SHOOTING A POLICE OFFICER! NO consequences for have the gun, none for shooting the police officer, BUT for ROBBING the BANK - when is a property crime. Make you wonder what is more important, getting the 100% guilt rate or charging suspects for their actions....
I lived in a mid-sized city in Norway for 5+ years. There were a handful of murders, but I can't recall a single firearm related murder. You can have hunting rifles in Norway, but otherwise gun laws are strict. Making it hard to get a handgun makes it harder to kill. You have to get a lot closer to bludgeon or stab a person.
It is impossible to completely eliminate guns in this country, but it is a nice idea. Gun control laws can help control the rate of crimes involving GUNS, not mass murders. Anyone who has read anything about gun control laws in other first world countries would understand that. It is pathetic and neglectful to think things are fine the way they are regarding gun control laws. Give me a break. Shame on Americans for not knowing better and letting their fear get the best of them. It really is a shame.
A man did enter a school and stab over 20 people, in China, the very same day that a man entered a school in Connecticut and shot over 20 people. In China, there were no fatalities. In Connecticut, every person who was attacked died from their wounds. That's why we wouldn't talk about knife control. The fact is, guns, especially automatics and semiautomatics, are efficient killing machines--more than what is needed to protect oneself, more than what is needed to hunt, more than is safe for the undertrained public. We as a society require drivers to be tested before operating a car, because cars are dangerous to the public at large. Yet we allow almost anybody to shoot a gun legally. We have made this military-grade weaponry so readily available that literally anybody can get their hands on whatever they wish. If a person is trying to decide whether or not to commit a crime, but they find that they are unable to obtain a firearm, will they still commit the crime? Sometimes yes, but undeniably sometimes no: because a gun is easier and more effective than any other available weapon. Restricting the number of guns, especially high power assault weapons, will certainly decrease the number of times guns are used overall. I don't see how anybody could claim that having less guns in the country would mean that each remaining gun is used more often.
I believe a combination of stricter gun laws and an increase of awareness of mental health issues, bullying, and gun safety is the appropriate action. As stated by many who say no to tighter gun laws (alone) dont stop criminals. Criminals who truly want to kill will find a way to do it regardless. However if you tighten restrictions, such as making rifles or automatic guns that have no practical purpose other than entertainment and put in place a system that educates your on the responsibility of a hand gun, which will stay legal you immediately change the scenario to go from a person killing a group of kids to a much more manageable, although still tragic incident. as another poster pointed out, police don't carry rifles or automatic guns because its unnecessary and could lead to a terrible incident if an officer succumbs to a moment of unsound judgement. To do nothing and let these incidents happen is ignorant to a lot of victims, survivors and most importantly any well educated american who uses common sense in the argument. gun laws alone wont get rid of the problem. a combination is needed to factor in common sense.
Im not saying we should outlaw them completely but any mentally unstable prick who wants a gun should not be able to get one. In Canada you have to go through so much licensing and testing before you actually can get a gun. In the US any idiot with some money can just go buy one.
It will stop every troubled teenager from easily going into mommy or daddy's cabinet and wiping out a town with an assualt weapon that shoots 31 rounds in 30 seconds..who needs that type of weapon? I'm all for recreational activities but come on... and its not like drugs where you can keep them in your back pocket or sneak them through a metal detector...assault rifles are large..please look at the pictures on the internet of semi-automatic rifles...much harder to smuggle in and have a teenager get access to. It's time to ban these. I would like to hear anyone's opinion of why we should have these?
Our problem is not about guns and weaponry its about our citizens.It is the person that causes the crime and commits the murders around the world. We need to figure out a way of decreasing the ill mentalities in our country. People in the community are unsafe and scared of what might be coming in their directions. Citizens we call friends and family are the ones we trust and also the ones that cause crimes. It is the individuals mindset that we must protect ourselves from.
I believe that there will never be a end to guns. But cutting them off/ making them stricter will not stop people from getting a gun and using it. Maybe we would see less "accidents". I don't think it will help with less crime, but may in fact increase it. Think about it, If we took guns away, but criminals still had them wouldn't that make it easier for them to rob/kill/shot one another. It doesn't make sense
Read above statement. Criminals will always get weapons, even if they have to smuggle them in. They will never care about the law or you. By taking away our abilities to carry and defend ourselves, you are allowing criminals to not only hurt or possibly kill you, but you are allowing them also to commit more crimes ad they will not be scared of anyone, except the police on which they know will not be out to help within a certain timeframe. By then its to late. As for me , when a criminal goes to break into my home where I have children , the criminal won't be leaving with my stuff I worked hard for and my kids will be safe. All those who want stricter laws for the good guys, I hope you have great health insurance and all your receipts, because your gonna be missing all your things while laid up in a hospital bed.
When gasoline prices rose to incredible highs, people spent less time driving and drove fewer places to avoid paying a premium at the pumps. The fact that there were less opportunities to drive their cars did not stop people from accomplishing their travel goals by other means. Some stayed home, yes, but others rode the bus, some car-pooled and still others walked or rode bicycles. If there are less opportunities to achieve ones' goals via a particular method, as a free and innovative people, we find another way. I am certain that this will only be true for the case at hand. Stricter laws may decrease the rate at which everyone attains weapons, it may even limit the types of weapons they can purchase, but it will never stop the person who is unhealthy and looking for a way to take their anger and hatred out on another person or group of people.
I have heard a quote many times about the fork and the gun. "This fork made me fat", etc. And while they fork was used to shovel grotesque amounts of food into the persons' mouth to support a food addiction, that fork still doesn't carry with it the "image" a gun does. guns are portrayed as weapons of violence, destruction and death in movies, books, games and television shows. The way i see it, a responsible "government" would try to support gun responsibility instead of making them the villains. After all, the fork never gets the blame on The Biggest Loser....the person does. They are then held responsible for overeating, pushed to learn a new way to use their forks...and then live a more healthy life.
Since I live in the real world, I understand that crimes are going to happen no matter what. I can understand that guns will be used no matter what. If gun laws are passed and guns are removed from legal purchase, it just means that law abiding citizens are unarmed and criminals are going to keep their guns. And murders and robbers will sky rocket now that we have so many beautifully weak unarmed. But what really baffles me is that people think people will stop killing, robbing and doing violence to each other just because they don’t have a gun. But if you want to stop that just take away all knifes. Or blunt objects. Hell why you are at it, cut off our hands so we as a society can do nothing to each other at all.
A miniscule fraction of bats, knives, metal pipes, chains, crow bars and tire irons that are purchased in the USA are used for crimes. The same rings true for guns, in fact an overwhelming majority of gun owners use firearms for target shooting, hunting, trap shooting, competition shooting and other sporting activities. As such, enacting further legislation restricting the sale of firearms only hurts and inconveniences tax paying citizens.
Criminals, will simply ignore these laws and illegally obtain firearms anyway. Though illegal as defined by federal law, many Americans report they can easily obtain marijuana for recreational use. This is just one of several examples.
Historically, the increase 'gun control' laws have not decreased crimes involving these weapons. "More Gun Control Laws" is a default response by persons who don't know any better after a tragedy or event. It is an thoughtless, fearful reaction to unfortunate situations. Other options should be explored first. Why are these persons committing the crime in the first place? What caused them to do what they did? I can assure you, 'i had access to a gun' will never answer these questions.
If you are a gun-control advocate, print and place a large sign on your front lawn reading: "There are no firearms in this home. You will not be shot on this property." Leave this sign up indefinitely. This is my challenge to you. Until you do so, you are a beneficiary of individual gun ownership and not holding true to your professed beliefs.
Canada tried a gun registry. The argument was if it could save just one life it was worth it. After ten years and billions of dollars spent the government of Canada found it could not document even one single life saved by this boondoggle. As a result the gun registry was scrapped and is no longer law in Canada. By the way, cries that blood would run in the streets were wrong. Violent crime has dropped in Canada since the registry was dropped.
We tried Prohibition, bootleggers got rich. We are attempting to wage war on drugs, cartels are making millions in drug money. If we try to ban or heavily regulate any kind of weapon, it will fail. The illegal markets will make MILLIONS off of the trade of weapons. They already do in fact. Most murders where guns are used, are committed with ILLEGAL weapons. Therefore, while most people have turned in their weapons, criminals and other dangerous people WILL be armed to the teeth. Even if you only ban CERTAIN weapons, the criminals will still have them. Civilians will not and they will be outgunned. That will be a great day, when civilians are defenseless in their own homes...
Chicago has some of the most (if not the most) strict gun control laws yet the number of murders there are mostly due to people illegally carrying guns to COMMIT crimes, leaving the law abiding citizens to become victims. Just try to counter that one. Besides how are you anti gun people going to get rid of all guns?
No stories show up where gun control empirically reduced crime. In fact numerous stories about stronger controls increasing crime are returned. But the gun haters don't care about truth, just their beliefs. Newtown could have just as easily occurred with 3 to 4 hand guns or 4 pipe bombs. Assault rifle bans will do nothing.
Making lawful citizens turn in their guns will only leave guns in the hands of the unlawful. When a criminal has the overpowering dominance of a firearm, I believe they will be more likely to commit a wider range of crimes with more occurrences. The fearful citizens will have need and find firearms for protection, which will then make them criminals. Once made a criminal, what would the likelihood be, to follow that road of a criminal. If that road is followed to far, when will the point come when a lawful citizen feels the need to acquire a gun to protect themselves from this new criminal? etc. etc. etc.
If you take away guns that is only applying to the law abiding citizens. The crazies who want to kill people will get their hands on guns whether they are outlawed or not; a law wont stop the ones determined to kill. Laws will only hurt the innocent by taking away their protection. People still buy and sell drugs, even if they're outlawed and the bad guys will still buy and sell guns, even if they're outlawed.
None of our current laws were able to prevent all of the senseless tragedies that have happened over the last few decades. People who commit crimes with firearms, or any other weapon, usually don't care about the consequences, or are not in the right frame of mind. Example: drinking and driving, should we make alcohol illegal or prevent people from buying a car if they have ever drank alcohol? Laws are to allow governments to prosecute individuals for wrong doing. Laws will only help prevent law abiding citizens from committing a crime. Laws do nothing to prevent criminals or the mentally ill from committing illegal acts. I'm a trained and skilled individual with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in a state that does not require one. Creating new laws will do nothing more than disarm the law abiding citizens of the United States. Just remember the law that was broken in Connecticut...firearms are not allowed on school property...all of the law abiding citizens were the victims.
On another note: 2 people where killed in a mall where I live, they were killed with a crossbow...2 more law abiding citizens that were unarmed and a criminal who broke the law.
If someone is going to harm another, they will do it with whatever weapon they find accessible. I think it's important to note the recent trend of criminals to wear protective gear. They want to live long enough to inflict as much damage as possible and they target soft areas, where they figure they are safe from return fire. Put concealed carry persons as a possibility and we'll see less of these attacks. Take away the public's ability to protect themselves, and the killing will continue, as criminals do not follow the laws.
Maybe we are missing a critical element? It seems like the larger issue is the training that is going on through our media and entertainment. We can watch, frame by frame in high definition detail how to kill, harm, steal and rape. These behaviors are then rewarded with critical acclaim, box offices dollars or points and levels. We have the freedom to pump millions of dollars into this indoctrination and training. Our little ones sit for hours in front of these movies or watching their parents play these games. This is the real killer. It is everywhere. Television, Radio, Movies and Games. Anyone who says these things do not influence I would ask them to ask any teen if they know the names of killers in their games or the names of any head of state. Just thinking.
You don't see shootings at gun ranges where everyone there has a gun? No, you see them at schools, where it is the law that everyone be disarmed.
I fully understand the argument for banning "assault weapons" even though it is an arbitrarily drawn line, but if you make such a move, that is giving the government more power. The constitution is very clear that the people's right to own a gun will not be infringed upon. To allow the government to restrict our guns would be to question the power of the constitution and give way to other right being infringed upon. Our founding fathers created the Constitution after freeing themselves from a tyranny. They also created it specifically to stop the new government they created from becoming a tyranny. To go against this should be the peoples choice, but they should know full well the consequences of their actions. I believe after much thought that the whole gun control argument boils down to one quote. "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death"-Patrick Henry.
I believe as he did that i would rather be dead(or give my life) to help ensure liberty, rather than be alive and be ruled by a tyrant
I stand by my belief that a hammer, pencil, and a pocket knife all have just as much potential for killing people as a firearm when laid at the feet of a person determined to kill someone. The term "military-style assault rifles" dreamed up by the media and anti-gun supporters is nothing more than ridiculous exaggeration. These weapons, unless modified by the owner, are semi-automatic meaning one single bullet is fired each time the trigger is pulled. The fact that they are black, have rails to attach accessories, and have adjustable stocks makes it just as much a "military-styled" rifle as the store-bought camouflage face-paint makes someone a soldier.
As a responsible gun owner, I am all for tighter requirements on obtaining these firearms -- with the caveat that I am still able to purchase once I meet these requirements. But let's face it...just like a lock on your front door, this only keeps the honest people honest. The bad-guys are still going to find a way. Australia's gun control laws and their violent crime rates are a prime example.
I stand by my belief that a hammer, pencil, and a pocket knife all have just as much potential for killing people as a firearm when laid at the feet of a person determined to kill someone. The term "military-style assault rifles" dreamed up by the media and anti-gun supporters is nothing more than ridiculous exaggeration. These weapons, unless modified by the owner, are semi-automatic meaning one single bullet is fired each time the trigger is pulled. The fact that they are black, have rails to attach accessories, and have adjustable stocks makes it just as much a "military-styled" rifle as the store-bought camouflage face-paint makes someone a soldier.
As a responsible gun owner, I am all for tighter requirements on obtaining these firearms -- with the caveat that I am still able to purchase once I meet these requirements. But let's face it...just like a lock on your front door, this only keeps the honest people honest. The bad-guys are still going to find a way. Australia's gun control laws and their violent crime rates are a prime example.
Our founders fought for this country, against a tyrannical British government. It's not about legitimate hunting uses, or self protection. The people need to be armed as well as its government so if they attempt to take our freedoms we can fight to have them back. So your arguments about " the bushmaster .223 has no legitimate hunting use, or defensive use" is invalid. I will fight tyranny, I will fight for my rights. If you think that could never happen, look at the 1900's, Stalin in Russia, Hitler in Germany. Or in American history, learn our history or let it come to pass again. If you wish not to use your second amendment rights fine, just remember that it enforces, and protects all the others.
Our founders fought for this country, against a tyrannical British government. It's not about legitimate hunting uses, or self protection. The people need to be armed as well as its government so if they attempt to take our freedoms we can fight to have them back. So your arguments about " the bushmaster .223 has no legitimate hunting use, or defensive use" is invalid. I will fight tyranny, I will fight for my rights. If you think that could never happen, look at the 1900's, stallin in Russia, Hitler in Germany. Or in American history, learn our history or let it come to pass again. If you wish not to use your second amendment rights fine, just remember that it enforces, and protects all the others.
When I was a kid, maybe 10 years old my father and I were fishing, a car pulled up next to us, 2 men got out and stared us down, one with a handgun by his side, my dad took out his legally concealed handgun and the two men jumped in there car and drove off, thanks to that gun I can write this message, please, vote pro gun and do all you can to support it!
There are no statistically valid studies, which demonstrate a strong correlation between strict gun laws and any reduction in violent crimes where guns are somehow employed. In fact, quite the opposite.
And for all you idiots out there that think fewer guns means less gun violence, you're dead wrong. Look at Switzerland for example, the country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols. The crime rates for gun violence are so low that records aren't even kept! All of you advocates of gun control should wake up and realize that people kill people. There are more alcohol related accidents than there are with guns. Where are your outcries for alcohol control? It's truly pathetic to see so many clueless people running around wining about gun control.
While many contest this statement, it is 100% factual. It is easy to procure a gun off of armslist or on the black market. Bad people will not stop in their quest to procure firearms. Increasing gun laws will only keep guns out of the hands of those that need protection. Texas' gun laws demonstrate the need to deregulate handgun possession. The number of 'mass killings' has decreased in Texas due to the fact that citizens can legally carry a gun in public. If more people have handguns, and possess them responsibly, solely for self-protection, then they will be able to protect themselves against a bad guy with a gun, who will have procured that gun regardless of regulation and restrictions. It is absolutely ignorant to compare us to the Europeans, as our culture is completely different than their culture. Gun control might work in Europe, but with the prevalence of disorganized crime in the United States, we need to decrease the restrictions on the possession of handguns. Our country is too concerned with protecting everyone--this idea is absolutely ignorant as it is not possible. We need to give people the right to protect themselves and not rely on the government for protection.
Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun and 19 innocent children were killed in the daycare of the building he basically blew up. I also recently read a story of a woman using a knife to kill her husband in his sleep. All of the mass shootings have been done in places where people did not have guns.
If someone really wants to commit a crime, they're not gonna have a gun ban or anti-gun law stop them. If they want a gun, then they'll get it illegally. Banning guns would just make it so citizens exercising their right to bare arms would not be able to protect themselves or homes with a fire arm.
Enforcing stricter laws into the political system today will not decrease the rate of crimes significantly. This is due to the ignorane of many that will not follow the law regardless. Although, there would be some progression in enforcing stricters yet, not a significant decrease. Do we not aldready have strict laws around this aspect of crime? We definately do! We can make laws yet we cant make people follow them.
The only thing wrong with our current laws regarding firearms is that they are not properly enforced. If you take the right to carry firearms away from citizens, then the only ones who will carry them will be outlaws (which is the case in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.). What happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School is unfortunate, and the worst of it is that the weapons used in this gruesome incident were all legally purchased in a state that already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. But let's do some further analysis of the situation. The aggressor, Adam Lanza, was not the legal owner of the weapons, Nancy Lanza (Adam's mother). Mr. Lanza was known to suffer from Asperger's Syndrome, and if Mrs. Lanza was aware of his condition then she should've taken responsible measures to keep her weapons secure instead of rendering them accessible to others, especially Adam. That is a mistake that Mrs. Lanza and 27 others had to pay for with their lifes, regrettably. And also to be considered: If there are no weapons allowed in school grounds, why is there no law enforcement present at the time to enforce so? If they are going to prohibit weapons in places like schools, shopping malls, etc, why is there no authority there that can immediately respond in order to protect unarmed bystanders in case of an attack? Most bullets travel closely to the speed of sound (1130 feet per second), which means that a life could be lost for every second it takes the police to arrive at the scene. The only person that can defend/protect you from a violent aggressor is yourself or someone who is already present during the event, law authorities cannot arrive fast enough. I am in support of background checks, weapons registration, and would like to see a psychological screening be enacted. But for now, security should be increased in areas wherein the carry of weapons is illicit. Unfortunately, there will always be loopholes within our laws. But if all laws were perfect, the need for law enforcement would be absent.
There was an assault weapon ban (semi-auto ARs) back in 1994 under Bill Clinton. Shootings and crime did not go down for the 10 years this law was in effect. Criminals do not follow rules. They will not go through the background checks to purchase a gun, like honest gun enthusiasts do, so therefore it does not have any bearing on future shootings, and crime. It only affects those of us that try to obey the law the power to arm ourselves against such crimes.
Criminals don't care about laws. That's why they are labeled as criminals. The nanny state can't protect anyone from them. Law enforcement is for the most part reactive to crime, rarely capable of being proactive towards preventing it. When criminals know that victims are disarmed they become more brazen and violent. If guns are banned the innumerable amount of illegal guns never be accounted for and crime will surely increase dramatically. Most of the people who support gun control (wealthy celebrities and politicians) will always have the legal and financial ability to have armed security. They have nothing in common with the average man who must wait 10 minutes for law enforcement to respond.
Citizens = Government. That's what a democracy is all about. Without distribution of power, you have a dictatorship. As if that weren't reason enough, if criminals and people with mental problems are ignoring the laws NOW....for instance, it is already illegal to kill small children...why would they start following the "stricter" gun laws tomorrow? Gun control for law abiding citizens is illogical and strictly an emotionally based reaction after such tragedies.
Criminals will take advantage of the situation. They will do whatever they want and take whatever they want and kill who ever gets in their way. They will get guns illegally, and many will keep their guns illegally, cause criminals do not obey the law. And you cannot expect everyone to be the same, to be just as "good" as their neighbor or local politician. Crime rates go up as a result of more gun control, cause criminals know you don't have one, and they will kill you if you get in their way.
Law abiding citizens are the only ones who abide by the laws. If someone has the intent to harm others by use of guns or any other means, more laws will not stop them. Even if all guns were banned, they will still be imported and sold on the black market. The rest of us will not be able to protect ourselves.
Until we change the desire to use violence first to solve problems, focusing on limiting the ability we result in failure. The "war" on drugs has met the same fate, would more drug laws help, of course not.
There are always simple solutions which do not work. Often politically are just feel good laws, which have many unintended consequences. Even if all guns would vanish, violent crime would actually increase. Just look at Mexico, guns are mostly banned, but yet drug cartels and gangs have them, law abiding citizens of Mexico are helpless and victims as would be true in the US if guns were banned.
All more laws will do is cause problems. Does making drugs illegal stop drugs on the street. Does illegal immigration stop people from crossing the border? Does building fences stop people from crossing the border? Do speed limits stop people from speeding? Laws only influence sane and responsible citizens. Where there is a will there is a way, and no law is going to stop serial killers or mass murderers or psychos fr killing people. Sadly, in every country and every continent evil deeds and mass murders are committed, and guess what, they were all committed by breaking laws. You will never get rid of guns so long as country have armies and there will always be a black market. Making every.type of gun completely illegal will not take guns off the street. Just the same as making drugs 100% illegal. Instead, the thousands of instances where someone was able to repel an attack from a criminal breaking the law because they has a weapon to defend themselves, they will sadly become a victim like innocent children at Sandy Hook.
If you sit a loaded cocked firearm on a table and sit right in front of it, so long as no one touches it, no harm will come to you. The same holds true for knives, grenades what ever the weapon. The problem arises when some selfish person decides that because they are miserable, they have the right to make others miserable as well. 26 people were killed in the attack in Conn. it is a very sad thing that happened but because a gun was involved everyone starts shouting from the mountain tops about gun control. Just before this incident, over 20 children in China were attacked with a knife. Where is the call for more stringent knife control? If a grenade had gone off in Conn. killing those poor children, would everyone be demanding that the military as well as weapons manufacturers stop using as well as making grenades? No. It is a true tragedy what happened but the fact remains, there will ALWAYS be a black market where guns, drugs, animals, women, and even children are bought and sold regularly allowing criminals who use weapons for ill intent to have access to them! If one of the teachers at that school had in their possession a gun carried for self defense, would all of those people have been killed or could they have fatally wounded the shooter before so much innocent blood was spilled? Ask yourself that.
People who have intent to do harm or kill others will still do so & find another way to do so even if guns where eliminated. A weapon can be fashioned from almost anything including a toothbrush. Should we have toothbrush laws or controls?? The fact is that tighter gun controls or laws would likely make very little or no difference in violent crimes being committed by criminals. In the real world, these types of laws or regulations would really only apply to or affect those of us law abiding citizens anyway. Criminals don't care about more or new laws. And if they can't legally acquire a firearm, they'll simply buy one illegally! You really want to make some kid of dent in this? Don't regulate the types of guns or magazines that can be purchased, keep guns out of the hands of those who exhibit psychotic tendencies!! How do we do that? In schools we test children for a wide variety of things from mental acuity to medical issues to physical ailments. Why cant our leading mental health experts devise tests to determine a propensity for psychotic type behaviors!! And if a person or student tests positive for such a thing, then they be required to receive some form of help. And those people be entered into a nation wide database where treatment & monitoring can be evaluated & once complete, can then be removed from that database. A loaded weapon lying still on a table will NEVER shoot or kill anyone, until someone picks it up & pulls the trigger! I also do NOT want a bunch of over paid legislators deciding for me the type, caliber, magazine size, etc type of weapon I can own or go out & target shoot with!
When you look at all the items that can kill and how its been used over the ages to maim, disfigure and kill people. Knives, bombs, poison, and even common household items... a mirror, a broken bottle... Timothy McVeigh used household items to make bombs and eventually made one to bomb the Fed building in OK. Charles Manson used his mind to control others to do his will... gun control will not stop the killing but it will weaken our nation.
People kill people, they use all forms of weapons and technology… but it is still people that kill people. If a man entered a school with a large knife and stabbed 10 people do death, would we be talking about knife control? I don’t think so…
Make it harder to obtain knives, register all of your knives, make knives duller and less pointy, and lock your knives in a safe when you are not using them…
People use knives every day to cut food, to hunt, for self defense, to carve, etc… And you will always have a small few who use it to stab and kill people… So should everyone else be penalized for this? And would taking knives out of the hands of law abiding citizens stop criminals from getting them… And if you are attacked with a knife or a gun and you don’t have one bc it is against the law… what chance do you stand…
If the government were able to stop EVERYONE from obtaining guns, then it wouldn’t be such a bad idea, but that notion is impossible, so why arm criminals while disarming everyone else?
Criminals will not obey gun control laws because they are, well, CRIMINALS! However citizens who actually have registered guns (that have the right to protect themselves) would! So what what does that mean? You would have a world with criminals that are more empowered over civilians thus creating MORE crime!
Conn. has strict gun control laws and it wasn't effective. Chicago and Washington DC has strict gun control laws and yet murder is rampant in those cities. We don't need less guns. We need more guns in the hands of good people (like teachers) to defend the innocent.
None of the media nor contol advocates will mention the reason that that event stopped. What will they not mention... there was a Private Citizen that was armed with a legal weapon that shot the attacker before he could reload another magazine. They do use Gabby being shot to further their claims that controls need to be stricter but, never mention that it could have been worse if the private citizen had not been there and been armed.
Others have brought up the comparison of, "If guns kill people, then pencils cause mispellings or, spoons made me fat or, alcohol causes card to drive irratically. In all, the five inanimate objects are just tools that can be used by who, "Humans".
Another conparison could be, If the terrorist on 9/11 used planes to kill people, we need to ban planes also!
I'll admit that that is really stretching it. But, that's the approach that most that are calling for gun bans are taking.
Here's another and final thought for your consideration.
At what point will the citizens in the US realize that any further restrictions upon law abiding citizens will never decrease what the new laws are passed to decrease.
Always remember two old sayings, "If you build a better mouse trap, all you raise are smater mice." And "Don't complain too much or you just might get what you want." Which; in my opinion, the usual outcome is not what was wanted.
Case in point, Mexico. Mexican politicians urge the US to adopt more restrictive laws similar to Mexican laws. Yet Mexican law abiding citizens pay the price as people with criminal intent are inclined to not care about laws.
Maybe, Mexican politicians are influenced by the illegal drug culture. A gun free citizenry makes for a safer environment for the cartels to ply their trade.
Lets not forget that 300 million civilian firearms in the US have not been misused.
First of all, guns are only dangerous when placed in dangerous hands. The number of responsible gun owners in the country outnumbers the number of irresponsible gun owners. Second, do you think for one second that if the government, even if they placed a ban on all firearms is actually going to prevent thugs, murderers from getting their hands on one? Think back to prohibition days, the government band the sale and production of alcohol, but that only drove the business underground. People will who put forth the effort to obtain, no matter what it is, will always receive. You hear of all these shootings and mass murders, but do you not think for one second that had someone spoke up or taken action when "red flags" were displayed by these murderers, those actions would have just as much impact in reducing unnecessary death versus trying to disarm all the law abiding citizens who have properly obtained and been trained in firearm proficiency. If you take away the guns, criminals will find new ways to carry out their sick plans. In fact, I think more people should carry guns, to protect, and serve this great country. Guns have been part of this nation since it was founded. If you think for one second the people of this nation will set back and let the government take our weapons, my friends, you are dead wrong. The government has to much power. I'm not saying that in order to purchase a gun one shouldn't have to go through proper and even strict guidelines such as background checks to purchase a firearm, however, even with the strictest of gun laws, guns will still be obtained by criminals, illegally. And to those of you who preach stricter gun laws, well, if you don't already know, most states require a background check and strict screening to purchase a gun purchase permit. How about instead, we do more to take mentally ill people off the street. What if the government stepped in and said hey, if you have ever been to the doctor or been reported to be of less than stable in society, you are now going to be placed in a insane asylum for the rest of your lives. One could argue oh, well they are my family, we love them regardless of how mentally ill they are, or, they may be a little off their rocker but they would never hurt anyone. Just like oh well, John Doe has a gun so he must be a murderer, full of hate and violence, right? How about we stop airing rap songs on the radio that preach about whores/drugs/murdering... This is the crap that influences our children to become thugs. What about reducing the number of children born out of wedlock, who statistically are shown to be more prone to become criminals. The world has gone mad, and this is the worst time to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Obama and his radicals want to take away all our rights as humans, and I will be damned if he is taking away my guns. BTW, I have been shooting since I was a kid, have taken many gun safety classes and taken the proper measures to obtain a conceal carry permit. All my guns are registered. I carry a gun to protect myself, and others if in the event of an emergency. Anyway, God Bless all those families of the CT school shooting. My prayers and thoughts are with each and every one of those families.
I was raised with loaded handguns / rifles - and learned to shoot at a very early age - while traveling cross country my father defended his life and our family more than once with the loaded handgun he kept on his seat all my life - anyone who is ready to kill someone with a gun will do it regardless of law, gun control can never stop someone with that kind of desperation or passion to kill.
Firearms can defend just as easily as inflict harm. If you want to stop violent crime go after the gangs the drug lords and criminal under ground. Hunters recreational shooters and law abiding citizens don't hurt people on purpose nor do they generally use guns for illegal business. Criminals don't obey the law why limit legal gun ownership.
Many people in this great country of ours shoot for fun and competition! not self-defense or homicides. there is no reason to ban a recreational activity,even if it is a dangerous one! if we ban guns we might as well ban baseball or football os basketball or soccer or hockey!
criminals don't follow the law, so they will be armed. innocent citizens won't be armed and will be defenseless. by making it harder to acquire guns, citizens are left vulnerable. In areas where gun laws are looser, the crime rate is lower. Where gun laws are stricter, crime rate is higher. The criminals will always have weapons, but by limiting innocent citizens from their right to own a gun, they will be left vulnerable.
Chicago has some of the most strictest gun/weapon control laws in the nation yet the crime rate has not fallen in the last 10 years. Each year more laws has been passed and yet the violence has been steady. Why is that? Well, criminals don't care much for the laws to begin with.
If you take an individuals gun away how are they supposed to protect themselves from someone who obtained a gun illegally? Is it right to punish all of us for those who break the law? How is making a stricter law going to keep them from breaking that one as well? It is not the law that is the problem it is the people who get guns to commit crimes. How about putting a harsher punishment on criminals who kill with guns like lethal injection immediately after being convicted and not using tax dollars to let them live out their life in prison.
Just because a stricter gun law is passed it doesn't mean it will take the guns off the streets. All it does impose more problems for law-abiding citizens who want a weapon for their own personal use be it recreational or defense while criminals just steal or use the "black market" to obtain theirs.
Criminals do not follow laws; therefore gun control laws even if implemented by the government would not have any effect on the crime rate. If the law says stop most will, but then again a criminal by definition breaks laws for the worse, so no matter what, if someone wants a gun; they will get a gun and there will never be an end to guns. A possibility would be less "accidents,” nonetheless this would not lessen the crime rate, but in fact increase it. Think about it, if guns were taken away from the common man, but criminals still had them, would it not be easier for them to rob, kill, and shoot one another? It does not make sense. Time also plays a role; stricter gun control would not decrease anything either as it is far too late. The citizens of the US have had guns from the first landing at Jamestown until today. For every million guns the government knows that are there, there are probably five million they do not know about. The best way to gun control is a good self-awareness, and the assumption that everybody has one. The same laws which were made to stop crooks from committing crime are not stopping them, so why would a new law prove more effective? It would not; criminals will always commit crime regardless of what laws you impose upon them. Although it may be harder for them to acquire guns, smuggling and other illegal ways are still possible. Supposedly in a hypothetical perfect world, a new gun control law is executed that make it impossible for anyone in the US to get guns and a vast amount of money, which the US government at hand cannot even think about due to the major debt it is faced with, is invested into this project, criminals will just commit crime with other objects such as knifes, bows, other projectiles which will probably just head the same direction to being banned one by one. While in the whole process the government will learn what to slowly ban next by seeing the new techniques of criminals on how they harm the now defenseless common people, still all without guns. The only thing that a law along these terms will accomplish is taking guns out of the good honest gun collectors, hunters, and people with families wanting self-defense against these very criminals.
Gun laws are not followed by criminals. Since man made gun powder we soon started shooting progectiles from/with it. It will always be around so someone will be shooting stuff with it. If the law says stop most will, but a criminal dont care what the law or anyone says. They will do what they want when they want.
Unfortunately I do not feel that any type of gun control will help in minimizing crimes involving guns. Criminals who thrive off of using violence to commit a crime will not care whether they use a gun, a knife or a bat. Also, if they really want a gun, they will find a way to get one, no matter what.
Outside of geographically restrictive circumstances, such as the nation of Japan, it's impossible to properly enforce strict gun control laws to the extent of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The result of trying to enforce stricter laws in a wide open country like the United States would simply result in more gun crimes as criminals stop fearing citizens being able to defend themselves. The UK has shown these trends already.
The United States Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms. Laws are already in place that attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but in many cases we have seen that these have not worked. Law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves and, therefore, stricter gun control laws will inhibit their ability to do this. Studies have shown that communities in America which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons have actually seen a decrease in crime.
Statistics show that law abiding gun owners have stopped many crimes against themselves. Stricter gun control laws will make it harder for the honest person to have guns. It will not affect the criminal aspect as much since they can get their guns in an illegal manner. Stricter gun control laws only empowers the criminal and hurts the honest man.
Gun control laws are already on the books and are not being enforced. Until these laws are used to prosecute all offenders to the fullest extent of the law, there is benefit to be gained from new stricter laws. However, even if they were enforced, they would have little or no impact on the rate of gun crimes. Criminals responsible for these violent gun crimes have no respect for the law at all. Laws only restrict law abiding citizens, not criminals.
I don't believe that stricter gun control laws will decrease the rate of crimes involving guns because criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what the law is. If they know that law abiding citizens can't get or have guns then it will make their crimes easier and the crime rate will go up. If criminals thought law abiding citizens had guns they would be less likely to commit crimes in my opinion.
Washington D.C. once attempted to ban handguns in 1976, and subsequently saw their rate of homicide rise 200% between 1976 and 1991. The rate in the rest of the United States rose only 12% during that time. Criminals will feel safer if they aren't afraid of being shot themselves.
Even with strict laws, people will still commit the same crimes for they simply do not care how strict the laws are. Even if the government took all right to own guns, violent people will still find ways to get them.
DC handgun control -- increase in all crimes
Assault weapons ban -- all studies not done by the Brady campaign find no effect or a slight increase in gun crime
Chicago handgun ban -- increase in crime
Canada gun control -- no effect on crime
UK gun bans -- increased crime
All if these laws increase crime or have no effect.
Stricter gun control laws wont decrease anything. It is far far to late. The citizens of the US have had guns from the first landing at Jamestown until today. For every million guns the government knows that are here, there are probably five million they dont. The best way to gun control is a good self-awareness, and the assumption that everybody has one.
The same laws which attempt to stop them from committing crime aren't stopping them, so why would a new law prove more effective? It won't, criminals will always commit crime regardless of what laws you impose upon them. Although it may be harder for them to acquire guns they will just commit crime with other objects (like bows and knives) which will probably just head the same direction to being banned. The only thing that a law along these terms will accomplish is taking guns out of the good honest gun collectors and hunters.
I do not believe violence begins with, and ends with, guns. There are very violent people out there, and changing the gun laws won't stop that. If we want to decrease the number of violent crimes involving guns, we need to reach out into the community and find out why so many violent crimes are being committed. It has nothing to do with guns.
Newton's Third Law can apply to this. Stricter gun laws make it easier for criminals. Let me explain: Since strict gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens (something a criminal is not) then they only affect law abiding citizens. Since less citizens now have access to guns, which also means less security and less means of self defense, criminals are now going to be able to feel safer while they perform their crimes. Since they aren't following the laws to begin with, they tend to ignore the fact that their gun is illegal to possess. But you, being the law abiding citizen that you are, are now defenseless against Mr. Goblin with his ill gotten GlocK. See? Action creates an equal an opposite reaction. For those not following, let me add in some facts: The 4 strictest cities for owning of a handgun legally are D.C., New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Yet those 4 cities, with only 6% of the US population, are responsible for 20% of the nation's murders. The cities with the lease restrictive laws are the lowest in murder. That is also simple science. Why attack someone who might be armed, when you can go to a city where you know they WON'T be armed.
The problem doesn't lie with guns, the problem lies in the community and the quality of character that people possess. This is not a quick fix kind of issue where the government can just slap down a few strict gun laws and reduce violence all of a sudden. They're focusing on the wrong problem. Once we begin to realize that these mentally unstable people who commit gruesome and cruel crimes are been overlooked and cast to the side and create more positive outlets for crime stricken communities and kids who traffic drugs at 11, we will begin to see violence reduced. The problem isn't guns, its us.
Drugs are illegal, but criminals still smuggle them across the border under the radar. Making a law about gun control will not solve anything since criminals are not known to follow the law. What needs to be done is a policy of some sort to put the psychos and homicidal maniacs behind bars.
Sounds crazy right! So does taking away our rights to own any type of gun we want. In Mexico it is illegal to own any gun but a 22 cal. That is why the Mexican citizens are controlled by the cartel, Mexican government and Mexican mob. They have no way to protect themselves. It is hard to stop a machine gun with a 22 cal. If we want the United States to end up like Mexico, then go ahead and take away our freedom to own the gun of our choice.
Other than an outright ban on all weapons and confiscation, which will never ever happen, I don't see how picking and choosing certain weapons to limit would help. I think that these laws would only really affect already lawbiding citizens. Criminals, persons who already disregard the law, will carry on doing what they do. What is an assault weapon anyways? So can I not assault you with a target specific rifle? No body wants children or adults for that matter to be senselessly murdered but knee jerk reaction laws will not help. Plus where does it end if we just let them take these rights?
I don't see the need to especially if one of our founding principals is to bear arms. Less stricter gun laws (i.e. sane people can carry concealed) would provide protection from the insane/use as a weapon. It won't matter any way because a close range weapon can be easily constructed with parts readily available at any local hardware store. Are they going to ban pipes, springs, metal pins, utility knives and anything that goes boom? It's unreasonable and the talk to essentially defile the second amendment is ludicrous and treason by definition. Stock up and safe shooting, my friends.
If you ban all guns, then a black market for guns will be formed. Then they'll still get used, and criminals will have less fear of personal harm from a disarmed civilian population.
The question is really a biased one, however. The question should really be: can stricter gun control laws decrease the rate of violent crime? The tool being used is irrelevant, the rate of violent crime is what matters.
I believe that laws are made for the people who don't follow the laws... So the people that do follow the laws sometimes suffer. I think to feel safer you should have a gun or some sort of weapon to defend yourself. People like hunters, gun store owners, regular people, etc. Should be able to use a gun when needed not have these restrictions, I think we need to diminish gun control all together!
The reason that gun control cannot decrease the rate of crimes is because in reality the united states has experienced a decline in murder rates. In 2006 the murder rate was around 14,000 now it is close to 12,000 it may or may not because of people being armed but i believe that we still have the right to bear arms amen
The fact that people think criminals actually care about the law is complete stupidity. The people that attack others with guns usually don't even own the gun they are using. These gun laws are ridiculous. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA need to STAND UP for OUR RIGHTS.
People can still buy guns right of the streets to commit crimes they Don't need to necessarily buy them in a gun store. Its called gun sold under the table. Even in a black market the can get these guns, so just because of other peoples bad actions we the good owner of guns should not have to suffer with unnecessary checks .
I dont know about actual gun crimes, but against crime period it most definitely does, and ill tell you why. A house robber is less likely to rob a house in which he knows the owner is packing, the less amount retaliation the more safer his life is. Also true theirs more crime up here in the north because of gun laws, now im not saying they shouldnt be regulated but sheesh, we all know crimes such as Robberies of house, burglaries, rape, and other crimes are less in the south. Because of the fact that their allowed to be strapped at
How would taking assault rifles and high capacity magazine really help???? It wont all it would do will make it for we dont know whats out there. Crimes will always happen no matter what. Today guns tomorrow knifes then fist. Its an endless thing. Plus to me if the everyday person cant buy an assault rifle then why can the president and his family be protected by these weapons. They are no more important them my or your family is, if anything our families mean more then his life and family does because we are the reason he is the president. To me what needs to happen is they need to be more states allowing carrying permits cause i am sorry but if your going to shoot up a place your think twice if there are 20 more people pointing guns back at you.
Obviously the people that commit the crimes in the United States are criminals. Criminals do not abide by the laws in the United States and that is why they are called criminals. If the government bans guns for the general public then criminals have easier targets. Many of the people that commit shootings in public places do not get their guns legally. So if they do not get their guns legally now, when the government enforces stricter gun laws, the public does not have guns but the criminals still get their guns illegally. This would just make every citizen in the United States sitting ducks for gun violence by these criminals.
Russia has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, but there is a far higher death rate than countries such as Switzerland with almost no gun restricting laws. In Russia, an average of 6,000 more murders happen annually than in the United States. This proves all to well gun laws can fail.
Over inn Europe and austrailia, they both have very strict gun laws but yet they have the highest crime rates. This is probably because of lack of capable guardian ship in routine activities theory of criminology. The criminals have gun wither they are legal or not. The problem is not the legal guns but the illegal guns
THE ONLY WAY WE CAN CONTROL GUNS IS BY CONTROLLING THE BULLETS, THE THING THAT ACTUALLY KILLS PEOPLE. If society makes the price of bullets sky high, criminals will kill less, buy less, and we will all be happy! I know what you are thinking, they did jack up the price on cigarettes, but people still smoke packs a day. NO! The price I'm talking about would be more than the gun itself. :P
It's not the registered guns we need to worry about, it's the illegal guns. Just like drugs, if somebody wants them they will find some way to get them. Look A Chicago, toughest gun control laws in this county and they have the highest murder rate. That's because the innocent are dying while the murders are living. Get real people, if it's your mother, father, kids, wife, husband, or friend faced by a gun with an illegal gun you better believe you would be Very Thankful if someone was carrying a legal gun came to their rescue. If anyone says otherwise they're lying or have no heart.
Moral people follow laws. Immoral people use guns to commit crimes such as robbery and murder. If laws restricting gun ownership were enforced, the moral people would follow them and turn in their firearms. Immoral people would then attack the now helpless moral people. Without guns, the moral cannot defend themselves from the immoral.
If you read the gun law positions of each state, the states with the toughest gun control laws have the highest rates of crime. There is no argument with those facts. People fear what they do not know. I would suggest to those afraid of guns, go to a gun training class, and get educated, after all, who wants to operate from a position of ignorance ?
Many studies have been carried out and one of those was of country who had a gun ban have a much higher death rate compared o those who allowed guns. Also, in 1976 America did have a gun ban. It did not work. Death rates skyrocketed, and guns are used in self defense in America only every 13 seconds. For every 2 deaths from guns 65 people are saved. Plus, even if we did ban guns or make the laws stricter, who are the criminals to actually obey them and hand the guns over? With interviews of criminals in prison they say they have refrained from committing crimes for the worry that the victim might have a gun. In England where they had/have gun control in 1997, 43% of crimes were committed when residents ere home because of the worry eliminated that they might have a gun to protect themselves, there was no hesitation whereas in America only 9% of crimes are committed under these such circumstances.
Laws will not reduce the crime rate. People who use guns to commit crimes shouldn't be able to ruin it for the people who have guns for good reasons. We should be able to own guns. It protects people. It's keeps people safe. The ones with guns are less likely to get mugged or robbed. Guns aren't the problem. It's society now a days!!
If I was walking down the road with a pistol clipped on my side I would be a lot less likely to be mugged. No one in their right mind would walk into a home, and steal from the home or try to harm the people if they knew a gun barrel would be waiting for them on the other side. Guns will be used for crimes no matter what we do just like drugs. I know I'd rather at least know I have a fighting chance against it if or when the time comes when I'm caught in the middle.
Criminals who commit gun crimes are most likely getting the guns illegally in the first place so what is a law going to do when they disobey them already? This will only take away guns from those who need them to protect themselves (law abiding citizens). Even if criminals were to commit crimes with a different weapon, how are you to efficiently and effectively protect yourself? Tell the criminal to hold on while you call 911 and wait 10-20 minutes before the police get there? Yah I don't think so. If criminals think you have a weapon, they are most likely not going to attack you, if they know for a fact that you don't then they wont think twice. There will always be violence, the real question is how well would you like to be able to defend yourself and how quickly?
Honest people would turn in any weapons if there was a gun ban. Criminals would not. Honest, patriotic people worried about their government and it's overreach would not turn in all their weapons creating a new criminal class. Their only crime would be the desire to exercise self defense and personal oversight of their government. Better to enforce current laws and add mandatory sentencing for those who steal weapons or use them in a crime with some very serious penalties. Make it extremely unprofitable for the criminal to be caught using a firearm.
If there were to be stricter laws the crime rate MAY go down. But in that "MAY" the government would be putting people out of business who sell guns. For instance lets say just concealed firearms are legalized. When someone is shot you hear a loud bang!! No guns would mean a knife no one would hear it and the person could get really get across the border before the person is found.
Women are weaker than men and can use a gun to negate this so that rape and domestic abuse will be reduced by the right to bear arms. When a man wants to do harm to a woman they can use a tool to disarm the situation. Also, since it is a right and not something to be debated you can always have it as one of your options.
The vast majority of violent crime in the United States (and the rest of the world) only occurs in areas that have excessive gun control laws; thereby denying law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves. In the U.S. Mass shootings are not a result of a lack gun control but instead are because of gun free zones where only the bad guys remain armed.
Criminals don't legally purchase firearms from dealers or through other legal sources so thus guns, whether banned or regulated, will always be in the hands of criminals. Even though the anti-gun means well it fails to acknowledge the fact that legal non-criminal citizens are the ones who are disarmed which furthers the criminals reach into the population by lack of resistance from home owners and businesses. My claim is supported by various state research in gun-control cities where there is a higher percentage of gun violence and deaths.
Where as in "pro-gun" populations there are fewer cases of gun violence and deaths.
Criminals in the U.K., a gun-free zone, kill with knives and blunt objects and have a higher percentage of violent acts overall then the US.
People can get just about anything if they want it bad enough. Making weapons is also very easy. I could make a flame thrower out of household items if I wanted to get someone killed. (I don't plan on ever doing anything like that.) a baseball bat is the number one weapon used by civilians. I understand that taking away guns will slightly reduce the shootings, but in the process it will be harder to defend yourself.
Criminals get firearms easier than people who go thru the legal process of getting a firearm. As a security guard I have come across more teens with guns than any other group of people. They all tell me that it is easy to a gun from different sources other than gun shows or gun shops.
Criminals would simply obtain the weapons illegally or use some other weapon to do their dirty work. After all, a criminal is planning on breaking the law anyway. Why would breaking one more law stop them? Also I believe there have been tests done that show that in general, states with less gun control have less crime, but I won't swear to it.
I am a Australian citizen, I was six years old when the mass shooting happened in Australia, and I can assure you that Australia still has illegal firearms circulating in criminal hands. YES.. Australia doesn't have many shootings like in America, but does a criminal who now knows very well that his/her potential victim isn't armed HAVE TO discharge the illegal weapon to get his/her demand across? In my opinion NO. By bringing in these laws in Australia we have only made it more convenient and safer for the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. The same for England which it too has outlawed semi assault weapons and has gone a step further than Australia and outlawed handguns, and YES it has reduced shooting related crimes but statistics prove that the circulation of illegal firearms in particular.. Handguns has increased to very concerning levels in England and the same in Australia, and like I said does a criminal have to discharge his weapon to make you comply. To my opinion this completely negates the purpose of these firearm laws in the first place which are designed to restrict and stop the flow of weapons in circulation to all hands. But the growing fact is the wrong hands are still getting their hands on firearms regardless of where the law stands.
Gun control is one of the very few concepts where failure means more of the same. Australia did away with many privately owned firearms, as did England. While firearms crimes have diminished in these places, violent crime has increased. The tool used pales in importance to the crime itself, and in the absence of a credible defensive weapon, the wolves among us run unhampered through the sheep.
The criminals won't ever care about the laws given by the government, if the guns exist they will get their hands on them, however illegal. These laws don't matter to them, they already break the laws. If you make new laws, these criminals will not care one bit, that is what people need to understand. In short, LAWS MEAN NOTHING TO CRIMINALS.
Patrick Star once said that Chum is Fum, the same applies for guns as the media has lied about most statistics. Guns won't stop criminals as they are not law abiding citizens. A survey done by the U.S Justice Department shows that 82% of prisoners agree that criminals will always be able to get guns. April Fools.
Brazil has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and also one of the highest violent crime rates. Common, law abiding citizens are rarely permitted by the Federal police, to own a weapon. Even if they succeed in getting a permit to have one in their home, they may not carry one outside. However, every criminal on the street seems to have one. Law abiding citizens don't have a chance. The issue is not about the instruments that might be used in a crime, it's about human behavior.
We should be able to fight to save our family and our selves. Criminals would be the only ones with weapons. Law abiding citizens would be defenseless and at the mercy of criminals. Criminals don't care about laws. They say good, now we can do what we want and not worry about being hurt ourselves. They are all unable to defend themselves. Criminals would be happy to take advantage of everyone without fear of punishment or getting caught.
Citizens cannot protect themselves, criminals do not abide the law, and will not start once laws are changed, but will take advantage and harm protection-less citizens.
Guns can be dangerous, but only if in the wrong hands.
Laws are already passed to govern already law abiding people, those who commit crimes are weighed the cost and consequence of their actions and decided that still, it was worth it.
If guns were made illegal only criminals would have them because law abiding citizens would turn theirs in as ordered. Leaving all the citizens as victims.
Maybe the result would be less “accidents,” however it will only increase crime rates, because only criminals would have guns.
Laws only affect people who respect laws, criminals have made it very clear they don’t.
In 1996 Australia pushed for stricter gun control, the same year the Australian parliament passed the national firearms agreement, banning the private ownership of all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump action shotguns.
From Oct 1, 1966 to Sep 30, 1997, the government spent %500 million purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns.
The citizens believed they were now safer but...
Murders committed by guns increased 19%
Home invasions increased 21%
Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%
Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%
If we have tighter gun laws people are just gonna go to the streets for guns or breaking into stores that sell guns. Think of it this way: drugs are illegal but people still find away to get them. There is a limit on cold medicine because of meth use but people still find away around it.
Making stricter gun control laws will not decrease the rate of crimes because just cause you took guns away from people that have bad records doesn't mean that people could stop making crimes. They could just use a knife, tazer , sword, or a whip. You can't control everything taking guns away will not take the fact that people could still hurt other people
Yes, we do need people with mental illnesses not to get guns, but on the other hand, even if they don't get the gun legally, they'll get it illegally. You have to remember the face that people can always get around the government, and it could actually have the reverse effect. It could have people wanting it more, going against the government, your all time rebels.
Circumstances are different when it comes to crime. Criminals will illegally get guns no matter what, we can put more laws in but those will stop too few criminals, therefore wasting time and money (we have a big money problem). The current laws and responsible gun owners are there to stop criminals already.
If people want guns they are gonna have them regardless of any stupid gun law. So if the government bans guns what makes you think everybody will just go ahead and give them up? People will continue to commit crimes either way. So getting rid of guns will only increase the rate of murders with a house tool or knife.
Every gun owner should not have a crime record. They should also have a permit or license to be able to own that gun. People that have mental abilities cannot own a gun. Anybody that commits a crime should have their weapons taken away. Keeping illegal gun sellers of the streets.
The Bill of Rights Amendment 2 clearly says that we as individuals have the right to own guns and use them in defense. Why anyone would ever want to change that stumps me. Don't you believe people should be held responsible for their own actions? Why should a father not be able to protect his family when they are in danger? Unfortunately, taking guns away would only increase the amount of murders with other weapons. Look what just happened in Boston. Imagine how often that would happen if we took guns away. Besides, don't dehumanize American. The Founding Fathers said we could do it, so we can do it. Isn't it funny how great the country was when they were in charge? And now look at it, while some monster tries to change the Constitution and take a huge crap all over the country. Look how horrible things have turned out. Don't make it worse by yet again amending the second amendment.
No, if criminals really want guns they won't rely on just stores. They can get the guns on there own. There are many black markets in America. So just because you ban them it wont help. Criminals don't obey the laws. They break them. The only way to end gun violence is to either lock them up or make sure there is none on the streets.
Gun control laws cannot decrease the rate of crimes involving guns because criminals are going to find a way to get a gun one way or another. Washington D.C. Once attempted to ban handguns in 1976, and subsequently saw their rate of homicide rise 200% between 1976 and 1991. The rate in the rest of the United States rose only 12% during that time. Criminals will feel safer if they aren't afraid of being shot themselves.
Criminals are not going to follow any gun laws that are passed. Show me one criminal who is willing to follow any gun law. By passing stricter gun laws Americans are being exposed to higher risk of violence because criminals know they will not have to deal with any firearms from their intended victims. Look at every country who has stricter laws. In every one of them crime actually goes up because the citizens can no longer protect themselves.
Taking away guns from the law abiding citizens isn't going to decrease crime rates. The crooks are going to find away to get them no matter what. Try the DOJ's Fast and Furious, it was being put directly into criminal hands. What you are doing when you are taking them away is disarming the law abiding and in fact making the sitting duck to the criminals.
There is no good reason to disarm the American people when the US constitution clearly states that we have the right to own guns. I mean seriously, has the government lost their mind? You should not violate the US Constitution regardless of what you believe. You don't have to own a gun but that doesn't mean your neighbor can't have one.
Guns can be equated to drugs. Pass all the laws you want but criminals will still get the drugs and the guns.
The US and local state governments should be providing funds to school districts for armed security especially when you advertise "gun free" zones. They are fools if they don't.
It does not because the people committing violent gun crimes are already doing things against the law, so more gun laws do not affect these people. I'm saying this and I live in Canada, where we are not even aloud to carry a weapon on our person in any shape or form without special permission.
Crimes are not just committed with guns, there are knives, bombs, and other objects that can be used to intentionally to harm someone. Should all knives and cleaning supplies be taken off the market as well? The government can't do so. In a drunk driver accident we blame the driver, in a bombing we blame the bomber, in a shooting why blame the gun?
Ok, so let's first go over a little list here, When someone goes into a school with a gun, are they breaking the law? Yes. When they shoot people are they breaking the law? Yes. So why, tell me, why they would not BREAK THE LAW and get guns anyways?! If people can go and buy a bag of weed on the streets like nothing then why couldn't they buy a gun? Making more strict gun laws would only affect the people who ALREADY OBEY THE LAW!
An example of this is the city of Chicago where there are almost 10 murders per week and 500 per year. Known for one of the strictest gun laws in the country, this just makes illegal gun ownership dominant and dangerous without citizens being able to protect themselves. When the criminals know that an innocent person can't own a gun and protect themselves, it gives them more confidence that they will be unopposed.
People involved in mass shootings or homicides usually have no gun license or a registered gun, making guns laws less strict and allowing guns in public places would help crime rate because no one is stupid enough to walk into a place and pull a gun to just be shot.
Only law obiding citizens follow laws. Criminals break them. Only criminals commit murder. Law abiding citizens do not. Painfully obvious is it not? Take the rose colored glasses off. I hate murder just as much as the next person but guns are here to stay unfortunately. Theres billions of guns on the planet. Why lobby them away from people who dont break the law with them?
When 80,000 applicants fail the reg. FBI background checks and only 44 are prosecuted, then we have a problem. Why have a universal background check when we only prosecute .055% of the violators? Just more paperwork where people don't get prosecuted. We need to enforce our current laws, not just write them.
This is simple, laws only affect people who respect laws. The fact that there are people who actually think gun laws will increase security is scary. We're headed towards idiocracy. The situation in Connecticut is horrible, it's a shame none of the great people at the school were armed to protect everyone.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Everyone says that, I know. But, take the stabbing that happened in Texas for example. You don't need a gun to kill people. You could use anything to harm someone. Wither it's your hands, a knife, or a gun. It doesn't make a difference.
There is always going to be guns and criminals know where to find them and create chaos with them. I know from experience the black market dealings and how easy it is to obtain a gun. There is no way to stop the flow of guns into the U.S. Stricter gun laws would only take away guns from the law abiding citizens.
Criminals do not obey laws now. As it is, drugs, gangs, and the sex trade are on the rise. Now, with the government making it more difficult to obtain guns legally, even law-abiding citizens will turn to illegal means to buy a gun. Buying a gun from an illegal source will only add more funding to illegal activities. It is a bad idea all the way around.
Taking the guns away from law abiding citizens like me won't make the USA safer. I was in the military. I shot guns since I was just a boy, it's a huge family hobby of mine and I love it. Punishing citizens won't make the country a better place. It will create anger towards the gov.
Maybe if the gov tries as hard as they do to attack law-abiding citizens and go after real criminals USA will be a nicer place. I was going to do another 4 year term in the Navy. But I wont fight for a country that doesn't believe in its constitution.
Tell me the last time criminals followed laws. They would figure out a way to swerve around the laws anyway. People will turn against the government and start a new civil war and turn the U.S. Into a wasteland where people shoot people every day to get food and survive like animals.
The government can make gun laws as strict as they need to be but with criminals buying or stealing guns on the street; well its pretty much impossible to control how criminals get their hands on guns. In 1968 the government came up with the "Gun Control Act" but has not been revised since. This is a serious issue through out the world. It's time to revise that vintage 1968 "Gun Control Act".
Gun control is trying to reduce crime by making it tougher for people to own guns. Trying to reduce crime by making it tougher for people to own guns is like trying to reduce car accidents by making it harder for people to own cars. It just doesn't make sense
Criminals don't care about the law -- if they did, they wouldn't be criminals. Thus, more gun control isn't going to stop those who blatantly disobey the law, anyway. More gun control (more anti-gun legislation) is going to have a negative impact on people who obey the law. I've lived in New York City and Washington DC -- places where I couldn't legally defend myself, but where crime was rampant because of people who didn't care what the law was. Bad guys look for easy targets in easy-to-target places. Take away the right for good people to defend themselves, and the bad guys will seize the opportunity. Is it any wonder why places like NYC, DC and Chicago have some of the highest rates of violent crime?
Laws have never had an impact on people with ill-will. People who want to kill and break the law are already aware of the consequences and yet they do it anyway. We need to concentrate on enforcing the laws we already have instead on trying to come up with some "magic law" that will cure the problem.
Let's have an atheist be the "criminal" (no offense to atheists; this is simply an analogy,) the Christian be the "citizen" (a law abiding citizen) and the Bible be the "Laws." Christian: "Hey, Atheist, there's this excerpt from the Bible that says, 'Thou shalt not drink Pepsi'." Atheist: "So? What's your point?" Christian: "Well, you are still drinking Pepsi even though the Bible says not to." Atheist: "Well, that's because I don't listen to the Bible." Bible excerpts won't stop an atheist just like a law won't stop a criminal.
All of the above are inanimate and therefore are neither dangerous nor deadly. But in the hands of the mentally ill, or criminals they all are deadly. So banning guns makes as much sense as banning cars as more people die in car accidents then there are shootings. So the correct avenue is to prosecute ex felons who have or try to get firearms and create a database that stops the mentally ill from buying and treat them as they will find anyway to kill and maim if they are crazy. Banning any inanimate object is ludicrous
I love how the people of Great Britain want to tell us to tighten our laws. Violence in Great Britain is up 40% since gun laws have been enacted there! Gun crimes are down, but what are we fighting? Are we fighting crime, or are we just fighting "gun crime" ? Assaults are up in Great Britian, rape is up, robbery is up... but oh oh oh, not so many "gun crimes"!! Hooray for Britain!
If we had gun control laws that would take guns away from people who use them responsibly, it would not take them away from criminals who don't follow the law. If we had gun control laws it would leave people defenseless if a criminal came into their home. It would cause a lot more deaths than what people it would save.
If the government were to ask that all citizens turn in their weapons, only law abiding citizens would turn them in. The criminals would be the only ones with guns, leaving the law abiding citizens at their mercy. Criminals will not give up their guns. If I don't have a gun to protect myself how do I protect myself? I guess I could try and run, or I could throw my shoe or better yet I could talk to them telling them that what they are doing is wrong. When you are in your home and someone enters he is to be considered a criminal, and if I were to pick up my phone to call the police they would hear me speaking to 911. I would be dead before the police got there. On the other hand, in the same scenario if I had a gun in the house I could get the gun, hide and if I needed to protect myself I could. Hopefully the criminal would take what they wanted and leave.
Illinois is the only state in the union that does not have concealed carry. Chicago is the worst city for gun violence in the nation. Nations with gun bans in effect have a higher incident of gun violence, like Australia and Great Britain. Germany had their guns taken away for the sake of reducing crime and there was genocide. Put God back into our Nation. We have been taking God out of this nation for decades. With no God, we will have God-less crime. This is proven repeatedly in the Bible. Teach the value and reason for life. Gun free zones are an open invitation to violence from people that have no God and no value for human life. Wake up now before it is too late.
Like in the 1920's when we banned alcohol we still had people secretly shipping and getting it. People will do the same with guns. So even if we ban guns we can get them from other countries, sell them from black markets, and have guns to shoot with! Thus, stricter gun laws won't stop crimes with guns!
Criminals are called such for a reason. They will always posses what the law says they can't. If you deny the law abiding population guns that criminals can acquire, then the criminals now have the upper hand. Furthermore, the last gun ban proves this ban ineffective. Only after the ban expired did the crime rates decrease. What we need is criminal control. Go after the "gang bangers" and stop the plea bargaining of violent crimes. Enforce the gun laws that are already on the books. Crack down on bullying in schools. Pay more attention to the children that show early signs of mental illness. Maybe we should be forcing parents to actually be parents instead of using the television and video games as a babysitter. Guns are not the problem, they are just a tool. And this new ban is only going to create a new black market for the very thing they are trying to stop. Most crimes that involve guns are handguns, yet this ban does nothing to address them. So again, I say ineffective in every way.
Enforce the gun laws we already have. Background checks that we have don't get enforced when repeat offenders give false information. Add sex offenders and mental health records to the check system, but again someone needs to enforce the laws. If laws don't get enforced why do we need additional laws that won't be enforced?
All this talk about gun control is basically taking away or restricting guns to law abiding citizens. Limiting the amount is the only that is going to make criminals more comfortable about committing crime. How about the government do something about criminals getting guns? If they want one, even if they shouldn't have one, they will get it. Why should I, a law abiding citizen, not be allowed to protect myself with the same weapon a criminal would use to commit a crime? I could go on and on.
It's a proven fact that stricter gun laws don't work. Just look at Chicago and NY city. They have the highest murder rates in the country. Gun laws do not affect the criminals. They can't even enforce the laws that are on the books now. They need to enforce higher penalties for those that commit the crimes.
Stricter gun laws will NOT decrease the crimes involving guns. The reason for that is because LAW ABIDING citizens aren't the ones committing the crimes. The criminal element throughout this Nation is what drives gun related violence. The bottom line here is that no matter how strict or how many, or how difficult the laws or requirements become, it will not keep the criminals from getting whatever guns they want. Why? Because there is always going to be a way for them to get them. If the cities that have the strictest gun laws and gun control now can't decrease their crime rate with regards to gun related crime, then how in the hell is it going to make any headway by increasing the current laws or measure of control?
Gun Control only helps criminals and a government that wants its citizens to be totally at their mercy. If a criminal is attempting to harm me or another innocent person, having my firearm gives me a chance against such a person. I am an older woman. What chance do I have against a larger, aggressive man, absolutely none. Gun control laws only affect citizens that already are law abiding. Criminals will still get guns. Let's face it, criminals will find a way to be criminals. Let's stop blaming everything and everyone for what a criminal does. Blame the criminal! It is the criminal's choice to be a criminal. The gun did not make him do the crime. A criminal will use a gun, a knife, a tree branch, whatever weapon he can find. BLAME the CRIMINAL for HIS actions. Punish the CRIMINAL for his actions. When did people stop being responsible for their own actions? Punish the Criminal, not law abiding citizens. Gun Control is a kindergarten approach to solving the problem of the criminal element.
We already have plenty of gun laws that are currently NOT enforced. That's the root of the problem. More laws will only infringe on my Second Amendment Right to self preservation and protection. Stop going after the law abiding citizens. Prosecute the criminals. The other problem is mental health. Keeping guns from madmen will help, but you cannot stop someone who is dead set on committing a violent act.
The Clinton gun ban did nothing to decrease crime. However, after it expired and concealed carry laws took root across the country, crime rates dropped. A look at the statistics out of England and Australia will prove that stricter firearms laws are not the answer. A look at the number of firearm related crimes in this country that are prosecuted with current law will show that new laws won't work. Our judicial system has blatantly failed us by not using the current laws on the books to prosecute criminals.
Disarming the law abiding citizens leaves the law abiding citizens wide open to attack by criminals such as street thugs, a corrupted government, riots, and foreign invasion. So far, I have not heard any direct plans that will affect criminals at all. So far, I have not heard any reasonable solutions to fix our problem.
We know for a fact that if law abiding citizens are disarmed or limited to only certain firearms, the criminals and potential foreign invaders will have the upper hand. No one is saying that citizens should have RPGs, grenade launchers, tanks and missiles. What we are saying is that law abiding citizens have a right to bear arms with equal fire power to the government issued, such as the rifles used by them. The American citizen has the right to fight for each and every individual right! When you strip the American citizens of their rights, you create the most lethal soldier and weapon man could ever know.
We all know this as it is common sense. It's a corrupt government, and that's the short and long of it. Gun control is a ploy to take our guns so we can't resist the government, just read what DHS says, and the NRA, and look what they did in La. during and after Katrina. The big picture is a total take over of the U.S. citizens.
Why not just enforce the laws we already have instead of making it hard on the law abiding citizens? Why not make it hard on the criminal and enforce it? If you rob a house and steal a gun, you should get 20 years with no parole plus whatever for other crimes. If you use a gun in a crime, you should get 20 years with no parole, period. Let's start dealing with criminals and not punishing those of us who obey the law. We make more laws, but we forget that CRIMINALS do not follow laws.
It's simple, criminals don't give two figs about more laws, they don't follow them in the first place. The only thing more gun control will do is make legal, gun owning, law abiding citizens victims, because we won't be able to protect ourselves against violent criminals who do not go through legal channels to get their guns.
Gun control does not work in stopping violent crime. We have heard this time and time again and if guns were so bad to begin with how did the nation survive 200+ years with them within all of our homes. Why did John F. Kennedy advocate how important the second amendment was in the 60's?
Look, here is the deal, you can't control everything and prevent every tragedy. Especially by blaming a tool. Now I have seen some people calling the car analogy stupid and that by more regulation has lead to less drunk driving? Are you for real?
First of all driving is not a right it is a privilege. Big difference. Secondly instead of calling for gun control we should be calling for responsible citizenship in which the people of the United States take responsibility. For themselves and their own lives. If gun control was so effective. Why is Chicago the most violent city in the nation? Why do we see crime rates rise after every major form of gun control. You regulate the law abiding and the people with unregistered guns will take advantage of them.
If you don't like guns that is your right and no one else can argue against that. That is fine, but don't you dare try and take away my right to defend myself and my family from people who could try and harm me.
Furthermore, states with tough gun control cite that other states slacking on gun control are the cause for their higher crime rates. So your telling me a criminal is migrating into these low gun areas? Why? Because they have better access to guns? Or because those yuppies are defenseless? This is how flawed the logic is. You all say the car analogy is stupid? Well, now you know how we the gun owners feel every time you anti-gun people go on a tangent about a machine. I mean, you are literally the equivalent to the religious Bible-thumper who tries to argue against scientific evidence of evolution.
You like lumping people into categories? Well fine! If you are anti-gun and pro-gun control, then you seek to enable the Adam Lanzas and the criminals of our society. You support madmen, murderers and rapists, and I don't have the time for your head in the sand logic pretending evil does not exist.
Gun control does not stop violent murders. Got it? It enables it. It is not a gun issue or murder by gun issue. The issue is murder in general and countries with tough gun control have higher rates of murder. More victims, who have lost the right to even defend themselves from the most basic attack. Go place your head in the sand in their countries.
I fought for and will always choose the Bill of Rights over gun control, and the illusion created by the promise of public safety after giving up a little liberty.
It has been proven that those cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime....then those cities where people can carry! Facts do not lie! Politicians do! Certain elected politicians have an agenda that does not equate with our freedom and constitution. We the people do not want our country changed to a communistic nor muslim country! Taking away citizens guns is exactly how Hitler was able to slaughter so many millions of people as he did! Those people who want law abiding people to give up their guns are either ignorant or, communistic...take your pick!
It does not matter whether these criminals have guns or a hammer, they will still hurt people. In the United States last year more people were killed by hammers than by a gun. When people are drunk and get into a car accidents and kill people, is it the drunk person and not the car that killed them? We don't get rid of cars every time someone dies in a drunk driving accident. Guns protect the President so why take them away from the good law abiding citizens in America so they can't protect their own selves? Ridiculous how people blame guns when it is the stupid, crazy people that are the reason for the world and the United States turning out the way it has.
The potential for lawful gun conformation on the part of criminal, deters more criminal acts than the knowledge of disarmament would ensue. The wolves would have little deterrent to slaughter the lambs.
Rather than be an easy meal, at least there would be a discussion of what would be on the menu.
I would rather have a fighting chance as my family was slaughtered. Law enforcement can not possibly protect the masses, merely due to the shear numbers. In most cases not until the crime is well over, our prisons overflow with repeat offenders. In my opinion, in this war on crime, the only logical tactic would be to recruit the civil society that is under assault. License and train qualified individuals to protect each other.
The guns have no mind to commit a crime, it is the person who pulls the trigger or issues a threat to another person. People who want to commit a crime wont register a gun anyways, they will just steal it then get rid of it after the crime, so there it cannot be traced back to them.
Just because the laws change does not mean that the guns won"t be out there. Guns will still be in homes and numerous places. People will use different weapons such as knives, swords, and other destructive weapons. By changing the laws people will switch to other weapons. Does that mean when other weapons harm many people that they will be banned one day? Guns laws will not help.-Thanks for reading!
I say no because taking away one right may give them the opportunity to take away more or all other rights. It's also like blaming forks for obese people. Changing the Bill of Rights could cause more fighting and debating. Taking guns is against the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Legal gun owners take responsibility of ownership to heart. Stricter gun laws are only going to make if more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. The crooks, gangs, etc are still going to get guns no matter how strict gun laws are. Until you stop the illegal drugs and guns being smuggled into the US, you won't stop gun violence. Now on the other hand if stricter gun laws stop just one mentally incompetent person from getting a gun or stops little hands on guns, I'm willing to take those steps. I have an open mind, I'm not closed minded like the NRA and that's why I don't support them. Both government and the NRA need to be more flexible because nothing will be resolved if both entities stand on opposites sides with no flexibility
If gun control worked wouldn't Chicago and NY be the safest places in the country? Chicago had more deaths last year then all the coalition forces combined in Afghanistan. A good example when you ban something think about the prohibition. Criminals will create a enterprise leaving law abiding citizens to be victims,
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson
Some gun control supporters don't want you to know that stricter gun control INCREASES crime. The evidence is in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and Chicago. All three cities have strict gun control, but that takes weapons from law abiding citizens, not criminals. Capone would LOVE a hand gun ban, because that means fewer people can defend themselves.
...we should outlaw hookers, meth and heroin. It only makes sense right? People wanting to ban guns have no clue and are having a knee jerk reaction to what has happened as tragic as it is. The left wants to legalize drugs and outlaw guns and make cuts to education and the prisons. I don't get it.
No study suggests that any gun control law of the last 30 years has significantly reduced crime. While gun ownership has increased over the last few decades, gun crimes and gun accidents have decreased. Why would we create more laws? Why can't we enforce the laws we currently have? We can all agree on that.
The left wants to legalize drugs claiming the war on drugs has failed. They also conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of gun violence is perpetrated by gangs who deal in drugs, drug cartels, drug users involved in other criminal activities to support their habits and the unfortunate mentally ill who have no options for treatment in a society who ignores them. These are the ones who end up going on shooting sprees. Making laws wont fix anything. Enforcing the ones we have will. Adopting and supporting a zero tolerance policy against drugs and gangs will. How can we fight off the gangs and drugs when some of our society thinks it should be okay to get high? Our society is disintegrating and the violence is a symptom of that. We have lost our morals and are suffering the consequences as a result.
Banning any type of gun does not mean that criminals will not use them anymore. It simply means that it will be harder for these criminals to obtain these guns. It also means that law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves with these guns. If criminals abided by the law then they wouldn't be criminals in the first place. I do not understand how making something illegal to own/buy is gonna help at all. That is like saying since it's illegal to kill people then criminals won't do it but. as we all know, they will.