Amazon.com Widgets

Do recent mass shootings warrant tighter gun control laws?

  • Guns are doing much more harm than good, so should have smaller clips.

    I want the right to own a gun, but I don't need a gun that can kill hundreds of people.

  • Yes, because of the way criminals get guns

    Most criminals get guns through a procedure known as "straw purchasing." To put it in simple terms, straw purchasing is when a criminal gets one of the friends of family to buy the gun for them. People with criminal records are unable to obtain guns so they simply have others who do not have criminal records get the gun for them. Now, if everyone is prevented from buying guns, then a criminal cannot simply pay their friend some money and ask the friend to buy him a gun. Most pro-gun proponents' arguments boil down to "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." But this fails to consider the fact that outlaws get guns from people who don't have criminal records and therefore if guns are outlawed, it makes it exponentially more difficult for those outlaws to obtain guns.

  • Absolutely yes

    I'm not saying we need to outlaw guns altogether. I'm saying we need to make it more difficult for certain people to get them. Mass shootings aside, there have been several instances lately in my hometown where depressed and mentally disturbed mothers walked into their local Wal-Mart, bought a gun, and proceeded to shoot their children and themselves out of desperation. Most of these women were under psychiatric care at the time, yet were still allowed to purchase a deadly weapon. From Wal-Mart. What sense does that make at all?

  • Yes

    "Law abiding citizens" can always have a moment of crisis and use it wreak havoc on the world. Most of them were all law abiding citizens up to the point where they decided to commit mass murder. How many more shootings will have to happen before the world realizes this?

  • Yes

    I am not for getting rid of guns but there should be a better way of controlling who gets them and there should be some restrictions on the guns themselves.

  • Yes.

    The founding fathers didn't have machine guns in mind when they made the second amendment. What's your little pea-shooter going to do to an F-16 jet? Bear arms yes. Tighter laws? Yes.

  • Gun control only promotes crime.

    Statistics show that countries with higher gun control have higher crime rates. The reason for this is for the same reason prohibition did not work: criminals don't care about what the law says; they'll just work harder to get it, and increase their profits in the process. Banning guns would create a black-market that would put guns in more criminal's hands, as well as puts money in the hands of criminal organizations that give them power.

    In short, crime would only increase.

  • Mass shootings almost always happen where?

    In gun-free zones. Criminals don't care about breaking laws, that's what makes them criminals. People will always be able to get a gun, no matter what the law is... there are too many sources that can't be controlled. Get a gun from a friend/family member, straw purchase, steal a gun, purchase through black market, etc...

    Gun control laws only inhibit the people who would use a gun in a good way.

  • Hmm

    In china a 19 year old, broke up with his girlfriend and killed a lot of people. WITH A KNIFE. LETS BAN KNIVES

    Gun control is a violation of the 2nd amendment

  • Laws ought be made on long term trends and statistics,

    not high profile cases and knee jerk reactions. That is a classic logical fallacy. Of course, the real world interactions between people merit tighter gun control, but the wording here implies that before these events, the tighter controls were not warranted, but now they are.

  • No, I do not believe that the recent shootings are any reason to warrant tighter gun control laws.

    The real issue is not that the current laws are not strict enough, the issue is they are not enforced properly. If the current laws were enforced then there would be no problems with mass shootings. Not to mention, the people conducting these shootings are not getting their ammunition legally their finding illegal means of supplying these weapons. So therefore its irregardless what the laws are if the criminals aren't going to follow them.

  • Criminals are already breaking the law. You think another one is gonna stop them?

    Criminals, regardless of laws, will find a way to get a gun if they really want to get one. Outlawing them will do nothing to stop them. Its like a lovely example I heard from imabench. The idea of gun control laws stopping criminals from getting guns is like the idea that speed limits will stop criminals from speeding.

  • Why Guns?

    Why do people react so differently to firearms violence than any other? Tons of killings have been committed using other objects, but no one is talking about banning knives. The solution is more law-abiding carriers. Criminals already break the law so another gun law doesn't mean anything to them. The government is just taking guns away from law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves, their families, and others.

  • Not due to the shootings alone

    but I feel like more checks should be in place.

  • Nope.

    Of course not. My views on this are incredibly simple and can be summed up in one sentence: With strict gun laws only the bad guys will have guns while the good guys are less defenseless against the bad people.

  • Gun control is always counter productive

    Gun control never works. When facing those supporting gun control, I ask this question: what gun ban has decreased crime? The answer? NONE! All scientific studies after 1997 (only a few dissent) claim gun control works. All criminologists who have changed opinion on gun control is towards the pro-gun side.

    Also note, Aurora was in a gun free zone! For those of you who know little about the subject: ALMOST ALL SHOOTINGS HAPPEN IN GUN FREE ZONES. In places where there is no chance for defense, gun shootings occur. No big shootings happen at gun shows, NRA meetings, or gun ranges. Why? Even psychopaths avoid those areas. Their goal is to kill as many people as possible, and having a gun pointed at you minimizes the chance many will die.

    Example: Israel used to have many shootings occur. Now, even old grandmas carry handguns around. After many failed attempts occurred, they changed their technique! John Lott in his nook More Guns Less Crime has many quotes from terrorists. They say things like (Paraphrasing): We didn't know they had guns! We didn't know they could fight back!

    Gun control never works, and guns deter criminals. All shootings happen where no guns are present, not where guns exist.

    To conclude, lets look at John Lott:

    "Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. ... But no published peer-reviewed studies by economists or criminologists find the original federal or state assault-weapons ban reduced murder or overall violent crime. ... Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. (MY wording: Boom head shot) ... The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. (me again: they get them illegally anyway, how would laws stop them?) ... Bans, like the gun-free zones, can be counterproductive. Hopefully, the debate will finally acknowledge that well- intended laws are not enough."

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/#ixzz26Crwgc00 (Yes, its fox news, but its author is credible).

    If you support gun control on this, you have done no research.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.