Does there need to be stricter laws for gun control? |
What's the problem
First of all, stop with this "the liberals are using a tragedy to promote a political agenda." It's crap. What political agenda is there? Most Americans own a gun, and even more support owning guns. It's actually against a politicians interest to support tighter gun control laws, which is why it's been so incredibly difficult to get tighter laws passed. Those for tighter laws are for them for one reason: they believe tighter laws will result in less gun violence. You can argue for or against whether they're right, but just stop with the "political agenda" crap.
Second, what exactly is the argument against tighter gun control laws? That it will be an inconvenience for the average Joe to get a gun? WHY IS THAT A BAD THING? No one is talking about taking away you're right to own a gun, they're just saying something which is so dangerous should be difficult to get. Someone that really wants to own a gun will still be able to get a gun, it'll just take longer, and they'll have to have some background checks on them. BOO HOO.
Third, will having tighter gun control laws eliminate crime? Absolutely NOT! No one is saying that will happen. The single biggest reason people want tighter gun control laws is to keep these massive shootings from happening, in which innocent people, including children, are murdered. In other countries, tighter gun control laws have shown to reduce such tragedies. In Australia, before stricter gun control laws from 1978 to 1996, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths. Do you know how many there have been from 1996-present? 0. Yes, that's 0! I really don't think we need any other reason than this to pass stricter gun laws. So what if you don't get to own an assault rifle, and it takes you longer to actually buy a gun.
In addition, did you know that the murder rate in America is roughly 15 times greater than the murder rate in other countries with stricter gun control laws? There is strong evidence to support the correlation between more guns and more murders.
Finally, what the hell do you think is going to happen if our government becomes tyrannical? Do you think the military is going to turn against the American people? And if they did, what the hell do you think all these people with guns are going to be able to do against military trained soldiers with more advanced weaponry?
Fact is, people are against tighter gun control laws for one of two reasons. They sell guns and tighter laws would reduce sales, or they buy guns, and tighter laws would inconvenience them. How do those two agendas stack up against our sides agenda; that of reducing gun violence and trying to stop gun massacres? Yes, we're the bad guys for trying to restrict (not take away) your second amendment. Get a clue.Posted by: AnonymousReasonable people should have no argument against reasonable measures.
Supporters of less gun control argue that stricter laws won't work, that they will infringe on constitutional liberties, that even minor regulations are just the first step toward a police state, etc. However, submitting to a background check or joining a registry in no way prevents you from obtaining a gun if you are a law abiding and reasonable person. I don't understand why people are not willing to make some minor concessions in the name of safety and society. In countries like Australia and Japan, where strict gun control laws are enforced, gun violence and suicides are very low. Beyond this, getting involved in a rational discussion is a must in order to solve this problem.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat's your number?
Tell me: what's your number? How many children do you want to see die before you will concede that, yes, smart legislation makes sense. Stricter universal background checks make prefect sense. Honestly, I don't even think we need to get rid of automatic assault weapons if we can get tough on background checks. Include a psychiatric evaluation. Require gun locks to be purchased at the time of sale. Limit the number of guns allowed to be purchased at a single time and within a set time period. All we need is to curb trafficking and straw purchases and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally incompetent.
Posted by: AnonymousJust a short response
"That's right, EVERYDAY>>> 27 people die from drunk drivers!"
EVERYDAY 75 adults are killed by firearms and EVERY YEAR over 2,000 children and teens are killed by guns. Sorry if that doesn't trump 27 deaths. And what makes the shooter's life less important than anyone else's? Seriously, if that principal DID shoot that 20 year old boy, he would have to live with that forever. It would NOT make him a hero.Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people, people with guns kill people
I think that there should be more access to mental health records and criminal records. Back round checks are a must. No one should be handed a gun and expected to do great deeds with it. Guns are okay when needed, such as defense, war, etc. But I firmly believe that NO ONE should get a gun without extensive investigation of their past. People kill people with guns, the gun doesnt.
Posted by: AnonymousLook at the statistics
If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 30,000 gun deaths last year, they had 112. The difference between them and us is not that Americans are more violent by nature. It is because they have strict gun control laws.
Posted by: boomshigidyBetter gun control is important to secure our society.
Although I agree that the Constitution affords the right to bear arms, the intent was not to allow mass murder as has occurred repeatedly in our country. The founding fathers never envisioned AK47's and other such modern weapons. There is a big difference between a semi-automatic and a rifle to go hunting with. If we had greater control, we could save many innocent people.
Posted by: K_FryeYes, guns should be strictly controlled to hinder criminals
I do concede and understand that it is important for people to own guns to protect themselves. However, if guns were banned or strictly controlled, there may not even be black markets present to sell guns to criminals. The laws serve to hinder criminals and probably make them think twice about committing a crime. This is especially so in light of the recent random shootings. People may just be depressed and letting everyone own guns seem as dangerous as letting kids own guns - in fact some kids may be more mature and clear-headed than adults, considering the random shootings carried out by adults. Without strict laws, the easy access to guns simply makes it too easy for depressed people, angry and rash people, or maniac criminals to commit brutal acts
Posted by: AnonymousYes, too many deaths.
There are way to many deaths per year and we need to cut the murder rate down a lot there are way too many people that died for no reason. The Sandy Hook shootings were brutal, if we had stricter laws it could have been prevented. We lost too many people.
Posted by: AnonymousNo More School Shootings
Guns don't kill people--people kill people. But guns are a tool that enables people to kill people more easily, with just the pull of a trigger. People plan to kill, so they buy guns. People don't want to be killed, so they buy guns. But if the people didn't have the guns in the first place, then everyone would be in less danger. Yes, you can kill people with other things, but lock your doors, don't stay outside when the sun isn't up, and have common sense. As long as people are logical and smart, we don't need guns to protect ourselves. I'm making this stand because of the people in Connecticut. You must be devastated, but know that the whole country knows what you're going through. We're behind you! Stay strong!
Posted by: AnonymousGun legislation - yay!
Even though this issue is a heated debate, I am really concerned for our safety. We live in such a different world as we did 20-30 years ago. Everything has changed: social media, technological advances, and violence. It is in my biggest interest that everyone should support stricter gun legislation because it has proven to alleviate some of the crime rates in inner cities and has even been known to lessen the statistical integrity of rural areas as well.
Posted by: AnonymousGUNS KILL PEOPLE
I think there should more gun laws in place because we have the police to protect us. I don't think they should be completely banned but no military grade or fully automatic weapons, just a hunting rifle or a 9mm pistol. There have been to many mass shootings and crazy people with guns we just can't keep taking chances.
Posted by: kaatihanGuns were made for the war
Guns can be used for protection but that is not what they are used for. Yes we need more gun control because we can't have people dying every day. Still if they get rid of guns someone is still going have one in their house. Guns are used to kill, not for protection but that's what people use them for.
Posted by: AnonymousI am against gun violence.
Guns are the reason why people are at war. They are the reason that people in gangs shoot each other. They should be outlawed so there will be less violence and fewer deaths. Yes, I understand that the police have to have them, but if guns were outlawed, they would have no reason to have them.
Posted by: AnonymousStricter Laws Concerning Gun Control will save lives, and no matter how many lives are saved, it still matters.
Automatic guns are completely unnecessary for self protection. If you learn how to use a hand gun the right way you would not need to be able to fire massive amounts of bullets to protect yourself. I have spoken with gun owners and gun enthusiasts and they agree that automatic weapons aren't needed for self protection, target shooting, or hunting. Automatic weapons can kill innocent lives 20 at a time and that is not right. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of lives that could have been saved if automatic weapons weren't available to people with mental problems or people who have committed crime in the past. Guns should be the last option on self protection. Guns should also be the last way of protecting students at schools as well. LaPierre said, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." This, my friend, is false. There are many ways to stop crime from happening. One way is to ban automatic guns and improve background checks on ALL gun owners, present and future.
Newtown, Aurora, Portland, Long Island Railroad Massacre. How many more have to die before you realize something has to be done?
Act today.Posted by: AnonymousPeople can purchase guns much too easy.
People can purchase guns much too easy. There should be extensive background checks for every single gun purchaser. We must start protecting our public more by taking away the things that will hurt them. There is no need for people to protect themselves if there is nothing to hurt them.
Posted by: AnonymousLet Us Imagine...
Let us imagine a world WITH stricter gun control laws. Civilians may possess handguns, rifles, and such guns for sport, but citizens may not possess certain firearms, say, the ones with high-capacity clips or the kind intended for warfare. Now, let us imagine a world WITHOUT stricter gun control laws. Civilians may possess guns with high-capacity clips and the kind intended for warfare in addition to handguns and rifles.
Which scenario is the safest? More guns that are more powerful, or less guns that are less powerful?
It is not the government's job to make sure no one gets hurt, or to ensure the absolute perfection of its citizen's lives...It is the government's job to create the best possible environment for it's citizens, and I would dare to suggest that less gun violence would be a good thing to encourage. I hold it to be self-evident that stricter gun control laws would limit gun violence, and that is why I think there should be stricter gun laws.Posted by: AnonymousIs this the 21st century?
Yes, there is a need for stricter gun laws in the USA. Assault weapons do not belong in the community. It is a misconception that guns do not kill people. Yes the human pulls the trigger, but the number of dead always increases with the use of assault weapons, the magazine size.
As one responder said "we have become the hunted". The prey of the mentally ill, the psychopaths, and the collateral damage of a country without adequate gun control, the assault weapons n the community.Posted by: mainecanuckYes, we need gun control !
Assault weapons were never intended to be placed in the hands of the general public. The NRA has placed fear of losing our rights for too long and too many politicians have become the puppets for this group because their financial support means more to them than whether innocent people become the victims of these guns.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, There has been too many mass shootings.
Gun control should defiantly be more strict, and recent events in Connecticut have proved that. It is possible for anyone to get a gun these days, and that includes assault rifles. No one should have access to weapons that can kill multiple people in a few seconds, unless they are in the military.
Posted by: AnonymousSo many children and teens in the US are dying because of guns.
Gun injuries are the leading cause for unnatural deaths for children and teens in the United States of America. Therefore, I believe that opposing stricter gun laws is saying you're okay with that. If you think children dying after being shot is okay, as long as you can keep your gun, I think that's a problem.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns create more violence
I think that guns create more violence than would occur if there were no guns. It is an easy way for "thugs" and "criminals" as well as unstable people to injure or kill innocents or those they have an issue with. I don't agree that NO ONE should have guns, but there should be SOME kind of control and registry required.
Posted by: AnonymousThe U.S. leads the world in civil violence due to this misguided liberty
The NRA's advocacy is now becoming dangerous to the world, as it has been for American society for a long time. The adrenalin-fuelled energy of those wielding weapons can only be countered at times such as this where humanity finds its voice - ACT NOW. Almost 99% of Americans who are not NRA members should not be influenced by the clearly biased 'policies' proposed by this group. The disproportionately large influence wielded by this group requires that action be taken to moderate them or even entirely deny them a voice in matters where their interests run contrary to that of society, such as school safety. The denial of this loud and stultifying voice is necessary to ensure responsible citizens' freedom of expression.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat emergency is there really?
So many people say guns are needed for emergency, but what emergency can't we protect ourselves from without a gun that doesn't of course involve a gun? We have locks, we have cell phones! All we need to do is hide. A knife can't open a door like a gun can. There are better hobbies than shooting things if you want to hunt.
Posted by: Anonymouswake up
It's really easy for those that haven't been personally affected by gun tragedy to want less strict gun control. Until you are personally affected by a completely preventable death of a child by a gun, you really don't have a clue! People please wake up! Look at the statistics and you will see the states with stricter gun laws such as New York have much less crime and accidental deaths by guns. It's common sense!
Posted by: AnonymousI understand both sides, please read!
I understand that no one wants their 2nd amendment taken away, but to keep us safe, I think we should limit guns. We should not register our guns, but we should have bigger background checks. And we should be able to get most guns, but I believe that we don't need high capacity clips or fully automated weapons! (Sorry for spelling errors! And I'm 17, so sorry if you don't agree :/)
Posted by: AnonymousI'm Just a Kid
I watch the news every morning, and as a maturing teen, it frightens me to go out into such a violent world. I am heartbroken when I hear of tragedies like Newtown or the Colorado movie massacre. How easily could they have been prevented, if only those unstable people had never had access to weaponry. People with guns should AT LEAST have extensive mental health and background checks. Times have changed since the Constitution was written.
Posted by: AnonymousI believe there should be stricter gun control laws because of the mass shootings taking place.
After what happened at newtown,nchs, and the manhunt in colorado from last year, there should be stricter laws on guns so there would be less casualties, less crime, and a safer society. After what has happened in these events, think about what might be coming for us in the future.
Posted by: kallavas000Kids vs. rights
Only one question. Do you want safer places where kids are able to live without thinking "is a madman/woman going to come to my school and shoot me?" or a place where you just want to have rights to do anything you want even if it means killing innocent people? You decide.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy would we need guns?
Just think about it for a while and I promise you that having a gun will stop making sense.
If no one had a gun, no one would need a gun for protection, and if no one needs a gun, no one will die.
Just think about it. Why would we need guns?Posted by: AnonymousWhy I think yes.
I think there should be stricter gun laws because I want to prevent repeating what happened in Connecticut in 2012. No one deserves to be killed like that at all; no one should even own that many guns unless they keep them in a vault that holds guns - or just not buy guns at all.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Constitution of the United States Really Needs to be Edited.
Okay, this is stupid how people just allow the gun law to slide by just because the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Has anyone ever considered revising this outdated list of rights given to the citizens of the United States? Guns were originally given to us for protection, not for killing other people, which is really beginning to seem like what we are trying to protect ourselves from. Seriously, there will eventually be massacres happening all over the streets if we don't restrain those who will abuse the right from getting them.
Posted by: AnonymousI say yes because a lot of people have died because of guns.
Last year Gabriel Giffords nearly died because of a shooting at Subway. No one wants that to happen to them or to other people. The shooting in Colorado killed some people. Also the shooting in Connecticut. He killed 20 kids and 6 adults, plus his mother. We don't need it, guns kill.
Posted by: AnonymousThink about it.
People argue that criminals will simply get guns illegally. That's not the case. What about Trayvon Martin? His murderer was not planning to be a criminal, and yet he murdered an innocent young boy, simply because he could. People get caught up in the moment, do things they'll regret without thinking. If everybody can just have a gun, then there will be nothing stopping them from simply panicking and pulling the trigger. We live in a world where many other countries have extremely strict gun laws and have virtually no gun violence at all. When you compare them to America, who loses so many lives due to gun violence each year, you can see how evil and scary our country might seem. If everybody decides to end gun violence by adding more guns to society, then what kind of message does that send? What, will I have to worry everyday that a stranger may accidentally shoot me on my way to school in the morning? Will I have to constantly fear for my life? Do I, a teenager, need to carry a gun with me at all times to protect myself? What if I do see something that frightens me, and shoot. Just to find out i was an innocent person. We are humans, we freak out at small things, we feel the need to fight anything we don't understand. If everybody has a gun, then they can freely destroy anything and everything they do not like, not realizing that the other person had done nothing wrong. We live in a corrupt society. Other countries do not allow for guns, and are peaceful and charming. We on the other hand are a country covered in it's own bloodshed, fighting each other and blaming everyone else, simply because we are afraid of change. I want to live in a place where I do not need to go to school and fear for my life, because some mentally unsafe student has gotten fed up with life and took their parents' easy to access gun. I don't want to live in a place where everybody has a gun, even me. If I had a gun and a bad person had a gun too, it would not make me feel any safer, it would simply be a fear that I will not pull the trigger fast enough. This country scares me. I personally know somebody in my school who has begun to threaten to kill anyone or everyone. It is not a fun experience to fear for the life of myself and my classmates. Armed guards in schools will not help anything or anyone. They will simply make things worse. And what about shopping malls? Movie theaters? Street corners? Not everywhere can have hired help armed with a gun. We need to put an end to this fear and join the other countries who have banned guns and came out as a better and gentler nation of people. Why can't we do this?
Posted by: AnonymousGun control will mean fewer massive public shootings.
The right to bear arms was created by our founding fathers to protect their slaves from intruders. We don't own slaves today and having easy access to guns will only mean everyone, even the crazy ones, will be able to get guns. Guns should be kept in a tight locked closet. Secondly, assault weapons and guns make it easy to rob a store, bank, or anyone, anywhere. Guns should be for self-defense against criminals that keep being let out of prison without finishing their sentence. There should be a limit to having a gun. If you are a hunter, you don't need an assault weapon. If you are a law-abiding citizen without a violent past, the gun should be kept home for protecting your house.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns Kill
There are crazy people in the world, that are getting guns and going mad. There should be stricter laws regarding who can get a gun, not just a criminal background check. There should be a mental analysis for all first time gun buyers, and a subsequent one on further gun purchases (ie. when they buy more than 3 or 4).
Posted by: sgersh219Should the U.S.A Have Tighter Gun Control Laws?
I think yes because there could be some weird old mad man on drugs.... He could have a gun...shoot somebody young... so on and so forth. That is one of the reasons why. Few months ago, there was this shooting at a school in Newtown, Connecticut. That shooting killed 20 some kids, and like a couple of adults in the building. That was with a gun. That was dangerous. That was with a gun.People kill people with guns.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns were not made for protection.
Even one death, is a death too many. – Basically, the purpose of guns is to kill people. That is what they were invented for. Not for protection, or to scare people, that is just what some people use it for. The basic purpose of a gun is to kill people. So why allow everyday citizens to end somebody’s life just because they need protection? Why allow criminals to so easily obtain guns to end somebody’s life?
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not needed
People say we need guns but really we dont. If anything they should not only just do control they should control everything else as well. People also say guns dont kill people, people kill people ; well without guns in the way there wont be so much worrying. I mean yes people can always find another way to kill people but without guns i think our world would be a little better. Thank you for reading my stance and i hope you take my opinion into consideration.
Posted by: SugarplumGuns and people are the problem.
Most people say "people kill people", yet its people with guns that do the killing. All I'm saying is that we need to regulate who owns a gun. As stated by others, tighter guns laws are not to take your guns from you, its to protect everyone, those who do and don't have a gun. It's crazy how a young child is killed because he finds a gun in his home, because his parents don't know the safety precautions. It's also sad that I had to bury my sister three years ago because someone decided to shoot her in the head for no reason. If we had tighter gun laws, a mother wouldn't have to bury her young child and neither would I have to bury my sister.
Posted by: AnonymousStricter doesn't mean strict.
I feel like everyone has the opinion that because the government presents the possibility of stricter gun laws, everyone assumes that gun rights are going to be revoked completely. In reality, simply because the government may invoke certain amendments to gun control laws, we may still retain the right to carry weapons but some people, such as the violent mentally ill, may be deemed unable to carry guns safely.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, people's safety counts.
Many people can just walk into a gun store and, after signing what they need, walk out with a weapon with the ability to kill. The people/store selling the guns do not even check if they have a stable mental state, which is very dangerous. Those that are mentally ill might buy this gun to be "remembered" or for "revenge." Also, the people/store selling the gun should also make sure that they do not live with someone who is mentally ill because that mentally ill person would be able to take the gun from them. Lastly, the person/ store should make sure that they have not committed any crimes in their past.
Posted by: AnonymousWe need stricter laws on gun control
Having more strict gun control laws doesn't mean you can't bear arms. It just means that there will be more secure trade go guns so no idiot or mentally ill crazy person can go around owning guns. It's just to protect people. It isn't going to restrict anyone, just make this country safer.
Posted by: AnonymousUmm whoa false
Instead of gun control we should focus on how to control the mental idiots who get these guns, and in even more detail control the mental institutions to track down and find these people and put them away, taking the guns away wont affect criminals, it will affect average citizens leaving them defenseless against those who will get a gun anyway and hurt or kill someone.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy is this even a question??!!
All one must do is look at other countries and their gun laws and compare their crime rates to ours. Period. This is just shameful. The control that the NRA has over our politicians is embarrassing and criminal. Personally, I own one firearm...a 9mm handgun. It was given to me as a "gift". I've struggled with whether or not to get rid of it on principle. There is absolutely NO REASON for someone to own an assault rifle, however. IMHO, gun ownership should be restricted with regard to type of gun, number of firearms, and amount and type of ammunition. Screenings should be much more stringent, as well. There are other factors of course, like the public's apathy and general attitude toward violence that must be addressed, but stricter gun laws are a necessary place to start. If you want to do something you can support organizations like the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence by making a financial contribution (I do).
Posted by: AnonymousYes, definitely.
There are far too many deaths that are the direct result of gunfire. People use guns to kill - be it purposely or accidentally. Imagine how many people would still be around today if there weren't guns out in the world. Guns are far too easy to access, use and misuse. They are snuffing out lives. So, for the safety of the human race, there needs to be some seriously tighter gun control.
Posted by: MohaI0v35Over 23,000 people have died from gun attacks.
The other day a 5 year old boy got a gun for his birthday and shot his 2 year old sister dead. How is that okay? Guns should not be so accessible, they're dangerous and stupid people buy guns which always leads to someone dying. Its horrible and should not be legal.
Posted by: AnonymousThere are too many shootings and deaths.
There should be stricter laws on gun control and laws on people with guns and drink because they do not think and they can do anything without thinking and will do whatever comes to mind. With more gun control there will be less shooting like the shooting in Connecticut, and citizens will be safer and will not have to worry about their kids and family being in danger at school or work.
Posted by: AnonymousWe are influenced by what we see and hear
Whether we like it or not, we have, as a society, become desensitized to the idea of seeing someone get killed or hurt. It is something that the television, movie and music industry have all capitalized on and yet, we all stand here missing the connection. Researchers in the entertainment industry (and I include sports in this) all understand what sells vs. what is right. People are fascinated with being able to see or hear "forbidden fruit". We cannot help but look at the car wreck or watch the fight in the street or to look at pornography. When there is a fight at a sporting event, that immediately becomes the focal point of the event. Even sports like boxing (the sweet science) have been supplanted by MMA because of the carnage associated with it and our desire to see more GORE. Olympic boxing uses headgear to prevent concussions and unnecessary brain damage and is easy to score, but professional boxing requires that we see people taking shots to the face and head and seeing the eyes swollend shut. Hockey fighting could be curbed with stiffer penalties but "no", that's what sells hockey! Television series with a "lesson" or a "mystery to be solved" have been replaced by adult cartoons where you can say or do anything (for laughs and at the expense of another cartoon character) or by reality shows which increasingly favor shows where back-biting, betrayal and "every man for himself" philosophies are the norm. Jazz and early Hip hop music which focused on either instrumental creativity or dance styles have been replaced by gangster, drug and lascivious messaging. While our parents warned us of the dangers of it, with each passing generation, we lowered the bar on taste in favor of the titillating messages mixed with cool beats and sounds. The danger of the risque messaging was too much to resist. Now, there is no messaging to decipher,...it is direct, in your face words, images and actions in the music that leaves nothing to interpretation. Lastly, video games which focused early on puzzles, journeys or sports games are now almost exclusively focused on violent war games or other violent themes mirroring some of the music genres mentioned earlier. Even the puzzle games and sports games are tainted with "cheats" or ways to get ahead without using your own intellect and learning capabilities. Our lust and appetite for violence, sex, and gore has now caught up with us. Look at our divorce rates. Look at violent crime rates. Look at our national record on education (via SAT scores). Look at church attendance. Look at tithing rates. Look at how we have gone backwards in race relations. We chose to let people sell it to us, we bought into it wholeheartedly and now it has BECOME us. We try to rationalize it by saying that it's only the crazy or mentally ill who actually "ACT" on the behaviors exhibited on the big screen, but the reality is that if you put dirt in a clean glass of water,...you now have a dirty glass of water no matter how much dirt you put in. You may not notice that it's in there because "it's just a little bit", but it's actually in there. it's in ALL of us. As Jesus said in defense of the woman who was caught fornicating and was about to be stoned, "who among us has committed NO sin?" We're all guilty of the situation we're in. However, if we want change,...let's stop pretending that the stuff we're buying,... the stuff we're allowing to be shown on the airwaves, the stuff we're supporting is good for our minds, bodies and spirits. I think stricter gun control is just one of many solutions we should consider. The bigger, more difficult conversation is about how to stop feeding ourselves the garbage on television, movies, video games and the like. Our willingness to watch, buy and consume CRAP has created a very lucrative industry of producing and feeding it to us. And now, we're paying the price for it.
Posted by: CavemanATLWhy do we need them
The populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia combined are approx. That of the U.S. We had 30,000 deaths by guns last year and they had 112. The difference is that they have stricter gun control laws. Why do we need guns? They are doing more harm than they are good. "People say protect yourself, buy a gun." If no one has a gun we have no one to protect ourselves from. Only military and police need guns. Go against guns and save a life.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns in the hand of private people kill more people then they protect
I am USA citizen originally from Germany. European countries have about 30 times less people killed by guns because access is restricted. I don't understand why this is an issue in this country. It is a no brainer to check every person who likes to get a gun very carefully before he can purchase one. No exceptions.Also automatic weapons do not belong into regular peoples hands.
Posted by: AnonymousUsing guns to protect children from guns is impractical
Some people state that by giving a staff member in a school a gun will help save students lives. But by putting guns in schools will cause too many safety issues. Schools already have a ridiculous amount of policies. Some schools prohibit students from taking their backpacks into classrooms because they create safety issues. Even if guns were kept in safes throughout the school they may not even be much of help. If a man were to go into a school with intention to kill as many people as they could and saw a teacher trying to open a safe to retrieve a firearm, he would not stand idly by allowing the teacher to retrieve the firearm. But who is to say that a teacher or a principle won't snap, all they would have to do is open up the safe and then they would be deadly. While at first keeping guns in schools may seem like a good idea, the more you consider it as a possibility more problems will arise. While I agree that it could have prevented many deaths it could have caused many more deaths. To the people saying that just because something is illegal it doesn't mean it will stop people from doing the illegal acts; by following this logic everything would be legal. Murder is illegal yet people still do it. Does that mean we should make it legal? While people may still break the laws they still will be punished for doing so. Another argument is that by restricting firearms the government would be infringing on our rights to bear arms. You still will carry the right to bear arms. Never in the second amendment does it say that you have the right to bear all arms. When I say the right to bear all arms I mean that just because you have the right to bear arms, you get to carry every weapon there is out there. If it endangers other peoples lives and their rights to safety your "right" to carry these dangerous weapons are not of utmost importance.
Posted by: PolkaLizardThere needs to be more security!
If we would only have tighter background checks and psych evaluations, then I believe that everything would be fine. While people do kill people, they often use weapons, such as guns, to commit the crime. I am not saying that guns should be illegal, I am saying that only people who pass their background checks and psych evaluations every year should be able to carry them. And for those who say that we are violating your 2nd Amendment rights, that was written back when the British were attacking us in our homes in 1776 during the Revolutionary War. Have British soldiers currently attacked you in your home? I didn't think so.
Posted by: AnonymousRob Peter to Pay Paul
Those who are mentally ill shouldn't be able to have fire arms. We all know this to be the case from the school shooting not to long ago. A person of normal mental health should not loose their 2nd amendment right however. This really is the fine line in the sand, to properly determine who's mentally disqualified to own/purchase a gun and who can. A computer and oral exam of some sort approved through your medical doctor would be the best route to determine whether a person is capable of owning the fire arm or not. Going in a different direction of laws setting is what should be considering. Criminals are people who disobey the law obviously and won't stop. So background checks should also be a factor as it is. There are alternative solutions to address problems of guns. The medical and background check will help.
Posted by: AnonymousTHE WORD FUV
"We are a nation which does not have more crime or more violence,” Hemenway said during a forum on gun violence held shortly after the Newtown shooting. “We are an average nation in terms of assault, robbery, and (non-firearms) homicides.” What distinguishes the U.S., he notes, is our rate of gun violence: “The United States has a very horrific gun problem … 85 people a day dying from guns from all sorts of injury … Compared to the other developed countries, we are just doing terribly.”
Below are a handful of particularly striking gun homicide stats, based on 2010 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Scroll over the charts below for additional information.Posted by: AnonymousThey were made to kill in the first place
People today can say they are responsible with the firearms that they carry sometimes, but that doesn't mean that they speak for everyone. This reminds me of a kid who used to go to my school, he would say he would be responsible with the glue and scissors, but the first thing he did was load the table with glue and launch the scissors across the room. Words are one thing, actions are another.
Posted by: AnonymousSince gun ownership has become easier and more common, death and injury by guns has increased, so it seems apparent that stricter gun laws would result in fewer gun-related deaths and injuries.
Americans have become afraid. They are afraid of the violence they see developing around them, and afraid that their "way of life" is being threatened by people they see as different from them. A large part of this fear is very likely media-driven. We only see the exception to the norm on television newscasts. We never see ordinary people doing ordinary things in fairly safe and secure neighborhoods, because this is not "news". When we see violence and people being killed on our streets on the news, we somehow begin to think that those aberrations are the norm. This makes us afraid. This makes us want to protect ourselves, our families, and our possessions. This makes us want to buy a gun, because it's the only thing we can think of to do. The media has also introduced us to a world filled with people who are in some way different from us. The only time the media exposes us to such people is when they are exhibiting some kind of violence, revolution, or terrorism. Never do we see them when they are doing the same ordinary things that "we" are doing every day. We buy a gun to protect ourselves from "them". Guns are not the answer, and we need tighter gun control.
Posted by: CI3IikeStricter Gun Control
Due to the rise of recent mass shootings in the United States murder has been on the rise and guns are what kills these innocent people. There has been a huge increase in the amount of mass shootings that have occurred in the United States and over 40% of households own a fire arm. Its simply too easy for an individual to walk around with a gun and its dangerous because you never know who is a psychopath just like Adam Lanza was.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy I think there should be gun control.
I believe that there are too many ways for people who are not supposed to have guns to get them. For example, we should stop the sale of guns at gun shows. Imagine how many criminals are young people who get guns from a careless gun show without anyone knowing. Also, I believe that people should have a limit to the amount of guns that they are allowed to have. One last thing is that if you have a gun, keep it locked up safe at home so that if someone were to break into your house they couldn't steal it.
Posted by: redroxy12345There needs to be stricter gun laws
I am not saying we need to get rid of guns but we need to at least do more background checks because there are a lot of places that sell guns without doing a background check. Also it would reduce suicide rates because firearms are the number one way of killing yourself because it is painless. For self defense, you could have at least a hand gun on you but not a semi-automatic hand gun.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, there should be stricter gun control because I hate seeing people dying in front of me.
People that have problems should be put behind bars. I'm saying that guns should be banned - it's for the best, as nowadays more and more kids are being killed by guns. What's the point of having guns if people are being morons and not being safe with them? I believe that if guns are banned, no more people will be killed.
Posted by: AnonymousYes we need to have gun control
We should have gun control because we're losing some people every day. As the days pass by our population is decreasing. Policemen should have a look out so they can punish the person who has done the shooting. The more careless we are the more people we shall loose. So let's put a stop to the shooting.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns need to be restricted!
Gun safety is very important. Making guns safer is a good thing, we don't want to take away your guns we want to make them safer. So we can decrease the number of deaths from guns. It's true not all deaths are from guns but a lot of them are. Guns need to be regulated so they are safer for everyone.
Posted by: AnonymousWe can do better, we can be safer, and we don't need to jump to extreme measures.
1 ----We definitely need tighter gun selling process, now anyone can buy a gun, without any problem, any background check... Craigslist will get you a gun, that's not right.
2---- We absolutely need an education on gun use, its unbelievable that someone who has no idea on how to use a gun can buy one.
3---- We need to support idea of a smart gun, with patience and funding this will definitely serve us well, make a huge difference, not mentioning the fact that if U.S. will be skeptical about smart guns like we are now, we will end up being behind on the market for it!
Just for the record I am a gun owner and do support the right to bear arms 100%, but we need to keep our guns as they should be kept in right hands (with caution and mindfulness).Posted by: AnonymousGun laws keep us safe
Look at the facts, the statistics. Many people die from shootings every year. I know that some of them maybe be mentally disabled or something but that just makes the argument stronger! Gun laws stop mental people from having guns. This is the fact that people have to face. We are really not safe enough.
Posted by: AnonymousPro Gun Control!
Let the black market have their guns! A lunatic will buy his gun legally and use it to kill! Also, other nations have banned firearms and they are safe-natured human beings. Forget about our nation and the 2nd amendment, if you want a firearm then you will need to go through rigorous background checks, be on file, and monitored!
Posted by: AnonymousLaughing at Us (U.S.)
Other countries are laughing at us because of our gun control. Do you ever hear about gun crime in European countries? Asian ones? Yes, we do have the right to bear arms but that doesn't mean you need ten assault rifles or 5 hand guns. Seriously, who needs that many? We should just eliminate guns as a whole and only cops etc., should have them. You are more likely to survive a burglary if the guy has a knife than a gun.
Posted by: Anonymous10 Shot magazine
Ive been reading a lot that they want to restrict the magazine capacities to 10 thinking that will make people feel better. Well thats 7 too many. I've hunted all my life for deer, elk, moose and my clips are three shells and thats just plenty. Enough said, if you want more than that than go join the army.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, we need it.
Yes, because people are getting out of control, and they need to know how to control how they use them correctly! If we put a stricter law out, people will be less crazy, and use it for protection, and hunting. We still should be able to own guns for the use of hunting and such, but we still need to know how to control ourselves when using them.
Posted by: AnonymousIf it would save lives than yes, we need better laws.
I personally think that you do not need an assault rifle to protect your family. I also don't buy the freedom thing. All the other countries have stricter laws and they are fine. It's true that guns don't kill people, but they are an effective way of doing so. It would be harder to go into a school and try to kill people with a knife or something than with a gun. I think that stricter laws have the potential to safe lives. And honestly that's all I care about.
Posted by: alexas7507Sharp Shooting
Not everyone should have an innate right to bear arms. I'm sorry but I know plenty of people who should never have a gun. As for protection, if you can't protect yourself or your family with a 6 shooter then you shouldn't own a gun in the first place. No the criminals don't have limitations, hence why they are called criminals. Criminals also rape and traffic drugs but those things are still illegal. Oh unless you think we have the right to those things as well?
Posted by: AnonymousStatistics say so.
There are roughly 300 million handguns, rifles and shotguns in the country. That’s about one gun for every American man, woman and child.
1 in 3 Americans knows someone who has been shot. In an average year about 100,000 Americans are killed or wounded by guns. Imagine the MCG on grand final day.
States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence
Gun control is not politically popular.
Out of 62 mass shootings between 1982-2012, 49 times the killer obtained the weapon legally.
15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.
With 28 in Sandy hook, 12 in Aurora, 6 in Arizona and 32 in Virginia, we lost 78 poor, innocent people with possible bright future, for absolutely no reason.
According to a research The Harvard Injury Control Research Center, more guns have lead more murders in the last few years.
AND YOU ARE TELLING ME GUNS ARE GOOD ???Posted by: AnonymousThat time when it worked.
What if we could get gun control to work like that time it did: in Australia. 1996. We had gun control after a mass shooting (in the past 13 years we had 18 mass shootings) and we have not had a gun massacre since. Also gun homicide has gone dow overall by factors of 81-82% and suicide with guns has gone down overall by 98%. Crime in general is also slashed in half. There are Australians alive today because of the actions we took 17 years ago. And all this was enacted in a little over 2 or 3 months. So DO NOT tell me that gun control does not work. We have gun control which was enacted by our "Republicans" that is 100x stricter than what your background checks are. Background checks will not impinge your rights if you have not done anything wrong: they are designed so that people who should not be allowed access to a gun do not have access to a gun.
Posted by: Anonymousyes there needs to be stricter laws
like we seen on cnn news the morning of 12/15/10 there was a shootig a guy who didnt have a criminal record, we need to make it more difficult for a person to have a gun. Pople's lives are put in danger every day do to a gun. Stricter gun laws will cut down on death rates in bigger cities.
Posted by: AnonymousBearing arms what does it really mean?
More background checks need to be in place. You have to be licensed to drive a car and yet 100s of 1000s die every year in car accidents. How is owning a gun any different? It is a privilege to drive not a right. If you say the second amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms that it is taken out of context when that statement was written. When it was written we had just seceded from England. So who do you think the right to bear arms was for ,the Americans or the English who we would be shortly at war with? You wouldn't go around killing your neighbors because they are the ones that were going to be helping you to fight the English. I will protect the constitution against ENEMIES foreign and domestic not your next door NEIGHBOR or the man that lives down the street, BUT ENEMIES that try to desecrate the sacredness of the constitution. Even though you may not like your next door neighbor if he is not trying to desecrate the constitution you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. END OF STORY AND NO DEBATE ABOUT IT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ARMS.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople are dying because of owning guns, we should restrict owning of guns to police services, jobs requiring a gun, and to the military.
We need to stop giving standard civilians who don't need guns the right to have a gun, because there have been lots of shootings going on right now, and many people are getting shot causing severe injury, or death. For example, in Connecticut, there was recently a shooting in a school that killed lots of civilians, which came from people who had absolutely no need to be owning guns.
Posted by: MosheHDrawing the line
As an observer of this debate in the US from overseas, I would like to offer a less (I hope) partisan contribution to the mix. I see interesting parallels here with the abortion debate. Regardless of which side of that argument you support, I think most would agree that the debate stokes up immense passions on both sides - even hatred and violence, at times. But where the gun control debate differs, I think, is that both sides are essentially arguing for a particular point on a sliding scale, not a "for or against" argument like abortion. An interesting question to ask vocal contributors from both sides is: 'what is the most powerful weapon that a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to purchase and keep at home?'. That forces people to show their true colours - opponents might even find common ground. I, for example, cannot see a logical reason why anyone would need a rifle with more than a few rounds in it, particularly a semi-auto. But would anyone on the gun lobby side be brave enough to say where they draw the line? Should you be allowed to buy a 23mm ZSU anti-aircraft cannon? If not, why not? What is your test for what should be allowed?
Posted by: AnonymousBackground checks need to be better.
Do more background checks on people instead of giving the a paper test and saying you can have a permit to have a gun. No you need to check medical backgrounds, see if they have any crimes that they committed. That's what needs to happen. I'm not saying guns are bad to have but there definitely needs to be better background checks.
Posted by: AnonymousA compromise is needed
It seems to me that most people are either pro-huge gun restrictions or pro-no gun restrictions. People deserve to have guns. But children deserve to be safe at school. Guns need to be limited, but not banned. Why does the average citizen need any kind of assault weapon? A handgun would be more than sufficiently enough to defend your family and home. Also, the argument that the 'bad' guys will get guns, regardless of the law, is NOT true. This is merely a lazy government approach that is content to sit back and accept the fact that the 'bad' guys will get guns. We can prevent at least some of the bad guys from getting guns by tightening gun control laws. It is a fact that states with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. This shows how stricter gun laws CAN make a difference. I agree that some 'bad' guys will still obtain assault weapons. However, even if tighter gun laws only stop 1 massacre from happening, isn't it worth it? Imagine if those children in the Connecticut shooting could have been saved. If tighter gun control laws could save at least 1 life, they should be created, passed through Congress, and enforced.
Posted by: thejew121396Stricter gun laws
We should have stricter gun laws. You should realize that there were many more deaths in the U.S. that doesn't have strict gun laws, compared to deaths in other countries with stricter gun laws, such as Germany. Many of you know about the Sandy Hook elementary school. If we we stricter gun laws, then we could prevent many incidents like this.
Posted by: 7heaneylThese laws would save many lives.
Having gun control laws would prevent many mass shootings, decrease suicide rates, and avoid accidental shootings. Did you know that in most of the mass shootings in the US the gunman had legal ownership of the gun? I think that people should have background checks before owning a gun and no mentally unstable person should be able to own any type of weapon.
Posted by: AnonymousThe bill of rights also grants the freedom to worship freely, but human sacrifices are usually look down upon.
When the founding fathers so brilliantly created a declaration of rights I am certain that they did not expect evil people to do such horrible things as they do today. We are not trying to take away you recreational and defense guns, we are trying to keep military grade killing machines out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Posted by: JoeDraperMental illness and guns do not go together.
It's not that the gun laws aren't working; they need to be modified. People who are mentally ill have access to guns. Since they are mentally ill or socially bullied that is what is causing them to act like lunatics. James Holmes and the guy at Sandy Hook were mentally ill. The kid at VA Tech was also, in addition to being socially harassed. We don't need more gun laws We just need to enforce the ones we have better and change them a little bit.
Posted by: AnonymousOutdated second amendment
Less guns equals less gun violence. We are a nation with an absurd obsessive gun culture. How many guns do you have to have to protect yourself? Why can't people just limit themselves to one or two firearms and limited ammo. The bigger the arsenal the more likely some will end up on the wrong hands.
Posted by: AnonymousI believe there needs to be stricter laws for gun control because crime is still rising.
In order to fight all the gun violence, there needs to be stricter laws on gun control. Guns are extremely dangerous in the hands of criminals. The easier it is to obtain guns, the more violence that will result.
Posted by: EImerN4thBecause it saves lives!
Places with gun control already have lower death rate than in places without gun control. Police in big cities NEED guns because of civilians having them. Plus why does a citizen that is not in any type of force need to own an assault rifle or an automatic? If we even had just deeper and better back round checks it would be much better.
Posted by: AnonymousYes there should.
I've been on both sides of the argument. I understand that we have guns for entertainment and amusement, but then I see how having more guns off the street will make things better. I'm not saying ban them for good, just having a background check and a co-signer would make things a little better.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, there needs to be stricter laws for gun control.
The United States is one of the few places in the world where it is simple to get your hands on a gun. In some ways, this is good. But, considering the amount of gun violence that we have today, especially among children, maybe guns should be tougher to obtain and maintain.
Posted by: SuccinctDerek96guns don't kill people, people kill people. guns are just the weapon they use.
I think that this subject really has 2 sides to it, because although (in the past year) there have been numerous accounts of guns being the cause and effect of violence (such as the sandy hook shooting in new town) the fact is that if there are laws passed for stricter gun control that isn't going to stop violence and killings from happening. All that is going to do is make the GUN violence go down, but there are other types of things that can be used to kill people. The truth is is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by: AnonymousI say yes.
A recent study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns indicates that the marketplace for illegal guns is strongest in the states with the weakest gun laws: The report tracked the sources of guns used in violent crimes and found that they tend to come from states with comparatively weak gun regulation.
Posted by: AnonymousMassacres are on the rise
Over the past year violent shooting rampages are becoming more and more of a regular occurrence, look at the Connecticut school shooting and then only a few weeks later a shooting at a daycare then again on a school bus where the driver was shot when he refused to hand a child over, then today in New Orleans a shooting rampage at the Mother's Day parade, even right after the Boston bombing?. At least impose mental health checks for people who are purchasing firearms and start cracking down on illegal possession, people are dying!, Look at the stats in. The U.S alone more than 35,000 people are killed each year.
Posted by: AnonymousForefathers intentions were...
Our forefathers did not intend for people to take guns to elementary schools and gun down children. I'm not saying get rid of guns. I'm saying, do we, us supposedly peaceful civilians, really need military assault rifles? You do not need an AK 47 to shoot a deer unless you want it full of holes. I think that specific guns should be banned in urban and/or densely populated areas. Want to protect yourself, fine, do you need to be Rambo doing so? It's not fair that we have to resort to gun control because of a few bad eggs. Unfortunately, we learn best by what hurts us, not by what helps us. This is such a hard topic for debate because I think both sides are right, and wrong. We need to find the middle ground.
Posted by: s7rules117Yes! Stricter Laws need to be in place to ban guns. Today People care more about themselves than their neighbors.
We live in a world today where people do not care and support their neighbors. Just because you have the right to do or say something, does it give you the right to do or say it. What about LOVING thy neighbor as thyself.
Stricter gun laws should be in place to protect innocent people. There is no reason for anyone to have automatic guns that shoot more that one or two rounds at one time. There is no reason for eight and ten year old children to be shot down in school by a crazy person. ANYONE desiring to purchase guns should undergo background checks. Furthermore, when a person purchase a gun or guns they should have a profile attached with them that would include a photo, date of purchase, type of gun purchase, the city and state, the name of the store and any other identifying information.
Why should innocent people be killed as a result of a crazy person that is not responsible?
Yes! Every measure that can be taken or every law that can be put in place should be to make sure irresponsible people do not have access to guns. We have had far too many killings in our country were people are suppose to love and respect each other. What has happened to us?Posted by: AnonymousThis is ridiculous
Ok, so my neighbor who has always been a little weird but always on the up and up starts to get a little weirder, she has a mental illness that she has kept to herself is able to walk into Dick's and buy a semi automatic rifle? She has no criminal history, the government certainly can't know what's going on in her head from a background search, and she can buy a semi automatic weapon. This is the part I find disgusting. There is no reason for a person who is not in law enforcement to own a gun of this caliber. To be honest, I had no idea they were available for purchase as an individual. For that matter, we should all just carry a hand grenade in our purses so we can better protect ourselves.
I have no problem with handguns, and have never taken issue with people who own guns, my husband is contemplating getting one himself. My issue is with the specific caliber of weapon.
I understand that a large majority of gun owners handle them appropriately and safely and are responsible with them, but in the CT killings, we are not talking about some kid who got this gun illegally, he got it from his mother who had it legally. Her background check did not turn up his issues. She never should have been able to have that weapon in her home. While I agree that if someone really wants a gun like this, they will find a way to get one, I see no reason to make it easy on them by walking into a local sporting goods store or gun shop.
As for teachers being armed? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I don't want a gun in my daughters kindergarten class. I know her teacher and quite frankly, it would scare the crap out of me if I thought I had to worry about her having a gun anywhere around my daughter for any reason. You give people access to a weapon in a moment of weakness and we all know what can happen. Imagine those headlines.Posted by: AnonymousWhy does having guns support peace?
Now just from opening up a history book one could see that recently The United States and the former Soviet Union were locked in a battle known as the Cold war. This was not a war that had battles or sustained losses on either side (on the record) but this was a war of stock piling, a war of seeing who could have the bigger gun or the biggest nuke. I do not support taking away the second amendment and I also see that other things besides guns do cause great harm in other ways.But the case remains the same, keeping bigger guns in the house only will make the criminals bring in bigger guns. People, we are in an arms race. The time to say cars kill more people, or knives kill more people is behind us. It is time to notice the flaws in our system and demand stricter gun control, not because its what we all want, but because we have seen the path that this is heading too. Stricter gun control is not taking away guns its giving us a chance for peace
Posted by: AnonymousGuns, guns and more guns.
Gun laws will not make you safer.
Look at Washington DC and Chicago: both imposed strict gun laws and crime skyrocketed. Criminals will always get guns. If you make it harder for the law abiding citizens to get guns, you leave them defenseless. America was founded on freedom and liberty. I'm against any law that takes those away. I don't really live closed to a police station. Do I not have a right to protect my family? Does my wife not have the right to protect herself when I'm not home? The liberals have invented the term "assault weapons" to scared people. All semi-automatic firearms work the same: pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out. Some just look scarier then others. Sadly, we will never be able to stop mass killing. Guns are only one of the many different things criminals use. Drunk drivers kill far more people then firearms, but we don't try to ban cars or alcohol.Posted by: AnonymousGUN CONTROL NOW!!
I would like to convey my most heartfelt, deepest condolences to all the victims and prayers to the families in Connecticut. I am just speechless and sick to my stomach about this senseless crime. Having said that, “guns don't kill people; people kill people“ is the stupidest argument there is. I think, stupid people with guns kill people and there should be strong gun laws in the US!!
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't protect you from other guns.
People say that they need guns for protection. Guns can protect you in certain situations, sure. But, if a person comes into your house with gun pointed at you, how's a gun going to protect you? Most criminals will not come unarmed when they want to hurt you. They point a gun at you, guns don't protect you, bulletproof vests do.
Posted by: AnonymousFormer classmates: Teen double-murder suspect was 'nicest kid' http://www.wfaa.com/news/Parker-County-teen-charged-with-killing-mother-sister-172664431.html#
I have seen two news stories about innocent people getting killed for no reason. I am sure there were more before that. So yes I am for stricter laws for gun control in the U.S. People who lose it mentally like this need help. It's obvious that people cannot be cautious in any given case with a fire arm.
Posted by: Support-LifeGun laws need to be stricter
So many people have died because of guns and that needs to stop. The United States is a country that is very violent. You never hear of any other countries that have shootings in first grade classes. The government needs to do what's best for its country and making it harder to own a gun can save peoples lives.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, we need better gun controls.
Lots of innocent people (including children) are losing their lives because of the ownership of guns. There is a high number of people killed in the US every year, compared to countries where people aren't allowed to own a gun. The killing innocent people is just wrong. This is why people use guns for more than just protection. For example, they use it for threats and killing innocent people.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, because there is too much violence in the U.S.
Look at the statistics. If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 30,000 gun deaths last year, they had 112. The difference between them and us is not that Americans are more violent by nature. It is because they have stricter gun control laws.
Posted by: AnonymousThis is ridiculous
How many more shootings have to happen before we make our gun laws stricter? People are stupid to think they need guns to protect themselves. Because if someone has an armed gun to protect themselves, this means the people who assault people and people in the wrong state of mind have an armed gun. Especially when they are so easy to access.
Posted by: AnonymousYes there should be.
I'm not saying they should completely get ride of guns, just to simply get ride of the machine guns that have the potential to kill so many people. You should also have to own a licence for example if you use guns for hunting or if you want a handgun for protection but there is no reason for there to be automatic machine guns for sale. You don't need them for protection and there is no sport where you use them. What is the point of them?
Posted by: BKG3Have testing done to detect mental illness
Looking back at 2012 reminds me of the mass killings that took place with the use of guns. In almost all cases the person who caused such harm had either a history of mental illness or anger issues. Why let such a great responsibility of owning a gun be easily handed over to someone that cant make rational and good decisions? My idea is to have required testing done on people wanting to own a gun, it would detect any problems someone may have, even if they don't know it them selves. This protects the people around them and themselves from harm.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns kill people!
It seems so easy for anyone can buy a gun. So many more crazy people buy them and kill innocent people in seconds. Also, people who are tired of being bullied at school or even work can bring a gun and cause mass anarchy. I think it would be safer for everyone if there was better gun control.
Posted by: AnonymousHow is this even a debate
Guns have the ability to take someone's life. It's true many people who do own a gun wouldn't ever consider using it to be harmful in any way. But what happens when this dangerous weapon is put into the wrong hands? It's giving tremendous power to these people to kill countless of lives. I can't even begin to understand how someone could even justify that.
Posted by: AnonymousI think that there should be a stricter law about gun control.
In my opinion I believe that with gun control we can all be safe in our schools and in our every day lives. I am not trying to say to take guns away or anything, I am just saying people who are not responsible with guns and don't know how to control it shouldn't have guns. I just think that it would be better and safer if we had gun control and that's just my opinion.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, but don't make it entirely illegal.
Just because we want to increase gun control does not mean that you are going to lose the right to have a gun. Why do we need things such as armor piercing bullets or 100 round clips to protect ourselves? If we are able to take things like those off the market, think how much harder it would be for crazy people trying to commit terrible crimes so easily.
Posted by: AnonymousFor good gun control, there should be stricter laws.
You don't want to give up your guns. I understand that. Guns are fun. I go to the shooting range myself once in a while. But the price of loose gun restriction laws is too high. Any lunatic with psycological problems can get a full-automatic rifle in this country, and if someone wants to go postal all he needs is a few hundred dollars and the adress of an arms dealer. That ain't right. No one is talking about us having to give up all of our guns. There are just a few restrictons. I think if I had to chose, I would rather give up my Walther P99 than having to fear for the life of my children everyday tht I drop them off at our local public school.
Posted by: HansGunterWe need better gun controls.
We need better gun law controls because there are way too many shootings and deaths! Too many lives have been taken because of guns, bullets, etc. We also need to have the death penalty in Australia for the shooters of these murders. So yes, WE NEED BETTER GUN CONTROLS INDEED.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, because we need restrictions and boundaries.
Look at just about everything else that holds the potential to do harm to large numbers of people and is a privilege to be able to do. Are there strict rules and requirements and boundaries? Yes! That goes for any form of transportation all having very specifically training for (by the way) Why and how we let something like guns and the different types and the rules and regulations and following of something so dangerous and certainly extremely dangerous in the wrong hands, get so out of control is beyond something I will ever understand! WE do not let people race on the streets with cars that are so fast they have no place on common highways. Pilots can't just fly wherever they want with their planes. There must be restrictions on certain guns and magazines. This is out of control. If all families on this planet were FORCED to feel the loss that these poor innocent families have felt, I have to believe that most would change their mind.
Posted by: AnonymousTimes have changed.
When the constitution was written in 1787, everything was much different. There weren't mass shootings and tragedies like there are now. The gun control debate has mildly gone on for a long time, and the main fight is whether or not gun laws are protected under the 2nd Amendment. The sad part is it took such an awful tragedy to take place to open peoples eyes: the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. There need to be a bit stricter gun laws because of mass shootings like that. I believe that if there are stricter gun laws, a lot more lives would be saved. God created everyone to live long, fulfilling lives, and no one deserves for them to be cut short.
Posted by: AnonymousToo many mass shootings; too many insane people bearing arms.
Why do we have to own a weapon to protect ourselves or even to feel safe?! Hello, alarm security or baseball bats work as well. (not kidding) Guns easily change dynamics of violence. When someone has a gun, they won't react to a situation the same way they would if they didn't have a gun. They are given an option they are not suppose to have! And what about mental people who shot just because they WANTED to?! At least gun sellers should check the buyer's criminal record or something. The RNA clearly gives the right to take lives away just because some people feel weak or constantly in danger.
Posted by: AnonymousWe need more strict gun laws.
I am not saying take the guns away, I'm just saying make it harder to attain a gun. I mean take away the fully automatic feature of guns and make it to where only certain people who are mentally safe, and cleared a gun safety class and are above the age of 21 can buy any gun and ammo. By the way I am 17. That is my view. Just saying.
Posted by: AnonymousIt will save lives.
I say yes because everybody deserves to have a life and you only get one. So therefore it should be a stricter law for guns. Now a days everybody has a gun even the children and they're using it to take their anger out on innocent people and that's just not right or fair to others!
Posted by: AnonymousYes, guns can be purchased too easily and by anyone.
Gun control laws are not strict enough if anyone can purchase guns. There need to be laws that provide strict guidelines on who is able to buy guns, including those with psychological issues. Children and adults of the wrong kind are purchasing guns and are abusing the right to carry. If there are more qualifications for purchasing guns there would be fewer on the street. There is the illegal side, but that is another story.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are our cultural obsession, and we need to stop that obsession.
We need to create a society that does not need to rely on firearms to protect itself. This, however, is not an easy process. The first step along this long and winding road is government action. If laws were made that decreased the number of gun sales, and whether this initially would be for all or just certain sections is a point for later discussion, but if we were to stop Internet sites such as 'guns-r-us,' our firearm obsessed culture would start to dwindle. The process will not be easy but it must start one day, and why not make that day today?
Posted by: MJHS1234People need to see that it's different now.
Since the affects of what happened at Newtown a nimiety of people have opened their eyes to the issue of gun control. The thing is guns have been an issue since the inception of this nation causing for us to lose a worthy president,Alexander Hamilton, and later killing president such as Lincoln, and Kennedy. At the time the Constitution was ratified in 1778 guns weren't as effective as they are now. Guns need to be reduced to but at the same time we the people should be able to defend ourselves if the government were to become toxic.
Posted by: AnonymousTeens & school
I am thirteen, and I know that kids are brutal towards each other. I am not looking forward to the day a kid smuggles in a gun, and either someone starts showing it off, or a bully gets shot. I feel like one of the only intelligent, proper-speaking, "non-ghettofied" children at my school. These kids will go to extremes to prove their dominance, like wolves and lions. Where I live is not as ghetto as television stereotypes show, but their attitudes are just as bad.
Posted by: AnonymousI am a Republican who thinks gun laws should be stricter.
I believe this because, to me, it only makes sense that to make everyone happy, we need to have guns, but we need to control how easy it is to get them. I believe that there should be some test of mental state, that could be taken wherever you apply for a license to buy a firearm. Anyone who is in a stable mental state, and has taken a gun safety class, should be able to buy a gun to protect themselves and their family.
Posted by: skywayavnueSchool shootings are deadly
There should be stricter laws, because look at Columbine years back. There was nothing exactly wrong except he was being bullied, which you should tell an adult about, and it was a gun that was used. In Newtown, 20 children were killed because of guns and the user not getting a good background check. Finally, look at Aurora, I believe 29 people died because of a guy with a gun in a movie theater and it was semi-automatic which is a military grade weapon. Now I'm not anti gun, because I believe we should have pistols but no assault rifles, shotguns, or possibly even hunting rifles which I'm on the fence about.
Posted by: AnonymousDoes anyone have a heart.
Look at Sandy Hook, innocent children had to die because of a mentally ill person. Adam Lanza was more armed than the task force. Also gangs have too many guns. In Chicago, little 5 yr olds and other people are afraid to walk outside of their houses because they might die in a split second. Money is the root of all evil. After one massacre, it should have told Congress to change the gun laws, but after 15 massacres, the government still has not gotten it through there thick skulls. People should have a small hand gun, not semi-automatics and M16"s. Actually, gun;s should have never been created, there are others ways to solve problems other than using guns.
Posted by: AnonymousBecause of the Innocent lives that had to die early.
Have you ever taken consideration in those innocent people that died? Ever thought about those lives that had nothing to do with anything but still lost their time on earth? Think about that and THEN you can yell at me about what you think. But until then ask yourself if you would want to be one of those people, if you died because a jerk felt like doing it for fun. Think about it
Posted by: jadenj8Yes to stricter gun control.
People say they have to right to own these firearms, if that's the case what about the right of the innocent people who have passed due to the violence and deaths faced by society today? Control act will ensure firearms are kept out of reach of these minors. The chances of your gun being stolen and used for criminal acts cannot be ruled out. Those who are for gun control feel that regulation of ownership of guns will attend to this problem as well.
A large number of people commit suicide using firearms, especially when they are subjected to severe mental trauma, and gun control can ensure that anybody with such medical history doesn't get to own guns or use them. At the end of the day guns which are already dangerous become even more dangerous when they go into the wrong hands, and this is what gun control seeks to curb.
As in the case of people in favor, people who are against this act are also armed with arguments supporting their stand on this issue. Those who oppose gun control argue that such restrictions will only pressurize the law abiding citizens, and not the criminals.Posted by: AllisonRGun laws should be restricted
They should be stricter. They need to strengthen due to the current events such as the shootings in Connecticut. It is not the 1800's. Back then it was necessary to own a gun. Why? Because there were wars that were being fought right outside of your door. Nowadays, no, why do we need guns? What we need is protection for the children not only in the USA but every other country as well.
Posted by: AnonymousNot everyone is fit to own firearms
I'm not saying that we should take the weapons away entirely, like most of these people who disagree think, but I think that to buy firearms, the buyer must be put through rigorous background checks and mental stability tests. Also, I think that there should be a limit to how many guns you can have in one house according to the amount of qualified, consenting adults in the house.
Posted by: AnonymousGun help kill people
Guns are dangerous and you do have the right to bear them, but not every type. You can have a pump action shotgun and a six shooter for home defense and a bolt action rifle for hunting. People kill people, but guns make it easier. This is coming from a scared thirteen year old who wants safety for our people.
Posted by: AnonymousStrict gun control laws don't take away rights
Because of all the mass shootings that have happened in the past few years, gun control needs to be stricter. If it doesn't become stricter, crime rates involving guns, suicide rates, and mass shootings will continue happening. By strengthening gun control laws, we will, as a nation, not take away the second amendment. Strengthening gun control laws will not take away any guns, it will just make them more difficult to obtain which is harder for criminals. The new gun control laws will only tighten background checks which is necessary.
Posted by: AnonymousIn shallow terms, lets give it a chance
The strongest defense the gun lobby holds is the fact that stricter firearm restrictions "wont stop criminals." Yet if this background check bill passes the Senate maybe we'll be able to stop these paranoid-schizophrenics TO SOME EXTENT. And I always say TO SOME EXTENT because violence is unavoidable. There will still be criminals. Gun control wont have us all holding hands singing kumbaya, I know. But sitting back and seeing the sloppy ways young shooters obtain their firearms wont do anything now will it?
Posted by: AnonymousLoonies Kill People
Agreed. People kill other people, not guns. Loony people kill other people. So have background checks to help prevent nuts from getting guns. This may stop a lot of loonies. Unfortunately, the NRA is against this, probably because it is backed by gun manufacturers. I support background checks. So did Wayne LaPierre until he backtracked.
Posted by: AnonymousGun Control Needs to be Tightened.
Gun control is an important idea. This will help lessen the amount of death caused by guns. The opposing side's argument is that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. This argument is entirely idiotic. Sometimes, even good guys can spiral out of control at times, making it impossible to determine who would be the "good guy" with a gun. This is why this argument is completely irrelevant. So support tighter gun control and help lessen the amount of deaths caused by guns.
Posted by: AnonymousGun laws should be stricter
Many people say that guns used in crimes stolen from houses, if those houses never had guns, then nothing would be stolen, and those guns would never be used. I deem it as ridiculous to say that, if there were no guns, then no one would die from such shootings, there would be no repeat of the disastrous Sandy Hook incident.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Explanation Guy
Help keeps tab on who own a gun. So that no one can just go into a store and buy a random gun at will. There needs to be background checks and they need to posses a valid Id and a gun owners id as well before purchasing a weapon.
Posted by: AnonymousToo many mass shootings
I believe that people who have mentally ill people living with them should not be allowed to have weapons. In every mass shooting the weapons are stolen from a relative or a friend. If we can save one life at a time we will have become a better society.
Posted by: AnonymousAn American Elegy
From Columbine to Sandy Hook, to a theater in Colorado, guns and gun control have once again become a prevalent argument in American society. As the country begins to tackle this issue many are eager to share their views, stories, personal beliefs, every little detail that could turn someone's belief to their own. In my opinion, I do have the second amendment right to bear arms, nonetheless, I also have the duty to have background checks done on myself before I were to buy said gun. With that, what guns I can and cannot buy should be monitored too, I should not, as a normal citizen, be allowed to buy semi-automatic and automatic rifles that our military uses. Guns can be used to protect, but on the same note they can be used to harm and kill others which is why I believe there should be stricter laws on such a dangerous object.
Posted by: musicallynoelFun or None?
Many people say that we should have guns for hunting and other fun things. Would you rather go hunting and get shot, or not go hunting and have more time to live? I am not saying you always get killed with a gun, but it is likely. Let's get together and HAVE STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS!
Posted by: AnonymousLegally without a background check?
At a gun show a criminal could simply walk in and order the gun of his choice without a background check and walk out with that gun. How is that safe? Anyone purchasing a firearm should have to have a thorough background check, to prevent mass murders just released from prison from buying an assault rifle.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns Kill people
Why wait for more tragedies to occur when we can prevent them by having stricter gun control laws. Guns are way more dangerous than knives. You can't kill 5 people in a room with a knife in less than 3 minutes. Unlike guns you can kill people in under than 5 minutes. One man can take over a room full of people with a gun.
Posted by: AnonymousHow many killings has there been since gun laws are low?
There has been 30,000 killings since last year because of the gun control law. There has also been many crazy shootings in the United States most die because of guns. The law should be more strict so that anyone cannot buy a gun. More gun control is better than less gun control.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people, people kill people?
Right, an insane person that wants to kills someone will do it even with a knife, hammer or whatever he finds at home, but giving him a gun is giving him more options and making it easier for him to kill someone or even commit suicide. Giving someone a gun is giving him/her the "answer"
Posted by: AnonymousWhy do people need guns???
People do not need guns unless they are in the military or they are police officers. There simply is no need for other people to have them and we are all suffering because of it. People are dying every day because of stupid people with guns, if no one has guns then less people will die by guns.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are powerful.
Gun owners need to be responsible. They need to be proud of the responsibility they have. To pass a couple of checks is not invasive upon your privacy. A background check is more about who you are not than who you are. A background check doesnt care about your race, age, address, political party, etc. A background check only cares that you are not insane or a criminal. That is all. Part of being a responsible gun owner is to *provide peace of mind to the others around you.* They need to know that you have a legally obtained weapon and that in order to do so you had to pass a simple background check.
Posted by: processIf there are no guns available, then we can't shoot each other.
Enough said...Obama I hope you get your policy through, you are a true warrior for the minority and you have proven to be one of the better presidents for America, unfortunately your opponents seem to have a lot of power behind them..May God give you strength to get the job done.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy do you need it?
If you want to defend yourself, then don't get a gun. Just don't let them get a gun, in Canada people manage just fine! Just make it so guns have to be kept in a locked closet so they won't be able to use the gun illegally, it might save a life.
Posted by: AnonymousIf you can't ban 'em, tax 'em heavily.
Just like taxes on cigarettes, we should impose heavier taxes on licenced guns once every year. We won't want poorer people to own more guns illegally because they have higher tendencies to rob someone for survival than for personal protecction with certainty! All licenced gun owners will provide his or her name and badge number upon request by the law officers.
Posted by: AnonymousEND THE MADNESS
This is absolutely ridiculous. The US is fifth in number of gun homicides. Does that tell you something? People who own guns leave them way too accessible. Adam Lanza used one of his MOMS legally owned guns in the Sandy Hook shooting. If you own a gun in your house, it is twelve times more likely to be used on family members than it would be to use it on an intruder or for sport
Posted by: Akshay2012There's a difference between gun control and gun ban.
Do you support criminal background checks for potential gun-buyers? If yes, you also support gun control. If no, please consult a psychiatrist. At the time the second amendment was created, guns were a totally different thing. Guns took half an hour to reload a single bullet. Times change, so should the laws. I love the constitution, but I love the lives of innocent 6-year-olds just a teeny bit more.
Posted by: Anonymous"Do something before our tragedy becomes your tragedy." -Nicole Hockley
With stricter gun control there would be fewer deaths and tragedies. We would make a difference to make our world a better place for not only ourselves but for everyone. If you want to protect your children, if you want to avoid this loss, you will turn away from this vote. -Mariah Ortiz & Rose Fitzgerald
Posted by: Anonymousall those innocent children
Dying, all you have to do is look in the news, the statistics, it's not just people trying to get stricter gun laws, people are dying, there have been NINE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS already, just this year, and it's not simply because of violent video games, movies, and as some claim, Marilyn Manson, we have those in other countries, not just america, children are dying! I don't know about you, but I want to do something about that! If YOU can make a difference, and yet you choose not to, well, really, you are as guilty as the gunman, you really are, your most effective weapon in fixing the abhorrent problem is your voice. Choosing not to make yourself heard, makes YOU A KILLER!
Posted by: awesome_oneI own many guns
This is not an argument for taking away guns from those who have them, or preventing others from obtaining them legally so stop assuming that. It is an argument for stricter laws that gun sellers should be following combined with better enforcement policies as well as a means of accountability.
Posted by: AnonymousThere needs to be harsher gun laws!
Even though the criminals will still find out ways to get guns, random shooting and deaths would not be made. Also, there is really no reason to carry around a gun unless its for safety. Only people who are trying to protect us like police and military officers should have guns!
Posted by: AnonymousCommon sense please
I have never felt the need to get a gun or carry a knife to feel safe in the UK, giving everyone guns just makes everyone afraid of getting shot so they get a gun to compensate, which makes Gun manufacturers millions each year by spreading fear so everyone buys their products.
So many Americans are brainwashed into believing that to be safe they need a gun, by buying guns you allow EVERYONE to have a gun including criminals who use them for crime.
Id rather live in a country where a criminal has to engage me in hand to hand combat if he wants to kill me rather than giving him a ranged advantage on someone like me who doesn't feel the need to carry a gun around a public place.Posted by: AnonymousGuns kill
This country needs to change and we can start by banning automatic weapons? Next limit the number of guns manufactured and before you can purchase a gun you have to show what you need a gun for.
Politicians and the NRA have turned this country into a violent, militant American. How's that working for you? Did it make a better country for our children or a place where they live in fear that they could be murdered at their school. Look into the eyes of a child and explain to him or her, that their right to live in a safe world is not as important as a person's right to carry a gun.
We must stand up for what's right and what's best for all children. Turn in your guns to the local police stations, demand a ban on all automatic weapons, do not allow anyone to carry concealed weapons and in order to buy a gun you must have a valid reason on why you need one.Posted by: AnonymousBackground checks for guns are too weak.
The director of Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research explained how this weakening of the background check system led to a doubling of the share of illegally trafficked guns recovered by Missouri police agencies. This flood of guns into our state can explain why we have seen a 34 percent increase in violent crime while overall Midwestern rates declined by 5 percent and national rates declined by 10 percent. Simply put, weak laws have led to more guns in our neighborhoods, and more gun violence in our communities. From www.Stltoday.Com
Posted by: AnonymousIt would be Better
People all over the world have killed many. Lets face it. The Conneticut insident, the theater shooting, and many more not so bad but still heart breaking to the family of that person that got shot and died or mortally wounded. This is a message to the government: We need better gun control. Thanks You.
Posted by: Gymnast1224Yes there should be stricter laws for gun control.
There should be stricter gun laws to minimize the amount of casualties. This will also make more penalties for being tried for a gun related crime. Who knows, maybe this will eat away at large gangs or maybe just increase violence but one thing is for sure if we don't try, we wont know.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy do people hunt anyway?
Lots of people are debating for less gun control because of hunting. I don't see why people enjoy murdering innocent animals anyway! Millions of cute little bunny rabbits and deer lose their lives to hunters every year. And how could you kill Bambi!!! That's just not right, people. Not right.
Posted by: AnonymousIT IS DANGER
IT IS DANGEROUS FOR EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET! Nobody deserves to be murdered and furthermore, nobody NEEDS a gun. It is a terrible thing to have people just eliminated by the force of guns. Doesn't anybody care about Sandy Hook or all of those other terrible things that have happened in the past?
Posted by: AnonymousShootings shouldn't happen.
If we take away guns then things like Columbine wouldn't have happened, neither would have Sandy Hook in Connecticut. If we did not have guns then the shooting in century 16 in Aurora Colorado would not have happened either. We clearly need more strict gun laws because of this evidence.
Posted by: AnonymousHow any more have to die?
If we could save just one person by having stricter gun laws wouldn't it be worth it? If there is one thing we could do to save a life do we not have a responsibility to do so? Something that people don't seem to understand is that stricter gun laws don't take away guns you already have; it takes away assault rifles from stores and also makes the process purchase a gun a little harder.
Posted by: AnonymousIf guns are banned there will be less crime.
Okay. Sure, you can use guns for protection. Are you really planning to kill anyone? First of all if you only use guns for "protection", what's the use of having police officers, FBI , army, military, security systems, and other home weapons?. Admit it, some think they're strong/brave enough to kill anyone off with just a single gun that you can buy from a gun store illegally. The top priority of this country is to protect the people, how can we protect them if we use our own protection to kill the people in our country itself?. Come on, its just common sense. Think twice. It's just gun control, we're not banning every single one of them unless you are legally documented to have it and its in a safe place where you're the only one who knows where its hidden.
Posted by: AnonymousGun control prevents American deaths
If there were more gun control laws, guns wouldn't end up in the hands of bad people. There would be less death in America. There is a very high percentage of gun deaths in America, most of which are from the assault rifles. I think they should once again be banned.
Posted by: AnonymousYes there should be more gun control laws.
People are getting shot every day and what about the 26 people who got shot in that Newtown shooting? Man, that was crazy, and after what happened in Connecticut there definitely should be more restrictions on guns, thank you.
I mean, like, who does that? Goes in a school shoots innocent people because his mom might not love him. So I still think there should be more gun control laws.Posted by: AnonymousWe should be able to get any gun we want, but we should have stricter regulations on how we obtain them.
I think that we should be able to get any gun we want according to the right to bear arms, but the regulations should be stricter. I think that for high powered weapons, like assault rifles, people should only be able to obtain them thru the government. There should be a separate agency so that people can still get their guns in a reasonable amount of time.
Posted by: AnonymousClosing gun show loop holes and back ground checks
At one point every one of the 300,0000,000 guns in circulation were legally purchased. The lax laws allow these guns to fall into the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. The result of this is more violent crime and loss of life. Common sense laws can be implemented to prevent this from happening without banning all guns.
Posted by: AnonymousWe absolutely need strict gun control!
I HATE GUNS! Yeah, yeah, we have the second amendment, but I personally am not a fan. You don’t not need an assault weapon and 30 bullet magazine clips to mow down an elk. We have to take a driving test to get a license so why shouldn’t we have background checks for guns? Thank goodness Democrats control Colorado state government, so we can actually get something done about the appalling loopholes in our gun laws! After the horrible Aurora tragedy, which occurred here, and the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut, it’s time we start cracking down! A lot of liberals are afraid to voice their opposition to guns, but I’m not! Guns DO KILL PEOPLE! You’re more likely to have a gun used against you or a loved one than to actually have it protect you from an intruder. Gun nuts don’t care about anyone but themselves and their rights. Your right to own a gun ends when it means another American will have to give up their right to life. The only purpose guns serve is to kill. If guns are not a problem then why is the United States the most violent nation in the industrialized world and we also have the most firearm proliferation and guns per capita? Enough is enough!
Posted by: AnonymousLess Death Overall
So how would these gun laws affect America's overall safety? This concept is very debatable, some may argue that less guns equals less gun violence; others will challenge this reasoning by arguing we need guns to protect ourselves. At times, yes, firearms can deter crime and provide us with a "safety blanket" in times of emergency. But on the other hand, with these gun laws being so vague any person may purchase a firearm for what ever reason they choose to, good or bad. In large metropolitan areas such as New Orleans, if you turn on the news, it is almost a guarantee that you will hear about a shooting of some sort, daily! How many of those deaths, injuries, and hurt families affected by such tragic events could have been prevented if we had just had stricter gun laws?
Posted by: AnonymousGun control laws should be here to stay
Gun control laws need to stay because we need to stop all of the mass shootings in the USA. We all remember the Newton shooting in Connecticut where Adam Lanza shot 20 1st graders and 6 teachers for no apparent reason. The Auora theater in Colorado where James Holmes shot 70 people in a movie theater. He threw tear gas and fired every bullet in his giant bag of guns and killing 70 people because they want to watch a movie. Where would we be with no gun control laws?..
Posted by: AnonymousJust my opinion here
I think it is better to have gun control laws that are stricter. I mean, we all saw the disastrous results of the Sandy Hooks shooting, right? It was all over the news, and it really sickened me. I hated the fact that that IDIOT could just pick up a gun and shoot those innocent children. What did those kids do to him? What crime had they committed that he could just go there and shoot them. Also, school wide lock-downs should be faster. In History, we discussed this, and my teacher also agreed that lock-downs should be faster. Sandy Hooks was in the middle of a lock-down when that idiot entered and shot those kindergarteners and their teacher. I think shootings are horrible, and if we have stricter gun laws, we can prevent more of them.
Posted by: AnonymousWe need to prevent mass murders
We are never going to stop all gun violence. There will always be random shootings on the streets. But, we can take steps to prevent shootings on the scale of Newtown. More than 3/4 of the guns used in mass shootings since 1982 were purchased legally. If the Newtown shooter's mother had not been able to buy those guns, or the Aurora shooter had not been able to buy a 100 round magazine, many lives could have been saved.
This debate is not about taking away people's guns or tyranny, it is about stopping senseless deaths. The NRA is lying to the American people and intimidating Congress into inaction. Something needs to be done before more innocent people are killed.Posted by: AnonymousNeeds to be limited
While I agree that guns do not kill people, people kill people. It doesn't change the fact that having such easy access to guns makes it easier for people to kill each other with these guns. It would be good if everyone could be trusted with as many guns as they like of any variety, but the fact is not everyone can and so unfortunately restrictions need to be put on place in order to limit the amount of gun related crimes.
Posted by: AnonymousAmerica Take a Look at how other civilised societies in the world work better
Take a look at countries like Canada, England, Australia- they have tight gun laws. They have WAY less gun crimes.
Yes it's the people as well as the guns. But how do expect to change every person with the intent to pick up a easily Available gun and shoot in for negative purposes. A person who may seem perfectly sane may change in a instant moment. Yes this is true for any weapon, however guns are the worst.
How many mass knife massacres have you heard of? Compared to guns?
Think I way less guns Of course that will lead to way less murders.
It's logic. It's fact.
Again take a look at other civilised countries.
They have guns laws that actually make sense.
and they actually have way way less gun crime.
the proof is their.Posted by: AnonymousConstitution Allows Modifications
It's often said that gun control laws cannot be implemented because they are unconstitutional. While that might be true, people often forget that the only reason we have a 2nd Amendment is because the constitution itself allows modifications. The Founding Fathers knew that the constitution was not perfect and that it would need to change as society changes.
Think about it. When the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights were added to the constitution, the guns were muskets. Single shot, inaccurate, long reload muskets. Mass murders are completely impossible and it was enough to defend yourself from wild animals and the common thug. That's no longer the case. Now guns available to the public are semi-automatic and can be quickly reloaded. In many states, you can simply go to a gun store, buy an assault rifle, and start shooting at anything or anyone you want. It shouldn't be so easy for someone to obtain so much power over other people's lives.
You could say that with gun control in place, criminals would still be able to obtain firearms through illegal means and that law abiding citizens would be defenseless. But really, those who think that they need a firearm to defend themselves and their families are pretty much thinking, "I know that by supporting gun control I make guns more available to criminals. But at the same time, it allows me to have a firearm as well so I will be safe." While that may make sense, it's really rather selfish. Gun control will decrease the amount of people with guns, that's what matters. Less guns, means less shootings. Shootings will still happen, true, but there will be less. Law abiding citizens supporting more gun freedom can "guarantee" their own safety in the case of a shooting, but it's at the expense of others, since more shootings will happen. With gun laws in place, there will be less shootings in general and people will have less need to own a firearm for self defense.
I should say that I'm not all for the complete removal of guns. Just have them limited to bolt action rifles, powerful enough for self defense but not enough for mass shootings. But states allowing people without permits to acquire a firearm needs to stop. With permits and proper background checks, law abiding people will still be able to get guns if they feel it necessary, but most mentally unstable people(those that are most likely to start shooting people) will be blocked.Posted by: AnonymousChange The Laws of guns for The USA
I believe that the US should have stricter laws because theres been many murders. Theres been about 16,000 murders in the year of 2012. About 10,000 of those murders have been committed by guns. Guns are helpful but are very dangerous. Kids and adults use guns for fun and mess around with them and could hurt and kill a other human being.
Posted by: Anonymoussecond amendment and gun control article
There too many conflicts going on with guns. For example in sandy hook elementary. Many little kids were shot that had a huge, bright future for them. The one that caused this was a young adult. This cruel boy killed his mom as well and did everything with guns. We need to be more strict!
Posted by: AnonymousGuns aren't being taken!
The gun control laws aren't trying to take guns away from the people, they are trying to get them registered so that it is easier to catch criminals, make it harder to get a gun illegally, and try to make everyone more capable to protect themselves without going and commuting a massacre.
Posted by: AnonymousI believe we need stricter gun control laws
Saying that we infringe on our 2nd amendment is ridiculous because of the fact if someone is willing to already wait 6 weeks to get a gun, they should be perfectly OK with waiting 2 weeks more in order to ensure that these weapons are not in the hands of criminals
Posted by: AnonymousYes we do
Because some people cannot control themselves and war and violence is a part of human nature. If we suppress it it will get worse but if we give it a road to drive on then we can choose the direction it goes and when it speeds/slows down.
The world is a giant coin, there's both good and bad but the are one and the same thing now a days and when we try to blame certain people we just set a mob of cranky people on them. And in some countries they are allowed guns ('for defence') but they don't NEED them, it just makes them dangerous.Posted by: AnonymousIt's completely absurd
It's absurd that an outdated amendment from two hundred years ago should be holding the country hostage. Amendments are a feature of our constitution because the founding father realised that times and situations change. The children of Newtown and all Americans have had their constitutional rights taken away by an irrational and self-serving group of outlaw who can't understand the basic connection between background checks and reducing gun crime. It's been time to stop for over 30 years. Something needs to change. Guns DO kill people.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is time
We run background checks on people who wish to drive. We require insurance and annual registration to make sure the cars function properly and safely because our driving habits and choices affect others. Cars are not instruments of death, and yet they cause death on a regular basis.
Guns, on the other hand, no matter what the purpose, are for killing. They may used in defense, but one must be willing to kill for that to be an appropriate use of a gun. Why would we expect fewer safety precautions with guns? We require people to take driving lessons - but we don't require lessons to be licensed to buy and shoot a gun.
We are absolutely out of sych with reality to assume that a simple full background check and registration of each and every gun is in any way some sort of restriction on the right to bear arms. Insane!Posted by: AnonymousBackground checks are common sense
Who in their right mind does not want criminals not to be able to buy guns? In my mind only radical freaks would not support background checks. Shame on us, the mass of the true Americans, who cow tow to the irrationally extreme. Let's wake up and make our voices heard
Posted by: Anonymousyes
Looking back at 2012 reminds me of the mass killings that took place with the use of guns. In almost all cases the person who caused such harm had either a history of mental illness or anger issues. Why let such a great responsibility of owning a gun be easily handed over to someone that cant make rational and good decisions? My idea is to have required testing done on people wanting to own a gun, it would detect any problems someone may have, even if they don't know it them selves. This protects the people around them and themselves from harm.
Posted by: AnonymousNo guns except for police, military and farmers
Get rid of guns altogether in the cities. If criminals get caught with guns give them life sentences. I keep hearing people say that people have a right to carry guns. In this mad world we live in, don't five-year-olds have a right not to be shot to death at school? Why can't people settle their disputes with words or using their fists the way men used to? You might get a black eye but at least nobody gets a one way ticket to the cemetery.
Posted by: AnonymousYes
I have never felt the need to get a gun or carry a knife to feel safe in the UK, giving everyone guns just makes everyone afraid of getting shot so they get a gun to compensate, which makes Gun manufacturers millions each year by spreading fear so everyone buys their products. So many Americans are brainwashed into believing that to be safe they need a gun, by buying guns you allow EVERYONE to have a gun including criminals who use them for crime. Id rather live in a country where a criminal has to engage me in hand to hand combat if he wants to kill me rather than giving him a ranged advantage on someone like me who doesn't feel the need to carry a gun around a public place.
Posted by: AnonymousYes definitely
I think that a few people sacrificing their past time in exchange for safe communities with out fear clearly worth it from my perspective. I stand for peace and the idea that we should have to hire armed guards for quiet elementary schools sends the wrong message to them in the learning environment.
Posted by: AnonymousGive 'em as many black powder guns as they want
The precious 2nd Amendment--fine, give the gun lovers as many black powder guns as they want. There is no need for military grade assault rifles in our communities. PERIOD. End of discussion. Stronger gun legislation is needed immediately. Unfortunately I don't think this president will see it through. He's getting really good at eulogies. It's sad. The Mayans were right!
Posted by: AnonymousCitizens shouldn't possess extreme arsenal
I am arguing magnitude and mitigation. There is a reason we don't get to drive race cars and military tanks on the road, but normal passenger cars are permitted, and that has to do with speed, power, and destructive potential. A normal handgun, hunting rifle, or crossbow should be sufficient for everyday defensive purposes and shooting sports. What does a person need beyond that, that would justify owning a bazooka, missile launcher, or high-powered assault rifle, especially the caliber and quantity of the ammunition? It's overkill. I know we are a consumerist nation, addicted to excess, but come on.
Furthermore, I am required to pass tests for a license to drive, I must have a permit for my vehicle, a title of ownership, keep insurance... doing the same with firearms seems completely reasonable. Sure, as with any laws and restrictions, there are those who will still break and violate them, but this doesn't warrant doing away with making and enforcing laws. Oversight is important.Posted by: AnonymousWelcome to the Wild, Wild West!
Do we need guns to survive? If we think that is the case, then we need to take a big step back and look at our selves as a country. Instead of using guns for hunting and providing food, we have allowed what we think as our constitutional rights, to get in the way of clear thinking.....We have allowed ourselves to become the hunted!
Posted by: AnonymousBan Assault weapons and mega clips for all states
If gun were not a problem the nightly prime time TV shows would all end as they are mostly based around gun violence and death as the result. Stop the unnecessary mega clips and assault weapons and deaths will decrease. Just like less gas you drive less, less money you buy less and with less assault weapons you would kill less when a mentally ill decides to do so. The longer it takes that ill person to reload the better chance innocent people have to get away. Leave it to out military to fight the real wars with these types of weapons.
Posted by: AnonymousBan assault style weapons sales TODAY
How many times does this need to happen for this country to wake up. People who oppose strict gun control are suspect in my eyes. They are people with issues with power. No gun that is designed to be used for anything other than hunting should be possessed by any citizen. Only trained military or police should have access to that type of weaponry. NO WAY do these guns protect anyone. People are naive to think that some magical mental health treatment will prevent this from happening. I know what I am speaking of, I've worked with the mentally ill for decades, had a sibling with mental health issues, and am hear to tell you there is no blood test, xray or any other way of truly knowing what someone's intentions are. While I agree that more funds for mental health care is needed, the amount of variables that humans possess make it virtually impossible to predict this kind of violence accurately. BUT, eliminating access to weaponry for all citizens would reduce these kind of mass murders that have become all too common. Can gun proponents really say that their "right" to bear arms should supercede the safety of others? If so, it reinforces them being suspect in my eyes. My brother, who was paranoid, delusional, and never hunted a minute in his life, was able to purchase a gun, no matter how hard the family tried to help, control and mitigate what was to come. And, I knew the mental health system and probably got farther than most. People need to understand that paranoid delusional people do not seek services, it is the very nature of their illness that prevents that.
These should be the strictest laws in the country. Long waiting periods, with comprehensive references could be implemented. If someone had contacted me or any of the family to ask if my brother should have a gun it would have been a resounding NO....
The gun proponents are loud and brave because they have GUNS!!! Wake up people...Posted by: AnonymousGuns kill!
There is no reason for the average citizen to have a gun. We have ways to protect ourselves, Locks on our doors, policemen, 911. Security systems.
Ther is no reason for automatic weapons to be in the hands of ordinary citizens. Automatic weapons are for killing. Assault weapons are for killing.
We now life in a country where children have lock downs in their schools. They are taught to be fearful. Not of terrorists, but Americans who carry weapons that kill.
Is this the America you want to live in? Don't you worry about your child or spouse or parent. Would you feel safer with less guns on the street?
Get rid of your guns. Turn them in.Posted by: AnonymousChildren being victims
I believe that people should have the right to own a gun for protection, not I, but if you feel the need more power to you. I do believe that if we as Americans value precious lives as Innocent beings we should come up with a better way to check up on people. Yes this may affect thousands who just want to protect themselves, but how can those people deny, changes have to be made as to who carries a gun and why. Do our children have to die because we do not want to offend a grown person who wants to carry a gun. Come on, I truly believe from one father to another, on brother to another, one mom, grandma, grandpa would have a really big problem with a lot more questions in order to weed out who may a potential mass murder of children in our country. If they are given the right to conceal and carry, they should not mind answering a few more questions to do so. I personally am against the whole issue of carrying guns around in the first place but willing to give people their rights, just know that all questions asked to get this permit needs to be more controlled, so no other children, teachers, officers, law abiding citizens have to give up their right to live.
Posted by: AnonymousLess guns = less murders
Everybody claims they need a gun for defense. Rarely do we hear about someone shooting someone in self defense. It is usually someone obtained a gun and killed someone during a robbery etc... Unless your wearing your gun it isn't for self defense, it's just a security blanket for your fears. Less guns, less killing, higher penalties for those with guns. But I fear it is too late for the American culture to change. It is a culture raised on violence and guns. Glorified from day 1 when you around with a plastic gun, to your teenage years seeing videos and movies glorifying guns and killing. I fear it will be the wild west once again and you will have shoot outs in every street in America when someone gets angry at someone else. It is too late for America. Who needs to worry about terrorists when Americans are so good at killing themselves.
Posted by: AnonymousYes we need stricter Gun Control Laws
Parents who have guns, should turn their guns in or put them out of sight and do not let your kids know you possess guns. In support of the victims of CT, you can take action and turn your guns in. Please speak to your kids get off the phones and internet and take time to talk to your kids these tragedies do not happen overnight.
Posted by: Anonymous26 Dead in Connecticut Elementary School
Innocent children slaughtered by a 20 year old with semi automatic weapons. Purchased by his mother, who he also killed. Why does anyone need mass killing guns? Control the guns and mitigate the carnage a single individual can inflict in a matter of seconds. No one needs the right to these types of of weapons. Yes, it comes down to the issues of the individual and their actions and obviously these people have been failed, but don't give them the power to so easily inflict so much damage. This is not their right and it is societies obligation to protect against this.
Posted by: AnonymousHigh School Gov Student
I don't you can fix society - there will always be messed up and sick people no matter. Therefore, by reforming gun laws, we can just prevent it. Whether it is background checks , limiting who gets access to military grade weapons, and waiting periods we need to fix our laws. 140,000 people have died from gun violence in the United States since 2001. Of the 23 wealthiest countries in the world, the US accounts for 80% of handgun deaths. More people die by accident from guns every year in the US than in any other civilized country. Of course the guns themselves aren't evil, but tighter regulation of handguns would do something to help this problem. How many more people need to die for us to realize this?
Posted by: mcheemaYes, there does need to be stricter laws for gun control. You don't want the wrong people handling weapons without proper training.
When I say there needs to be stricter laws, I mean that there needs to be qualifications within the existing gun control laws. I think no one should be able to own a gun without going through gun safety classes. You don't want just any idiot handling a deadly weapon. I do believe all Americans have the right to own a gun, but that ownership should just be handled with more care than it is now.
Posted by: LorenaH
More guns equals less crime
Since 1988, gun ownership has increased over 1200% while at the same time gun deaths and gun crimes in general have decreased by almost 60%. Instead of making stupid statements based on the lies of the 5 o'clock news, try doing some research. You will realize you have been lied to. All tyrannical governments want unarmed citizens, or slaves.
Posted by: AnonymousNO ! !
You cant blame guns for the people's stupidity. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I have two guns in my house and you don't see them go off by themselves and kill people now do you? No, you don't and do you know why that is? It's because they don't have a mind of their own the only way someone could get hurt by them is if I pulled the trigger myself.Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not the problem
A few years ago, a man who did not own a gun went into a school and killed children with a hammer. Although certain people do not deserve guns, we have laws to make sure they don't have. Most guns used in crimes are stolen from gun stores or houses. Guns should be locked up by correct gun owner, and more public places should have weapon checks. If this happened, crimes including guns would go down. The thing that people should look out for is not gun owners, but the people who have bad motives, because they are the ones that are going to kill, no matter if they have a gun or not.
Posted by: Rosalia4Gun bans already exist and don't work
Guns are banned in movie theaters and schools, but because lunatics, criminals, and lunatic-criminals do not obey laws, they are simply ignored. Don't ban guns, ban mass murder. Guns themselves are not evil, the people who pull the trigger are evil. Guns will always exist and criminals will always find a way to get a hold of one, or something else to commit mass murder. For example, the deadliest school massacre was not done with a gun but by a bomb and the subsequent fire.
Posted by: AnonymousLaw-abiding citizens shouldn't suffer.
I know you don't want to take guns away completely but you want us to register our guns. Do you want a criminal to know what you have in your home? No way! You are telling us what guns we are allowed to own. Worry about the criminals and mentally ill! Do you think criminals are going to register their firearms? The law-abiding citizens, the people doing the right thing will and you'll see more crime than before!
Posted by: AnonymousI oppose stricter gun laws
Saying guns kill people is like saying a fork makes a person fat. Like most of the no arguments state criminals are already breaking the law. They are not going to care about gun laws. Stricter laws only keep guns out of law abiding citizens. Also the second amendment states that we have the right to keep and bear arms. Any law that keeps us from bearing arms is unconstitutional anyways.
Posted by: AnonymousGun laws will not make you safer.
Look at Washington DC and Chicago; both imposed strict gun laws and crime skyrocketed. Criminals will always get guns. If you make it harder for the law abiding citizens to get guns, you leave them defenseless. America was founded on freedom and liberty. I'm against any law that takes those away. I don't really live closed to a police station. Do I not have a right to protect my family? Does my wife not have the right to protect herself when I'm not home? The liberals have invented the term "assault weapons" to scared people. All semi-automatic firearms work the same: pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out. Some just look scarier then others. Sadly, we will never be able to stop mass killing. Guns are only one of the many different things criminals use. Drunk drivers kill far more people then firearms, but we don't try to ban cars or alcohol.
Posted by: AnonymousWe need guns.
I think we need to protect our selves from murders and other things. It is also in our constitution, so we have to abide by that. We need guns to kill people that break and enter our homes and reduce murder and crime rate. We also need guns to protect other citizens if there is an armed robber.
Posted by: AnonymousProhibition has not worked in the past.
I believe that gun control does not need to be stricter in the United States. In the past we have tried to put restrictions on things that we thought were dangerous and detrimental to the country, yet it has never been fully effective. During the era of prohibition on alcohol, people found ways around the law and those who wanted to drink did. Making marijuana and other drugs illegal has not been effective, and people who want to smoke drugs find them. It comes down to who will obey the law. Those who agree with the law will follow it, and these are the people of least concern when it comes to guns. Those who want to have guns and use them will find them. There is always a way around the law. I believe that making stricter laws on gun control will not be effective, and I believe that stricter gun control laws will only cause those who want guns to go out and get them in a stealthy and illegal way. It will possibly lead to even more problems and crime.
Posted by: AnonymousI am Pro Gun.
The US was established on the backs of our colonists and their firearms. We hold the right to bear arms. It may be unnecessary to have clips of above 30 rounds, but to ban an entire weapons system is ridiculous. Guns aren't the killers, people are. Simply put; guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by: PeterFNo, I disagree! NO gun control!!
It is very stupid and leads to more violence. Just because of Newtown? We shouldn't randomly do it because of one thing. Guns protect people and are our defense against armed people, tyranny or when those North Koreans come to America. Switzerland had full auto guns for their citizens and the Nazis didn't even think about going over to Switzerland. Also, the Japanese didn't invade our coast because we were armed as well.
Posted by: AnonymousWhen a drunk driver kills we blame the driver not the car.
But when a crazy person kills, it's not the crazy person, it's the gun's fault.
Let's be real if we really care about safety why rabidly go after guns which aren't even one of the top 10 killers in the USA. Makes no sense to me. Wouldn't you prioritize what killed more people if it is really the preservation of life you are after?Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people; people kill people.
The unofficial slogan of the National Gun Association “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” (NGA) basically says it all. Shootings do not simply happen from the gun itself, but the person behind the gun. By creating stricter gun laws, it will restrict those who obey the law and could possibly increase crime. Criminals don’t follow the law either way, so what makes everyone think gun laws will change the way things are? They won’t. If anything, it will cause people to rebel. With or without the law, criminals will get their hands on guns. Therefore, there is no point. For instance, if guns were banned, places without guns would be more likely to be attacked. There are other ways of getting guns, illegally. For instance, they could be trafficking them from unlicensed sellers, or getting them at gun shows or flea markets. An example could be how the shooters of the Columbine High School Shooting “bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers” (Violence Policy Center). There was no law then but they did not purchase their guns legally, so either way people will get guns whether there is a law or not.
Posted by: AnonymousActually learn some history.
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about sport, and it's not even about self defense from crime. It's a last stand against tyranny. James Madison, the guy who more or less wrote the Constitution, stated in Federalist 46 that the people need to be armed up to the same standards as the military, so in the event of a tyrannical uprising, the people would not be forced into oppression by the government. So don't give me that crap about the founders not knowing about AR15s. The founders didn't know about Scientology, so does that mean the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to that religion? And banning only "assault weapons" is the biggest joke in legislative history. REAL assault weapons are already banned, liberals want to ban things that LOOK like assault weapons, which are used in about 1%of crime in the US. The most violent mass shooting in the nations history, Virginia Tech, was done with handguns. Columbine took place during the assault weapons ban of 1994. The fact of the matter is that not only are gun control laws unconstitutional, they are totally worthless in that nobody who would commit a mass shooting or any type of gun related crime is going to obey them. The government doesn't care about gun deaths, they want more power over the everyday lives of the people.
Posted by: Abt7217Our right to bear arms
We as people of the United States have the right to bear arms. Do you think that just because you have gun control doesn't mean there isn't a black market or smuggling? Do you really think that the bad guys that buy guns for malicious purposes buy registered guns? Of course not! If I'm going to buy a gun and murder someone I'm sure not going to a gun shop and giving them all my information so I can get arrested! Gun control will only stop the American citizens from buying guns to protect themselves with, not stop bad people from buying them. Is marijuana legal? No. Do creeps still buy it? Yes. Does making it illegal stop people from smuggling and buying on the black market? No. There is no need for gun control, and gun control is unconstitutional. We the people of the United States of America have the right to bear arms and don't you forget it!
Posted by: AnonymousReally ban guns?
You can't take a gun out of a criminals hand so why take it out of a normal persons hand. Does that make any sense, No. If a person wants to kill another person they will find a way. Whether it is with a gun,bomb, or anything for that matter they will find a way to put fear into our hearts ,homes, and minds. Why take away something that could save your life in the future? That's what I would like to know. People say that we should take away rapid fire guns well hears something to think about it. If there is more than one person in your house how are you going to be able to hit them all if you have to keep cocking your gun and aiming again does that make any sense at all ? You tell me.
Posted by: AnonymousStricter control laws do not lower crime rates.
Crime rates in states that have more lax gun control laws are lower that states that have stricter gun control laws. More criminal type individuals will have guns and are more apt to use them when they know most of the people they come in contact with do not carry. My state of Texas, most semi intelligent people will ask themselves is that person carrying before the crime is perpetrated, and if the person didn't stop to consider that, then they deserve what they get if they choose a person carrying.
Posted by: AnonymousThe black market.
There's always going to be a black market. How do people get illegal drugs? Illegally of course! How do dealers get guns?? Illegally! There's already an expansive black market for guns which would easily grow much larger once guns are outlawed. It could spark an equivalent to moon shining during prohibition. Giving the criminals more money!!! Something sounds wrong there.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople will find other ways to cause harm.
If people can go around stabbing people and finding ways to kill them without guns then why do you think that taking away guns will help this? It's not our fault that people get shot, it is the fault of the person who shot them. We should think twice before we ban guns from everybody. This is especially true with the people who know how to use them responsibly.
Posted by: AnonymousStates to decide..
Each State should decide their own fate. The voters will have the final say as it should but keep the Feds out of it as not all states are the same. The governor and local politicians have to face the people, the federal government is only a political irresponsible organization without logic.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns Are the People's Check.
The United States of America was founded and built upon a set of guidelines established by our founding fathers. These guidelines have been followed ever since their making, and have led the United States to be the successful world power that it is today. Among these rules, is a listing of the rights of the public, which are not to be infringed upon, including our right to bear Arms. The founding fathers included this right so as to keep our nation's government in check. The United States was born after a revolution against the controlling tyrannical hand of Great Britain. We fought for our independence, and maintaining a free state is and should remain our nation's top priority. The founding fathers recognized this. As you know, the United States' government was built upon a system of checks and balances. These checks and balances ensured that no one area or branch of the government would gain more power that the others. This design was created to keep the power of the government IN CHECK by the PEOPLE, so that tyranny will not be present in America.. The right to bear Arms is the people's check on the government so that it will remain to be governed by the people, and for the people. Guns are our nation's check.
Posted by: stemzThe 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is not about being able to take your rifle to the range for some sporting fun. The 2nd is not about hunting. The 2nd allows for your personal protection, the protection of your property, and the protection of others. All this is true. But what the 2nd Amendment is truly about is the right of the people to protect themselves from an overbearing government. If the people are not as well armed as the government, what is to keep the government from taking away your 1st Amendent rights, or your 4th, or 8th. What is to stop them from suspending elections etc. It seems to me the founding fathers were pretty clear when they wrote "Shall not be infringered". I don't need a permit to exercize my 1st Amendment rights, or any other amendment, why do I need a permit from the government to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights? We have allowed the liberal media to brain wash our country into thinking the 2nd Amendment is about your liberty, it is not, it is about your rights. The liberal media has brain washed the country into believing all this is about sporting, hunting and personal protection. That is included in the 2nd, but it specifically addresses protection from an overbearing government.
Posted by: AnonymousThe day criminals play fair & by the same rules...
That's the day I will sport gun control laws. A law that prevents millions of law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and at the same time prevents criminals from owning legal firearms will only result in those law abiding citizens with less rights to protect themselves and criminals... Well they will continue to acquire guns the way they always have: ignoring any and all laws.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't Tread on Me.
Gun control is just something some people use as a crutch when they don't know how to deal with a bad situation involving a gun. Their main defense is asking if that situation would have even happened if the person had even had the gun, or telling us that it would have never happened if the person didn't have the gun. Well, truth is, they're wrong. Even if the person didn't have the gun, if they truly wanted to commit the crime, they would've done it by other means. Whether it be with a car, a knife, or a homemade bomb. They still would've done it. The only reason there was a gun involved is because a gun is the easiest and quickest way to commit the crime. Why do people want to enforce gun control when guns are one reason we keep our freedom, when it's the person committing the crimes, and when some people might not fully understand the situation? Why put control on something that helps keep your other rights? Other non-Americans may think of gun control as ironic or hypocritical of us because of the United States being a Democratic nation and other countries that do or have had gun control be Communist.
Posted by: AnonymousWe need to be sure with gun control laws that we are not just taking guns away from law abiding citizens.
Gun control laws do not keep guns away from criminals. Criminals do not care about the law to begin with. More restricts on gun ownership would just limit law abiding citizens. We must remember that people can have guns for protection, and also hunting or collecting. These uses of guns are acceptable and can even be commendable.
Posted by: babydoll93GUN LAWS WOULDN'T HELP
Gun laws would not have any effect on criminals, including mass shooters. This because over 90% of criminals don't buy the guns that they use legally. Also, in towns where you are required to own a gun, the crime rate is lower than that of towns and cities in which you aren't required to own a gun. Besides, people kill people; guns don't kill people!
Posted by: AnonymousStricter gun laws will not reduce crime.
Friday in China they had that same thing happen with a knife, and the only reason he didn't kill all of them is he didn't know how to use it. A gunshot is non-fatal 95% of the time. This shows that you still have to know what you are doing. Being trained in hand to hand combat I could have the same injury rate as the attacker did on Friday without any type of weapons. We need to quit letting the media make these killers into famous people with their horrendous actions.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals don't follow laws.
What would stricter laws for gun control do? All it's doing is preventing law abiding citizens from getting one of the most effective weapons to protected themselves. What's gonna stop a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun. Or about 10 good guys jumping on a bad guy at one time. But how many of those 10 guys are gonna get hurt/killed? If there are more law abiding citizens with firearms than criminals with firearms, who's gonna win? Now add the normal ranks of law enforcement and military, and how is the criminal caste gonna continue?
And now to the whole "in UK I don't need a weapon". While murder rates are higher in the US, assault rates are higher in UK by 133%. British citizens have believe less in the police, and feel less safe walking in the dark. What does that mean? Violent crimes are existent in UK. In fact, there is a considerable amount of it, too.
While I don't believe that every teacher needs to carry a firearm, I think that there should be a small armory in a school, maybe like one or two handguns, and maybe a shotgun, and that only certain people have the keys to it, and if a firearm is taken, the police is notified. It would make everyone feel more secure.Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not the issue
Over 200 children are killed each year by drunk drivers, we are not calling for a ban on automobiles or stricter car control, we go after the drunk drivers as we should. This is not a gun issue but a societal one. Banning guns isn't going to solve the problems we have, all the evidence says that it has the opposite effect.
Posted by: AnonymousHave you ever heard of that saying?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, it is completely true. How is a gun going to kill someone? Just sprout some legs and walk on over and kill someone? No. Guns have to be operated by people. You can also use knives, forks, gardening tools, your hands (strangling), or any other dangerous things. The thing is, weapons don't kill people. People kill people. But also, criminals are the people who kill people, so if there is gun control, criminals are just going to break into stores and get them on their own.
Posted by: AnonymousEveryone else is going to have guns
If we ban guns from the public, nobodys going to be able to protect themselves. It doesnt matter how many laws are passed, criminals and psychos are still going to be killing innocents. Also, if we cant defend ourselves against invading countries if we dont have any modern day weapons. We are not going to be fighting terrorists with swords and slingshots. Those without guns are going to be complaining about how the police have to much power with firearms. So people have to ban them from police as well,not able to defend anybody. So it doesnt matter how many laws pass, everybody else is going to own guns.
Posted by: AnonymousLess guns aren't gonna help, smart one!
The guns they want to ban law abiding citizens from having are used in crime less than 1% of the time. Why do you think no gun laws have been passed previously? Because politicians eventually realize that what they're about to vote on makes no sense and you've pushed for these bans and presented no other options but for them to deny it. People understandably react strongly to tragedies such as this. But they are wasting time and energy on the wrong issue. It's the psychos that need to be demonized not guns. I personally would rather they use a gun than a bomb. I am a concealed carrier. If hypothetical your ban worked and maniacs couldn't get guns then they would just blow us up. I have a better chance of protecting myself against someone with a gun rather than someone who plants a hidden bomb. The main issue is people want to slap a band aid law on this and think it will go away. How about being truly proactive instead of just being vocal. Take the following example for instance. When someone starts throwing punches at you what is the best defense. Do you take the ban approach (or the gun free zone approach) and scream don't hit me? No, in self defense classes you are taught to use force to combat force. Put an armed guard with a plan in each school. That's being proactive. The only people who disagree with armed guards are the ones who know nothing about fire fights and have never seen how quickly a situation can be suppressed with a trained person using a gun. These maniacs do 2 things that show you they would not go to a school with an armed guard. 1. They go to gun free zones and 2. They shoot themselves when they see someone else with a gun. I.E. The police finally getting there or the Oregon mall shooting where a ccw person pulled the gun on him.
Posted by: AnonymousOnly unintelligent, irrational or ignorant people think gun bans are the answer
The guns they want to ban law abiding citizens from having are used in crime less than 1% of the time. Why do you think no gun laws have been passed previously? Because politicians eventually realize that what they're about to vote on makes no sense and you've pushed for these bans and presented no other options but for them to deny it. People understandably react strongly to tragedies such as this. But they are wasting time and energy on the wrong issue. It's the psychos that need to be demonized not guns. I personally would rather they use a gun than a bomb. I am a concealed carrier. If hypothetical your ban worked and maniacs couldn't get guns then they would just blow us up. I have a better chance of protecting myself against someone with a gun rather than someone who plants a hidden bomb. The main issue is people want to slap a band aid law on this and think it will go away. How about being truly proactive instead of just being vocal. Take the following example for instance. When someone starts throwing punches at you what is the best defense. Do you take the ban approach (or the gun free zone approach) and scream don't hit me? No, in self defense classes you are taught to use force to combat force. Put an armed guard with a plan in each school. That's being proactive. The only people who disagree with armed guards are the ones who know nothing about fire fights and have never seen how quickly a situation can be suppressed with a trained person using a gun. These maniacs do 2 things that show you they would not go to a school with an armed guard. 1. They go to gun free zones and 2. they shoot themselves when they see someone else with a gun. i.e. the police finally getting there or the Oregon mall shooting where a ccw person pulled the gun on him.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople kill, not guns.
Why would gun control keep guns out of criminals' hands who are going to break the law anyways? All gun control does is keep guns out of the good civilians' hands who just want to keep themself or their family safe. Gun control takes that option away from many people. I believe it is our right to keep a concealed firearm.
Posted by: AnonymousBetter Mental Health Laws
If we want to reduce the occurrence of Newtown type massacres, we first need better mental health laws. That one issue MAY have stopped Newtown from occurring. The current law proposed by the Dems would have done NOTHING. I have a co-worker and his wife has developed several mental issues during the past 5 years. He has tried multiple times to get help for her, but she refuses to acknowledge she has a problem. All of her friends have tried to talk with her, she was kicked out of her nursing program, she cannot maintain a job, and she thinks people are following her everywhere. Her husband has even tried to have the State help, but because of the current laws (which the ACLU helped to craft), he has very few options. She has made repeated threats against people and continues to go down hill due to her condition. I just hope she never breaks and goes off the deep end.
Posted by: AnonymousLet me get this straight.
How would increased background checks, smaller clips and an assault weapons ban prevented Sandy Hook?
1 Background check. A background check would have prevented Adam Lanza from getting guns. Wait a minute, he MURDERED his mother and stole her guns. (Both of which are illegal, last I checked.
2. Smaller Clips. If Lanza didn't have 30 round clips he wouldn't have been able to kill so many. He had a BACKPACK full of 10 round clips. NEXT
3. Assault weapons ban. If we didn't have assault weapons then Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened. WRONG there was not assault style weapon used, not in the school, not in the car, not at his mothers house.
P.S. AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle.Posted by: AnonymousGuns are tools
Guns do not kill people, people do. A gun is a tool, when used properly can do many great things. Also, 70% of guns used in crimes were illegally in the possession of the criminal. Moreover, so-called assault weapons were only used in 2% of crimes committed with a gun. Gun control would have no effect on gun violence. We should spend our time helping those who are mentally ill.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns save lives.
Guns allow people to become equal and allow them to defend themselves. If a big strong man came up to an old woman, then the woman can use a gun to defend herself. Gun control also impedes the Second Amendment right and it was included solely to keep guns in peoples hands.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns have Never just "Killed" Someone. They are Tools, and Tools are Utilized by People.
Guns are tools. Like many other tools out there can be used to kill or harm. The only reason it changes the dynamics of violence is that guns are not personal. You shoot you kill. Fist fight or bats are personal so in turn guns do make it easier to kill, but they sure don't kill themselves.
Guns are a responsibility we all take, just like cars. More people die from car accidents then anything, a lot of innocent people! But we don't trip out on banning cars or restrict cars or what not. So why do we focus on guns so much? More people die from hammers then guns back in 2011. Gun control never really worked, how are we going to defend ourselves from the over impeding government? Back in WW2 Hitler took all guns away from Germany's citizens, so they could not defend them selves from his government. I totally support more intensive background checks and more security. IE: gun safes, gun safety classes. Making guns hard to obtain is all a biggie. So keep them locked up and not loaded unless an emergency. So if you really think guns should be extremely restricted, lets also ban automobiles and restrict them! Only 20MPH max top speed. Back ground checks on drivers. Cars are more dangerous than guns.Posted by: Anonymousthe govt just wants to control us
Making changes to our second amendment is completely going against what our founding fathers intended it to be there for. The second amendment isn’t about hunting, sporting or even so much about self defense; it was a sign to show our disagreement from tyranny! Having the right to bear arms gives us the right to stand up to any form of a dictatorship that may come; it is right that people have to be equally armed like there military and not feel oppressed by an over powering government system. Changing the second amendment interferes with these ideas and it is unconstitutional to change this great freedom that we take for granted. In short guns don’t kill people, people do!
Posted by: AnonymousGuns shouldn't be entirely banned from people's possession.
There should be stricter background checks, but not taken away completely. They should check people's records thoroughly and strictly, but taking away people's rights is ridiculous. Criminals are going to get guns either way because they will break the law anyway. So, I am against taking away guns from people, but not against making stricter rules.
Posted by: eschw92No there shouldn't be
The 2nd amendment isn't just for hunting and self defense against criminals. It is also for the citizens to protect themselves against a tyranical government. Read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the 2nd amendment, and you'll see that this is true.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Thomas Jefferson
During our revolution, Britain tried to take away the weapons of the American colonies. This is why the 2nd amendment exists. So that the government cannot try and disarm the American people. I refuse to live in a country with a government that arms itself but doesn't trust its citizens to arm themselves.
Stop the illegal gun trafficing from Mexico, and you'll see a dramatic drop in gun related deaths. Most gun related deaths are committed with illegal weapons, most of which are brought in from Mexico, bought by and from gangs. Focus disarming the gangs, and seizing their illegally owned weapons, and less on law abiding American citizens and seizing their legally owned weapons.Posted by: EvanKWhat about other weapons?
Even if you restrict guns to decrease violence and deaths in the world, many people will still find a way to kill someone without using a gun. What about the knifes, axes, saw, wire, stakes...These things are just part of the things they can and will use to kill other people. So even if you restrict guns, people will still die. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
Posted by: AnonymousLook at the facts
In Australia, they completely banned guns, and they have a 60% increase in murder, robbery, etc. Since. Same in Britain, they outlawed shotguns, and they had an >18% increase in robberies with shotguns. So, If you look at the facts from other countries, no. Use some common sense people, I mean, come on
Posted by: AnonymousNo, stricter gun control is not the answer
In light of the recent tragedy, the killings that happened on Friday were horrible and tragic. However, stricter gun control does virtually nothing. The elementary school shooter was clearly mentally unstable. Because crazy people kill other innocents, does not mean that the rest of the gun-owning population should be punished. Has anyone stopped to realize how many gun-owners are law-abiding citizens? I can tell you for sure that they outnumber the law-breaking gun owners by a landslide. This is an issue of responsibility. Getting rid of a weapon won't solve the problem.
Posted by: sirfaladorian25A thought to ponder
All the places (Columbine, Aurora Theater, Oak Creek temple, Sandy Hook) are in states with concealed carry. Well, all the places are gun-free zones which means that there's a sign that says NO GUNS ALLOWED! Well that didn't stop the killer so what will? Why would we make them tighter when these gun free zones didn't do anything?
Posted by: Anonymousit wont work.
When there is still evil in the world you can put any law in the books but no criminal will follow them, just last month we have seen two teens make an explosive devise just out of regular household and store bought supplies, a criminal who is willing to create much destruction he wants is going to find the best weapon for the job by any means necessary. If you look at the most restricted gun controlled areas in the us they have the most rampant crime, not just murders I'm talking about, home invasion, armed robbery, car jackings, and rape. And why are they extremely crime ridden, because people know that they have no way of defending themselves in these areas to prevent those things from happening and the only way of a person to feel protected in those neighborhoods is to be in a gang or leave far away from it. The truth is no matter how many laws are in affect the criminals will not give a damn what you pass the only ones you will be punishing are the law abiding citizens.
Posted by: AnonymousPRO GUN RIGHTS
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Criminals will STILL find an alternative strategy of which to obtain guns. Criminals are already committing various crimes, and avoiding the law, so what corrupts people into thinking that these criminals will awake one day and decide, HEY! They banned guns today and suddenly I feel like obeying the law!
Posted by: AnonymousWe do not need gun control.
Gun control is the worst thing I have ever heard of. If you look at the statistics the areas with less gun control are less violent places vs. the areas with more gun control, the area with stricter laws have higher gun related crimes. If there is gun control and you take away all guns then the people who listen to the law and get rid of their guns and become gun free will be sitting ducks. Then the people who don't listen to the law will be armed and no one will be able to protect themselves. On the other hand, if there is no gun control and everyone has a gun in their house, no one is going to bother you because you have the ability to defend yourself.
Posted by: AnonymousNO
Relating to the recent tragedy, tighter gun control laws would NOT have helped prevent this situation. The guns were owned legally by his mother, and he gained access to them. People will always find a way of obtaining things they want (illegal or not). Tighter gun control laws aren't the answer
Posted by: AnonymousGun control will Not work,
Because if the government made guns illegal or made them harder to get, people who want to hurt, or kill people will still find a way. This is true because there is this thing called Black Market, this is where people get things illegally from other countries. If drugs are illegal then why do people have them? Smuggling. People can smuggle humans across the border then why can't people smuggle a 11 in gun across a border.
-A Die Hard Gun SupporterPosted by: AnonymousCriminals do not follow the law
By definition, a criminal is someone who does not follow the law. They don't care if there are 1 or a dozen laws regarding a particular activity. Please don't punish me for what a criminal does. I have had my training, background check and fingerprinting to obtain and carry responsibly. If someone proposed a process to TARGET criminals it might change my mind, but I have yet to hear such a proposal.
Posted by: AnonymousWhether it is terrorist or teenagers they will find a way to get a gun!
They will make them if they have to! If they can't get guns the will use bombs! What are we going to do ban propane?
A gun is simply a tool. I have many guns in my room and have never come home and heard those guns going off on their own, People kill people. A car is a 2500 pound projectile that can go over a hundred miles an hour should we ask car producers stop making cars because 11,000 men woman and children have died from drunk driving this year?
There have been no school shootings in Switzerland, but guns and kids sure do mix there.Posted by: Ben1Freedom - Freedom - Freedom
Enforce the laws that are on the books already. No one person or persons are larger than the Constitution or Freedom. In the big picture that is what is about. Yes some deaths will occur. But I or any others who have a lost- are not larger than than the big picture. The dead shall not rule the living.
Posted by: AnonymousNo we shouldn't.
Because taking guns away from the "public" is only going to be taking guns away from reliable citizens. Criminals are always going to be able to get guns, and they will use them more often knowing that who they will be going against wont have any fight against them. I do however understand the meaning of back round checks and mental health checks. They should be given out anyway. If you are going to own a gun, you need to be mature enough to use it correctly.
Posted by: AnonymousOur rights
People kill people. You don't blame a spoon or fork for making people fat because they eat too much. You don't blame the gun for killing someone when it was a person that pulled the trigger. We all know criminals don't follow laws, because if they did, then, guess what? They would't be a criminal. More gun laws would be more paperwork, and more frustration. Including more guns sold illegally. We shouldn't have to deal with that. It's our right to have a gun. We like to keep ourselves protected. Some people shouldn't own guns, agreed. Usually people who have murdered someone already or even people with SOME types of metal disorders, shouldn't own guns for their own protection and ours.
Posted by: AnonymousGun control is not safe.
There should not be gun control because then people will smuggle in guns and people will not be able to protect themselves. If we totally get rid of guns then people will bring them in illegally and kill tons of people and the government will be the only ones with guns so they will become too powerful.
Posted by: AnonymousGun control wont change anything!
The way I see it, stricter gun control will only prevent us further from protecting ourselves and those we love or care about. The reason I think this way is because if someone is dedicated enough to kill or cause harm using a firearm, why wouldn't they just steal the gun and avoid buying it which will make it harder to trace then with the information from their background checks. Not to mention that if they really wanted to cause harm they could do it many other ways, such as strangling, stabbing, cutting, choking, beating, or hitting with any hard object. For these reasons I believe there should not be stricter gun laws.
Posted by: AnonymousImposing on We the People's rights is not the answer
We Americans shouldn't and nor should our government be supporting the infringement upon American citizen's rights, particularly since we faced terrorism on American soil in the not-so-distant-past. If we are to do more than survive; if we are to continue to thrive as a nation, we must keep our rights to protect ourselves on the individual level.
Posted by: American_GirlBill of Rights
Our Nation is founded upon unalienable rights. We are a Republic which means no government entity, group, or individual may lawfully usurp those Rights. Our Nation, this Republic stands only because of these Rights. Once these Rights are diminished or eliminated so goes our freedoms and liberties and the Nation to follow.
Furthermore, every Executive order and every proposed ban and regulation would not have stopped Lanza from killing those children. That IS what all the hype is about. We did not start this discussion due to the Mexican drug cartels killings of our citizens all along the border or the gang shootings that occur on a daily basis in States with the strictest gun controls in the US. We are a far cry from "common sense" dialog when politicians are using emotions and hyperbole to forfeit our Rights for political agenda.
Again, our Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law..." That alone tells us two things. One, Congress makes the law, not the President with executive orders or the Judiciary with their opinions. Two, no law shall be made that usurps any of the Rights of the people. Guess what? I direct you to the 2nd Amendment where it states our Rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I guess the next lesson would be helping these ignorant people what infringe means.Posted by: tomdentFear vs Reason
Read through the arguments for "Yes" and the arguments for "No". If we have learned anything since 2001 it should be that we should not surrender our liberties out of fear. The "Yes" column is a column one of fear. Stop being afraid. Star relying on yourselves and your neighbors for protection. History demonstrates repeatedly that a fearful people will, before long, be an enslaved population.
Posted by: Anonymousdon't get tougher on guns - get tougher on criminals
Guns don't kill people, other people do (baring the rare dog that picks it up and shoots an owner). And even if all guns were removed, murderers still can and often do kill with knives, pipes, axes, blunt instruments and even bare hands and feet. Removing the guns only removes one potential weapon murders can use; it also removes the one tool that allows a lone woman to have any chance of fending off a would be rapist / murderer in a dark parking garage alone. Get tough on the violent thugs and put them away for life; then fewer citizens will feel the need to carry a gun to protect themselves. And then there will be less crime AND fewer gun accidents. After all, law abiding citizens are shooting each other in mass after traffic accidents in the more than 20 states with conceal gun carry laws now. Get tough on the criminals and solve the problem.
Posted by: Pir4AndNo we need more guns not less.
If people wanted to kill people in large quantities than they would find a way with or without guns, but if more people had guns then they could protect themselves. People need to be more mindful of their surroundings and the government need to do a better job of helping the mentally ill in my opinion.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely Not!
I find that gun restrictions are a bunch of crap. Because I personally own 3 guns but not once have I shot at or toward another human being. So I obey the law... And so does the majority of gun owners. Some people just have issues. That's their problem. And people who have already purchased a firearm are still able to do something stupid. But that doesn't mean we should have laws against it.
Posted by: AnonymousIt won't do anything.
All I have to say is look at Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet they have the highest crime rates. Explain that. Criminals will just get them illegally; look at other laws like the ones that ban pot. You still see people walking around and getting arrested for it. EXPLAIN THAT...
Posted by: AnonymousArmed Citizens are LESS likely to be attacked
A criminal is much less likely to attacke an armed citizen than an unarmed citizen, criminals are oportunists and prey on the weak, a man, or woman is much more likely to be assaulted if they are unarmed than if they had a firearm. It's simple common sense, and for all those uneducated, uninformed gun-haters, its people like you who will wish you had a gun when a burglar comes in your home and wants to take away what you hold close, be it your belongins, or your family.
Posted by: AnonymousGun control legislature.
A law is no better than the ability to enforce that law. Since gun control laws that are now in effect are not being enforced as we have a law against convicted felons possessing firearms and each week felons are caught possessing those illegal firearms and perpetrating crimes on law abiding citizens with those illegal firearms. What makes one think that if stiffer laws were passed that it would help. If we really wanted to stop the mass killings pass a law and enforce it that a convicted mass killer would die by lethal injection within ten days of being convicted. That way they would not get the notoriety that they desire by killing others. When laws are not enforced only law abiding citizens obey those laws! Does that stop crime?
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals don't obey laws!
Most Americans tend to believe liberty requires personal responsibility. Sure if we all locked ourselves away in a prison cell and looked to the state as the sole benefactor/protector of the people, we’d all be “safer”, but it’d be at the cost of our liberty. I think Mr. Franklin said it best: “Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither.” There will always be maniacs who want to kill. You cannot predict or prevent every bad thing from happening. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from the state and not each other. Aren’t approx. 170 million deaths in the 20th century alone, directly resulting from state sponsored genocide, enough of a reason to allow civilians the right to self-defense? Even though it’s not a perfect solution? Watch this, and watch the interviews at the end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAU9AJfttls .
Posted by: nick1982nPeople kill people
A person can kill 50 people with a pencil... Will pencils be banned? No. You can make some VERY dangerous guns hard to get... NOT ALL!! Bombs can be made out of fertilizer! You can easily get that at Home Depot. People will always find a way to hurt each other.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are a sign of physical power and if the government takes more of our guns away then they are taking away our power.
I am a firm believer in being in control of weapons, but if anyone is going to decide which guns we do and do not own let it not be the government. If the government takes away guns then we are weak. What are we going to do if they take all the guns away? We won't be able to overthrow our government if things get out of hand. When the government takes its hands out of gun control then I will gladly consider proposals. The Second Amendment is our most important right. Let's defend it.
Posted by: AnonymousThere should be little, if any, gun control.
I should have the ability and right to defend myself, and others, when needed; whether that be from criminals or a government. It is stated in the Constitution that "the right to bare arms shall not be infringed" and I believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and not a living document of flexible meaning.
Posted by: AnonymousThere should be no Violation of the second amendment
The second amendment a certain unalienable right. It states that all citizens have the right to bear arms. All citizens have this right, but some are trying to revoke it, our one president has begun to strip us of one of our 12 freedoms. After this one what is to stop him from taking the rest.
We should not be stripped of this freedom because what would you do if a criminal kicked down your door and threatened your family. Would you fight him with your fists, would you go and grab a kitchen knife and fight him off, no you would go and grab a firearm. That is the most efficient way of self-defense, and if you live in a criminalized populated area a gun is a must.
Second, do you really think that this new law will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? No! Criminals are Criminals they will find guns they will purchase guns, they will make guns. Criminals will always find a way, it is the same deal with drugs they can get drugs all the same ways.
Next, I have had some of the best times in my life going hunting with my dad, if there are no guns people simply won’t be allowed to hunt and if people don’t hunt animal populations will eat all the food and then starve the next year. Then people won’t be happy animals won’t be happy and it will be a bumpy ride for every one.
Fourth, does it seen that if Government created a law that made everyone tern in there guns. Do you think the mad men that would do badly with weapons would go along with the government and tern them in. NO! You have just stripped the people of their best defense and now the criminals are running wild killing defenseless peoples.
Posted by: AnonymousNo
because why should we have gun control in the first place? it helps us " honest " people have protection against wackos, and its constitutional! we might have gun control, but criminals are going to steal guns anyway! so what does it matter?
Posted by: softballgirl889Criminals don't follow the law
People intending to kill others don't give a damn about the law. If I want an automatic weapon, I can go and buy one from an illegal arms dealer. If I want to kill like 40 people, who gives a damn that it is illegal to conceal weapons? It's the same thing with explosives, a trip to Home Depot allows me to kill hundreds yet no body is trying to regulate fertilizer and gasoline.
Posted by: AnonymousTHE AMENDMENT WAS MADE FOR US TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE GOVERMENT INCASE THEY TURNED ON US WHICH HAS HAPPENED BEFORE OPEN YOUR EYES
Criminals don't generally purchase their guns lawfully through certified gun dealers, so strict gun laws don't make obtaining guns hard for criminals; they make obtaining guns hard for people who want to be able to defend themselves. People use guns 2.5 million times/yr. In self-defense. In regard to your comment about the obligation to save as many lives as possible: armed citizens kill about 1500 criminals per year with an error rate (accidentally killing an innocent person) of 2%. Police kill about 600 criminals per year with an error rate (accidentally killing an innocent person) of 11%. Also, in every single instance, legalizing concealed weapon carry reduces violent crime markedly. What criminal is going to open fire in a place where he knows there is a high probability that at least one person in the vicinity is carrying a gun on their person? It hardly EVER happens. One last item: "assault" rifle is a politically charged term that serves to vilify the guns. Say I live in an area where lots of criminals own assault rifles - and criminals don't care whether they are illegal or not - and I feel an assault rifle would be the most appropriate weapon to use if I was to need to defend myself in such an area. Should I not be able to make that choice? The answer is, yes, I should. Also, the second amendment was written so that the people would be able to defend themselves in case the military was to turn on them (which has happened in history). Guess what? I'd need something like an assault rifle to defend myself in such an instance, wouldn't I? You should go read some facts instead of basing your opinion on the way the media sways your emotions.
Posted by: AnonymousOverlooking the real problem.
The problem with mass shooting or many killings has to do with the mental health of the individual. Yet the government continues to cut public mental health funding and programs that are clearly needed. Look at the history of school and public shootings, most will tell you that the shooter had some sort of mental health issue. People tend to put the blame on guns and gun owners, when in reality most gun owners never have the intention of actually hurting anyone with their firearms. But nobody wants to talk about mental illness, we would rather just ignore it and pretend that it wasn't there, so we place the blame elsewhere.
Posted by: AnonymousHarsher punishment for criminals.
We need harsher punishments. Jail needs to go back to the good old days where criminals were forced into labor camps. Where public hangings were used as warning. Criminals do not obey the law. So why do you expect them to start obeying the law all of a sudden. The gun laws only hurts law abiding citizens. It will cause more crime. Forcing the military to step in and bring in martial law.
This is part of Obama plan to become a dictator.Posted by: AnonymousNo, there should not be stricter gun control.
What is gun control going to do? You want to make background checks? In the Newtown shooting what would background checks have done? Stopped him from breaking into his moms house and stealing her gun? If don't want shootings like that too happen again... The only way that can happen is by just banning guns. That's not the kind of country America is, because our fore fathers gave us 10 simple amendments to live by, and if we can't do that what kind of country are we?
Posted by: AnonymousStricter laws will not stop criminals from owning weapons.
If I was a criminal and the government made guns illegal, I would want one even more. Criminals already disregard the laws, so one more will not matter. Tougher laws are not going to stop people from using knives and other bloody, violent weapons! Just because you make stricter gun laws does not mean people will follow them.
Posted by: AnonymousCrime
Criminals are criminals which means they don't follow the law anyway. What's the point in making it tougher for the citizens who do follow the law when criminals aren't going to follow it anyway!!!!!!
Posted by: AnonymousIf a person wants to get a gun, they will.
By restricting gun laws, we are not stopping gun violence. If you are a criminal or a gang member who wants or needs a gun to kill someone, you will get a hold of it. You will find a way (an illegal way) to get a gun. Our founding fathers meant to give us the right to bear arms, a right that should not and cannot be restricted. Once again, if a terrorist wants to shoot up a school to get media attention, they will find weapons. And it will gain even more media attention than before.
Posted by: AnonymousGun bans only make it harder for a law obiding citizen to obtain guns.
If a gun ban is put into place, it will only affect law obiding citizens. CRIMINALS DON'T CARE! They will still get guns illegaly, and they will still committ their crimes! There's many other things that can be done. If armed guards are necasarry at schools, then put them in. We need guns to protect ourselves. The fools in the UK allow themselves to be controlled by the government. The government is so messed up in today's society, we need guns to protect ourselves. Especially from the pathetic police that are hired today.
Posted by: AnonymousOnly A Few Wackos Want to kill People...
No need for gun control! Sure, a few wackos may kill... Also, the 2nd amendment says: " A regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Sure, I aint saying that gun control can't be a tad better, but ripping them away ISNT RIGHT!
Posted by: AnonymousWon't do anything
The guns aren't the problem, the problem is the people who actually have a desire to hurt or kill someone with the gun. Even if guns are virtually made impossible to get, purple still get illegal things. Take drugs for example, they are illegal, yet people still do them with no problems. If guns are made illegal, it will just make it another illegal thing for people to use.
Posted by: AnonymousOur government cannot oppress us as long as we have the ability to fight back
U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment There's a reason our founding fathers advocated the right to bear arms, and it's not just for hunting or defense against intruders... it's so we the people can overturn our government if ever plagued by tyranny. If we outlaw semi-automatic weapons, what will we have to defend ourselves with when Obama really comes-a-knocking? Sticks? Stones? Flintlock pistols? This isn't the 1770's anymore, and this push for gun control is really frightening.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people, people kill people.
Guns need to be taken away. Not from everyone, just from people with criminal records or the crazy people who go to a school and shoot innocent kids. Guns need to be taken away from people like that. Everyone needs a gun in their house to defend themselves. Imagine if someone broke and came into your house and you had nothing to defend yourself with. You would need a gun. Guns are a tool to help protect. I know a lot of incidents have happened involving a gun but that doesn't mean they should take away every gun.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy should I lose my rights?
I grew up knowing how to properly handle guns. People claim guns kill people. Well, do cameras make movies? Do pencils write papers? I use guns for recreational purposes. These include hunting, trap shooting, and blowing off steam. Adolph Hitler took away guns. Stalin took away guns. Is Obama going to take away guns? He is using a tragedy to further his own gains. Just like 9/11 was used to reinstate the Patriot Act. In the words of Marty Huggins, "It's a mess."
Posted by: Anonymousgun control conspiracy
From what I have read and heard, gun control is part of the one world gov't. Conspiracy. Hitler was quoted as saying, "In order to take over a nation, you must first disarm them." That is exactly what they are trying to do. My opinion, and I am not alone by any means on this, is that many of the "terrorists acts" that have been taking place have been orchestrated by the "powers that be". They also want the people to be fearful and bankrupt; hmmm, does that coincide with what is and has been going on in the U.S., and around the world? The bailouts, the trillions in dollars found in overseas accounts, the foreclosures, etc. It all comes into play in the one world gov't. Keep your eyes and ears open and you will see how it is all tied together. They even go so far as staging "happenings" that didn't really happen at all. Stay alert and use your brain. Don't let it be lazy and just be zombie-like and soak up all the propaganda that the mainstream media is being fed from the gov't. And the corporate mafia that is the "powers that be". THINK ABOUT IT!!! Just because you don't want to believe that it is happening doesn't make it so and vice versa. You need to research for yourselves and look at what is going down. Don't be fooled by the lies.
Posted by: AnonymousYou going to take away knifes too?
Guns, we need guns. Anyone can kill somebody rather it be with a bat, knife, explosive, ect. There are tons of weapons in which we the people need. Protection is the first reason. It is not fair to us for we are not criminals, so why take away basically the only protection we have? Criminals will try and kill us with ANYTHING! So why take away guns?? Right to bare arms is a law for a reason! Why go and change it? Sure there are shooting rampages, but hasn't their also been stabbings?
You may think it's good to have stricter laws on gun control... But what if YOU have someone try and break into your home & hurt one of your children, wife, ect? & you'd have NO protection.Posted by: AnonymousWhy?
Death is horrible but no more than 13k people are murdered each year by firearms in America. To help put that in perspective there is over 300 million Americans. Which would mean 1 out of 23,000 people are murdered by firearms. I would say your chances of being shot are pretty slim if thats what you are worried about. 200,000+ die each year because of doctors errors (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx). It's estimated between 18,000-40,000+ die each year simply from lack of health insurance (http://theweek.com/article/index/234706/mitt-romney-says-americans-dont-die-for-lack-of-health-insurance-is-he-right). 600,000 Americans go to jail each year for cannabis possession(http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#Total) and depending on who your quoting guns used in self-defense save 12,000-100,000+ lives each year. Proof you don't need a gun to go on a killing spree (even if they are rather old events): Chinese man stabs 28 children (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/28/china-man-stabs-students-teacher-south/), Teacher stabs 15 students (http://www.fox19.com/global/story.asp?s=12394437).
All gun control will do is start a war.Posted by: AnonymousIt's too late for gun control in America.
It's been baked into our DNA and there are simply too many guns just floating around now. Not one of the gun-related tragedies would have been prevented by any of the proposed gun control measures-- the perpetrators would've got their guns (or DID get their guns) outside of the law. Blanket legislation is a BAD DEAL. Passing legislation that affects millions of people to prevent what happens -almost never- is insanity.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns would become similar to drugs.
Drugs are illegal and somehow make its way into society, how do you think guns won't do the same? People will find a way to get there hands on it, and this gives them power. You don't want lunatics with power. Law-abiding citizens are vulnerable since they wont smuggle guns, they are in danger from criminals and psychopaths, this can hike up crime rates and death rates. Prohibition was similar to this. It was illegal, still everyone had their hands on it.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's not a good idea at all.
I am a NRA member and I shoot skeet/trap/sporting clays. Making stricter laws for gun carriers isn't going to prevent people from killing or robbing someone. By looking at the stats between the U.K. and the U.S., there are way more violent crimes in the U.K. than there are in the U.S. Now I do believe that people should keep their guns out of reach from children and the mentally ill. Even if they do make guns illegal, then that would mean they would also have to ban knives, bows and arrows, etc., because all the democrats are going to say is "that kills people, might as well ban this while we're at it". By the way, the guns that the democrats are trying to ban aren't "high-powered weapons," they are standard .22 rifles, and the "high velocity magazines" are only holding a standard 10 rounds. I bet that 95% of the people that said yes to this question NEVER even touched a gun, they just agree because they LOOK scary. So all of you people that agree with more gun laws, go buy a gun, shoot it, or start going hunting and then you could come back and answer this question again...
Posted by: AnonymousI oppose strict gun control laws.
You've heard it said a million times: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, have you really ever thought about that statement? You should, because it is completely true.
If I have it in my mind to kill someone, guess what? I am going to kill them. Will making a gun more difficult for me to obtain cause me not to kill that person? Uh, nope. If I want them dead, I am going to find a way, and there are millions of ways to achieve my goal, not just guns.
Secondly, making gun control laws more strict doesn't mean that guns won't be obtainable. And furthermore, if I am a criminal, do I really care that laws are in place that prohibit me or make it more difficult to obtain a gun? Is a criminal gong to think along these lines?
"Gee, I want to commit a crime, but I can't because I would have to break the law to obtain a gun to commit the crime. I guess I can't break the law!"
Isn't it easy to see the completely flawed logic in that argument? If I am going to commit a crime involving a gun, I sure don't care about obtaining a gun legally. I am going to get the gun regardless of whether or not it is against the law, and there are millions upon millions of guns for me to obtain. If I want a gun that bad, they are readily available and easy to obtain.
Guns are simply a tool-- a means to an end. If one isn't available, I'll pick up a knife and achieve the same result, IF I were a criminal. The chances of gun control laws actively reducing crime are slim to none. A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, with or without guns. They are going to do what they want one way or the other.
The US Constitution, regardless of case law and liberal interpretations, specifically grants us, as American citizens, the right to bear arms, according to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. It can't get any plainer or clearer the way it is written. But liberals have taken it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution to suit their own needs and agendas. Thus is the world we live in today, where case law and twisted interpretations rule the land.
So again, guns don't kill people. Bad people kill people, and they will continue to kill people with or without guns. There are far more illegal guns out there than there are legal. How is a law going to affect that?Posted by: R0m4nticCarI disagree because stricter laws will not curb violence in schools.
There shouldn't be any stricter gun laws because if a criminal wants to get a firearm, even if they do ban guns, they're still going to find a way to get a firearm and use it. Like at high school in the hall, a boy walked up to another boy and stabbed him with a screw driver. It isn't going to help situations like that if they ban guns.
Posted by: FordMonsterHelp for Help
We can kill people from anything, ext. Hands, Pencils, Rocks, Wire from the simplest things in our everyday lives. Just because people are killing people with guns doesn't mean we should ban guns. People are gonna find a way to find firearms somehow, America was raised by guns. America needs guns.
Posted by: AnonymousLegal vs Illegal ownership
Gun Controlling or banning it rarely has an effect on illegal gun ownership e.g. Gangsterism.
Occurrences such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, Oscar Pistorius(without getting lost in the moral outrage machine) are rare occurrences where "ordinary" law-abiding citizens up shooting someone or a group of people. They can't be used as a justification for gun control as it will have no effect on illegal ownership.Posted by: AnonymousThe right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Either fear of something they don't understand have people up in arms, or the federal government really wants us powerless. The second amendment is about preserving a free nation from a power hungry tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting, sporting, or even personal self defense. It keeps a balance of power between our elected officials and the people. It is national self defense.
Posted by: AnonymousGun Control Should Not Be Set In Motion
Gun control should not be set in motion because the guns themselves are not the problem, but the persons causing violence themselves is the real problem. An important point to know is that the person who has a gun decides where the bullet will end up. People who are violent don’t necessarily need a gun to be violent. Gun control would be like prohibition, people would continue to get guns anyway. Then only outlaws would have guns. If gun control is implemented, many people will feel unsafe and insecure who had previously owned a gun. The reason lots of people get guns is for self-defense and for hunting. Taking guns away would violate the 2nd amendment and subordinate citizens freedom.
I personally believe that targeting the guns for violence is wrong. It’s the violent people themselves who need help. If the government cut spending on other un-needed things, we could have better and more programs for helping to rehabilitate those with serious mental problems that make them want to cause violence. Another option that may decrease violence could be to offer more commercial gun safety classes and training. Criminals will be less likely to cause violence if they know that people can better protect themselvesPosted by: AnonymousGun control is a big no.
If we had gun control, we would not be able to defend ourselves! Thus, there will be more deaths. It will not solve the criminal problem, just make it worse. If we take guns away, the criminals will somehow get them illegally. So either which way, it will happen. If we had gun control, people wouldn't do fun things anymore like trap, skeet, and sporting clays. I disagree with gun control. We have the right to bear arms
Posted by: AnonymousGuns have multiple uses
Guns are more often used for collecting, self defense, art/gun shows etc.. Than gun crimes, so it is illogical to ban guns because of recent shootings/crimes. It has been shown that if you create a list of the things that cause the most death in the U.S, gun crimes wouldn't even make the top 30.
Posted by: Anonymousgun laws wont srop crime
Guns laws have done nothing for other countries but cause a spike in their crime rates. These countries such as Russia and the continent of Australia should be examples of why not to have stricter gun laws. Why do people want our crime rate to rise? A high percentage of the u.s. gun deaths is from Chicago which is the state with the strictest gun laws in the u.s.
Posted by: AnonymousNo gun control.
No there doesn't need to be any gun control law. The 2nd amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms is the peoples right to have their own arm's for their defense" we have to protect it. We have a right to own them. Don't take them away from the people that are smart with them.
Posted by: AnonymousThe lawless don't care about gun laws
Regardless if tighter gun laws are implemented, those who wish to commit crimes, will do so. They will get guns through the black market, etc and meanwhile, those of us who are law abiding citizens will suffer the consequences of not being able to defend ourselves. And for those who think that the 2nd amendment is outdated and written for a time when people had to hunt for their meals...you are sadly mistaken. The right to bear arms is in direct response to a society being able to defend themselves from a government that has gone corrupt. There is no way that I would put my trust in this government to "protect" me. Please read our country's founding documents and why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place.
Posted by: AnonymousGood people need guns.
The Government has restricted us on enough. Stricter gun laws would decrease the about of GOOD people with weapons. Not the criminals. They will get the guns however they please and they are sure not going to stop and say "o wait this is against the law". We need to be supplying the good people with weapons. The cops are great but they aren't everywhere and people are. We need the people of America to not only have weapons for self-protection but for fun. We have the right to bear arms and should practice that amendment.
Posted by: AnonymousIt won't solve anything
Gun control is an interesting argument in America. In places like Britain and Australia the sight of a gun is rare. Here in Walmart you can find a selection of Firearms. While it is true that gun deaths went down in Australia, the amount of home invasions, armed robberies and murder rate skyrocketed. This also occurred in Britain. The point of having a gun is self-defense. Say one day a man barges through your front door and is holding a knife. What are you going to do tackle him? Maybe you say call the police. The police in some places may take 45 minutes to show up. With a gun you can defend yourself adequately. For those of you calling for registration. In many States all gun owners must go already through a 3-week period of buying a gun to get the gun AFTER they have passed through the background check. You can't just walk up to the counter fork over cash and walk away with a deadly weapon.
Posted by: AnonymousThe second amendment clearly states that neither the federal nor the state governments have the right to take away any right to bear arms.
Let's look at the wording of the second amendment. The second amendment say that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." First let's look at the phrase “A well regulated militia...". People will try to say that militias no longer exist, but if they look at the wording later on in the amendment they will see that the word "people" is used interchangeably with the word "militia". Now, let's look at the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". This phrase says that people have the right to own any gun they want and to carry it anytime they want. Finally, let's look at the phrase "shall not be infringed". This phrase is ignored more than any other phrase. It insinuates that neither the Federal nor the state governments can even COME CLOSE to taking away ANY rights of the people to keep and bear arms. I hope this helps in your viewing of the subject.
Posted by: NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FANThe LA riots
During the LA riots, Korean business owners armed themselves and warded off hundreds of rioters that would have otherwise looted & burned down their businesses.
The govt wasn't there to protect them so they protected themselves. Similar scenarios during Katrina and Hurricane Sandy are realistic reminders of why the 2nd ammendment is in place.Posted by: AnonymousMy biggest statement would have to be the government should never have more power than the people
By taking away our guns and controlling us they are making themselves the ultimate power. And once they become so powerful they can do whatever they want and I fear we could turn to a communist country. For me this is not acceptable, also why should they be allowed to take away our freedoms and rights. This is not ok and I urge all of you gun owners or not to stand against these laws and make sure the people are always the stronger power
Posted by: AnonymousNo No No
We have so many laws now that are not being enforced. Registering guns are the first step in taking them away from law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms. To protect our families and ourselves. The protecting isn't just from bad people that want to rob, harm or rape. It is to protect us from a turning of a bad government if that was ever to happen. That is why the second amendment was put there. That was the main reason..............Vote no for any additional control. These new laws that the president is asking for are directed at the people that are not a problem. The criminals and mentally ill people will get guns and use them no matter what. People are killed all the time with knives...Are we going to take all the knives in the nation away from the kitchen? How do we stop that from happening? Additional gun controls are not the answer. They are not needed. We have all the laws we need now. Just enforce the laws we have in force now.
Posted by: AnonymousStop falling prey to propoganda - We already have laws in place
If you look at statistics gathered by governments around the world, you will see proof that the extreme restriction of firearms leads to more, not less crime. Sure, perhaps fewer people get shot, but people die by violent means and are victimized on a much higher level. Did you know that Britain, with its extreme gun control, is the most violent place in the E.U.?
So, how can this be? After all, if you hear gun grabbers speak on this, they'd have you believe that less guns equals a happy society free of violence. This is insanity, and shows how little our own citizens understand our Constitution.
The Bill of Rights was written after the Constitution because states would not sign on. You know why? Because it did not do enough to protect citizens and their individual rights over that of the government.
I know people don't want to hear this, but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting nor is it simply about protecting your home. It is about your ability to secure your freedom from tyranny.
And guess what? There are already laws against murder, but people still do it! There are already laws against many things that people do every day.... so to assume that more laws solves anything is the absolute height of stupidity.
Lastly... I am a liberal. In fact, I'm a peace loving vegan who just happens to know both history and our Constitutional rights very well. Every citizen should have a gun as long as they do not have a violent criminal record nor a mental illness.Posted by: AnonymousCriminals follow laws.
Criminals don't follow laws. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...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.” Cesare Beccaria
Posted by: AnonymousThinking it Through
My opinions are influenced by working as a law enforcement officer for the past 37 years. I believe it to be impossible to erase the possibility of one individual harming another if there is a sufficient degree of intent. Legislation can certainly limit the use of a firearm as the instrument of choice. However, effort would be better spent in finding a method to better harden the security of what history shows to be the most likely targets of opportunity. Beyond that, programs must be implimented to assist in the identification and suppression of violence throughout our society. To think the removal of guns will cause all violence based issues to go away doesn't really address the root of the true problem. At some point, we need to take a long hard look at the dark path many of our youth have chosen to travel. If we can find the WHY, we will have a much better chance of developing a HOW.
Posted by: AnonymousMaking guns illegal will keep the off the street?
Making guns illegal will keep the off the street? Maybe we should make drugs illegal. That will keep drugs off the street. Since when do we have criminals obeying laws ? Look at Chicago with the 500+ homicide rate. They have the strictest anti gun laws in the country and that is causing their murder rate to spike.
Posted by: AnonymousAs long as you are not a wanted criminal or are mentally incapable of handling a weapon you should have the right to own any firearms you like.
I believe that the citizens of the United States should have as much power as the government, otherwise our government will be able to do whatever it wants with no concern for its people. Our army should be a citizens army instead of men just taking orders and everyone should be trained to fight with their firearms. I believe that our government has become far too powerful and corrupt. We need more power in the people and the only way to do that is to arm them. Without any weopons we are helpless. The only thing stopping our government from completely taking over is the fact that we are armed and they still fear us in some degree.
Posted by: AnonymousSimple response.
Criminals don't care if obtaining the gun is illegal, especially if they're about to do something illegal with the gun. Stricter gun laws will not hold back a criminal from doing something harmful to others. Criminals like the one in the Connecticut shooting as well as the one in the Aurora theater shooting are both obviously mentally ill. Those kinds of people need to be helped.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns Are Safe
No, its only going to cause more problems in several different county's. Taking guns away from us is like Starving animals ; you just don't do that. Guns are very important in many peoples lives. They even bring some family's together. So why go messing with everyone's guns. Guns Rule!
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not the problem,
Guns are simple weapons used in everyday life. Nothing needs to happen to the gun laws, just because of some shootings. There are crazy people in the world that do crazy things, everyday. It is these people that need to be rethought. Not the gun laws. The laws are fine as they are, but the people need to be in mental hospitals.
Posted by: AnonymousGun Control Debate
There has been a series of heated debates on gun control following the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting on December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut. The gun control debate has become one of the most intense arguments in the history of the Second Amendment and will continue to be a discussion amongst individuals. I do not know if there is a right or wrong answer to the questions but I do not believe that gun rights should not be hindered for law-abiding citizens.
Law-abiding citizens use guns for many reasons: hunting, target shooting, self-protection…. Most registered gun owners are responsible people who believe in gun safety and understand the consequences.
I believe the gun laws that are in place just need to be enforced not made stricter. Historically speaking, banning of weapons has never worked as only law-abiding individuals will obey these laws. Drugs are rampant, crime is everywhere, and criminals will find a way to purchase a weapon regardless of any law that Congress passes. It is the right of citizens to protect themselves, family, and property. Guns are only as evil as the individuals who use them.
BTPosted by: AnonymousLaw-abiding citizens shouldn't suffer.
There are lots of law abiding citizens in the United States who have no problem with themselves and others owning guns, I personally would feel safer knowing that I am allowed to own and do own a gun. In fact in the state of Florida, by allowing people to carry concealed firearms the crime rates dropped drastically. So... I think by not having strict gun control laws we enable our safety and help lower crime rates.
Posted by: AnonymousGood people with guns take care of the bad people with guns.
If there is a situation in which there is a person shooting innocents, people with permits to carry have the ability to take the person down before more die. There have been several tragic events in history that could have been prevented if we had less restrictions on gun control.
Posted by: AnonymousI am only 15 and it affects me!
Okay my family hunts. I'm not one that likes to kill little animals. But seriously if we don't kill the animals they will over take our human population. You have to kill them to keep there numbers down. Because I don't think you guys would like to get attacked by a deer! Or ruin your brand new car because of a deer! Also Obama is protected by guns. So why cant we protect ourselves? And the second amendment is the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS isn't it? I'm pretty sure it is! Also with them doing this there will be more guns than there are now that are not registered and smuggled in! Also if more people had guns and were aloud to take them more places they could stop some of these mass shootings that are happening everywhere!
Posted by: AnonymousI have to mark no, however there do need to be some changes.
I am against Fienstien's assault weapons ban, simply due to reading it, it makes no sense. I am against the background check due to it being based on a very limited and old study done. I might be in favor if the data was a little more comprehensive and up to date. I do believe there need to be stiffer penalties for "straw purchases" as well as penalties for firearms that are used to commit crime when reasonable effort has not been made to secure them, as well as the failure to report a stolen firearm in a reasonable amount of time. I also believe there do need to be more trained and armed professionals at schools and any place where there is a large gathering of people. I find the lax security after 9/11 criminal. Finally I believe that law enforcement needs to be better trained at dealing with the public and there should be more of them in high crime areas.
Posted by: cllmelGun laws will only provoke people to try to oppose them.
You know that one kid who was always a troublemaker in school? The one who purposely did the opposite of what the rules were? Well, in some cases, the circumstances here are very similar. If guns were allowed everywhere, some people wouldn't feel the need to shoot anyone simply because it wouldn't be against the law. Some kids I know feel the need to go against authority and do whatever is possible to make that clear to others. People that aren't right in the head might be like this too, and enacting a law against guns could provoke them to try to go out and shoot people. The only thing that needs to happen is increasing the thoroughness of background checks, so we don't end up giving a powerful weapon to someone mentally unstable.
Posted by: AnonymousThe second amendment allows people the right to keep and bear arms.
The second amendment states that the people may be able to keep and bear arms in an organized militia. By taking away guns you are endangering people from protecting themselves. The people who own guns and do it legally are not the people who we need to be worried about. It's the people who gain their guns illegally that are the people who we need to be worried about.
Posted by: AnonymousNo gun restrictions.
Just because there are stupid people out there with guns doesn't mean we need stricter laws against the guns. Maybe we could do stricter background checks on the person or persons buying the guns. This way we can see who exactly is getting the gun and we can deny them the purchase.
Posted by: AnonymousNo gun control.
The government doesn't want us to have power. That's the truth. I thought that United States citizens had the power. They do not have the right to take our gun rights. Guns do not hurt people, people who use them wrong hurt people. Criminals with guns or people who are mentally ill are the problem. The Government should get all the bad people under control before they decide it is a good idea to ban guns. Because what the Government is really doing is lying to itself. They get so self-absorbed that they start to believe their own lies. They think it is okay to ban weapons because everyone will still be safe. No! That isn't true. Criminals are still going to get a hold of these weapons! And children that get a hold of them have irresponsible parents. If all those idiotic gun control laws passed by silly liberals really worked, then we could sleep at night with the doors unlocked and we could walk down the street without worry. But criminals don't abide by any kind of laws, so gun control is a stupid idea put forth by liberal idiots and supported by idiot journalists. The 2nd amendment states in very clear language "ARMS". It's intent was then, and is now, exactly and clearly the same. Nothing has changed. Morons somehow have the idea that it is a living document that changes and yet in the same breath they conclude that the 2nd amendment somehow stagnates in time and was clear that they meant muskets. If this were true, they simply could have and most assuredly would have said muskets. This amendment is intended to provide for an equal and opposite defense and or armed response for the people and the several states from loss of their rights by force of arms to the very limited in power (see the 10th amendment) Federal Government, and furthermore if a militia needs to be formed to accomplish this that clear provision was made and given under the 2nd most important law of our nation. In short, Whatever arms may be brought to field in support of tyranny will be fielded in turn.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't take away our protection.
Taking our guns mean taking away our way to protect ourselves. According to evidence that I found, violence only increased when more gun laws were put in place, and 67% of people that own guns use it to protect themselves against crime. In Florida the murder rates went up after more gun laws were put in place. After the right to carry guns were put in, the murder rates went down.
I may only be 15 years old, but I know we need guns to protect ourselves against crime. Some Americans use guns to do target shooting or even hunting. If we take away guns, does that mean we should take hunting, and target practicing away too? Even though I am young, other people that I know that stand behind me in my statement. NO MORE GUN CONTROL!Posted by: Anonymous84,995,467 firearm owners killed no one today.
It is a proven fact that where guns are banned, the crime rates are higher. If gun control worked, wouldn't Chicago be the safest city alive? Since the Newtown massacre, approx. 2,304 people have been killed as a result of firearms. Guns have been used 7,094 times in self defense since then.
Posted by: AnonymousAmerica should be free.
Gun laws do not prevent crime. They prevent guns, not violence. Criminals can still steal guns. There are still so many more crimes than guns. Most of them outweigh the effects of gun crimes. Stricter gun control will not help at all, end of story. This debate is over. Go to your room young man
Posted by: AnonymousNo. Just no.
Gun laws do not prevent crime. They prevent guns. Not violence. Criminals can still steal guns. There are still so many more crimes than guns. Most of them outweigh the effects of gun crimes. Stricter gun control will not help at all, end of story. This debate is over. Go to your room young man.
Posted by: ijustrandomlymadethisNo, they shouldn't be stricter.
Having stricter gun laws will just make people feel like being sneakier. They will still want to use guns, no matter what - for example, in school, kids always want to break the rules when the teachers are strict. I also saw a picture on Facebook that said that strict parents make kids sneakier. It is the same situation with gun control
Posted by: AnonymousNo they shouldn't be stricter, it will lead to more guns.
That will just make people feel sneakier and they will want to use them no matter what. For example in school the more rules they put in place, the more that people want to break the rules. On Facebook I saw a picture that said that strict parents make kids sneakier, so it is the same situation with the gun control.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people, people kill people.
Have you ever heard of that saying? Well, it is completely true. How is a gun going to kill someone? Just sprout some legs and walk on over and kill someone? No. Guns have to be operated by people. You can also use knives, forks, gardening tools, your hands (strangling), or any other dangerous things. The thing is, weapons don't kill people. People kill people. But also, criminals are the people who kill people, so if there is gun control, criminals are just going to break into stores and get them on their own.
Posted by: IzzyBella13Stricter gun laws will only help criminals.
If you make stricter laws in regard to gun control then it just makes it harder for the common man to obtain a gun and thus protect his family, property, and any other person. Stricter laws will make it harder to get guns and they will become much more expensive. In the end, stricter laws really do not make anyone safer. Instead, they put the common man at risk of being unprotected if a gunman were to threaten him or anyone around him. It also makes no sense for guns to only be allowed for police or government authorities. If a gunman were to come to your house and break in and threaten your family, what is the likelihood that they would wait around for the police to come and pick them up? Not to be disrespectful of any policeman or woman who helps keep our country a safer place, but they cannot be everywhere that crime is. They do a very good job of it, but criminals are everywhere and they do not just wait around to get taken off the streets. Criminals are usually trying to avoid the police, not meet up with them. Even trying to ban guns will never be effective. First off, it goes against the second amendment, which gives us "the right to bear arms." Second off, a criminal who breaks the law will not decide to obey the law when the government tells them to turn in their guns. So law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns and the criminal will not, which leaves those law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the criminals with no way of protecting themselves. Guns are not the people-killers, people are the people-killers. We need to stop blaming guns for the crimes that are happening today and trying to make more laws that will "help" the gun control situation. In the end, stricter laws will help no one but criminals who are already breaking the law.
Posted by: AnonymousThere are too many laws already.
There are so many laws on the books now that it is confusing. They aren't enforced. Taking my rights/guns away because of a few nut jobs that showed signs of problems way before it happened and no one did anything to stop it, is not even addressing the problem. I am 57 and and remember having a debate with my father when I was a teenager about gun control. My statement then, as now, is that it is not anything other than a group of people that will do and use anything to confiscate guns. I have been proven right.
Posted by: AnonymousOnly Police Officers And The Army Should Have Gun Control
Gun control had a huge effect on the outcome of people using guns as killing machines. In my opinion guns should be banned. In that case only police officers and the army can use guns. This is because of innocent people being killed in streets, schools, work, home, clubs, theaters, etc. So many people said that guns were for emergency, but 97.65 % of people use them to kill other people. Is it really an emergency? No, its not. Do people really need guns? No, we have cell phones to call the police and the ambulance
Posted by: AnonymousFocusing on the wrong people.
The people who will follow these new gun control laws are the law-abiding citizens, the people who will not follow these new laws are the people who will commit crimes. By imposing more laws you're just further restricting people who aren't the problem, people who aren't bothering anyone by owning a gun. Guns aren't the problem, people are (not the law-abiding people though). If we didn't have guns deranged angry people would find another way to wreck havoc; in China they're having an outbreak in stabbings, so are you going to restrict knives? no. so why are you restricting guns? People are letting the "exception" cases dictate the rules. If we didn't cover all these media stories about massacres it wouldn't even occur to some people to shoot a school. We are allowing these ideas to be put into the heads of people who might have otherwise just continued being depressed versus becoming violent.
Posted by: AnonymousU.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment
There's a reason our founding fathers advocated the right to bear arms, and it's not just for hunting or defense against intruders... it's so we the people can overturn our government if ever plagued by tyranny. If we outlaw semi-automatic weapons, what will we have to defend ourselves with when Obama really comes-a-knocking? Sticks? Stones? Flintlock pistols? This isn't the 1770's anymore, and this push for gun control is really frightening.
Posted by: AnonymousGun Control Laws Do Not Work
It does not matter how many laws they pass, because only the law-abiding citizens will obey those laws. Criminals will still do as they please, as they already break the law. If someone is determined to kill they will do so even if there are no guns at all. Throughout history, many have killed masses without a gun. In recent history there is Timothy Mcveigh. Not sure of the spelling, but anyway just one example. Personally, if someone is determined to kill they will, and I would rather my death be by a gun than a chainsaw or an ax or even a baseball bat. The problem is mental illness, not the gun.
Posted by: AnonymousMore people are killed by bare hands than are killed by rifles
The second amendment protects the right of every American to own firearms so that we have a means to protect our freedom. Think about the time when it was written, they were throwing off the shackles of an oppressive government, so they absolutely would have included AR15's and AK47's in that sentiment. Just look up quotes from the Fathers of this country and it should become apparent that they were in favor of citizens having the ability to overthrow their government should it become corrupted and unjust. The people need weapons just in case they should ever need to fight off tyranny, THAT is what the second amendment is about. I doubt such a need will arise in my lifetime but to say that it would never happen is dangerously optimistic, to put it lightly.
And furthermore rifles are used in such a tiny percentage in crimes that it would have no effect, just as was the case during the last AWB. For decades gun ownership has increased and violent crime rates have fallen. I'm not saying that more legal guns necessarily causes criminals to think twice but it shows that more guns does not cause crime rates to go up. There is no tangible evidence that gun control has a positive effect of crime, and isn't that the whole point? Why prevent future generations from purchasing the tools to defend themselves if it doesn't help anyone?Posted by: RainmanGuns aren't at fault. it's the users
Not all mass killings are done by guns. The Newtown shooting was a gun crime, but “On the same day Adam Lanza killed 20 children … Min Yingjun stabbed 22 children at an elementary school in central China.” (The Potential Killers We Let Loose). In this incident knives were a major weapon instead of the usual guns. This doesn’t mean we have to make tighter regulations for knives. Other than knives we also have cars, being used as a means of harm. “In 1999 Steven Abrams … drove his car onto a school playground in California, killing two young children … David Attias … drove his car onto a sidewalk in the Golden state, killing four and injuring nine.” (The Potential Killers We Let Loose). This doesn’t mean we should go banning cars as well. David Attias, Min Yingjun, Adam Lanza, and Steven Abrams have something in common. They all are diagnosed with a mental illness.
Our problem is not the fact that most Americans have guns; it’s that many of the people who have guns are diagnosed with a mental illness and aren’t found out about until it’s too late. “According to the National Institute of Mental Illness 7.7 million Americans qualify … with 3.5 million of them receiving no treatment at any given time.” (The Potential Killers We Let Loose). Our priority shouldn’t be that guns need stricter gun regulations such as bans on certain models of guns. It should be these people get hospitalized and get better. This is vital because “Among this 3.5 million … they compromise … of one fifth of the inmates of jails in prisons, and they are responsible for 10% of all homicides in the US.” (The Potential Killers We Let Loose). Almost 10% of homicides could have been stopped if these people who suffer of mental illness were identified (The Potential Killers We Let Loose). Thus, background checks come into play to help make sure a statistic like this doesn’t happen again.Posted by: AnonymousNo way Jose
The president, actors, politicians.... Have billions spent on their security, armed guards, "assault rifles" etc. Yes most of them are higher profile than I, but am I not able to have some protection? Everyone that cries that you don't "need" a 30 round magazine doesn't know that ideally it would be one shot per attacker, every time but that is almost never the case. "High capacity magazines are only good for killing large amounts of people" Why then would our police ever "need" a 30 round magazine. " But all those kids died!" Say the liberals as they support abortion." If it saves one life then it's worth it." Fine then we ban cars, tobacco , booze,... All of which individually kill far more than guns, even when you include suicide and justified deadly force. You don't "need" a car. You can work closer to home. My heart goes out to those kids and their family. If someone tries to pull that s**t around me they will get shot in the face. I'm not happy to cower in a corner and wait for the cops to come and soak up all of the blood. The
Posted by: AnonymousStricter gun laws should not be allowed.
Stricter gun laws should not be allowed because the gun is not alive to be able to kill a human being. Weapons are not the cause of the harm, but the person doing the person doing the killing is not the actual weapons fault for the peoples death. The person that contains the gun is the person that is killing the other human beings.
Posted by: yomix3Gun Control Un-Needed
Fix killings with more guns in the hands of good guys if someone would have been there in Connecticut with a weapon that man could have been stopped way before all that happened. In the state of MN many people are for gun control, but many are also against. I believe there should be gun control only for people with a criminal background.
Posted by: Anonymousguns prevent you from keeping yourself safe.
Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms. A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection. So that means if we have stricter gun laws we cannot protect ourselves and those .5% of the 4,977 houses would have died from the assault.
I Believe we don't need stricter gun laws I believe we have the right as an American citizen to protect ourselves from armed assaults.Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill...
People kill. The Government gives us less and less rights everyday without people even noticing. People who rely on game for food need to own a gun if they plan on eating that day. If you take their right to own a gun the have to then rely on the government to give them food which is also not going to help. Just because you may not have a gun doesn't mean you have to take away others.
Posted by: DarkendLightno gun control
Guns don't kill people, people kill people we should be able to buy any kind of gun we want and not have to deal with gun control. In my opinion any gun can be used for warfare, every gun can do the same damage as any other gun with a .22 cal rifle you can still kill a human being. Gun control is stupid and shouldn't be passed
Posted by: AnonymousNo to stricter gun laws
I don't think it would be smart to take away guns, or to make them a lot harder to get. If we did this people would probably rebel. Anyway guns aren't the killers it is the people who use them, and if you took away guns how would we hunt. (Me personally being a hunter myself) That would be taking one of my favorite things to do away, and if your wondering I don't hunt for sport. What about protecting yourself from criminals. What would law abiding citizens do if they were attacked. WE DON'T NEED STRICTER GUN LAWS!
Posted by: AnonymousNO New Gun Controls
While we may need to do something about mentally ill and firearms we simply cannot trust the left with more gun control. They have proven themselves liars. They have proven it's about politics not public safety. Most anti gunners are socialists. They should really just let the Gun lobbies worry write the bills needed. We're done compromising with these pinko fools. As a Gun owner I've had it. I mean I've totally had it with their unjust attacks on peaceable gun owners.
Posted by: AnonymousNo we shouldn't
“Any limitation on this fundamental right of self-defense makes us more dependent on our government for our own protection," he said. "Government cannot be everywhere at all times, so the practical effect of limiting our individual rights is to make us less safe.” So we do not need tighter laws.
Posted by: AnonymousGetting rid of guns is the worst thing we can do.
If we get rid of guns, people will just use more mass weapons of destruction such as bombs and poison gas. This will result in more deaths. And yes, they will make homemade bombs people. It is possible. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and what happened? Bombs!
Posted by: AnonymousIt's Our Rights!
If you don't like the rights we have as Americans, then you shouldn't be in America! It's every American's right to own guns and be able to defend yourself. Like I said before, if you don't like it.. Then you need to go live in some other country where they don't allow guns.
Posted by: AnonymousThere needs to be a law on anyone who attacks our Constitution and wastes the Taxpayers money, on trying to take away our rights.
Our Constitution and the second amendment to it, It means United States Citizens, have a god given right to keep and bear arms/guns. And the government Can Not make any Laws to infringe this right. Like freedom of speech?
But if the democratic socialist party has there way, you will have no Constitutional rights left, and you will be at the mercy of these radical socialist, opting for a one world system. Good luck. May God bless our Constitution, our bill of God given rights, and protect us from our enemies, especially from within.Posted by: AnonymousQuick Response: Opinion
A lot of people own guns and use them for recreation or hunting or protection. Those few that use guns to harm others will either find the guns some other way even with stricter laws or they will find another method to harm people. Limiting access to guns for the majority of the law abiding population will only leave them more defenseless. I can understand maybe a strict background check, but that still won't stop someone who is hell-bent on destruction.
Posted by: AnonymousDemocrats are idiots
Disarm the bad people, not the ones trying to protect themselves! Does anyone really believe that banning guns will prevent murders? You know what, maybe it will, maybe we should just ban all guns! And while we're at it, let's ban marijuana and cocaine, because that will stop everyone from getting their hands on that stuff!
Posted by: AnonymousAmerica Does NOT Need Stricter Gun Laws
America doesn't need stricter gun laws. Places who have made guns harder to get, and banned certain guns, IE Assault weapons, have seen an increase in violence. Australia for example. The crime rate of Australia rose 42 percent in nine years after they tightened their gun control laws. Criminals are gonna get control of illegal weapons anyway. Why make it harder on the average person to defend themselves against these violent criminals. If making some guns illegal or harder to get will stop violence shouldn't banning illegal drugs such as meth stop people from doping up? Exactly my point because bad people are gonna get what they want. I am a stereotypical sixteen year old on the computer at school. I have my own ideas and opinions as the people who have disagreed. If a kid who has only been on the earth for sixteen years can pose a better argument than many Americans, how does that tell you the whole situation of america is. That is just my five minutes worth of thought on the subject of gun control.
Posted by: AnonymousJust imagine if...
This gun legislation isnt just about gun legislation... There is more to it, jesus people. Thats like me saying "you get to save this cancer victim from their cancer, all you have to do is kill this other person" then when u say no, i get on the news and say "so and so doesnt want to save cancer victims!" And you are sitting at home like "NOT IF IT REQUIRES ME KILLING SOMEONE ELSE!" ... People only hear what other people want you to hear, read a book... And our gun laws are fine, it took me over a month to get a pistol and its taking 3 months to get a shotgun, a friggin shotgun... And its not like im not trained to use a weapon or its not safe for me to own one... The laws are already tight enough. And the laws on the types of weapons u can own, those are getting more and more strict, but imagine if that ridiculous situation did happen where joe blow had to protect himself against an actual military or government unit with the weapons that they have, you think a semi auto rifle with a 5rd mag is going to be very helpful? Or do u think joe blow would get raped with automatic weapons, ones he cant have because the new batman movie is coming out... Malicious people are going to be malicious weather or not they need a background check or not for their gun doesnt keep them from buying a pressure cooker a battery and a couple boxes of nails does it? And look at the damage that caused... Or the potential for how much more damage it COULD have caused... But are we going to have to get background checks on pressure cookers? :P or will this spark fear enough to allow the government to have x-ray scanning cameras checking our backpacks while we walk down the street? :P i mean how ridiculous do u wanna get with this?
Posted by: AnonymousMore control equals more death.
Criminals DO NOT follow the laws.
The only people you're disarming with more gun control are law-abiding citizens. The bad guys would *prefer* unarmed marks.
And like it or not, firearms are already near-everywhere in this country. Even if laws were passed now, the guns are already here.
You cannot compare this country to any other country, as every country has its own citizens, motivations, and social development. While it might be true that other countries might have fewer firearms deaths (due to the fact that the supply of firearms is near non-existent in those countries), they generally have a higher violent crime rate as well, in addition to human rights violations.Posted by: AnonymousGun ownership is an important part of American culture.
The 2nd amendment was designed to give citizens the ability to overthrow an opressive government by force. Eventhough it is unlikely that our government will try to become a dictatorship, the American principle of consent of the governed is too important to be weakened by an anti gun law which limits the peoples ability to rebel successfully if it was necessary. I really need to finish my english homework. Typing this was a stupid waste of time. Ugh
Posted by: AnonymousWhat about the laws we already have.
The laws we already have aren't enforced, what good will more laws that just affect people who follow the law do. Criminals don't follow laws so these laws will not do any good. Prosecute criminals who break the existing laws and gun deaths will go down. People keep talking about fully automatics weapons should be banned, they already are.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely not and here is why.
These people who shoot groups of people indiscriminately whether it be by hand guns, "assault style" weapons, or a blunderbuss are virtually insane. There is no rhyme or reason to it all and no matter how much we find out about these lunatics it gets more and more complicated the more we think we know. One thing is for sure. They pick victims who are helpless unaware and easy targets. To make the world a safer place is to make sure that every single one of us has an equal chance to survive under ant circumstances not just if all goes well in Mary Poppins land.
Posted by: AnonymousGun control is ridiculous.
Guns should not be banned because, to begin with, it will violate the methods that our founding fathers used to liberate and emancipate themselves from the rule of their government. Furthermore, the second amendment demands that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Posted by: AnonymousLaws wont stop criminals.
Criminals are going to break the laws anyway. All this does is assure the criminal that they'll be safe while killing innocent people. They are going to know that they will be safe while they empty their magazine onto innocent civilians. Why take guns out of the people's hands who will use them for protection and not murder?
Posted by: AnonymousAn attack on the Bill of Rights.
This is the Second Amendment, not the 20th or 21st etc. It was deemed important because it insures the protection of the First Amendment and all the others. This right "Shall not be infringed" is strong and purposeful language. The argument that "If all these new gun controls save even one life it's worth it" rings hollow because it ignores all the lives saved in self defense by gun owners. Are gun owners lives worth less? Do we let all of our other inalienable rights be jeopardized to save that one? There are 20,000 gun laws on the books right now most of which are not uniformly enforced. Do we really need more?
Posted by: AnonymousThey don't work.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2%. Assaults are up 8%. Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
“Lately, police say they are discovering far more guns on the streets of Chicago than in the nation's two more populous cities, Los Angeles and New York. They seized 7,400 guns here in crimes or unpermitted uses last year (compared with 3,285 in New York City), and have confiscated another 574 guns just since Jan. 1 -- 124 of them last week alone.”Posted by: AnonymousWe should not lower the allowed clip capacity.
If the clip capacity is lowered than the good guy will only have 10 rounds and the bad guy will have 30, so who will win there? And if the bad guy has more rounds in his gun then the good guys are most likely going to take more damage.
Posted by: jacob1324States don't have money or will to enforce existing or new legislation.
Measures involving bans and stricter background checks are expensive to enforce, and current laws are not being enforced for that reason. How will more laws make things better? Especially when the money is spent targeting law abiding people who are not the problem? It would actually be cheaper to offer money or other incentives to get illegal guns off the streets- cash and amnesty for turn ins, for instance. And those are the guns that are being used to kill people, by and large. Not the legally purchased ones.
Posted by: AnonymousWe do not need sticter laws for gun control.
Instead of you people blaming guns, why don't you look at the cause of the crime? Mental Health, Economy, Moral Values (yes, promoting infidelity in schools and abortion while shamefully persecuting anyone who says the word "God" has a MASSIVE impact.), It is people who say "We need common sense gun laws!" are really the ones who shouldn't even be allowed to drive. Most of you people are brainwashed by the media and have no morals or values that are worth a thing. Look at Vermont and Maine. There are more guns per person than California yet, there is less gun crime. Same with Canada. Why? They have real social and moral values, and higher levels of personal happiness. I hate what the media is doing to you people. I don't hate you, i see you like more of a bag of jello puppeteer d by the biased news reporters and opinions. It's sad what schools and the media is doing to young people. USA is going to hell in a hand basket and most of you are too broken to be fixed. Remember what common sense is. It is not your personal opinion. Until then, enjoy the mass shootings, gun crime, rape, assault, famine, homelessness, disease, wars, brainwashing, mental health deficiencies, that all your laws have accelerated and increased. Gun control is a joke that will never work. Look at England. Stabbing, Shooting, rape, and assault are on the rise in this broken economic period.
Posted by: AnonymousNo change in sight
When you look through out history there have been other mass shootings without assault rifles or 30 round clips. They claim that no one guns with assault rifles and that they're not taking away any sportsman´s rights. While they are right that we don't hunt with assault rifles (we do have some AR-15s) we still want protection for our family. I personally think that if a person is being attacked they should be allowed to use a far more effective assault rifle as opposed to a slow shooting deer rifle or low magazine pistol. If someone' s killed because they couldn't use their guns for protection the person who employs this should be held responsible.
Posted by: AnonymousHow do we stop mass shootings?
The gun statistics mean very little to normal suburban people. Most of the gun murders are inner city poverty stricken people. That is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. What most people are afraid of is protecting our home and stopping mass shootings in public places and schools? So how do we stop this? Protect ourselves? CCW holders stop shootings. Do your research. Put armed people or guards in schools. The maniacs will not go up against an armed school because they won't be able to commit "mass" murder. Two choices ban guns and you might lower the chances of mass murders but your violent crime will go up (look it up). Or, don't ban guns, keep violent crime down and protect our schools with guards. Which makes sense?
Posted by: bryantbsharpGuns are not the problem
People can still commit the same type of crimes without a gun. Mos tof the people with guns use them safely. There are a lot of deaths caused by cars, but you don't go seeing them taking people's cars away. I just don't see what the new laws would do except for make the people who already do own guns and use them properly to suffer because OTHER people are being stupid.
Posted by: AnonymousYou don't hear about gun crime in other countries...
Because in other countries gun crime has been displaced. More often you hear of knife crimes now. In fact assaults in Australia have increased by over 40% in the last ten years. Criminals will find other ways to break laws. In Russia, the government made it very hard to privately own a gun, and yet their murder rate is 4 times higher than that in the US. It is a basic right for me to choose to protect myself. The Bill of Rights is a reminder that one day we people may need that right against a tyrannical government.
Posted by: AnonymousNo.
The USA was founded on principles of freedom and inalienable writes of its citizens to protect their freedom from criminals, government officials, or foreign governments. How is it that so many of our elected officials are poised to pounce on the tragedy of a mass shooting for the sake of a political agenda such as gun control? You should ask yourself why Dianne Feinstein has spent so much time in preparing for the mass confiscation of guns and has no effective plan to help protect our children. Anyone that lives in the real world and has to solve problems knows that it is never simple. But she would have you believe that trampling on the rights that protect millions would be the simple answer to protecting a few unfortunate victims of crime. At what point will there be a effort to understand the difference between a free people and those that are enslaved by their governments. Any attempt to further enslave the American people should not be tolerated and the politicians that have taken an oath to protect the constitution and do not must be removed without a second thought. It is unbelievable that so many Americans are so willing to walk away from their rights just because they don't either understand them or don't personally act on them. Using more knee jerk ineffective gun laws that do nothing but enable criminals at the expense of millions of honest law abiding gun owners only leads to the true agenda of pro-gun politicians. Blaming guns and not the person behind the gun is a cop-out and only reinforces that dishonest, two faced, politicians are exploiting the deaths of innocent people to enact laws to protect themselves and their agendas, not the true victims. Shame on them and shame on those that support them. Lets hope Americans can soon wake up and see how close our politicians and the Supreme Court have moved our country to socialism. Unfortunately, for freedom loving Americans there is no place else to go.
Posted by: AnonymousRights, freedom and safety
An armed society is a free society. If we as Americans allow our government to impose strict gun laws we are one step away from losing many other of our freedoms. If guns are criminalized then only criminals will be armed. The law abiding citizen will be a sitting duck. There are millions of semi auto rifles in the hands of law abiding Americans. What is the point of banning them. We are not Japan or England or France. We are Americans and we are armed. It needs to stay that way. There are plenty of things that need to be improved in this country. Why go after guns?
Posted by: AnonymousNo government can legislate survival
Imagine the world of the past, where primitive man lived by the spear and club to make it to the next day. Fast forward to modern western civilization, where a group of politicians now are trying to "sell" you on the fact your safety is now assured by them. Is that what the historical facts support? It's not about hunting, it's about my family's personal survival.
Posted by: AnonymousNo need for stricter gun laws
Gun restriction is not the answer, those wanting to commit crimes will start by buying an illegal firearm, or stealing a firearm legally bought by someone else. Gun restriction only prohibits law abiding citizens from purchasing certain firearms. We need to have better perspective than to think stricter gun laws will eliminate gun violence. Come on people, seriously?
Posted by: AnonymousArm more citizens
Federal law enforcement agent. Punishing the innocent will not stop the criminal scum. Bad people will always find a way to do bad stuff. They will find a way to get a gun, if not they will use something else, an edged weapon, explosives, whatever they want. More citizens should be trained in, and carry firearms so if need be, they can stop a tragedy from occurring.
Posted by: AnonymousLegalities in my state are tough enough.
The statutes and waiting periods make it obviously tough enough for citizens that are honest and law abiding to purchase weapons. The cost of most weapons are higher than most can afford, not to mention tax and local fees. Gun enthusiasts are just that...enthusiastic about there ability to safely fire their weapons.
Why can't they concentrate on other murderers such as drunk drivers?
Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.
That's right, EVERYDAY>>> 27 people die from drunk drivers!Posted by: AnonymousNot the time for Draconian Gun Control laws
Whoever thinks that States with stricter Gun Control Laws results in less crime and homicides are living in Fantasy land. In New York City which has one of the most strict gun control laws had over 60 shootings over one weekend, Chicago another hub of severe control laws had dozens of shooting and 9 homicides in one weekend. In States where there are right to carry laws crime goes down Florida, Georgia and other right to carry States. Criminals have admitted they're not worried about the police as much as they are someone who carry's a concealed weapon. Most anti-gunners don't understand the requirements to legally carry a concealed weapon. Criminals the mentally ill, and other crazies could would not be able to legally purchase a firearm as they would have to pass a criminal history check and show proficiency with the firearm. In Connecticut (which has strict gun control laws) the shooter shot and killed his mother stole her guns and forced his way into the school. Stricter gun laws would not have made a difference. In Australia the government banned most firearms to protect its citizens and the opposite occurred crime rates skyrocketed and the criminal activities are out of control. Law abiding citizens are not safe in their own homes, they warned American Citizens about the Government banning and confiscating their firearms and leaving them to the mercy of the criminals who have firearms. Tyrannical governments as history has proven time and again in order to control the masses have confiscated privately owned weapons. Our Founders included the Second Amendment to insure that an oppressive tyrannical government could not violate the rights of the people and leave them unprotected.
Posted by: AnonymousSeriously?
How is this even a question? Am I one of the only people that actually did some research? Firearms kill no more than 15000 Americans each year (roughly 1 in 20,000). Doctors errors kill more than 200,000 each year (1 in 1,500) More people die from lack of health insurance than they do from firearms. Depending on your source that number could be 20,000+. These are 3 areas we could directly affect with out harming anyone. I for one will not give up my gun unless its taken smoking and empty from my cold dead hands. I'm sure there are millions out there who feel the same. Just try us.
Posted by: Ogg024Stricter gun laws only further endanger law abiding people
It's narrow minded to think that stricter laws on guns would help. I wish people understood and heard all the great stories where law abiding citizens changed a life or death situation for the better AND LIVED TO TELL IT because they defended themselves with their gun. Don't punish good citizens!
Posted by: JsalinsCommon Sense
If every teacher in the school carried a gun, the shooter would not have been able to get through more than one or two people before getting put down. Additionally, the shooter may not even have considered the school as a target if there had been guns there. It's also easy to brainwash people into being maniacs- an advantageous tactic for those who wish to disarm the population and reduce it to passive slavery.
Posted by: AnonymousShould we ban everything that poses a potential threat?
They say that this massacre should be the ban trigger. Should we also ban alcohol? What good did the 18th amendments do? Crime rocketed in the US during that time. Should we ban airplanes because of 9/11? 3000 ppl died then. Should we ban cars because of all the DUIs there are? Should we ban kitchen knives because we can kill with them? Everything has the potential to kill even s credit card. We CANNOT ban guns just because of e potential to kill. We can have higher requirements for buying guns but we cannot BAN guns
Posted by: CapnKrunchGun collecting and ownership
Gun collecting and shooting are two things. A sport and a hobby much like collecting old tools, stamps or dolls. I was raised around guns and they are a part of me just like my shoes. I love to go to the range and shoot my different guns and I also reload my ammo to different scales to see which will shoot the tightest group. To control these rights and privilages would make us no better than Hitlers Germany. I, as a gun owner should not be held reponsible for some idiots act of violence with a gun and have MY rights of gun ownership taken away. To do so is like getting bit by a dog and then uthonizing every dog in America of that breed to stop anymore bits from that type of dog. Sounds stupid doesnt it but thats the road our leaders are headed down.
Posted by: AnonymousArmed Teachers
Cowards don't go into schools with armed teachers ! http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2009/aug/05/harrold-marks-year-of-guns-in-schools/ Ask the children from this Texas school if they feel safe. You can not continue to let these crazed people have free access and no fear of retaliation from our innocence.
Posted by: BaddogzzSocial Trends, some shouldn't be follow the leader.
Gun control hasn't worked in Britain. What's more is that everyone seems to love ignoring the fact that thousands of lives are saved each year by concealed carry, or home defense weapons. Realistically there is no evidence that shows that gun control would actually help, and there is a lot of evidence to point the other way. I have a responsibility to carry a concealed handgun, a responsibility to my family, my friends, and to complete strangers because if someone is going to die, it should be the criminal, not the innocent person.
I advocate for teachers and professors to undergo psych evaluations to be allowed to carry concealed handguns as well. Realistically if any teacher truly would snap they would've done it by now and just think how many kids could have been saved if the teachers at Columbine were carrying.
Another point one of my friends made the other day was that other countries have noted and are well aware of how many civilians in the US have guns. It is honestly a factor they could never rule out if they decided to invade.Posted by: nuggetisgreatI oppose stricter gun control laws, because it would surely make things worse, as a whole.
I believe that, if you tighten gun control laws, it will make matters worse, because people who want guns, will not bother trying to acquire them legally. They will still find a way to get them, through the underground or on the black market. That would lead to less documentation on those people who could have acquired those weapons legally. As far as I am concerned, it is better to allow people to own guns legally, and keep it easy for them to purchase them and have people screened and documented, as the law broadly states now.
Posted by: LethalDinoCanada
We shouldn't put a rule on owning a gun im a hunter and i nee to go through so much just to buy a shotgun
Posted by: AnonymousGovernment would like it...but no.
Hitler wanted gun control. All tyrants are afraid of having arms in the hands of the people. Which is why I will always defend a constitutionally given right to a gun.
You don't like criminal use of guns? Punish criminals for their acts, not the tools they use. I can kill a congress critter with a hoe. Should garden tools be controlled?Posted by: AnonymousThere does not need to be stricter laws for gun control.
The laws that are in affect for gun controls are already enough to keep law abiding citizens safe. The problem comes when those who do not obey the laws anyway come in contact with a gun. The criminals that use guns in an unlawful way are not at all concerned with the gun laws. The only thing stricter gun control laws would do would be to not allow the law abiding citizens to have a gun for self protection. Just think about it...you (a law abiding citizen) are not allowed to legally have a gun but the criminal at your door does not care about the law and has one. What do you think is going to happen?
Posted by: w00tboycomicPeople break laws.
Criminals are not going to listen to the laws. Texas has the lowest amount of gun control laws and also have the lowest amount of gun related violence. Then on the other hand, Chicago has very strict gun control laws, and they have a high amount of gun violence. Banning all guns is not going to make gun violence go away. It will just cause all the "bad people" to have guns illegally, while all the "good people" will have no way of defending themselves against theft and/or murder.
Posted by: AnonymousThere was violence before guns.
Violence has been around since Cain killed Abel.
Societies without guns such as the UK and England have high violent crime rates.
Armed victims are a criminals biggest fear. Whenever the population has responsible citizens that are armed more than the criminals, crime seems to drop. The "assault gun" bans that expired also showed no impact.Posted by: AnonymousAmericans need guns.
If another country comes to try to take us over we'll have more of a chance to win then to be taken over with out better guns. People need to be able to effectively protect themselves from a foreign invasion. A 22 rifle or a 9mm handgun. More gun control is unnecessary.
Posted by: AnonymousObama is grand standing.
The founding fathers believed that a strong militia is the only way for "We the People" to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Founding Fathers knew that one day, the government would come after our guns and without a way to protect ourselves, our freedoms would be trampled. Liberty would then become tyranny. This is why the framers of our constitution created the constitution in the first place.
Posted by: AnonymousWe need LESS laws regulating guns
Do criminals register THEIR guns? No. So, why should it be so hard to own one? Knives don't need to be registered, neither do crossbows or baseball bats or tire irons, yet those kill just as effectively. I carry a gun to protect myself INCASE I need to. So, hy do I need to let everyone know I have one, so I can be challenged? So I can be stereotyped into people thinking I'm a criminal? Killing someone or peeing on a bush, you can still be arrested for each, but what will come to mind when you tell someone you were arrested, that you were eeing, or that you did something very bad? A gun should be for protection against those who want to harm me, cut and dry, there should be no other reason. If you want to buy ammo, you should need to show a two forms of picture ID including your driver's license, that's it. People can torch or grind off a bike lock, but it deters most would-be criminals. Look at the bait car show, if the car wasn't running with the door open, a lot of people wouldn't steal it. Most crimes are by opportunity and ease of execution. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, I don't care what kind of gun you have, .22 rimfire or an M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
Posted by: salvagedroverAnti- Gun Control
Guns in the hands of responsible owners have proved to be the best defense from dangerous criminals. Cities with stricter gun control (Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City) experience a higher murder rate than cities without gun control. If criminals want guns, they will get them no matter what. So the best defense is to protect yourself.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, you can't.
Because of the violent shootings in the past calendar year. However, this won't solve anything. If people want to own guns, they are going to find a way to get their weapons. The government might as well tax it because it’s still going to go on. Our right to bear arms is expressed in the Constitution, why take it away? On multiple surveys here is what came up 44% Say Yes 56% Say No 1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.
The 2nd Amendment is not about being able to take your rifle to the range for some sporting fun. The 2nd is not about hunting. The 2nd allows for your personal protection, the protection of your property, and the protection of others. All this is true. But what the 2nd Amendment is truly about is the right of the people to protect themselves from an overbearing government.
The second amendment states that people are allowed to keep and bear arms. The fight most people are trying to fight about is the fact that if you get gun control laws you are defeating the point of the second amendment. People feel they should have the right to have a weapon in the act of a burglary.
Think about it this way if you didn’t have guns who would have stopped the “zombie” in Miami or in any other case.
That will just make people feel sneakier and they will want to use them no matter what. For example in school the more rules they put in place, the more that people want to break the rules. On Facebook I saw a picture that said that strict parents make kids sneakier, so it is the same situation with the gun control.
People also insist even if you do have gun l aws it will not help control all the violence. They say there are still knives and weapons that can kill also. For example the killing that went on at a high school in the hall. A boy walked up to another boy and stabbed him with a screwdriver.
You can’t blame guns for the people's stupidity. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I have a gun in my house and you don't see them go off by themselves and kill people now do you? No, you don't and do you know why that is? It's because they don't have a mind of their own the only way someone could get hurt by them is if I pulled the trigger myself.
If people wanted to kill people in large quantities than they would find a way, with or without guns. If more people had guns, then they could protect themselves. People need to be more mindful of their surroundings and the government needs to do a better job of helping the mentally ill, in my opinion.Posted by: AnonymousThere is no need for stricter laws for gun control.
No hahaha. You're saying people (criminals) who intend to kill someone on behalf of their gang decide to leave the state and go gun shopping, and just come all the way back with their "legally registered, and obtained weapons" and shoot someone? No, they buy a stolen gun, and shoot someone then dispose of it or sell it. Then you think they'll turn in their illeagal weapons after gun
restrictions are implemented? Simple minds get simply lied to.Posted by: AnonymousAmerica where freedom is fostered, except some
There are numerous ways to go about arguing against gun control: individual freedoms, constitutionally gun control is wrong, morally gun control is wrong, statistics prove gun control is wrong... Only one type of argument is used for gun control and that is to manipulate emotional responses. The face of the matter is gun control does nothing but prohibit freedom, endanger lives of law abiding citizens, provides for more governmental control, and promotes crime.
Remember this: gun control laws first started out in the U.S. As a means of disarming freed slaves so the KKK could ride in and kill them knowing they couldn't fight back.Posted by: BeEsBeMore guns not less.
If people wanted to kill people in large quantities than they would find a way, with or without guns. If more people had guns, then they could protect themselves. People need to be more mindful of their surroundings and the government needs to do a better job of helping the mentally ill, in my opinion.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople kill people and more laws won't make a difference.
The laws that are being created and passed. Although they satisfy, for now the public outcry. They will not change a thing. People who want to do harm will do it in what ever way possible. Think back to 911. Did you ever think that someone would fly and airliner "on purpose" into those towers. Would we feel differently if Newton had been blown up by a kid who made a car bomb? Would we say "lets ban cars". Or if he had hacked those kids with a knife? Would be ban knives? At the end of the day the government is too involved in our lives on a daily basis. They cant enforce the laws we have on the books now? So instead they add more. And the ones they add are only geared to hassle the law abiding citizen. The bad guy will always be able to get a gun! The bad guy is not going to walk in and register his illegal weapon.
Posted by: Anonymousno. use the ones we have now.
The problem is, LE doesn't have either the funds or the manpower to enforce the laws we currently have. Look at the AW ban in 94. We had alot of mass shootings in that ten year time frame. What we need are more cops and more Concealed carriers to increase the likelihood of someone who can use a gun, to be on the premises when the situation goes south.
Posted by: Juris_NaturalisNo More Laws.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. When you say stricter gun laws, I notice that it never seems to apply to the Federal Government or state and local police. Gee, I wonder why this is? Have you said that EVERYONE should abide by the same rules, then great but since it is only ever for "citizens" only it is a laughable argument with a clear agenda to simply disarm and enslave the common man while allowing Governments to rule and reign supreme over the defenseless people and yes, this includes you and your family as well.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because homicides have declined by almost 50% in the last decade.
Has violence in America become an acute problem? While there have been some recent horrific examples of violence against the defenseless, such acts truly are extremely rare. We live in a country with a steadily decreasing rate of violent crime despite the expiration of one significant piece of gun control legislation, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (popularly known as the assault weapons ban). Murder and non-negligent manslaughter rates are approximately one half what they were in 1992. During that same period, gun ownership has declined slightly, but the number of total guns has increased rather dramatically. Many states have passed “shall issue” concealed carry laws, accompanied by dire warnings of increased violence, a prediction that apparently has failed to materialize. The association between firearms in the home and rates of suicide by firearm is an often-cited statistic. And yet, two of the most gun restrictive societies in the world, Japan and South Korea, have rates of suicide much higher than the US, in fact, some of the highest in the world. Do we really need to compare our gun violence to that of England (the very country responsible for the Second Amendment to our Constitution), or any other country. An editorial comment about that, I personally don’t care what other countries think about our gun laws. They should mind their own business (as should we).
Posted by: AnonymousLook at the facts on the guns.
No mater where you go there will always be guns, in the black market, on the Internet, or in stores. So even if you ban them from the Internet and in stores people will still be able to get a gun because the black market is forever. So even if there is stricter gun control the serious killers can still kill with guns but the regular people won't be able to protect themselves.
Posted by: AnonymousI hunt a lot.
I live in Kentucky and I hunt a lot. Down here we hunt everyday, but with these stupid debates going on I can't get any ammo for my gun. It is dumb! If someone wants a gun they will get it. As to all these debates going on, if you take away guns the crime rate will go up and continue to rise.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, there do not need to be stricter laws.
People kill other people, guns, however, do not. The laws are already strict enough. Any more laws would only be breaching the second amendment. What if we were attacked by another country? The U.S.A is known to be a strong country do to at least half of our population owning guns. If that were to change, other countries would see that as a weakness. Thank you for your consideration.
Posted by: AnonymousGun restrictions in USA could do more harm than good
Which would you rather have; not many background checks with some guns getting through, or constant and tedious background checks with an equal amount of guns getting through illegally to users who will hurt people? Either way, guns will get through, and if they get through illegally to people who will almost 99.9% of the time hurt and kill people. If we have more background checks not as many people will get guns for hunting and protecting themselves and others. Some of you will think, “why would you need a assault rifle for hunting?”, but guess what almost the only way to kill a wild hog is? Use an AR. Really, people use those guns for more than going on rages and killing people (guns are 50 times more likely to save than kill). Democrats say that a reduced clip size will make the bad guys take longer to reload, which can be true, but why not smuggle in a few 50 round handgun clips along with that handgun? The thing is, gun laws will not only do nothing, they might do something against us. Facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after other citizens are disarmed, which is a big problem. A usual semi-auto gun clip holds 30 rounds, but when you are facing 3 intruders, 30 may not be enough bullets. In London when it first became legal to buy a shotgun, there weren't many armed robberies. When London finally managed to take away all the guns, it became 20 times more likely. This is what will happen with gun laws. People who have never fired a shot in their life would be happy to slap a limit on how many rounds in a clip there can be, but it will hurt more than help.
Posted by: AnonymousToo many already.
If we have no guns, we will still have criminals finding a way to get guns, and they will know people wont have guns to protect themselves with. This is why we need to keep our second Amendment. People need to protect themselves and crime will go up if we get rid of guns.
Posted by: AnonymousTightening gun laws will not help to reduce gun violence.
Tightening gun control laws does not necessarily mean that it will impose a ban on guns. This will just make the accessibility of guns more difficult. Even if it is more difficult to access the guns, it is still possible for guns to be attainable. Many shooters have had clean backgrounds, yet they still shoot.
Posted by: AnonymousNo. Gun laws will only provoke people to try to oppose them and possibly cause yet another mass shooting.
You know that one kid who was always a troublemaker in school? The one who purposely did the opposite of what the rules were? Well in some cases the circumstances are very similar. If guns were allowed everywhere, some people wouldn't feel the need to shoot anyone because it wouldn't be against the law. Some kids I know feel the need to go against authority and do whatever is possible to make that clear to others. People that aren't right in the head might be like this too and putting a law against guns could provoke them to try to go out and shoot people. The only thing that needs to happen is to have better background checks on people, so we don't end up giving a powerful weapon to someone mentally unstable.
Posted by: AnonymousCitizens should have the right to "bear arms".
Many citizens need to protect themselves and their loved ones! Everyone should feel safe in their home, or wherever they go. That's all I have to say. I'm a student at Santa Barbara High School. My name is Joseph Cervantes and I'm a 9th grader. I'm happy to talk if you guys want! Thank you.
Posted by: AnonymousSecond Amendment rights.
Due to the second amendment rights, we as United States citizens not only have the privilege, but the right to own and carry firearms. If only the government had weapons then they could push us around and there wouldn't be anything we could do about it. With arms we are citizens, without them we are subjects.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people, people kill people.
It seems like everyone today has the opinion that we should have stricter gun control laws because of the violent shootings in the past calendar year. However, this won't solve anything. If people want to own guns, they are going to find a way to get their weapons. The government might as well tax it because its still going to go on. Our right to bear arms is expressed in the Constitution, why take it away?
Posted by: AnonymousStop talking about stricter gun control.
Mentally ill people should not own guns.they should not be allowed to own steak knives! We shut down Norwich state hospital. Where are they going to go but into civilized society. You want to make the world a better place open a mental hospital. Gun control isn't the main topic. Controlling the mentally I'll needs to be!
Posted by: AnonymousWe need guns to protect ourselves, children, hunters, the old people, and to keep people off property.
I myself do not own guns, but I have family and friends have guns in their houses. Most of them are hunters, but the rest have guns for self-defense. Also, it is our right to bear arms, as said in the Constitution of the U.S. The crime rate will go down a lot, everyone will have a weapon to protect themselves, and hunters do not have to use a knife while hunting.
Posted by: AnonymousViolent freedom or peaceful slavery?
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
-Thomas Jefferson
in this Latin phrase Thomas Jefferson says this, which can be translated to mean, "I'd rather have violent freedom than have peaceful slavery," which is said in respect to gun control and gun laws. He believed the only way to have freedom is for everyone to have a firearm or at least the opportunity to have one.Posted by: AnonymousWe need self defense for the US.
If the US has stricter gun laws, people WILL find a way to get guns. If there was a circumstance when an innocent family is at home, and a robber breaks in and there are no guns found, how will the family defend themselves? Because a door surely wouldn't protect them. Just like the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, if teachers had a fire-arm they could protect themselves and the children. So in that case keep in mind a door or can of pepper spray or knife WILL NOT stop an armed gunman.
Posted by: Anonymous2nd amendment: The Right to bear arms
We as people of the United States have the right to bear arms. Do you think that just because you have gun control doesn't mean there isn't a black market or smuggling? Do you really think that the bad guys that buy guns for malicious purposes buy registered guns? Of course not! If I'm going to buy a gun and murder someone I'm sure not going to a gun shop and giving them all my information so I can get arrested! Gun control will only stop the American citizens from buying guns to protect themselves with, not stop bad people from buying them. Is marijuana legal? No. Do creeps still buy it? Yes. Does making it illegal stop people from smuggling and buying on the black market? No. There is no need for gun control, and gun control is unconstitutional. We the people of the United States of America have the right to bear arms and don't you forget it!
Posted by: AnonymousI don't believe the current gun laws are going to solve the issues we face today
It is already annoying to own any kind of gun while living in California. The restrictions are already forcing people to purchase firearms from other states. Even if the laws are there, will it stop the criminal from getting the illegal accessory to the gun? No it won't, since they can pretty much just buy a $300-500 3D printer and print it out without fail. Laws can only protect us if there is someone of authority to enforce them. If someone tells you that you have a chance of being robbed or killed, I would rather have a firearm that puts me on the same footing as the criminal to protect myself. With ever evolving technology, the laws are becoming more prehistoric then anything else when it comes to governing firearms. Compounding the problem is the recent gun massacre, which causes the public to be broiled in paranoia so of course they will scream "more gun law is needed." I would like to be able to protect my family and myself sufficiently without handicaps that can get me killed. The police are not always going to be there to protect you and so what can you do? Run away in fear or stand your ground to protect yourself? Think about it next time when you decides to have even more tougher laws on the gun laws we already have.
Posted by: cybervirusI say no, because you need guns for self defense.
No, because it will cause more issues. People who want to protect their homes will no longer be able to. If you are in the woods and can't hold a gun, what are you going to do if a bear or a mountain lion attacks, and crime wont drop, it will go up, for the demand for guns will make a gun war happen.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, what if some body broke into your house and you didn't have a gun, then you wont be able to defend yourself
There's little evidence that stricter gun control laws decrease violent crime . According to the FBI, violent crime was at it's worst in 1991. In two decades the violent crime rate has dropped by more than 40 percent . At the same time, gun ownership has increased by about 4 million guns per year.
Posted by: AnonymousEasy Public Targets
Think about it. Yes there have been school shootings and it's horrifying that instead of declining it has escalated but all of these places have been targeted as an easy target. Would you post a "This is a gun free zone" in your house? So why put those in front of our schools and public facilities where children roam around? If anything there should be signs that say "Beware, weapons on hand". Then these places wouldn't be targeted so often.
Posted by: grrzombie12Incase of emergency
We need our guns if there is an emergency police will not come we need them for self defense. Police also won't be there in that 20 second attack you need your gun to scare or protect yourself if necessary. we as people also use guns a lot more as recreational uses such as hunting, skeet shooting, or just shooting targets with your friends.
Posted by: AnonymousIt'll be useless
Drugs were made illegal and yet people still overdose. Plus the second amendment says that "a WELL TRAINED militia, to PROTECT THE FREEDOM of the states, has the freedom to carry a fire arm." First of all we are not a well trained militia and we most definitely do not need to protect the freedom of the states. Finally it is almost impossible to get a gun licence in the state of New York and it has the highest crime rate.
Posted by: AnonymousWe do not need any more gun control laws.
Why I think this is there is no time in history where gun control saved more people than killed. Yeah, you could look at the mass shootings and say a lot of people got killed. But you should ask Great Britain how gun control's working for them, and Australia. Also not to mention Chicago. Countries in the past have done this and killed many defenseless citizens. Two billion people were killed by democides a.K.A. They got killed by their own government. With stricter gun control laws, the government has an easier time of doing what's not right and not worry about it because they got all the guns. We need to stop the U.S. Government from confiscating more firearms. As we seen in history, many countries went down this path before and never had success at reducing crimes. They always had an increase in deaths of their own people. The founding fathers saw other countries going down that path and made the second amendment as an insurance policy that the government won't take over. The second amendment ensures the government can't be above the people. Other countries have failed at reducing crimes in the past and Germany actually took away their peoples guns by convincing them, and like fools they gave their guns up and Hitler got more power. We got to learn from history or else we will repeat it.
Posted by: AnonymousIt wont help
No we will have no way to defend ourselves and it will give the murderers just want they want. They will still be able to get guns illegally and we wont. Even if for some reason they couldn't they will just use a knife or something else and more deaths will occur. Even without these laws there are still twice as many deaths by knife and one and a half times more deaths by hammer then there is deaths by gun.
Posted by: Anonymouswhat happens if we're invaded
If america goes to war with North Korea and some how they lose. Like EMP or something goes off and so therefore we have no power. With no power comes no control. American selfish people will be looting and rioting. The army will be busy dealing with the need of its civilians and not paying attention to the North Korean Army rolling up. Sure america will not go down with out a fight but if the Humvee and tanks along with any other technological thing cant work it will be a losing battle. If we had guns that means that we will be able to have a way for mass rebelling.
Posted by: AnonymousUnarmed and unharmed? Really...
When ever there has been a terrorist attack on the U.S., the American people are told by the government not to judge the whole Muslim group by the actions of a few. Isn't it about time the 80 million gun owners in America are treated the same! Lets say your daughter is walking down a street at night and two men corner her and start telling her to strip holding her at knife point. A hand gun is louder than a rape whistle, has better range than a stun gun, and more stopping power than pepper spray. I would want my daughter to have a gun on her in a situation like that. You say guns are bad and they're killing us all, that's incorrect. Guns do one of two things function or don't function, dangerous people make guns dangerous, you'd people make guns dangerous for dangerous people. Guns are not the problem, and if you think banning them is going to make the world a safer place, then why don't we ban meth, cocaine, and heroin while were at it! The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. If you don't like them, don't buy them, its that simple!
Posted by: AnonymousRestricting guns is not the answer.
The Second Amendment was added to our Constitution because the founders believed in private ownership of guns was necessary for protection of our liberties.
Gun laws punish honest citizens. If guns were outlawed, criminals would still find ways to arm themselves.
Restrictions to gun ownership put citizens at the mercy of gun-toting criminals.
Guns protect the rights and freedoms of the individual. It was privately held guns that helped the colonists rise up against the British.
In the past, evil governments have used gun registries as way of locating and seizing privately owned weapons.
Citizens have the right to self protection. Local police forces are not able to protect it's citizens, they primarily investigate and try to solve the crimes after the fact.
If people obeyed current laws, there would not be a need for more laws.
Current laws are often poorly executed. Criminals are often able to buy guns even when the law says they should be prohibited. We need to enforce existing laws first.
Guns don't kill people, people do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and at the role the media plays in glorifying violence and the lack of respect for law.Posted by: AnonymousAustralian government going MAD with power.
If you look over in America, Everyone has a gun( proof GO TO YOUTUBE) and even kids and teens play with airsoft guns. No wander WHY America is the best country, land of the free . My dad had a double barrel shotgun and we live on a cane farm, we use them for killing dingo's and self defense. NO PROBLEMS UNTIL they banned semi autos, auto, semi shotguns and pump action. It's AlRIGHT Untill you see you dad ATTACKED by a dingo and you don't have your rifle or shotgun to get it away from him
Posted by: mrdiealot2No they dont
There does not need to be sticter gun laws because even there were stricter laws on Assault rifles it wouldnt do anything. If you take away Assault rifles you will be taking away the guns from the people who bought them and use them for reasons other than killing like most people think they are only used for. You would be taking away most peoples protection. The good people are the only ones it will affect because most criminals and killers who use guns have them not registered so there would be no way track them. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. So all in all there should not be stricter gun laws because the only people it will hurt is the good.
Posted by: AnonymousNo they shouldn't
Just because there are stupid people running around with guns doesn't mean we need to ban them, if I were a criminal and i wanted to kill someone I would kill them no matter what. If I didn't have a gun I would use a knife or worse, a bomb.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns Don't Kill People
The only problem with guns is that our background check system is outdated and broken! If this system was fully-efficient and up-to-date then felons and mentally-ill persons would not be able to obtain firearms very easily if at all. 25% of convicted felons get their guns legally through retail stores because their felonies do not show up on a background check. Why ban guns and gun accessories when the real problem is the people using them?
Posted by: Infideliousits not the guns killing the people!
You don't see guns shooting the people now do you I know I haven't seen a gun shoot someone. They should get rid of guns but not from everyone, only from people who have mental problems or have a criminal record! Many people only have guns to protect themselves that's one of the most poplar ways to do it. They just need to watch who they let have them
Posted by: AnonymousScrew your logic!
We need to pass stricter gun laws? No we do not. The only reason you put up an argument about this is because people die. BUT if you pass laws about it....tell me how criminals who don't listen to laws anyway will listen to this one? And saying that guns kill people is like saying that spoons got Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Posted by: AnonymousTaking away something to help people doesn't work.
You know something a bunch of "yes" people have stated. Taking away something to help people stops us from having to worry about it happening. That would be good and dandy if it worked. Here's the kicker, it doesn't. After WWI we tried to demilitarize and get rid of a lot of weapons. Many nations did this, but if one bad apple spoils the bunch. If everyone got rid of their guns, and a single person kept theirs, how would that work out? Not good for anyone trying to protect themselves. It would be pretty difficult to stop the one guy with a gun if nobody else had a gun. What good would it be if the police had a gun, but they are thirty minutes away. You'd be dead.
Posted by: AnonymousWho's really being harmed in Gun law increase?
Stricter gun laws would have a stronger negative effect on innocent people than it would a successful effect on criminals. If buying a gun is now illegal, a criminal will still find a way to get their hands on it, like people do with drugs. So the criminal will stil be able to purchase one, but the innocent person who wants to protect their home will be helpless.
Posted by: AnonymousThere is no evidence to support the regulations will decrease criminal activity or prevent violence.
The proposed gun control legislation is, at it's core, reactionary and emotionally charged. There is no empirical evidence to support the ideology that any part of the President's four pronged approach to gun control will do anything to impact crime and violence. I can cite many sources supporting this position, however when one looks at the legislation through a rational lens, it becomes clear this debate is reactionary and emotional - simply this administration is doing what it does well, playing on the emotions of the country to increase the size and scope of governmental infringement on people's rights.
Posted by: AnonymousAmericans have RIGHTS
You can get in your car and run someone over, should we ban cars too? You can smack someone in the head with a baseball bat and kill them, should baseball bats be banned. Do you get my point here? People kill people, not Guns, bats or cars along with the rest of the DANGEROUS objects laying around. You can use anything as a weapon now days. RISE UP AMERICA, don't let your rights be taken away! The constitution states that the American people are not meant to be taken control of, Once the government starts to take over we should take a stand. America is looking like a bunch of sissy-fied girls right now. I'm sick to my stomach.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people, people kill people
Imagine you’re coming home from school and you’re all alone at home. You go to the fridge to get a snack and notice a man holding a knife. How well could you defend yourself?
The Second Amendment is the part of the constitution that protects the right of citizens to bear arms. If people are allowed to carry weapons there will be fewer muggings. Carrying guns will scare off aggressors and there will be less assaults and rapes. In turn citizens also feel safer when outside their houses.
Now we’ve covered why guns induce a feeling of safety, let’s talk a bit more about homicide. If the law to ban assault weapons and automatic guns in the United-States is approved it won’t do much because they are mostly used in mass shootings. In the United-States, there are about 8000 homicides caused by fire arms every year. Less than 100 of those murders are caused by mass shootings. Automatic weapons usually aren’t used for killing other than in mass shootings. If someone really wants to kill someone else they don’t have to use a gun. There are over 4 000 murders every year caused by blunt objects (clubs, hammer), personal weapons (Hands and feet), poison, bombs, fire, drowning, etc.
Now that we’ve covered mass murders let’s move to criminals. If you have the intention to kill someone you probably won’t go to a store to buy a legal gun and give them all your personal information. By banning guns it will only make it easier for criminals with “illegal” guns to attack unarmed citizens. Criminals don’t obey the law either way so what makes people think they’ll start listening to it now. There’s always been a black market and by making guns illegal it could easily grow to be much larger and more lucrative.
Guns make people feel safe, banning them won’t save all that many more lives and it’ll just broaden the black market. And as a wise man once said “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”Posted by: AnonymousNo: Guns don't kill people, People kill people!
Well I understand that guns do give people the ability to kill others more effiently, if thats the right way to put it. But take into consideration that if someone really wanted to act in murderous ways, they would find any weapon do so. Killing someone is not a capability on guns can fulfill. Knifes, hand made items and technically anything tangible can be used to kill. Keep the ban on murder not the ban for guns!
Posted by: AnonymousPsychiatric medicine is the reason, not guns!
The reason there are so many bombings and shootings is because of psychiatric medicine. Studies have shown a numerous amount of times that psychiatric pills/medicine (Like anti depressants or adhd pills) will end up causing more harm to the person, and will increase mental problems. I will bet anything that 99% of all shooters were are some kind of psychiatric pill. James Holmes was on psychiatric pills, if he had not taken those he would haven't had killed all those people. Look it up if you don't believe me, his psychiatrist was Dr. Lynne Fenton.
Posted by: AnonymousThe law restricts responsible gun owners
No laws could have prevented the Sandy Hook murder. For people to continue to politicize this issue is harmful to a majority of Americans. Something must be done but politicians do what their constituency says. I am sorry for those families but Mark Kelly, Joe Biden, and President Barack Obama need to show more respect for the American people and not say they are ashamed of the Senate.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns Don't Kill People Do
People are the ones who buy the guns and use them to attack or shoot others not the guns. If we take away guns all this will do is make the criminals and or serial killers use something else or find another way to find gun such as the black market. A senator once said that if we take guns off of the shelves at stores then no one would be able to buy them. If this is so then when was the last time meth was on a local shelf for anyone to buy?
Posted by: RferzolaThe 2nd Amendment is there for a reason
The 2nd amendment was put in place so that there would never be a threat of government oppression. Owning "assault" weapons doesn't make you a bad person. Regulating firearms will only effect the law abiding citizens, and will have absolutely no baring on the criminals for which it targets. Background checks would not have prevented the aurora shooting or newtown shooting because both people appeared to be normal and had no criminal history. Connecticuit has an assault weapons ban. These problems can not easily be solved, and I believe the answer is to have more concealed carry permits that allow people to defend themselves appropriately.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are for our Protection Against Tyranny
People theses days seem to be under the illusion that because our country has survived for so long as a democracy that it will always be that way. I belive that Mark Twain said it best when he penned, "History does not repeat itself but it rhymes". What Twain is saying in this quote is that while we will never re-live a moment in history, we will go through a variation of that moment. There are many past examples of civilizations ie: Rome, that started out being controlled by the people but because of human nature their leaders became corrupt and power hungry which it turn brought about their downfall. We as American cittizens have the right and the duty to deffend ourselfs against the possibility of our leaders becoming tyrannical. It is for this reason and this reason alone that we must not give up our right to bare arms.
Posted by: AnonymousLIBERTY!
-Gun laws would prevent shooting sprees? Please tell me more about how criminals follow laws...
-Gun prohibition would stop murder incidents? Tell me more about how drug prohibition stops drug use...
If you don't like guns, you're in the wrong country... I believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the freedom and liberty they stand for.
"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace, but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick HenryPosted by: AnonymousThe Second Amendment
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms 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). If laws work to stop bad people then why don't we just outlaw murder?
Posted by: AnonymousDon't try to hold all of us good gun owners responsible for criminal behavior
This is anti-gun people who want to use these incidents to take your guns away, that is what this is about. What stops people who snap from using wits to kill by explosive, gasoline and fire, flying into buildings, poison, rioting etc. Events like Katrina or the recent east coast black out left no help and no power it was just good people defending their own home if needed with one or more firearms. If these foolish people and their politicians get their way America would become a weaker nation no doubt.
Posted by: AnonymousThat would be letting the terrorists win?
Everyone of these attacks is terrorism. This is anti-gun people who want to use these incidents to take your guns away, that is what this is about. What stops people who snap from using wits to kill by explosive, gasoline and fire, flying into buildings, poison, rioting, events like Katrina or the recent east coast black out left no help and no power it was just good people defending their own home if needed with one or more firearms, etc. I do not want gun control. Nothing gets changed. That would be letting the terrorists win.
Posted by: AnonymousGun laws should be more liberal, not restricted!
What happened it Connecticut, Arizona, and Colorado happens everyday
all across America. It happen at another school, house, neighborhood,
and place imaginable in America. The issue hits home when it hits home and this should not be the excuse used to promote personal and not public agenda. I mourn for those lost, but I also mourn for those that took the actions of those that commend them in Congress by saying what if someone was armed to prevent the gunman from causing more harm. The more you read this blog than you can see why that philosophy would not have helped, but left another American stranded that should be a hero.
I believe for the first time, I'm ashamed that President Obama would use this one issue to be a stepping stone for gun control, when this issue has been relevant to many American families all across America that so happen not be in a movie theater, political rally, or elementary school when a loved one has been taken. However, in America, I'm scared, just like so many other Americans, to pick up my gun and use it because a prosecutor and grand jury will be waiting for me with a second degree murder charge. I can be morally right and legally wrong for coming to the aid of others in Virginia because of someone else intent to murder people for no reason.
Lastly, I'm all for gun rights, but babysitting by President Obama and
the rest of the anti gun supporters, need to stop politicizing a tragic issue and start getting to work on making sure we have a right to defend ourselves locally and nationally. Republicans please stop saying God sanction murder of our children. The last I check my god is good, all of the time! There are not enough mental hospitals to keep America safe and we need as many competent and trained gun owners with laws that protect them being added to the Virginia and U.S constitution.Posted by: AnonymousNo
An estimated 1.5 million people defend themselves a year with guns.
South Africa has strict gun laws and their murder rate is higher than ours.
We don't hear about people who use their gun to defend themselves because our media do not report such things.Posted by: AnonymousWeapons are anything
that is used to hurt people in anyway. Knives, hammers, guns, chairs, lighters, gas, baseball bats. It is very tragic that 20 elementary school children were murdered. But a lack of better security at some schools poses a threat to the safety and well being of students. For an example, my school only recently started checking IDs and just started locking our doors. Sure guns are the weapon of choice in many mass killings, but great deals of damage can be cause with anything from the basic house hold. Maybe if we had at least one or two armed security guards at our schools, we might be able to avoid these security breaches, or might be able to avert a major catastrophe.
Posted by: ArkAngelOneOneWhat's next?
The next psycho that invades a school may choose a knife as his weapon. How many can he kill and maim before the cops get there. "IF" there was an armed security present, principle, etc then this kind of threat can be stopped. The weapon can be a chain saw, axe, spear, sword, hammer and the list goes on and it's only a matter of time before it hits here as these weapons have been used in other countries with multiple deaths. We live in a country of denial and we better be waking up. If the feds really want to do something that will stop the violence then proper security measures will need to be set up based on each schools need. At least one if not more armed well trained staff needs to be present at all times. Security cameras, self locking doors and a interconnected alarm system can all but stop a would be attacker. It's my understanding this nut job just walked in to the school. Have we not learned? No, it's not the guns that kill these people, it's the physco behind the trigger. If a drunk school bus driver wrecked and killed all the kids on the bus, would we ban school buses or blame the driver. Although guns are a convenient way to kill, it's not the only way, and I fear the determined mentally disturbed person(s) will find a way to carry out their vengeance, what ever the weapon of choice is.
Posted by: AnonymousThey save lives...
Just think about this idea for a second: The CT school gunman was there for 10 minutes until the police arrived and 26 people had their lives stolen in that time. What if the principle in the CT school had a gun and was aloud to carry it? It wouldn't have taken 10 minutes to get to that class room and eliminate the threat. Maybe 5 minutes at most. Half the time to respond, half the shots, half the lives saved (That's 13 lives). Now what if the teacher across the hall had a gun? Maybe a minutes or two at max. That's upward of 20 lives saved. Now think if the teacher in that classroom had a gun, there could have been no deaths that day and we could all be celebrating the heroic event of a teacher saving her class. Instead we are all mourning the death of 20 children and 6 adults.
Monsters like this gunman look for the place where there is no opposition, where he can do the most damage possible in the shortest amount of time possible. He chose an elementary school, a place where there was no opposition for 10 minutes, while he could unload hundreds of rounds. People do these things because they know they can achieve their goal. Look at the Norway shooting earlier this year. The shooter went to an island where there was no opposition and help was a long ways away. Why are we taking away our protection?
At a school in Pearl, Miss. a boy came to school, after slitting his mother's throat, with a .30-30 deer hunting rifle and began shooting his classmates. The principle, prepared for a day such as that day, ran to his car to unlock his gun, loaded it, and then ran back to the school and apprehended the shooter. 10 people were shot that day, but many more were saved due to the actions of the principle and his gun.
The problem here isn't that there is too many gun or bad types of guns, cause that's ridiculous. I can take a 30 minutes drive north to NH and buy a fulling function fragmentation and high explosive grenade for about $300 and if I'm were planning on using it I don't think any piece of legislation would stop me. I would never do that, but just think about that for a second, you really think people still can't get these weapons or achieve their goals of killing mass amounts of people? Are you really so naive to think that banning a type of gun would do anything? Drugs are illegal, do people still use them?
I want my protection and I'm not hiding behind a piece of paper that says "You can't use that gun", fight fire with fire. There are too many crazy people out there for the law to stop. There was no law at Newton Elementary school that day, the piece of paper didn't save the rest of those kids live. Opposition to the shooter stopped this massacre. The role of the police isn't to protect you, it's to enforce the laws once they are broken, and the law wasn't broken in CT until the gunman was already in action. If you think about it makes sense to say that someone who is going to shoot someone else, might double think their actions if they know that that person will be shooting back.
Let me leave you all with this quote: Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms. — AristotlePosted by: MparkeOnly in America
Its really only in America that it is much easier and cheaper for someone to go out and buy a gun, then it is for them to get health care. The problem is not gun control reform, its health care reform. We need a health care system that actually works, and provides affordable, reliable and effective medical care for the mentally ill. Many issues would be solved this way. Besides true criminals do not follow laws as it is, so gun control would not even effect them at all, and if it was not a gun, it would be another tool used as a weapon, or something worse like a bomb. Lets face it, someone decides to start using those over a gun body counts climb much higher.
Posted by: TheUndiscoveredGuns don't kill people.
People kill people. Guns are no more than tools, like hammers or cars. If a disturbed man took a car or chainsaw into a school then what? What 1 individual does effects thousands, true. But anything is a weapon, it all depends how you use them. Swords, knives, guns, etc. In the wrong hands they are dangerous.
Posted by: AnonymousOur prayers go out to the victims, what has happened could be no more wrong.
It needs to be completely understood that this evil act was committed by a person, not the weapon. A despicable and deeply damaged person, committed this crime. This criminal was committed to his task of causing this great pain, went where he knew the defenseless were and carried out his plot. There are many violent and horrific ways someone so committed and damaged could cause tragedy. Many agree, that on that day as he approached the school grounds, his actions were unpreventable. Short of arming teachers and staff or having armed security at every elementary school in the country, a lone attacker committed to causing tragedy cannot be stopped. Whether the weapon he had chosen was a gun, a blade, a bomb, a poison, or even a vehicle this person was going to hurt people. Taking rights away from every American, does not eliminate individuals that want to hurt people. Violent crime did not disappear in Australia when they enforced strict gun control measures. That ban was credited with elevated the number of stabbing deaths as well as other types of violent homicide. That ban largely disarmed the public against criminals who still have guns to this day. I am greatly disturbed by this senseless act, but I am greatly disappointed in our nations "leaders" for rolling out their political agendas and politicizing this tragedy before the families of the victims could even see their children. We don't need sweeping removal of American rights. We need to change a social system where killers with their issues and warning signs can slip through the cracks or just be ignored.
Posted by: AnonymousI oppose stricter gun control laws; people are going to get guns regardless of any restrictions if they truly want them.
Gun control only effects those who are in the system or using the guns for legal purposes. People that want a gun for an illegal purpose are probably not going to go to the gun store and purchase it. Instead they are going to steal one and use that one for their crimes and gun control laws cannot prevent this.
Posted by: TMaciasGun control laws should not be more strict, because law-abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves.
Stricter gun control laws would make it more difficult for the segment of the population who would use them to protect their families. History has shown that criminals, on the other hand, will surely never have any problems with access to guns, no matter what the law. Passing stricter gun control laws will give criminals an even bigger advantage.
Posted by: UnarmedEddyI oppose stricter laws for gun control as they do not reduce gun related crime.
Current gun laws do not prevent gun related crime and violence and therefore there is no need to make them more strict. If anything, gun laws need to be looser so that more Americans can arm and protect themselves as the Constitution allows. Strict gun laws are intended to keep guns out of the hands of felons and those who wish to do harm. These laws, however, are easily bypassed by those with criminal intent as they do not care if they break additional laws.
Posted by: VampireShuNo, there are enough laws on the books already.
The original intent of the constitution gave rights to the common folk to protect us from an overriding government. Please consider prohibition and what that government intervention caused. I don't have the best answer to the problems but I know restricting our freedoms further will give our government one more step into our private lives.
Posted by: Anonymous