Amazon.com Widgets

Is the current level of gun control in the U.S. effective?

  • The Right to Bear Arms is INALIENABLE

    The right to self-defense and self-preservation are basic human rights that we are born with. The US Constitution RECOGNIZES these (and numerous other) rights - it does not GRANT them. Any law which restricts the ability of a law-abiding person to protect himself (or herself) is unconstitutional.

    The fact that laws are only obeyed by law-abiding people is obvious. The current gun laws, and any new ones, will be ignored by criminals.

  • Gauranteed Constitutional Right

    First and foremost the people who support gun control are idiots.

    George Washington didn't defeat the Red Coats by talking to them nicely. He shot them.

    I personally own over 20 firearms, none of them have ever killed anyone. The only time they will is in defense of myself, my family, and those who can not defend themselves.

  • We need enforcement of our current laws not encroachment of our freedoms.

    Questions for pro gun control supporters.

    If gun control will help fix ease of access to weapons and limit overall crime rate then why do we still have easy access to drugs?

    Are media companies out to make a profit? Doesn't shocking/sad news draw attention better than a positive story about someone fending off crime with a gun?

    Why not overhaul out judicial system? Why not look into freeing up prison space by reducing sentencing for minor drug offenses and non-violent offenses to create more prison space to house violent offenders for longer sentences?

    The worst mass killing in US history was accomplished with a bomb. A man killed 44 people (38 of them were children) with a bomb at a school in 1927. How do you propose we make sure nobody has access to anything to make a bomb? How do you propose we remove knives from society so that nobody can be stabbed? Or are knives and knife murders allowable because they haven't been headlines for mass murders lately?

    If you are going to argue that we should remove the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution then why stop there? Why not remove the 1st Amendment as well? Wouldn't censored speech make the US safer because we wouldn't be as likely to upset each other with our opinions? Wouldn't the government telling you what religion to follow remove all religious disputes and crime related to that topic? Wouldn't everyone being forced to dress the same minimize crime because we all look the same?

    There are issues that need addressed but removing freedoms provided to you by the Constitution is far from the answer.

    As a society we would make a more positive difference if we addressed the stigma related to mental health and helped address current problems in the health care system that make it difficult to receive proper care for mental health problems.

    We should also address enforcing current gun laws more appropriately. The law enforcement agencies need to be better streamlined to share information to ensure violent offenders aren't able to move between states and purchase weapons.

    Before you so quickly start allowing the government to encroach on your Constitutional rights, you should think of other possible solutions. I don't have all the answers, far from it. However, I do know there are more ways to address this issue than removing the freedoms guaranteed to us.

  • The Real Problem

    Guns have very little to do with all these mass shootings or crimes. For instance in 2008 5,430,000 violent crimes were committed and of these only 8% were committed with a gun. This shows the lack of guns that are actually used to commit violent crimes. If we want to see what it looks like to have stricter gun laws just look to our neighbors to the south (Mexico). They have far stricter gun laws than we do and yet their crime rate is higher and killings are more brutal. Taking guns away from those who need them most doesn't make sense. Based on a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology U.S. citizens use guns to defend themselves and others from crimes at least 989,883 times per year. If you take away guns from those people those numbers would switch from protected to killed, raped, assaulted or what have you. We need to promote gun ownership-not decrease gun control. So in the event of a mass shooting someone is more likely to have a gun and shoot them rather than heroically throw themselves at the shooter. Those for more gun control sometimes say more gun control = less guns = less need to protect yourself with guns. However the fact still stands that those who commit these crimes are not thinking rationally, and are already aware that they are breaking laws that are going to put them in jail for the rest of their lives. Therefore they don't care if they break one more law. A similar topic that indirectly proves this is the debate about the death penalty. It shows that just because it is there it doesn't deter these crimes from happening. When we look at mass shootings there have been 16 mass shootings in the U.S. in just 2012 - this also proves my point. In the years leading up to 2012 laws on gun control have become more strict but the amount of mass shootings, and their heinousness have increased. This shows that guns are not the problem. To find the problem we need to analyze everything about these shooters and figure out what sets them apart from the rest of the U.S. It is not gun ownership because out of the U.S. population of 307 million, 300 million have guns. It is not video games, movies or music because almost all teenagers interact with these. So the main thing left is the fact that they have a mental illness. It just so happens that the amount of care provided to these people is so low that most insurances wont even cover it. We need to help mentally ill people and their families by making sure they take their medications, by helping the families financially, by raising education surrounding mental health, and removing the stigma. At the beginning crime rates will lower if control raises - that happens every time a new law is introduced - but they will also rise once again past the numbers before. This is also shown by any graph you wish to look up. Finally it is in the Constitution of the United States of America (the supreme law of the land). The second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which are some of the certain unalienable rights written in the Declaration of Independence. Not to sound crazy or like a conspiracy theorist but it was put there to help assist us in over throwing the Government. "Democracy while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never last long. It soon wastes, exhaust, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."- John Adams. Also " Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."-Plato. These people knew what they were talking about so taking guns away not only makes us more vulnerable to crime, but also a dictatorship. I also want to make it clear I am not saying that more gun control will lead to tyranny. So in conclusion more strict gun control will not work because guns are not the problem, it takes away freedoms, and puts others in harm's way.

  • If we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns

    Public won't have guns, but criminals will, therefore, we'll be defenseless, not to mention infringement of he 2nd amendment... Violent criminals should be locked away, as well as insane people, and normal citizens should be able to keep their guns. Guns should remain in the hands of the citizens.

  • Only criminals use guns for crime

    I think the only gun control necessary is a background check. Only criminals need to be prevented from buying guns. What about this solution? What if we extended the sentence for using a gun for a crime. For example, someone who robs a bank with, say, a knife goes to jail for 20 years, but someone who uses a gun for the same crime goes to jail for 28 years (Excluding time off for good behavior, parole, etc.). Do you guys think that's a good compromise?

  • Yes, the current level of gun control is effective or, in some cases, too restrictive, because excessive gun control laws disarm only those who are not inclined to commit crimes.

    The current level of gun control in the U.S. is good enough and is, in most cases, too excessive. Most everyone can agree that gun ownerships should only be limited to responsible citizens who are not felons, or mentally impaired. The laws for this are already in place. They just need to be enforced. Other gun control laws, however, see California, for example, are much too excessive and do nothing to stop crime or, in some cases, have increased it. If violence and crime is to go down, then economic stability must be attained by a large amount of the population, and the influence of television on an individual's psyche must be examined.

    Posted by: R4yAnych
  • I support fewer laws on the restriction of citizens owning guns. It is a constitutional right to bear arms.

    Making it harder and harder to own a weapon isn't going to eradicate violent crimes. Restricting the legal ownership of weapons creates a black market for them. A greater focus on education is a much surer way to reduce violent crimes. The educated are more likely to be productive, and much less likely to resort to violence.

    Posted by: WitchSau
  • I feel that the current level of gun control is sufficient; if criminals want to get weapons, there are plenty of means to do so.

    If anyone tries to buy a gun, they are put through enough background checks. If a criminal wants to commit a crime, there are plenty of weapons that they could get without having to get a background check. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right and I feel that there is enough control over the purchase of fire arms.

    Posted by: P0ngIevey
  • Yes, because if we began to restrict it any further we risk alienating the responsible gun owners.

    The constitution of the United States of America gives us the right to bare arms. With that being said if we oppose stricter laws we may force people into buying firearms through illegal channels. There are many responsible firearm owners in the country today and I think so far we as a society have done a good job with the laws surrounding firearms.

    Posted by: l0nerkatz999
  • You only become a criminal by using a gun to commit a crime.

    However, with guns readily available, it is easier for unstable people to make themselves criminals. These crimes can cause varying levels of harm, from shooting through a window to killing a classroom. The factors that transform a minor gun crime into a major one often depend on the type of guns being used and the type of people that are using them. In stores across the US it is possible to purchase heavy duty machine guns and air rifles. In some states automatic guns that were made before 1986 are still legal. These guns can fire up to 166 bullets per second. An air rifle is made to shoot down airplanes. There is absolutely no reason why these types of weapons should be readily available. Arguments are often made that the government is taking away the freedoms of its people by tightening gun control, but the government is really giving you the freedom of security. Stashing a hand gun in your bedside table is not going to save you in the case that a nut comes into your school and shoots it up, but stricter gun laws might. A person is less likely to commit a crime if they cannot easily access the materials to commit such crime. Even if they could though, it is much more likely for them to be able to access smaller weapons that would do less harm then semi-automatic machine guns. Citizens who want to purchase guns should be subject to a thorough process that includes a vulnerable sectors check, a intense background check, a criminal reference check, gun education and finally a license to be obtained. The guns that such people should be able to obtain should be for sport and have a limited power. Guns are not toys that normal people should be able to just carry in their purses. Normal people do bad things when pushed the wrong way. Stricter gun laws= less guns = less need for protection by a gun. There are other ways to protect yourself then owning a murderous weapon. Guns are not toys that normal people should be able to just carry in their purses. Normal people do bad things when pushed the wrong way. There have been 16 mass shootings in the United States in 2012 alone. A comparison study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre at the Harvard School of Public Health showed that among 26 developed nations, including Canada, where guns were more available, there were more homicides. The U.S. had the highest rate of civilian gun ownership and the highest homicide rate per capita by a wide margin. This is not a coincidence. In the UK, where they do not have a neighbouring country that freely sells fire arms and very strict gun laws they have just experienced a 30 year LOW in the number of homicides. Not only that, but the number of teenagers and children that die every year from gun shots is 69 times higher per capita in the US then in britain. Guns control is something the federal government of America should highly consider

  • There should be a more thorough process to getting a gun.

    I'm not saying, by any means, that people should not be allowed to have guns and use them, but there needs to a significantly more thorough process by which people are screened prior to buying them. Not just anyone and everyone needs or deserves to be able to get a gun. Sorry.

  • More guns equals more violence.

    The pro gun argument is flawed on so many levels--moral, social, personal, pragmatic. Common sense says that assault weapons are designed to kill people, not for sport hunting. The ordinary citizen should not have access to these weapons unless in a controlled environment such as a shooting range. The framers of our Constitution did NOT intend for guns with such devastating effect to be in the hands of citizens.

  • Gun control laws do not halt criminals from possessing guns.

    The reality is that gun control laws do little to stem crime or violence. While some members of society may not be able to own firearms legally, this does little to prevent the number of guns that operate illegally within the United States. Until a serious effort is made to reduce the number of guns on US streets, our current gun control laws will never be effective.

    Posted by: N3r0nKrooI
  • The level of gun control is not effective because thousands of people are still dying every year accidentally.

    If the level of gun control was effective, there would be several less deaths in our country. Every day, there are stories of young people who get a hold of a gun, or can buy one off the street and they take innocent lives, some on purpose and some not. We have way too many guns available and they are too easy and cheap for anyone to buy and that needs to change.

    Posted by: Tr0yKentros
  • Current gun control laws would benefit society by becoming more restricted. Crime is prevalent in the U.S. There is constant gun violence in America and studies have shown that the more guns available, the more gun-related crimes.

    According to The Brady Center, when societies have more access to guns, more people, especially teens and children, are killed and hurt from gun violence. For instance, one year in the U.S., over 5,000 teens and children died from gun wounds. During that same year in Great Britain, where gun control laws are very restrictive, only 19 teens and children died from gunshots.

    Posted by: MurGuanto
  • It's not effective, because of all the guns that are already out there.

    At this point, even if they outlawed all gun sales, it wouldn't make a difference, because there are millions of guns already out there. Criminals can buy or steal guns from other criminals; they don't need to go through a background check. If there had been stricter gun control laws starting a long time ago, we wouldn't have this problem, but I think it's too late for gun control laws to have any effect now.

    Posted by: N Schroeder 60
  • I do not believe that the level of gun control in the U.S is effective because of so much violence that is going on today. So many people have easy access to guns and innocent people get killed.

    I believe that only the authorities should have access to guns and anyone that is approved for access to guns. I would not allow gun shops because we have too many children that play and are getting killed by guns. I also think that they should not make toy guns for little kids because of this reason.

    Posted by: IuceDas
  • The laws are there for gun control, but there are too many ways to bypass them, allowing everyone access to guns.

    There are laws in place to prevent convicted criminals from having possession of guns, but they are ineffective because there are too many ways to bypass the laws. Flea markets are full of guns where anyone with the money can buy them. Gangs are heavily armed, many of the arms coming straight from the US military, where gang members are increasingly joining to have experience with and access to guns and other weapons. We need laws that are effective to allow people to have guns but prevent criminals from having them.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • Make it illegal to post individual guns for sale

    Our current gun laws should be amended.IT should be illegal for an individual to post a gun owned by them for sale on the internet. There are thousands of guns that trades hands thanks to internet sites without any formal background checks being done. If you make it illegal to sell them online it will make a seller have to work harder to find a buyer. At that point it would be much easier for them to take it to a gun shop and sell it. I understand that this will not stop all guns from being sold with out proper background checks, but it will take thousands off the internet.


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