Would a ban on guns reduce crime in the U.S.?
It's a no brainer
Just compare the US crime and murder rates to the rest of the civilized world. It can't be that we're right and the rest of the world is wrong. Let's give our heads a shake and finally do something about this madness. Isn't 85,000 + shootings/gun incidents per year enough?
Posted by: AnonymousReduce crime? ... the issue right now is reducing the toll in massacres
In light of the carnage in Newtown, I wish people on both sides - but especially the gun advocates - would stop talking right now about crime and criminals. In order to take one positive step forward, to save lives when there is a future incident, Americans need to take measures to eradicate ALL semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines from the marketplace and from public arsenals. It won't happen in a day but surely the logic can be seen that the less of these weapons and magazines there are, the less carnage there will be. It isn't about solving violent crime, it's about stopping the massacres.
Posted by: AnonymousAssault Ban Weapon- 2004
The assault weapon ban expired in 2004. Since then, half of the mass shootings in our countries history have occurred. This ban is part of a butterfly effect, created by the tragedy in Newtown. The ban was created to keep our schools, theaters, etc. safe. Crime levels dropping just happens to be an additional incentive.
Posted by: AnonymousDont be an idiot
People in other countries that cant get guns as easily still MASS murder using knifes. This has been documented many times. There are 90 guns per 100 people in this country. Do you honestly believe banning them now will make the ones already owned disappear? And making something illegal does NOT make go away. This will just make black market gun sales skyrocket putting money into bad guys pockets. Yeah that sounds like a good idea. NOT!
Posted by: sdrawkcabregginBan guns in America.
If you ban guns things like the massacre in Connecticut would not happen. If guns were illegal then you wouldn't' need guns to defend yourself because no one else would have a gun. You wouldn't need one. Guns should be illegal!!!It could be you who gets shot nextHow would you like that to happen to you???
Posted by: AnonymousCheck the stats of other developed countries.
If you check the Internet to find the statistics of gun violence around the world, you see that the United States has the highest amount of deaths by firearms of any developed country. All others above the US are very much develop ping and most of them have corrupt governments.
When you look at the UK, 0.25 deaths by firearms are performed a per year per 100,000 inhabitants. Compare that to the US, which has 10.2 deaths by firearms per year per 100,000 inhabitants!Posted by: AnonymousA ban on all guns will reduce gun crime and violence, as evidenced by other countries.
The UK and Australia have experienced significant gun violence reduction after passing laws that restricted gun use. In China, where citizens cannot possess firearms, a man went into a school to commit murder but was only able to injure a few people because he could only use a knife. America is overrun with guns and even the police are out-gunned--this presents a ready danger for all US citizens. We would benefit by going the way of China, the UK, or Australia and restricting or outright banning private gun ownership.
Posted by: AnonymousHillbillies with guns scare me.
What kind of retarded hillbilly really needs a gun? No I don't feel safer knowing backwoods hillbillies who can't read and write are carrying guns. Is America so stupid? Even if you could find a valid excuse for owning a gun, what stops people who shouldn't have one from taking it from you? Anyone who carries a gun, brings at least one gun to the gun fight. The wild west is gone and John Wayne is dead. I can't believe that we have not become more civilized and educated than this.
Posted by: slamtelAny person with an IQ over 10 will say that Guns should be banned across the country.
Protecting the citizens is the job of the Police. Just like treating medical illnesses is the job of doctors. Would it make sense for everyone to buy whatever pharmaceutical medicines they want, and store them in their house so if they get sick, they can cure themselves?? NO!
Everyone in this society has a role, a job. The job of the police is to protect its citizens. They are the only ones who should have guns. Yes, if guns are outlawed, then it will be a felony to carry firearms (at home or otherwise). Yes, there will be a few stupid, senseless brutes who have guns, but those people are now outlaws, and they are commiting a serious crime to not give away their guns.
Yes, there will always be instances of some guy coming into a house and robbing people, and the family has nothing but 911. But that is OK.
The greater good that will come out of this, is that there won't be school killings, or some lunatic going into a building and shooting people. The U.S. should be embarassed that something like that happens so commonly in such an advanced country.
ThePosted by: AnonymousMaybe handguns are good, but assault weapons should be banned.
Do we actually need assault guns for protection? I do not think so. Handguns are perfect for protection, but the assault weapons are only for mass killing nowadays. Shooting in Connecticut,Colorado, and Arizona was all used semi- automatic assault weapons. This is why I think if firearms are Banned, the crime rate will go down
Posted by: AnonymousNo guns equals no gun crime
As someone who lives outside of the USA I find it hard to understand why people feel the need to be armed with automatic weapons for their personal safety. It is well known that carrying a weapon increases your chances of being shot. I understand that it is not a simple matter of banning guns -- everyone has them now -- but at least restrictions on automatic weapons would be a start.
Posted by: AnonymousThousands die a year.
Guns serve no purpose in society. You don't need guns, thousands die a year as a result of them though and a gun ban would lower gang violence. Guns serve no purpose and should be except in special cases such as for police, hunting a shooting ranges, but the amount of gun freedom we get in this country is terrifying.
Posted by: TheSaintGuns are out of control.
A ban on guns means that there would be less dangerous weapons for people to use, and therefore there will be less killings. And people mostly die because the murderers get their hands on guns and then use them inappropriately, which kills other people. I think that if guns were banned there wouldn't be this problem.
Posted by: AnonymousReal Logical
In the US there 270 mil guns and 300 mil people, so lets say 1 in 2 people have guns (Even though it is more like 3 in 4) where are you gun owners when a mass shooting happens, maybe you'll are just cowards. Adam Lanza's mother had a gun we all know what her faith was. As you pro gun people are so intelligent what is your remedy for being fat? Eating more fatty food.
Posted by: adamdupGuns are disproportionately more dangerous than any other consumer item
Endless studies and research has shown the direct link between gun availability and gun deaths. A gun owner is in much more danger from the gun itself than from a criminal. A gun free country would not reduce crime necessarily immediately (re UK similar crime rate to US but 200 times less death) but it would reduce fatalities from crime and fatalities generally. It is a tired cliche that people kill people not guns. Actually a person + a gun kills people, a person without a gun can use a knife, a stick, a rock but will have limited power. The gun is the enabling technology to massive killing power.
Once crime stops being so lethal it can be attacked with more subtle and intelligent policing methods and better understanding. Right now law enforcement is literally fighting a shooting war, not solving the crime problem. Criminals get their guns from private sales or steal them from gun owners who aren't locking their guns up, this is understandable as a locked up gun is no gun at all, so this sad paradox leads to so many guns in criminal hands.
In the end the idea of a method of attack used as a defense is a nonsense, a bullet proof vest is a defensive tool, a gun is not. None of this will change until people finally realize that guns are simply fabulously dangerous weapons, best left to trained police or military who have the time, ability and discipline to use them effectively. Thinking you can actually protect yourself against a gun with a gun is a delusion and to some a fantasy.Posted by: AnonymousA ban on guns would reduce crime in the US.
A ban on guns would reduce crime rates in the US because there will be no other way to commit mass murders. It would also reduce crime rates because people who could commit crimes would have to spend an excessive amount of money because guns are the cheapest way to murder people.
Posted by: kylemotoIt's a lot harder to rob a store, or kill someone with a knife.
With a knife or any other weapon, the most you can do is creep up on a person in the middle of the night, and even then that person has a pretty high chance of surviving. People say that the criminals can just get their guns from someone else, but I know that it would be at least harder to get a gun, and I am for a ban on assault weapons, that means that store owners and people who want to protect their house can still have a gun, just not an assault weapon because assault weapons are completely unnecessary. If someone wants to rob your house, it probably won't be more than one or two, or at most three people. An assault weapon just sprays bullets everywhere, harming innocent bystanders as well. You only really need one or two good shots, and you can accomplish that with a rifle or a revolver.
Posted by: Nyx999Guns are too easy to get a hold of.
Guns should only be able to be acquired after a very rigorous test, (both theory and practical) that has to be refreshed every year. They should also require that the applicant has a valid reason for said license, not just 'self-defense'. This works incredibly well in countries like the UK where gun violence is incredibly low. Alternative non-lethal self defense methods should allowed instead such as tazers and/or pepper spray.
Posted by: AnonymousThere are better ways to fight crime than a higher accessibility to guns.
The only way to fight this problem both ways is to invest on mental health. And increasing the accessibility to guns. Will not lower the chances for someone to kill another for some irritating manner. I think that guns itself are the problem. We must invest in mental help guns legal or illegal will still be there, But selling it will not lower killing rate.
Posted by: AnonymousGun Owner Here
How can cops feel comfortable knowing there's a bunch of necks out there with assault rifles and drums? We need to have some common sense in this country quick. Wait...we've been in war for 10 years now, I forgot. The world is laughing at us. Who let the assault weapon ban expire in 04 again? Oh, there's even more to put on Dick and Bush's resume. Thanks.
Posted by: wwwwyNO GUNS, NO SOURCE OF CRIME
When criminals spot guns all round them LEGALLY......They usually get tempted and feel no wrong doing because guns are being used legally, that basically states that law is allowing criminals to start their crime. Once guns get banned, criminal start feeling scared because they will be chances that they are caught with a gun..And guns are noisy so YES, they have 70% chance to get caught. And as an answer to the debate question-> Yes, a ban on guns will REDUCE crime in the U.S
Posted by: hanleyLess chances of crimes.
Criminals need weapons and most weapons they use are guns for robberies and shootings. Many of them kill people for revenge, anger and just for no reason. Others hurt them by shooting them in the leg or the arm so that if they get caught they wont be charged for killing someone.
Posted by: AnonymousThe seriousness of the crime would get less
I am now living in US, but born and lived in another country where the crime rate is NOW much higher than US mainly due to the poverty and of social economic factors they are facing now. However, in my birth country, the firearms were banned for more than century and the country was very peaceful for decades where only one or two murders were reported mainly done using knives or a dagger or by hitting with something. However, for past two decades my birth country faced a civil war situation and the firearms became almost available everywhere, even after the civil was was over. Now armed with firearms everywhere, people try to kill each other for the simplest disagreement since the guns are available and accessible. Crimes would not be vanished from the world for another few centuries, but if we make more convenient killing methods available for criminals, they surely will kill more than they usually do. So the guns should be banned.
Posted by: AnonymousReap what you sow
Although the frequent mass shootings are dreadful, it is hard to sympathize when Americans have this ridiculous idea that anyone is entitled to have a gun!
Nothing the pro gun side say will ever convince me that anyone other that police or military should have a gun.
I am glad I do not live in the US.Posted by: AnonymousGuns bring more harmness than the goodness
people might think by having drugs can secure the family members, but the evidence don't prove that at all, it bring more terrible criminalization. people don't have gun license, they cannot control their emotion. Can you imagine world without gun, it can be a peaceful place for everyone, I take an example, in Indonesia it is rarely found a person killed is caused of gun.
So that's why the government should ban guns.Posted by: AnonymousGuns make you aggressive
A group of people took a written test meant to measure aggressiveness. Another group did the same, but at a table with a pile of guns. The results were startling. The mere PRESENCE of guns vastly increased aggressiveness. Having a gun makes you more likely to use one (obviously), hence family shootings, accidents, and suicides are way up in households with guns. How to protect yourself? You don't need to, any more than you need to protect yourself from sharks in the ocean. The odds are overwhelmingly in your favor.
Here's the solution: Mandatory psychiatric testing before the purchase of EACH gun. Guns/rifles only allowed in a locked box at a gun club. Not on your person. Not in your car. And not in your home.Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely, but not overnight
Violence breeds violence. Criminals that know for sure, or have a strong suspicion, that their intended victim is armed WILL GO ARMED. Remove guns from US citizens and make the the place much safer.
There will remain guns in circulation, but these will diminish over time, it will take a few decades to make the US a safer place like most other parts of the world.
Tonight as I type, we have the news that 27 are dead in Connecticut, 20 of the elementary children. It is a crass and puerile argument whether the perpetrator obtained the gun legally or illegally.
If guns were banned he would have had significantly more of a problem obtaining a gun.
It is even more puerile to defend the right to bare arms using the perpetrators mental state as an argument. Again if guns had been banned regardless of his mental state he would have had significant difficulty obtaining a gun.
He might still have gone awry with some other lethal weapon, but the damage and the victims would have been limited.Posted by: PCSCriminals don't follow the law
If the US bans guns, the only people that will have them are the crazy murderers. The good, law abiding citizen will not. Now, I know people say "well most shootings are using legal guns", well if you take those away, the illegal gun market will skyrocket. In this version of America, some crazy killer can run around shooting people until the cops show up. But if somebody has a gun, the fatality of the situation can just be one. Imagine if in the Colorado shooting, somebody was carrying a gun. The only death would have been the crazy shooter, not the innocent civilians.
Posted by: gundudePeople need to stop being selfish
Point blank. NO ONE needs assault rifles, or any of these other guns that are used in these massacres. There needs to be a ban on most of those types of weapons. I don't think taking away regular hunting firearms from people who hunt for the food for their family would be good, but all of these other guns that hold so many bullets are not needed. Some of the safest countries in the world have some sort of gun bans. How does this not trump all other ideas. Safe.. I want to feel safe to send my kids to school. This is enough.
Posted by: AnonymousBan on guns will avoid their misuse.
Guns are mostly misused when it is under wrong hands. Banning them will prevent such incidences. Youngsters mostly get carried away by feeling the power of a gun in their hands, which propels them towards crime.
Posted by: dankilberryA ban on guns may not reduce crime...
Conflicting conclusions from a vast number of reports makes it almost impossible to answer the question, as can be seen from so many responses here. But to the question: would a concerted effort to eradicate automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines save lives? The answer can only be an emphatic YES. The ban itself reduces the number of weapons out there. Decrying their use, makes more law abiding citizens not want them. Decrying the depictions of them in media and video games makes a dent in the culture of violence. If only one life is saved by these measures, isn't that good enough reason?
Posted by: CanuckRickIf crime is killing someone you know
Then yes - most guns deaths are not the traditional robbery scenario. Many incidents are accidents / suicide / etc - so it would be very helpful to control access to firearms..... But then what do I know - I grew up in Scotland and never had to face the horror of a gun being pointed at me. In the USA it has happened to me once - and I pray we can elimnate these lethal devices.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning guns would almost surely result in reduced crime, because so many crimes involve firearms.
So many crimes involve the use of firearms, both premeditated crimes like robbery, and crimes of passion, where access to a gun increases the chance of fatality. In countries where guns are prohibited or severely restricted, the incidence of crime and especially violent crime is much lower than the rate in the U.S.
Posted by: Th4FireIt worked in Canada
If you go just across the border, you will notice that in Canada, where guns aren't banned but heavily regulated, there is much less gun violence. In most areas, they had to go back 5 years to find the last record of a shooting.
Even though banning guns for civilians would probably cause a new black market to emerge, it would at least lower the amount of people who carry them in the streets.
Despite what people may think, the problem isn't entirely criminals getting a hold of guns. The problem is also the fact that civilians feel entitled to carry firearms (which they are not - but that's a whole different discussion) and abuse this privilege. Why is this an issue? This is an issue because people make extremely bad decisions under pressure, especially with a murder weapon in their pocket. They may be perfectly sane people, but if they feel like they are threatened, their mind can go into adrenaline overdrive and they could shoot someone under the mistaken impression that it was self defense.
As for self defense, people seem to think that if you carry a gun, you are protected against guns. This is obviously completely untrue, unless of course you have a revolver that expands into a shield. If there is a shooting in the street and the people around have guns, they might panic and start shooting, causing more unnecessary civilian casualties. Take for example the movie theatre shooting in Aurora. If the people in that theatre had had guns and had time to pull them out in the first place, many more people would have died because people would have panicked and shot aimlessly in the dark movie theatre.
Many families feel the need to have a gun in the house to protect from eventual burglars etc. but a study has proven that if you have a gun in your home, it is 30 percent more likely that it will be used AGAINST you than BY you.
So yes. Yes a ban on guns would reduce crime in the U.S., in my opinion.Posted by: AnonymousLes guns less opportunity
I'm amazed at the research that shows a distinct connection between the availability of guns and gun related deaths and injury. Surely it is obvious that less guns equal less death and injury. The big issue seems to be the ease with which people get hold of guns - either legally or by misusing other people's guns - this is what happened in sandy creek. Why not get rid of them altogether? Why not make it law that only law enforcement, farmers that own their land (and only on their land), military and militia on current active duty can carry any type of gun . This includes hunters. And even law enforcement, military and militia need to have there guns locked up between shifts in centralized armories. Anyone else who is caught carrying a gun gets a 2 year mandatory jail sentence with no parole. If a person carries or uses a gun in the process of committing any crime get s minimum 10yr mandatory, non parole sentence. Then there will be way less opportunities or incentive for the angry, insane, or unstable to grab other peoples guns and kill people.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's all a little crazy
I don't live in the US and so therefore I struggle to truly understand the context and culture in the States. I don't like to force my views and create a biased argument that will prove nothing.
Where I live gun violence doesn't even cross my mind, if someone was to break into my house I don't have to reach for a gun... In fact never have I thought to myself 'I could really use a gun right now'. There is no gun culture in Australia and therefore no escalation for criminals or citizens to arm themselves. I'm happy to say that I've never seen a gun before and that gives me great security. It might seem ignorant from an American perspective, but perhaps it's this very difference in culture that is the difference. I can legally go out an get a gun (although it takes a bit more time and effort than in the states) but I just don't need to. I don't claim to have the answers but it definitely is possible to live without the fear of someone 'blowing your head off'.
I believe perhaps its not an issue of 'gun control' but of 'gun culture' or just culture as a whole.Posted by: AnonymousFrom australia
Worked for us. Funny how you guys are against terrorists yet your gun laws kill more people. We did it in Australia and banned all semi automatic weapons and we have all been fine. Get some brains and and stop thinking with your balls. Love for all the people guns have killed. 1 million in last 10 years.
Posted by: AnonymousMake the USA a safer place
It needs to be said that those who think not banning guns is a good idea, are morons. I just read an article that said they tried it in the UK and then (rather sarcastically) continued "though for some reason criminals don't hand in their guns", which was a moronic thing to say. They was a huge drop in the UK and other countries that outlawed them. The government discovered that the only guns the criminals were able to get their hands on were used by multiple gangs, but those will not last forever. What is definitely a great idea is that weapons are not available with such relative ease that they are now. To have signs in schools saying "no guns allowed" is laughable and every few years when their is a shoot out in America nothing is done. It is time to act. It WILL reduce crime, fact. It won't completely stop it but it will definitely help in no small way.
Posted by: AnonymousWeapon of Choice
Most people who oppose gun restrictions are those who like to live in simplicity, thinking that people will use any weapon if they choose to kill. When is the last time a mass murder took place with a kitchen knife? An axe? A baseball bat? Explosives are illegal and difficult to obtain-- most Americans don't own explosives, but there are millions of assault weapons, and they're designed for one thing-- killing lots of people, and that's what we've got.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat else would lower it?
Guns have proved themselves deadly weapons time and time again with the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora, Colorado shooting. Even Glee made an episode about the dangers of guns! I understand it is an amendment, but would it be so bad to ban more POWERFUL, DANGEROUS guns? Would it be so bad to have a very THOROUGH background check on people who purchase guns? That's just my opinion, so don't come complaining when a family member is killed In the hands of a killer.
Posted by: AnonymousYes it will so go along with it
It is easier to kill someone with a gun because you could kill from long distance. Even though they could kill a different way a gun is the easiest way. Think about it. You could get away being killed a different way but with a gun it is hard to escape. If guns are banned it will reduce the crime. Look in Britain, only 58 people are killed by a fire arm. That is nothing. It is only 58 people are killed because guns are not allowed.
Posted by: AnonymousThe stats are proof
Gun reform in Australia lead to 0 mass shootings in 16 years.
In previous 18 years before gun reform there were 16 mass shootings in Australia.
In USA in the last 18 months there has been 65 mass shootings.
These mass shootings are occurring with registered LEGAL guns. Yes, in Australia there are illegal weapons. And yes there are shootings occurring involving drugs, motorbike gangs, and various disputes. BUT these involve a single person being shot with a handgun, and are contained before it becomes a mass murder.
It is a tragedy when a person is shot in any country. It is an abomination when many people are killed, and when children are killed it is an unspeakable evil. The blood of the victims is on every single person who does not take action against assault weapons and guns in general.Posted by: AnonymousAre we hearing ourselves?
Until the voters on the right column of this page find themselves in the position of a parent whose child goes to Sandy Hooks Elementary School, they will never fully understand.
I agree that our nation was built on the foundations of freedom and liberty. But just as we deserve the right to own and bear firearms, we deserve a right to not have our god-given lives taken away from us by irresponsible people who similarly have the right to own and bear firearms.Posted by: AnonymousAre us Americans too weak to get rid of our guns?
Gun bans have worked in many countries including Australia, Japan, and most of Western Europe, but some say that the United States won't be able to handle such thing. Why are we Americans too scared to get rid of our guns? Because our older generations have taught us that by holding a gun, you're holding the protection and safety for your house, family, friends, and property. But when we look at statistics, the United States have had more crime rates than any other developed nations in recent years. How do we become a safer nation? Should we get rid of the walls, or should we create more walls? Maybe we should question not just our gun regulations, but also our morality, society, media, and education as well.
"Be the Change that you want to see in the World" -GandhiPosted by: JustKeepSwimmingThere's really no current solution.
The arguments for gun control that I agree with:
It seems to have worked in other countries who have banned them. But they have far less firearms circulating the country. Holding a gun gives you a dellusional reality that it makes you safer, and so does getting rid of whatever we can. We should question ourselves about gun regulation but improve on ourself as a whole (mental health, morality, equality, etc). Just because the 2nd institution is manditory, doesn't mean it's the solution. Has every decision we made 200 years ago stayed the same? If it need be, we need to progress and stop living in the past. Having a gun does not reduce crime fully, but changes the nature of it. From assault to murder. Adding fuel to the fire would also create more chaos and bloodshed. Most pro-gun users refer to people who are criminals, but forget they were considered a normal human being prior to that.
Now the arguments against gun control I agree with:
Criminals will not follow laws, so it is a high probability this will only affect law-abiding citizens.
Gun deaths are down in other countries, but personal and property crimes have jumped. Crime will continue regardless of the ban and people will find a way around it.
Opinions that are in the middle:
A better solution must be found. A ban on weapons won't take away the millions of firearms that are present in the U.S. Arming teachers and staff with weapons would not contribute to safety. As they already have enough educational problems to deal with. We should have annual mental checkups for stability and receive proper training if we wish to carry a gun.
If you kill the motive, you kill the crime. (But what is the motive? How do we do that?).
Arguments that no one should use EVER:
The weapon to common death method. Stop comparing a gun to water/oxygen/cars/baseball-bats/knives and such. It does not relieve the fact that guns are far more dangerous. It does not remove their original and continuous intent of harming or killing. If I brought a grenade to school and had it taken away from me. It would be quite moronic of myself to say, "well chairs can be used as weapons so we might as well take away chairs". No. The more dangerous, the more responsibile we should be.
-A world without guns is a world without chaos.
Why in the world would more access to real life violence be chaotic?
-Abortionists kill (___%) of children per year.
No. Firstly they are not children. Secondly, there has been a huge debate that has favoured that they are not living life forms. Thirdly, abortions are there to prevent the child from growing up unwanted. To prevent poverty, suffering and much more negativity. It is selfish to demand someone be born into misery.Posted by: Claude08Guns are never beneficial in this day and age.
A gun ban would really help out the economy and bring a lot more tourists here. Many people, even US citizens, will not even visit states like Texas where people are allowed to carry guns everywhere and allowed to have them hidden from view. I think guns are pathetic and those who feel the need to have them are paranoid and confused about life in general. Most of the guns in the private sector are sitting in a closet collecting dust. It would be honorable for people to give up their guns and have them destroyed.
Posted by: AnonymousNot a doubt
Cmon guys, a first grader could answer this. Less guns on the street=less shootings. If Adam Lanza did not have all those assault rifles sitting around in his house, there is a good chance he never would have been able to even get the guns for his massacre. If guns weren't sold so easily, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would not have been able to just purchase them from some guy at a gun show. The fact that a lot of crimes are committed with legally purchased guns means that there is no doubt crime would be reduced.
Posted by: AnonymousHow could it not
The second amendment was made so Americans could defend themselves from tyrants. If any citizen is still convinced they could fight the US army, even with assault rifles, they are delusional. Just because banning guns wouldn't prevent ALL murders, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it because it would most definitely reduce them.
Posted by: AnonymousBan Handgun and Assault weapon production
Since I believe that public dialogue is important and essential to a healthy democracy, here is my two cents regarding firearms. I believe that there should be a ban on handgun and assault weapon production, except for authorized purchases for law enforcement etc. Anyone currently owning a handgun would not have to give up their legally registered handgun. However, if a gun is used illegally, then it is confiscated and destroyed.
Posted by: Anonymousguns resolve nothing
If people would need to use guns for farms and hunting etc, I think that's agreeable. But if you are carrying a gun just for the sake of self protection, who knows what kinds of trouble you can cause? America is one of the leading countries that has no gun control, yet thousands die each year from gun shots.
Posted by: AnonymousNo children or students are killed even in a poorest countries
We should not try to justify a bad thing with another bad thing. If you see the recent history of USA, much more lives are lost rather than protected. I can give you example where guns are banned, lives are not lost the way we are loosing. Gun right was good at one point, but it's time to re-think. We should not be misguided by the gun dealers.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat Causes These Tragedies
Over the past there have been uncountable number of tragedies in elementary schools, colleges, and movie theaters. Many lives have been lost at the hands of "common, everyday people." But why does this have to happen? Some people say it is not the gun that took the life of the person but the murderer. However, I think it is the gun and every bullet in it. Without guns these tragedies would not happen AS OFTEN. I emphasize AS OFTEN because I know that even with a ban, people would still look for ways to kill, such as knives. I know this for a fact. I am from another country but still live in the U.S. In my country only officers are allowed to carry guns. The death count is much lower compared to the equivalent of the U.S., therefore I think we can conclude if "everyday people" dont have access to guns the deaths will be lower. Another fact to consider is the mental health and stability of the owner. For example shooter Adam Lanza suffered from a mental disorder called Asperger's Syndrome. This causes the individual to have social "awkwardness." Sometimes it hides another diagnosis, SCHIZOPHRENIA. This is another mental disorder that causes the individual to have a double life, and double personality. People with this syndrome may be very aggressive out of nowhere. Keeping this in mind the government should study an individual's mental health before allowing possession of a gun.
Posted by: AnonymousA Ban On Guns May Not Reduce Crime, But It Would Reduce Senseless Shooting Sprees Like What Happened in Colorado and Connecticut
Let's be real, way more harm than good has been done by Guns in our society. A ban on Guns in the United States wouldn't prevent all types of crime (i.e. gang violence) since those people get their guns on the black market. However, if you look at the most violent outbreaks of violence in recent memory (i.e. Connecticut), these acts of violence are done by WHITE kids in suburban areas who are getting guns not off the streets but from their own homes, etc. There's nothing wrong with making guns harder to access and putting tighter restrictions down. If we were to ban guns in this country, the amount of school shootings and tragedies of that magnitude would decrease dramatically. Gang violence probably wouldn't change a whole lot, but reducing the risks of school shootings should be a top the priority of all Americans hence, we should do whatever we can to ban guns in this country. Realistically, we should get rid of the 2nd Amendment. It was instituted in 1791 by a slim vote of 5-4 by the Supreme Court on the notion that a well trained militia was necessary for the security of the newly formed United States. But now that we don't need militias anymore, and the US is more than secure, the 2nd Amendment has run its course and really it shouldn't be in practice anymore. We should just get rid of it. That way, innocent kids will be way less likely to get killed and crazy white kids in the suburbs will have to appeal to gangsters on the streets to get their weapons, and lets be real, I don't see many of them having the street smarts to get one from one of those guys because they aren't a part of the gang-banger culture.
Posted by: AnonymousBan them please
How far do you want your freedom to go? Maybe we should all be allowed to drive tanks on the road and make nuclear weapons. If there is a chance I can reduce the death toll from 22 to 12, I am happy to quit hunting. Of course you can argue it is not the gun's fault, it is humans fault, but if that gun nut used a knife, I believe there wouldn't be so many people dead in the event.
Posted by: AnonymousIf a person doesn't have a gun, he or she is less likely to kill someone.
Banning guns will reduce crime! Even people who have a clean record, have killed people in the past and probably will again. Cases of drunks killing are countless. And if a person doesn't have a gun, he or she is less likely to kill someone or at least it will not be as easy for him or her to kill someone.
Posted by: AnonymousIt will definitely help.
First, guns ARE made for killing. It wasn't invented for defense in the first place. If you want protection, buy a SHIELD instead.
Second, it's easier to kill with a gun than any other weapon out there. Someone can instantly shoot you and you drop dead. Unlike with a knife, you have a chance to protect yourself.
Third, there are more LUNATICS who own guns. Some don't even make it to court because they terrorize people.
Fourth, If people want protection, make martial arts mandatory. Enough basketball or football!
Guns are dangerous. Yes, people will say that anything is dangerous at a hands of a criminal. But I'll tell you this, why give a lunatic something more powerful to use upon our masses? Guns will always be guns and they were only build for killing.Posted by: AnonymousGuns, as a general rule, are dangerous.
That's it. If you are holding a gun, you can point it at someone and kill them from a distance. Even if you are a responsible owner, you must realize how powerful they are. Do you think it's a power people should have in general? I personally think not. People die senselessly everyday all over the world, from having something pointed at them.
As for just in the USA in general, the country is very over saturated. Great efforts would have to be made to collect guns for disposal and laws being passed, but the people needn't be paranoid about their goverment. The world as a whole needs to step up and do something about it to achieve anything like this.Posted by: AnonymousThere cannot be an argument against the fact that less guns = less gun crime
If access for 'normal' people buying guns in supermarkets throughout America is restricted then these mindless shootings of innocent children will hopefully stop. Handguns are used to kill at least 10,000 people a year in USA, compared to about a dozen in the UK, and perhaps on average 20 per year in other European countries. Notice any correlation here?!
Yes people can get guns on the black market, but that is because the market has been SATURATED for decades with easy to obtain, basically disposable guns! It needs to stop now!
Can someone give me a valid reason why ANYONE needs to own an assault rife or some such weapon?
The NRA has one purpose, to support gun manufacturers. They do not care about the 'rights' of your country's citizens.
If banning guns stops even ONE Sandy Hook from happening, then it's more than worth doing it.Posted by: AnonymousEvery study done says yes: fewer guns = less crime
The fact of the matter is, we in America have become desensitized to reality. There are mass shootings every month in the US, but in the UK there may only be one a year. What's the difference? They have a ban on guns. It's possible to kill people by other means, but those other means all have other uses. Guns don't.
Guns are made to kill. And we can't just let the issue be dredged up after every school shooting. There are 87 people killed every day in America. This isn't a rare occurrence.Posted by: AnonymousYes
Yes, the right to bear arms for what ? Stopping an intruder? There is a greater chance of a public shooting vs an intrusion. This is a bull-crap law that needs to put to rest. Acquiring guns illegally is not as easy as some may think. Even if they do, banning of guns will drastically reduce the random shootings.
Posted by: AnonymousThose who say no give no better alternative
Quite simply, maintaining the current situation does not solve the US gun problem. Even the most basic statistical analysis shows US gun crime is one of the worst in the world, particularly for a 'developed' country. The US 'right to arms' was written for a different time and the continued dogmatic approach to gun ownership in the country built upon this right is flawed. There is only one way to reach a culture of low gun crime and fear of gun crime. That is to vastly reduce gun ownership and to combine this with tight regulation of those who own firearms for legitimate purposes (sport and hunting). Unfortunately the US has the problem of having to deal with already sky-high levels of legal and illegal gun ownership. There should be a period of general voluntary disarmament and mandatory registration for a small percentage of gun owners. After that, anyone holding unregistered firearms should be considered an enemy of the state and prosecuted.
Posted by: Anonymousno
The gun murder (not all homicide, just murder) rate in the U.K. is 0.07 per hundred thousand of population. The gun murder rate in the USA is 4.14 per hundred thousand of population. That makes our gun murder rate 59 times higher than that of the U.K. Our overall murder rate is 4 times higher. In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. Most homicides are heat of the moment, take away the ability to quickly and easily (without danger to yourself) that a firearm gives you and the murder rate naturally rises, which explains the higher rate in general and the much much higher gun murder rate. People kill people, guns don't kill people. That said, guns make a a far easier and less risky proposition for the perp and therefore, as a natural consequence, far more likely. It's not rocket science people. The countries that have the strictest firearm laws also have the lowest murder rates in general and the lowest gun crime rates. The only countries that have higher firearm murder rates than the USA are 3rd world South american and African countries. Don't try the Switzerland argument either, because contrary to what you've been told (or what you want others to believe), Switzerland is only two places behind the USA for its gun murder rate. Whereas the countries with the strictest controls are right at the bottom of the list.
Posted by: ChazNo guns=harder to commit crimes
Many criminals are opportunists, they commit the crime simply because they have the means, and its pretty easy. The harder we make it to commit a crime, we will flush out the lazy ones and be left with the hard-core criminals, which we had to begin with anyways. Banning guns will slightly reduce the amount of people who take advantage of them.
Posted by: SmithereensBanning guns would lower crime rates
80% of all crimes involve handguns. The people that own guns should, in fact, hand them over or there will be consequences if they don't. Self-defense? That is a lame argument. There are shotguns too. I am not banning shotguns am I? Shotguns can be used for self-defense at home and look big and scarier than handguns. Handguns are used every day to kill someone.
Posted by: AnonymousThe 'I'm a law abiding citizen' argument.
Many pro-gun people say 'I'm law-abiding, why target me?'. This argument is so flimsy it's hilarious. They fail to realize that they can become a criminal themselves at some point in their lives and as a result of perhaps a lifetime of buying guns either legally or illegally they have access to weaponry they can then use in criminal activities. They say the same for people with mental health problems but fail to realize that they themselves could have similar problems in the future and become a danger to someone else. You suggest monthly mental health checks to them and they scream 'infringement!' and start quoting the 2nd as if it's gospel. I think with the resounding constitution-quoting fervor I've noticed overall I think pro-gun advocates/owners feel they are immune to psychological problems or indeed any capacity for deviant behavior. They consider themselves peaceful but in the same breath threaten to kill people/incite civil war if their guns are taken away and seem to revel in that attitude overall.
Posted by: AnonymousWeapons don't kill people, people kill people. But those people are more likely to succeed with the help of firearms.
If someone is intent to kill, it is likely that they will try and kill. But there is a huge difference between a murderer with access to a gun, and a murderer with no access to a gun. If your child's school was bombarded by a crazed person, intent on murdering as many children as possible, would you prefer they had access to a gun or not? It's disgusting that some people think that their 'right to a gun' should be considered as more important than their/other people's right to LIFE.
Posted by: AnonymousYes it would be safer.
In the beginning, a ban may be scary. Criminals would have guns and law abiding citizens wouldn't. But it is a sacrifice that has to be made. Eventually the amount of guns on the streets would diminish and we would all be on the same playing field like we are now, except without the ability to end another persons life by simply moving your trigger finger. It may take a while to see the results, but there is no doubt in my mind that removing guns on the streets would reduce the amount of violence we see.
Posted by: AnonymousThe US should do like the UK
The US should ban guns like in the UK. When the UK banned guns, gun crimes decreased a lot. This is because police officers do not have guns, so criminals will not need to have guns, of course some criminals may have guns, in that case the police will call the special police.
Posted by: AnonymousYou don't need an M16 to protect your family!
Most countries don't ban guns they just make them harder to get hold of than you can in the US and as a result have lower gun crime rates. Since the US has this "right to bare arms" attitude a ban on guns will probably never happen but tougher laws should be put into effect. How can anybody argue with the fact that in UK there were 35 gun related deaths last year and in US, 11,000. Even if you adjust for size and UK had the same population size as US it would still only be 210 deaths in UK compared to 11000 in US. The fact of the matter is the UK (and most countries in the world) don't ban guns but they do ban assault rifles, automatic weapons etc as there is no need for them, a low caliber gun protects your family if you need it just as well as a monster assault rifle. Guns for sport, hunting and farming etc are still allowed and if you want a gun there are a lot of restrictions like you have to store it in a locked gun cabinet bolted to a secure wall and be checked up on before a licence is issued. I can't see how anybody can argue against this. If you want a gun you have to have a mental health evaluation, police checks and register the gun every couple of years to make sure it hasn't "gone missing". I take the middle ground for Americans, ban assault weapons, ban automatic weapons, ban anything other than a small low caliber, small magazine hand gun for "protection", allow other guns for sport and hunting etc and make more of an effort to ensure they don't get into the wrong hands.
Posted by: AnonymousBasically banning autos reduced their access/use; so would the same for handguns
The NFA of 1938 and similar greatly reduced the accessibility of automatics for legal use, and ended up doing the same for criminal use. So why wouldn't the same result occur for handguns? And other arms are banned or extremely restricted (grenades, artillery, bombs), but they too are 'arms'. And criminals basically don't have access to those either, because they are so restricted. Use adult airguns if you want to shoot for recreation. Use adult airguns, rifles and archery for hunting.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely
The stats show that the states with the most relaxed laws have the highest homicide rates. Surely the follow-on argument from that is that the more guns there are, the more people are going to die. Yes, an illegal market will probably be created but it'll still be a lot harder to obtain for average members of the public. Adam Lanza just walked into his mum's cupboard and grabbed 3. It doesn't get much easier than that to kill a person with a gun.
Posted by: AnonymousNo Guns Please, I'm British.
I've no idea how to get hold of a gun. Apart from a few shooting clubs and armed police at airports on diplomatic protection, I've hardly ever seen a gun in private hands. Farmers have shotguns and their are a few that go on clay pigeon shoots. The rich go for a Grouse shoot but really you just don't see any guns day to day.
But then I live in good old England, where gun crime is very rare. America is beyond repair and past the point of no return. The stupidity of the gun lobby is just amazing, but then America is not the envy of the world anymore -- poor healthcare, rubbish infrastructure and disgraceful levels of poverty.Posted by: AnonymousIt may be the man who commits murder, but guns sure make it easier for him.
If you asked for my view on the 'it's the man that kills not the gun' argument, I would call it a lazy and indifferent justification for the excessive amount of gun crime in the U.S., and easy availability of firearms constructed by purely profit motivated corporations and organizations. Although it is the man who ultimately makes the decision, guns make it easier. It's no debate that to kill someone with a knife takes premeditation and determination, whereas with a gun all it takes is a flare of anger and a quick pull of a trigger from a distance and poof! Just one more statistic. And this is only the lesser of many evils of firearms. I recently saw a news report from the nothing short of horrific events at the Sandy Hook school, and couldn't help but notice the killer. A scrawny, weak looking young man. It strikes me that without the use of ranged firearms that this obviously psychologically disturbed character somehow obtained, this person would not have been able to inflict the damage he did without them. If he had attacked the school with a knife, he would have immediately been overpowered and children would still be alive. So wake up people, it's time for change, and no matter what way you slice it, there's only really one argument.
Posted by: AnonymousA ban on guns would reduce crime in the U.S.
I disagree with the mentality that a good man with a gun would kill the bad man with a gun. It is simply unrealistic to say that once guns are made accesible to all, that any phsycopath can lay his hands on one and go out on a rampage. I believe that if more and more guns are produced and they become easier to buy that people will no longer be able to leave their houses to go to the marketplace or to take a walk in the park. American citizens will be in constant fear of being shot by a maniac who managed to find a gun and has just experienced a catastrophe of some sort and is out to kill the first man that comes into sight. A ban in guns would be the most reasonable solution to our gun control conflict. It will limit the amount of people who can own guns therefore creating a more safe environment for all our citizens. The only people allowed to carry guns should be men or women in the police force. In terms of the 2nd ammendment that gives citizens the right to bear arms.... Wasn't the constitution ammended when we gave women the right to vote....why cant we ammend it again???
Posted by: aspraragenIt's very good move to reduce crimes in the U.S.
Americans these days can buy guns anywhere like Walmart, some of them sells guns. The public has too easy access to dangerous weapons so those who want to kill people, they are practically free to do so. Also, if we compare with their northern neighbor, Canada, the U.S. who don't have a ban on guns have a greater killing rate than Canada who has a ban on guns. Guns are arms that are destructive, used to kill animals ... or people. Even though not all crimes involve a portable firearm. Would it REDUCE crime? Yes. Why? Because there will be way less access to guns, dangerous weapons, to the hands of people you never know.
Posted by: Times_daughterPublic access to guns is the worst approach to legal gun accessibility and possession.
The highest homicide rate made by guns is in the USA, where several people die every single day by publicly accessible weapons. NRA argues that if there have been more weapons in the victims "pockets", they would easily return fire and kill the shooter. THIS is false at its highest stands! I can't recollect any mass-murderer or mass-shooter ever being stopped by a bystander witnessing it. There may be a few exceptions, but that is all they are EXCEPTIONS. It isn't a systematic way of stopping crime, law officers are the ones that stop crime with handguns - NOT civilians.
On the other hand - if we look at countries such as Sweden or Great Britain, they have 4-5 times less murders per person than in USA. There is a clear connection between the two factors. The facts are clear and unchangeable - not some truth that emerges and we can agree on through discussion.
But there is a better way - a way to stop the homicides. Switzerland has adopted way to combine the two systems with - probably - the worlds lowest homicide rate. They only allow access to weapons to only those who have completed military training. In this way they make sure that only sane and responsible people get a weapon.
This is obviously the best way to stop crime...Posted by: AnonymousYes, but it's not the answer
A ban on guns would certainly lower crime, but it would make criminals feel the need for a gun, make people feel unsafe. My rule, anything they do in Europe works. While it would help with the availability of guns in the U.S., they would still be in the hands of gangs, or civilians who would be blurred still about violence.
The answer is better mental health care, background checks, and bans on semi-automatic weapons.Posted by: AnonymousIt's a good step
Although it won't get rid of all crime, banning some military style guns will have an affect on the total amount of violence. One could say that it doing this will not be significant enough, however small steps can be made to lower violence. Either way though, crime will remain in America, and that is inevitable.
Posted by: shahmir112It's been proven
It's been proven in various countries like Australia, Austria, Japan and even in the US with the assault weapon ban. I'm not for a complete ban on firearms, as I think we should have a right to defend ourselves and others. We don't need fully auto firearms or 100 round mags.
Posted by: Magic8000Yes, but not by a lot.
A ban on guns, even certain types of guns, would lead to a reduction of crime in the US, however anyone with a sound mind knows that such a ban woudnt be very effective and would be an extreme way to try to fight crime. Just because it would be overall ineffective though doesnt mean that it wouldnt work. A gun ban would decrease crime, just not by enough to make it worth implementing, which is something that everyone over there ---------> Seems to be using as their main argument for why it wouldnt work.
Posted by: imabenchGuns are too easy to get a hold of.
Guns should only be able to be acquired after a very rigorous test, (both theory and practical) that has to be refreshed every year. They should also require that the applicant has a valid reason for said license, not just 'self-defense'. This works incredibly well in countries like the UK where gun violence is incredibly low. Alternative non-lethal self defense methods should allowed instead such as tazers and/or pepper spray.
Posted by: annonymous5GUNS KILL PEOPLE and perpetuate other crimes.
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 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws? People, not just Americans, have the natural right to live, to live without the constant threat of being murdered, robbed at gunpoint, raped, etc. What can we do about this? I say BAN GUNS. I don't think it will be easy in the short term, but I do believe it will help. Give me an intelligent argument that guns are good for society, that guns are good for the world. I will concede that law enforcement and military personnel should have guns, but not your everyday citizens. Give me a good reason that doesn't cling to some antiquated law set centuries ago, and I will consider your opinion.
Posted by: jmackGuns Kill, that is their sole purpose
I've heard many pro-gun people claim, "gun's don't kill people, people kill people." While i admit this is technically true, lets be realistic. Guns are an instrument of death (murder really). I'll start my argument with the claim that people are generally not killers. At some point something happens that makes them killers; I won't get into the cause but will claim that guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Now, hypothetically, take guns out of the picture. Any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that less death would take place. Simple solution: BAN GUNS. There would be less death, less murders, less suffering. Is it not a natural right for a person to live. Why make the a main reason of death legal? Why shouldn't we ban guns? 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 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws. Give me one reason, one reason that doesn't cling to antiquated laws set centuries ago, and I will listen. Until then, I adamantly agree that a ban on guns would reduce crime. Thank you.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is an obvious choice
Many people fail to realize that the constitution does not protect your right to guns. The constitution states that the right to own guns are given to a well regulated militia. The average joe on the street is not part of a militia. The government is still allowing militias to have guns. You may who this militia is it is the state guard and local militias in your states. For example Australia has gun control, and they have the lowest gun related crimes recorded. One final point as quoted by Harvey Weinstein "If we don't get gun-control laws in this country, we are full of beans. To have the National Rifle Association rule the United States is pathetic. And I agree with Mayor Michael Bloomberg: It's time to put up or shut up about gun control for both parties." One union should not be allowed to dictate the rules of our country. If unions are allowed to do that would would that lead to?
Posted by: AnonymousCrime? What about brutal attacks?
At this point, the idea is not to reduce crime, but to prevent Newtown-like situations in which people can walk into a public place with a semi-automatic rifle around their back and shoot people at will. Sure, our founding fathers said that there is a right to bear arms. But they sure didn't mean that people can walk into public areas and shoot the place up. Granted, banning semi-automatic weapons may be along process. But, it's one step closer to ensuring people like James Holmes don't walk into movie theater and kill.
Posted by: Anonymousbans on guns reduce crime rate.
Bans on guns would definitely reduce the crime rate. Statistically speaking, 29% of crimes were associated with firearms, therefore, if guns were unavailable to the general public the crime rate would unquestionablely decrease. Why would the public guns anyways? To protect themselves from other people.. With guns. No guns, not that much problem as before. It's quite simple.
Posted by: katelynmartin78Guns and the U.S don't match
Ugh, you silly people. Not wanting to ban guns. Are you crazy. If NO one had a gun them maybe this world would shape up a bit. If no one had a gun then everyone won't have to worry about protection and all this non sense and excuses. I am vey disappointed in those who want guns. You should be ashamed. This is from a kid you know. It seems like some people don't have a brain and are clueless on some things. How come I can think up of a way to help a big problem? Oh that's right, some of you people who want guns don't have a brain
Posted by: AnonymousOf course it will. Why not?
The fact that guns are allowed in the US encourages criminals to take action. Imagine, if you were to assault a castle filled with soldiers, will you rather attack it empty-handed or will you want to bring a weapon along with you. In other words, having a gun in your hand makes you feel much safer. If guns were permanently banned from the US, the number of criminals who would dare to commit a crime will significantly decrease. Of course, some of the criminals might use knives etc. To commit their crimes. However, there will also be criminals who start to realise that committing crimes will not be as easy anymore.
Posted by: AnonymousLess equals less
Almost all research in the countries of the world has shownthat availability of guns is directly linked to the rate and size of guns deaths and gun injury and gun crime. Reducing the total number of guns reduces the accessibility of guns available to people to misuse legitimately owned guns. This is what happened in sandy creek massacre and will continue to happen until guns are just taken away. The only way to reduce is to outlaw all guns being carried for everyone except those on duty in military, law enforcement and militia. This includes all hunters - lockable centralised amouries or better still no hunting. Even these guns must be stored in Armories. As a social experiment the USA's position on guns is a terrible failure. Over 30000 deaths a year and over 100000 injuries proves this. Do your kids a favour and get rid of guns!
Posted by: AnonymousBy putting fewer guns in the hands of the public, gun crime is certain to decrease.
People think that having a gun protects you. This can be true, but only under the rarest of occasions. Why do people feel they need massive, fully-automatic death machines? These guns are not designed for protection, they're designed to kill quickly. The only reason people think guns are necessary is because every where you go you see someone walking with a gun. The mindset becomes a case of if that civilian gets one, why can't I? As far as hunting goes, hunters should not need anything more than a two-shot hunting rifle, but they should have to pass a mental stability test first.
Posted by: AnonymousYes it would but not a lot.
I think making it harder for people to get guns would make a massive difference, I'm not really sure about how it works over-there but it is too easy to get a gun! But at the same time it could make people want to use other methods of getting guns which would provide other issues. Then again making a little difference and helping a few people is better than nothing.
- RachellePosted by: AnonymousYou don't need guns
The right to wield firearms has been around for years has it not? But there is a fine line between abusing the right to have firearms, if anything ban high caliber weapons because you sure as hell don't need and .44, .357 or a .50 to 'defend yourselves'. Banning firearms would improve the whole 'school shootings' problem by a large amount. These events have been going on since exactly the 1700's, but then again this is 2013, and evidently it has become a lot worse than 300+ years ago.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's been proven to work
The US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't have a national standard for gun registration. While a ban may not happen, the first step to regulate is to repeal the second ammendment that makes gun ownership a right. There is a petition requesting the administration to initiate the process outlined in article 5 of the constitution to repeal the 2nd ammendment at http://wh.gov/QOG9
Posted by: AnonymousStop senseless killings
Guns are banned in several countries around the world, and there is significantly less mass killings. We continue to hear of mass shooting in public places in the United States. I come from Australia, where I don't remember hearing of ONE such mass shooting. In the last 4 years that I have been in the US, I have heard of mass shootings dozens of times over this time period.
Gun bans will take away guns from mentally disturbed people, who have the intent of hurting others, and themselves.
Yes, hard criminals will be able to get guns on the black market, and that is the case all around the world - but that is for whom we have the police system? Do Americans not trust that the police will be able to come their aid?
The reason I keep hearing is, if we ban guns that the common man cannot protect himself and his family. Ture protection of yourself and family is teaching your family good moral values, and surrounding family with people who have similar moral values as yourself. Shooting and killing to protect yourself is not the answer!! There is a group of responsible people (police officers) who have been provided the responsibility of looking after the people of this country, why does the common man need to have access to a weapon.
Guns being freely available to irresponsible people who have emotional ups and downs is a very dangerous equation.
Think of those innocent children who were killed - ask yourself, what could have been done to prevent this. If that 20 year old could not easily access a gun, would this have occurred? There are countless examples from all around the world, where similarly disturbed people have attempted to perform mass killings, but their ability to kill was limited because they could not access guns.
What kind of America do you want to see? I for one, love this country, but having this much freedom to have such a dangerous weapon easily becoming availble to any person on the street is shocking to me. It truely makes me think, whether I want my children to grow up in this country.Posted by: AnonymousAre you worried more about big brother or the crazy down the street with a gun?
I understand the argument of limiting our freedoms, and having checks on the government, but I don't think guns make a difference.
Where were all the freedom loving second amendment defenders when the Japanese Americans were put into prison camps? They were imprisoning US citizens for no reason other than their ethnicity! Were the freedom loving people using an armed takeover of government when US citizens were being sprayed by fire hoses? Or how about when the stock market crashed and Guantanamo Bay remained open, or when the president declared war without consulting congress? With all those guns, nobody did a thing. So instead of worrying about a hypothetical situation, maybe we should focus on the very real situation of millions of people dying from gunshots.Posted by: AnonymousMissing the point
Most people who oppose gun restrictions only refer to "criminals." What they totally forget is that most mass murders with a gun are committed by "regular people." People involved in criminal activity do not target children at a school, or people watching a movie on a Thursday evening, or a romantic couple in a mall. I'm sorry but the argument "people kill, not guns," makes no sense whatsoever. If that was the case why don't we arm the military with kitchen knives? It would save us billions.
Posted by: sbeltzBan the guns
Lets do something than nothing. Ban all hand guns and assault weapons and then see if we are any safer 5-10 years from now. At least we can say we tried to do something about it. less chance of accessing a gun will lead to less chance of injury to anyone. And violent acts committed without a gun have greater chance of survival.
Posted by: AnonymousBan Guns
Not all people are the same, some are crazy. If you give a crazy person a gun 9 out of 10 you are asking for trouble. If you ban guns and make it a tough life sentence penalty if found with any gun in your possession. It will surely make a big difference. Any difference is better than the situation that you have now. Make no mistake if you don't do anything about this problem, it will never go away and many more innocent people will surely die.
Posted by: AnonymousLook at Canada!
We have gun controls in Canada and we are a lot safer. If absolute personal freedom if your only concern, then would it be safer if everyone has a cannon in his backyard. Guns do kill people? The same argument would apply to nuclear weapons, wouldn't it? Guns are made to kill...
Posted by: AnonymousUK, Canada and Australia get this right, why can't the US?
All the British Commonwealth countries don't have mass gun killings so frequently. Because the culture is better built to handle itself it's children. The right to own arms doesn't also mean having an M16, there should be controls similar to countries that actually work. Use other countries as an example and stop getting on your high horse that a gun will be taken away from you. Let's face it, it's not for defense, how often have you actually used it in defense. Case and point.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's a logical solution
There are states in which you can buy guns without any previous requirement or test, this opens the door to many psychopaths, thiefs and murderers to arm themselves.
The fact that the original constitution of the US allowed that every citizen could have a gun doesn't mean that it will continue to be the right thing after more than 200 years; society changes, time changes and some things from the past must be left behind to progress.
While there would be a black market of weapons, the fact that there is a restriction to who can use guns can influence in the total amount of crimes that would happen; not to mention that you are hampering any would-be criminal from getting a harmful tool.
Another consequence is that people are imprisoned in a paranoic state in which you are safe if you have a weapon; forgive me if I have to say this, but that is a lack of gun culture.
Taking away the guns from the social system would eventually make a better society: There can be a higher amount of trust amongst the people if they don't have the pressure nor need of weapons to feel safe.
As an ending note, I do hope that the US passes a regulation for gun ownership, if not a ban at least a start for the coming presidents to continue, guns are weapons of war and the war has been over for a long time.Posted by: AnonymousLess guns = less guns that will be put into the wrong hands
Common sense is overlooked. Simple logic dictates that the less guns there are, the less guns that can be used in violent crimes. There is no need for any person to possess a gun, but if you must hold onto your outdated 2nd amendment which was written when the need was there, for a simpler weapon then ban all except air guns. You still have the "protection" that you claim to need and it removes a lot of the more lethal guns from the ordinary folk. If you hunt or do sports then have a specific licence for those that is rigidly tested and kept up to date. Yes there will be people who will get guns illegally but your country will be much safer overall. The main problem is though some claim they want change they don't want to make it themselves. Ban the guns, save lives it's that simple.
Posted by: nogunsincivilianhandsLess chances of guns being held by the wrong people.
If there are less guns on the streets, it won't be as easy for a regular citizen to get a gun in case he wants to use against society. Let's address this shooting issue one way or another, this needs to be fixed whether is by banning guns or spending it on mental health programs at schools and institutions. It is impossible to control how all humans being behave but we can reduce the reports of massive massacres by reducing the amount of guns on the streets and by investing in education and programs.
Posted by: diegofranco82...well, sort of
Merely having a weapon doesn't really turn people into criminals. What it does is it changes the nature of the crime. Having a gun is often the difference between assault and murder. Murderous people are also much harder to stop when they have guns as everyone begins to fear them. Guns don't stop or deter attackers, and don't serve as any defense when you are fired upon - they only let you fire back and multiply the bloodshed. So while guns don't make criminals, and the crime rate would therefore not change amazingly much, the violent crime rate and the damage that those crimes cause would definitely be reduced.
Posted by: larztheloserAmerican Idiocy
Americans are too mentally unstable to carry guns...it's that simple. Canadians, in contrast, own more guns per capita than Americans and yet one doesn't see these types of massacres taking place as frequently as they do in Yankee Land. But nothing is going to change, and we will see yet more of these senseless massacres taking place. Americans aren't just gun-nuts...they're nuts, period.
Posted by: AnonymousFor Home Security Call ADT
I'm originally from England and I love America with all my heart, but I don't get what the need is for average folk to have guns. Why would a mother with a mentally ill child take that child to gun ranges and let him have access to her very unnecessary cache of guns and ammo? It's going to be like taking a toy away from a child, but for the greater good and safety of everyone, we need some serious updating of laws. And yes, England has crime, but they don't have massacres like we've seen here of late.
Posted by: TR71Yes, guns are way easy to get
What makes it worst is that there's no national moratorium on gun sales. Just about any Jack or Jill can get a gun and have it in their possession the very same day in some states. The NRA is a hypocritical, fearmongering entity that cowers under the skirt of the 2nd amendment.
Posted by: Anonymoushttps://www.facebook.com/BanGunsInUsa
How come I don't feel the need to carry a gun? Because the chance of me getting shot by a gun is very low where I live because few people have them. (I live in a high crime rate area of London). I was given the analogy that you wouldn't take a toy from a child in a nursery if they hit another child over the head with it. Therefore you shouldn't ban guns just because one lunatic behaves badly.....The analogy of children using toys as weapons is not a good one. A toy is an object that's intended purpose is to be used as an item for play. Therefore it is principally a safe object in the first place and not comparable. The nursery would never hand out weapons or objects intended for harm to everyone. In addition, in this scenario you could argue that the nursery should allow children to "defend" themselves against this child by pushing back or hitting the other child that attacked them, which obviously isn't a good idea. The example used describes a nursery where one child seeks to harm others by using a toy as a weapon.....how about if that child actually had a weapon? It could have hurt so many more children.....then maybe all the other children should have weapons too to defend themselves? Fear breeds fear. I don't have to worry about defending myself or having a gun because in the nursery where I come from we don't have them so we can all play happy and safe!
Posted by: AnonymousYes. Ban them.
I'm not saying guns are bad, but too many unstable people are around wielding them. There is a marked difference between stabbing someone and pulling the trigger; it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. You won't let spatially challenged people drive, would you? No. That's not saying let's ban cars, but if the population has way too many spatially challenged people, it's just easier to ban the cars than do vision screens. Similarly, banning guns is easier than doing psych evaluations (and let's face it, psychopaths are quite adept at worming their ways out of those psych evals).
People get angry, and when there's a gun nearby, it's just too easy to grab it and pull the trigger.Posted by: AnonymousThe safest countries in the world banned guns
If you would all do your research, the safest countries in the world are those countries that outlawed guns. If a victim faces a gun bearer, that person would have no chance of survival. Banning guns would also dimish the numbers of mass massacres in such a short amount of time. A criminal carrying a gun is much more threatening than when he is holding a knife. Most regular citizens, even owning a gun have less experience than the criminals out there, nevertheless, have more hesitations when it is time to use it. Let's face it. Who's have the guts to even fire a gun at someone without flinching? That gunman with experience would surely gun you down first. Most citizens don't normally carry guns around, but guns are always present in criminal plots. As a woman, I would feel much safer walking outside at night and working with the public if it was a gun-free country; when one is less at risk of getting shot at randomly or snipped. People are not born criminals, criminals are made. Paradigm shifts happen all the time in people's lives and if their mindset becomes awfully disruptive, they may turn into a criminal. For every criminal's plots, a gun is involved. So who cares about what it says om the amendment. If you care so much about the United States, you'd want to improve our country by making it safer for families and innocent civilians. When I live my daily routine life, I don't think about "oh I should carry my gun around in my purse because someone might point a gun at me". I think about my family, my job, my future.. And if a gunman points a gun at me while i'm so distracted with my own life, he would have killed me first before I even have the chance to pull out "My" gun, or I wouldn't even notice it. Shootings are done randomly and unexpectedly. Even those owning guns right now that are against the banning of guns may someday get hit with a major change in mentality and suddenly use it, even at the spur of the moment. We have a strong army with the most advanced military technology. If war came, people owning small handguns would be useless against bombs and missiles. On top of that, what are the chances of that happening? Our military is strong, people still fear our army. Not the little citizens carrying handguns. Please~
Posted by: RowieLet's do something different.
Banning guns in a society like America's will be difficult and dare I say impossible. But something different needs to be done. We watched what happened at Columbine, VTech, Colorado, and just recently Oregon just this morning, Connecticut. After a tragedy occurs then the gun control issue comes to the forefront. It gets argued into a stalemate and then it is forgotten and nothing is done about it. How many more massacres need to happen until we stay on this subject and try to work toward a solution? We have not changed anything and the obviously has not worked so why don't we try something different? Why don't we begin a process of eliminating firearms? No matter what you try there is going to be growing pains but we need to work toward the greater good. Our second amendment was written a long time ago, back when our country needed to defend itself. Do we really need a majority of our citizens armed in this day and age? People talk about terrorism and how we need weapons to "stop terrorists". Did all of us being armed stop 9/11? A huge majority of countries in the world have guns outlawed and the gun crime compared to the US is almost non-existent. Something different needs to happen and it can only start when we as American citizens come to our senses and work toward fixing this. It's up to us.
Posted by: AnonymousStop handing guns out like candy
When terrorists attacked the country we turned the airline industry on its head. We spent billions of dollars on security that doesn't even work. We are prepared to ban ridiculous things like shampoo. But incident after incident of shooting of innocent citizens occurs by homegrown terrorists with weapons designed to kill human beings that are sold like candy. Ban guns or make it extremely hard for someone to justify buying lethal fire arms.
Posted by: AnonymousLook at the stats
I live in Australia. We banned guns in 1996, in the decade after that the rate of fatalities by guns dropped by 42%. Yes, we still have crime like the rest of the world and if someone wants to do harm they will find a way to do it, but stabbing or crossbow will slow them down significantly. I read the headlines from the USA and see massacre after massacre and am deeply saddened and appalled that this could happen so often in such a 'high and mighty' country. Think of something like a home invasion or a robbery, instead of hearing on the news 'another shooting today left 3 men dead in.." We hear "a service station attended was robbed today with screw driver..." Making it a lot harder for the thief to get what they want, to kill and the victim to defend! Isn't it that most people who get killed by guns have their own gun turned on them? I honestly feel safer here and am grateful to our government for banning guns!
Posted by: Kbai'27 dead' in Connecticut primary school shooting
Why are medicines are so regulated in this country, but guns are not? The rate of shootings is increasing at a steady rate. If you fear someone armed will come to your house, well revisit the security system you have put in place. Call the police to handle the situation rather than taking the matter into your own hands. Own a taser instead, own pepper spray, there are lots of non-destructive ways to protect yourself.
Posted by: ekkavhereThe Flaws in the Pro Gun Arguments
The main reasons that guns should banned are the flaws in the arguments to keep guns in circulation. Aside from any sporting reasons, Skeet etc let’s look at their reasoning:
1) Criminals don’t obey the law. What if we hand in our guns and the criminals keep theirs? This isn’t an “overnight” process. The knife amnesty in the UK took a long time to enforce. However, this doesn’t mean the principle isn’t correct! It would have to be a step by step process but you cannot use the argument “because we don’t have a process yet the principle is not correct”. The ideal step would be to tighten up regulations as to who has them first and then move towards a ban. 40% of gun sales occur through unlicensed stores!
2) We need guns for protection (lots of people have put this) - Look at the gun crime in other countries. If noone else is carrying a gun why do you need one for protection? On that premise, why not make driving tanks legal, and then you can buy a tank to protect yourself? Guns are a means to kill swiftly, without hesitation. This should be taken out of the equation when people are tempted to commit a murder. They should have to really consider whether committing the crime is worth it. Not simply pull a trigger. Ask yourself why 60% of homicides are committed with a handgun. People want a swift easy way to kill. Take the gun out of the equation.
3) Gun crimes in states with a ban are higher – Even if this is true, you cannot isolate a state’s gun stats if the country as a whole makes guns legal! There are always ways to smuggle guns in. This needs to be a nationwide objective.
4) Criminals will be criminals anyway – true, but they won’t have such easy and accessible means to COMMIT MASS MURDER! All bomb equipment etc should be being monitored anyway. You just don’t see mass shootings in countries where guns are banned. It’s a fact.
Finally, and noone has mentioned this, how can you have a police force that is only as well armed as the civilian population? Police are the ONLY people who should carry guns. Think about how many people die as a result of standoffs with the police after they have committed a crime. If they don’t have a gun, they surrender as they are out-armed!Posted by: smithyGun violence can be stopped.
The phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is just so stupid. The person does pull the trigger but without the gun there is no trigger to pull. It's much harder to kill a person with say, a pocket knife. No person who says, "Well if I don't have a gun then what if a person who does have one comes after me?" Well if there's a ban on guns then the said person wouldn't have a gun to shoot. America is forgetting the basic principals it was found upon. When the second amendment was created the founding fathers didn't predict the caliber of guns the military has created for civilian use. Back then the amendment was made to assure people that they could create and maintain a militia, but also back then people didn't want to depend on the military. I'm not saying get rid of guns entirely but change the amendments as the world changes. The law is the wisdom of the ages. The law should reflect the time that the country is in. And the second amendment was made about 300-400 years ago. Now to me, I think that the law should reflect the times. And right now it isn't. If gun violence isn't under control by 2017 I'm going to move out of the country. America just isn't the same anymore. Not because of President Obama, but because of the mess George Bush put us in. Now to all the adults out there, think about your actions because what you do effects generations to come and if you cannot clean up your previous generation's mess, than why do you think we can? Remember what you do effects us. Me. My future. It's in your hands, leave America as it is or change it for the better? America either changes now or goes into turmoil later. Your choice.
Posted by: AnonymousBan on guns would decrease gun violence in the US.
Ban on guns would decrease gun violence in the US. For example, Canada has better gun control than the US. Canada has roughly nine murders made by guns a year. Whereas the US has annually about 9,000. Do the math. Is it really a coincidence? Hmmm, I don't think so.
Posted by: AnonymousWe Should not be Able to Have Firearms in our Households.
Most people do not even use the gun(s) that they keep in their house. Some use them to threaten others, saying that they have a weapon in the house. In most cases where someone shoots another person and gets caught, they usually have a gun which they acquired from their home. And that gun is the one that is usually used. I find no purpose in keeping a firearm in a household if you are to never use it, and if you do use it there might be bad intentions. I understand that as an American it is my right to bear arms, but is there really a purpose to do so?
Posted by: AnonymousYes, a ban on guns and semi-automatic weapons would reduce the number of semi-automatic assaults that would be committed.
The ban on semi-automatic weapons should have never expired, and it should have never been written to expire in the first place. The US should stop importing and exporting guns.
Anders Behring Breivik of Norway who murdered 70+ children on his shooting spree ... ordered his guns over the Internet.Posted by: AnonymousA ban on guns will surely have some positive results, even if it does not immediately reduce crime.
The U.S. government should ban free purchases of guns. In order to stop violence and cruelty in everyday life, people must not have guns accessible at all times. People need to learn to solve their problems and conflicts using peaceful methods, such as conversation or debates. Maybe a ban on guns will not reduce crime immediately, but it will save a lot of human lives that would otherwise be taken during moments of heated aggression.
Posted by: lisaalisaYeah, but just semi and fully automatic weapons.
Guns are the source of over 11,000 death a year in America. Now, I know that all of you gun advocates say that knife crimes would go up, but the day before Sandy Hook, 22 kids were knifed in a school knifing in China and all of them survived. You don't need an assault rifle because handguns and manual firing weapons can be used for defense as well. Also, with semi and fully automatic weapons, you can just fire randomly at a bunch of people. But with a handgun and other manual reload weapons, you actually have to take aim and reload after every shot, giving the victims a chance to escape. And in Britain, thanks to the no gun rules, 35 British are killed by guns each year. The assault weapon ban in Australia has also helped; deaths from guns went from over 600 a year in the 1990's to just 210 as of 2010. If you do the math, that is a flat out 65% decrease in gun deaths. In addition to banning assault rifles, I support funding for mental health research, universal background checks, and overall, more strict gun laws.
Posted by: travelmanBut I'm still against it.
A ban on guns would make the US one of the biggest police states in the world. Just look at the war on drugs. Look how the government invades into everyone's life just to see if they're lighting a plant on fire. In order for there to be a decrease in crime after a nationwide ban on guns, the police state would have to go on steroids. More crime, or bigger police state. There is a choice after a gun ban.
Posted by: BlackSandMost murders are done with guns
If we take away guns from people, then most of the murders will go away with it because if they can't get people killed before the cops can get to them,they will most likely give it up. So it is sort of worth it. It should stop most of it.
Posted by: AnonymousIt would not solve the problem, but it would help.
If the ban on guns is really enforced, I guarantee you the crime rate will be dramatically reduced. I believe that bad and crazy people are everywhere and they will never go away, but if you give them access to guns, crime is more likely to happen. I don't understand why people say or feel they are safer with a gun. What I would really like to ask those people is: have guns saved more lives than what they have taken? We have about 17 thousand police agencies in the country; it is their job to protect us and it is only them who should have access to guns.
Posted by: alfredocalzaIts purpose is to kill
A gun has no other purpose than to kill. It appear to me that the right to bear arms transcends the right of school children's right to live. As long as the public are allowed to own weapons of local destruction children's lives will be in danger. Make ALL ownership of guns a capital offence.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns should not completely banned. But rather... restricted
Gun simply have no purpose to server. Sure, some people argue about the nee for self defence. However, if guns were not allowed in the first lace, why would there be any attacks occurring? I am absolutely confident that if guns are banned from the US, the number of massacres that will occur will significantly decrease. On the other hand, the many parts of these guns can be used to create bombs and terrorism is definitely not something the people in US will want to encourage. Instead of being banned, the guns should be restricted to only those with very valid reasons and self defence is definitely NOT one of them.
Posted by: Lord_VoldermortBanning handguns would reduce crime
If the U.S bans handguns then the bad guys will just get other weapons like knifes and rifles, also banning handguns will just make people who have them to defend themselves defenseless, and the bad people could just buy them illegally, like from the black market. Banning handguns will do nothing but create more harm.
Posted by: AnonymousIt will reduce crime
To be fair, most counter arguments are built on nonsense. The fact of the matter is, a grenade will do more damage than a pocketknife, a lot more quickly and a lot more brutally. So, people ought to stop comparing guns to cars, knives, poisons, or whatever else will kill you.
Enough is enough already, the British are not coming. Stop feeding crime with your gun obsessions, this is getting annoying. There is no better reason to move to Europe or Canada than this.Posted by: AnonymousGuns should be banned
Statistics show that without guns there will be a dramatic drop in the number of murders/suicides. Most of these actions are caused by guns. An example is a family in New Jersey. The mom wanted to kill herself because she and her husband were divorced. She didn’t have a gun, so when she tried to kill herself with a knife, she couldn’t because she was afraid of the pain. People prefer suicide by shooting because it is quick and painless. Supporting to the story, 10% who want to suicide without guns will fear of pain. State’s William Saletan said “Focus on keeping guns away from people who kill.” I think, this way, murders will drop. President Obama has also tightened gun laws. One of the reasons was that he got letters from 8-11 year old students from all over Untied States. These letters have been sent after the incident in Newtown. These kids have been inspired to ban guns after the lockdown in Newtown. If little kids want to ban gun, why shouldn’t the others?
Posted by: AnonymousPeople only think guns are necessary because they see them so often.
People think that having a gun protects you. This can be true under the most minute number of occasions, but why do you need to have massive full-auto death machines? The only reason people think guns are necessary is because every where you go, you see someone walking with a gun. As far as hunting goes, you should be able to own a 2-shot hunting rifle, but you would have to take a mental stability test.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning Guns- Yes(:
Our crime rate is the worst yet, and having guns around for anybody who is not an official ups the chances of more people getting killed, injured, robbed, etc. Just get rid of guns. And when I say that I mean for hunters, also. Sorry. If you have a license for hunting then yes, but you should only be able to have that license if you do not have a criminal record and are a good citizen.
Posted by: kristin_girlieStop it Already!
Firearms are not safe, yes because of whom ever is behind the gun. But think about it, you have a gun loaded, and your child, kids, or your little baby grabs the gun that can make a or horrible nightmare. They can think guns are cool, they play with it and when you least expect it they shoot themselves or someone else. Due to the owners of the gun for being irresponsible of leaving the gun in a place where the kids can grab the firearm. Accidents like this can be reduced if we ban all firearms.
Posted by: AnonymousA ban on guns would not only reduce crime it would also reduce America's overreaching war stance on the world.
The ban on guns would force gun owners to believe in more peaceful solutions to problems because they would not be able to rely on their gun like a religious artifact in the belief that it is going to protect them. Carrying a gun is like wearing a crucifix around one's neck. The wearer and bearer of the gun live in an illusion that it will protect them whereas the reality is that gun owners are statistically more inclined to commit murder with their weapon than to use it to protect themselves. But the ban on guns will not only reduce crime. The ban on guns would change people's stance on how they view the world and how they take action upon it. The U.S. being a democracy must take into account the 50% of the population religion owning guns and solving problems with guns. The military action that America uses around the world has a direct connection with gun owners in America that want to solve everything with bullets not diplomacy. Gun owners voted George Bush into office and demanded that he resolve terrorism with guns. If Al Gore would have been elected president we would have had a more peaceful resolve that would have involved more diplomacy and less guns. BAN GUNS IN AMERICA.
Posted by: Deb_ate_organicJust think America!!!
I live in the UK and feel safe here! Why, you ask? It's very simple. Guns are difficult to get here. I can completely understand the US people thinking it's for self defense. But self defense against what? Criminals with guns. Where to they get their guns? Down at the local shop of course! It's that easy to get a lethal firearm, it's unbelievable. No wonder you want guns for self protection. But however, if you start to ban firearms, the amount that the criminals will have in their arsenal will decrease, meaning that civilians don't need guns! In the UK last year 58 people were killed by guns. Yet in the US 60 were injured in just one event!
Posted by: AnonymousA ban on guns would reduce crime in the United States.
A ban on guns in the United States would reduce crime. More specifically, a ban on hand guns would greatly reduce the rate of violent crime. One can compare violent crime statistics between the United States and countries with strict gun control and see that the rate is much lower in those countries such as England.
Posted by: Cen2I0rdYes, it certainly would if it was enforceable.
If guns were banned in the U.S., there would be a decrease in crime, if we were able to enforce that law. Bringing a gun into a scenario changes things completely. It's way too easy to pull the trigger of a gun and end someone's life as opposed to the commission of other violent crimes. I think there would be a huge decrease in crimes, in the severity of crimes committed. I also don't think it will ever happen in this country. It would be impossible to get rid of all the guns that are already here.
Posted by: PinkMychI believe so because up to a level it can be reduced. Since the availability of the weapons will be reduced, there will be considerable difference.
In many countries, ban on gun has reduced the crime rates. US itself is an example of one of countries that passed a stringent law for gun control by the Brady bill, thus bringing down the crime rates.
Posted by: KI3JoIIyIf enforceable, it would reduce gun-related crime.
If it were enforceable somehow, banning guns would create a society that saw this activity as illegal. In countries like Japan where weapons are prohibited, the majority consider it barbaric now to use one unless you were a criminal or a policeman/woman. It would take several generations to weed out the notion that guns are also for recreation and protection here in the us. It would also be nearly impossible to stop the illegal use of firearms, just like people misuse drugs. I still believe, however, that if the nra didn't have any power, and most people agreed that firearms should not be used for anything, then I think we may yet discover a more peaceful society.
Posted by: AnonymousMay this help to people have a better understand about reality of life
Essentially, according to Buddhist teachings, the ethical and moral principles are governed by examining whether a certain action, whether connected to body or speech is likely to be harmful to one's self or to others and thereby avoiding any actions which are likely to be harmful. In Buddhism, there is much talk of a skilled mind. A mind that is skilful avoids actions that are likely to cause suffering or remorse.
Moral conduct for Buddhists differs according to whether it applies to the laity or to the Sangha or clergy. A lay Buddhist should cultivate good conduct by training in what are known as the "Five Precepts". These are not like, say, the ten commandments, which, if broken, entail punishment by God. The five precepts are training rules, which, if one were to break any of them, one should be aware of the breech and examine how such a breech may be avoided in the future. The resultant of an action (often referred to as Karma) depends on the intention more than the action itself. It entails less feelings of guilt than its Judeo-Christian counterpart. Buddhism places a great emphasis on 'mind' and it is mental anguish such as remorse, anxiety, guilt etc. which is to be avoided in order to cultivate a calm and peaceful mind. The five precepts are:
1) To undertake the training to avoid taking the life of beings. This precept applies to all living beings not just humans. All beings have a right to their lives and that right should be respected.
2) To undertake the training to avoid taking things not given. This precept goes further than mere stealing. One should avoid taking anything unless one can be sure that is intended that it is for you.
3) To undertake the training to avoid sensual misconduct. This precept is often mistranslated or misinterpreted as relating only to sexual misconduct but it covers any overindulgence in any sensual pleasure such as gluttony as well as misconduct of a sexual nature.
4) To undertake the training to refrain from false speech. As well as avoiding lying and deceiving, this precept covers slander as well as speech which is not beneficial to the welfare of others.
5) To undertake the training to abstain from substances which cause intoxication and heedlessness. This precept is in a special category as it does not infer any intrinsic evil in, say, alcohol itself but indulgence in such a substance could be the cause of breaking the other four precepts.
These are the basic precepts expected as a day to day training of any lay Buddhist. On special holy days, many Buddhists, especially those following the Theravada tradition, would observe three additional precepts with a strengthening of the third precept to be observing strict celibacy. The additional precepts are:
6) To abstain from taking food at inappropriate times. This would mean following the tradition of Theravadin monks and not eating from noon one day until sunrise the next.
7) To abstain from dancing, singing, music and entertainments as well as refraining from the use of perfumes, ornaments and other items used to adorn or beautify the person. Again, this and the next rule.
8) To undertake the training to abstain from using high or luxurious beds are rules regularly adopted by members of the Sangha and are followed by the layperson on special occasions.
Laypersons following the Mahayana tradition, who have taken a Bodhisattva vow, will also follow a strictly vegetarian diet. This is not so much an additional precept but a strengthening of the first precept; To undertake the training to avoid taking the life of beings. The eating of meat would be considered a contribution to the taking of life, indirect though it may be.
The Buddhist clergy, known as the Sangha, are governed by 227 to 253 rules depending on the school or tradition for males or Bhikkhus and between 290 and 354 rules, depending on the school or tradition for females or Bhikkhunis. These rules, contained in the Vinaya or first collection of the Buddhist scriptures,, are divided into several groups, each entailing a penalty for their breech, depending on the seriousness of that breech. The first four rules for males and the first eight for females, known as Parajika or rules of defeat, entail expulsion from the Order immediately on their breech. The four applying to both sexes are: Sexual intercourse, killing a human being, stealing to the extent that it entails a gaol sentence and claiming miraculous or supernormal powers. Bhikkhunis' additional rules relate to various physical contacts with males with one relating to concealing from the order the defeat or parajika of another. Before his passing, the Buddha instructed that permission was granted for the abandonment or adjustment of minor rules should prevailing conditions demand such a change. These rules apply to all Sangha members irrespective of their Buddhist tradition.
The interpretation of the rules, however differs between the Mahayana and Theravada traditions. The Theravadins, especially those from Thailand, claim to observe these rules to the letter of the law, however, in many cases, the following is more in theory than in actual practice. The Mahayana Sangha interprets the rule not to take food at an inappropriate time as not meaning fasting from noon to sunrise but to refrain from eating between mealtimes. The fasting rule would be inappropriate, from a health angle, for the Sangha living in cold climates such as China, Korea and Japan. When one examines the reason that this rule was instituted initially, the conclusion may be reached that it is currently redundant. It was the practice in the Buddha's time for the monks to go to the village with their bowls to collect food. To avoid disturbing the villagers more than necessary, the Buddha ordered his monks to make this visit once a day, in the early morning. This would allow the villagers to be free to conduct their day to day affairs without being disturbed by the monks requiring food. Today, of course, people bring food to the monasteries or prepare it on the premises so the original reason no longer applies. As many of you would be aware, in some Theravadin countries, the monks still go on their early morning alms round, but this is more a matter of maintaining a tradition than out of necessity. Also, a rule prohibiting the handling of gold and silver, in other words - money, is considered by the Mahayana Sangha a handicap were it to be observed strictly in today's world. They interpret this rule as avoiding the accumulation of riches which leads to greed. Theravadin monks tend to split hairs on this rule as, although most will not touch coins, many carry credit cards and cheque books.
Let me now deal briefly with the Buddhist attitude to violence, war and peace. The Buddha said in the Dhammapada:
*Victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat.(Dp.15,5) and
* Hatreds never cease by hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law. (Dp.1,5)
The first precept refers to the training to abstain from harming living beings. Although history records conflicts involving the so-called Buddhist nations, these wars have been fought for economic or similar reasons. However, history does not record wars fought in the name of propagating Buddhism. Buddhism and, perhaps, Jainism are unique in this regard. His Holiness, the Dalai Lama has never suggested armed conflict to overcome the persecution and cruelty perpetrated by the Communist Chinese occupation forces. He has always advocated a peaceful and non-violent solution. Venerable Maha Ghosananda, the Supreme Patriarch of Cambodia has urged Cambodians to put aside their anger for the genocide of the Khmer Rouge and to unify to re-establish their nation. He has written:
The suffering of Cambodia has been deep. From this suffering comes great compassion. Great compassion makes a peaceful heart. A peaceful heart makes a peaceful person. A peaceful person makes a peaceful family. A peaceful family makes a peaceful community. A peaceful community makes a peaceful nation. A peaceful nation makes a peaceful world.
Going back to the early history of Buddhism, Emperor Asoka, who, after a bloody but successful military campaign, ruled over more than two thirds of the Indian subcontinent, suffered great remorse for the suffering that he had caused, banned the killing of animals and exhorted his subjects to lead kind and tolerant lives. He also promoted tolerance towards all religions which he supported financially. The prevalent religions of that time were the sramanas or wandering ascetics, Brahmins, Ajivakas and Jains. He recommended that all religions desist from self praise and condemnation of others. His pronouncements were written on rocks at the periphery of his kingdom and on pillars along the main roads and where pilgrims gathered. He also established many hospitals for both humans and animals. Some of his important rock edicts stated:
1. Asoka ordered that banyan trees and mango groves be planted, rest houses built and wells dug every half mile along the main roads.
2. He ordered the end to killing of any animal for use in the royal kitchens.
3. He ordered the provision of medical facilities for humans and beasts.
4. He commanded obedience to parents, generosity to priests and ascetics and frugality in spending.
5. All officers must work for the welfare of the poor and the aged.
6. He recorded his intention to promote the welfare of all beings in order to repay his debt to all beings.
7. He honours men of all faiths.
Not all Buddhists follow the non-violent path, however. A Buddhist monk, Phra Kittiwutthi of the Phra Chittipalwon College in Thailand, is noted for his extreme right-wing views. He said that it was not a breech of the first precept to kill communists. He said that if Thailand were in danger of a communist takeover, he would take up arms to protect Buddhism. Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai peace activist, reports in his book, "Seeds of Peace" that Phra Kittiwutthi has since modified his stance by declaring "to kill communism or communist ideology is not a sin". Sulak adds that the monk confessed that his nationalist feelings were more important than his Buddhist practice and that he would be willing to abandon his yellow robes to take up arms against communist invaders from Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam. By doing so, he said, he would be preserving the monarchy, the nation and the Buddhist religion. In contrast to the views of Phra Kittiwutthi, Sulak Sivaraksa reports that the Vietnamese monk, Thich Nhat Hanh is of the view that 'preserving Buddhism does not mean that we should sacrifice people's lives in order to safeguard the Buddhist hierarchy, monasteries or rituals. Even if Buddhism as such were extinguished, when human lives are preserved and when human dignity and freedom are cultivated towards peace and loving kindness, Buddhism can be reborn in the hearts of human beings.
In conclusion, I will briefly mention some other issues mentioned in the Syllabus.
The third precept on training in restraint of the senses includes sexuality. A Buddhist should be mindful of the possible effects on themselves and on others of improper sexual activity. This precept would include adultery because this also breeches the precept of not taking what does is not freely given. A relationship with someone who is committed to another is stealing. Similarly in cases of rape and child abuse, one is stealing the dignity and self respect of another. One is also the cause of mental pain, not to mention physical pain so one is causing harm to another living being. Therefore, such behaviour is breaking several precepts.
Marriage is not a sacrament in Buddhism as it is in other religions. Marriage is governed by civil law and a Buddhist is expected to observe the prevailing law in whatever country they live. In the Theravadin tradition, monks are prohibited by their Vinaya rules to encourage or perform a marriage ceremony. The rule states:
Should a Bhikkhu engage to act as a go-between for a man's intentions to a woman or a woman's intentions to a man, whether about marriage or paramourage, even for a temporary arrangement, this entails initial and subsequent meeting of the Sangha.
In many Theravadin countries, the couple will, following their marriage in a civil ceremony, invite the monks to their home to perform a blessing ceremony. They will offer food and other requisites to the monks and invite their family and friends to participate. In the Mahayana tradition the same rule conveys an entirely different meaning. It reads:
Should a Bhikkshu, seek to establish a conducive situation by means of which a man and a woman engage in sexual misconduct, either by himself, by order, or by means of messages, and as a result of his activities the man and woman should meet, he has committed an offence.
This rule does not preclude marriage but, rather, deals with the monk assuming the role of a procurer for immoral purposes. In Western countries, following the Christian precedent, many Mahayana monks become registered marriage celebrants so that, if called upon, a marriage ceremony can be performed in the temple. Generally, in countries where the law allows, Buddhists accept de-facto relationships. Promiscuity would be frowned upon as sexual misconduct but an ongoing relationship between two people, either within or outside of marriage would be considered moral conduct. As one of the essential Buddhist teachings is that everything is impermanent and subject to change, the irrevocable breakdown of a relationship between a couple would be understood in this light, so divorce would not be considered improper.
As far as bioethical questions are concerned, it is mainly a matter of the attitude of the different traditions or schools of Buddhism. This is tied to the concept of rebirth and when it occurs. According to the Theravadin tradition, rebirth occurs immediately upon death. The body of the deceased is no longer considered as a part of the former being, so such things as autopsies, organ transplants etcetera are allowable. In fact, many Theravadins, especially in Malaysia, encourage the donation of human organs as being the highest form of giving. Often, especially at Vesak, the celebration of the birth, enlightenment and passing away of the Buddha, blood donations are performed in the temple grounds. The Mahayana, on the other hand, believes that there is an intermediate state between incarnations, known as Antarabhava. Most people following this tradition try to avoid touching or moving the body for, at least eight hours after death. This, of course, means that the organs would by then be useless for transfer to another human being.
The Buddhist work ethic and business and professional ethics would, ideally be closely tied to respect for the environment. It is well described in E.F.Schumacher's book "Small is Beautiful":
"While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is the Middle Way and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well being. The keynote of Buddhist economics is simplicity and non-violence. From an economist's point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern - amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfying results."
Ken Jones in a paper called "Buddhism and Social Action" comments: "Schumacher outlines a 'Buddhist economics' in which production would be based on a middle range of material goods (and no more), and on the other a harmony with the natural environment and its resources.
The above principles suggest some kind of diverse and politically decentralised society, with co-operative management and ownership of productive wealth. It would be conceived on a human scale, whether in terms of size and complexity or organisation or of environmental planning, and would use modern technology selectively rather than being used by it in the service of selfish interests. In Schumacher's words, 'It is a question of finding the right path of development, the Middle Way, between materialist heedlessness and traditionalist immobility, in short, of finding Right Livelihood'".
Despite the theory surrounding Buddhist business practice, greed still seems to be the order of the day in many Buddhist countries. In Thailand, a monk in the north, Acharn Ponsektajadhammo, has been leading a campaign against the environmental vandalism of the timber industry. Tree felling in Northern Thailand has caused erosion, flooding and has economically ruined small farmers. For his environmental efforts, Acharn Ponsektajadhammo has had death threats and was recently arrested. In Japan, another country where the majority of the population is Buddhist, the killing of whales and dolphins is still prevalent. Animals seem to find no place in the group culture of Japanese society.
As may be seen from the foregoing, Buddhist ethical principles are very noble and in an ideal world their practice would lead to peace and harmony but, unfortunately, as the Buddha has taught, people are motivated by greed hatred and delusion - even Buddhists.Posted by: Anonymousban them all
I cant go and buy dynamite, I might kill someone or myself, its the same thing with guns. The gun nuts might get mad but will get over it in time. Don't get me wrong I used to hunt, but I would rather see animals alive then dead. There's no reason to hunt when we have grocery stores.
Posted by: AnonymousIn God We Trust, Not: In Guns We Trust.
The second amendment talks about a "well-regulated" militia, not individual citizens carrying weapons. Also, why does the second amendment applies to weapons that did not exist back then? There is a huge difference between a musket and a AK-47. What might have been written with a musket in mind should not be apply to a more powerful weapon. Besides, all that crying about "infringing people's rights" is just a hypocrisy if we take into consideration that these same people are not concern about the Patriot Act. The Constitution is an evolving document and every generation should be able to adopt new laws that fit its circumstances. The Constitution was never perfect. It was amended to grant women the right to vote and to allow interracial marriages.
Posted by: AnedMaking it difficult to get deadly weapons makes it more difficult to commit a crime.
A civilian of the United States has no legitimate purpose to owning a semi-automatic rifle, or more powerful of a gun. With that said I would like to state that I am all for the second amendment, but not when a civilian can buy a gun no problem, obviously without enough psych evaluation beforehand and potentially go out and commit a heinous crime. Guns like AK-47s, or M16s, etc. have absolutely no reason to be in the hands of any civilian of the United States, it only increases a risk to themselves and others. Statistically, owning a gun AT ALL will more likely end up causing pain and or death to a family/ owner than thwarting a home invasion. Semi-automatic guns will just aggravate this problem. Homicide, as well as suicide rates are higher in homes with firearms. A gun in the house results in 22 times more likely chance of unintentional death.
Posted by: Warden474If we ban guns, then we should ban everything..um, no
No one can do the amount of damage a gun-wielder can do. These arguments that guns kill people therefore we should ban everything from planes to cars to knives etc is perfectly flawed. Lets take the recent massacre for example, he could not have done the damage he did if he was without a gun, simply impossible with other objects that are not built to kill.
Posted by: andrewclimbsBan Them
There's not much I can say here that's not already been said.
In 2011 in America 9,146 people were reported to have been murdered by a gun user.
In 2011 in the UK 39.
Now, since the UK is considerably smaller the the USA that is the equivalent to 195 US murders.
Guns are not something that is easily accessible in the UK , in fact, I genuinely have no idea on how to get one, And I've lived here for 30 years.
Yes. Murders and suicides will still happen with out guns. But At least if you're up against a knife, you have a fighting chance. Nobody can out run a bullet.
It's time to move out of the 18th Century and get rid of Guns from homes.Posted by: AnonymousAt least automatic/semi-automatic weapons
The USA has by far the most lenient gun control laws in the industrialized world. The USA also has by far the highest rate of death from the use of guns. Does anyone actually believe these facts are just a coincidence? Does a hunter need an assault rifle to kill a deer?
Posted by: AnonymousI support banning guns
Self-defense is commonly cited as a reason to own a gun. This is the explanation given by 20 percent of all gun owners and 40 percent of all handgun owners. But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.
Posted by: AnonymousANOTHER TRAGEDY
Connecticut shooting. Another one in the US. Ban guns for goodness sake. Some people are just stupid and cruel to start shooting people. Banning guns will make citizens, authorities, etc take away, fine, or imprison people with guns. I don't want any more tragedies like this. No more guns... NO MORE!
Posted by: AnonymousFreedom to have a gun. Or freedom to be safe in school?
Everybody has rights and freedoms they hold dear. But guns? Come on people wake up. The tragedy yesterday took place because guns are lying about in over half if American homes. As soon as somebody has a grudge, gets emotionally unbalanced, or just plain angry they can reach out and get a gun and wipe away lives and loves without a second thought. Where are the rights and freedoms of those young children?
Guns require high levels of training to use safely - and without that the guns purchased to safe guard home security are just as likely to be used against the purchaser either in anger or in an accident. If there was any other malaise killing 30,000 people every year changes would be made overnight. You are not safer with a gun in the house- there is no evidence of that. Of course there will be criminals who get guns and they should be dealt with severely. But Mr and Mrs Average are safer and more secure leaving the guns to the trained professionals.Posted by: AnonymousThere will certainly be fewer gun-related deaths
The prevailing argument in support of legal guns is that, "if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns." But the reality is that it will be only RICH criminals who will have guns. Often, gun crimes are committed by people who are not particularly rich. If guns were illegal, obtaining a gun will be more difficult and will cost more money. Fewer people will have them. Also, many of those who have committed gun crimes never committed a crime in their lives, nor had they any history of mental abuse. Of course there are many reasons why gun crime is so high in the U.S. and our crime rate is not entirely correlative of our gun ownership rate. But it really cannot be denied that overall, nations that have lower gun ownership rates have fewer gun related crimes. It is really surprising that so many people in this poll actually argue that banning guns will not reduce gun crimes. Many of the mass shooters we have seen over the years wore protective clothing, so they anticipated being shot at by police or someone else.
Posted by: AnonymousHow many more massacres are needed?
It seems overwhelmingly obvious that guns need to be more difficult to obtain in the USA and that permits need to be issued for people to bear them. I don't understand how so many presidents have sat by, not bothering to take a stand against the right to bear arms in case it damages their public image. Surely someone needs to be brave? Come on Obama, make your last years in office count!
Posted by: AnonymousYou can run from a knife
The latest school shooting in Connecticut would have had less fatalities if the perpetrator only had a knife. The intent would be the same, but the outcome most likely quite different. If gun laws are tightened to attempt to weed out undesirables obtaining hand guns legally it would just result in them being stolen from law abiding citizens and still end up in the hands of criminal elements with intent to harm. So a complete ban of hand guns is necessary to attempt to eliminate mass killings.
Posted by: AnonymousBan them now
You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun. It very simple. A total ban is the only answer. The Second Amendment wasn't created so you have the right to kill someone. People need to wake up already. How many more shootings must we endure. We should also look at how many people are killed each year from gun discharge accidents. Lets face it. A gun is an instrument of death that has no place in a civilized society.
Posted by: AnonymousMay not reduce crime but would make committing a crime harder
A gradual move towards disarming people is the best way to go. In terms of the defense argument, it holds some weight but unless you are expecting an invasion of dozens of people into you're home (seems unlikely)! Then automatic weapons are totally redundant unless you want to walk into a public place and kill many people. The main issue is fear if people can gradually feel safer without guns they should go. The first step is to get rid of weapons that are designed only to kill a lot of people very quickly once that is done then maybe illegalize the rest.
Posted by: AnonymousLaws do work
Making an argument that bad guys will get guns anyway is childish. Isn't the same thing true with speeding? Won't speeders speed anyway? Of course they will but the law in general keeps 100s of thousands of people from speeding, doesn't it? Try getting rid of traffic laws and see what happens. Same with murder. Won't bad people still murder? Why have a law then?
Posted by: AnonymousSchool Guards with Guns Scare Me
I would not send any child to a school with armed guards. You cannot trust people like that. On the news, a guard left a gun unguarded in school facilities. One of the students could of picked up that gun and another 5-year-old would not have been able to get back home to their kitten. There is again the issue of hunting. Some people say that we may have guns for hunting, since we may probably not hurt anybody. Number one, that is completely false. Someone in the forest hunting deer could get frustrated and kill their partner, and someone's daughter could try to commit suicide because they want to see their father in another place that may or may not exist. Second, animals are living creatures, and shooting them is exactly like shooting humans, except humans have this vision that animals cannot miss their friends and family when they disappear from the world forever, because humans are not yet advanced enough to detect animal emotions. Next, there is the subject of suicide. Many people take their own lives with the very weapon in our constitution, that's right. Guns. Suicide is an epidemic in America, I believe it is mostly caused by easy access to weapons. No child or adult should be able to take his/her own life so easily and quickly. If you believe that what I say is false, then I suggest you take a deep, hard look at yourself and say " Why do I support killing machines that we invented to be able to destroy perfectly good lives?"
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are murder weapons, so a gun ban would stop people having to worry so much.
I think you guys should ban guns. Honestly I love going to bed at night and not having to worry about waking up with a gun in my face or going to the city and shopping without having to look over my shoulder again and again. Don't you want a safer life for the future of your country? Think about all the little angels that died whilst in school because someone thought they could solve all their own problems with a tool they had in their cupboard! Ban these murder weapons before this gets more out of hand than it already is. Thank you for reading my opinion and I hope that your country will do the right thing.
Posted by: MillieSA gun killed a 13-month baby, this could have been avoided if we had one fewer gun.
Today,in Georgia, two boys aged from 10~15 fired gun at a mom and her 13-month baby, because they wanted money. It wouldn't have turned out this way if we had guns banned.
In Japan, gun homicide in 2008, the # was 119, which can't even compare to counts of 12,179 in USA.
Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan
source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
Our kids can live in a much better safer environment if we give up the greed of owning guns.
I believe parents who are gun owners do not want to see their own kids get hurt by a gun when they are out in street. A gun crime can happen anywhere, theater, college campus, home, street, mall, anywhere.
I can't believe banning guns is this hard even with everyday gun incidents airs on TV everyday.
Lets stop this! Yes we can!Posted by: zcj125Ban guns, stop crime.
I believe that having a ban on guns would reduce crime in U.S mainly because I live in Australia where there is a gun ban so nobody carries guns around which I like because I feel safe knowing that there is a very small chance that anyone I meet actually has a gun they could have a knife but at least a knife is easier to fight back against then a gun is, A group of Australian blocks would easy disarm a man with a knife if they saw him using it dangerously in public whereas if there was a man swinging a gun around people would be less likely to risk their lives disarming a man with a lethal wepaon also if anyone was actually stabbed they are still more likely to live then a person who has been shot.
What I am trying to say is that maybe if guns were banned criminals would find and use alterative weapons but it would never be as easy to commit a crime or kill someone without the power that a gun provides. e.g. I think it would be easy to pull the trigger effortlessly at a mans head but it would be harder to actually get close and personal with a man to stab him in the head.
I think the idea that if you take away the guns from everyone there would be no good guys with guns is stupid. I don't believe that every good or innocent man, women or child has a gun or has the knowledge to use a gun. I think that most good people will not find it necessary to buy or carry around a gun since a good or innocent guy wouldn't have any intrest in shooting anyone or anything.
Maybe it would be possible that criminals would be still able to get guns but at least it would be harder for them to get one and maybe more expensive so less potential criminals would go through the effort buy a gun. Police can easily do raids on or arrest illegal gun sellers so not only will it be hard to buy guns but it will be also hard to sell guns. Also if guns are illegal and a criminal is seen with a gun he can be arrested or have his gun taken away other then having a criminal walk around with a gun blending in with the normal citizens that are also carrying guns.Posted by: TheTastyCowYes, because less guns means more lives.
Banning guns would increase the number of lives because a lot of criminals use them not only to protect themselves, but to harm others when they are running away from the authorities. Banning guns is a safe thing to do for everyone. Banning guns would reduce crime in the US.
Posted by: AnonymousWe don't need guns and drugs!
What is wrong with people? Anyone should read the success that the smart people in Australia have accomplished. Ten years with substantial reduction in gun violence. Oh and for the people whose reason for having a gun is to protect them against the government? Your little AR-15 doesn't stand a chance against the U.S military. Might make you look cool in front of your wife and kids for the last few moments of your life Rambo, but that's all. Without guns maybe we can focus on the multi-million drug addicts hooked on prescription drugs and illegal drugs in our country. Maybe with the billions of dollars we save on sending people to jail, we can then focus on educating these kids so they don't grow up to be mass-murdering, crystal meth prescription drug addicted anti-social insane killers with AR-15 rifles in their hand!
Posted by: AnonymousMultiple people get killed each year.
I think some semi automatic weapons should be banned. Hunting rifles shouldn't because some people hunt to survive. I think that the AR-15 semi automatic rifle should be banned. I hope more people agree with my decision and choose YES! TEC-9, Glock-17, and many more types of semi guns should be banned. I wish the U.S would go to peace.
Posted by: AnonymousTake a look at other countries
New Zealand, Japan, and Australia are some examples of countries banning most, if not all guns and the crime rate is much lower than the United States. In New Zealand, for instance, it is so peaceful and safe. Guns are the last thing on the citizen's mind in that country. I would much rather have it that way then live in fear and feel you "need" a gun just to protect yourself. It can easily send with a complete gun ban and confiscation.
Posted by: AnonymousI know it wouldn't help
I myself do not own a gun of any kind but the ones who do should be able to keep them as a mother in Georgia saved her twins and herself from a break in. But anyone even a 5 year old would know crimals would always have a gun.I have always been afraid of guns and never owned one or even shot a gun of any kind. But someday I may wish I had one if ever I had a break in.it Is the crimals we should be worried about or those who are mental.not Just the regular person who hunts or has agun for protection as that mother in georgia.we Should worry about gangs and these kind of things and if someone has been arrested for murder and robbing those should be checked out not the regular person. But this is just my view alone. It is a right being taken and I do not feel that is the answer here . We need to keep taps on gangs and crimals more than anything the ones that have hold up records go after them they should not be allowed to ever have guns of any kind just like someone who drinks and drives .But the regular citizen who doesn't do anything why go after their rights .They have done nothing wrong look at all the crimals on the loose they will always have guns and can find a gun which makes it more dangerous for America not the citizen that are peace abiding ones.the Young man who killed all the innocent children and teachers was mental and that was his mothers fault for having guns around him and she was guilty of that even sis sad that she lost her own life and did anyone know how her mind was to have had guns left in his reach. If I had ever had a gun it would be locked away but I was afraid of guns when I had small children now I have grandchildren so I still have no gun but I see where they can save your life as that of the Georgia mother.Again the crimals air the danger and those who have held up at gun point. Those are the ones who need to be checked out state to stake by law forces.not Your regular folks. Who have never done anything.no It would not help crime for a gun ban!
Posted by: AnonymousYes, any effort counts.
I just figure any effort created to make them a little less "available" would contribute to some sort of reduction, albeit, probably not a huge reduction. Something is better than nothing, even if it's only a few guns less. Merits for trying, and we continue to try for solutions until we resolve. Don't do nothing, do something...
Posted by: AnonymousYes, it will.
A ban on -all- guns would of course reduce crime. If a person is found with a weapon, the weapon is confiscated and off the market. It will be a slow and gradual process, but at the end of the day, all guns (except military and police weapons) would have been removed from the street. Of course, this will reduce gun crime, and will have zero effect on crime involving other weapons.
Posted by: WarmonkeyGun bans have worked well in Canada.
If you go just across the border, you will notice than in Canada, where guns aren't banned but heavily regulated, there is much less gun violence. In most areas, they had to go back 5 years to find the last record of a shooting.
Even though banning guns for civilians would probably cause a new black market to emerge, it would at least lower the amount of people who carry them in the streets.
Despite what people may think, the problem isn't ENTIRELY criminals getting ahold of guns. The problem is also the fact that civilians feel entitled to carry firearms (which they are not - but that's a whole different discussion) and abuse this privilege. Why is this an issue? This is an issue because people make extremely bad decisions under pressure, especially with a murder weapon in their pocket. They may be perfectly sane people, but if they feel like they are threatened, their mind can go into adrenaline overdrive and they could shoot someone under the mistaken impression that it was self defense.
As for self defense, people seem to think that if you carry a gun, you are protected against guns. This is obviously completely untrue, unless of course you have a revolver that expands into a shield. If there is a shooting in the street and the people around have guns, they might panic and start shooting, causing more unnecessary civilian casualties. Take for example the movie theatre shooting in Aurora. If the people in that theater had had guns and had time to pull them out in the first place, many more people would have died because people would have panicked and shot aimlessly in the dark movie theater.
Many families feel the need to have a gun in the house to protect from eventual burglars etc. but a study has proven that if you have a gun in your home it is 30% more likely that is will be used AGAINST you than BY you.
So yes. Yes a ban on guns would reduce crime int he US, in my opinion.Posted by: AnonymousIt's a start!
I believe we need gun laws and regulations. It's kind of like having speeding laws. Some will obey the law and others won't. Guns: same concept. Some will obey the law and some will not. We have civilized consequences for breaking laws. That's what makes the USA a great country! Hunting and protection guns are in different class than assault weapons. The right to bear arms refers to military in the dictionary and was written hundreds of years ago. Please don't get sucked into believing the president wants to take all guns away. Those who make tons of money from gun sales and manufacturing guns are making you feel personally attacked and want you to fight for their bank accounts. They already got you believing we don't need laws regarding guns! Seriously!
Posted by: JRMMost probably, at least
We must keep several things in mind. Firstly, the alleged increase in violent crime in Britain was actually due to a change in record-keeping--the British Crime Survey revealed a drop in murder rates, and crime in general. Secondly, in general countries with fewer guns have fewer murders. Thirdly, studies from the New England Journal of Medicine /prove/ a decrease in crime is caused by enacting certain gun laws. All this means that the evidence is heavily in favor of the 'yes' side.
Posted by: CitrakayahYou need guns, to use guns
Look at the rest of the world and the crime rates in the countries with an effective gun-law and those countries where it's not illegal or they are upholding the gun-law. 90 guns per 100 citizen in the U.S says enough, there's way too many guns here. A problem would be the black market and it's not done in a day, but we have to start somewhere!
Posted by: AnonymousDouble sworded blade
Yes, restricting age limits with careful background checks will insure an increase in any types of gun related crimes. This would be the best place to start. Changing the Constitution is not an option, but one can modify how old one must be to carry a gun, and a mandatory background check.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's pretty obvious
I really don't understand the argument that if guns were banned only criminals would have guns. Almost all guns in the black market were at one point legal. They are usually either stolen or sold into the black market by gun owners because of either the lack of background checks we have or because of the owner's failure to enforce them. Do you really think that most black market guns are just built by gang members and others who sell illegal guns?
Posted by: AnonymousI think we should ban guns to prevent criminal violence.
The second amendment was made back in the day when people used guns for different reasons. Also guns cause about a fraction of 333/680 deaths in the U.S. When England used gun control gun crimes when down like 60%. The only reason why people now have guns is to protect their family when more people kill family members than criminals when they have a gun in their household. It's a stupid and emotionless reason to not ban guns over what happened in the recent shootings.
Posted by: AnonymousAll I ever hear on the headlines about America is that guns have taken more lives or injured more people.
I'm from the UK and crime is here to. I recall one shooting here this year, last week in Birmingham. It's not every other week and we don't have mass shootings either. Knife crime can be an issue in some of our built up areas, but it mainly happens in rougher areas, where adolescents think its cool to carry one, I have never been a victim of crime nor know any victims. Statistics say it all to me, until the USA ban and confiscate guns, mass shootings and gun crime will not decrease. I also don't believe in police carrying guns, in the UK a police officer is as effective with a baton and cuffs.
Posted by: AnonymousTake the guns away for good
My name is Marco, an Italian citizen, and I live in the UK since 2003. During the course 10 years, I had a good chance to get acquainted with your British "cousins". Consequently, having more access to read your culture, understand your government, study your history too.
I am sorry to say that from a foreign eye, your nation is the stereotype of materialism along with egoism and self-centred mentality. The "American Dream" is nothing but the wish of self realization and money owning to be more powerful and rich than your neighbour next door. The clear message that I get from the news, the movies, the interviews is that you people want to defend your possessions as much as you want to prevent a dog to invade your lawn because it could dirt the grass. In the US nothing is for sharing, not even the freedom. How then can we even consider to take this subject on board if the very concept of freedom is misunderstood? "Freedom" means to have no restraint and have the power to determine an action with no interference whatsoever, but this is the very problem. By claim the resounding right to be free to carry a weapon you claim the right for the next criminal to carry the same weapon.
Remember that criminals are clever and they will always (or nearly always) jump to their guns earlier than you could.
I am a martial art instructor and with empty hands the worst that can happen is that someone may throw a punch before you can block it. If we translate this to a fire gun, the consequence is much more severe.
I lived in London for 3.5 years and in Brighton for 6; in London alone, 3 times were the attempts to mug me and none of them was successful for the thieves, but this is because they were empty handed. In the case someone would have pointed a gun at me, I wouldn't have played with my life for a few quids, a mobile phone and an MP3 player.
Recently, the business that I work for came up with the proposition to move to Miami for some of us because a new branch is opening. Because here in the UK guns and rifles are far from accessible, the first socially related question that I asked to myself weather I will decide to move was: "What would you do in the case that someone will point a gun at you? Would it be better to buy one myself?" and so, I now understand better where you are coming from: you Americans will never free yourselves from the shootings, the killings, the slaughters and the massacres because your population enslaved itself with the false belief that carry a gun means "Being free", while you are living in the constant fear that your neighbour can shoot your back just out of the blue.
If you take away the virus, you take away the illness.Posted by: ares978This Will Only Cause More Violence
Many people think that guns will protect you, however, guns are the very things that start the violence. In a gun fight, everyone gets hurt. But when those guns are taken away, nobody gets hurt easily. Some may say that knives and other stuff can still kill you but do you get killed as easily from a knife wound than a shot wound? Sometimes Yes....Most times no. Those who want to own guns are hypocrites who think that they can protect their family with guns when there should not be any guns at all! How can America be a free country if people are getting killed everyday by guns?
Not so free more...Posted by: AnonymousGuns are bad
A ban on guns would not only reduce crime it would also reduce America's overreaching war stance on the world. The ban on guns would force gun owners to believe in more peaceful solutions to problems because they would not be able to rely on their gun like a religious artifact in the belief that it is going to protect them. Carrying a gun is like wearing a crucifix around one's neck. The wearer and bearer of the gun live in an illusion that it will protect them whereas the reality is that gun owners are statistically more inclined to commit murder with their weapon than to use it to protect themselves. But the ban on guns will not only reduce crime. The ban on guns would change people's stance on how they view the world and how they take action upon it. The U.S. Being a democracy must take into account the 50% of the population religion owning guns and solving problems with guns. The military action that America uses around the world has a direct connection with gun owners in America that want to solve everything with bullets not diplomacy. Gun owners voted George Bush into office and demanded that he resolve terrorism with guns. If Al Gore would have been elected president we would have had a more peaceful resolve that would have involved more diplomacy and less guns. BAN GUNS IN AMERICA.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's for killing and only killing
Most civilized countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada have banned the sale of many guns, including assault rifles and shotguns. However, South of Canada lurks a big threat: assault rifles. Assault rifles are legal in the United States of America, but, puzzlingly Kinder Surprises are banned to keep children safe.
The Newtown shooting made many people start making fun of the United States for not banning assault rifles like the one used in the Newtown shooting. If assault rifles were banned, I am certain that murders would decrease because murderers armed with a knife or a small firearm are easier to overcome because they don't have a massive killing machine in their hands.
DOWN WITH ASSAULT RIFLES!Posted by: hayhay7789What if it happened to you?
Guns are weapons. Weapons are made to hurt people, whether you're using it in 'defense' or not the end result is the same. Look at all the shootings and the grieving families. Why don't we fill their shoes for a moment. How would you feel if someone you didn't know walked into your home and opened fire. It's a simple equation. Irresponsible user + firearm = innocent deaths. Obviously you can't take away the bad , the irresponsible, and the irrational, but you can take away the firearm. Why would you need an ACR in your closet anyway? The US is the 11th placed country for the highest rate of gun related death.
With all the negatives occurring in the US right now, many people result to violence and outbursts. Is it really a good idea to give these people a gun? I know what you're saying. "Oh, but I am responsible, most people wont do that." So the question goes back to why would you need a gun then? Take the guns away from the 'bad guys' and I promise you, you will save a child, a mother, father. We could have saved those children.Posted by: AnonymousGuns Shoot. Shooting Kills. Killing is crime
protection of citizens is to be assured by the police. That's what the police is for.
If you answer that the police shoots lots of people , that may be related to the fact policemen are scared of being shot.
If you answer that polcemen can't be everywhere to prevent people from being killed, well, yes, obviously.Duh. Thank you for pointing that out, captain obvious. But it is much harder to kill 50 kids with a kitchen knife without being stopped first, than with an assault rifle.
If you answer that people will still be able to get weapons illegaly; Yes, they will. Again, thank you, fieldmarshall obvious.
But it will be hard, it will be expensive, and some drunk guys from texas who think their (un)common sense is better than justice won't be able to go out and shoot anyone, and some mental kid who worships satan (seriously?!) won't be able to to his mothers GUN COLLECTION (SERIOUSLY?!)to go kill kids.
If you answer there are still knives: ok, you've just been promoted to El Presidente of obviousland. Yes, there will be knives. But most knives don't have an automatic fire mode available.
If you answer this will NOT put crime rate down...errrrr....ummmm......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal
WOW! PEOPLE! AMERICA IS ON TOP! And, oh my god! France, the United Kingdom, Germany, all those countries where guns ARE NOT FOR SALE. (and which, by the way, have subsidized health care, unemployment pensions, etc) seem to have a lower prison population.
I'll let your brains churn away at that. But frankly, I'm not at hopeful.Posted by: pc131313Yes, it would reduce crime.
So I know you might be sitting thinking “well what about the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms.” Well when that was created was 1776, there were no automatic weapons. There were muskets. So yes I agree, you do have the right to a musket. They fire 1 round not 100 rounds, heck you can have as many muskets as you desire.
Posted by: Anonymous
There is no proof
History has shown that with every weapons ban, young or old, that it always fails and does more harm than good. Yes, banning guns lowers the average gun death, but raises the other statistics of murder. Gun bans make criminals invincible. No government has the right to tell citizens that they are not worthy of adequate protection. Now, the argument that modern weapons such as AR-15's, AK-47's, etc have no purpose because they are modeled after weapons of war. This argument is flawed as every human invention has in one way or another been tailored for war. Should we ban cars because the military use them? No, the answer is not banning inanimate objects from everyday use for law abiding citizens. The answer is to go after the criminals, which by definition do not obey laws. So, in closing the idea of passing a law hoping that a criminal will obey it, knowing that by definition criminals do not obey laws, in the hopes that making average law abiding good people of these United States defenseless against said criminals will make everyone safer? I see no logic to those statements and STRONGLY oppose every one of them. Thank you.
Posted by: AnonymousLook how well it worked in Chicago
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country yet they had 500 murders last year alone. If taking away guns worked then Chicago should have zero murders. I live in Illinois and refuse to visit Chicago because honestly the idea of going to a major city and not being able to defend myself scares me.
Posted by: AnonymousOur rights are not negotiable.
Our civil rights are not negotiable. The government fails at everything it tries. Attempting to ban something only leads to more crime. How is the war on drugs going? How did prohibition work out? It is not about gun control; it is about people control. They want you disarmed and defenseless, good little subordinates off in pursuit of financial grandeur in their rigged game. The more you play, the richer they get.
Posted by: AnonymousClearly No, People.
Clearly, this would not be evenly distributed. I'm positive that most crime causers would find a way to claim a gun one way or another in all reality. Even if there's a ban on guns it would most likely not effect the rate of crime in the US overall, obviously.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns themselves aren't responsible for human actions, and therefore they do not create violence.
People have to remember: there are more deaths per year from drunk drivers then from guns. If the government tries to take ours guns away, then they'd better take away automobiles if they're talking about saving lives. Guns don't kill; the person shooting the gun kills. When will everyone wake up and realize this?
Posted by: larryb2967Want to live in a police state?
Only the cops and bad guys would have firearms. I would not want to be in the middle of that. I don't want to entrust public and personal safety to the same government that lets kids on Indian reservations go hungry while funding foreign war machines. That's just for starters.
Posted by: AnonymousHistory shows it wouldn't change the homicide rates.
Boy, countries like the UK, Australia, and Japan must look impressive with their significantly lower homicide rates! But, no. The thing is, the homicide rates before their gun bans were already really small. Some of the stats report that crime and gun crime rates actually went up in the UK after the ban, but I think it's declining again now, which isn't really impressive since the US violent crime and gun crime rates have been decreasing since 1980-something. It's not like the UK went from American levels of gun homicide and suddenly got the not-really-that-impressive-anymore figures that they do now.
Posted by: AnonymousAnonymous, where are the supporting figures for this statement?
"Absolutely. The stats show that the states with the most relaxed laws have the highest homicide rates."
Chicago and all of Illinois has some of the strongest bans, laws, ordinances and restrictions. Illinois is the ONLY state that requires a FOID (Firearms Owners Identification Card) issued only by the State police after a criminal background check.
"Assault weapons" are banned in Chicago and Cook County, 10-12 round clip/magazine limits. Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013.
In New York City, where homicides and shootings had decreased, the gun laws are generally seen as at least as strict as Chicago’s.Posted by: American6Criminals commonly shop at the black market
To issue a ban on guns would not reduce the crime rate, but could rather increase it in return. Criminals commonly purchase guns in the black market rather than at a certified vender where gun registration (and other regulations) is mandatory. As some criminals have an arrest record, they may be prohibited from obtaining a valid gun license and permit; they often have no choice but to shop for firearms at the black market (or steal a gun). A gun illegally owned also makes it harder for the authorities to find than a registered firearm.
Criminals that commit murder lack morals and will kill with or without a gun. A gun is often their weapon of choice for a variety of obvious reasons. Even if there were not guns they would still kill if they willed it; a gun ban will not stop them from carrying out crime however.
When being threatened with a gun, the best defense is a gun at one’s side. To call the police when being threatened with a gun often ends tragic whereas to instead defend oneself with another gun most often is the best defense.Posted by: AnonymousNo it will not.
It is my understanding that hammers and bats account for more deaths in the US then guns. What about knives? Criminals will be able to get guns illegally with no trouble. Why doesn't the media give the number of deaths using hammers, and bats. Just take a look at Chicago where our excuse for a president comes from. The figures will blow you away.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns do not kill, people do. PERIOD.
Do not let this cloud your judgement. Gun bans do not work. This was a gun free zone. When someone has a mental illness they do not care about the law. Banning guns is not the answer. I cant believe that people are bowing down. It is time to stand up to the government. Read your second amendment and understand why its in place. Wake up America!
Posted by: AnonymousGun Control did not work in Great Britain
After Hungerford 1987 and Dunblane 1996, gun crime increased in Great Britain, therefore it will not work in America. Remember "Operation Fast and Furious", the hypocritcal US government sold guns to Mexican drug cartels!
Look at Australia, it has strict gun laws, but there has been a lot of drive-by shootings in Sydney in 2012!
Look at New Zealand, there's very little gun control, but crime is at an all time low, even after Aramoana 1990 and Napier 2009!
America, if you're listening, If you want to change your gun laws, learn from New Zealand's gun laws.Posted by: AnonymousLets just ban people
The majority of gun related crimes are committed in urban high poverty areas. The recent mass shootings have been a result of a mentally distraught individual. This being said, if the government puts a ban on guns will either of these two groups abide by the law? I don't think so. It makes you and me a much easier target. Lets fix the social economic issues as well as mental health disorders.
Posted by: Bkr79772WILL BANNING GUNS STOP HOMICIDES? STATS FROM ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA SHOW…
This is just common sense: if you take guns away from those who are law-abiding citizens, the only people left that have guns are criminals leaving the innocent citizens virtually helpless. People use the excuse that cops will protect them, but that's not entirely accurate. It could take the police to arrive on the scene of a crime 15-30 minutes after the fact while it would only take you 15-30 seconds to draw, load, chamber and empty a magazine. There are countless of other things I could say to support my claim but I'll leave you with the thought that guns in the hands of responsible citizens keeps a country much safer from criminals and a tyrannical government.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely, positively not.
A ban on guns will only stop those who follow the ban from owning guns; those with the intention of breaking the law will not care if they break the law to obtain their guns. Furthermore, the prohibition of the '20s should have been a warning: prohibitions don't work in reducing that action.
Posted by: adontimasuLesson from the failure of the UK Handgun Ban
Since the 1998 ban on legally owned handguns in the UK handgun crime has risen by 45%. The UK then had relatively few illegal handguns. In the USA there are millions of illegal handguns (1.7 million stolen in the last ten years). Expect a huge increase in handgun crime.
Posted by: AnonymousOutlawing guns effects Law-abiding Citizens except Outlaws
Outlawing guns prevents law-abiding citizen from acquiring guns. This ban on guns will not effect criminals. If you were to ban guns, you would need to ban almost everything. Examples cars since people could do a hit and run, ban water since it could be used to drown people. Knifes while useful could pose a danger. Oxygen, since too much oxygen could kill someone.
Posted by: AnonymousYou can not wish them away
You can not un-invent technology. Guns exist and like them or not they will never go away. Just like fire, we inherited a huge responsibility with this technology. Crazy people will always find a way to kill. All banning guns would do is take them out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens and leave them for the criminals of the world. The problem is not guns but our society. This selfish society only thinks of themselves and dose not understand the value of any thing let alone life.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people, people kill people
How on this planet can a gun kill someone if the gun isn't being fired from a human hand. People are the problem for all the killing. You cant blame a gun for killing someone. Blame the crazy person behind the gun. Make some better laws. Do a check on the person and see if he does drugs or alcohol. Its not to hard to see. Guns can't fire themselves.
Posted by: AnonymousBan all metal too
If you ban guns you would have to ban all metal pipes and metal working machines? I have only a small amount of metal working experience but I was still able to make a gun. And it worked. It's not very hard to make if you know what you're doing.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy not ban knives? Or cars? Or even forks?
Banning guns is not going to make people stop killing each other. And sure, you're more likely to be killed if you have a gun because you're more likely to try to protect yourself. But it's not guns that get up and kill, it's people. What happened to those kids was wrong, there's no doubt. But it wasn't the gun's fault. I could kill myself right now with my breakfast fork. Okay, crazy fork now needs to be banned. What about blades? People commit suicide with knifes, razors, and even pencil sharpeners daily. My cousin was hit by a car and killed; did anyone ban automobiles? No they made them faster since then. So again, guns don't kill. People do. Banning guns will only cause more illegal action.
Ban human interaction. Not guns.Posted by: AnonymousCriminals Will Still Be Ciminals
Banning guns would not recue the crime rate. Criminals being criminals will still find another way to carry out their task. Only now, the victims would have no way to protect themselves. And just because the law says that people aren't allowed to use guns doesn't mean that criminals will not find another way to obtain a gun illegally. Banning guns would not make it impossible for them to get their hands on one, it just makes it harder. The reason they even want to ban guns is because of the recent shootings. But in actuality, the problem is not really the guns, it is the security. Why weren't police officers around to stop the shooters? The answer is not tighter gun restrictions, but tighter security. But if in fact security does not become better, shouldn't people be armed instead of defenceless in case of times when police officers are not around? The ban on guns will just make innocent poeple more helpless and criminals have an advantage over them if they obtain a gun illegally.
Posted by: ClairaEvil is a weapon of it's own
Making guns illegal is a band aid to a problem. I believe it is also only an agenda for a leaders to accomplish for their greater good, not for the American people. Our safety will not come from Lawmakers. We have become a prideful Nation. My prayer would be simple. We need to hit our knees and ask for Forgiveness. We have said in all we do, "we don't need God". I believe each of us do. "If we would knock, He will answer".
Posted by: AnonymousWho are you to say no one needs an assault weapon?
If they outlaw assault weapons only criminals and the authorities will have them. Do you really trust either one? We already have gun regulations and criminals don't follow the rules. You have an obligation to protect yourself and your family. Will you be there to protect me before I can dial 911? If you can't shut up.
Posted by: AnonymousPepper spray doesn't cut it
Guns may be legal or illegal but they will never be done away with, and neither will the killers simply by doing away with guns. In the big picture, cigarettes kill more people each year than murders, car crashes, gun crime and alcohol put together, yet we feel that for the government to take away such a tool for self-destruction would be heavy-handed, so why should a tool for self defense be restricted? We have an establishment that has proven itself to work against the people's interest and so now we should give the growing NDAA police state a monopoly on force? Welcome to dystopia. Self-defense is an inalienable right.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals would still get them or kill in different ways plus the law is imperfect...
There are many illegal ways to get a gun in any country, whether certain types of guns are banned or guns completely. I'm sure someone has brought an automatic firearm into California before. Plus criminals would report to stabbing or otherwise to kill their victims. And also, I don't think the law is a good one in terms of effectiveness; so far I haven't seen one part of the law that takes guns away from criminals-only law abiding citizens. Put better background checks or something, this is ridiculous!
Posted by: AnonymousDon't ban guns
If you ban guns, nobody will have defense, if you put the death penalty in force, nobody will commit murder, by knife, by gun, or by hand. If one out of every four people in the world had a small handgun, we can stop nearly every crime, because there is a one in four chance that the person getting attacked has a gun on them, and a high chance someone around them has a gun to stop them. People know that gums put fear into people, and there is a high chance they are afraid of guns themselves. If we banned guns bad guys will still get ahold of them. Drugs are illegal, yet people still get ahold of them.
Posted by: AnonymousIssues
There are multiple issues surrounding guns, however they are often wrapped up into a single issue with attempts to curb the issues by introducing a "once size fits all" solution which really fails to accomplish anything. EG:
Mass shootings
Violent crime committed with guns
Gang violence
Suicide (by guns)
Accidental deaths by guns
These are all separate issues that must be dealt with individually. For example banning the "assault style" firearms such as the AR 15 used in recent mass shooting will not not stop the gang violence in Chicago where according to the Chicago Tribune in 2012 there were 500 murders from guns, yet only 8 people were killed with rifles. The vast majority were killed with handguns. An assault weapons bill would not cause a reduction in the violence of gangs, but its easier for people to jump to knee jerk reactions than talk about other issues that coincide with gun violence, such as mental illness (which should be talked about anyway and it is a shame that just now is it receiving attention as it hasn't been funded very well for years), wealth inequality, which helps to drive criminal behavior etc.Posted by: AnonymousGun Control...Control
First, the argument regarding the United State's statues in relation to the other developed countries' gun control laws is completely misinterpreted.
Yes, Countries such as Australia, Japan, and Western Europe have seen a drop in gun-death incidents.
There's a very good reason for that.
There's no black market! And to add to that, a VERY moderate drug concession, miniscule in comparison to any one US state.
Gun control supporters completely fail to recognize that virtually ALL gun related crime occurs in the presence of known criminals and illegally purchased (black market) firearms. So a gun ban in these countries would only have minimal effect, because the illegal underground didn't have foundation to begin with. It hasn't "worked" in these countries; more or less, gun control had nothing to deter except the lawfully obedient, whom of which do not cause gun crime in the first place.
Besides, ~5000 gun related, legally purchased and accidental, firearm deaths occurred last year. 5000 x 2000 years = 10,000,000. That sounds bad, but nothing like the death stats from gun control: > 150,000,000 -- Rome, Uganda, China, Germany... And what do these all have in common other than establishing disarmament as their #1 priority?Posted by: fluxcapacitorA ban will not work
If the sick and twisted people in this world want to kill someone, a ban on guns will not stop them. They will find a way to get a gun or guns. Like the saying goes..."Where there is a will, there is a way." The ones that will be hurt with the ban on guns are those whole will truly need a gun in self-defense. This is a crazy world.
Posted by: AnonymousStates with liberal gun laws have lower crime rates
I live in a state that has some of the most liberal (supportive of gun ownership and use) of any state in the country. Coincidentally it also has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country. I believe these two statistics are connected. When someone sets out to commit a crime of violence against another person (either planned or as a result of passion of the moment) they may be deterred by either the fear of punishment if caught or the expectation that the victim may successfully fight back. I am of the belief the only reason we never went to war with the Soviet Union was because of the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. The key there was that both parties suppressed their aggression out of fear of retaliation. The same could be true for a well armed public where criminals think twice about what could happen to them in retaliation before they commit a crime of violence against someone.
Posted by: AnonymousNever Give Up Your Right to Defend Yourself
Make restrictions in lax states more sensible, but do NOT give in to these arguments that actually suggest giving up rights will protect you. The REAL stats show homicide rates and comparisons are VERY complex, esp when you factor in organized crime. Removing guns from a violent society has NEVER led to less violence or a lower death rate. A (minority) of people do not seem to understand the bigger picture here. READ the studies. Do NOT take extremists word for it that guns are a causal reason for violent behavior. we need better safety, not less freedom, and my name is Carolyn. I have a hard time trusting anonymous posts.
Posted by: CarolynWeapon Control Failure
Criminals will not have to worry about victims being able to protect themselves.
Law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves. Law abiding citizens deserve to enjoy shooting weapons they find to their liking.
Banning guns to stop shooting, is like banning cars to prevent drunk drivers from driving.Posted by: AnonymousBanning a weapon used for violence will not stop violence.
Someone that wants to commit a crime will find any weapon they can to commit it. People who are to poor to purchase guns in Somalla use knives. Violence has been with mankind long before guns were invented but yet we still had crime, how can that be? It's the person not the instrument.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's human nature to do what you are told not to.
There are drugs that are illegal, but people still have them. People have guns without having them registered, which is illegal. People also carry guns without having a license, which is illegal. People will always be able to get their hands on a gun, no matter what laws the government puts into place.
Posted by: AnonymousYes and no, but mostly no.
While epidemiologically speaking, banning guns does in fact reduce violent crime in the long run, there are many more ways in which the assertion is false. First, in the short run, rapidly imposing a blanket ban would leave criminals still armed and law abiding citizens unarmed. Though data suggests many crimes may be less violent in that situation, property crimes would initially increase and there is no reason to believe it would ever return to a lower level than before the ban. Secondly, aggregate crime rates don't tell the story of which crimes occur and which crimes are averted and how much they matter morally. While it may be balanced out in epidemiological statistics, the fact is that there would be some individuals made into victims of violent who otherwise would have been protected. Perhaps a similar number of feuds, in which two individuals both contribute to escalating a conflict, would end less tragically. Most moral calculus would not value these two situations equally, but epidemiological data does. Finally, by adding new criminal offenses to the books, you are, by definition, creating an increase in crime. This may sound silly to the untrained observer, but it is well understood that criminalization of one act increases other crime in a number of ways. That said, policies to require licensing, training, and liability insurance, impose firepower restrictions, and strictly regulate the transfer of weapons would generate much of the same epidemiological benefit as a ban but without most of the flaws.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't Tread On Me
All the shootings that have recently occurred were in GUN FREE ZONES, where gun owners CAN'T LEGALLY CARRY, these sickos pick un-armed targets so they meet no resistance, it's like a fun house for them, in the Clackamas shooting a couple of weeks ago, an armed citizen got the shooter in his sights but didn't shoot in fear of hitting an innocent bystander, the shooter saw this and at the first sign of resistance.... shot himself, in the end the GOOD GUYS gun saved the day. Protect our rights so we can protect each other from evil like these massacres!
Posted by: DTOMViolent criminals
A ban on guns will only ban law abiding citizens from owning them. Violent criminals will still get guns illegally. Criminals don't follow laws. A criminal will not rob a house knowing that their victim could be armed. If banning guns is the answer than Washington, DC would be safest place in america. But, its the murder capital of the us
Posted by: AnonymousKnocking everyone down the peg.
Everyone wants to sit around and cry about how bad mass killings are, and they are. They definitely are. But take a glance through history and you'll find that whether it be with guns or with swords, mass killing have always happened in humanity. Do you really think taking away the ability of a person to get guns would somehow make them stop their homicidal delusions and just give up and mesh into the rest of civil society? NO. Bad people will always do bad things. Remember, the shooter in Colorado had reportedly rigged his entire apartment with explosives. How lucky are they that he wasn't crazy enough to just walk into to the movie theater with that explosive strapped to himself? So for the people saying, "Oh, they'll have to use lesser weapons like knives or clubs, and so less people would get hurt or die," think about what a psychologically damaged person would do. And, even if they didn't decide move up the ladder of weaponry to explosives, they could always MAKE a gun, people in third-world countries can make their own guns, so what would stop someone in America from doing the same? Banning guns only hurts the people following laws. Crazy people will just go one step BIGGER.
Posted by: SanityXVictims are unarmed citizens
My thoughts for what it is worth: a very wise man is quoted "the criminal is not afraid of a gun, he is afraid of the armed citizen who knows how to use that gun". With that being said please think before you support anything on gun laws. The criminal is by definition: a person who commits a crime. How is stricter gun laws going to safeguard us? The laws and rules are only for those that choose to obey them. I am an honest hardworking gun owner and I have obtained my guns by legal means but there are so many ways for a criminal to obtain a gun and they are not going about it according to the law. To enact stronger/stricter laws will only prevent the honest citizen from protecting themselves. How is that making us safer?
Posted by: AnonymousGUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE.
People kill people. To be honest weapons are extremely lethal and dangerous but when we think about it, it's always someone who is misusing the gun in a way that harms others. I love the shooting range and I love playing paintball and airsoft, I understand these are not the same things but they are healthy things to do based on firearms in general. About crime rate itself: even if gun murder goes down, every other type of weapon can be used if someone really wants someone else dead so it is really a argument of will people stop murdering?
Posted by: AnonymousIf anything, it would increase the criminal activity
When you think of America, you think of guns because it’s a country that was built around guns. If America had stricter gun control then, yes, it would be safe for some short amount of time but then everything would fall apart and the country would descend into turmoil, with people smuggling guns into the country and people rebelling against the government. A similar thing would happen when America banned alcohol from 1920 to 1933, people would start smuggling guns into America.
Posted by: AnonymousNO Just look at Great Britian
Based on Great Britain statistics, there are more violent crimes than in the United States. If we follow their steps, our violent crime rates will explode to as bad as theirs. Also, it's not the guns fault. Do they think or fire by themselves? It is the holder not the item.
Posted by: dudeface12No ban
The action of a criminal is not necessarily relevant to the type of weapon. If a gun was not available, there are always bombs, poisons, knives, or some other effective method of destruction. It is not the gun; it is the wielder of the gun (or bomb, or knife, or poison, or, or, or, or...).
Posted by: AnonymousTime to get real
All you folks seem to think that if all guns are banned then all guns will magically disappear. Well they won't disappear. The predators in our society will still be armed and dangerous. I would never support a law that requires people to own guns but there's too many people that support laws that forbid people from owning guns. My question to them is, how would you defend yourself if you had to? Seriously think about that. Don't think nothing bad could ever happen to you. Remember there's only three types of people in this world...wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. All you gun ban supporters (sheep) can just lay down and let the wolves tear you pieces if you want but i feel much better being a sheepdog.
Posted by: AnonymousLook at Chicago.
Where guns are banned only the outlaws will have guns! A gun ban would be great if everybody followed the law, but they DONT! You stupid liberals. I dont know why you cant understand this. Passing laws makes things illegal, it does not stop people from breaking other laws. Killing people is already against the law and look how that has stopped it.
Posted by: AnonymousNo it wouldn't.
A ban on guns would not reduce crime in the United States because no matter what, people will find guns. If they really want to have a gun, they will find one, either through the black market or from a dealer. They also may not give up their guns when the government tries to enforce the ban.
Posted by: AnonymousEmergency Situations :
Many Americans have guns, most of them are people who want them for hunting and self defense. If a criminal walked into a bank, and one of the people had a gun, most likely, more lives are going to be saved if someone just shot the robber the second he caused trouble then if the guy robbed the place and took innocent lives. What about if a kidnapper was about to take your kid or a kid. You'd wanna shot the guy and stop him. The kid would be safe! Also, if someone came in and robbing your house, you most likely will want to shoot him or scare him off. In the end, it's simple, no we can not ban guns. We used them to defend our country and now we must defend ourselves and others in this nation.
Posted by: AnonymousA ban would not decrease the amount of crime.
A ban on guns for citizens probably wouldn't decrease any amount of crime or illegal things (example: buy guns illegally) but increase the amount of crime. Since a normal person or criminal cannot buy guns legally, criminals or normal people would just get them illegally if they really wanted to.
Posted by: tsengbOf course not!
Criminals don't follow laws. If there is a ban on guns, they will have guns and the rest of will not. How on earth does that seem logical? The media ignores all sorts of things such as a security guard shooting a would-be mass murderer, but did that show up on the news? No. The media only reports what they want to, and as such they will not report anything "pro-gun".
Posted by: AnonymousNo self defense for law-abiding citizens
Criminals don't obey laws! They would still get guns from their various illegal sources, and everyone who does abide the laws would be defenseless against a home invasion, rape, or other serious crime. People need to be PREPARED and AWARE by being taught proper ways to use and handle guns, and the law systems that surround protecting yourself, loved ones and property. It is human nature in general to not intend to kill, and just being able to brandish a gun when a threat arises is usually enough to prevent a crime from happening without endangering lives.
Posted by: AnonymousRight to bear arms.
I fully support the right to bear arms. To suppress guns is bad. Hey, start with one thing to put their foot in the door and slowly expand the scope to include more and more types, even possibly other weapons. The only thing I could see happening is a rise in the illegal trade. Innocents will suffer without a way to protect themselves.
Posted by: AnonymousCreating more victims
A good example are movie theaters here in the U.S.. Why would you ban guns from a movie theater when someone committed a crime such as the batman shootings. Do you think the criminal is going to
Say oh it says no guns I guess I won't take mine,no. They think easy targets because law abiding citizens won't take a gun in the theater if it says no guns. Arm the citizens and watch what happens when a low life psychopath tries to murder innocent people. It'll make the criminals think twice about committing a crime.Posted by: AnonymousThis is the first thing every despotic government does...
Before they institute more repressive measures. Look at history. From the Medieval times to Hitler and Pol Pot, they all disarmed those they wanted subject to their tyranny. This is precisely why the Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution just behind the freedom of speech and religion. It was not for hunting. If you didn't hunt, you didn't eat then, plain and simple. It was, in essence, for self-protection, but not from other citizens but from the government that could become more ruthless and oppressive than the one they had just broken free from. They understood that if our form of government became oppressive, everyday Citizen should have the means to defend themselves. What this law boils down to, as all liberal policies do, is that they believe they can make better decisions than you. They know how to spend your money better than you do, they know what people you should associate with better than you do, they know what God-given rights you need, etc.. Problem is, they're never right on any of it and they themselves would never give anything they hold dear for "the greater good". They are hypocrites, plain and simple. They are the despots we were warned about.
Posted by: AnonymousGun controllers live in Fantasyland.
Yes. Let's ban private ownership of guns because that's worked so well for Mexico and Brazil...oops. Well...we know countries with widespread ownership of guns causes a lot of gun deaths, just look at Switzerland and Israel...oops...nevermind... This is the typical, unrealistic, untruthful argument put forth by the bigots who hates guns and gun owners. Their arguments are completely devoid of facts and thoroughly ignore reality. Perhaps they should stop projecting their own unhealthily repressed violent tendencies on those of us who are law abiding and merely wished to be left alone.
Posted by: AnonymousLegislation of a Moral Problem
People don't see the bigger picture, America needs to stick to the Bill Of Rights. The original instruments laid out by the founding fathers are being amended and changed for the worse. The main reason the right to bear arms is included, is to protect the citizens from corrupt government exploitation. Look at Syria, government killing its own, if they had no weapons, it would be even more one-sided.
I agree with the statement, if some nut drives a car into a crowd of people, are we going to ban cars?
My heart goes out to all the victims of violence, no amount of legislation will protect the innocent.Posted by: AnonymousSo making guns illegal will take them off the street?
We should make Heroine and Meth illegal too!
ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. But he says, "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."Posted by: AnonymousI'm an 8th grader...
It will without a doubt prevent further murders and crimes. But for those who already own guns, how are people without them supposed to protect themselves? People should be able to go home and easily be able to realize that they will be safe if they were ever assaulted or attacked. And this feeling should be able to be felt to all people. Thats why i feel people should be able to own guns, especially if its a matter of self-defense. This is the #1 reason why i feel so strongly about this. Innocent people are dying, and if we can't protect them, its their turn to protect themselves. The only question is "With what?". My friends, guns, sadly, is the answer.
Posted by: GuncontroldefenseisbestIt would not.
If you make a law banning guns it will not help. Criminals don't obey laws. They WILL get their hands on a weapon. If you really want to put a halt to murder, encourage guns. If you go door to door collecting guns what will someone use as defense against an intruder? A knife? Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
Posted by: M.KennardNo way, Jose.
It won't work. At all. Why? Because you'd only be disarm the law abiding citizens and strip them of their only protection. Sure, we'll have about 15000 more officers on duty, but that doesn't mean that they'll be at your front door or inside your house 24/7 when a burglar comes around.
Posted by: AnonymousIn short, there is no justifiable reason that disarm law abiding citizens.
While the Second Amendment is there to ensure the ability to resist government (should the need arise), self defense is a by-product and no one should have the ability to defend themselves taken away. If you doubt this, just do a quick Google search on "armed citizen" to see how often guns are used for good.
Posted by: AnonymousMental illness
You will never get our guns but you can have all the hot lead you want. There is no need to debate this. Society has a mental disorder called liberalism. They live in a fake fairy tail world. All societies collapse because they become so morally corrupt. Once it does they will once again learn the true nature of humanity and the struggle for freedom. Some people just learn things the hard way or not at all.
Posted by: AnonymousBeen said...
Been said a hundred times already....GUN LAWS ONLY EFFECT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who aren't committing these massacres anyways. Criminals don't follow the laws; how much more logical is it? As said before, kids get alcohol before 21, drug problems exist because it's always available by someone and criminals will always have guns. The only people you harm is the law abiding citizens who have a right to protect themselves.
Posted by: AnonymousIts about keeping tyrants at bay!
Instead of blaming an object, blame the psychos and their psychotropic drugs for the mass shootings. Just about every one of them was on those medication which list suicidal and violent tendencies as a side effect. Also look at the violence on games. Simulated killings in the call of duty type games. England with their gun ban has the highest crime rate in Europe while Switzerland, with guns in every home, has one of the lowest crime rate in Europe. The 2nd amendment is there to give people a fighting chance if government turns tyrannical. With so many tyrants in the past, its unfortunate people forget so easily like goldfish. Whatever statistics you come up with, government have killed much more people across the world. How about disarming government first?
Posted by: AnonymousDisarming victims will generate more crime
Violent crime stats in UK and Australia gun bans clearly show when criminals know their victims are disarmed and defenseless, these criminals commit more crimes.
Nobody suggest castrating all men to prevent rape. Taking guns from law abiding people to "prevent" evil criminals from having gun is illogical, factually wrong and only helps uninformed people to 'feel better' on expense of people who will be victimized by all these new crimes.Posted by: rtcellA criminal will get a gun whether there is a ban or not.
Where weapon concealed carry laws and "stand your ground" laws are in effect, crime and violent crime is much lower. If there is a gun ban, the criminals will still have guns. People have to come to the realization we need to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Gun bans only effect responsible law abiding citizens. Guns don't go crazy and kill people, people go crazy and kill people.
Posted by: AnonymousDeterrence
12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
Of those homicides, 8,302, VICTIM KNEW THE ASSAILANT. Odds of being murdered with a gun by a STRANGER in a given year 1:77,037. Odds of dying in a car crash with a STRANGER in a given year: 1:6,400. DETERRENCE works because a deranged gunman does not know whom is armed or if they are armed. These gunman of late knew that they would face no resistance and even had time to reload!Posted by: AnonymousBan this, then that.. Oh don't forget guns!
Please, how about fixing the problem. Texing and driving kills many everyday. Hurts countless and costs millions of dollars in damages. So ban cell phones while youre at it. Knives and baseball bats, ban them as well! How about booze and beer? Oh wait, tried that. How did that work? Violent movies and books! That's where people get their ideas! Ban them as well. How about rope and duct tape... Please people. I'm an owner of a .380, 9mm .40s&w, shotgun and yes.... Wait for it, a sig sauer 5.56 swat. Why you ask? Simple, cause I can. I'm not the problem. Society and the way kids are raised today, plus drugs, porn and a handful of other things are parts of it. But to ban "guns" in general is not the answer. It's the p***y way out and the problem still exists. Thank you, God bless those families of the dead and survivors. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people
No. The guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take away guns, you have to take away knives, hammers, and every other murder weapon. Taking away guns won't prevent murders because they aren't the only way to commit murders. More murders are committed annually with hammers than guns.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not the problem
It is about protection and self defense. How can we go on each day knowing that we are not defending ourselves by being armed and ready? We need a means of something to fall back on. We cant just change the constitution. It is our constitutional right as Americans to be able to bear arms.
Posted by: AnonymousNo to ban.
There will always be the underground case and then what? People can't protect themselves. Then what? We are in the same boat. (Murder.) What the people in office don't realize is that guns don't kill people. People kill. It is not the fault of the gun, just the unstable person behind the gun.
Posted by: AnonymousIt will be expensive, hard, and will generate a black market for guns.
We do not need another black market for firearms. Usually when something is banned, criminals start to capitalize on the demand and try make gangs to ship guns everywhere and it is these times when the mortality rate is higher (see the prohibition era and the drug wars). We may need to try other ways to dissuade criminals such as improvements in the health system.
Posted by: THEPRO56You would have to be very simple minded to believe that banning guns is a good idea.I'm 13 and I DON'T APPROVE!
Banning guns is one of the most dumb Idea's I've ever heard of.
Try thinking of a country without guns for a second here.
On the positive side:
There would be less injuries/death from guns.
Now, we have to be reminded of all the bad people on earth.
When has it ever stopped any criminal from buying Illegal drugs like, heroin cocaine or marijuana?
It hasn't, they buy it illegally from drug dealers out on the street.
We need to think of how the bad people in the country would react to this.
They would buy guns from gun dealers out on the street.
They would Buy them illegally just like drugs!
It's like Us fighting with sword and shield all over again.
Except this time, the bad people that want to kill us have the better weapons.
Please think of this in my situation. I'm a kid. I don't want to get abducted!
But what's going to happen here is the abductor has a gun and my family doesn't.
Do you truly believe that We would when that fight and I wouldn't be abducted?
Ask yourself this:
Would you like your daughter or son to be abducted by a stranger with a better weapon then you?
The Answer I'm Pretty sure you'll say to this is, "NO!"
So that's the same thing we need to say when President Obama says: Should we ban guns?
We should Say, "No!"
We have the power to stop the banning of guns.
Even more deaths will occur when the banning of guns happens, I promise you that.
I'm From the Church of Jesus Christ of ladder day saints.
The same religion as Mitt Romney. We believe that violence is a horrible thing!
But I do not support the banning of guns in America.
More deaths, Innocent deaths will come when we ban guns.
Sincerely
-Dallin Dickert (Utah)Posted by: AnonymousSo many gun made already.
There are so many guns made that it would take forever to get rid of them all. Then after that it would be a black market item just like drugs. We all know drugs still kill more then guns do. Then what blame something else besides the sick person that no one wanted to help. Get real people, we are the problem not the objects.
Posted by: PuttputtLaws do nothing to prevent crime. They only make them punishable.
Crimes committed out of need,greed,or just plain crazy aren't deterred by the threat of punishment. They only make the criminal that more cautious about how and where and to whom they commit these crimes. Disarming law abiding citizens and or limiting magazine capacity to diminish the ability of these same people to defend themselves and their property is stupid and cannot be allowed. The fact that there are people in office that have taken oaths to uphold, protect, and preserve the Constitution actually suggesting this scares the hell out of me and if you had any sense you'd be worried too.
Posted by: AnonymousLook, there is a reason they included the second amendment
I have been on the side of both roads, and I have met people who have done the same. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS! A gun ban simply disarms honest people. By God if someone tries to kill me I hope I am legally allowed at the time to carry a weapon so I will have a chance to defend myself. What is wrong with having a fighting chance?
It seems people believe everything the media tells them, I bet if new gun laws were not in play right now this Connecticut shooting would not have been covered so vividly. They are teamed up with the government to take away the guns and they are using fear to make you think these things happen all the time. I bet you in months following gun confiscation the murder rate will go up but media will tell you just what you want to hear.
The Government is using the recent shooting as an opportunity to disarm the public, a disarmed public is an easy group of people to control. Wake up people, the second amendment was put there for a reason.
I feel for the families of the lost ones, but this is not the fix...Posted by: AnonymousCriminals prefer unarmed victims
The last time I checked, states that allow concealed carry have much lower crime rates. Florida for example legalized concealed carry and crime rates dropped. New York has strict gun laws yet crime rates are through the roof. Its simple, a criminal is much more likely to think twice about committing a crime if they know there is a good chance they may just get gunned down in the process. Although if you take away that factor and disarm the people, I feel crime would skyrocket, house robberies, muggings, murders. With over 400 million known privately owned guns in the United States its going to be damn near impossible to stop a criminal from getting an firearm if they want one, unless they send people door to door to collect "Banned weapons" they are hurting no body but the responsibly armed citizens.
Posted by: AnonymousGUNS ARE THE BIG EQAUILIZERS!
Guns level the playing field. CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE LAW. Criminals don't care if the government says that they can't have guns because they will find a way to get guns. Banning guns will lead to AN INCREASE in crime because only the criminals will have guns.
Posted by: AnonymousFacts are facts
No one is saying what happened in Sandy Hook was a horrible crime. But to ban guns? Lets clear up something only military and have assault weapons, unless you have a class III stamp no assault or full auto can be purchased. Civilians can get semi automatics. Now if the anti gun lobby wins their point of view and all guns are banned or even the ones like the failed Brady Bill had, I better never hear of another gun killing someone EVER! Gun bans are a pipe dream and before the Federal Government (President, Congress and DoJ) think about banning guns, they better look in the mirror and not sell them to the bad guys.
Posted by: AnonymousPersonal responsibility is as ever at the hands of the individual not society
This simply boils down to whether or not people should be considered responsible until proven otherwise. Most in favor of gun control are in usually in favor of deregulation of illegal drugs. If you assume the average person is sensible enough to decided what they can or cannot put in their own body as an adult than doesn't the same apply to what they can or cannot own without turning it into a weapon of murderous rampage. A vehicle is an incredibly dangerous piece of machinery however most legal operators do not go on a killing spree and run over people at a strip mall.
Posted by: AnonymousEvery state should have a "must carry law"
Besides having a second amendment, all I have to say is cops are not obligated to protect us. If they are not going to protect us who will? If the government takes all our guns away then only the criminals will be the ones with guns. So what about the law abiding citizens, what happens to us and our guns if we don't do something?
Posted by: AnonymousNo, But Make Them Stricter
Many people say that guns shouldn't be stricter, but I say they should, just not banned. I live in Canada. We have strict gun laws, but guns aren't banned. You can make them stricter but I side with the US, if you take away guns, you don't have any freedom.
Posted by: Anonymousdidnt work in britan
Gun control wont work there is not a country where it has prooven to work. Take the uk for example when they banned guns 20 years ago 58 people were killed that year last year 59 people were killed that means no improovment in 20 years and there was a huge spike shortly after the ban was enacted and nearly double the number of murders. Plus the violent crime rate has increased dramatically rape burgalaries and beatings have all increased presumaizens cant defend themselves with firearms. Currently the uk has the highest violent crime rate in the world but also have no guns.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals DO NO obey the law
I realize that there have been many out there, including children, who have been victimized by gun violence. However, banning guns will not solve this problem. Criminals do no obey the law, otherwise they would not be called criminals. Banning guns will not stop criminals from having them. In fact, you will be empowering criminals with more power in doing such.
Drugs are illegal, yet they are still sold. Banned guns would be no different. It will just stop law abiding people who want them to protect themselves and their family from owning them, while not even slowing down the criminals. Criminals would just obtain them off the black market. Seriously, do you think a felon is buying a gun at Wal-Mart? It's against the law for a felon to own a gun. However, many of them have them. This shows you that they are getting them from other sources other than through legal channels. Like I said before, they are criminals, so why would you expect them to OBEY the law?Posted by: AnonymousDevelop some common sense!
Restrict magazine capacity? What does that accomplish? An experienced shooter can drop an empty magazine and replace it with a full one in mere seconds! When your victims are school children trapped in a classroom or an audience packed in a movie theater, the difference in clip capacity is insignificant.
You gun-ban supporters saying, "Guns aren't for defense - how often have you used them for defense?" and, "Guns do not belong at home" need to wake up and develop some common sense! I have not yet and pray I never need to defend myself, my family, or my home against an armed criminal. The idea is that if I need it, it's there. If I could choose to be a victim of a violent crime with or without a gun in my hand, I will take the gun. So please - if you would rather protect your wife and kids by shooting marbles from a slingshot, hurling bedroom furniture, or trying your luck bringing a kitchen knife to a gunfight, by all means go for it. As for the rest of you that have a willingness to live, please purchase a firearm and learn how to use it.
Think about how the outcome of these recent shootings may have changed if say a teacher had been carrying a concealed weapon or an attendee of the movie theater - lives would have been saved. However, schools and movie theaters are among the list of "no-carry" areas in most states. Perhaps since holders of concealed weapon permits undergo background checks and are known among law enforcement as the most law-abiding citizens, these areas should disappear from the list. Isn't it awful peculiar that the recent shootings occurred in public areas that concealed carrying is not allowed? DUH! Two points proven here! One - the shooters had free reign over unarmed and defenseless victims - nobody is carrying a gun so who will stop them? Two - these shootings are two small-scaled examples of what will happen if a nationwide disarming of American citizens were to occur. The criminals will still get their hands on guns (you don't honestly think they will surrender their weapons too do you?) and will have a rather large selection of defenseless victims to choose from. From there, crime rates go up - 80% in Australia.
Finally, the politicians attacking the Constitution should be arrested for treason. Are they protecting the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? No, and this is why we reserve the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and protect against a tyrannical government.Posted by: eddiehenjrThe 2nd Amendment is not negotiable
The primary author of the Bill of Rights was James Madison. When the concern was raised that a standing federal army might have a coup and take over the country, he didn't see it as likely. He wrote: “To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.” Here in The Federalist Papers Madison is obviously speaking of an armed populace as a militia and not some government atrocity. Self-sufficiency including our own defense is part of our culture and in this quote Madison shows that it is what is right with America. Of course there is also the quote from Commander Yamamoto of “You cannot invade the mainland of United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Posted by: AnonymousNo, more guns equals less crime
if we ban guns, only law abiding citizens will obey those laws. Criminals by nature don't obey laws and will continue to use guns no matter what. In fact they'd use guns even more because it gives them power over the law abiding citizens thus making committing crimes less risky. Law abiding citizens need to be armed or else the balance of power will be horrible out of proportion.An armed society is a polite society.
Posted by: AnonymousToo many reasons
Constitutional right. Why would we give this away?
Investments. Many people have large amounts of money in collectible firearms. Who will reimburse them? Taxpayers?
Since criminals by definition disobey laws, why would we remove the option for someone to protect themselves with a gun?
We care about gang violence and crimes by "crazy" folks. Neither my family nor myself would like to become a statistic. Luckily we still have a chance to legally defend ourselves against them or others supplied from the black market.Posted by: AnonymousIllegal gun crime...
Most crime is carried out with illegal guns... And government agencies account for much of the rest of gun activity. Banning guns doesn't solve for these two frontrunning issues... So it makes the debate that much more interesting. It leaves no question in my mind that our government'sour intentions are anything but pure.
Posted by: Anonymouscriminals and terrorists are never going away
A ban on guns is only going to make people get more creative in the way they kill people (and that is only if they cant get there hands on guns). But lets be honest people are going to get guns, but even if they dont what is going to stop them from just blowing people up? Absolutely nothing! A ban on guns is not going to do anything but unarm American people and make them more vulnerabvle to robbers, murderers, terrorist, etc. That famous saying, "guns dont kill people; people kill people" is absolutely and 100% true in the sense that people that want to kill are going to find a way to do it.
Posted by: AnonymousIt would not
Guns are not responsible for human actions. It depends on what users want to do with them. Guns are very helpful to protect ourselves. One day, if a buglar jumped into your home with a knife on hand, we could kill him instead of doing nothing to deserve a death. If you banned using guns, you would ban all devices which have double effects.
Posted by: khaclubLet's ban everything used to kill
Cars kill more people than guns. Should we ban cars? People have been killed in the name of Islam so should we ban religion? Alcohol kills and destroys people's lives so lets ban booze! Criminals and mentally insane people kill others and yet the liberals and progressives say no to the death penalty and give these people compassion and help them rehabilitate?
Posted by: KenMIf you ban guns, people will just make bombs.
I agree with the regulation of sales of high cap mags, especially the 100 rounders, which aren't necessary, not even for hunting but to ban all guns? Why punish the responsible gun owners? When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. The people who are anti gun usually never fired them off or hunted. Most gun owners are responsible.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals by definition, don't listen to laws.
Criminals don't listen to laws, and will take advantage of the newly unarmed law abiding citizen. As shown in statistics and studies, cities with more gun control have more gun murders, due to the fact that a law abiding citizen can't carry a gun with him, but a criminal will.
Posted by: AnonymousImpossible
There is no possible way to remove every single firearm in the country. By banning firearms, you are just disarming law abiding citizens who use their guns for hunting, recreation, self-defense, etc. CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS!!!! They will keep their guns, acquire new weapons threw illegal means and continue to commit crimes. Gun control is an idiotic liberal fantasy. FuArock!
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals aren't stupid.
As much as we would like to believe, criminals aren't stupid. They won't put their lives in danger. In a armed society criminal rates go down because criminals know a high percentage of the surrounding populace have weapons, primarily pistols, and if they go to attack or steal from another person, that person will most likely have a gun and shoot the criminal to death. If we try to regulate guns criminals are not going to register that gun, they don't want to get caught and the regulation is ultimately going to nothing since criminals will disregard that law.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals don't obey laws.
I grew up in South Florida where there is a lot of crime. A lot of it is drug related. The government has had a war on drugs for years, and that has never worked. The gangs and drug dealers always manage to have guns. When gun laws and restrictions are passed, the criminals start to move out of their element and attack the law abiding citizens more. When the criminal knows that the law abiding citizen has been disarmed or restricted, they are more willing to go after them. When they know the law abiding citizen may be armed, they are less likely to attack them. The criminals seem to be able to acquire firearms that I can not even purchase, and are not sold in gun stores. A lot of them have fully automatic weapons, which I cannot even purchase. Since they don't obey laws, and get their firearms from places other than gun shops, how would any laws affect the criminal.
Posted by: AnonymousViolent crime is HIGHER in countries with severe gun control.
Mexico, the UK, Australia and Canada all have severe gun control and their per-capita violent crime rates went up after they imposed gun control. Yes, they have fewer gun murders, but (adjusted for population) they have more armed robberies, more rapes, more home invasions and more carjackings than we have in the U.S.
Many stats saying otherwise do not adjust for population and just use total numbers, or they exclude many violent crimes and just focus on shootings. They also often include justified and police shootings and suicides to skew the numbers.Posted by: AnonymousHardly
Criminals don't obey laws. If a law was passed that demanded U.S citizens to turn in their firearms, you would get unarmed, defenseless sheep. The crime would simply continue and even worsen (look at the crime rates in "gun-free zones" like Chicago, Australia and the U.K). What would be even worse is that the general American public would be utterly defenseless from the U.S Federal Government, should it turn tyrannical (no powerful government system has ever been flawless - sooner or later, corruption can and will seep in).
Posted by: AnonymousArmed people are harder to kill
Criminals do not obey the law now, why would they obey the law if a gun ban was introduced? Without guns it is much harder to defend ones self. Would you not want to use the most efficient weapon possible to defend you and your loved ones? Chicago has the most strict gun laws but the highest gun murders, the most armed communities are the safest. Gun control doesn't work.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning Guns in areas line NYC or DC hasn't stopped crime
We use guns to defend ourselves more than we use them to kill others. Banning them would only make us more vulnerable to crime. Look at New York City for example. There are loads of crime there, and they had massive gun ban laws. It would be silly to believe everything the government tells you, because it seems obvious that they want to disarm you. Keep your rights and stop trading them for security, or you are NOT American, because that is not what our founding fathers stood for back in the original colonies.
Posted by: Anonymous3D printing access
For the very first time a resident of the U.S.A made a fully working gun from a 3D printer. This gun worked and was made out of 100% plastic. This would be the first gun made out of those parts but for sure, it will not be the last gun made from one. At this moment parts are being made to surpass other detecting equipment. If guns are banned who ever said the criminals will not just by a 3D printer. Now they have an unlimited supply of guns and there parts.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, a ban would not reduce crime.
Other than the inherent constitutional issue, the theory that we are all responsible for the acts of one and should be treated as a collective using behavior modification to control the individual violent acts is beyond an overreach. We have Federal gun laws and we have gun laws at the individual state level that aren't being enforced now and "new" laws are being proposed? Many of these laws already address many of the same issues as the current day bills ask. The rhetoric that statistics show that most legal gun owners are more statistically inclined to commit murder than protect themselves is antithesis. Regarding Military grade vs non military grade guns, they both may have some similar characteristics. M-134 3000 rpm, GUA-8 4200 rpm, GUA-21 180 bullets per burst, AR-15 700 rpm. Still deadly, but this issue should be debated on the merits and logic, not from fear and the unknown.
Posted by: AnonymousCrime is illegal..why would criminals care if guns were illegal as well?
Simple criminals will find a way to get whatever they want, they don't follow the rules to begin with. Banning them would only make us rule followers more weak and susceptibale to crime. I believe there should, however, be better screening before guns are purchased and perhaps yearly mental health screenings for gun owners before they can purchase bullets or accessories for their owned guns.
Posted by: AnonymousTaking away guns from people will not limit the ability for criminals to gain access to guns!
If there is a will there is a way and criminals will find a way to break the law. This leaves people helpless and unable to protect themselves. Knowing the threat levels would be reduced in homes now because of the lack of guns, break-ins and robberies will increase. A gun can be used for both good and bad purposes. We need to focus on how we can reduce crime and protect the innocent, not increase their vulnerabilities.
Posted by: AnonymousViolent people will do violence with what ever means they have
Getting rid of AR's would do very little to stop people from hurting each other. Even banning all guns would not stop people from causing harm. As many people are killed with something other than a gun as are killed with a gun. Taking away my ability to protect myself by taking my guns would put me in danger. Is someone else's life more valuable than mine?
Posted by: AnonymousRead the stats
There have been 13000 murders in America in the last four years. 60% of them gun related. Guns are used in self defense 2.5 million times each year. Unless you failed first grade math, you should know what they are used more for. 70000 people are killed in the hospital each year. 60000 in car accidents. 300 by assault weapons and less than 10000 by guns
Posted by: AnonymousHow can anyone think crime would be reduced by a ban on guns?
Banning guns from the hands of criminals (isn't it already illegal to use a gun to commit a crime?), if possible, could very slightly reduce gun crimes but not overall crime rates. If you want to reduce crime increase punishment and education and reduce poverty. Forcing people to live in poverty and not providing them with proper education and an optimistic future leads to substance abuse and crime. Guns or not. Don't tear down the constitution build on it. The constitution is the only thing American's have that I truly envy. You were lucky to have so many great men available at one time don't waste their wisdom.
Posted by: AnonymousAussies and Canucks
You guys and gals from other countries, you really need to read your own governments crime figures and statistics. Since your gun bans and collections, the figures are irrefutable. And as for the anti gun crowd in the USA, try it. See how many election cycles anti gun legislators survive in public office. Its not about a mindset of violence belonging to gun nuts, that mindset is as much yours as ours. And it comes from desensitization to violence from an early age. It afflicts your kids as well as ours. Its about the ostracization of mental health issues, some attributable directly to bad parenting. And no, it doesn't take a good Christian or a good Muslim faith to make a good parent. It takes recognising the state of our current society and stressing to our kids the importance of being a good member of society, responsible in your actions, generous with your gifts and intolerant of negativity toward others.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals
I think you're forgetting that criminals are cowards, if they think an owner is armed they will choose an easier target, not get a gun and have a shoot out with the owner over a tv, and Xbox. And no you're not right about getting an illegal weapon, it's very easy, it's getting a weapon legally that's hard. It's also cheaper to get a illegal gun, and they don't check you for anything. I think a lot of you are letting the media run your thoughts. I'm not trying to make anyone mad but come on, if the person is crazy and wants to kill people do you really think banning guns is going to stop them? Have you noticed on all these shootings it's where guns and CHL are prohibited?
Posted by: LanceGun bans take the guns away from law abiding people
Banning guns would only keep law abiding citizens from owning not criminals. Criminals already get their guns by theft or other illegal means. I'm okay with stricter regulations to catch the people that should not own guns from buying them. I would even like to see a test developed to check for mental stability before allowing someone to purchase. Also the only stories you hear about in the news is how criminals use guns to do harm but nothing when a law abiding citizen uses his concealed carry weapon to save the day.
Posted by: AnonymousFounding Father Agrees
“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.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)- Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Anonymouswhat criminal follows the law?
The title says it all you can take away all you want from people but if someone going to kill some one or steal something no laws are going to stop them. It just lets them know there chances of going into a home and getting what they want are increased because we follow the laws. If we are allowed to keep our guns we are allowed to protect ourselves there for less crime will be committed. Above all its our right as a us citizen to bare arms, which by the way has already been infringed on.
Posted by: tinapeaseNo guns no safety.
So, if the general public doesn't have guns, who will? The government? The criminals? Yeah, those guys. Guess who banned guns in the past 100 years? Hitler, and Joseph Stalin. You know who they are right? Yeah, so don't ban guns. They save lives whether you commies like it or not.
Posted by: AnonymousFix The Real Problem
If any part of this were true, Washington DC, NYC, Detroit and, especially, Chicago would be in fact a crime free heaven on earth. As it is, possibly for additional reasons as well, they remain the shared murder capitals of the country.
We need to focus on the real problems as opposed to the trying to harvest the low hanging fruit.Posted by: AnonymousBan guns, ban jobs
Imagine this, your working at bushmaster firearms which is a specific assault rifle manufacturer here in the u.s. Suddenly, after working for years working your way up getting yourself a better salary every year, your boss comes in. He tells you he has some bad news...assault rifles have been banned across the country. Suddenly thousands of jobs down the drain, like that in just one instant. Think about the impact your support for this horrible bill will have.
Posted by: AnonymousNo because criminals don't care about guns
With the Mexican cartels so close and in many cases well inside our borders, how long do you think it would take for them to overrun our country and take control of everything? It's not like we're bordered by countries that are peace loving and passive. Not only that, but I don't trust my government as far as I can spit and neither did the founding fathers....which is why they listed the right to bear arms to begin with.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople will always kill each other.
No matter how we try to ban guns people will always find a way to commit murder. Evil can never be stopped, but I can arm myself against it. If the government takes away my right to defend myself and my family than I'm moving to Mexico like Jesse Ventura did. We should ban sugar instead of guns, just look at how many people die every year from type 2 diabetes. Fix mental health care first dont waste our tax dollars on banning guns.
Posted by: ProudI'd rather defend myself than be a victim
How well does the ban on drugs work? How well do you think the ban on alcohol worked and who did it make rich? With as porous as or borders are, how long do you think it will be before the Drug Cartels of Mexico become the Gun Cartels of America? Is it possible that a President or General could take over the country if all the guns are taken away? Why was it that Japan didn't want to invade the US back in WWII? Yes, that's right, because they were afraid of the citizens and all the guns we had. Those that don't study history are destined to repeat it! That doesn't mean because it hasn't happened here that it can't, it's happened in many other countries that it had never happened to, either.
Posted by: AnonymousBlame the individual, not the gun
First, anyone can own a gun, only a small handful of individuals lack the responsibility or mentality to use a gun for good. Just because they choose to harm the innocent with guns does not mean we should take them away, It would only put innocent people in greater danger since they do not have weapons to defend themselves and their family. If somebody broke into your home with the intention of murdering you and your family, you would be glad to have a rifle under your bed to stop the maniac for good.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns deter crime
Enforced disarmament would shift gun possession largely toward the side of violent criminals who will have fewer reservations about using the black market than will otherwise lawful citizens. Motivated shooters will procure guns and commit their crime just the same, and even more effectively, while hesitant burglars would be encouraged knowing that the average household is unarmed.
Posted by: dispGuns are not the problem
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Just because there are no more guns, does not mean there will be less crime. There will be other ways. Black Markets can sell illegal weapons which criminals can obtain and use for their own crimes. Some other weapons a criminal could use include anything that can be used to physically harm a human being.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals will always have guns and other weapons.
Politicians are clueless to real life, they have bodyguards and other security measures. Criminals have always had weapons, illegal weapons including EVERY form of gun. Politicians would, if allowed, go door to door confiscating legal law abiding citizens guns, but notice they would never go door to door looking for criminals and their illegal weapons! Politicians and Hollywood are hypocritical liars. The Second amendment was made to protect America from what government is doing now. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are very clear, and politicians are in violation of their oaths, they are basically traitors. Having guns is not a privilege, it is a God given right as an American.
Posted by: AnonymousBan on firearms?
Of course banning guns would not reduce crime in the U.S.. Just like when alcohol was banned decades ago, people still had there alcohol and got into more trouble because of it. Now-a-days if guns were outlawed, people would still have their guns and people and if you were caught selling or purchasing or just flat out owning a gun, you would be considered a criminal. Crime rates would skyrocket due to that. The reason this topic is even up for consideration is because of there idiots who say "guns are bad". Well you know what.. Guns don't kill people; with sick minds kill people. If they outlawed guns then insane people would still find a way to murder. They could get in a car and go run over 30 people if they felt like it. Banning guns would not be an answer to having a safer country.
Posted by: AnonymousSleep with one eye open
Any person that will shell out a biased statistic to make an argument has not taken the time to do proper research. Using other countries as a "business model" also can be deemed irrelevant due to the fact that culture and overall beliefs can be radically different. Any person in America that would rally to ban weapons in the U.S. clearly has never been involved in a compromising situation. I don't gamble with probability. All I know is intent. Until we live in a world ridden of intent should anyone be able to make the choice for me whether or not I chose to live absolute.
Posted by: AnonymousWe have empirical evidence that it doesn't work.
The 2nd amendment aside ( which any gun ban would be violating). Gun's are inanimate objects, they do not sprout legs, a mind of their own and go attack people. The real issue is in dealing with our mentally ill and challenged. The CT shooter was a criminal the moment he went to buy a gun to serve this purpose (he was denied). He then stole his mothers firearms ( also illegal), shot her in the face four times (also illegal), before he went to the school to begin his shooting (illegal to have a gun on school grounds, illegal to shoot people. It doesn't seem like he has any regard for the law.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people. People kill people.
Have you ever thought that a gun can'f fire unless someone is firing it. It isn't to hard to see. The problem is the people who get the guns. Not the guns themselves. You can only blame guns for killing people when we develop a robot that does all the shooting. Its only possible for a gun to malfunction and cause a backfire.
Posted by: 1am2kewlIt Doesn't Work
Looking directly at countries who have banned, or placed heavy restrictions on the sale or use of guns:
*Australia: Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.
*Canada: Canada enacted many gun control laws from 1991 to 1995 while the US has greatly eased restrictions on guns in the same time period: Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.
*England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.
*Europe: For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe.
Looking at more domestic sources of data:
*In Chicago, handgun crime increased (but depending on the data I use, the data either claims an increase in crime or a slight decrease. But all of the data agreed initial after the law crime increased).
*In Washington DC, the homicide rate was 73% higher after their gun ban.Posted by: Subutaidon't stop guns
No, abandoning guns wont reduce crime because not to many people own a gun.Guns are hard to find in the us.there are so many crimes in the US but not too many have a gun. They us guns to robe or to kill but they should banned but from every city or state and country.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning guns to reduce violent crimes is like...
Banning guns to reduce violent crimes is like banning forks to prevent obesity. It is not the "tool" used to commit the crime that is the problem, it is society. The media needs to stop sensationalizing and immortalizing the mass murderers. Ten years after Columbine we still know the names of the pathetic, socially maladjusted individuals who killed all those people, but how many of the victims names do you remember?
With this latest event the 20yr old mass murder got what he wanted, to have his name known by one and all. The media has plastered his picture and his name all over the news for the past several days. What does this do for all the other mentally deranged people who decide they want to kill themselves, but give them the idea that they too can be "famous" and talked about for years to come if they only go an kill just a few "more" innocent people then the last guy did.
As a school teacher I resent the fact that people have painted a bulls eye on me and my students by making my school (all schools) a "gun free" zone and thus inviting someone to come and attack the defenseless and unarmed.
It is time to allow properly trained teachers to be armed, like the Israelis did back in the 1970's in response to terrorist attacks on their children, so that schools are no longer "soft" targets. As in Israel the terrorists will choose other places to go instead.Posted by: AnonymousNo
Criminals don't follow the law... common sense people... Removing guns from law abiding citizens will only make them easy targets. Criminals are criminals because they DO NOT follow the law and even if you ban guns they will find a way to obtain them. In a perfect world, this would work but the fact is, our world is far from perfect.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning Guns WILL NOT Work
My reasoning is that if you put a law on banning guns, people like criminals simply WON'T follow them. If they are already breaking laws, what makes you think they'll actually follow this one? My evidence is Adam Lanza from the Newtown shooting. Plus, he broke these laws: Murder-Mother
Assault with a Deadly Weapon-Gun
Committing a Felony With a Firearm
Possession of a Stolen Gun-4 Counts (either state or federal charges, federal gun stolen charges, ten years per count)
Unlawful carrying of a loaded pistol with out a permit and underage the age of 21-driving to school with gun.
Underage adult in Possession of a loaded gun-4 counts or 3 counts depends on if the rifle counts
Bringing a gun into a gun free zone-the school
Criminal Trespass-coming onto school property
Car Theft-stealing his mother car
The impact of this statement is that we are basically adding a new law for new criminals to not follow.Posted by: AnonymousBanning guns won't stop criminals.
If you banned guns you know there is just going to be people who still have guns and will use them. Also the people who don't use guns for illegal things will have lost one of their hobbies. Also it won't stop gun man it might just increase the count of criminals.
Posted by: AnonymousNot a single chance.
Yes gun related crimes will go down a LITTLE. But the overall crime will skyrocket. Gun control will only affect law abiding citizens, since when do criminals follow laws? Silly people, it's time to wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that the reason they want guns taken away is so the liberals can finally have the shot they always wanted at controlling the U.S. citizens, turning us into robots for the government. This law will not be passes with so much support for pro-gun and the 2nd amendment. The facts don't lie, in places where they have banned guns like the U.K. and Australia, crime rate has tripled. The same will happen here, don't have a knee jerk reaction to the CT massacre like the media wants you to. The only way to prevent gun violence is to have armed citizens to protect against it. I will fight to the death to protect my rights, and at least take a few of the bad guys out with me.
Posted by: Southernboy15No
I know it's normal for people to react emotionally to bad situations, but take a few breathes and look up facts before making new laws. Americans overreact, put new laws into place, and make everyone's lives worse. We need to stop the knee jerk reactions and research what other countries results are before making major changes.
Posted by: AnonymousA ban on guns would not help reduce crime in general.
People will not be able to protect themselves against criminals. Individual citizens should be able to protect themselves against attackers. Look what gun bans do in other countries. In Australia, gun crimes were reduced, but not crime itself. The criminals used other ways to achieve their goal. We should prevent criminal activity in other ways, such as extensive background checks and mental illness checks. We should spend the time and money to hire judges to try criminals in court, prosecuting attorney lawyers to prosecute criminals in court, police officers to check suspicious criminal activity, parole officers to regularly check up on criminals, money to build prisons, and add better security to many places. We should also recreate the mental healthcare system because most of the criminal is prisons are mentally ill, which would give more room in prisons. We should hire well-trained armed guards for all schools.
Posted by: AnonymousIt was not legal for Lanza to have the guns under current law in CT.
The guns were registered to his mother; the killer did not own these guns and certainly it does not appear he had permission to take them. He murdered his mother and stole the guns. Several laws are already in place to stop such action but did not stop this killer. Look at how many laws Mr. Lanza violated. Adding more laws will not stop a determined mass killer.
As a social experiment, we should all agree to test an assault weapon ban again. In fact the current law being considered only bans future purchases. That really is not good enough. This means there can be more Sandy Hook style killings in the future even if the ban is put back in place because it will not be retroactive and eliminate the assault weapons already in homes across the nation. I say ban all assault weapons and see if it works. But the logical way to ban assault weapons is to eliminate the complete universe of assault weapons first from the criminals, mentally ill, or parents of the mentally ill, etc. and only after we are all assured that these folks do not have any assault weapons and cannot obtain them, should the law abiding citizens give up theirs. To do it in any other order would be idiotic. If you want to be idealists than I think everyone would agree the above plan makes sense but has no chance of occurring. It makes no sense to ban assault weapons from just the people who are law abiding.
As for all the laws that are in affect now that were broken by any mass murderer, it does not seem logical that if the current laws did not deter these perpetrators why would adding more laws be affective in deterring someone who would want kill in the future. What did the current laws do for us in any of the cases of mass murders??? There is a much deeper problem here than just the guns.Posted by: AnonymousControl the media
People are attention getters.. Maybe if the media wouldn't publicize these events people wouldn't wanna go out with a bang. I'm from indiana and this was just on the news after the Connecticut shooting. CEDAR LAKE, Ind. (AP) – Authorities say an Indiana man who had 47 guns and ammunition in his home has been arrested after allegedly threatening to kill people at an elementary school near his home.
Cedar Lake police were called to the home of 60-year-old Von I. Meyer early Friday after he allegedly threatened to set his wife on fire. A police statement says Meyer also said he would enter Jane Ball Elementary School and "kill as many people as he could." And if people remember the Colorado theater shooting, the guy was a crazy.. You could tell he wanted attention from his hair dyed red. I know the families want support and it is sad news but I think these crazy killers enjoy the attention!Posted by: Jmo03The genie is out
A ban would not work since there are already too many guns out there. Better social programs to enfranchise the poor, sick and mentally ill. That said, far more people are dying from drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and poor diet. To me while atrocities occur, they are far from the pressing concerns for America.
What America needs is not another war, we lost the war on drugs years ago, the war on alcohol didn't work, the war on terrorism isn't working, the "just say no" campaign didn't work and a war on guns will be just as impotent. Cigarette use in the US reduced greatly due to education. Maybe try another way instead of telling people you can't and expect it to work.Posted by: AnonymousMore children die in car accidents everyday...
So why do we need cars that go over 80 mph and can accelerate faster than ever? Who NEEDS a car that goes 150 mph and 0-60 in under 5 seconds? NOBODY! Why, then, in this day an age when cars are overwhelmingly used for nothing more than convenient, comfortable transportation, don't we regulate and ban vehicles that exceed the speed limit, and can accelerate at unsafe rates? Why do we need assault weapons? Why do we need Cigarettes? Why do we need Big Macs, 1 Liter Sodas, Motorcycles, Pitbulls? The answer? We really don't NEED any of these things, but it is our FREEDOM that allows us to own, and use these RESPONSIBLY. If you don't want to live in a free country, feel free to sell your possessions, and buy a one-way ticket to any European country of your choice. I hear the south of France is beautiful this time of year.
Posted by: AnonymousJust like banning drugs stops addicts
I enjoy shooting, I enjoy hunting, and I enjoy knowing my wife, my children and myself with not be raped, murdered, or stolen from while I sleep. If you take away the right for a law abiding citizen to own a gun, you take away all of that. The U.S. government has shown how well they deal with prohibition of anything. The war on Alcohol was a failure, the war on drugs is a massive failure, and the war on guns may just cause a civil war. The criminals will have guns, most shouldn't have them right now, there are already laws intact that prevent them from having guns, are they enforced? Maybe if a cop happens to stubble upon an illegal gun they are, but other than that, they will have guns. The only people who will not be able to protect themselves are the people who abide by the law. They are the ones who will have to stand my and watch their 4 year old daughter RAPED and KILLED with and ILLEGAL GUN to their head. You gun hating liberals should really step back and think about that last statement, if you could get your heads out of the trendy Presidents backside, maybe you could see the light.
Posted by: AnonymousSocial Services and a proper minimum wage is what we need!
Canada is a living example of just how people can live with millions of guns and not commit daily mass murders. The reason it doesn't happen is because Canada has an appropriate social support system for the people in the lower class which prevent people from turning to crime and other desperate measures like mass murder and suicide sprees to get attention for themselves. We also need to propose laws for news networks in how they cover such issues, because every time someone commits a mass homicide spree and the media covers it, it simply ups the ante for the next wanna be looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
Posted by: AnonymousGun bans help the criminals
The gun doesnt kill, its the hand holding the gun so lets ban hands and chop them off at birth, then nobody can shoot, stab, punch, or hit you with a foreign object nor run you over with a car. Yes lets ban hands and all live happily ever after.
If you want to live where guns are banned move to NY or DC and enjoy the rampant crime rate, however if you want a virtually crime free community move to somewhere that by law you must own a gun. Kennesaw, Ga saw 74% reduction in crimes against individuals after the law was brought into effect in 1982 and even further the years following:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/postsPosted by: AnonymousGuns should be mandatory
We would be safer if everyone (trained, non criminal, and mentally stable) had a gun. The criminals will always be able to get a gun, a knife, a can of gas, something that can be used as a weapon. If criminals and those wanting to do violent felt others were likely armed they would be more hesitant to act and if they did it would be over quickly. Going after guns will make it easier for the criminals not harder. This is proven although most liberals want to twist this as the truth is they really want the guns to ensure the government can control its citizens.
Posted by: AnonymousArmed Teachers
If allowing guns in the schools will not work...why did they call the police at Newtown? Seems counter-intuiutive. I think the real question is why did the suspect choose the target he did? Because it was a soft target. Criminals do not attack places that will pose opposition. This is even proven in the animal kingdom. Lions etc. will not attack the strongest of the herd.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning guns means we should ban everything
As far as I can see the main point of the Yes people is that guns have potential to kill. Should we also ban planes because they killed 3000 people during 9/11? Should we ban cars because of the vehicular manslaughters that occur? Should we ban steak knives because they can stab? Should we ban rocks because they can kill? Should we ban pushing because you can push someone and have them fall against a rock and die? Banning potential threats means banning everything!
Posted by: CapnKrunchNope!
There are over 350 million guns in private ownership. If the goverment thinks they are going to get those back they might want to get another plan. You cannot disarm a whole nation. Great Britain gets away with it because they already know how to surrender specifically to Americans. As it has been said before drugs are illeagal but i can walk to the corner or order on the internet what I need......
Posted by: Anonymousguns are for protection against government
Our founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights and wanted that to be the basis of this country. I feel that all the citizens of this country need to remember that and not take advantage. That is being very optimistic, I know. So the more obvious reason is the people that are using guns for bad in the US are going to use them whether they are banned or not. Most of those people are obtaining guns illegally anyway, and a law is not going to stop them since they are using the guns to commit crimes anyway.
Posted by: AnonymousNo
How is the war on drugs going? Oh, the criminals are still dealing them, and people are still using, and buying them. The same will happen with guns, and is happening with guns, except now, law abiding citizens won't have them for protection. Class 3 weapons are being dealt illegally everyday in this country, and they really aren't slowing down. Then there's the question of supply and demand, once they're made illegal, you can be assured that they will an overflow of them available on the Black Market. The criminals will find a way to obtain them, and the regular citizens will have to pay the price.
Posted by: AnonymousLaw BREAKERS Will BREAK gun laws!!! Burglaries will INCREASE!!
There will still be guns available on the black market. The only difference now will be that law abiding citizens will not be able to defend their dwellings or stores. What stops most criminals today from burglary is the fact that many Americans have guns. If criminals are the only ones with guns, then they will be much more powerful than they are now. Another thing worth noting is that no country would dream of invading us because of all the citizens that would group up and fight the invaders.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, the number of gun-related deaths may go down, but not crime
The worst school killing in the history of the U.S. was not done with guns, but rather bombs. See the Bath School Massacre. The right to bear arms is not just so we can have a 5 shot revolver to walk around with for an ego boost, but was more intended as a deterrent and means to overthrow a tyrannical government. Yes, you will have those who will do horrible things with their guns, but the vast majority of law-abiding people are guaranteed the right to keep and bare arms.
Posted by: AnonymousProtection doesnt have to be by bullets
Teachers should be allowed to carry mid-range stun guns on them during school hours and other employees at high-risk public places as well. We cant give everyone guns for protection but a non-lethal weapon that will drop someone and give time to disarm them is ideal. There should be no excuse not to do this!
Posted by: AnonymousTry me
There's a very good reason for the second amendment. Think about it. For all you anti-gun people, yes, guns are dangerous weapons and they will always be the number 1 choice to commit a homocide....build a bridge and get over it or move out of my country. People with guns have the combat advantage and survival advantage in harsh times. Go live in a country where guns are banned. Give me a call when you get invaded by a bunch of Koreans or Iranians and you have nothing to defend yourself. You know North Korea has a nuclear program right? Wouldn't you feel a little safer if you had something that gives you an advantage over a bunch of crazies? At least go down fighting. Screw the guy who murdered all those kids. If I woulda been by his house when he shot the person in the house I woulda put one between his eyes.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Real Issue
The U.S produces far to many firearms per person. If law abiding citizens a limit of firearms, example 2 pistol, one shot gun, and one rifle per house hold is more than efficient for protection and recreation. It would be a little more difficult for criminals to acquire firearms but will not stop them. Yes gun control is needed, to prevent lazy criminals from acquiring a firearm and training law abiding citizens with knowledge and safety of their firearms.
Posted by: AnonymousGun Bans are proven useless as it only succeeds in embolding criminals and creates defenseless victims
Gun bans are proven to be useless in all states and countries that have insituted the strictest of gun bans. Gun related crimes rise since 2001 in UK with a particular jump to 48% in 2010 in London where POLICE aren't even allowed to carry guns. Australia gun related crimes are rocketing; Mexico; US cities such as DC and Chicago with gun bans are the highest murder capita per the nation! Guns bans only succeed in emboldening criminals who know their victims are defenseless. When asked in a poll, criminals who commit violent crimes such as rape, robberies, home invasion, etc. have said that if they knew their was a high potential that they could be shot at or killed by their armed victims,, it would deter them from doing the crime....they will look for a defenseless person. Criminals LOVE gun bans...it makes their crimes easier to perpetrate!
Posted by: AnonymousNo guns? they'll find other ways...
Even if all guns were taken magically from the world, the people looking to take advantage of another will find a way. There is always a discrepancy of force in these situations, and while guns make that discrepancy larger and more quickly that some other weapons.. even knives or the appearance of a large mean looking man do that same thing. Guns are not the solution, nor are they the problem.
Posted by: AnonymousCrime is already against the law!
Criminals don't show their firearms license at Joe's Gun Shop to buy guns...banning guns will only affect (negatively) the lawful gun owners. Criminals may even be empowered by knowing there is a lower chance their victim is armed. "Ban all guns" is a short-sighted Utopian point of view with neglects reality and common sense.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals will do crimes, regardless of gun bans.
Why can you say gun bans would reduce crimes? Those criminals can get their guns illegaly through black markets or by any other means, such as making zip guns. Then they can use those guns to fire on civilians indiscriminately when they feel they need to. That's how it works. And if guns are banned for civilian, they won't be able to defend themselves from criminals, that will just breeds more crime since civilians will become weak. Finally you don't always need a gun to commit crimes.
Posted by: AnonymousNonono.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I kill someone with a gun (ablative of means). You can pretty much assume someone willing to commit a crime will be able to get their hands on illegal weaponry, so right there you've leveled the playing field so that the one criminal has weapons and no civilians do, that's not going to end well.
Posted by: AlwaysMoreThanYouCommon Sense
If a gun ban would lower the crime rate, why dont we just ban crime all together? Lets just tell the criminals "you cant commit a crime anymore, because we have just banned that." Criminals dont obey the law and the only ones who would turn in their guns are law abiding citizens, leaving them defensless against the armed criminal. In the columbine shooting 18 gun laws were broken, i guess two more would have done the trick.... liberal morons
Posted by: AnonymousA ban on guns would not reduce crime in the U.S. because criminals don't abide by laws anyway.
A ban on guns only affects those citizens or individuals that would obey the law. Criminals by definition do not obey laws and therefore, would still have guns. Besides the second amendment to the Constitution allows for the right to keep and bear arms, and any gun ban would violate this inalienable right.
Posted by: SascM0nIt's too late now
Most of the gun violence in the U.S. takes place in the larger cities,driven by the the illegal drug trade. To protect and enforce their market they rely on the gun as the ultimate arbiter. As the drug trade has increased, so has the proliferation of handguns. Unfortunately, as States continue to pass stricter gun laws, it has very little affect on the criminals, but only made it burdensome on law abiding citizens. In some States the laws have basically made it cost prohibitive for the lower income people to purchase a firearm. A form of poll tax. Maybe the best thing we can do is enforce the laws we already have and stop plea bargaining away gun charges for convicted criminals.
Posted by: AnonymousAlso . . .
Adam Lanza may have just taken the guns from his mother's cupboard, but she should have been smart and locked them away. It's common sense. And don't compare other countries to the U.S. when dealing with guns. A majority of countries don't have illegal immigrants coming in with illegal firearms through an underdeveloped border. For instance, South Korea doesn't allow guns, but I doubt any North Korean is going to sell weaponry to their neighbors, much less get across the border themselves. They have the most heavily fortified border in the world. D.C. and New York have had very stringent gun-control laws since the early 1900's, but they are still the most dangerous areas in the country. It won't change the fact that banning guns is only taking from the citizens, not the felons.
Posted by: cmats4020Americans have a right to own guns.
Although many people argue that guns should not be banned because people need protection and a way to defend themselves, (which I completely agree with) there is also many people who own guns simply because they love them. They are not causing any harm with the occasional weekend trip to the range, and banning firearms would take away a hobby that perhaps takes their minds off of stress and the daily hustle of everyday life. Guns are not only a weapon, for some they are a way of life.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals don't follow laws, why would this change it?
You don't see the government taking cars away or alcohol away like they did in the 1800s. More people die due to drunk drivers then guns. If you want to ban guns, ban cars or alcohol because cars+alcohol kill many many more than guns do. Its not the guns that kill, its the people behind the guns that kill.
Posted by: AnonymousGovernment will have control of us.
The largest crime will be carried out by the government in further taking away our second amendment rights. Don't people remember how and why this country was formed? We are here to be free and if we want to be free and not controlled by the man, we have to be able to protect that freedom.
Posted by: AnonymousOf Course Not!
Just the thought of people thinking this will work makes me very angry. Me personally, I will never give up my firearms. If they are Banned, I will still keep all of my guns. Just have to hide them better won't I? As for everyone else in this country. And we will still find ways to buy them, manufacture them, sell them, bare them. The people in the left column will just keep trying to put people in prison for owning them but never using them? Are they serious? When they walk into a circle k and it's being robbed and shot up by those who still carry guns although it's illegal, maybe they will wish they were armed too. Fools, I tell you. Fools! Wake up and experience reality for what it is. Be prepared for what if scenarios and stop trying to implement more systems that continue to reduce our freedom. Freedom or security? You can't have both and I choose freedom. Is this still a free country or just a so called "secure" country. The people on the left will not have their way. They will just continue to moan and groan about something that will not change. Not in this lifetime at least. My guns will be passed on to my children as I will teach them the value of life and the three gun safety rules.. Always check and double check to see if it's loaded, never point it at anyone, ever, and keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
Posted by: AnonymousIt hasn't dropped crime in other countries that have done it
Some other countries have bragged that their "gun crimes" are down after banning guns. And, that seems to be true. But, their overall violent crime increases. Criminals just use another method. With gun bans, the criminals know their targets are unarmed. If I were a criminal, I'd be more likely to target a home if I knew it was unarmed. In addition to that, the likelihood of the U.S. ever being "gun free" is nearly impossible. Taking a look at the massive amount of drugs smuggled into our country daily, and how our officials constantly say that they can't even scratch the surface of smuggling. Guns would just be added to the cartels' list of items to smuggle in to criminals.
Posted by: butterflies2022Weapons don't kill people, People kill people
Taking away our only use of protection from criminals is a horrible idea. It would take away our only source of protection from criminals. Because only the people would be affected by it. Why would a criminal care that guns are banned if he/she doesn't follow any other rules? It makes no sense.
Posted by: kenkaku64No way, Jose.
By making the gun laws even more strict than they already are, you're stripping a citizen's only home security. Sure, we'll have more cops on the street by approximately 100:1, but that doesn't mean that they'll be in our home 24/7 and protect you when a burglar comes around. Criminals will find ways around the gun laws just like they find a way through any other law.
Posted by: ProdigyFlynnTyrannical government protection
The reason our forefathers gave us the right to bare arms was not to protect ourselves. It was not for hunting either. It was to protect us from the possibility of a tyrannical government."When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals need a deterrent
Criminals and tyranny need to have some fear factor, not to mention the mounds of statistics in other nations that have been down the "ban guns" road. There is enough history to prove that countries are NOT safer, but rather less safe. The data is not just clear, but it is compelling. And also, history is clear in those nations that had their weapons confiscated by tyrannical rulers. Deplorable results.
Posted by: AnonymousWhere does it stop?
This is not an issue of whether I NEED a military style rifle to protect my family. Do we want our government to tell us what kind of gun we can have, what we can eat, what we can drive and how big of a house I can build or live in? It's a freedom covered by the constitution. I believe in the 1st amendment. I strongly disapprove of many forms of speech such as pornography and many television programs but it is a free speech right guaranteed by the 1st amendment. If we would stop being such pansies and worrying about offending people and be tougher on crime and those that commit violent crimes, it would change things. This nation is turning away from God and the family values in which it was founded.
Posted by: AnonymousSelf defense
Most people who carry guns are responsible. Plus crime will probably increase because criminals will know that us law abiding citizens won't be packing heat to protect ourselves. Most victims to murder die from melee weapons because guns draw to much attention. So, I don't believe banning guns will protect us. In fact,I believe it will make us more vulnerable
Posted by: AnonymousGun laws don't apply to criminals
If new laws are passed, life will be no different for the criminals who break them today. It just doesn't make any sense for anyone to think that a new gun law will somehow magically prevent those who ignore them to begin with from getting them after. The ONLY thing it will do, is restrict responsible gun owners.
The ONLY response to a criminal with a firearm is a properly trained, responsibly owned and used firearm. Good luck with your martial arts...Posted by: AnonymousEducate yourself
Banning firearms will only lower firearm related crimes. It will not lower overall crime, witch is the ultimate goal. In fact, look at where the UK and Australia are today. Crime has only gone up. Here in the US, crime continues to decline as gun ownership rises.
Posted by: AnonymousNon-Americans mind your business
Why is it all the people against guns are non-Americans? It's none of your business so mind your own problems. None of your countries deal with the influx of illegal and legal immigrants that America does. Obama wants gun control to make it easier for the government to be able to become a dictatorship.
Posted by: Mike34744Ban Plea Bargins, Punish the Guilty, and Stop Blaming Guns
I don't understand why a man like James Holmes can shoot and kill countless in a movie theater in a planned, cold, calculated attack and yet the focus is on the guns he used. Now they are talking about the evidence being so overwhelming that he might have to take a plea deal to avoid the death penalty. Why would a man like that get a deal? The people he killed didn't get offered a deal.
For everyone wanting outright bans of all guns I have to ask you a few questions. What if your wife or daughter was being raped by a man with a knife or a group of men who you could not possibly overpower on you own? What are you going to do? If you chose not to be armed then that's your choice, but you are not going to tell me I cannot be armed and that I have to just accept things like that happening to my family.
You should be thankful there are guns, because otherwise your only defense is the chance that you are bigger and stronger than the other guy.Posted by: DPettittNaive?
Do you really think criminals are going to give up their guns with the law abiding citizens? That's just ridiculous to think that evil will follow good. Evil has existed since Cain. The club that Cain killed Abel with was not the club's fault. It was Cain's fault. The evil inside him killed Abel. It's the same with anything other weapon. Evil will find a way. It's no different than banning heroine and crack. It's still out there being distributed by criminals every day. It's been banned since it was found.
Posted by: AnonymousNo and the proof is looking at other countries
I keep reading all of these comments about Japan's ban on guns. Here is the truth that they decided wasn't important. Yes Japan has a very strict gun ban. BUT much more importantly they have a conviction rate for their criminals of almost 90 percent with no plea bargaining as the best deterrent of crime . In Japan, they know if they do the crime they will pay the price, here our criminals know if they do the crime, more than likely they will get away with it all together or just get a slap on the hand. In Japan, the police have the right to walk up to a person reading a book and tell them the book isn't something they should be reading and take it away from them. In Japan, they have the right to search your home with no reason. Oh and in Japan, their suicide rate is more than double than it is here. Of course it isn't by hand gun but dead is dead. None of these know it all's seem to mention countries like Mexico who has one of the strongest gun bans in the world yet one of the highest murder rates. In other words, if you would get your head out of your butt and actually do some research you would see just how wrong you are instead of just quoting headlines that others who have agenda's of their own have twisted or fabricated. Do some research people! Know what you are arguing about. Criminals won't care how many bans you have in place. All it does is makes their jobs easier.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy should anyone worry about the stats?
The statistics are not a concern of mine. Even if a ban on guns would reduce crime, I am not for it. Would limiting the speed limit to 25mph stop thousands of traffic deaths? It certainly would but at what cost? Outlawing swimming pools would keep thousands of kids from drowning in them, but at what cost? Its a question of freedom. In my mind, people should be able to live their lives as they choose, with the condition that it does not keep me from living my life as I choose.
If making something illegal stopped it, shouldn't our prisons and jails be empty?
To be clear, the second amendment doesn't have a thing to do with a sporting use of firearms. The government is made up of people, these people are given power. Power corrupts, and our founders were well aware of this. The second amendment was an attempt to guarantee that we would not be disarmed, not so we could continue to hunt, but so that if the government overstepped its bounds, we would have the means to resist.
I hope to God that we never get to that point, but our founders have asserted that it is our duty to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
Guns are simple machines. They have no motive or direction on their own. They operate as their user(s) sees fit. Any tool can be used maliciously. Because you could use a kitchen knife to kill somebody, does that give me or anyone else the right to say that you can't have one?Posted by: AnonymousLaws are for law-abiding citizens, not criminals
Criminals will break laws, whether or not they are there. Laws are there to make things like stealing, murder, and other such activity things that criminals do, not normal citizens. Consider an Anarchic society and ask yourself this question: are there criminals in this society? Well, there would of course still be murderers, thieves, and homicidal maniacs...but would they be criminals? They wouldn't, because such things wouldn't be designated by laws as criminal actions. Stealing would become something normal people did, not because they're malicious at heart, but because there is no law as to what is designated as criminal action; no distinction between criminals and normal citizens.
So in the situation of Gun Control, would banning guns reduce the amount of guns in the US? Of course it would...but who would obey the laws? Law-abiding citizens. Now that owning/buying a gun is illegal, citizens (not wanting to be criminals) would give up their guns...not the criminals. The criminals wouldn't obey the laws...if they did, they wouldn't be criminals. So in this way, banning guns would reduce the amount of guns available to the citizens for self defense, leaving them open targets for criminal activity.Posted by: AnonymousContrary to popular belief
Gun bans did not work in Great Britain or Australia. Though gun crime looked like it dropped, violent crime actually went up in both countries. However, gun crimes were declining already before the ban at a much higher rate. After the ban, the decline dropped to 3.2% in Australia. The end result was a 42% increase. In the US, our crime rate has dropped considerably more without a gun ban. These massacres are happening in gun free zones. Crime dropped significantly in the US areas where gun laws aren't as strict. Last but not least, anti gun folks are trying to redefine what a military assault weapon is today, in hopes of convincing uneducated people. They use phrases like, "there is no reason civilians should have military assault weapons". A semi auto is not a military weapon and kills less people than hammers every year according to FBI stats in 2012.
Posted by: AnonymousUsing the logic that guns kill, then it's time to ban forks!
If people want to argue that guns kill please let me know the last time you have seen a gun shoot someone without a person behind it. We have got to quit blaming horrible behaviors on inanimate objects and get to the root of the problem...mental illness and responsibility. The logic that guns kill is flawed in the fact that we can also say that cars kill, knives kill, ropes kill and forks kill. When I set my table for dinner and place the forks by the plate and I get ready to eat my fork does not automatically feed me. It is when I pick it up that it can cause me to eat enough or over eat and eventually kill me.
Posted by: AnonymousSecond amendment is clear
The second amendment is the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. Liberals please actually read the whole amendment. It does not say the right to hunt. An armed society keeps a government in check. And there is no such thing as an assault weapon. And to all these liberals saying everyone can easily get there hands on automatic firearms let me clear some things up. While I was in Afghanistan I used automatic firearms and you can't just buy them at any store or gun show. Also all of these politicians have armed guards or are armed themselves. Ironic they want to ban guns but use them to protect themselves.
Posted by: AnonymousIndependence and self-reliance
There are so many guns on the streets of our cities and so little protection that should something happen, we would all be unarmed and unable to do little until "help" arrived. We should all be responsible enough to rely on ourselves for protection and safety. People have more frequently wanted the government and or its various agencies to protect and support them in every way. At some point we have to be independent adults and do something for ourselves.
Posted by: AnonymousLeading Causes of Death in US (from CDC)
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
Perhaps we should focus elsewhere. Gun violence isn't even on the list. More people die from medical errors than guns every year. Should we outlaw doctors?Posted by: freelibCriminals do not abide by the law.
This reminds me of when they banned drugs....how'd that work out for them? It didn't. It actually caused more crime because now there is a black market for the product. How many people have been killed for drugs? How many people will be killed for guns?
Remember when they banned alcohol? It turned Chicago into the murder capital of America.Posted by: AnonymousNot going to work...look at the stats for the last ban...
Criminals don't follow laws....so why enforce more laws which they will continue NOT to follow? Gun related crimes take up less than 2% of all crimes in the US. Heck, if we're worried about the number of people being killed, take a look at accidental drowning deaths in the US. This past year, there were nearly 3000 people killed by drownings. Over the past 13 years, approx. 120 people were killed in "mass shootings". At this rate, it would take over 300 years to reach the same number of deaths from "mass shootings" as there are drowning deaths. Do the math people and WAKE UP! Get the right information and take a practical look at things!
Posted by: AnonymousLet’s just give Mexico another illegal export! Banning drugs sure worked well for us right?
The thing is any murder no matter the tool used, is always hard for law abiding citizens to swallow, especially when innocent children are concerned.
With that said, taking away the right to keep and bear arms is foolish not because it might, just MIGHT stop (insert liberal percentage here___%) <-- percent of murders, but because it will invite are government to maybe I don’t know impose tyranny on its people if it so chose to. Don’t get me wrong, our government loves us and would do anything to protect us, by means of using guns, bombs, nukes and many other nasty things we should sooooo ban.
---Insert clever quote number one---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
And please don’t bring up the U.K. and the fact that they banned guns and it sure worked over there, heck I don’t think anybody even dies in England anymore because of it. Why, because they used to shoot bullets at the guy who wrote this.
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. “
- George WashingtonPosted by: AnonymousWould making marijuana illegal stop people from using it?
Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws on the entire planet, as well as one of the planet’s highest annual death tolls as a result of gun violence.
A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Joyce Lee Malcolm: “After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime has doubled.”
The Australian Bureau of Criminology states its murder rate in 2006 with firearms was the highest ever at 16.3 percent. The ban started in 1997.
Also since the ban, here are the crime increases:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent, robbery 6.2 percent, sexual assault/rape 29.2 percent and overall crime rose 42.2 percent. And since the ban, Australian women are raped three times more often than American women.Posted by: AnonymousCriminals don't obey laws.
Guns are stolen by criminals, and if they don't have a gun they kill or commit crimes such as rapes and breaking into homes. Gang initiations involve killing someone to get into the gang. If you have a criminal record you can't purchase a gun. So stolen guns are what these people do. Law abiding people are checked for criminal records, even at gun shows. Surprise! False "facts" are thrown around by liberals who don't want guns around. There are always people who kill that are mentally ill. Not all mentally ill, usually those who are not medicated when needed. Not all veterans are mentally ill, and now there is a threat to not allow them to have guns. Guess what? Gangs are in our military. When they come home, most likely they return to their old gangs. So don't punish people who do not have a criminal past. That is like taking guns away from all people 6 ft tall, or have brown hair. It is ridiculous. And it is down right WRONG.
Posted by: AnonymousHistory speaks for itself.
In the 1920s a ban on Tommy Guns was proposed. It did not reduce the crime rate. Criminals were able to gain possession of these assault-type weapons. People that choose to do harm will find other ways if they do not have a firearm.
The founders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wrote the Second Amendment to protect civil liberties. Don't throw it away.Posted by: AnonymousWe need to defend ourselves the same as the police do.
If police can use weapons of the caliber they are banning, I want to be able to use them in my defense. If they need these weapons as regular tools to fend off criminals, disarming the law-abiding public will only make them easy targets. Just like the War on Drugs, the War on Guns will be just as pointless.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's already been tried and didn't work.
All you have to do is look at the crimes that are being committed with firearms in cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. They have some of the strictest firearms laws in the country, and yet they also have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Figure it out.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning Gun Disarms the Innocent, not the Criminals
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." This age-old adage holds true now more than ever, and is testament to the fact that criminals have never obeyed a single gun control law that has been enacted in this country. To ban guns of any kind is to remove them only from the hands of law-abiding gun owners.
With the passing of every new piece of harmful legislation, droves of citizens who own their firearms for legitimate reasons are reclassified as criminals overnight, while the real criminals have greater freedom to prowl amongst the defenseless unhindered. Gun-free zones and cities such as Chicago are shining examples of this, yet this current administration has done nothing to make real common-sense progress by eliminating the laws that turn these places into bona fide killing grounds.Posted by: AnonymousGuns are tools. Tools are thought up in our minds. We use the tools for their purpose. We give the tools purpose.
It is true that I wouldn't use a gun to stop a hurricane. It is also true that I would use a gun to legally hunt game. It is not true that the gun controls my hand. I don't need a gun to commit murder. I can take a hammer, some nails, a saw, and a plank of wood, and craft a weapon. It's not loud like a gun and I can always make another. I can use the hammer itself to kill. True, having a gun in my hand makes killing easier, but the fact is that I can kill WITHOUT a gun. Humans have used a great many items to kill. A rock may have been the first and I have no doubt it would be easier to kill with a rock in my hand instead of using my fists and feet. It is our MIND that can be our greatest weapon. Give me a gun to murder and I'm pretty sure I'll spend the entire clip or magazine missing my target (because I'm untrained). Instead, I would get up close and shoot at point blank range.
It is true that guns main PURPOSE is to be a weapon and it may always stay that way. A hammer is often used in construction sites and in the hands of a DIY dad, but a hammer has been used to SERVE AS A WEAPON. You want to ban guns? You should jump to the extreme and ban everything that can be used as a weapon in general! You might as cut off my hands because I can use a great many items as a weapon. At that rate, just kill me because I can keep thinking of ways to kill.
I don't want to kill. I pray that I may never need to hold a gun. But I will not hesitate to defend myself. People understand a gun can mean instant or slow death. So if I point my firearm at an intruder in my house and he knows I have a gun pointed at him, then either fight or flight. He may not give one rat's butt and charge at me anyway, but when I pull the trigger and he's dead. I just saved myself a whole world of hurt.
So to protect my family, I will keep my gun hidden away from children, unloaded to prevent a lethal discharge, and I can whip it out and load it to defend my self and my family.Posted by: AnonymousThe US has about one gun per person.
It is completely impossible to round up the guns that are in private hands now. The criminals will always have guns, so sane law abiding citizens must have a way to protect themselves. We should control who has guns, not infringe on the right to bear arms. In just about every case of mass murder with a gun, it was known by locals that the criminal was not right in the head.
Posted by: AnonymousAre you kidding me, it won't change anything.
I'm sick of hearing "weapons make killing easier", "people who want guns are paranoid", or anything like that. This is ridiculous, you people who are for this are crazy! We need our weapons, how do we trust one group of individuals with something we can't trust ourselves with? Why are we continuing to give up our power and rights? Getting rid of guns will only take away from law abiding citizens, criminals are NOT going to care about law, last time I checked. It is always possible to get guns, it really isn't hard. I had friends back in junior high with unmarked weapons, kids. It isn't hard to get a gun that isn't registered, so please for those of you who think it will be more difficult, don't argue that. I refuse to give up my weapons.
Posted by: AnonymousCrazy people will figure out some other way to kill people.
A total gun ban will never fly in America, but even if it did, you are only fooling yourself if you think that it would have any impact on mass murders. A car can be used to kill just as many people as a gun. Crime will skyrocket just as it did in the UK. There will be many more rape victims and the gang problem will become worse. People will be defenseless again mass murderers.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns themselves aren't responsible for human actions, and therefore they do not create violence.
Do spoons make people fat? No they do not, it is people that make people fat. The same argument applies to guns. Guns are only tools and used responsibly they can be used as that, a tool. Banning guns is not a valid solution to problems. Criminals, if they are actually wanting to commit a crime, are always going to find a way to get weapons, and at that, more powerful weapons. There will always be a demand for criminal weapons.
Posted by: AnonymousThe law can still be broken.
If guns were to be banned, people who already own guns could still use them for killing. Also even if they are banned, there are still other ways that crimes can be committed, such as with knifes or vehicles. Also, as previously stated, people would still find a way around the ban to use guns to commit future crimes.
Posted by: AnonymousThe gun control only benefit the criminal
The gun control only benefits the criminal if they know people are less likely to have gun protect themselves. Instead of relying on others to save your life, we need to have the right to protect your own life. The criminal will have more crime if a ban on guns. That's not going to work to reduce crime.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people, people kill people.
Guns in the hands of criminals or law abiding citizens gone badly are the same thing. If a registered gun owner with a clean record for 50 years loses his mind, his home, or his family and goes on a rampage, could anyone have seen it? No! If gun laws are passed in the way the US is planning, it won't make one bit of difference. So I can't go get my AR-15, so I grab my glock handgun. Either one kills people just as well, so what does it matter. 30 shots in the AR, 15-17 in the glock. So instead of 30 people dead, there are only 17?! Did that make the government feel better! Is all the cost related and infringement on rights worth saving let’s say 13 people that would have died anyway if the perpetrator really wanted to kill them by reloading? You can never ever stop gun crime! In fact, here in Canada over 95% of gun crimes are committed with illegal, unregistered and/or stolen weapons anyway. Here in Canada we are doing away with our gun bill, because it made no difference, except stress innocent people’s lives by worrying over every little thing. All it did was turn innocent hunters into criminals for wrongful storage, excessive ammunition, etc. The cost to value ratio was so skewed with no positive benefit, so it is now in the process of being de-commissioned.
Look at it this way...If a law abiding citizen decides that he or she wants to commit a gun crime, do you think it matters if the weapon is stolen, illegal or registered?! Not one bit. If someone wants to shoot someone, they will find a way. It's as simple as that. I for one think guns are a waste of time and money, and most likely all should be banned except for law or military purposes. But that will never happen, so leave it alone.
How about making the punishment for gun crimes death! A guaranteed death sentence would change quite a few minds about using a gun I think. How about enacting a bill, where if you use a gun for any illegal purpose (felony), you are put to death. Yes maybe it wouldn't have stopped these suicidal rampage shooters, as death wasn't a concern for them anyway, but it would make others think.
How about instead of focusing on the number of people killed by guns in a year, to the number of people dying from incorrectly prescribed or dangerous side effect pharmaceuticals? They kill 10 times or more than the amount of people killed by guns, but no one is going after big pharmacy! How about Instead of spending billions and on the military, we spend it on education, medical and the poor. Maybe that will turn around people to stop wanting to go out and kill people. There are so many better things to do than focus on than something that really won't make any difference.Posted by: SaschaGuns don't kill people, people kill people.
It only takes one good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. There are more normal people out there that can handle the rights to a gun and wouldn't abuse the privileges of it. If a crazy psychopath killer arrives at a public event or even a school with a gun it would only take one good guy who also has a gun to stop him.
Posted by: lerinrasTaking guns from Americans would INCREASE crime.
I say it would increase because the only people who would give up their guns, are those who abide by the rules and believe it will be safer. But then those who keep their guns would be the criminals, and then all the criminals would overpower the good citizens making it so there will be more robberies in homes and the homeowners would not be able to protect themselves from a gun because they believed in the government. But then they would notice that the government wasn't too smart on this decision.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals do not obey the law. People could not defend themselves.
Criminals do not obey the law. Law biding citizens could not defend themselves. Criminals could always get hold of guns, whether through a black market or some other system. People buy guns to defend themselves, so an intruder would have the advantage if guns were banned. Gun rights are also part of the constitution in the second amendment, so we could not take these away.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals would have a field day
Put it to anybody this way, if you were a criminal would you attack the place with the guns or without? I believe it is a citizen's personal responsibility to find suitable protection for themselves and their families. People should not rely on the police or the government to protect them. The people who "protect" you today will oppress you tomorrow. Anyways police rarely if ever stop the crime from happening, they show up after it has happened they only come to report/confirm it happened. They do not protect you. People should protect themselves. Back to the guns, let's say guns were banned. Then the only people with guns would be criminals and the government. The citizens of this nation would be sitting ducks. Do we need some type of gun control? Yes, but the solution isn't to take guns from people, just look down south at Mexico for anyone that believes that guns should be banned.
Posted by: kingdavid3000A ban on guns is an outrage!
Putting a ban on guns would not do anything! Theft is illegal but we don't see criminals just stopping and being like, "whoa, I can't steal, it's illegal"! No, we don't. Guns make this country! If somebody breaks into my house, I'm gonna get my colt 44! Banning guns will not do anything!
Posted by: AnonymousThe facts indicate that a gun ban would lead to an increase in violent crime.
The National Academy of Sciences reviewed 100s of studies on Gun Control and could not document a single gun legislation in the US that reduced violent crime or homicides. Most areas of the US where gun control was imposed saw an increase in violent crime and areas where gun control was made more lenient saw a decrease in violent crime. Unarmed citizens make easy prey and embolden criminals to act more frequently due to reduced fear of injury.
Posted by: PurpleDrinkNo it would not,
because by banning guns, you would create a whole new victim group. If this topic asked:" Would a ban on guns reduce gun related death?", then I would vote yes.
This question assumes that crime is generally gun related. A ban on gun would prevent legal gun-ownership, it wouldn't prevent illegal gun ownership.
Illegal gun ownership is already banned, yet gun crimes with illegal weapons are commonplace. How would a ban lower crime, when all you've done is disarm legal gun owners?Posted by: HeinekenMurder is against the Law
Criminals don't obey the law. This will give criminals what keep guns illegally a foot up against law abiding citizens. Other countries have tried this, please research, Google it. Even if some murder was prevented by a ban on guns. That isn't to say it will reduce crime. After a gun ban there would be less risk for home invaders, burglars, etc. Would a ban on guns reduce GUN related crime? That might be a yes, but crime as whole would go up.
Posted by: AnonymousReduce the psychiatric assault, not assault guns
See the post of late Mr. John Noveske and I have personally known these statistics for years. Practically every shooting where the records are available was made by people who are on heavy mind altering drugs. There is no mystery about that. They can ban whatever they want - the people on these drugs will use forks or knives.
Posted by: AnonymousSafety
If someone breaks into your house are you going to sit in a corner? Are you going to wait for them to hurt you and possibly kill you? If you have a gun in your house then why would someone break into it? Most US residents own guns and when they do most of the time their house does not get broken into.
Posted by: AnonymousGun legislation is naive at best, and potentially dangerous.
For some reason there is this farcicle argument that if firearms are banned, then society will be a better place. This is simply not true. Britain, for instance, has had extremely restrictive (by American standards) firearms laws since the late 1990s, and they are the most violent country (in terms of violent crime) in the European Union. Chicago also has absurdly strict firearms legislation, and has more than 530 gun homicides in 2012 to show for it. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the police were seemingly more concerned about illegally confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens than they were about the societal breakdown and looting around them. How many people were murdered, assaulted, or brutalized because they were forced to turn their weapons over at gunpoint while looters ran rampant (and, despite the police decree, remained armed)?
So-called "Gun Free Zones" are an absolute failure, eliminating the legal option (and basic human right) of self-defense in the face of someone intent on simply killing as many people as possible, whether they have a grievance or are doing it for whatever sick thrill they derive from murder. In defense of these "free-fire zones," politicians hell-bent on enacting ever-stricter gun control laws make the claim that "if another person had been armed, you could've had a firefight and killed more people." These same politicians exploit the tragedy and use the victims as political martyrs to further laws that even they admit wouldn't have prevented the massacre in the first place and would have had minimal to no effect on the number of casualties, laws that fail in their stated end-goal of "keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals" while making it illegal (or at least more difficult) for those who are responsible and abide by the law to be similarly armed.
We have seen throughout history and throughout the world that when the populace is disarmed, they become easy prey for criminals, to say nothing of corrupt dictatorial government. History has shown us that angle as well, from the Armenian Genocide to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. At best, the arguments in favor of banning firearms - whether "Saturday Night Special" handguns or AR-15 and AK-47-style rifles - are naive and idealistic, and at worst would give violent criminals a clear monopoly on lethal force.
If the reality were different, if total disarmament were not only possible but would eliminate crime, I would be in favor of it; but since it is not, I do not believe that law-abiding citizens should be forced to give up their inherent human right to defend themselves and their families with whatever firearm they deem necessary and adequate to do it.Posted by: AnonymousOf course not!
A ban on guns would only affect the law abiding citizens. Criminals would not turn in their guns, unless it was used in a homicide, and then they would wait for one of those gun buy backs where no questions are asked. They get rid of the murder weapon, compliments of the police and they go out and get another gun from the street to commit more crimes.
Posted by: AnonymousGovernment would be criminal
No, it would not. To entrust a government with the police power inferred with such a statement will result in another communist China or Russia abusing civil liberties. The greatest threat to liberty is not from criminals but government. As Benjamin Franklin once put it, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Really now, are those who would support such a gun ban really ignorant of the abusive attack on civil liberties by the last few administrations? Look at the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay, supported by both the Bush and Obama administrations. On the one hand they pursue the right to destroy the liberty of their people, yet here on the other they want to restrict the power of the people to own guns. Why should we entrust a government with the sole authority over weapons even as they are showing themselves utterly corrupt and abusive when it comes to other issues such as finances? The country is going bankrupt, they cannot even pass a budget, and try to pass huge bills through Congress like the Stimulus and Healthcare bills before anyone can read them.
There is more danger from government than any individual criminals or even terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. Our greatest enemy has become those leader, or rather misleading our nation.Posted by: JzyehoshuaIt wouldn't work.
Even if you ban guns, criminals would still get their hands on some. A black market would rise, and some corrupt officer in the force would secretly pass guns on to criminals. Even if you make a law, which criminal would actually follow it? That's why they're criminals. Even then, there are other ways of killing. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are the best way to defend yourself against dangerous criminals, that is why the police use them.
If you are unlucky enough to ever have to use your gun for self defense, the WORST case scenario is that you are equal to your attacker. I know firsthand that police are minutes away when you have seconds to spare. I sleep comfortably knowing my neighbors and myself are ready and able to stop a criminal in an emergency. I can also sympathize with those who have lost somebody to a gun crime, but if somebody had been armed, other than the police who are always minutes away, and stopped one of these maniacs,, I believe many more lives could have been saved. I am grateful for those people in my community who carry concealed weapons and for the police who do their best with minimal resources.
Posted by: AnonymousLook to history, not speculation
Countries that have banned guns or adopted strict gun laws historically have increased gun violence. We don't need to speculate or hold public opinion polls or debates. History gives us clear facts about what happens when citizens are presumed unarmed due to gun laws. Not to mention the worst government atrocities in history started by banning guns from the public.
Posted by: AnonymousThe ban on guns in the U.S. would only cause more problems for everyone. People need their guns.
If guns are banned, people are going to have a very hard time protecting themselves. What if you are in danger and all you have is a gun to defend yourself? You're going to need that protection. Taking guns away is only going to cause more issues and make it where people cannot protect themselves.
Posted by: Anonymousnope ill say why...
I live in Canada where there arent very many gun owners. ESPECIALLY in toronto where I live. Toronto is infamous for having cops thinking they own the place (G20 summit look it up) and gun control as a nation. (thousands of cases of people having their registered firearms being taken away for no reason) I just so happens in this city that shootings are very common with one shooting at the eaton centre with many people. And to make one last point, guns may kill but people forget that guns have save lives all the time. If you still cant understand than imagine for a moment that the people in that movie theatre were armed it would mean more people walking out of the movie theatre alive (may they RIP) lets keep our freedom and our lives please.
Posted by: Anonymousno it wouldnt
As said by others only law abiding citizens would follow this law, and with criminals knowing that these people do not have guns then it would be easier for them to rob and kill. The victims would be left with little or no defense, and it is unfair to take guns away from those who use them responsibly.
Posted by: AnonymousDO YOU THINK WE ARE STUPID
Criminals will still get guns, regardless. Banning them would only take them away from the honest people and make it easier for the criminals. Why not just enforce the law and make it more harsh on illegal owners and people who abuse them and use them wrongfully. If you take our guns away, how can we protect ourselves.
Posted by: AnonymousResponsible citizens are not the issue.
No matter what criminals will be able to walk down the street and buy a stolen gun. So why let the criminals have guns and take away the defense mechanisms of the responsible citizens. It's a stupid thought that guns are the issue when in all reality it is the people. I've never come home to my guns, which are securely locked up in a safe, firing by themselves. It takes an idiot to feel hat it would help.
Posted by: ihunefeld12Legality would not change anything
Weather guns were banned or not it would not have a impact like people think. The fact of the matter is this, people say if guns were illegal these mass shootings would not occur. WRONG! Killing is illegal and that still happens, stabbings, beatings with bats. Etc. Why not ban knives, bats, crow bars, axes, chainsaws, machetes, etc. And everything people use to kill. Taking guns away...Better yet making them "illegal" wont make them disappear. The difference will be that the bad guys who want the guns will still have access to them and the good man trying to defend his family will not. Drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, etc. Are all illegal and how much of that is out there. Guns would be the same way. Illegal but still accessible, do you really think these killers will be stopped because the law says its not legal. We are all smart enough to know these killers do not care what the law is. A ban on guns would solve nothing.!
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals will be armed
Without the proper armament, the people of the United States will not be able to keep themselves safe. Your average criminal will be able access a handgun from the black market while the law abiding citizen will be at a tactical disadvantage. The gun is not the dangerous weapon but it is the person who chooses to misuse the tool that is the dangerous one. Taking away the tool will not stop idiotic people from using other tools as irresponsible weapons.
Posted by: AnonymousNo,we need our guns.
Obviously, if you ban guns, you do not have anyone to defend against bad guys with guns which is dangerous for the people. Sometimes, it can take police a while to reach someone and they could be dead by then which means that no one was there to protect them since a good guy does not have a gun.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals are not going to give up their guns, they are not going to have to worry about bans on guns.
We already have background checks, they are not enforced. The Sandy Hook shooter had been turned down by a background check so he went and killed his mom to steal her guns. So tell me how would a gun ban or expanded background check have stopped Sandy Hook. Why don't you people let those children rest in peace and let their families move forward in their mourning process.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning guns will only disarm the innocent people.
Criminals do not obey the law. Criminals will always find a way to get any gun they want and without having to go through any background check. In fact, criminals buy their guns from government officials on the Black Market the government created. What criminals and the government have in common, besides stealing from people, is that they prefer their victims unarmed.
Posted by: AnonymousThey Would just Come from Somewhere Else.
There are many drugs that are illegal, but they are all over this country. The reason for this is that criminals just make them here or smuggle them in from other countries. A gun ban would just do the same for all firearms. Which means criminals would still have them but everyone else would just be a victim! I live in the Chicago land area (strictest gun laws in the country) and it took local police 45 minutes to come when a drive by happened. What would have happened if they got out of their car and decided to go into houses? 2nd amendment = I would've grabbed my gun and defended my family. Gun Ban = I would've prayed that they killed us quickly so my children wouldn't have to suffer. No part of the US Military is not on every block, and there is not a cop around every corner, so taking away guns is not only a bad idea, it's a dangerous idea. And F. Y. I. the reason it's in the constitution is not only to protect yourself from criminals but also so the government doesn't get any ideas that they have complete control over you, try actually reading the constitution, if the government starts infringing on personal rights then we have the right know the responsibility to take control out of government hands and reappoint new leaders!
Posted by: plovoGuns don't kill people, people kill people.
Guns are an inanimate object just as a vehicle is. There is as 10,000 to 1 chance you are going to get killed by a car than getting shot. So if we want to stop violence let's ban alcohol and cell phones so people so people are not drunk or distracted, but no, you hypocrites that don't own a gun would never give up your cell phone or car, so stop trying to ban the guns. I hope those people who believe in gun bans have someone break into your house and hold a gun to your kids and say, oh, I am glad guns are banned, because you know in your heart if you had a gun you would have shot and killed the intruder.
Posted by: weiby21Did the laws making drugs illegal get rid of them?
Banning guns is not the answer. Legal gun owners are not the issue here. To be a legal gun owner you have to pass a State and Federal background check. Criminals don't care, hence the name criminal, someone who by definition does not follow the laws of a given legal entity.
Several towns have passed city ordinances that require at least one person (if legally able) to own a gun, ammunition, and have training (which the police will provide) in the home. In the two city's this has been done in (no I do not remember the names but one is in Oregon, one is in Tennessee I think) the statistics show that crime in both of the towns dropped.
When you look at statistics related to gun deaths, every gun death is included. That means suicide, homicide, justifiable homicide, even police shooting criminals are included in those statistics. Now should everybody own a gun, I don't think so. Owning a gun is a big responsibility. You have to ensure several things. 1. You need to be able to operate, clean, store and use the firearm effectively. 2. You need to have already thought through the consequences of taking another human life. Not the legal consequences, because if you are doing the right thing, there should be no legal issues to worry about. But are you willing to kill another human being? You had better be very sure of that before you buy a gun for self defense. I have killed people, I am trained by the U.S. Military, and I was in a combat zone. Even then it is not an easy thing to do, and I still live with those doubts.
The problem is that people think the police will help them and be there when they are needed. If that was the case we wouldn't have people dying in drunk driver related crashes, there would be no detectives (no need) and there would be very little crime. Now, does this mean I leave cash laying around and my house unlocked? No. I have an alarm system, I have dogs, I have regular lights that stay on at my house at night and motion activated lights as well.
Why if the police are so effective then how come they couldn't stop Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora? Why is it that if you take a self defense class they don't teach you to scream police, or help, they teach you to scream fire?
If your unsure of this, go somewhere and scream police several times at the top of your lungs. See not only how many people come to help, but how long it takes them to get there.
Try this again, except scream fire, much better response not only from individuals but from the fire department as well. Now obviously if you do this you are going to get in trouble, but if your so positive that the police will be there to help then try it out.Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely not! Guns aren't the only thing that can create crime.
Do people really think guns are the only thing out there that can take a human's life? Absolutely not! There are more deaths caused by car crashes than guns. Crime isn't only supported with guns. Knives are one of the more popular. Baseball bats, bombs, cars and even yourself. Even if you ban guns, people will still break the law and carry guns around just like people did before it was legal to have concealed carry. So no, banning guns won't do anything. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's not the gun's fault, it's the stupid people that live in our society today that are the problem!
Posted by: AnonymousI don't need a stance. The argument will state my headline.
To all of you who think it will, you're brainwashed simple as that and you're an idiot. Criminals will find a way to get guns. The stricter our guns laws are, the more danger civilians are in. Criminals get guns from smuggling and immigration. Criminals don't get guns from "gun stores" that's just blatant ignorance right there. Nor will illegalizing guns lower crime rate. If anyone 21 or over could have an unconcealed weapon crime would drop drastically. I live in Chicago and we have the strictest gun laws and guess what? THE CRIMES THE HIGHEST IN THE US! It's not because of the POPULATION, it's because of the LAWS! Banning guns will just cause more problems than fixing them.
If a killer wants to kill he will kill. A killer don't need a gun. There's combat, fire, cars, knifes, rocks, bow and arrows, glass, water, ammonia and bleach, etc. There's endless ways to kill a human being guns just make it quicker but still, they shouldn't be banned. A gun doesn't kill people, the killer kills people. Might of well just ban people from using they're fists and ban cars as well. Actually, ban everything and prepare for a war.Posted by: Anonymous"Legal prohibition of X does not prevent the procuring of X." - Andrew Bernstein
If the above headline ("Legal prohibition of X does not prevent the procuring of X.") is true, then criminals will still get guns if they are banned, because they are not afraid to break the law. However, what banning firearms will do, is preventing honest citizens, the very group we wish to have guns, from having them. Effectively, by banning guns, you will not change whether criminals have guns or not, but you will disarm the honest citizens who would have stood up to them, so criminals will more easily prey on citizens, leading to an increase in deaths and crime.
Posted by: AnonymousBan on guns wouldn't help crime.
The fact is that guns help save lives more than they take them. Imagine if an insane person comes in with a gun, would you rather have equal firepower to kill him or less or nothing and get killed. Most common crimes are used WITHOUT guns. Also, in most cases where the victim has a gun they do not even have to use it. It can be used to scare the attacker away.
Posted by: AnonymousOne Bad Apple Ruins The Basket
If the government bans guns, then what will stop the criminals from getting ahold of them? Just because there are certain human beings out there that have a quest for blood have used guns, does that mean that everyone's rights should be impeached? Because one person uses a gun does not man that all guns are bad. When someone buys a gun, there is always a chance that it will be used for harm, but just a small chance. So when you go to the hospital to have surgery there is a small chance that it could go wrong and you could die from medical malpractice, should hospitals be banned?
Posted by: Bader191It's unconstitutional and...
if we ban guns, only law abiding citizens will obey those laws. Criminals by nature don't obey laws and will continue to use guns no matter what. In fact they'd use guns even more because it gives them power over the law abiding citizens thus making committing crimes less risky. Law abiding citizens need to be armed or else the balance of power will be horrible out of proportion.An armed society is a polite society.
Posted by: RepublicanPandora's box
Primarily, it can't be done. You can ban all you want but you won't be able to remove the guns from the population without having another civil war. We've been stocking up and arming our citizens for over 200yrs. Unless you were to greatly increase taxes to afford to protect all citizens at all times you'd be hard pressed to enforce the had over of all guns. At the same time, who is going to hand over their guns after they feel safe? Probably just the people who follow the rules. Bad guys are still going to have their weapons.
I'm sick of everyone jumping to their immediate go to solutions (on both sides). They are all crap, and a better solution must be found.
Current solutions won't stop massacres:
- A ban on assault weapons, doesn't take away guns people currently have. Also, people can just carry guns that aren't "assault".
- A reduction of magazine size, carry more magazines.
- Tougher laws, sure, but what? There are already Federal background checks. In all cases the guns seem to be owned by others. And you can't make people do the right thing and lock them up.
- Arming teachers and/or staff, how about no. Let them focus on teaching. We have enough problems in that arena as it is.
Let us not forget that the largest massacres (even in schools) were not done with guns at all. Terrorists, mental disorders or not, are going to cause terror.
Since Pandora's box has been opened you can't close it, so contain it and protect against it. My vote is for more evaluation of people's metal stability (perhaps on a regular basis). If you, like me, want to own a weapon, then maybe you should be checked out every 5yrs or so. Likewise, if you have a concealed carry, then you should be required to train to be proficient and the qualifications for a concealed carry should be harder. Regarding school shootings, I vote for the "secret shopper". If you want to put a marked police officer that's fine, but if there is a concern that children won't feel safe with a police officer, then put them in plain clothes.
I'm not saying my suggestions are right, I'm just saying that we should try thinking outside the box on ideas.Posted by: onen5Guns Purpose: To Kill/SELF DEFENSE
Let me start off with... what happens if guns were banned. If guns were banned, then like many people below have said, all legal people would have their guns removed but the criminals/gangsters will still have them. Then what do we have to use to defend yourself if they have guns and it takes a few minutes for the police to arrive. Those few minutes in the beginning are critical. Taking away guns is like taking a right away that has been in this nation for over 200 years.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill
A gun ban would only ban guns from legal buyers. The criminals will only have them. Guns are a means of self defense. If you ban guns you better ban every gun and I mean every gun! Do away with guns people will use knives etc. to harm or kill, then we better ban that too. Side issue, abortions kill 1.3 million babies a year in the U. S. but the lib media is silent, how sad!
Posted by: AnonymousGood must be stronger than bad
Illegal guns are like illegal drugs...only criminals have them.
Anyone who wants to commit murder would have no problem breaking the law to get one. A law abiding citizen would not have a gun so they would always be a soft target and easy victim. Criminals would have an easier job.Posted by: AnonymousGun control laws ONLY affect law abiding citizens
It is already illegal to murder someone. If you ban specific guns or high capacity magazines you don't solve any problem whatsoever. If someone wants to commit violent crime, they will commit it. They ready have intent to break one law, why wouldn't they break another to obtain a weapon? The weapons used in the recent school shooting were STOLEN! He did not just go out to a store and buy them. The laws against theft did not stop him. Just because they can't have one magazine that hols 30 rounds, they will just have three that hold 10 instead. More guns = less crime. Criminals will always have guns, but they will think twice about commiting a crime against someone who may have a gun. Criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed victim. As more citizens arm themselves, the danger to criminals increases. Australia spent half a billion dollars to get rid of everyone's guns and it resulted in a very high increase in violet crime. The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
Let's examine the overall murder rate and the gun murder rate in Australia. Take note both are virtually unchanged and unaffected by the gun ban.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. Criminals in Australia now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws ONLY adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.Posted by: AnonymousNO!
Many people think that if we ban guns then there will be fewer deaths, but I disagree. Recent studies have shown that car crashes average over 42,500 deaths each year. Guns average about 29,500 deaths each year. Another reason I don’t think we should ban guns is because the right to bear a weapon is written in the constitution.
Some people might say that if we ban guns there will be much less crime. If we ban guns, that won’t stop criminals from getting them. That will make it so that we don’t have any way of defending our selves.Posted by: AnonymousOur founding fathers would be ashamed...
Gun control wont solve anything. Countries all over the world have tried and have been successful in doing so.
And the in the process over 56 million people have died all over the world because of it. Also, what makes you think that if "assault" rifles do get band that criminals aren't just going to use a regular semi auto shotgun or a semi auto rifle? either way you look at it there all guns.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollarsPosted by: AnonymousShootings
If you think a ban on assault rifles will stop school shootings think again. Do your research before your flawed "common sense" is used. According to the FBI crime rates during 1994 to 2004 assault rifle bans there was still plenty of them. It is a proven fact that more armed people means a safer community. Baseball bats kill many more people per year than guns. Are we going to ban little league? OWI's kill way more people than guns, should we ban drinking? oh wait tried that and it didn't work! Drugs kill more people than guns every year, so should we ban them too? oh wait they are and yet you can find them everywhere. The simple point here is banning things stops law abiding people from doing something (that they wouldnt do anyway). When you outlaw guns... only outlaws will have them.
Posted by: lord_yummyWon't we ever learn from History
If banning guns worked, Washington, DC and New York City would be the safest cities in the country. Since 1976, it's been illegal in Washington, DC to own any handguns or to keep any type of gun in your home unlocked and fully assembled. However, Washington, DC is the "murder capital of the United States."
New York City has had severe gun control laws since 1911, yet it also ranks among the most dangerous places in the country. In both cities, violent criminals can easily obtain the most deadly weapons on the streets within minutes.
Only 1% of residents of Denver and Boston have voluntarily complied with laws requiring them to register their semi-automatic weapons. In New York City there are an estimated 700,000 to 3 million unregistered firearms. In California, less than 2% of the 2 million owners of semi-automatic rifles have registered their guns in compliance with state law – even though failure to register is a felony!
Every day, thousands of peaceful Americans successfully use guns to defend themselves. A recent study by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that Americans use guns defensively 2.5 million times a year.
1,145 times a day handguns are used against robbers. 416 times each day women use their handguns to protect themselves from rapists. Overall, a gun in the home is 216 times more likely to be used in self defense than to cause the death of an innocent victim. And even if you don't own a gun, preserving the right of your neighbors to own them is one of the best ways to keep criminals out of your neighborhood.Posted by: AnonymousDoesn't work...did we not learn that from our ban on drugs?!
The notion that this would accomplish anything other than upsetting those of us who are law abiding citizens and take advantage of our right to bear arms is complete ignorance. Since criminalizing drugs worked so well for our country. Yea right. I will continue to arm myself because that is my right...I will protect what is mine.
Posted by: AnonymousIf a nut job cant get gun they will just build a boom
GUN LAWS ONLY EFFECT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who aren't committing these massacres anyways. Criminals don't follow the laws; how much more logical is it? As said before, kids get alcohol before 21, drug problems exist because it's always available by someone and criminals will always have guns. The only people you harm is the law abiding citizens who have a right to protect themselves.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's not the guns that commit the murders.
It is the person himself that decides to be a criminal. If a person committed a murder with a knife, would you say that the knife did the murder and nothing about the person? Obviously not, because the person clearly decided to go and kill another human/living being. So please stop the nonsense that "OH IT'S THE GUNS THAT DO ALL THE HARMING!, because that is obviously false.
Posted by: AnonymousDefense
Arms are needed for defense against tyrants. Tyrants are everywhere, you don't know them until it is time to defend yourself. They hide everywhere in public service, private citizenry, everywhere. A killer from CT. is no more going to take my guns; as a drunk driver in FL is going to take my car. I would consider this an act of war against the masses and I would fight to defend that right for the sake of my children.
Posted by: AnonymousThe real 2nd amendment
The 2nd amendment isn't about protecting yourself or going hunting, it's about the people being able to rebel against a tyrannical government. So before anyone says no one needs these types of firearms, tell me, how are we suppose to reform a government with bolt action rifles and shotguns. At the time the constitution was written, the common man had the same weaponry as the military. The same should apply today.
Posted by: AnonymousNever has
There is zero factual data to support the rabid anti-gunners erroneous claim.
There is however tons of empirical data from the FBI, DOJ and such that shows quite clearly that homicide, and a slew of other violent crimes have consistently INCREASED whenever gun bans are enacted.
Washington DC ring a bell?Posted by: FunyBoneNo, it would not!
First off, not all crime is committed with a gun. Heck, I was robbed on the street once when I was 12, and the guy used a knife. Fact is, guns don't kill people, people do. If someone is crazy enough to want to kill someone, he will. Period. Getting rid of guns won't help one bit. There are still plenty of ways to get guns illegally, and for the most part, criminals don't legally purchase their weapons. Banning fire arms creates more victims.
Posted by: EvanKStatistics show that increased firearm proliferation reduces violent crime.
Seriously, check it out.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, the murder rate in Washington, DC (during the years its gun ban remained in force) was quite often the highest in the nation. The rate peaked at 80.6 murders per 100,000 people in 1991 and continued to remain high. Only once during the entire 1990s did DC’s murder rate drop below a rate of 50 murders per 100,000 people. Even 25 years after the ban’s enactment (in 2001), the murder rate was still 51 percent higher than it was in 1976—despite the murder rate having dropped 36 percent throughout the rest of the country during the same period.Posted by: AnonymousNo
What is the answer...during the last so called assault weapons ban, one could not buy a Marlin tube fed .22 cal rifle because it would hold 15 rounds, but one could still buy a modified AK-47 that shoots a more powerful 7.22mm round because it was only sold with a 5 round clip. The Chinese SKS was declared an assault weapon and could be sold with a bayonet, while the Yugoslav SKS (same weapon) was every day with a bayonet.
Certain states banned high capacity magazines, certain cities banned owning buns within their limits....DC for instance, but how many shooting occur there every year. Oh, lets not forget about a waiting period to buy a gun...it takes 15 days from date or purchase to the date you can take your gun home...So it gives a person more time to plan what they are going to do once they get a gun.....
We here of these mass shootings and the first thing talked about is BANNING GUNS!!!!!!!
How many poeple are killed by drunk drivers that are driving on the 4th or th DUI? How many people are killed by poeple holding knives?
How many poeple have seen a gun grow legs, arms, wings> decide to load themselves and then say, I am going to kill today.
What is the answer? Let's "BAN" everything and create the worlds biggest black market and still have to put of with "PEOPLE" that will still find a way to create tragic events that affect everyone around themPosted by: AnonymousBanning guns is not the answer
As stated. Banning guns is not the answer. Identifying the root cause behind the behavior associated with the criminals committing these mass murders is what needs to happen. If we outlaw guns it won't prevent outlaws from having them. It will only prevent honest citizens from protecting themselves from outlaws. The average response time for police is what 6 or 7 minutes? When a person has mere seconds to decide to defend themselves, that time table doesn't work. It is also NOT the police officers/departments fault. They can not be everywhere all the time. It's impossible. That's why Police investigate AFTER a crime has been committed. If you don't want to own a gun, then don't. I will continue to invoke my second amendment right
Posted by: Parasyte10282Anti-gun Lobby is Uninformed. Read to Understand.
People advocating for new gun control legislation are uninformed of the level of gun control laws CT already has in place. The CT laws are identical to legislation the anti-gun lobby would like to see implemented across the U.S. To buy a handgun in CT one must acquire a Pistol Purchasing Certificate which entails taking and paying for a safety class, a three tier background check (County, State, FBI & ATF), give their fingerprints to the state police, and then after a waiting period of 60 days the Certificate comes in the mail signed by a judge (Approval not guaranteed). Once you have the permit you can buy a handgun. You may select from a highly regulated inventory of barrel lengths and magazine capacities. ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE BANNED IN CONNECTICUT unless purchased before 1993. Once you have made your selection, there is a state and federal background check and a waiting period of 2 weeks before the transaction can be made. So now you have a gun and you probably want to take it to the range right? Wrong, you have to have a Concealed Carry Permit to take the gun anywhere outside of your home. So repeat the process for the Purchasing Certificate but call it a Pistol Permit at the top of all the forms and you are ready to go to the range approximately 6 months after your decision to be a gun owner.
All of this red tape didn't stop what happened on Friday. Put a police officer in the schools and deter these mass shootings.Posted by: AnonymousA gun ban takes us ever closer to tyranny
When a mass shooting tragedy occurs, it seems as though it is used as an excuse to create more laws that confiscate yet more freedom from *law abiding* individuals. It has become difficult for law abiding citizens to make sense of the thousands of pages of legislation that make up all of the specific rules we're obligated to comply with. We continually build walls with new laws around ourselves, in the name of safety and security, each time giving up a bit of our freedom, hoping that our laws will stop those who do not obey the law. Perhaps the next gun restriction legislation won't do it alone, but at some point eventually everyone becomes a criminal despite the best of intentions to comply with the laws. Yes, those police officers originally intended to 'protect and serve' us will be busy gathering up good individuals that can no longer simply obey the law.
Posted by: AnonymousIf guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
If guns are banned, it serves as nothing but a green light for criminals to go on a massive killing spree. If guns are forced to be confiscated, the criminals guns definitely will not. They'll make they're own guns or sneak them in illegally from Canada and Mexico. People will die by the thousands, Homes and businesses would be robbed 24/7, and our country will be overrun by convicts
Posted by: EvanL95Guns aren't the issue
Crazy people are the problem, even if there are zero guns in this world, the crazies would use cars, bats, knives, swords, homemade pipe bombs,etc. This country needs to focus on getting peoples mind right, instead of punishing every law abiding citizen by banning guns. Besides, criminals do not care if guns are illegal.
Posted by: AnonymousNope
Plain and simple. Criminals DO NOT obey the laws. It's common sense. If they want something, they will get it. If they want to hurt someone, they will. Taking guns from all citizens, will only leave law abiding citizen's defenseless. Do you really think a criminal will wake up one morning and think to himself, "This is the day... that day I decide to follow all laws." Never going to happen. I DO agree there should be stronger gun laws. But a ban of ANY kind will help nothing. We may as well ban hammers. More people yearly are killed with hammers than firearms. Why not stop there? How about knives? Google Stabbings. If you ban knives for defense, you may as well ban all knives. Have fun cutting your steak. And don't for get subways. A lot of people seem to be getting killed by them too.
Posted by: AnonymousAgainst Gun Control
As a female when males have implied they were going to do things to me I will not name I have let them know I am a woman who knows how to use guns. My father taught me to use one at 12 years old. When I let them know what would happen to them if they attempted any of the things they were mouthing off about they backed down and did not bother me again. If I had acted fearful and timid and had no way to defend myself they would have tried to assault me. As it was they are now afraid of the crazy woman who will defend herself. I would like to know who came up with the idea that a woman who will defend herself against the attack of evil men made HER crazy and not the perps. I also told young men what I would do to them if they assaulted my daughter. My daughter is now 33 and no one tried anything with her. I wonder why.
Posted by: AnonymousThugs don't buy guns at Gander Mtn.
Crime has nothing to do with banning guns. Why? Because thugs break laws. They do not buy or possess their gun(s) legally in the first place, so a ban does nothing to keep the thugs in line. They don't care. It is their job to tip the balance of good to their side... ie: BREAKING LAWS. Keeping upstanding citizens from owning guns only increases the chance of them becoming a victim. Why? Because thugs like gun bans. They know that good people follow laws, therefore making a thug's life easier. Less chance of confrontation. Tipping the balance. In a perfect world where anti-gunners get their way, and thugs turn in all of their guns, do you really believe thugs wont find another way to commit crimes? Derp! Get real, get educated and get armed! Protect your family. It is your right.
Posted by: AnonymousProhibition Works! Right?!?
You cannot ban guns, drugs, or crime of any kind because demand = supply and you can bet, if law abiding citizens are prohibited from doing something that has a demand, criminals will be happy to do it. Some of us mistakenly think only factories can produce certain things such as firearms not realizing that a skilled backyard craftsman can produce firearms with tools from home depot. Wake up everyone your rights are in question. A gun ban will create a massive industry of illegal firearm production. In America these days it is easier for kids in high school to get hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin, rather than alcohol, because there is no system only a price. This is the only future I can see for a ban on guns. Our society doesn't need a ban on guns to rattle the cage and make the citizens feel even more defenseless. We need solutions to problems so people don't want to kill each other because that is the real problem. Anyone wanting to ban guns really just wants to preserve life which is exactly what I want. If we ban guns today we will be banning knives, forks, sticks, rocks, screwdrivers, sharp metal objects of any kind etc... I have an idea make murder illegal, oh wait it is already illegal and people still kill each other, see how that works.
Posted by: Naturalist14Please Understand.
The mass shootings at Sandy Hook and Aurora were committed in places where guns were not allowed. In Aurora, the shooter drove to the farthest of four movie theaters because the one he went to had a sign on the window clearly stating "no guns allowed". There would be no one to stop him. Obviously, laws prohibit the possession of weapons in schools (unless the user is a law enforcement officer or other certified individual). At Sandy Hook, the principal attempted to stop the shooter, but had no weapon of her own; so, God rest her soul, she attempted to stop the shooter empty handed. Of course, a gun against an unarmed person is a no-brainer. These two shooters obviously had psychological problems. The Sandy Hook shooter (I will not give him the attention of stating his name) did not own the weapons he used. It is not the gun law's fault he got a weapon, it was his mother's fault. I don't know if any psychological test would have detected any problems the mother might have had. It was her that trained the shooter how to use weapons and made them readily available to him. I'm am sure (though I can not prove it) that she knew of her son's issues. Her choice not to help him was a costly one. Explosives are illegal to own. I would assume you can't easily buy them in a supermarket. However, at the Aurora shooter's apartment, explosives were found. If the Aurora shooter was able to make explosives (even though they are illegal), wouldn't he find some way of obtaining a firearm, if they were made illegal? Gang violence is terrible. However, if Chicago's gun laws are so strict, how are there so many gun-related murders in Chicago? My assumption is that the guns are obtained illegally. How can making guns completely illegal prevent this? There will always be black markets. I will also cite the fateful murder by that Kansas City football player. He was in his home, alone with his girlfriend. Bob Costas said if he didn't have a gun, the girlfriend would still be alive. If that football player was so emotionally distraught that he felt he had to shoot his girlfriend, would he not have used a knife or a bat or his own hands in the absence of a firearm? I definitely support owning firearms. Yes, police officers and soldiers (God bless them) are here to protect us. But, police officers would take at least 2 to 3 minutes to reach my home. If a deranged criminal is trying to break into my home with unknown intentions, I will pray to God that my aim is true.
Posted by: AnonymousProtect the second amendment
Research the founding fathers real reason for the 2nd amendment and then protect it at all cost. It's in all of our best interest to protect yourself against all enemies foreign and domestic. And remember, most convicted criminals who have already lost there right to have firearms have illegal firearms and certainly new laws will not change that. The war on drugs has done nothing to stop drugs in this country and the war on guns will do nothing to stop gun violence. It will only serve to allow the government to take away yet another right of the people.
Posted by: AnonymousSince when do criminals listen to laws
Banning guns would not prevent more homicides or more school shootings. It would leave people unprotected when they need to protect themselves. Criminals disregard the law and would never return their weapon if banned. The black market of guns would increase also hurting the US economy. Do not ban guns or see the consequences.
Posted by: AnonymousStatistics do not show that gun bans reduce crime or increase safety
If gun bans worked, then California, New York, and Washington D.C. would have some of the lowest gun-related crime, but instead they have some of the highest in the nation. Banning guns does not magically make them disappear. They will still be used by criminals. Also, it is not enough to say that gun bans have worked in foreign countries; you must look at the crime rate before the ban and also the culture of the people. Just because there was little crime before and ban, it does not mean that the ban has kept crime down.
Posted by: AnonymousBan is illogical
Cars kill too should we ban them? So does alcohol and many other legal activities. I feel ashamed to be an American when politicians and lobbyists use the death of 26 children as a tool to push there own agenda. I am an active duty serviceman who has served in the military for 15 plus years and it has always been difficult for me to legally purchase my own weapons. Making it harder or impossible makes me question what freedoms Americans will still have in another 100 years.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals win if guns are banned. Friends and family get hurt
Why do so many people jump to think banned guns will solve an answer. They are tools for safety in the hands of people who are not mentally ill. How about we remove the Internet so people can't be stalked and buy illegal things and more. So lets take away the Internet this tool everyone thinks is harmless. A man in Webster NY in my city shoots at firemen and police officers. He was not supposed to be able to own or buy guns since he murdered his grandmother 17 yrs ago. It goes to show that the criminal can always get guns. A ban on guns will be a gift to criminals they will never be scared to walk in your house, rob and kill who ever they want. Bad guy don't care about good people. Our country needs consequences eye for an eye you kill then you die no more cable TV in jail and your 3 meals of food a day. If you think jails let inmates watch cable TV the thing many of us can't afford then you better wake up because most jails have flat screen TVs for there criminals how sick is that. So everyone should have a safety tool in there home and education and respect towards this tool called a gun! Maybe we re name the gun to Internet since that weapon seems to be ok with everyone. Tired of hearing take guns away its a respected tool that we all need to stop criminals because illegal guns will always be there for the bad guy.
Posted by: WakeuppeopleSay hello to the used gun market!
The only thing this political free-for-all is going to accomplish is make those "sleek black death machines" even more sought-after regardless of whether or not they are legally banned. Pyschopathic, dangerous people will still get their hands on them because there are thousands upon thousands of current AR 15 owners who will cash in on this and sell their rifles for 5x market value simply because they can. When anything is banned, it becomes exotic and an allure is attached to it and there's never any shortage of people willing to capitalize on this.
Enacting a firearms ban at this point will not make all the guns and the psychos who are determined to commit crimes just magically disappear. It will only be a waste of time and tax dollars and a perversion of The Constitution.Posted by: AnonymousBeing an American is gun ownership
Banning guns isn't going to stop senseless shootings, bank robberies, drug dealers, or anything else you can think of. Just think of the time when then banned alcohol, people just found a way to get it. People used black market. Americans have the right to bear arms, they cannot and will not take that amendment away us. A world without guns, will become a world with chaos. We use guns for our protection, people who voted yes, they don't know what will happened IF guns are banned. If you're an American... Please think about the choice you're going to make, vote no!
Posted by: AnonymousStats don't lie
In 2010, US rifle deaths were 358, shotgun deaths were 373, "hands, fists and feet" were 745, knives were 1,704, and death by drunk drivers were 10,228.
We should ban "hands, fists and feet" before rifles and shotguns and save potentially 745 Americans this year. Or better yet, ban alcohol and save 10,228 Americans from drunk drivers. Wait. We tried that and it didn't work.Posted by: AnonymousGun bans do not work.
Just look at Australia, their government banned guns and guess what happened? The murder rate went up, not a little bit it increased a lot and is still going up. The same goes for D.C. and every other place that has made it illegal for the law abiding citizens to own guns. And most Americans do trust our police system, but if someone is trying to do harm to you, how long will it take for help to come? You call 911 then you have to wait until they respond, do you really have that kind of time if someone is trying to kill you, rape, or rob you. If your lucky they might get there in time to save you. Our problem is that the mental health system is lacking poorly, there isn't enough help for people with mental illness. The mother of the Connecticut shooter should have never let her son use guns and should have had the guns stored better. They make gun safes for a reason, so that the responsible parent can still own guns and not have to worry about their children getting a hold of them. The NRA president has a very good idea, every school should have a police officer there not just to prevent shootings, there are other benefits there too. When ever there is an event that draws in lots of people there are always police officers around to police the event. Schools range from a couple hundred to a couple thousand students and staff so why don't we have police officers there? Just because they are under 18 years of age doesn't mean they can't commit crimes, most mass shootings are caused by students or young adults. Mass shootings only account for a small number of deaths, alcohol and drugs kill way more people than guns do. So why don't we put more resources into stopping these deaths instead of augrining
Posted by: AnonymousNo Support For A Gun Ban
People need to research the facts and statistics regarding guns and gun control before speaking out against guns. The left wing media sensationalizes gun violence far beyond what it really is and kneejerk reactions in response to this helps no one. Criminals do not respect laws and passing new gun laws and bans only aid criminals in their efforts to cause violence and harm to others. If the president can literally have a small army with automatic rifles protecting him and his family at all times, myself and my fellow law abiding Americans can at least have semi auto guns to protect ourselves.
Posted by: AnonymousLets ban alcohol, action movies, video games.....
I'm sure alcohol related crime and deaths are much higher than gun crimes and death. Has anyone also considered the economic impact this would have? I'm sure this would not be good for a recession maybe turn into a depression. All these movie stars speaking against guns might change their mind if you banned any tv or movies that had guns or violence. Also how many times do police stations get broke into or robbed? Not many times because everyone has a gun. And have they considered how the majority of crooks get these guns? They are stolen, they don't care if guns are illigal so are drugs and armed robbery.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals dont obey laws
Criminals dont obey laws so they will still have guns, just like making drugs illegal doesnt reduce drug selling and its use. Also, responsible gun users are responsible and need to have guns to protect themselves from those who will have them already. An armed society is a polite society. They have been trying to ban guns for years, and if they ever do, our freedom of speech will be next to be taken.
Posted by: marcl821A ban on guns will increase the number of people who cannot defend themselves against an armed attack.
A ban on guns will only stop law abiding citizens from obtaining guns. Criminals do not care about the law and will still own and purchase guns. I am a teacher. One of my students, who lives in a household in which no one owns a gun, was robbed and molested recently during a home invasion. Her stepfather could do nothing but take his beating like man while watching his daughter be molested.
Posted by: AnonymousThe question is, would a ban on guns reduce crime in the US?
No, a ban on guns would not reduce crime in the US. Guns would become more of a black market item. Those who do not follow the law and have nefarious intentions would have access while law abiding citizens would not.
If I were a criminal it would be comforting to know that I had a gun and my victim most likely did not. Guns are an effective deterrent. If you disagree with this statement you may want to explore the now defunct D.C. ban on handguns.
Banning a specific type of gun in a knee jerk reaction to fear. It will, accomplish nothing as it did before, 1994-2004.
Gun education is lacking. We see firearms used irresponsibly on the big screen everyday. Not enough people know gun safety. How to use them, maintain them, and store them safely. Had a few guns been stored in a responsible manner we would not be having this conversation.Posted by: AnonymousGun ban will increase defenseless crimes
Criminals will always commit crimes. Disarming the citizen only makes it easier. Switzerland is a prime example. High citizen gun ownership, low crime rate. The heinous crimes committed that stir this debate were committed in no gun zones. The evidence is clear. Please educate yourself on the proper use of guns and learn not to fear them.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople need to stop being selfish? What?
I don't see how you haven't grasped the concept that the gun ban will only leave us, the citizens, the rightful people who abide the law, defenseless! Gun Control affects legal citizens, not criminals, the access of guns. How have you not realized that people don't just suddenly snap, that they have some motive to actually be the criminal? The shooting in Connecticut was caused by a poorly raised teen who's mom and brother obviously did not care for. The areas around the WORLD with very strict gun bans have ridiculous death counts, because it's literally slaughterhouse time for the criminals there. Except that time will last forever until the gun bans are lifted.
Posted by: AnonymousEconomics as an analogy of gun control
In some ways the issue of gun control is like economics. People debate whether one policy or another would be beneficial or harmful to the economy or safety. The closest economic concept to the concept of gun control would have to be deflation, in my opinion.
Deflation seems good on the surface, prices drop and people can buy more with the same amount of money they had before... Delving deeper into what actually happens during deflation, and it does the opposite of helping the economy. In short, people don't buy things in hopes prices get lower, businesses can't afford what they pay employees so wages fall and people are laid off, who can't buy products from the businesses, meaning less profit for businesses who must then lay more people off...
Gun control looks good on the surface. If there are less guns, there will be less people being shot, right? That small indicator may be somewhat true(I'll get back to that part later), but total crime has been shown to increase when the bans are placed. If you really want to complete the following analogy, you could say that this could cause a cycle just like Depression above. Guns are banned and people are not as able to defend themselves. Because they cannot defend themselves as well with the bans, criminals, career and opportunists combined, becomes more successful(The criminals may have to work somewhat more to get the firearms, but the reward is easier prey.). Despite the fact that criminals break the law by definition, people demand more, stronger gun bans to stop them in their tracks. This in turn means criminals have more success than ever before, which means civilians demand even more stronger gun laws in return...
In economics, indicators simply show one part of an economy. You must look at all the parts to get a good view of a country's economic health, as some parts may be quite different than others and therefore misleading compared to the whole picture. If decreasing prices of overall goods were used as an indicator by someone who wanted to try to show that deflation is beneficial to the economy, that person would be missing the point as all of the other indicators(GDP, unemployment, ect.) point otherwise. As you can see, both sides can be easy to be misled by using very specific indicators to attempt to prove their point.
As for the "less handguns means less handgun deaths", that is a single indicator. There is no denying that fact, but what exactly it shows can easily be debated. If handguns did not exist, there would be no handgun deaths. If it was possible for handguns to be the only weapon around, 100% of murders and such would be due to handguns. Deaths include victims AND criminals(theoretically shot by a victim who just so happened to have a handgun with him), so the indicator of handgun deaths may not be very good one. Rather, if there was separate indicators for death rates of criminal and crime victims, given that both of them had a firearm ready and able with them during the encounter, in my opinion, then and only then would we be able to see for ourselves the true statistics of the defended civilian and the killer. On the overall issue of gun control, I encourage all of you to re-check your information at many reliable sources, look at all the indicators(such as total crime, murder rates, and other such indicators as well as deaths by [insert weapon here]), and make sure you still stand for what you believe.(Don't forget to base your beliefs on data)Posted by: AnonymousCat already out of the bag
Their are 200 to 350 million guns estimated to be in America now. Banning guns will never prevent those intent on having/using one from happening. Bad things are going to happen let's deal with that fact. We as a society must accept the fact that evil exists and we have to be armed to defeat it.
Posted by: AnonymousFive all the guns to the criminals
A ban on guns would take all the guns away from law abiding citizens, only leaving criminals and the government with guns. Sounds like a bad knockoff of the movie Equilibrium. I won't allow the same government that gave guns to Mexican drug cartels tell me I can't legally and lawfully buy my own gun.
Posted by: Tha_SkrzaOrganized Crime Wins
Review case studies of countries where guns are difficult to obtain and there is a repeated history of the development of organized crime. For example, Mexico has extremely powerful drug cartels that have moderate influence over the government in Northern Mexico. Afghanistan has fairly lenient gun control laws, but only ~3% of the population owns them due to poverty - and there are problems with the Taliban there. Oppositely, the countries that have the highest percentage of gun ownership - the United States in first then followed by countries like Finland and Switzerland - are among the safest places to be.
Posted by: Runs-With-ScissorsWaiting for help... another gun!
I am a CWP holder, ex-law enforcement and in security now. It is mind blowing to me how with so many "mass shootings" that have occurred how people will not learn. When some evil person wants to harm you and they have a gun, and you do not, the only thing you can do is hide, call for help and wait.. and wait. What are you waiting for? Help to come to stop the threat which is going to be a person or an officer with a gun. You may not believe in guns, or you may have a gun, but your not allowed to carry it, so you wait for someone who can carry. Sometimes they will get there in time, most of the time they will be too late. Good guys with guns save lives.
Posted by: AnonymousLook at crime rates in countries with and without gun ownership
My favorite stats from anti-gun people are that banning guns reduces gun related murders and crimes. Well... duh. But the fact of the matter is is that violence and crime are more a factor of the societies culture than anything else. Russia for example, a country that has eradicated civilian gun ownership has a murder rate that is 4 times higher than that of the US and very few of their murders involve guns. The fact of the matter is that gun bans have no net affect on overall violent crime rates. Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, a political liberal and one-time supporter of gun-control laws, has been studying guns and their effect on violence and crime since 1976. What he’s found is that gun-control laws have no net effect on violence or crime rates.
Posted by: AnonymousOutlaws dont follow the law
Only law abiding citizens will be without guns. Drugs have always been illegal, but they are everywhere. Doubt anyone crazy enough to kill the Vincent will be concerned about it being illegal. But the innocent will be defenseless for they will be only ones following the law. This should be common sense.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are just a tool, it's mostly the people who use them
Guns are our rights and when someone wants to take them away they do not only just take our right to bear arms but they will take our rights to defend our self. Besides banning guns is completely pointless because any criminal can get a gun no matter what, and where.
Posted by: AnonymousGun crime in England & Wales rose by 89 percent!
Connecticut gun massacre was not as bad as the 1927 bombing of a school where 48 died.
The UK has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. So how has that worked out? Well, gun crime in England and Wales rose by 89 percent over the course of a decade…”
http://trenchpress.com/?p=23310
In short what some people say they want it "To stop school shootings, we should let criminals have all the guns, argue gun control advocates" http://trenchpress.com/?p=23304
"Why the government and mainstream media celebrate mass school shootings (and secretly want them to continue)" http://trenchpress.com/?p=23318
People should start blaming the medication that the child took to make him do it. People forgot about the face biter that took bath salts but legal drugs makes more people do crazy things which the media ignores.Posted by: AnonymousShooting massacres occur in places where guns are prohibited
Enforcing current laws, increasing penalties for illegal sales and possession, and providing parents with support to identify early signs of mental instability and a requirement to seek professional help would likely do more to decrease the incidence of shooting spree and other gun /weapon related tragedies. Keeping in mind that other weapons exist- vehicles, knives, bats, etc., it becomes clear that the issue is mental health and early intervention with regular monitoring. None of these weapons are dangerous until they are in the hands of a perpetrator.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not the problem but peoples mindset towards them is.
Guns really are not the problem. If no guns people would kill each other with knives, rocks or tire irons.At the same time, removing guns from the hands of the law abiding would only give the criminals and insane the advantage. What needs to be solved is the mindset that makes killing, stealing and harming others acceptable in our society.
People talk about banning guns to protect people but look at the facts involved in that idea. Britain has far more violent crime per capita than the US. When Florida became an at will carry state violent crime dropped drastically. There is a direct correlation between violent crimes and the inability of the citizens to use firearms to defend themselves. I'll keep my weapons, including guns, if it means I can protect myself and others.
Lastly, look at who commit the crimes. Perhaps we should be concerned about those people instead of guns. Cruise through the pages of YA and look at the hate and violent words that seems acceptable to certain classes of people. They are the problem, not the guns those same people want to take away from the law abiding citizens. One has to wonder about their real motives.Posted by: JohnphealyHardly
Just like drugs guns will always be available to those who truly want them, and if anything might make more crime due to the black market that would open up. I don't think it would affect crime rates at all, people would still commit crimes with guns, illegal guns, or something that isn't a gun.
Posted by: IsaristhResponsible gun owners will suffer
Criminals will always get a gun. Always. Gun control would take away the rights of individuals to protect themselves from these criminals. You can't take pepperspray to a gun fight and expect to come out alive.
I think gun classes that teach safety, handling, and the dangers of gun ownership should be taught to children and adults. Curiosity kills the child, not the cat. My children learn about guns and respect them. The infatuation of the unknown and the curiosity is gone.
Bad guys don't follow rules. Bad guys will not listen to the law to not own a gun. Drugs are rampant, crime is elevated and criminals need a gun. Its our right and responsibility to protect our family with every means available.Posted by: AnonymousWake up people
On average over 400 women save themselves from rape every day by carrying guns. A gun is used in self defense, on average, every 15 seconds of every day in America. Why would we want to give up our RIGHT to defense? Do people really think criminals will hand their guns in too!
Posted by: Anonymous2nd Amendment
We should maintain the ability to own arms. That being said, there should be a law requiring an extended background check that would include discovery of psychological disorders that denies firearm ownership. The exact diagnosis doesn't have to be revealed but a federal database in which medical personnel could flag persons with conditions that should preclude the ability to purchase firearms.
Posted by: AnonymousIllegal for drugs, we still have a drug problem
We have an epidemic on our hands. DRUGS, GUNS, MENTAL ILLNESS, POVERTY. Pick your issue. Let us look at drugs for example. Drugs are illegal and yet illegal drugs are on the rise and are easy to get. Also people find a new substance to abuse. Making guns illegal is an ignorant way to solve the problem. People will find another method of destruction- homemade bombs or powders etc..
Posted by: AnonymousGun bans do not work
Do your research, and you will find that per capita, England's gun crime actually INCREASED in the years following the ban. If gun control was effective, places such as Washington D.C, and New York City would be the safest places in America, yet their gun crime rates are higher than anywhere else in America.
Posted by: AnonymousThey were his mom's firearms
Crazy kid. Mom was concerned. Brother was concerned. Nothing was done. Kid used HIS MOM'S firearms. Guns do kill people...so can a toothpick, a knife, a car, alcohol, a bat, a log, a tire iron, a fork, a spoon, food, glass, heavy equipment, a baseball, and so on and so forth. Yes, guns make it easy to kill people, however, the weapon of choice will just change with a gun ban. Most people are too naive to realize this. Maybe I am shooting myself in the foot here but theres plenty of people I know who would go down with their guns in hand before they had them taken away. Its not about power...its about a way of life, freedom and security and frankly I am sick of my rights being s*** on. I am a hunter/gun collector and I will continue to do so ban or not.
Posted by: AnonymousNo it wont help at all
Illegal and ilicit drugs have been illegal for quite some time now. The last time I checked, illegal drug manufacturing, trafficking, sales and abuse still happens everyday. This is the greatest country on earth and the whole world would rather live here than anywhere else because we are free. Take away guns from Americans and you take away freedom from AMERICA! Banning guns for civilians will do nothing. PEOPLE WHO WANT GUNS WILL GET GUNS! If there is a ban on them you now have guns circulating even more without proper registration and liabilty and accountability from the registered owner. Our gun control may need a revision but in no way does a ban even sound like a good idea. That instantly gives criminals an upper hand and citizens a slap in the face.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns dont kill people! People kill people!
A ban will do nothing more but fuel a black market for firearms. Drugs have been illegal for years, yet you can still purchase them. A ban will only increase criminal activity across the board. It doesnt matter what kind of gun it is, it takes a person to pull the trigger!
Posted by: AnonymousWould a ban on guns reduce crime in the U.S.?
No, the only thing a ban on guns would do is to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals don't worry about obtaining a gun legally, but knowing that intended victims are unarmed because of strict gun control would be a great promotion for the criminal to commit the crime.
Posted by: AnonymousBanning guns around the world increases violent crime, simple as that!
Study after study has shown that violent crimes increase in countries where guns are banned. Criminals are bold knowing their law-abiding victims are unarmed. Look at Brazil for instance, in the time span that guns were banned, the murder rate DOUBLED! There were similar trends in the UK, Austrailia, New Zealand, and pretty much every other country that made the mistake of banning guns.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=6740Posted by: mneipertCriminals will always obtain weapons. A ban would only keep law abiding citizens from obtaining them
This is an unbelievably sad story. My prayers are with those who lost so much in the wake of this horrific event. As for guns make them legal for all citizens. These types of events will always happen, but at least give the victims a fighting chance. The police will always be a moment or two behind the criminal. They can only provide security after the fact. And as for the idea stated earlier by the other side, the common good does not justify the loss of life of one innocent. Collective thinking is just what fascism needs to thrive.
Posted by: Anonymousdo not ban guns
We have the RIGHT to bare arms. If someone comes into my home, they will have a nice 40 cal waiting for them. It is important that we are able to protect ourselves. If someone is that determined to kill someone, they will obtain their gun illegally if they cannot get it legally. I am a female and do not live in a great area, I feel secure knowing that I have protection if need be.
Posted by: Anonymousno banning guns will not lower crime .
First of all look at Switzerland it is mandatory for citizens to get trained and own a gun and are given a box of ammo they cant open for homeland security . And there crime is low . Second the FBI put out there yearly statistics there is more guns in the united states then there has ever been owned by law abiding citizens then there has ever been and less crime . Fact by the FBI more guns les crime . In in Utah a guy bought a Knife from a store and at that store he started stabbing people a citizen with a concealed weapons permit drew his gun and told him to put the knife down and stop the stabbing spree. no matter what people will find something to hurt other people. ban guns and it only takes away from the citizens to have the right to defend themselves that are not criminals .
Posted by: AnonymousYou are taking away protection.
If you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws. So, to say that this will help the situation at all is ridiculous. It will simply make law abiding citizens unable to protect themselves from criminals. Also, you think taking away guns will stop them? Even the evil man repsonisble for the Aurora shootings had bombs set up in his appartment. It didnt matter how, this man was out for blood, he didn't care how he got it.
Posted by: AnonymousLaws Largely Don't Matter
Gun laws would prevent people from owning guns much like drug laws prevent people from doing drugs (which is to say it doesn't). People want guns. They will find a way to get them. Furthermore, I would venture a guess that the majority of gun crime in the US is committed with illegally procured weapons. Those who obtain permits, register guns legally, lock up their weapons, and do everything by the book account for a very, very small percentage of gun violence. I would also venture a guess that most gun violence is "bad person on bad person" (ie: one drug dealer shooting another drug dealer, or one gangster shooting another gangster). I doubt there is much gun violence by the way of bad person shooting innocent person, or stupid person shooting innocent person. I think there are other ways to drive down gun crime. I would guess that most gun violence is gang-related, and gangs usually make money by selling drugs. They defend themselves (or attack rival gangs) using illegally procured weapons. If we took away their income source, they would have no reason to exist and thus gun violence would decline.
Posted by: AnonymousMore guns less crime
I'd rather rob somebody who has no defense than somebody with a gun. Criminals become more confident to commit crimes like robbery and murder when they know they won't get shot. If we ban guns outright, all the law abiding civilians will give up arms, but lawbreakers are lawbreakers. They won't give up their guns, leaving us defenseless. That's why you are more likely to get stabbed in countries where guns are banned than get shot in the US.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople will find other ways to commit crimes.
There are many other weapons at criminals' disposal. Knives are very common in robberies. Also criminals', if posed with the opportunity, could make their own guns. In fact a study showed 1/5 of crimes involving guns in Washington DC the guns were made and not bought at a store (http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/guns-safer.html). So the law abiding people would be at a greater risk of being victim to guns even if they were banned. Most of the opportunistic criminals also use guns as a "threat," and they rarely use them, so even if they have one they will most of the time back down if they see some one else (whom would be a law abiding citizen) were to pull out a gun.
Posted by: AnonymousI am a 25 year old female who lives alone in the city.
This question infuriates me. Like I said, I am a female who lives alone, and what's to stop someone from breaking in my home to rob me, seeing me, raping me, and leaving me for dead. There are so many evil criminals out there who will get their hands on guns no matter what.
The only line of protection I have from someone killing me and raping me after they break in is my 38. Special revolver. Without my gun I would never sleep peacefully at night. Before I owned a gun, I felt like a sitting duck, insecure and helpless. If someone broke in, I would be a victim to whatever kind of pain and suffering they would want to put me through.
In fact, if you are a parent and you have kids, it is your duty to own a gun. If someone breaks in to hurt them, you will be able to protect them and save your own kids' lives. Anyone who ever tries to take away my sense of security and protection should re-evaluate their logic.
Criminals will always have guns. A law-abiding citizen like me should be able to have a gun to protect my life.Posted by: AnonymousThe United States government is a bad role model.
It would be unconstitutional to ban firearms in the U.S. It would also be unfair that the government forbids us from having what they give freely to Mexican drug lords and the Taliban. Perhaps if we weren't spending all of our money perpetuating war, we could afford to keep our citizens happy and employed.
Posted by: AnonymousI need guns to eat.
Some people do not follow the law, so I think that banning guns will not reduce crime. I live off hunting so I think that there should be guns. It is going to be hard to hunt if guns are banned. Then I will have to make a spear and hunt like that, and that is not as easy as it sounds.
Posted by: AnonymousThere are other weapons available.
There are still knives. With guns it is easier to protect yourself, and a gun shot would alert people in the area to trouble. Without guns there would be more silent kills, and there would be a higher crime rate in the U.S.
Military combat knives are in popular demand and would be put to use if there were no guns. We will not lose as many lives if we have guns.Posted by: AnonymousReally people, wake up!
Plain and simple, it's a tool, just like a knife or a baseball bat etc. Stop blaming guns for the actions of stupid people. If the government seizes the public's guns we have no way of fighting back when this government turns to tyranny. Open your eyes, and get Obama out of power. It doesn't end there; arrest the bankers who run this country and give the republic back to the people for which many Americans fought and died. This is America, not Great Britain or China. Open your eyes before it's to late. Crime happens and will continue to happen regardless of laws put into place. I love this country, but I don't care for the government, especially the leaders of it. This isn't your country to make these decisions, and to Obama all I can say is good luck!
Posted by: AnonymousIt would do nothing to curb violence in this country.
You can buy almost anything legal and illegal in this country. It's just as easy to buy sex, drugs, stolen car parts/electronics as it is to buy a gun. Criminals don't obey laws so having more laws will do nothing to curve the violence. Taking away law abiding citizens their rights to keep and bear arms will only help the criminals.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is not the average American causing these problems.
How is taking guns away from law abiding citizens going to improve our crime rate? Many citizens own guns for one reason and that is for their protection and their family's protection. Crime rates would most definitely increase if defense weapons were taken away from the innocent people in America.
Posted by: AnonymousI'm getting tired of this..
No, no, no. Guns don't kill people, okay? Not by themselves. I find it hilarious that people think that banning guns is going to stop things. People can still get them off black markets if they wanted one badly enough. The thing with guns is, they're easy. Not too many people would come up and actually stab someone. You have to get close to do something like that and that's a real personal way to do it.
Posted by: CryssieBans Never Work and Neither Does Confiscation.
Ask yourself this: where did Prohibition get the US? Violence in our major cities skyrocketed as gangs started to bootleg liquor and beer and kill each other off in our streets to take out the competition. A huge black market started in the US and in the end Prohibition was ended due to the fact that it was a total failure. If guns were banned, the same thing would occur but on an even more violent level. Gangs would be selling the weapons illegally and fighting each other for territory in the hearts of our cities. All along, the law abiding citizen who gave his gun up is sitting in his home cowering in fear as the police force in his city goes corrupt and he knows that he will receive no help if attacked. American citizens would be at he mercy of criminals.
Posted by: AnonymousCrime would skyrocket
As soon as we would turn our firearms in, criminals will begin to rob everyone with their guns. That statement alone should suffice, but I will add the following: Why has America forgotten that every citizen is a standing army? Each citizen is responsible for protecting their own life against invading armies, in addition to emergency situations such as natural disasters. This is important so that we may protect our lives, as well as our food/supplies from others that may try to steal them to survive. We live in a great country with a very high standard of living, and some think that nothing bad can happen. I would like it to stay that way, and God forbid if anything awful were to happen, I would like to have a firearm. If or when there is a time where people must hunt for their own food, or protect themselves from harm because the police or military can't help because they are overburdened, they will want firearms. I don't understand why some would want to take the freedom of owning a firearm away, as I grew up with them. I love shooting targets, as well as hunting. Banning firearms is similar to banning the Internet or cars because some people use them for evil. I grew up with the opinion that a firearm is a tool for gathering, and defending oneself from evil doers - not to use for randomly killing others. I am not mentally deficient because I own a firearm. The overwhelming majority, 99.9 % of gun owners, are peaceful Americans that do not want to lose the right to have fun at their local shooting range, or shooting targets with an AR or AK, or the fun of hunting. Think about being in a situation in which you would need a firearm. A firearm might save your life one day. So, consider that before you decide that you are in favor of gun control. Bad things will happen, but that is an unfortunate consequence of life. Even with gun control, some criminals will ignore the laws and continue to carry weapons and kill others with them. Would you really not want to have the option of self defense against someone trying to harm you or your family? Just imagine that situation and tell me you are still for gun control. Also, please do not tell me that I should only own a shotgun.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, it would not.
No, it would not. The temptation will be there - it will maybe for a while, reduce the crime rate but people will always be there to find a back door. To find some way to sell and to retrieve guns from others. There's always a black hole that people will force their way through to get what they want.
Posted by: reneed.12788No, not really.
A gun ban would not reduce the chances of you running into a madman in the middle of the night. Guns are merely tools, as there are other tools for crime. Also, a study by criminologists concludes that gun control laws ARE counterproductive: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Let's look at this through an example: Being excessively or unnecessarily strict with a child may drive him or her to rebel, protest, and oppose disciplinary action. The same goes for bans on guns, or restrictions on anything for that matter.Posted by: Anonymous.AnonymityDo you really think that will stop it?
Just because you put a ban on guns doesn't mean that people won't still find a way to get it. It's nearly the same concept with marijuana. It was illegal but then they found a loophole around it. Convicts don't register their guns so how are we to know who has a gun and who doesn't?
Posted by: AnonymousGuns in my 'Murica
To stop a bad guy with a gun you have to have a good guy with a gun. It's always the person behind the trigger that does the killing, the gun just makes it easier. Guns protect everything and everyone. We protect the President, with guns. The White House, with guns. EVERYTHING IS PROTECTED WITH GUNS.
Posted by: AnonymousWell look at the pro and con and find out WHY they are being used.
Pro: Banning guns would keep someone from killing others as easily. Banning guns would make it a bit harder to intimidate a shop keeper or clerk/cashier if they can't even reach over the counter to get at them. Banning guns can make it all better because we don't have to bring up arms to stop an argument.|Con: Banning guns would put us in the hands of our government with their rules and the way they want it to be done in force. Banning guns would mean we are defenseless to those that do own guns and have the ability to hide them. Banning guns can bring us to our knees and deny our natural rights.|My statement: Sure the common person wouldn't be a threat anymore. Since when did a common person murder someone though? You have to own a certain state of mind to kill someone and live with it. I don't think you or I could actually KILL someone and go about our lives. In short go after the people that can since they are doing wrong. Plus the government is wanting to do this. What will they do once this passes? everyone has free reign that owns a gun and power is unbalanced. Nothing is equal or higher to those without a gun to check and balance it. I say this would be the fall of Democracy in America if given time.
Posted by: alfo149