I get tired of these arguments. These are the ones like, Criminals will still find ways to get them. When they argue this they forget a few important points. Most mass shooters obtain their guns legally, some of which shouldn't have been able to, but were due to problems with gun control laws. The Batman shooter and the recent Florida school shooter both had legal access to assault rifles though both were mentally disturbed. That's a problem. The Church shooter back in November and the recent Florida shcool shooter both had a past of violence, but both had legal access to guns. The Pulse Night Club shooter was on a Terrorist watch list and still had legal access to assault rifles. In all of these cases, the fact that they had access to these assult rifles is wrong. Will they find other ways? Good. Let them find other ways. We can make those options harder too.
According to the ny times, 30 children and teachers have been killed by school shootings in a 14 year period during the assault weapon ban. However, after the 2004 ban on assault weapons expired, 137 children and teachers have been killed by school shootings. This is DIRECT PROOF that guns are killing our children, and needs to be banned.
Cause and effect: Guns kill people. Be it murder or suicide guns make killing much, much easier. That's why they exist. People would not be buying them if there was a better option. Can anyone say guns exist for another reason? Nope. Killing by any others means requires much more effort. Data also strongly supports this obvious fact. If you make something easy and cheap, people do more of it.
The 2nd Amend. Clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If we use this as a guide, then we must acknowledge a "State" which requires "security" and a "well regulated Militia" to provide that security. Taking "militia" to mean "citizens", then the "State" can "regulate" without removing the right. Example: Current and former members of armed services allowed to maintain an "arms license". Same for police. Civilians must pass stringent safety and background checks - no skipping for type of weapon. A "force multiplier" caculation which ranks weapons according to their lethality (power, number of repititions, concealability, etc). Ex: A fist = .5. A knife = 5. A 12 guage shotgun = 20. An AR-15 = 200. Anything over a given number is illegal to purchase and own for anyone outside of the "regulations". To actually remove the weapons - take a big chunk of the overblown Defense budget and buy back guns with prices high enough to tempt anyone and everyone to get them out of circulation.
For example, the Netherlands has really strict gun rules and there hasn't been any mass shooting since WW2, only rare minor shooting between gangs. Mental health is a factor, which is why you should make it difficult to get a gun in the first place, the only people with Guns in Europe are Police, military and powerful gangs or dealers with little interest in mass shootings, only personal gain which is so much better than what America has
The gun death rate in the U.S. is 3.6 per 100,000 people, the rate for nations such as the UK, Japan, Australia and Scandanavia is less than 1. That is a significant gap. Both the UK and Australia had a major mass shooting in the 1990s, after which they implemented restrictions on firearms and they have not had a shooting spree since.
They kill a lot of people and that makes me cry a lot because people don't deserve to die from guns. Look at columbine for example, eric harris and dylan klebold shot up a lot of people and that was very sad so in the end guns are bad as heck!
I've seen the argument of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" quite a lot, and I still, hate it. If people can not be trusted to have guns without killing people, then they shouldn't be allowed guns - you can say that gun crime will still be up, but really, if an 18 year is now trusted with a gun but isn't trusted with alcohol then priorities clearly need to be set up. People should not be fearing for their lives, kids should not be fearing going to school because the government is not cracking down on the gun laws. As many have said, the UK and Australia had major shootings in the past, implemented gun control, and have had very little sense. When will you look at the statistics? The fact that America has one of the highest amount of shootings (especially in schools - children's lives are on the line, and they shouldn't be) and realise by fighting for someone's right to own a gun, you are only furthering the issue.
I don't like guns, they make me sad. They shoot and bang, I think there should be stricter laws and if you have a gun you get a bowl of jello thrown at your face and no showers for 21 hours. That is my opinion on why guns should have stricter laws.
You have to look at the reason why people are arguing something. As a pro-gun control believer myself I want to stop the deaths caused by sick people that get a hold of guns. Someone please give me a reason why nothing should be done. Recreational use? Lives are more important. Is it to defend your family from intruders? Statistic's show that it is more likely for a child to get a hold of your gun and hurt themselves or somebody else then it is for someone to break into your house. Even if that doesn't deter you from wanting guns then at least be willing to go through a longer process to get your guns. Please, I actually am being open minded about this and trying to see both sides, but everything points towards stricter gun control.
Name me one criminal or mass-murderer that didn't break any laws. Yeah I didn't think so, not a single one. Any gun, with any magazine, can be used to kill groups of people. The only ways to stop violence are ACTIVE measures. Armed guards, cops, et cetera. Laws don't do anything, they just affix a punishment.
About 11,000 people were murdered by guns of all types in 2016 (1) But 13,000 died from heroin overdoses alone, and growing. (2) Maybe we should make laws against these types of drugs to make them illegal. Oh wait, they already are and have been for a long time. So clearly making something illegal does not stop people from having them illegally. Many if not most guns used in crimes are already obtained illegally. The only people who would turn in or not purchase guns if made illegal are law abiding citizens. This puts law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals making things worse.
I'm assuming you're implying the same laws that apply to most developed nations apply to America in this situation? Then no, gun control in that sense wouldn't help. It would take the guns out of average citizens and leave them in the hands of criminals. Saying "it worked in Canada/Australia/whatever" is irrelevant because those are completely different cultures, and there weren't hundreds of millions of guns in circulation when those laws came into place.
Even with gun control laws, criminals will still find a way to get guns. It’s not a matter of making a law that can be broken. It’s about finding a way to make sure possible shooters understand that what they might do is wrong. We need to show people that taking your anger out on people is not a good way to get rid of it.
The majority of shooters are sick in some way and just aren't getting help. If they're desperate enough to attempt to get attention through a killing spree, then they're going to grab whatever they can find to make it happen. It's depressing, really, seeing that all of the shootings caused in schools and other other no-gun zones could have been prevented. Shooters have dropped hints or outright told people what they want to do, but nobody takes them seriously. Take people seriously, guys.
Even if gun control is put in place, the bad guys still get their hands on the guns that they want- after all, they are outlaws with no regard whatsoever for the law. We have seen how the church shooter in Texas was stopped- by an armed bystander with a gun of his own- and should therefore know that the best solution is to encourage more people to readily arm themselves, as only then can armed criminals be stopped.
We already tried this before. It doesn't work, just like the war on drugs and the war on obesity didn't work because people will do whatever they want.
Besides, 300,000 people dieevery year of obesity, so using this logic we should also ban fast food. . . . . .
Its the primary target for terrorism, acid attacks, and shootings, cops cant even defend themselves because they don't have a gun to fight back with, the black market always finds a way to smuggle an assault rifle, so how in the world can a few cops with pepper spray go against a man with a huge gun?
Even if guns were controlled or banned, gun supporters will find ways of getting their hands on guns. If they're caught, they will be arrested, which will lead to a rise in crime rates.
What does this have to do with taxes?
Well, the amount of prisoners actually takes part to decide our tax rate, due to the fact that the government pays for food and clothes for the prisoners. The more prisoners, the more clothes and food they will need to provide. The more clothes and food they provide, the more money they lose. The more money they lose, the higher the taxes, because they need money.
Gun Control = BAD IDEA
It is easily seen and identified that guns cannot kill without an idiotic human behind them. Now to some extent, fully automatic assault rifles, and weapons that have increased rate of fire should not be able to be purchased by the people. However, hunting rifles, and recreational guns are okay. Mass shootings are a problem in America, yes. However, if you take away guns, evil people will find ways to kill. Look at bombings in hand, that is another threat, and name one place where you can by a pre-created bomb in stores.