Does America have a gun problem or society problems?

Posted by: Juris_Naturalis

  • Gun problem

  • Society problems

9% 9 votes
91% 89 votes
  • There are both, but anyone who denies there being a gun problem clearly doesnt live in reality, or is a dumba**

  • "Gun don't kill people; people do. Well yes but the person helps."_Eddie Izzard - Comedian.

  • There's both, but it's simply undeniable that guns do play a significant role in this

  • the availability of guns is a problem. should be much more highly regulated

  • It's not the guns that shoot, it's the people holding them.

    Posted by: leojm
  • Making guns illegal will remove gun violence? We should make drugs illegal too!

  • Gun violence in America is a society problem. But no one should be allowed to own an assault weapon. What purpose does such a weapon have other than to slaughter multiple individuals in a short time frame. These weapons of war should not be lawfully permitted. Also, gun magazines that hold 10 or more bullets isn't a good idea.

  • both more so the society

  • I see more problems with society than with guns

    Posted by: yay842
  • Of course I have a problem with guns; I always will, just like any other weapon out there. But the reason they exist and the reason people cling to them so fervently is because our society is splitting at the seams with greed, fear and hysteria. In a society that condones and romanticizes nearly all forms of violence it is no wonder.

  • If you put a gun in a empty room on a table the gun won't do anything. Society helps distort peoples ideas of what they not only think is right and wrong but also what should be considered beautiful.

  • 99.9999% of people who legally obtained guns are not going to do anything illegal with them. It is that very small percentage who have had something go wrong in their lives and believe it is the world's fault and they should take it out on innocent people.

  • Wow aren't we living the dream. So many issues here in the United States. I thought this was suppose to be the land where dreams come true. Instead some people suffer from various things. What a shame.

  • no one has the right to reduce someone's ability to defend themself, by doing so you take responsibility/liability for their safety, something gov cant do because gov cant get there on time and they arnt always able to call for help, makeing gov liable for not protecting them. forced them to be defenseless knowing the gov cant protect them. if an innocent gets murdered as a result of being disallowed to have the means to defend themself, whoever disallowed them to the means to defend themself IS GUILTY OF MURDER and should be put in life in prison. anyone who reduces the ability for innocent people to defend themself is liable for their saftey. ordering murder doesnt=murder. paying someone to murder doesnt=murder. banning someone from defensive means resulting in them being murdered cuz they couldnt defend themself is = to not giving your kidnapped victims water resulting in them dehydrateing the death. being able to defend yourself is a basic survival need. only criminals/tyrants want gun control to use guns to control and victimize the gunless. gov doesnt have the right to do anything that non-gov doesnt have the right to do. gov doesnt have more rights than the individual. the name of your group doesnt give you more rights. its groupism, lableism, hypocritical and illegal for a group to ban weapons from another group based only on group name/ labels/ if their gov or non-gov/ military or not/ nazi or jew/ shia or suni/ crip or blood the popular, rich, powerful, have no more right to guns than the unpopular, poor, weak. gov isnt more moral, responsible, or necessarily more well trained, more skilled at hitting the target, a better shot, or smarter, than non-gov. on adv non-gov is more moral and responsible, and less hypocritical and violent than gov. gov background checks puts gov above the law and turns arms from a right into a gov granted privliage, and bans guns from anyone who doesnt obey gov. gov background checks are at the whim of whatever tyrants deside to call a crime, or who desides to falsly label people as criminals, and background check doesnt nessicarily =just criminal background check, it can be anything you did that the tyrant doesnt like. gov wants guns wo anyones´╗┐ permit, and doesnt want anyone to have guns w/o its permit self defense is a god given right rights cant be taken away. what is right is always absolutely right. freedom to exercise your rights can be taken away by tyrants. its a privlage to use someone else's property, its a right to use your own property as long as it doesnt infringe on = rights of others. corrupt gov thinks it owns everything thus calls everything gov lets gov's property(humans) do with gov's property(everything) a privilage. they call paying your taxes a privlage. prv chairties cant afford to care for all the poor because gov supresses chairty, trade, and independnce via supressive regs/restrictions/taxes, resulting in more poor people, higher prices of products/services, less good jobs, and less people being able to afford to give to chairty. gov via overly supressive regs/taxes/restirctions, is the cause of 75%+of poverty/homelessness, and the main reason everyone cant afford their own healthcare/health insurance and a good education. gov needs to let people grow gardens, and use and live on the land for their indpendent survival. time/resources wasted over-punishing should be better spent correcting the root incentive of why most people commit crime(because corrupt gov members steal their better options to make wealth to purposely make them poor, forced dependent, or resort to crime), by spending it on giving the poor efficient welfare, job training, and defensive means to protect their right to freely use the land to be independent, and cut taxes and excessive regs on producers of survival products to create more good jobs, instead of taxing good jobs to fund excessive punishment.

  • Honestly, if you are a sane, normal, stable, moral adult, I wouldn't care if you had an F-16 and a minigun. The theoretical solution is easy, but in reality it's hard: Keep guns out of the hands of crazy people or criminals. I support background checks, but that's about it.

  • Too easy. Love the way "assault weapons," are being portrayed. Just because they look military style do not mean they're the same. The ones we use within the military are far more potent, I can assure you.

  • sounds stupid but its true... "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" Plus it is in the constitution we have the right to have guns.

  • Certain areas where thug culture is strong are areas where the guns are used in bad ways more often, so I say it is a cultural problem in certain areas.

  • The correlation between poverty rates and crime rates is much stronger pertaining to the USA than the correlation between brady score or gun ownership rates and crime rates.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Tulbakra says2013-09-16T15:00:04.8671962-05:00
Our society problem is that we have a gun problem.
Juris_Naturalis says2013-09-16T15:01:41.7794424-05:00
That's not really what I meant. What I meant was, are guns really the problem or do we have a society where violence and low moral standards are accepted, and the gun violence is just a side affect?
imabench says2013-09-16T15:18:24.6425975-05:00
Thats not what the question is asking dingus.
Lordgrae says2013-09-16T15:47:22.4836046-05:00
Look, we have a society that can't be trusted with weapons. Americans a ****ing stupid. Not trying to offend my fellow countrymen, but seriously America you dumb!
Lordgrae says2013-09-16T15:47:42.9272660-05:00
That should be "are", not "a"
leojm says2013-09-16T17:09:55.6991649-05:00
Taking guns away will really stop crime. How is that working out for you with drugs, or wait Prohibition, that worked very well too.
Lordgrae says2013-09-16T19:33:23.7940590-05:00
Yes, but for the most part, the illegal guns are used by gangs. These gangs usually only target each other, as well as people who are not the best law followers.
Geckofrog7 says2013-09-17T00:06:31.5437280-05:00
@Juan_Pablo: I have a .22 rifle with a banana clip. That makes it an "assault weapon". And besides that, tell me, how many murders have been caused by an ACTUAL assault weapon (Fully automatic rifle)? Assault weapons are NOT the problem. People aren't gonna walk into a place with a big *** rifle and let loose, their gonna hide a handgun. In any case, solve the poverty issue, solve the high school teens who think it's cool to be "gangsta". It's not easy, but it needs to be done. Oh, and if anyone blames it on video games, I'm gonna go shoot someone. (JK)
Lordgrae says2013-09-17T14:07:02.1635322-05:00
I would generally agree with this statement, and say that conceal carry permits should be limited or reduced. You must admit, that even if assault rifles are not the main weapon used for gun violence, that no one has a reason to own a gun that could kill 50 people in under a minute. I think we should limit it to police weapons (perhaps limit those too if the gun restrictions work well) and hunting and sport guns. I really don't think people need to have anything else. This self defense thing is a bunch of bull.
GDawg says2013-09-17T18:33:08.9349811-05:00
Lord, the amount of deaths caused by assault weapons isn't even worth more of our time than the amount of deaths caused by sledgehammers. The Virginia Tech shooting had no assault weapons used, but was the worst mass shooting in America; it even beat other shootings with multiple shooters using assault weapons. So assault weapons are not needed for a mass shootings because they're done with all sorts of different guns, legal or not. You say we should limit our guns to police standards (even though the police have military equipment) but the whole purpose of the amendment was to have standard military soldier technology to fight against a tyrannical government. It would also be so meaningless because a recent school gunman used an AK47, a gun you can't buy legally blackshoot up rapidly with nothing changing; it would also lose many jobs in the meantime. You would also have to run a gun eradication program for a ban that means anything which would be so expensive and pointless. It would be an obtuse decision that wouldn't do anything, and if you want to stop gang violence, end the drug war and have criminal/mental background checks. The mental illnesses would have instantly stopped the murderer from killing anyone, as well as getting rid of gun free zones. Since my laptop is honestly this super ultra mega hacked virus holding crap, I was saying that the black market would shoot up on top of the drug war.
Lordgrae says2013-09-19T14:09:00.7916619-05:00
I do agree to the criminal background check and a psychological analysis (or background check on previous analyses). As for defending yourself against the government, but the government has tanks, planes, bombs, nukes, mines and organized manpower. Do you want extremely wealthy citizens to be able to purchase the technology to take out NYC? Look, when the law concerning guns was created, all they had was muskets, which were really only dangerous when you had a group of people with muskets. The technology to kill millions in minutes exists today in our military arsenal. Do you want citizens to have this to protect against the government? The only people with guns should be the police and hunters. Of course that is only in a perfect world, so I am willing to support compromise between the NRA and the people wanting to ban guns, but in a perfect world, no guns.
Juris_Naturalis says2013-09-19T14:59:53.0866836-05:00
So with your logic, the 4th amendment excludes computers, phones and automobiles right? Because they weren't around when the founders made the 4th amendment. The amendments should adapt to the times. The 2nd amendment should protect my right to own an AR15 just like the 4th should protect my phone and computer from unwarranted searches and seizures. Even though neither were around in the 18th century.
Juris_Naturalis says2013-09-19T15:02:22.5067878-05:00
And Hell will freeze over before the U.S uses WMDs of ANY type on it's own soil. There'd be way too much collateral damage to the civilians who aren't participating.
Lordgrae says2013-09-19T15:43:28.0366846-05:00
No, I never meant that. What I am saying is that the intent of the original amendment does not apply to our modern equipment. We need to identify whether or not it still fulfills its old purpose, or whether it still is able to continue the old. When there were muskets around, all you needed was a lot of people with muskets to protect yourself. With the kind of weapons we have now, you just have to hope you don't face them. The rights to privacy and freedom of speech should be reexamined, to meet the necessities of today. I am not advocating for one position on the other amendments, just that they are up for debate. None of the amendments should ever be taken for granted, but neither should we accept them blindly.
GDawg says2013-09-19T17:24:37.8645163-05:00
I do, we are arguing on the basis of the weapon and its ability to do damage greater then anything else. You ignored my claim that it is supposed to make citizens as strong as the average military soldier, not the whole government. This is really helpful because, every single dictator tries to ban guns instantly because of the damage they can do in a militia. 270 million strong doesn't seem to look defenseless to me, but we all have crazy opinions. Let me ask you, did the Vietnamese have tanks, helicopters, planes and mines? Nope, they didn't need those, they just needed old AK47's to take 60,000 of our troops out. Police and military can be tyrannical, and as I kind of doubt we could beat the military alone, we would be better off with that brilliant option to have firearms from an already tyrannical looking government. Still, I have dismissed your argument about assault weapons being a problem more then any other type of gun. So there is no sense to banning it, unless you also ban plastic bags and pickaxes.
GDawg says2013-09-19T18:11:28.3489101-05:00
Scratch that, they are immeasurably lower then the deaths of a handgun. Lord, I really need a good reason for censoring freedom of speech. I've heard people argue that position, but I still don't know what the argument is. I can reasonably form the idea of speech rights not anything that is injurious. We need strong speech even if it protects hate speech. Threatening speech and slander is something that is immensely threatening and harmful, not an idiot showing his idiotic viewpoint as everyone laughs at him. I don't want it disturbing other peoples daily activities, but its highly unlike for so many idiots coming together to protest black people. The fourth amendment is a joke now, because people who are paranoid, stupid and precipitous gave that away thinking the redundant security is actually helpful. So instead of finding out why they are attacking you, it's better to waste billions taking away freedoms that don't need to be taken. A government that tramps on your rights in a tyrannical fashion are more dangerous then any terrorist that could exist. Lastly, if the terrorists do it unreasonably, then there is no reason to keep upgrading due to factual reasoning that terrorism will never stop existing. May I ask, how far will this go?
yetifivepecks says2014-06-08T23:26:02.5768095-05:00
Both.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.