For or Against 'gun control'.. your views?

bobbo342

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... 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." â€” Thomas Jefferson

As you can see I am against restricting firearms to the extent they have to reduce crime.

I got this from another answerer on Y!A
This is a post from an Australian police officer...

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the now available data
from Down Under. It has now been one year (12 months) since gun
owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing
Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now available:
-Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;
-Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
-Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent);
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent as compared with the last one year period when private
ownership of a firearm was legal.
(NB: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms,
the criminal element did not and thus criminals in Australia still
possess their guns.)
-While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately
owned guns showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms,
this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals
now are assured their victims will be unarmed.
-There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
of the elderly, while the resident is at home. 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.'
-This story of well intentioned government intervention in the
rights of lawful individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the
mainstream US media or on the American evening news. Senator Obama
who advocates a similar confiscation in the US will not be reporting
any of this to you. But, the Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws
affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Americans may want to take note before it's too late!
http://www.gunowners.org/hlr-au.htm

I have a story. In land far, far away where King Richard rules over all of the Land of Lincoln it was instituted that as of Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Two no one shalt have handguns in Chicago city limits....Since then it has been a city ordinance and the funny thing is Chicago just took over as city with the most murder in the US.
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/murder.rate.Chicago.2.893791.html

The Truth Hurts

Hand guns shoot not be illegal. Besides you'll only be taking them away from the good honest hunters and gun collectors.
Why doe a hunter need a hand gun you say?
Well rifles are unwieldy, and its hard to hunt in close quarters like an abandoned warehouse or factory.

Aizen Saske

Gun Control: The most useless piece of legistlation invented by man. If a criminal wants a weapon, he only needs to talk to his local drug dealer. This is the problem, access can still be granted through illegal methods.

However, this legistlation, while not overtly effective, is necassary to control civilian arms in order to protect the people from themselves. Everyday we hear of those people who kill others out of anger, jealousy, hate. The fact of the matter is that we do not know any better, and it is necassary to implement laws that while we may find unfavorable, to help protect society.

For example, implementing the law of gun control may have had an unknown effect. Every day we see people that die due to gang violence, guns, anger, hate, etc. In those cases, obviously gun control could do nothing. However, what about the cases of those people who are deterred from purchasing a gun and causing bodily harm due to that law? One cannot say that just because it is not reported, does not mean that the effect does not exist. So due to this, one cannot say with certainty that gun control is ineffective because nobody in their sane mind would admit to being deterred by a gun control law when they wanted to hurt another person.

Simply knowing that obtaining a weapon to cause bodily injury is punishable by jail time is often enough deterrant. Ask yourself this, if we removed all controls on society, would we become better individuals? No, we would be the same as we are now, pushing ourselves to destruction at an even faster rate.

kill_yr_television

What is the difference between gun control and firearms regulation? There is no mainstream support for a total ban on personal firearms, nor is there mainstream support for total absence of oversight and regulation of firearms. We need to stop framing the question in the "for or against gun control" language of "football politics" and ask instead "Should there be changes in policy? Why or why not? If yes, what changes?"

When you ask a polarizing question, you get polarized responses and reasonable discussion goes out the window.

Nezragareth Spoke

Gun control is using both hands.

sirbobby98121

Gun control laws achieve nothing at great cost.

A criminal will ignore any law, an honest citizen is penalized.

The Second Amendment was put in place to protect us from a corrupt and tyrannic government.

Often the first charge against a criminal to be tossed out in plea bargaining is a weapons charge - what good is the law now?

More crime is prevented by an armed society than by a police force.

corp_752000

The second amendment says i can own guns. Just because you are allowed that freedom doesnt mean you have to own a gun. It's all about freedom of choice. I find it funny that I have a choice to own a firearm but I dont have the freedom to choose if I wear a seatbelt.

Baconboy247

I think that if guns are more controlled the thugs will be the only ones out there with them," they could take over the streets" Crime is up and normal Citizens can protect themselves, as long as they are licensed or permitted to do so? Thugs and gang members will always be able to get guns? Why Take the a gun away from citizens that have the right to bear arms? Why take a gun away from LEGAL citizens and allow hate thungs to steal, rape, murder,and vandalize every citizen they come in contact with?
These gang members have no value for human life? If your are not armed, you will be another unarmed victim of CRIME!

I do think all Citizens that want to carry and are licensed to do so, should be trained, checked for mental illnesses, and have common seance. Not be mentally SLOW!!!

Jason

How many guns just jump off the table, chase you around the room, and shoot you? NONE.

A firearm is just like a power tool. You have to be careful with them, and learn how to use them safely, but in the end they are inanimate objects. They do nothing more than the will of their operator.

We don't need more gun control. We need CRIME CONTROL!

Mrs. Herrera

I am for gun control, but not to the extreme.
I think to own a gun, you must not have any violent crimes on your record and no history of mental illness.
Also I think each new owner must take a safety class and go through the laws of owning one. And if they violate the law, they should not be allowed to own one anymore.

Far as extra taxes on ammo or restricting where you can have them, I am against that.

Tom S

I think you should use both hand so steady the shot :)

But seriously, I think it is actually the obligation of a good citizen (not a criminal) to own firearms. Some libs claim that the second amendment only applies to the military. But the word used is militia. According to the US Code, ALL men over 17 who are citizens, have expressed the intent to become citizens, or women in the National guard ARE members of the unorganized militia:

TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13
Â§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areâ€”
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This was put into place for 2 reasons:
1. Our forefathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves FROM the Federal Government (think about it...America became America by declaring independence from what they saw as oppressive English government and fighting for independence)
2. The last line of defense of a country IS the citizens (hence the unorganized militia or citizen soldier)

Also, some people will say, "that's what the police are for". Well, forgive me for disagreeing. The police come AFTER a crime has been committed, usually, not during or before. I carry a gun because a cop is too dang heavy! (note: I carry LEGALLY with a carry permit).

Its also been proven that areas with not-too-restrictive carry and ownership laws have about a 26% lower violent crime rate. This is because the criminals in those areas don't know who's "packing". Some will dispute this and quote a study that states you are so-many times more likely to have the firearm used against you if you have one, however, that study lumped suicides in with the other crimes...subtract that and its lower. If you are going to kill yourself, you'll find a way--the gun is irrelevant in that case.

My favorite quote on the subject is by George Orwell:
"Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE."

American Patriot

First, we need education. Gun control is a fact of life for all gun owners. There are approximately 20,000 laws on the books pertaining to gun ownership in the USA. I'd call that gun control.

Very few people believe there should be absolutely no gun control laws. These views are extreme.

Very few people believ there should be a total ban on all guns. These views are also extreme.

The laws already on the books prevent convicted felons from owning or buying a gun. Persons with mental illnes can't own or buy a gun. You must be 18 years old to own or buy a shotgun or rifle, and 21 to own or buy a handgun. There are waiting periods, background checks, etc. to help gun dealers comply with these gun control laws.

So, what exactly is the issue? You want gun control, you have it! Now hire more police and judges to enforce the laws.

As a lawful gun owner it is extremely aggravating to know that liberals are always trying to add new laws which will restrict me, while having no effect on the criminals who could care less about your gun control laws.

Conclusion, we don't need more laws, we need to make criminals comply with the ones already on the books.

reginald r

the american public seem to want to retain the law allowing guns that is their right but they must accept the responsibility for that,every action has a reverse action,the result has been murders of school children but not only america but england and scotland and that is no fault of the americans i have no doubt there are people here who would like to blame the americans as they do for everything on this earth,i was trained in the use of weaponary i believe they should be banned in the uk and any person carrying one should be dealt with on the spot,by shooting them with their own weapon,that would be justice

lar_dawg54

I am all for regulating Guns. This isn't the wild west anymore so why should a person need 50 pistols and several assault rifles?

Curt B

i am for gun control as well. there is no need to own assault rifles unless you are in the military. civilians have no need for this kind of firepower as these guns and handguns were created solely to shoot other humans. this is a hot topic of debate for my girlfriends family as they are all anti-gun control...and their arguement against any Democrat is "oh well they want to take ALL of our guns" annoying i know...single shot rifles, shotguns, and muzzleloaders are perfectly fine if used for hunting purposes. but assault rifles and handguns are for war and killing other individuals and need to be regulated.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: