BTW, there use to be a lot of anti gun critics here, but after they have been proven wrong on every front they open over and over again, they don't come around as much anymore....
tbrex, Let me ask you this... Were 6 million Jews better off for "gun control"? Were 40 million Russians or 60 million Chinese? Were 150,000+ Rwandans "safe" because there were only machetes? After answering those ask yourself this..... DID ANY OF THESE PEOPLE SEE IT COMING? If you are sure you are smarter than the teachers, gypsies, landlords, neighbors, and bankers of all these places maybe you could say we'd be better off. I myself am not so arrogant to think I'm smarter than the next guy. I dont think most of them saw it coming, and I don't think you would see it coming either. I know this - I will not be lined up at the edge of an open pit with a gun to my head thinking "how did we ever get here". If you want to risk it that's up to you, just don't drag everyone else to the edge of the pit with you.
told ya he was a troll.....................if he is half the man he claims, he'd be roving up and down his streets taking guns away from lawful owners all by himself...........why why why ............he'd be a hero, or a martyr!
have you ever fired a weapon? if not, do so under someone who is familiar with gun safety, a training facility, mayhap. Know what you are arguing and understand it to it's full potential. There is no shame in not knowing, but there might be shame in remaining ignorant about such issues, as you are beginning to realize. Know both sides of your argument fully before taking a stand. Respond rationally and not react emotionally. After you gather your intel and have fired several different types of firearms, then bring your meat to the table. Do not rely upon others opinion about this, but rather investigate and stand on your own knowlege and experience. Always practice gun safety, always.
Didn't hurt us - before 1996 we had 16 mass shootings in 18 years - since then one But the truth is ownership of guns is about the same as it was in 1996 what has REALLY changed was responsibility about the guns.
No you might end in a shooting war with all of your loved ones dead around you thinking "Gee I wish there had been fewer guns and less confusion"
Ban the NRA And I am NOT kidding Read through these threads - look at all the "internet warriors", the ones who believe owning a gun confers superpowers (can stop a madman with an automatic weapon just by drawing a handgun from a holster - will stop a home invasion by cocking a rifle etc etc etc) Sooner or later you come up against the same old same old lies, misconceptions and outright myths that trace back to the NRA, Hollywood and the Armaments industry
I don't disagree. The nation might be safer overall if there were no guns. But that is impossible. Gun bans don't eliminate guns, they only take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't follow the law, so they end up being the only ones with guns.
And yet that is not what happened here Putting harsh penalties on illegal gun ownership allowed the police to arrest potential criminals
But criminals still have guns and your country still has armed robberies and shootings. Banning guns still didn't eliminate guns from criminal hands. Interestingly, it is illegal for someone in the US with a criminal record to have a gun. Police can arrest them and take them off the streets. I don't know of anyone who would complain if those penalties were increased and better enforced.
Law abiding citizens are not the problem. For instance, your parents could have told you the same thing yet owned a shotgun passed down from one of their parents. In that case, do you feel that you would be in more danger because your parents owned a shotgun? I doubt it. You will find a difference in thinking about guns based on whether one is urban or rural. Rural people are more likely to be gun friendly. The Urban setting leads to gangs and gang violence giving the urban dweller a different view on guns but there is a disconnect in thinking that law abiding citizens owning guns makes that situation worse when in fact it is the criminal element or the social situation that is the problem and not the gun. Most gun related crimes are due to the drug trade and most are in socially bankrupt urban areas. As far as getting shot by a rifle (much less the falsely labeled assault weapon), you are more likely to get killed by hammers than rifles. Most criminal use of guns are with handguns and not rifles and with relatively small handgun calibers (less powerful). The number of mass shootings per population (remember we have over 300 million people, spiked in 2012 for some reason but remains at about 3 per year which is not that different than other nations based on population. There are crazy people out there and if they decide to kill a bunch of people, they don't have to use a rifle but can just blow up a building as happened in Oklahoma City. One of the countries worst mass killing of kids happened when a guy set a fire in a school years ago. Most people that want to ban guns have absolutely no experience with them. I suggest you go out shooting with someone, you may find it fun punching holes in paper which is just about all I do because I don't really like killing anything. I carry a gun not to kill someone, but to keep someone from killing me. I will probably never have to use my gun, but there are some old sayings, "better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6", and "I carry a gun because police are too heavy", or "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away". You are your first line of defense so be responsible for yourself.
"..in light of the recent school shootings?" Many places like the UK had an immediate, knee-jerk reaction when there was a relatively rare mass shooting---and guns were effectively banned for all citizens. A hard-core terrorist will be hard to stop regardless of what tool he uses: guns, nerve gas, fire (arson) or even plane to crash into a large building. The masses are easily worked-up seeing the effects of dozens of mass shooting victims, espeically kids---and these events are played-up by liberal democrats and the major leftist media (Comcast, Viacom, Disney, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and so on). But what is your theory again---and how will it effect crime and personal safety in the US as a whole? If guns are not neccassary to protect people, then why is our federal government in Washington DC an armed camp with agents out in the open with assault rifles by every major building? Why is Obama protected by dozens of full and semi-automatic guns everywhere he goes? Why does almost every police department in the US have their officers carry the very same high capacity, semi-auto handguns that liberals want banned? Tell me, how are the average bad guys the cops encounter any different than the bad guys who commit violent crimes against citizens? How much more worthless and unworthy are common citizens than those who are in power? With you being a younger fit person, how would you expect a smaller, older woman to protect herself from a large, fit male attacker? What personal self defence item is more effective than a handgun? Tell me, cause nobody in here over the years has yet to come up with one. The US is going down the drain, crime may be lower, but America is still a much more dangerous place than it was 50 years ago before gun control and the liberalization of the criminal justice system. Crime is highest in urban hell-holes like Atlanta, Detroit, Newark and Chicago. In fact last year, there were more murders in Chicago last year (over 500--80% of those with handguns) than all of the famous mass shootings in the US put together. Why is your focus on mass shootings in shcools when the biggest crime problems are whole areas of cities that are mass killing grounds? Since handguns have been banned in Chicago for years, why is gun control not working there? Ask yourself or your class, what is more effective, punishing the felons as they were 50 years ago, or taking guns away from law abiding citizens?
You can't equalize the monopoly of force by banning weapons from one set of people. If a gun ban went into effect, then the people with weapons would have to do a cost/benefit analysis of the the weapon at that point because what they previously legally owned is now illegal. This doesn't even include the people that didn't own them before because now they are verboten and you have effectively cut off a means of defense from a group of people, in this case the law abiding that won't break laws to get it. In Chicago, there is a handgun ban, or was before McDonald v. Chicago, and a person that wanted to protect themselves could not against a person armed with a gun because of the ban. Note that there were 508 murders in Chicago proper in 2012. There are websites that are dedicated to telling you when and where homicides are committed in Chicago it is so bad. There are a lot of theories as to why the violence is so bad too, like this one, but I want to boil it down to the basic roots of the problem, not some symptom of the problem like guns. This is about families that are no longer families but just a single parent raising a child while working two part time jobs and living pay check to pay check. Poverty stricken neighborhoods that have no foreseeable way to get out of the poverty are a major source of street gangs and violence in these communities. If I were in charge, I would do several things. 1. Stop welfare families. Creating a program that supports a family by having more children that enables them to get more money and propagate the cycle of bastard children to extort money from the public sector doesn't help society. It creates a framework that allows a mother to have a child, get x number of dollars from the government for each kid, and even section 8 housing. The government says, "these children are in poverty! Something must be done!" And we have a continuation of the cycle when young women are taught by mothers to do the same thing next generation to make sure that they are taken care of. As an extension of welfare reform, we should encourage people to get off welfare, not continue to be on it. Welfare should be a temporary thing, and is for the most part. That last 10-15% that are continually on welfare shouldn’t be except in extreme cases. That is another topic entirely though. 2. Encourage public policy to maintain a two parent household, or at least two parent interaction and care. Two parents, on average, will be able to raise a child or children as good or better than a single parent. I know that there are single mothers that are super Mom that can do it, but most people can't. Feeling overwhelmed, stressed out, running out of time, paying the bills, and making rent, AND saving for retirement can wear anyone out, even super Mom. This doesn’t even include college for their kids if they want their kids to be able to have the opportunity. A two parent household would be better able to manage and take care of the needs of all of those things and time for down time as well. A strong family unit is better able to withstand bumps in the road and layoff’s/whatever better than a single parent. A strong family unit is able to better manage outbursts from their kids. I don’t have research on hand, but I am sure that a two parent household is better for the emotional and physical growth for the child than a single parent household with no input from one parent. 3. Stop punishing the people that are trying to live their daily lives and go after the people with intent to harm. Our legal system has been slowly turning ordinary people into criminals for a very long time to the point where it is impossible to not commit one felony every year with or without your knowledge. There was once a time in the law world of needing specific intent or malicious intent to convict someone. Now, all that needs to be proven is that you broke a law to maintain a conviction. Every time a cop pulls you over, he does this weight and balance to see if he wants to give you a ticket. Some cops get badge heavy and have the mantra “when the feet hit the pavement, the pen hits the paper” but others use what is called officer discretion. I say this because law makers only have a job when they make more laws. There are a lot of laws that go after every day offenses and try to micro mange a person’s life through a government process. There is a bill going through the Oregon Senate right now that would outlaw smoking in a car with a child in the back. Sounds good right? Those damn smokers killing their kids and the kid have no choice! But what the hell is going on? We now have a law maker, a doctor this time, micro managing another person’s life. I am not against this issue because of the health aspect (I think that people that smoke in cars with the windows rolled up should be publically humiliated and maybe more), but a personal liberty issue. What would prevent the moral busybody group to say that smoking in cars is not enough? Now smoking in a house should be illegal. Then smoking outside, and then smoking all together. But wait! Obeasity is overtaking smoking as the leading cause of preventable death. Fast food should be illegal! Fast food with more than 1000 calories should be illegal! How about soda pop? 16 ounces (Thanks a LOT Bloomburg)! They never stop. We are seeing this in the gun world too. Why in the gun world? Well, a small history lesson: during prohibition, there was a lot of crime and murders happening all across the country, but none more prevalent than Chicago. Al Capone was out with his gangs and was waging war with the police in the streets. Guns were used obviously. So, after prohibition was over, the US Senate and House passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. It required registration of machineguns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, AOW (Any Other Weapons), and suppressors. It also outlined a tax process for these items to the tune of $200 per item. In today’s dollars, that is just over $10,000. A section, small albet, was now outlawed from common possession which it wasn’t before in direct consequence of prohibition which was enacted by moral busybodies; a small section of ultra liberal church goers that wanted to impose their narrow view of the world on the rest of the country. Fast forward a bit to the Gun Control Act of 1968. The GCA regulated the gun industry in interstate commerce under the 14th amendment and outlined who could own weapons and who couldn’t. This is important because we will come back to this in a few minutes. The FOPA, or Firearms Owners and Protection Act, was supposed to be a good piece of legislation for gun owners. It turned out to be a huge (*)(*)(*)(*)up because of a few underhanded methods during the 1986 house congress session and a miscount of the votes in the legislative body. It now made owning a fully automatic weapon produced after a certain date to be illegal. 1994 saw the era of the Assault Weapons Ban signed by Clinton. This piece of legislative genius banned cosmetic features of guns because an “assault weapon” is a gun that looks like and feels like a military weapon, but is mechanically identical to semi-automatic hunting rifles. This is why they use terms like “military-style weapons,” “assault clips (as if an inanimate object can physically assault someone),” “assault weapon” and ambiguous terms like “fully semi-automatic weapons” and other such non-sense. We are now trying to see a revitalization of that same AWB in 2013, but Feinstein and her ilk has gone too far and the public now sees this power grab for what it is. There is no end to the gun debate. We have foreign nationals like BowerBird coming from across the globe to push their rhetoric and propaganda on us mere Americans that don't know any better. The problem with foreign nations coming and telling you what to do is that they don't know what the hell they are talking about because cross cultural public policy doesn't work. If you don't believe me, go to 1807 and tell an Eskimo that killing whales is illegal and that it is wrong because whales are beautiful creatures that should be preserved. We can take clues and points from them, but a copy/paste from their play book won't work. Are you going to tell that to them before or after they enter the gas chambers because I am confused… Are they any more dead if they get shot by a bullet vs getting gassed and then burned in a human funeral pyre stacked as high as a hill? This will be the last time I directly address anything you say because you are about six levels below just about every poster that can rub two words together and knows how to use a capitol letter. I believe that you are a troll, here to flame and bait people. Welcome to the short bus category of the forum.
Define short. England banned firearms in stages with the final one being 16 years ago. Criminals there still have guns. How long do we wait for it to work? 30 years? 50 years? 100 years?
I get no information from the NRA, hollywood or any other media outlet, and I have proven everything you say incorrect. I am a realist with no political preference, I draw my own conclusions from real world experience and real statistics, while you come with irrelevant stats, stories and opinionated blogs. Banning an organization? While your at it you might as well ban all the other political parties. Just because your viewpoint differs from others, doesn't mean they should go away. Get real.
Leave the laws as they are today and enforce them, good enough. No law will ever remove guns, not even a majority of them, so the question, while interesting to ponde,r is nothing more than fantasy since it is too late to put the horse back in the barn and most Americans would not even help try anyone that wants to. Good to know they are still conducting exercises in thinking in our Universities but the real world is a far different place and those are the realities we most deal with.
Despite our fairly lax gun control, our murder rate has halved from 1993 levels. (1993 it was 9.5 per 100k, in 2011, it was 4.7 per 100k). Needless violence can best be addressed by putting violent people in prison and keeping them there.
For people like you, free speech cannot be tolerated. I say ban any idiots with ideas like yours from becoming voting citizens.
Thank you to everyone for your replies! I think I will take your advice and go out shooting one day with a supervisor (obviously). You all brought up really good points that I haven't even thought of, and I truly thank you for that as it's definitely helped not only my project but my overall beliefs about gun control. I don't have the time, unfortunately, to reply to all of you because I have to write a paper and study for exams. If you want to held educate me some more I'd love if you'd send a message my way, I think I'll keep staying on this site. Thank you again! You all have been so helpful!
Conneticut has an Assault Weapons ban, but it didn't stop that psycho from shooting up a school, how can you suggest that gun control works? Why not go after the psychos and force treatment on them?
