1379Views267Replies

Author Options:

What do you think about gun control? Answered

In these days there has been alot of shootings and murder. Do you believe all guns should be banned or just the moderen sporting rifles that most people call an assault rifles.

50 Replies

user
ivan_stephens (author)2013-01-22

I opened my safe last night and all my guns were still there. I thought to myself, how can this be? These are all weapons of mass destruction. How have they not shot their way out of this safe and killed someone. I looked at my bullets they are all there too. I thought surely they have been talking to my guns and planning something bad. They are pure evil after all and have the taste for blood. I counted all my high cap mags, all are accounted for. Not even my bayonet had moved. It did try to cut me once when I was putting it away. Maybe I don’t have evil guns after all?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Moem (author)ivan_stephens2013-01-22

Well, as long as you realise that owning guns puts you at a greater risk for burglary and also for getting shot. It really is up to you, the laws in your country being what they are.

Guns aren't evil. Everyone knows that. They're also not inherently good. They're things, and as things go, they're the kind of things that come with risks attached.

I'm glad to hear you keep your guns in a safe. If every gun owner did that, I'm sure it would have a positive effect on gun-related crime and accidents.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)2013-02-01

I just watched a video of some gun-fight in Tripoli. People were happy in the end, shouting (God is great) and firing guns into the air. I thought that this love of guns and God must be exactly the same as Americans have?

Unfortunately, I couldn't tell which side people were on, as there was no English on it.

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Seabreeze13 (author)2013-02-01

Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, ignores the fact that gun ownership is a right bestowed by our Constitution. It is intended as a protection against those who wish to do an individual citizen harm. That applies not only to the neighborhood thief, but to any government that acts against its citizens. For those who are appalled at the idea that a government would intentionally do harm to its citizens, do your homework. Read up on the history of the USSR, E Germany, Cuba, etc. You might even recognize a few similarities to the 2013 USA.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gaiatechnician (author)2013-01-21
Well, the whole rest of the world is in awe of the USA. It is the only place where children get brainwashed into believing that they have a right to carry lethal weapons. And clearly some people cannot shake the brainwashing. They go crazy. It is really sad.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

When I said "they go crazy" I wasn't even talking about the mass murderers. I was talking about the NRA and their supporters and their pathetic reasons to keep gearing up for more and more bloodshed. You guys are the biggest threat to the USA that there is going. In any other country the NRA would be considered either a fascist or a terrorist organization and the state would act accordingly. What happens when some American version of Pol Pot comes along? He could be a fire and brimstone preacher or a grand marshal of the NRA or something else entirely. You will grab your guns and follow him, yes or no? All this personal right to have 5 or 10 assault rifles talk sure does not sound patriotic, in the slightest. Sounds more like wanna be terrorists to me.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

It sounds like you hate the U.S.A and our freedoms. "In any other country the NRA would be considered either a fascist or a terrorist organization" where are your sorices?? that is your opinion like it is my opinion that owning guns is a right that the goverment shouldnt take away. I respect your opinion and you are entitaled to it. Why cant you respect my opinion?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I completely agree with your position on guns but would like to make a HUGE correction to your statement.

Gaia did, in fact, state an opinion. You, however, stated a constitutionally protected FACT; namely, that owning guns is a right that the government shouldn't CAN NOT take away. 

Therefore, the question that we should be asking is "Why is it that we should respect someone's opinion when they have absolutely no respect for our rights?"  After all, opinions can be wrong; rights are guaranteed!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)jxross2013-01-27

Cannot is a very, very strong term. It implies a literal physical impossibility. The US government *could* physically take away privately owned guns from their owners if it wanted to badly enough - after all, they have nukes, bomber planes, tanks, etc. They simply have much greater force at their disposal. It is a physical - and thus logical - possibility, however remote in reality.

"Should not" is much better, as it correctly conveys the fact that there is a legal (some would argue moral) stricture on the government against taking guns away.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)Lithium Rain2013-01-28

When talking of "taking guns away" it's worth applying "should" to having them in the first place....

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)jxross2013-01-23

"rights are guaranteed!"

Then why do we have an International Commission on Human Rights?

"Why is it that we should respect someone's opinion when they have absolutely no respect for our rights?"

Because part of our rights as a human being is to hold opinions that you do not like, and to express them freely. You have to respect their opinion because you expect them to respect yours.

he way, who created those rights? Who ratified them as part of the constitution? If the government put them in, the government can, quite legitimately, take them out.)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
jxross (author)Kiteman2013-01-23

Kiteman, allow me to respond to your points.

I should have been more specific. The US Constitution places limitations on the power of the US federal government. Those rights not specifically given to the US government are reserved for the states, or to the people. As such, these rights are guaranteed. That was/is my frame of reference.

I am not versed enough in the ICHR to speak intelligently about it so will refrain from trying to do so.

My comment about respecting others' opinions was in response to the question posed by 'Don't try this at home'. S/he asked "Why cant you respect my opinion?" I was merely pointing out that there was a difference between an opinion and a right. Perhaps I should have refrained from including "we" and "they" in my response, but the overall point, I believe, remains valid.

As to who created those rights: some would say God, some would say our Founding Fathers, some nature. I have my opinion, but what that is is irrelivent to the discussion. They are enshrined in the US Constitution and an integral part of the US governmental structure. If the people, through their representatives, were to determine that those rights are no longer consistent with their needs, there is a process in place to remove them; it cannot be done through fiat.

As to the gun facts further down the page: You state, "More guns = more gun deaths." This is, without a doubt, correct. However, it does not necessarilly follow that fewer guns= fewer deaths. A society without airplanes, for example, may have no airplane deaths, but this does not mean they have no horse, bike, car, bus, or train fatalities. Likewise, a country with few guns and many machetties will have more machetti deaths and fewer gun deaths. One is no more traggic than the other: the end result is the same. And, yes, murder may be more prevelent in the US than many other countries, and the abundance of guns may be a contributing factor, though I suspect there are many other factors involved, as well.

And finally, as to the "well regulated millitia". I will not pretend to know what the founding fathers' intended with that statement. I do, however, know that for the first 150 years or so of this country's history, no one seemed to question whether it was intended to apply to individuals or groups.

In closing, I suspect the debate could go on indefinately and few people will be moved from their position. Thank you for at least attempting (usually successfully, I might add) to stay civilized. Most don't even try.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gaiatechnician (author)jxross2013-01-23

"Those rights not specifically given to the US government are reserved for the states, or to the people. As such, these rights are guaranteed." Well I look at the thing and I have to think that when they said "well regulated militia" in their context they meant well regulated by the individual states. Now, if the individual states are NOT regulating the militia's, people seem to assume that the "right" transfers further down the line to the individual. I would say, no, they did not mean that at all. This "right" begins and ends in the "well regulated militia". If you are an individual running around flaunting your gun in public places, then the "well regulated militia" could be used by the individual state, to hunt you down as a terrorist. Lets face it, a whole lot of Americans are buying guns because they are scared of all the other guns. They are afraid, and terrorized.
We probably need the supreme court to rule on what a "well regulated militia" means. I think it means exactly what it says.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

They have. Unfortunately for those of us who follow your reasoning, it doesn't agree. See District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court incorporated the second amendment (declared that it applies to individuals) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller). (Scalia's majority opinion in the case is recommended reading, but only if you have a high frustration threshold. ;) )

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
jxross (author)gaiatechnician2013-01-23
Gaia, thank you for your opinion, but just for fun, let's look at how the US Code actually defines the militia.

10 USC 311 says: 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 are— (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.

I suppose we can argue about what these words say, but the way I read them, the militia consists of:
  • Males, 17-45 years old who are, or intend to become, citizens.
  • Female citizens who are in the National Guard. 
Further, there are two types of militia
  • organized: militia members who are part of National Guard or Navel Militia
  • unorganized:  militia members who are not part of the National Guard or Navel Militia.
I can live with this definition, and it is based on current Code, not my own opinion.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)jxross2013-01-23

Most of those points do not need a response or contradiction, but...

"As to the gun facts further down the page: You state, "More guns = more gun deaths." This is, without a doubt, correct. However, it does not necessarilly follow that fewer guns= fewer deaths"

The data shows that it does follow: the per-capita firearm death rate in the US is FORTY times greater than that in the UK. I have linked to data elsewhere in this topic that shows that the only countries with greater firearm death rates are overwhelmed by (gun-carrying) drug cartels, or actually at war.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
jxross (author)Kiteman2013-01-23

I had conceeded that more guns = more gun deaths.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)jxross2013-01-24

Yes, but I read it that you did not agree that the inverse held, less guns = less deaths. Homes are full of items that could be used to kill with reasonable ease (kitchen knives, baseball bats, DIY tools), and I do not think that is any different between the UK and the US, or any other "developed" nation. The difference between the nations is guns, and is shown in the death statistics.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
jxross (author)Kiteman2013-01-24

You are correct, I do not agree that less guns necessarilly equals less deaths. Surely we can agree that there are many differences between the US and UK societies, for example, that could impact violent crime (in this case, murder) than merely the number of guns. Poverty rates, cultural diversity, population density, education rates, and access to social programs are a few that come to mind.  These considerations may have no impact, but then again, they may.  That was my point.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)Kiteman2013-01-27

>If the government put them in, the government can, quite legitimately, take them out.

As is amply demonstrated by the 13th Amendment, ending the previously constitutionally-alluded-to right to own other human beings (or even the Supreme Court's reversal of the Dred Scott decision in Brown v. Board.)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)jxross2013-01-27

Cannot is a very, very strong term. It implies a literal physical impossibility. The US government *could* physically take away privately owned guns from their owners if it wanted to badly enough - after all, they have nukes, bomber planes, tanks, etc. They simply have much greater force at their disposal. It is a physical - and thus logical - possibility, however remote in reality.

"Should not" is much better, as it correctly conveys the fact that there is a legal (some would argue moral) stricture on the government against taking guns away.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Thanks for the correction. It gives me chest pains to see all of these people that are not American citizens hate on our gun rights. They have no understanding of it and like gaiatechnician they say opinions that are not based on facts but on propagandia.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Sorry, but all the comments I have given you have been factual.

Your first ammendment is about freedom of speech, and the US has signed up to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which also enshrines a right to freedom of expression, so complaining when citizens of other countries express an opinion about the US is deeply hipocritical.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Kiteman2013-01-23

hipocritical: when someone is such a hypocrite, they don't deserve to have the word spelled right. ~ Urban Dictionary
Is that what you meant Kiteman ?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)Goodhart2013-01-24
user

I know everything you have given me is fact. You think the U.S is hipocritical? The goverment signed all of that and it is our right to get alittle mad when people from other countrys start to hate on our rights.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Please pay attention to what I write.

*You* were the one complaining about other people exercising a right that you hold dear.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blkhawk (author)Kiteman2013-01-23

I am an American citizen and I am very opposed to owning assault weapons and arming teachers in schools. Many Americans agree with me. Just because a non citizen speaks against our proliferation of weapons does not make him or her wrong in any way. The Bill of Rights are not written on a stone. Each generation of citizens have the right to change the Constitution whenever we see that it is necessary. We are not afraid of King George the Third anymore. We do not have to quartered troops anymore. And since slavery has been abolished, we don't have to count five slaves as one freeman in order to select representatives.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

So who can take away your gun? You are getting chest pains just thinking about it! Shouldn't you go see a doctor? (But don't shoot him if he sends you to the mental ward). I have the right to own a gun too, by the way but it hasn't sent me over the edge. Why is it such a big deal with you guys? How did you get so brainwashed? So, Obama is going to make it harder to sell guns to criminals on the black market, what is the harm in that? So he wants background checks so that crazy people have a harder time getting guns? Seems a good idea. What do you think of this? In some countries (after they noted that husbands tend to kill their wives with guns), they gave the wife veto power over a husband owning a gun. (Most people who get murdered get bumped off by a "friend" or relative). Sad but true. So by having few gun owners in your social network, you are actually protecting your own life.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

With the laws passed NOBODY can take my guns. The British tryed to take our guns and take control of us that is how we became an indepenet nation and the laws passed by the new goverment gave us the RIGHT to bare arms so that would never happen again. I agree with better backround checks that is a good idea. What obama wants is to ban assault rifles. a assault rifle works the same way as any other rifle it just looks driffernt. The laws Obama wants to pass will disarm the law abideing citizens and not the people breaking laws because lets face it they do not follow laws in the first place what makes you think they will give up there guns because Obama says so?? They will take away my guns so they can come and break into my home and i cant defend myself or the goverment will start to make more unconstunial laws and we cant do anything about it because we have no guns!!!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Haha, and *you* were the one complaining about others basing their statements on propaanda!

Fact: for every intruder deterred by a weapon in an American home, there are four gun-related incidents in the home.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gaiatechnician (author)jxross2013-01-22

JX, you can bear arms, but presumably this "right" can be taken away in an amendment. Anyway, I thought your right to bear arms implied being in a well regulated militia? Are you in one? (I have the right to bear arms up here in Canada and I had in Ireland too.) (We just don't make such a big deal about it and there is a time and place). Common sense however suggests that the USA has way too many gun owners with way too little common sense. I think that ownership of lethal weapons isn't about rights. It is about responsibilities. If you want to give everybody easy access to guns, you have to take some responsibility for those kids that were murdered. Do you? We have somehow kept our gun murder rate in the "respectable" zone, even in Ireland when a lot of bad things were happening. You should clean up your act because your murder rate approximates a war zone not a civilized country. So, jxross, if your country voted to remove or modernize that right in a referendum, would you become a terrorist against the USA or would you behave decently?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
jxross (author)gaiatechnician2013-01-22

Gaia, if the US Constitution was amended to remove the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms, then that would be the law of the land. I may not agree with it, but it would have been instituted in a legal manner, and therefore would be Constitutional and valid. However, that is not what is being pursued. Instead, various laws, regulations, and executive orders are proposed to accomplish (or at least further the cause of) disarmament. Those acts are contrary to the US Constitution and, therefore invalid.
As to your comment "way too many gun owners", I would tend to agree. However, I believe the ones who should not have guns are the low-lifes who commit the crimes, not the people who speak up in defense of their rights. I should not have my rights infringed simple because our justice system has failed to deal effectively with society's scum. In fact, that failure is one more argument why law abiding citizens should have the right to their guns: protection.
Unlike most liberal minded folks, I believe that everyone is responsible for their own actions. As a result, I will place blame for the mass murders squarely where it belongs: the person who did the deed. Last time I read my Bible, Cain murdered Abel well before the invention of firearms. I do not recall Adam or Eve calling for the regulation or banning of sticks and stones. Cain was responsible, not the tool, and not the parents.
Finally, it is disingenuous to compare the US gun murder to that of other nations. A more accurate comparison would be the overall murder rate. According to Wiki, the US places as the 100th  highest on that list.  While not as good as Canada (150) or Ireland (164), it is hardly the war-zone you purport it to be. 

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)jxross2013-01-23

"Finally, it is disingenuous to compare the US gun murder to that of other nations. A more accurate comparison would be the overall murder rate."

Wrong.

Since the discussion is about guns, then it is absolutely the correct thing to compare deaths by firearm. It is a simple fact that, per capita, the only countries with higher firearm death rates than the US are either overwhelmed by drug cartels, or have open warfare on their own soil.

"Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms" (Source: FBI website)

"For 2010/11, police in England and Wales recorded 648 offences as homicide, of which 58 (9%) involved the use of firearms — a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population" (Source: Home Office website)

The maths is simple: more guns = more gun deaths.

Finally, shall we quote the Second Ammendment properly?

"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"

It is not the right to own or carry guns as and when you feel like it, it is the right to own guns as part of a "well regulated militia". If you are not in such a militia, you do not have the right to bear arms.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gaiatechnician (author)jxross2013-01-22

"instead, various laws, regulations, and executive orders are proposed to accomplish (or at least further the cause of) disarmament. Those acts are contrary to the US Constitution and, therefore invalid." WOW, So who made you a supreme court judge? Well, should you be allowed to bring your gun on a plane? That's just one of those silly made up rules and durn regulations . What is your opinion on plastic guns? Are they cool? Remember good old Ed Meese? He is trying to impeach Obama right now. Remember when he tried tooth and nail to legalize plastic guns? Imagine what that would do for the airline industry? I mean, think about it, who needs a boxcutter when you have a plastic gun? They could have taken over 30 planes if Meese had gotten his way. Meese is a psyco and he works for a fascist NRA that is trying, right now, to overthrow the government of the USA.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
jxross (author)gaiatechnician2013-01-22

Gaia, Thank you for your well reasoned arguments. I appreciate the opportunity to debate issues without the opposing side resorting to rhetoric and name calling.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

We don't have armed guards in schools. The Irish don't have armed guards on schools. We don't have kids pull out their guns and shoot other kids every other month. So at least the kids are more free and safer and enjoy their childhood more than those in the USA. Gun free schools are normal across the free world. So when the NRA label the president an elitist hypocrite because his family (a big terrorist target) has an armed guard, yes indeed, they are fascist, And they fight dirty and they have no class whatsoever. Plus they are unpatriotic and decent members should man up and say so. I saw the advert they made, and in my view, they are scum. Back in the day McCarthy was no saint but surely he would have labeled that advert " unAmerican" It crossed the line, very bad stuff.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I think this video has a point, and i think it's that the US should focus more on media/violence restrictions on teens and children and mental health awareness programs.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

No, the point of the video is that people with loaded guns in their hands are much more likely to kill than people who don't have a gun. Son, you have lost the plot completely.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Yes, but the people with guns in their hands are only going to kill people if they have a reason to, such as a mental health problem, or if they're facing problems at home. Nobody's going to kill somebody for the heck of it unless they have a reason or underlying cause of violence.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Yes, good point, Husbands do kill wives a lot. Wives seem to be the number 1 problem at home. In domestic murder with a gun, the men have about a 60/40 lead. I guess it is the training that counts here. a woman who lives in a home with a gun is 3 times more likely to be murdered than a woman in a gun free home! Even women who have bought a gun to protect themselves are more likely to be murdered than women who are unarmed. Number 2 problem in the home? Girlfriends. Yes indeed, in the Good ole USA if you have problems, you shoot them. (I think the statistics show that you are a lot more likely to shoot your dear old wifey than the burglar too). Saves big time on alimony, child support, etc, I guess. Maybe, we should ban child support so that husbands are less likely to gun down the wife or x-wife?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

when i said "problems at home", i meant things that cause stress or depression, not domestic disputes. i never even hinted at husbands killing wives or girlfriends. i was pointing out how stressing situations at home can cause mental instability, which is the underlying cause of many violent shootings.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

If you have a wife or girlfriend or kids, they ARE (often) the number 1 cause of stress and depression. Number 2 is work related stuff. And number 3 is probably the commute to and from work. (I am not suggesting that you shoot your wife or girlfriend or boss to relieve stress) but having said that, many people in America seem to have gone that route.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

....which is why I'm saying that stress therapy and mental health are vital to the gun control debate.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

That's what team and individual physical sports and pub nights and fishing trips are for. Stress therapy! You don't need a gun unless you are hunting animals. On hunting trips, guns are just fine, in civil defence training, guns are just fine. Guns on the bedside table are STUPID. If you want to deter burglars, just get a burglar alarm or a big dog or a big dog sign. My last house was in a medium to high crime area but I had a burglar alarm and signs for it and a beware of the dog sign (the previous owner had a dog so I just left the sign up).
I was there 10 years, 3 girlfriends, x-wife stayed there a while too, possibly one burglary attempt but nothing stolen and nobody got KILLED! With all that stress, would a gun have increased the fatality rate? Probably.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Did i ever say that i was okay with people leaving guns on the "bedside table"? any responsible gun owner know to keep his/her gun in a well-protected safe, away from where people can have easy access to it.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

So why do husbands shoot wives and wives shoot husbands? (Roughly 60 40 ratio). It seems to be "hurt the one you love" syndrome updated. Everybody has a bad performance occasionally but you don't go shoot them for it and anyway the ratios are wrong.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
ivan_stephens (author)2013-01-10

If the government outlaws guns today, what would it change? If not even a single gun was ever made again, millions of guns will still be in the hands of people? What do you do about those guns? Will the government come and take them from me? I’m a legal tax paying gun owner and 2 time combat veteran of the United States of America. Who has not even had a speeding ticket in 5 years much less committed a violent crime. I personally own 5 assault rifle that stay properly locked in a safe and separate from ammunition. No, I’m not a doomsday person preparing for the end of the world. Am I a danger to humanity or is it just my guns? I do believe it is my right to own firearms.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)ivan_stephens2013-01-19

What do you plan to do with the 5 assault-rifles / what do you have them for?

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
ivan_stephens (author)lemonie2013-01-19

keep them and you them when i have time. I work too much to have a chance to use them. When i do i use them it is always safe and lawful. I have even started wearing hearing protection. The m1a has been built for hog hunting at a long range. The three AR/m4 are really just for fun. I always wanted one and three is better than one. I have one mini 14 it's just another fun gun to shoot. All five are no more dangerous than a single shot rifle. They stay locked in a fire proof seperate from ammo. Does that answer your question?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer