Should there be gun control in the United States

[Rahnzan]

people, people, people. Not this again. Sure, you can make gun control as tight as you want, but if someone's going to go breaking the law and shooting someone, they won't check if the gun is legal first.

Just one question: Why do shootings never happen at firing ranges?

Because a shooter is likely to get shot. They also teach responsibility and proper handling and care of firearms at all ranges and gun clubs. If they dont, they don't deserve to be running and I'm pretty sure no one at a range wants to get shot so even if gun safety wasn't a priority, if you didn't follow it, you'd likely be shoved in a trunk for other people's safety. People have been keeping their guns in locked safes seperate from where they keep their ammo long before politicians made it required by law. When you're at a range you exercise proper gun safety or you'll quickly find yourself kicked out, arrested, sued... People in general are responsible individuals. It's (un)common sense.

Guns are tools first, weapons second to the civilized individual. Do you screw around with a power drill? Only if you're incredibly stupid and want a permenant crippling injury.

 

[Berithil]

No, not at all. I really don't want the USA to end up like England. and i like guns. They're cool. And also, what would happen if we had gun control? The good, innocent people will not have guns and the criminals will have guns that they obtain through the black market. If this happens, innocent people (and even police, like in England) will be defensless against armed criminals. and if we take all guns away, we are going against the second ammendment that states every civilian has the right to bear arms.

 

[Rahnzan]

There is a question. I know the police aren't supposed to carry around guns in England but what do they do when they find an armed criminal? Special issue or something, right? But by the time you find out he's armed you've got a few bullet holes in you so I dont know how that's going to help..

@hardcore_gamer: I actually speak to a hunter who uses an AK sometimes. I'm not sure exactly how he goes about it but I recall full-auto being illegal. A good rifle is a good rifle. Take for instance the M1 Garande. It was a military weapon, now its a common rifle, it's semi-auto and I guarantee you many people use it for hunting. Can it be used to kill a human? Of course! Can it be used to kill a deer? I dont see why not. Military weapons are meant to be accurate, easy to carry, easy to clean, and effective at long ranges, all qualities I could see a hunter needing. Full-Auto is just about the only thing they dont need and if a civilian buys an AK47, it's typically of the semi-auto variety. Modifying it to full-auto is illegal and a civilian who hunts or shoots for sport isn't likely to break the law filing a part there and screwing a part here so he can burn up a magazine of 45's. Bullets cost money just like anything else and what would you do with full-auto? You couldn't even show it off to the guys down at the range because it's illegal so there's no point.

We dont need to eliminate anything, we just need to teach proper responsibility, weed out the psychotics, and keep about us basic common sense. Like armor-piercing rounds...unless you frequently find yourself gunning down bears in body armor through several thick trees I cant see a need for AP rounds.

Consider this, a large game hunting rifle will kill you just as well as any modern military rifle, the only difference is that a military weapon will probably be designed to shoot the same sized round from a lighter shorter gun. 'Let's ban these guns but not those' why? 'Because they have ergonomic handles and piccatiny rails!' They both kill the same. The features of a military weapon aren't really a concern to the average hunter, casual or sport shooter. We have leizure on our side, we dont need a 45 caliber long arm intended to shoot bears to be very light since most of the trip is made by car and the rest of it is sitting in a tree with a camoflauged rifle stand.

 

[JAPH42]

people, people, people. Not this again. Sure, you can make gun control as tight as you want, but if someone's going to go breaking the law and shooting someone, they won't check if the gun is legal first.

Just one question: Why do shootings never happen at firing ranges?

Because a shooter is likely to get shot. They also teach responsibility and proper handling and care of firearms at all ranges and gun clubs. If they dont, they don't deserve to be running and I'm pretty sure no one at a range wants to get shot so even if gun safety wasn't a priority, if you didn't follow it, you'd likely be shoved in a trunk for other people's safety.

Guns are tools first, weapons second to the civilized individual. Do you screw around with a power drill? Only if you're incredibly stupid and want a permenant crippling injury.

My point exactly. A gun is like any tool. They can be useful. They can be fun. They can also injure or kill if used inappropriately just like any other tool on the planet. I think that we would be better off as a society if we took all the money we use trying to control weapons, and put it toward teaching people about responsibility.

 

[Sunshinyday]

If, by gun control, you mean more able to hit one's target more accurately, then yes, gun control sounds prudent

I think the more pressing issue is violence in our culture, not guns....
A few days ago, near Boston, a guy used a knife to decapitate someone in his household, and clubs, baseball bats, machetes, and other objects are used to commit violence in many places...

Not to sound flippant, but it's not guns that are the problem, it's the violence inherent in our culture, and the mindset that's so deeply ingrained in our collective psyche....

The media news, movies, and television are replete with violence-as-entertainment, and guns are just one form that has been "taught" as the go-to implement of choice when a person feels compelled to lash out for whatever reason they feel the need for.

There are places in the U.S. where guns are illegal, and other countries in this world where they are illegal, but guns and other implements of violence are still utilzed to commit violent acts...
The problems are deeper in society than merely what is used, and more an indication of underlying socio-political and economic problems...

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm not sure I can summon the courage for another drawn out argument, but gun bans have had little to no impact where they have been tried, some of the safest places in the world have the most guns per person, and school shootings would be more effectively prevented by arming police officers than disarming them. Plus, they are extremely rare. Not that they aren't a tragedy, just like lightning strikes and shark deaths are tragedies.

But more importantly, I'm sick of my fellow Americans saying "free" and meaning "free to submit." Liberty is our most important value and we should never give it up lightly, just so some politician can win votes by fear-mongering rather than solving real problems.

I am a law-abiding citizen, but I am a free man first. I won't surrender my liberties to tyranny. Most gun-ban initiatives in this country have two motives- misplaced fear, and the pure, eternal desire for another to conform.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

From a non-American perspective: of course. Why would a weapon specifically designed to kill people be legal? However, it would be incredibly hard to establish this, since gun fanatics aren't the kind of people you'd want to make angry.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

There is a question. I know the police aren't supposed to carry around guns in England but what do they do when they find an armed criminal? Special issue or something, right? But by the time you find out he's armed you've got a few bullet holes in you so I dont know how that's going to help..

It's a rare thing to just happen upon and armed criminal, especially one that's willing to take shots at the police.
Generally if there's even a sniff of a firearm being involved they go for extreme overkill with sealed off streets and cops armed with SMG's and bullet proofs coming out your ass.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I would like to unequivocally state that I do not give a fuck what the yanks do inside their own borders. That is my opinion, thank you for listening.

I respect that attitude, and it is one of the pillars of my political philosophy.

 

[Rahnzan]

A gun is like any tool.

Yea, like any tool. Beside the fact of course the guns were designed to kill things.

What? You cant design a power drill to kill a man? How do you design something to kill someone? Pick up a tree branch. I wouldn't say it was designed to kill a man, but it can and it will. Guns are designed to kill, yes, saying that isn't their function is blatant ignorance, but killing undeniably has its uses. I prefer 'food and defense' myself. If someone put a gun in your hand, specifically your hand, would you use it to kill someone? I'd think not, and that would put you squarely in the majority. Clamouring on about the 1 or 2 psychotics we found out of every 50,000 people who kills 1 or 2 people for their stereo is fear-mongering. Banning and strictly controlling guns is avoiding the real issue. While removing all guns is a nice happy tree huggy idea, theory sucks. It accomplishes nothing while it stays theory. Let's try crap that works eh?

Further. How do you design a knife to kill? What makes one knife different from another? If the end result you're looking for is just the death of the other person (or animal) do you honestly need features on your knife for it to effectively injure cripple or kill? You could kill a man with a rake for godsakes. Guns are scary! OooOoo. What about missiles? Bombs? Tanks? A pontiac's front bumper, falling more than 10 feet, viruses, disease, biological weapons and such?

There will always be two sides to the armed vs unarmed arguement. The fact remains, the stalwart pacifist will never disarm the willing defender just because he's scared that guy might use his weapon for something other than protecting his family from crazies and doesn't feel his neighbor deserves to be armed. Then when some yahoo who justifies the defender's need to be armed comes around and kills a few of their neighbors what sense is it to disarm the gunman who puts the psycho down?

 

[ShadowKirby]

You should. Gun control worked in Canada.

 

[CraazyIvan]

This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFcVwDw4YLE

 

[cold killer pov]

the "four" fathers meaning was misinterpreted. they meant "Bear arms" as inthe animal not guns.. foolish americans

 

[Thanatos34]

Hell no.

Gun-control, as most people understand it, is

1. Unconstitutional.
2. Stupid.
3. Will not prevent crime.

A kid who takes a gun and goes and shoots up a school is messed up in the head. It is not the gun's fault, it is the kid's fault. (And most likely his parents, as well.) Making guns so that people cannot legally obtain them will only hurt in the end.

I speak from personal experience, having had my house broken into. My family was away in California, (we live in Maryland, I couldn't join them because I was at college when they left), I was 20 at the time, and I was frikkin scared.

Unless you have been in a situation where you wake up at 3 in the morning to the sound of glass breaking downstairs, you cannot know how frightening it is. Now, I was not going to go downstairs, as that would be stupid, so I grabbed our shotgun from under my bed, (it's not normally there, understand), and waited beside the top of the stairs. I was intending to yell down and let them know I had a shotgun and they should leave.

However, they started coming up the stairs, so I pumped the shotgun, and they decided to leave very quickly.

You might say they had no intention of coming after me, but I have no intention of not having a gun wherever I happen to live, as I happen to not like taking risks with my life. I have no qualms about shooting someone who breaks into my house.

 

[Danzaivar]

No no no no no. If Americans want gun control they can move to Canada or Europe. If Europeans want guns (As opposed to a government assuming they're not trustworthy) our only choice is America, don't take that away!

Seriously, give me the option to defend myself rather than pay for extra police that do a worse job.

 

[vxicepickxv]

But nobody is ever going to convince me that he or she has any real good reason to own a M-16 or a AK-47. Neither of those guns are any good for hunting (or at least i don't think they are, lol!) and i doubt you would be allowed to enter the Olympics shooting team if your using a freaken anti-tank cannon or whatever to shoot at your targets.

You're halfway right. The M-16 is a rifle designed to spin a bullet at odd angles when it enters a body, in an attempt to disable someone, which doesn't make it good for hunting, or killing zombies.

An AK-47 takes a more lightweight round and projects it at a faster velocity.

The damage done from a gun is based on a this old physics formula. F=MA. If you have a smaller round and fire it faster, it does as much damage as a slower, heavier round.

 

[Ichimaru]

My gut reaction was yes (to more gun control, we do already have some). Thinking about it further, I think that a certain amount of control is necessary. (you need armor piercing rounds and hollow points why?) Granted I don't know very much about guns, though I have been to the shooting range a few times, I think that guns are perfectly acceptable (for sport and defense).
Violence in general is where what we should focus on reducing. Trying to identify dangerous people and situations, rather than objects.