Should there be gun control in the United States

[ygetoff]

No, why take away legal firearms and the ability for law abiding citizens to own keep and bear them? Most(i dare say almost all guns used in crimes) are obtained illegally.
Those of you who think controlling guns will stop gun crimes, I point you to prohibition. Banning or overly controlling something only creates a black market.

What about all the accidents caused by guns?
But other than that, you make a good point. Banning something will not prevent it's use.

Easy, educate people. I mean, schools spend millions of dollar to get inane boring groups to present at assemblies at school, why not educate kids about how to use guns correctly? Or encourage gun safety education in the house? My dad taught me about guns since I was 10.

Or, if education isn't your thing; LOCK THE GUNS UP AND/OR DON'T LET YOUR KID KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. Yes, I am yelling that, because the thing is shooting happen because parents have guns and one or more of the following occurs: a) an easily accessible location, like an unlocked drawer in the bedroom, b) they kid knows where the gun is. Usually both. Is it that simple to not tell your kid where it is?

I got it; gun safety AND not telling your kid where the gun are, and locking the other guns up.

That's a good idea, but there should also be stricter controls on how to get guns legally. That way people with an understanding of proper gun safety (who are not mentally ill) can still get their firearms, but people who would use it improperly (I don't mean illegally, but without safety in mind, or are mentally ill).

I propose a compromise.

Support the Amendment - the right to bear arms, militia, whatever, but have the Government supply them!

This way you would only be entitled to hold a Springfield rifle (or somesuch long barreled non-automatic weapon) under Government license. It would be for the protection of the country from foreign invaders, rather than for self-defense/home-defense.

No one, but Cops/Secret Service/ATF/Air Marshalls etc. would be allowed to own pistols/Uzis as they would be small enough to be concealed.

This way the NRA couldn't complain on principle that they were losing a Constitutional right. You would then have an amnesty to get all the guns in. If people chose to illegally hold on to them and use them in self-defense (justifiable paranoia) they would still have to face short jail terms or hefty fines for illegal possession, after which all their weapons would be confiscated.

I do not believe that the Founding Fathers anticipated machine guns being in the hands of ordinary citizens, how could they...

...not even the Police use these (too much collateral damage from assualt weapons).

This is also a good idea. The only downside is that it would be extremely hard to keep going.

the police will use them if the assaulters escalate it enough. If they are firing at the cops with an Ak-47, bring on the M-16 and let'em have it. At least that's how i would do it...

Gun control is for the masses of people brainwashed by CNN who think that everyone with a firearm is going to go out into public and shoot up a school, or that they're insanely right wing nut jobs. I could make the joke 'gun control is having both hands on the gun, hahahahaha' BUT I am not a backwoods redneck that has the depth and intelligence of a petri dish. My belief is that if you have a firearm, you should

-have a clean criminal record
-own property
-have a background check
-have a weapons permit.

and if you ever screw up, permit revoked. easy as that. see, the problem is that we're selling guns to any old criminal/drunk/gang member/etc. out there with sub-par checks, IF ANY. people just walk in to a pawn shop with money and walk out packin a heater. THATS the problem. and for the kids getting a hold of these, notice that they're never from middle/upper class families. they're from 'families' with little to no income and the parent spending most of the time doing 'something else' and not teaching gun responsibility to their kid.

end rant.

Sorry I quoted so much... anyway the permits should require a gun test on safety and how to use it properly. Along with the above, it would be much safer than letting any old shmuck get a gun.

I am staunchly against gun control but will readily admit that too many mentally ill and criminals are able to get guns legally. Illegally is a whole other issue.

Yes it is. Guns can be controlled, by making it harder for people who are unqualified to use to them get them. Before anyone takes a look at illegality or not, the whole system of of getting them has to be revamped.

And a message to all the people saying that it is against the constitution, and that trumps all else: I really don't believe that the Founding Fathers really wanted the constitution to be treated as the supreme word of god. It can be reinterpreted as the situation warrants.

 

[PTSpyder]

There already is gun control in america, and its already enough, so stop pissing on my lawn. Murder rates do not decline as the number of people who own guns declines. Only the method by which the people were killed changes.

 

[Weaver]

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.

Except the sole purpose of this "tool" is to shoot a deadly piece of lead as fast as possible. A drill, yeah you could kill someone with it, but you can also help build a house. Same with a nail gun, a skill saw... but not a gun. My point is:

It's NOT a tool. This argument is something I always despised. It's a weapon, don't call it a tool. I don't give you a gun, some grenades and a katana then say "build a farm". Just like a broadsword, ICBM and a nuclear missile aren't tools, they're weapons.

 

[sneakypenguin]

No, why take away legal firearms and the ability for law abiding citizens to own keep and bear them? Most(i dare say almost all guns used in crimes) are obtained illegally.
Those of you who think controlling guns will stop gun crimes, I point you to prohibition. Banning or overly controlling something only creates a black market.

What about all the accidents caused by guns?
But other than that, you make a good point. Banning something will not prevent it's use.

What about the accidents caused by ladders or bikes or pools? 300(or so) people die per year on ladders and another 100K are injured. Do those need regulated (ie safety course required to use ladder at your house)(or only allowing contracters to use them) Regulating something (too much) in the name of (preventable deaths or whatnot), is hypocritical if you don't do it with most everything. If you ban guns to save say 10k people a year, do you then ban alcohol to stop drunk driving deaths?

Accidents are cause by alot of things, we don't blame the beer for the drunk driving, we don't blame the pool for the drowning, but we blame the gun for the accident. Why?

O forgot smoking, that kills tons of people, if we want to save lives ban that...

 

[sneakypenguin]

Sorry for double post

And a message to all the people saying that it is against the constitution, and that trumps all else: I really don't believe that the Founding Fathers really wanted the constitution to be treated as the supreme word of god. It can be reinterpreted as the situation warrants.

How about I take your freedom of speech and say that protesting the government is "inflamitory" and "hate speech". Reinterpretation is a dangerous thing, what good is rule of law if that law bends to fit what those in power want it to?

There already is gun control in america, and its already enough, so stop pissing on my lawn. Murder rates do not decline as the number of people who own guns declines. Only the method by which the people were killed changes.

Amen, and control doesn't work i mean look at DC and Chicago......

 

[Mr_spamamam]

if you have guns then some people are gonna get shot. it does make school shooting easier though. over in england, if i wanted to kill a bunch of people from my college i'd have to stab or batter people to death, but guns make things alot easier

 

[ygetoff]

Sorry for double post

And a message to all the people saying that it is against the constitution, and that trumps all else: I really don't believe that the Founding Fathers really wanted the constitution to be treated as the supreme word of god. It can be reinterpreted as the situation warrants.

How about I take your freedom of speech and say that protesting the government is "inflamitory" and "hate speech". Reinterpretation is a dangerous thing, what good is rule of law if that law bends to fit what those in power want it to?

There already is gun control in america, and its already enough, so stop pissing on my lawn. Murder rates do not decline as the number of people who own guns declines. Only the method by which the people were killed changes.

Amen, and control doesn't work i mean look at DC and Chicago......

However, hate speech has a defined set of rules. Gun ownership, on the other hand, is very vague in the constitution. In this case, reinterpretation depending on the situation can be a good thing. Whereas freedom of speech is rather simple (libel bad; free exchange of ideas good) gun control/ownership is a lot more tricky. For example, the part about owning guns in case of invasion? That's a bit far-fetched. Even if the country was invaded, what good is a pistol against tanks and helicopters? The second amendment was written when civilian militias were the norm, and as that is not true today, I think a little reinterpretation would do it good.

 

[McNinja]

Sorry for double post

And a message to all the people saying that it is against the constitution, and that trumps all else: I really don't believe that the Founding Fathers really wanted the constitution to be treated as the supreme word of god. It can be reinterpreted as the situation warrants.

How about I take your freedom of speech and say that protesting the government is "inflamitory" and "hate speech". Reinterpretation is a dangerous thing, what good is rule of law if that law bends to fit what those in power want it to?

There already is gun control in america, and its already enough, so stop pissing on my lawn. Murder rates do not decline as the number of people who own guns declines. Only the method by which the people were killed changes.

Amen, and control doesn't work i mean look at DC and Chicago......

However, hate speech has a defined set of rules. Gun ownership, on the other hand, is very vague in the constitution. In this case, reinterpretation depending on the situation can be a good thing. Whereas freedom of speech is rather simple (libel bad; free exchange of ideas good) gun control/ownership is a lot more tricky. For example, the part about owning guns in case of invasion? That's a bit far-fetched. Even if the country was invaded, what good is a pistol against tanks and helicopters? The second amendment was written when civilian militias were the norm, and as that is not true today, I think a little reinterpretation would do it good.

No, it wouldn't because douchebag politicians would then take that and run with it, and, supposing this works and the supreme court doesn't rule it unconstitutional, they would reinterpret everything to fit their agenda. And yes it was written when civilian militias were the norm, but it was writeen for a specific reason: to prevent the government that they created from becoming a dictatorial monarchy which they fought so hard to free themselves from. they wrote it so that if that ever did happen, the people would be able to make a stand against the government and return it to democracy. If anyone thinks that's not the reason for the second amendment, punch yourself in the face. The founding Fathers made it very, very clear that they did not want their new government to transform itself into what some of them died fighting. They didn't write it so some arse (not neccessarily you)in the future could reinterpret the Constitution, which was, in fact, the suprememe law of the land,and change it to fit their desires.
The Founding Fathers wrote the second amendent because their weapons got taken away during the Revolutionary War by the British and hence could not defend themselves from the invaders. Thats why they wrote the no quartering amendment, and all the other amendments, because it happened to them and they didn't want that to happen to us.

More later.

 

[ygetoff]

Sorry for double post

And a message to all the people saying that it is against the constitution, and that trumps all else: I really don't believe that the Founding Fathers really wanted the constitution to be treated as the supreme word of god. It can be reinterpreted as the situation warrants.

How about I take your freedom of speech and say that protesting the government is "inflamitory" and "hate speech". Reinterpretation is a dangerous thing, what good is rule of law if that law bends to fit what those in power want it to?

There already is gun control in america, and its already enough, so stop pissing on my lawn. Murder rates do not decline as the number of people who own guns declines. Only the method by which the people were killed changes.

Amen, and control doesn't work i mean look at DC and Chicago......

However, hate speech has a defined set of rules. Gun ownership, on the other hand, is very vague in the constitution. In this case, reinterpretation depending on the situation can be a good thing. Whereas freedom of speech is rather simple (libel bad; free exchange of ideas good) gun control/ownership is a lot more tricky. For example, the part about owning guns in case of invasion? That's a bit far-fetched. Even if the country was invaded, what good is a pistol against tanks and helicopters? The second amendment was written when civilian militias were the norm, and as that is not true today, I think a little reinterpretation would do it good.

No, it wouldn't because douchebag politicians would then take that and run with it, and, supposing this works and the supreme court doesn't rule it unconstitutional, they would reinterpret everything to fit their agenda. And yes it was written when civilian militias were the norm, but it was writeen for a specific reason: to prevent the government that they created from becoming a dictatorial monarchy which they fought so hard to free themselves from. they wrote it so that if that ever did happen, the people would be able to make a stand against the government and return it to democracy. If anyone thinks that's not the reason for the second amendment, punch yourself in the face. The founding Fathers made it very, very clear that they did not want their new government to transform itself into what some of them died fighting. They didn't write it so some arse (not neccessarily you)in the future could reinterpret the Constitution, which was, in fact, the suprememe law of the land,and change it to fit their desires.
The Founding Fathers wrote the second amendent because their weapons got taken away during the Revolutionary War by the British and hence could not defend themselves from the invaders. Thats why they wrote the no quartering amendment, and all the other amendments, because it happened to them and they didn't want that to happen to us.

More later.

I had a well-written, long, detailed reply, but the internet lost it. I'll write a reply tomorrow.

 

[Royas]

I propose a compromise.

Support the Amendment - the right to bear arms, militia, whatever, but have the Government supply them!

This way you would only be entitled to hold a Springfield rifle (or somesuch long barreled non-automatic weapon) under Government license. It would be for the protection of the country from foreign invaders, rather than for self-defense/home-defense.

No one, but Cops/Secret Service/ATF/Air Marshalls etc. would be allowed to own pistols/Uzis as they would be small enough to be concealed.

This way the NRA couldn't complain on principle that they were losing a Constitutional right. You would then have an amnesty to get all the guns in. If people chose to illegally hold on to them and use them in self-defense (justifiable paranoia) they would still have to face short jail terms or hefty fines for illegal possession, after which all their weapons would be confiscated.

I do not believe that the Founding Fathers anticipated machine guns being in the hands of ordinary citizens, how could they...

...not even the Police use these (too much collateral damage from assualt weapons).

I'm just going to chime in here with a couple of points. First, one of the reasons we have the second amendment is specifically so that the people can take out the government in open rebellion if the Feds get too big for their britches. Our founding fathers were, obviously, very keen on the idea of citizens being able to determine their own government, by whatever means necessary. Having the very group that the right to bear arms was in part made to control exercise that much control over the weapons is akin to putting the fox in charge of guarding the chicken coop.

Second, the ability to defend one's home and person from attack is another big reason for the second amendment's existence. That means that, yes, pistols are needed. You seem to approach this from the position that having a well-armed populace is a bad thing and that we should depend on the police to protect us from all harm. I, on the other hand, feel that a well-armed populace is an excellent deterrence to crime. I feel that people should take care of their own protection, given that there aren't nearly enough cops to do the job for us. Given that, taking away handguns would, in fact, be a violation of at least the spirit and the intent of the Constitution.

And third, some police departments do, in fact, have fully automatic assault rifles and sub-machine guns in their armories. Not just in the big cities, either. At least one of my local police departments include several M-4's and a couple of MP5's in their arsenal. That's in a police department that could be described as rural at best. I don't even want to think about what the Los Angeles and New York police departments might have.

 

[McNinja]

Probably bigger Machine guns, or at least more. Criminals tend to have a larger arsenal at their disposal so the police have to keep up, escpecially in larger cities.

 

[Horticulture]

I'm just going to chime in here with a couple of points. First, one of the reasons we have the second amendment is specifically so that the people can take out the government in open rebellion if the Feds get too big for their britches. Our founding fathers were, obviously, very keen on the idea of citizens being able to determine their own government, by whatever means necessary. Having the very group that the right to bear arms was in part made to control exercise that much control over the weapons is akin to putting the fox in charge of guarding the chicken coop.

It doesn't make any sense to frame the gun control debate with arguments about state coercion when the U.S. government controls thousands of nuclear warheads, planes, tanks and bombs.

 

[McNinja]

But the government won't nuke it's own city if they don't give up their guns. It's the fact that the citizens will at least have a fighting chance.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think the question is irrelevent as it's far to devisive an issue to find any middle ground on.

Obviously, there ought to be some form of gun control seeing as a gun (as in a firearm or weapon) has evolved radically from it's incarnation over 200 years ago when the right to bear arms was added to the bill of rights.

That said, the entire question revolves around certain perspectives on how you interpret why the rule exists.

If you believe it's for personal defense, then no weapon other than handguns or shotguns are really necessary.

If you belive it's for national defense against a foreign invader, then one can point to the National Guard (The modern Militia) and the Federal armed services.

If you believe it's for defense against a tyranical government, then civillians ought to have access to any military weapons they want to purchase.

And for each argument or counterpoint there is always some statistic from the other side. Some lives may be saved by tight gun control but murder rates and violent crime never seem to slack when gun control is enforced. Criminals tend to have guns regardless and tighter controls would do little more than drive up the black market price, doing little more than delaying their acquisition. As such, doing nothing seems immoral and doing something seems reprehensible.

 

[Velocirapture07]

I say this as a political science major. The United States is based upon the constitution which contains principles and ideas vital to the continuing prosperity of the nation. The country was built upon the idea that when a government becomes too corrupt, authoritarian, or begins to abuse the rights of the citizens, then those citizens reserve the right to depose said government. Violently if necessary. With fire-arms out of the hands of the citizenry this becomes impossible.

I'd also rather be able to defend myself against the criminals who will undoubtedly be carrying guns despite the ban...because they're freaking criminals! Naivete will not be our downfall. Go ahead and throw your guns away Europe, we here in America feel a lot safer with ours by our beds.

The simple answer is no.

 

[Velocirapture07]

I'm just going to chime in here with a couple of points. First, one of the reasons we have the second amendment is specifically so that the people can take out the government in open rebellion if the Feds get too big for their britches. Our founding fathers were, obviously, very keen on the idea of citizens being able to determine their own government, by whatever means necessary. Having the very group that the right to bear arms was in part made to control exercise that much control over the weapons is akin to putting the fox in charge of guarding the chicken coop.

It doesn't make any sense to frame the gun control debate with arguments about state coercion when the U.S. government controls thousands of nuclear warheads, planes, tanks and bombs.

The whole of the armed forces would never be behind a military endeavor against the United States itself. This has been witnessed numerous times in unstable countries where this type of thing is commonplace. One half of the military begins a coup, and another part works against them to restore order.

The idea that the government is some all powerful and unstoppable force does not hold up in America. Politicians rely on our support and the government is checked at every turn. This is why small government is so damn important - it prevents it from becoming too pervasive and influential. As per the constitution the citizens must always retain their power.

 

[Horticulture]

I'm just going to chime in here with a couple of points. First, one of the reasons we have the second amendment is specifically so that the people can take out the government in open rebellion if the Feds get too big for their britches. Our founding fathers were, obviously, very keen on the idea of citizens being able to determine their own government, by whatever means necessary. Having the very group that the right to bear arms was in part made to control exercise that much control over the weapons is akin to putting the fox in charge of guarding the chicken coop.

It doesn't make any sense to frame the gun control debate with arguments about state coercion when the U.S. government controls thousands of nuclear warheads, planes, tanks and bombs.

The whole of the armed forces would never be behind a military endeavor against the United States itself. This has been witnessed numerous times in unstable countries where this type of thing is commonplace. One half of the military begins a coup, and another part works against them to restore order.

The idea that the government is some all powerful and unstoppable force does not hold up in America. Politicians rely on our support and the government is checked at every turn. This is why small government is so damn important - it prevents it from becoming too pervasive and influential. As per the constitution the citizens must always retain their power.

The United States is an unstable country where coups are commonplace? The power of citizens in the U.S. has nothing to do with the contents of our gun lockers and everything to do with those of our ballot boxes. Separation of powers, rule of law, strong civilian institutions, and a professional, diverse volunteer military all contribute.

What does that have to do with the legal ability to sell a given gun to civilians? It's clear that within the category of 'arms,' lines have to be drawn. Do we allow pistols? Assault rifles? RPGs? ICBMs?

If you're convinced of the danger of a coup, universal conscription is the policy you should be advocating.

 

[Horticulture]

Go ahead and throw your guns away Europe, we here in America feel a lot safer with ours by our beds.

http://battellemedia.com/images/SwitzerlandFlag.jpg

 

[BigCat91]

yes. their should be. THEIR ARE FUCKING DRIVE BYES EVERY FUCKING DAY DUDE. kids that are underage around the u.s. can steal their dads gun and kill someone else. also think about it the UK has a shit load of stabbings but very few of those people ever die their just wounded. now think about this if you get shot by a bullet going over 500 miles and hour or something like that, and it hits you in the stomach you have a large chance of dieing because it penetrates so deep. now think about the most common assualt weapon in the UK a pocket knife. THINK ABOUT IT IF YOU HAVE ANY MOTOR SKILLS AT ALL AND A BASIC UNDERSTANDING ON HOW TO DODGE A THRUST YOU CAN PROTECT YOURSELF.now gun think that's pretty god damn hard to dodge.

IM SORRY BUT GUNS IN THE HANDS OF CITIZENS JUST LEADS TO DEATHS. WE CAN'T STOP CRIME BUT WE CAN STOP THE HIGH DEATH RATE AND BRING IT BELOW MEDIUM

 

[foolishmatt]

yes. their should be. THEIR ARE FUCKING DRIVE BYES EVERY FUCKING DAY DUDE. kids that are underage around the u.s. can steal their dads gun and kill someone else. also think about it the UK has a shit load of stabbings but very few of those people ever die their just wounded. now think about this if you get shot by a bullet going over 500 miles and hour or something like that, and it hits you in the stomach you have a large chance of dieing because it penetrates so deep. now think about the most common assualt weapon in the UK a pocket knife. THINK ABOUT IT IF YOU HAVE ANY MOTOR SKILLS AT ALL AND A BASIC UNDERSTANDING ON HOW TO DODGE A THRUST YOU CAN PROTECT YOURSELF.now gun think that's pretty god damn hard to dodge.

IM SORRY BUT GUNS IN THE HANDS OF CITIZENS JUST LEADS TO DEATHS. WE CAN'T STOP CRIME BUT WE CAN STOP THE HIGH DEATH RATE AND BRING IT BELOW MEDIUM

Actually, by outlawing guns all you're doing is giving people who can get the gun illegally (criminals) an easier time of committing crime because there will be not one law abiding citizen who will be able to protect themselves. Ever heard the phrase "brought a knife to a gunfight." That could be you.

EDIT: If a kid gets his dad's gun, then the dad is at fault for not hiding it well. And gun control violates our constitutional right to bear arms. At this point, guns are a necessary evil.

P.S. please use spell check and try to make your post legible.

P.P.S. Most bullets travel in excess of 1,200 MPH with the fastest bullets almost going 2,500 MPH