Gun Control Law.

Lax Gun Laws in the United States

Recently the Australian Prime Minister addressed the United States Congress. If I had been the Australian Prime Minister, giving a speech to the United States Congress.
I would be asking "When will America get serious about Gun Control?"

It seems like only yesterday that I started looking at this topic of guns in America; Its now been more than ten years.


There are lots of myths about the use of guns in conflict situations.
Is it our right to bear arms as North Americans? Or is it privilege?


For those of you that argue that they are useful in protecting you and your family; Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall (1) found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. This equates to only two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time

(1)The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children less than 15 years of age was 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined. (Rates of Homicide, Suicide, andFirearm-Related Death Among Children - 26 Industrialized Countries, 46 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 101 (Feb 7, 1997)) The shooting deaths of 33 people at Virginia Tech University were a horrible indictment of America's passive gun control.

 "Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily, whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law ... the whole nation is degraded."

Robert F. Kennedy

Gun Control in Australia

Studies into the effect of the gun buy back scheme have been quite startling according to researchers. Given that Australia had a much lower firearm ownership than that of the United States even before the buy back scheme was introduced. Ten years of suicide data after John Howard's decision to ban and then buy back 600,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns has had a stunning effect.

The buyback cut firearm suicides by 74 per cent, saving 200 lives a year, according to research to be published in The American Law and Economics Review.

A former Australian Treasury economist, Christine Neill, now with Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada, said she found the research result so surprising she tried to redo her calculations on the off chance the total could have been smaller.

''I fully expected to find no effect at all,'' she told the Herald. ''That we found such a big effect and that it meshed with a range of other data was just shocking, completely unexpected.''

Mr Howard's agreement with the states to ban and buy back more than 600,000 weapons after the massacre at Port Arthur in April 1996 cut the country's stock of firearms by 20 per cent and roughly halved the number of households with access to guns.

Statistics fron the (CDC) Centre of Disease Control & Prevention.

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).

Bibliography

Lemaire, J. Cost of Gun Deaths in America. http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/forum/docs/sept04lemaire.pdf

 Neill, C & Laurier, W.  Howards Gun Control Legacy-200 lives saved per year.  http://www.smh.com.au/national/howards-gun-legacy--200-lives-saved-a-year-20100829-13xne.html

More by this Author


Comments 53 comments

PaulGoodman67 profile image

PaulGoodman67 5 years ago from Florida USA

Great article, Barry. Interesting to get the Australian perspective. I am a Brit living in the USA. It's difficult for me to appreciate the American outlook as I was raised in a country where guns and gun crime were pretty rare and people are generally anti-gun.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

ahorseback thank you for your contribution. I am not sure where to start with your points...


ahorseback profile image

ahorseback 5 years ago

What more are we going to argue, in favor ,or not, of gun control? In this hub as in all journalistic media numbers are altered twisted and then affixed to the agenda of the writer, Listen like it or NOT, highlighted for your personal agenda. Gun ownership is a constitutional guarentee in my America, State all the number of statistics you want , cars , knives and rocks are just as dangerous as guns, Tall buildings railroad bridges and forks are as usful in suicide . Baseball bats , rope and pillows are as usful in the intent to harm another . The hands , the feet and a baby bottle can kill. Obviously your topic is to bring traffic to your hub. good luck with that!


qwark profile image

qwark 5 years ago

DaNoblest:

Amen!... and thank you!

Qwark


DaNoblest profile image

DaNoblest 5 years ago from California

I find it interesting that gun related deaths in America have been declining as gun control became more lax.

I also find it interesting that the place with the strictest gun control in America leads in gun related deaths while the most liberal locations concerning gun policies are some of the lowest.

Gun control does not stop gangs,big time drug dealers, and criminals from having guns here. It just makes the citizens easier targets.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

I'd like to see the loophoples regarding gun show purchases closed up !


qwark profile image

qwark 5 years ago

G'mornin' Barry:

Without the "gun," the railroads couldn't have been built.

When a gov't tries to usurp power from its citizens, the "gun" becomes very "utilitarian!"

Guns, cigarettes, booze are harmless until picked up and used. Then "death" can be considered to be a surety.

I've said this soooooo... many times: We, at this point in our evolution, are infants in the crib.

Our crib is loaded with death dealing devices and we "children" will eventually "play" with them all.

Because I am surrounded by "infants," my gun will, maybe, save-my-ass when we kids play cowboys and indians!

Don't mess with my "piece!"

Qwark


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

qwark

The firearm may well be part of American culture but i disagree it was built on it; Railroad yes. Sure you could ban cars & booze. But cars have a utilitarian use and death usually rsults from misuse. Similalry booze death results from misuse. Whereas death can result from normal use of a firearm.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Are you suggesting our friend Quark is a candidate for Viagra?


Robert Dente 5 years ago

Ralph, you're wasting your time—guns are the only compensation for profound feelings of inadequacy, inferiority and impotence. No rational argumentation will suffice when you fear flaccidity. The NRA and Viagra have usurped the American dream for justice and the common good. I hope all these guys overdose on Cialis!


Ron Montgomery profile image

Ron Montgomery 5 years ago

In Tucson,Arizona on the morning of January 8, 2011,not a single law was broken by Jared Lee Loughner until he pointed his Glock at Gabrielle Giffords.


qwark profile image

qwark 5 years ago

Ralph:

My, my Ralph, this is a first!

I sense "emotion" in your response."

I think I mentioned "tongue-in-cheek?"

Of course I think the laws already on the books should be enforced.

Leave me, an honest American citizen, alone in ref to owning a perfectly legal weapon.

Don't try to take my "legal" weapon away from me.

I said:

"... that heavy or automatic arms should not be owned by civilians."

Enforce the existing laws!

Qwark


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

What can't you agree on? Are you opposed to a more complete and accurate record instantly available of people who should not be permitted to buy guns. Do you think there should be no limits on the types of weapons and magazines that are legally available. Do you think convicted felons and mentally ill people should be able to buy and "carry" weapons? Do you think we should try harder to keep Arizona gun dealers from selling guns which are smuggled by the truckload into Mexico in return for cocaine sent to the U.S.? Your arguments about banning cars and other "things" are silly.


qwark profile image

qwark 5 years ago

Sorry Ralph:

Can't agree.

This country was built on owning a firearm.

Everyone owned one. It was a necessity! Just as much a necessity as automobiles are today.

As we grew as a nation the 2nd amendment was a guarantee that we civilians were a "militia" to be contended with if gov't tried a takeover.

We are still a well armed nation. I hope it stays that way.

I agree, as I said, that heavy or automatic arms should not be owned by civilians.

Lets ban cigarettes...

Lets ban booze.

Lets ban all "things" that people use to legally cause their deaths...

All this is tongue-in-cheek but the only way you'll get my gun is pry it from the hands of my dead body!

Qwark


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Here's a link to an editorial in today's NYTimes:

“If we’re serious about keeping guns away from someone who’s made up his mind to kill, then we can’t allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else,” the president wrote...

"The National Rifle Association, to its lingering shame but to no one’s surprise, declined the administration’s invitation to talk — a sign of real disrespect for a president who has actually expanded gun rights. It also shows disdain for the well-being and safety of the public."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/opinion/17thu1.h...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Your analogy with cars doesn't hold water. Cars are necessary. Guns are not for most people, especially military weapons with large magazines. The majority of Americans believe that stricter regulations and more effective enforcement are necessary. Their wishes are frustrated by big political contributions and campaigning by the NRA which is supported primarily by gun manufacturers and dealers. As on a number of other issues lawmakers pay more attention to organizations that can help them or hurt them politically than they do to poll results revealing the wishes of the people they are supposedly representing.

Nobody that I'm aware of is trying to ban all guns. All the gun control supporters want is stricter regulations and more effective enforcement to keep guns out of the Loughner's of the country.


qwark profile image

qwark 5 years ago

Barry:

I'd say let's "ban" automobiles, trucks, busses, motorcycles etc., etc. here in the USA! (tongue-in-cheek)

In the USA, About 35,000 deaths a year

are attributed to motor vehicles. Those deaths include men, women and children.

I agree with you in this way, that the ownership of military weapons should be banned, but leave my personal handgun and my hunting rifles and shotguns be!

I have a "carry" license that allows me to carry a concealed handgun and I am trained to use it very efficiently.

I would only use it to protect myself and my family or another person who may be in fear of his life.

More civilians own guns in this country than the armies of some nations and that's the way I want it to be.

Qwark


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

The Frog Princes

The Founding Fathers were around before there was recognised police forces and self-defence was the only option


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

The Second Amendment guarantees the First Amendment????

If you want to be an originalist, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear muzzle-loading rifles and pistols. There were no AK-47s or Glocks with big magazines when our forefathers wrote the Bill of rights.If you think the Second Amendment gives you the right to foment an armed insurrection, GO FOR IT!


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

The Founding Fathers weren't exactly dummies ya know? The Second Amendment guarantees the First Amendment. Give that some thought for more than a little while.


Ron Montgomery profile image

Ron Montgomery 5 years ago

Aside from their perverted views of the 2nd amendment (that even rabid conservative Antonin Scalia does not agree with) and the thousands of American deaths they contribute to each year, I kinda like the NRA. ;)


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Aside from stymieing gun control legislation, the NRA tends to support candidates who are opposed to regulation of any kind and who want to balance the budget by slashing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the regulatory agencies, the Park Service and just about anything they can get their hands on.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

jeff61b

Indeed one wonders what financial interest the board have wiht thre NRA 'Conflict of interest' perhaps ?


Jeff61b 5 years ago

This hub stated some very relevant facts. I agree that we need some stronger gun control laws, but I also accept that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own a gun. The Brady Law is the right kind of law. It enables law-abiding citizens to own a gun but makes it much harder for criminals to acquire one.

Always remember that the NRA is an organization that represents the interests of the gun industry. The NRA board of directors is made up of representatives of gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Aside from lobbying Congress and paying off politicians who support the gun industry, the NRA spends much time and effort to convince gun owners that any gun control measures are an attempt to "take your guns away".

They are just one more big corporate lobbying group buying off politician to benefit their industry.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

Well I guess until there is sufficent momentum the easy availability of guns will mean that the possession use and carrying of them will continue to impose a very high price on the American community


Ron Montgomery profile image

Ron Montgomery 5 years ago

Good hub Barry. I disagree with your premise that Americans are not serious about passing laws that put reasonable limits on gun ownership and use. The public by overwhelming majority supports such legislation, the politicians, fearful of NRA backlash, refuse to act in accordance with our concerns.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Reasonable gun control laws are Constitutional. The problem is with the definition of the "arms" the Constitution provides the right to bear. Muzzle loaders were the only arms when the Constitution was written. And another problem is when and where and under what circumstances people may bear arms--in parks, schools, court houses, restaurants, bars, weddings, and in workplaces. Also, who, if anyone may be excluded from bearing arms legally--convicted felons, individuals with a history of mental illness. My understanding is that court rulings support "reasonable" restrictions on the manufacture, sale and use of weapons. The law is not entirely clear. However 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute. Polls indicate that a majority of Americans support more effective enforcement and stricter laws. There is currently a case in court over the Royal Oak, Michigan's public library's right to prohibit right to carry folks from "carrying" in the library.


Harlan Colt profile image

Harlan Colt 5 years ago from the Rocky Mountains

Fact: A gang of guys with guns is not a militia, even if they claim they are. The national guard is not the militia either. The general populace is the militia, well regualted by the sheriff, mayor or the governor.

Regardless, all the common sense arguments, statistics etc for gun control MEAN NOTHING for one thorn-in-your side reason.

The simple fact of the matter is, the American Government was created by a contract written by the people, outlining what the new created government can, and can not do.

Thus by that contract, government was not given the authority to deny the citzenry of the right to keep and bear arms.

It is not about politics. It is not about wishy-washy politicians who can't get together. It is not about common sense. It is simply because they do not have the legal authority to take arms away from the people.

If you want to ban guns, you need to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. This is right legal and proper. If you want to take/change people's rights, they should and do have a right to have a voice on the matter.

In your heart and in your mind, if people don't have hand guns, they can't shoot/kill each other with guns. It's very simple logic and it makes perfect sense.

The balloon-popping integer is over 70 million American's own more than 400 million guns AND the government lacks the authority to take them away.

Ralph Deeds commented about rifles and legitimate hunting, which to the anti-gun advocate is a reasonable use of guns within society. The problem with that for hunters and gun owners, is the left has factions busy at work trying to eliminate hunting as well.

To answer your question, America will get serious about gun control, when those for gun control get 3/4ths of the states to agree to change the constitution. People seem to forget or get clouded about what that old ragged piece of paper is. But, it is a contract between the people who created the government and the government which was created to serve them; it is the highest law of our land, no president, or congress or supreme court can stand against it, it is beyond their authority.

If you want to ban guns, go get 3/4ths of the states to amend the constitution. Then you can have your way, until then you cannot. However, the exchangeof ideas is always fun.

-Best wishes,

-Harlan


Merlin Fraser profile image

Merlin Fraser 5 years ago from Cotswold Hills

I don't say you should stop trying, however, I have noticed that you have a tendency to use Logic, Reason and Common Sense in your arguments and I have to ask you this since when did anyone ever listen to such reasonable and sensible views let alone change their opinion because of them ?

Now if you were to get some ‘Brainless Airhead ‘ someone wiv’ a bit of Celebratea, know wot’ I mean ....?

We had one here a few years back, Jade Goody, a woman so dumb she thought East Anglia, (A county in England) was a foreign country and that an ‘Itchyfanni’ was a Japanese motorbike ! No...I’m not joking ! Her complete ignorance made her a National joke on a TV show and the press ripped her to bits and made her a Star.

For years, certainly more than I can remember various charities and Government departments have spent millions of pounds trying to get their messages about Cancer across to a public who were and are not listening.

Unfortunately, Jade was diagnosed with cervical cancer and all of a sudden the population was hanging upon her every word !

Screw the experts... Doctors and Surgeons, what do they know, who listens to them.... but give the public one of their own.... someone who thought Rio de Janeiro was a person, that Portugal was part of Spain and was completely unaware that the United States is an English-speaking country (OK I can understand her not getting that last one).

That’s what you need, trawl through Big Brother, or the X Factor, Pop Idol, there’s lots to choose from !


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

Merlin

In so many ways you are right. I suspect thw psychology

of owning a gun is fed by the myth that somehow in the event of a home invasion you will have the time and ability to get to your gun load it cock it and have it ready for your home invasions. I suspect this psychology is fed by advertisinfg the NRA and other generally. But in fact this hardly ever occurs. As i state the evidence suggests twice in 1000 incidents. To me that statistic is one for not owning a weapon. I agree with the whole culturual thing but hey if that is not broken then things will remain the same. There are man academics who are so frustrated that they ave not made much of a differeence despite lifetime of research bringign people the facts. Still I feel compelled to keep trying probably for the same reason that people cling to their weaponsfor so called self defence.


Merlin Fraser profile image

Merlin Fraser 5 years ago from Cotswold Hills

Hi Barry,

While I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts and aims in principle don’t you think it is a simple case of trying to bolt the stable door after the horse has gone in a land full of door-less stables and free running horses ?

In a culture where you are brought up to believe ‘I don’t have to be right I have a Gun’ is so ingrained into the psychological makeup of, if not the majority then certainly a high enough proportion, of the population as to make mass paranoia a reality.

I have to admit if I lived in the US of A I would sure as hell own a gun, and a big one.... That doesn’t make me paranoid, merely a realist who will go to whatever lengths are necessary to protect me and mine.

Remember that old saying, ‘In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is King !’ Surely the same must be true of the one man with a gun in a gun less kingdom !

Don’t get me wrong, I hear what you’re saying I abhor violence, although I might write about it, but I think you’re trying very hard to push a lot of water up a very steep hill and I fear you will fail.

Any weapon can be used defensively or offensively and while there is a risk that people will use weapons offensively then surely that means people will hold onto something they feel will give them some sort of defence. You are never going to dis-invent guns.... and until mankind invents a more spectacular way for individuals to destroy one another the gun is going to be with us.

PS Don’t expect visiting Diplomats to bring up or discuss in public any contentious issues with their host, they are there simply to blow smoke up each other’s backsides and maintain the pretence that they are all doing a fantastic job in spite of making no difference to anything !


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

Terry.Hirneisen

Not only do I think your comment is correct it is born by the statisitcs & studies into the topic. It is estimated by peerreviewed study that in financial terms alone it cost Americans about 3 billion dollars a year & rising. This does not totally account for the human misery & pain costs.


Terry.Hirneisen profile image

Terry.Hirneisen 5 years ago from Shenandoah Valley

Now we have people claiming if everyone were armed the nuts would no have the nerve to pull their escapades. There may be some truth to this,but then I hate to think of all the other shootings as a result of a heavily armed population. I have given up as the Supreme Court continues to claim every idiot in the country has the right to an automatic weapon. I have hesitancy about calling them Supreme Justices when Clarence Thomas is a member of the gang.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

Cagsil

I might have somehow inferred an outright ban. That would be no doubt impossible given it seems there are more guns than people in the United States. My point is if the guns are never if rarely used in self defence even when you have them then why have them in the first placwe. Given they make the environment more dangerous generally.


Cagsil profile image

Cagsil 5 years ago from USA or America

Thank you Barry for publishing an interesting hub on the topic of Gun Control and America. But, I've also noticed that your hub deals directly with an outright ban and I can see your point of view very clearly. It does however, lack quite a bit. As for the "paranoid" statement made, that is just distortion. Human nature has already proven it is better to be safe than sorry. Not to mention, your hub does not touch on what I stated in the forum to begin with, so in essence, all you are doing is insinuating that "Government" should step on people and that is acceptable. I don't find it acceptable. I do find it prudent to educate people properly. But, thank you very much. ;)


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

Sure the politicians would not foreseen pulling every available firearm right now. The argument has to be done first sp that it can be politically palatable. No doubt though staying silent on the issue because its just to hard because polititiwont go there is no answer either. The only way to deal with htis is publish andd push to peer reviwed academic research ion this topic which I have done and continue to do. Again you jump on the substittution argument but I rightly contend any premeditation requiring effort reduces the propensity to commit an illegal act


Coppermek profile image

Coppermek 5 years ago

@Ralph: I won't debate that blowing your brains out is a bit more permanent than a large dose of nyquil in your system, but it doesn't change the fact that if you take guns away, alternative suicide methods will simply fill in for guns. Seeing as I don't actually know of a country in the last ten years that has banned guns, I can't really prove that, and am speaking simply from a logical view-point of what I perceive would most likely occur next. Can you prove that attempted suicide rates as a whole (and not just in gun area) have decreased in an area where guns have been banned by a substantial amount?

@Barry: I'm well aware you intended this with the best intentions, this is not something I would debate as I understand your view point, however, I'm still not the fondest person to things written with very little life experience based around it. Opinions are great, but opinions backed by something happening in your life are more respectable.

Now, I choose not to write on this topic because I already know what will happen if the American government starts taking guns away from pissed off red-necks and "tea party" representatives. Trust me, it won't be pretty, and a civil war is liable to occur at the very least (imagine a bunch of people with no guns trying to fight people with all the guns in the world). Guns are so embedded into America (its even plain in our constitution... well that and fighting pirates) that the solution to your proposed problem couldn't possible be simply taking them away (I'm actually relatively centralist in my views. Finding a middle ground is always preferred to neither side ever buckling).

Finally, guns are cheap and effective. If I snapped, I could probably walk into a mall with my PN-90 that I will have modified to fire in fully automatic (why would I care about automatic fire laws if I'm about to kill a ton of people?) and easily get about ten people in the food court before walking into outlet stores and pegging the people hiding inside. If they took my guns away, I'd simply just plant explosives everywhere, if not start hurling pipe bombs at people. I could also use toxic gases (anybody, anywhere with an internet connection could easily learn anything about how to kill people that they would need), car-bombs set to explode once a car goes off, the list goes on. Granted, it wouldn't be as quick as if I had a gun, but if I really wanted to kill people, a lack of a gun wouldn't stop me but rather encourage me to up my numbers through logical planning.

I don't even have to pull the statistic about the mass murders taking place in the middle east, an area where gun related murders are rarely brought up, do I?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Few survive suicide by gun or jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. Many more are saved from suicide by drugs and go on to live long and productive lives.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

Coppermak

No Coppermak their is no lack of evidence. As far as suicide goes the reason it is/or has been the weapon of choice is that it is quick and fast. There is no evidence in fact if their is substitution of techniques the raw numbers are much lower. Saving as its says 200 lives in Australia alone. This is a peer-reviewed study. I contend the savings would be much greater in the United States=the saving of lives that is.

Yor next point about guns not causing violence- sure they dont cause violence-but what a gun does is allow people rto fulfi; that urge will little or no effort. This is why the statistics on gun deaths in America continue to exceed other countries several times by capita of populatation. You may not appreciate me commenting on the topic but it is done with the best of intention. I want to see more people live and not be snuffed out in the blink of an eye. I have been covering this topic ins studies & research for seven years now. I come across debate on the topic such as yours quite often. Just as America wants a say in the way other countries in the world conducts itself non-Americans are rightly entitled to do the same


Coppermek profile image

Coppermek 5 years ago

I think there may be a lack of evidence here. Not that that's bad, most persuasive arguments will of course leave out damning evidence.

The one point I'd like to point out is comparing gun statistics in the US to countries that have fire-arms banned. You see, if we compared gun statistics to countries that didn't have fire-arms banned, I think we'd find a much smaller gap. Simple put: If you can't get a hold of a gun, then you're probably going to hang yourself. Suicide would exist without guns, but people would simply get more inventive (drinking Drain-o for instance) and the stats would then vary. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if suicide rates involving guns dropped dramatically if suddenly guns disappeared. But I guarantee you medical ODs and self lynching would sky-rocket.

You can't catch the salamander by the tail, it just drops the tail and grows a new one. Perhaps the issues concerning violence whether it be to masses or one's self (I'm pretty sure if guns went bye-bye we'd be using more pipe-bombs to commit massive acts of murders) isn't because of guns, but rather the individual people. You take their gun away, they'll just blow people up with home-made explosives.

So, an alternative look: Guns don't cause violence, violence is a part of human nature. The issue resides with the individual.

Also, as a side note, I couldn't help but notice you're Australian. Don't take this personally, but in the same way I'm sure a German doesn't appreciate me pulling apart their socialist network when I'm just an onlooker with no experience as to how said network works and feeds millions of illegal immigrants who are slowly poisoning and killing traditional German culture, I don't exactly like other people commenting on my American gun laws without either A) Living in America for an extended period of time that would offer a first hand experience or B) Be somehow directly involved in a gun related incident. If you could back up your opinions with some personal experience as to why you feel this way, I'd probably be a bit less critical.


PaulStaley1 profile image

PaulStaley1 5 years ago from With the wind---(or against it)

Gun Control! Not just for us but for our Mexican Brothers who have very strict gun laws. There are three countries in North America and we have a moral obligation to help Mexico quell the violence inflicted by our bullets......a well armed militia is the national guard....not gun wackos....nice hub, daring topic.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

Ralph Deeds

Given that use of guns in self defence such as home invasions it makes one wonder that actual utility of having one to protect oneself or ones family, Rather they seem to be the prefered choice in suicides & domestic situations...


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

They have a legitimate use for hunting and target shooting, and under regulation for Armored Car drivers, security guards and possibly under very strict regulation for self-protection under special circumstances. The right to carry people in Royal Oak, Michigan, were just put under a court order forbidding them for "carrying" in the town public library. And some jackass recently introduced a bill in the state legislature permitting teachers and students to carry handguns "to prevent shootings like the ones in Arizona and W. Virginia." Teacher groups are speaking out against the proposal as are law enforcement people.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

someonewhoknows

re your comment about car accidents. Motor vehicles have a utilitarioan value that has become essential to the economy. Is car use regulated? THe answer is Yes. Are guns regulated? partially. do they have a use? highly questionable


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

Would you say the military is paranoid or the police? If,that's the case then Yes I gues I'm paranoid! Then again I see other world governments almost every year without fail being taken advantage of by their governments military or police.Are they paranoid?

The fact is you don't have to be paranoid.It's human nature that you have to be warey of.Any good psychologist will tell you that!

I'm sure more people die in traffic accidents.We don't seem to be so upset about that.


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 5 years ago

you are right on, I agree with you. The challenge in America is that lobbyist and special interest own our politicians. The NRA is quite a powerful group. Further, gun legislation is going to come from Democrats, certainly not Republicans. The second someone poses any type of gun legislation, the Republicans will launch a full on media attack saying things like "they are trying to take your rights away", "they are attacking the constitution" etc.

Conservative Politicians will use any gun legislation to attack Dems in an effort to win votes....sad sad sad.

When the 2nd ammendment was written, guns were a very different type of weapon and the world was even more different. Time for sensible legislation.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

someonewhoknows

Except it is a quite a high price to pay for being paranoid about an overthrow by Government. 30,000 deaths per year 100,000+ medical & loss of production costs


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

My view is It's in the constitution for a very good reason.That being those who have the superior weapon are able to control those who don't.You wouldn't say the miltary should give up their weapons?How about the police? What if one day you find that your military or police are corrupt and they decide to take over the government.It's not like it's impossible for such a situation to happen.That's why it's in the constitution.If,the people felt they were safe enough with another form of defense,I'm sure they would willingly give up an outdated form of defense.That day hasn't yet arrived.


HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

I totally agree with you Barry. Unfortunately my country has never gotten over their Wild West mentality from previous centuries. They cherish the 2nd amendment which allows the right to bear arms above all sensibility. They have no problem infringing on freedom of speech, religion or the press. But restrict gun purchasing and usage in any sane way, they lose their minds. Freedom of speech is a right but not when it creates riots or treason, limits are placed. Limiting assault weapons and clips should be just the bare minimum of sensible controls. The right wing in my country are way out there and cannot be talked to on this subject. Unfortunately the politicians in the U.S. on both sides of the political aisle are cowardly on this subject. Thank you for this wonderful Hub. Thumbs up.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Actually, I think the majority of Americans agree that we need more effective gun control legislation. However, our representatives in Washington pay more attention to contributions from the National Rifle Association. If someone votes against the NRA position, the NRA finances a candidate to run against him or her in the next election. Congressmen are terrified of the NRA.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

Ralph Deeds

Thanks for your comment it is comforting some agree with me


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Keep it up. You're on the right track. The time is long overdue for the adoption of measures controlling the manufacture, sale and ownership of handguns and non-hunting type long guns. Large capacity magazines should be strictly prohibited.


barryrutherford profile image

barryrutherford 5 years ago from Queensland Australia Author

Please feel free to comment here (within reason)

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working