If the United States Federal Government outlawed the possession of Guns what would your response be?
If I wanted to live somewhere where I'm not allowed to defend myself, I can think of some great places with better beaches, food, and cost of living
ETA I'm completely serious... the right to life, and to defend my life and the life of my family, is one of the most important things to me.
They would have to take my weapons from me out of my cold dead hands. Gun control won't work and banning assult weapons won't work as anyone would still be able to get them. Being a responsible weapon owner is where it begins. Trigger locks and gun safes!
I think China will spend US to Death rather than war. Yes cars and doctors kill more people than guns. It's just we really need them, we do not needs guns at all. Most importantly we do not need nuclear weapons and offensive war budgets' A higher war budget will be the last thing China will over take tak away from the USA.
I wouldn't support an outright ban, just severe restrictions.
Keep your passionate comments coming and flowing. This debate here has turned hot. Obama says he will announce new Gun Control legislation in January 2013....
That's kind of like a law that bans running red lights. Oh yeah they already have that one. How is that working?
The only way I could even consider a ban on guns to be a good thing would be IF AND ONLY IF there were absolutely positively No More violence in the world.
Killing will never stop killing and violence will never stop violence
Give peace a chance
the only thing a ban on guns will do is take protection away from law abiding citizens...it certainly wont stop law breakers from having them. it would make them bolder as well, knowing they wont face any direct threat to themselves. since there will always be law breakers, a ban on guns is the stupidest thing the government could do.
For all the places in world visited, I would been shot and killed many times overm if I had a gun in my hands. Many countries ban guns and they are safer for it
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~
I'm sorry, but it is not politically correct to ever mention that citizens need protection from their own government, and providing actual examples just goes far over the line. It tends to limit the power government has over the people and is generally frowned on even though our forefathers, writing our constitution, were smart enough to recognize and provide for that possibility.
You are to be spanked and sent to bed without your gun!
Maybe. When Dunblane happened in the UK we were sickened by it. It was good that the gun ban was introduced and I am not aware of any bad side effects.
I think that anything that lessens the chance of children being murdered by madmen is a good thing. That would seem to be the no-brainer.
What is laughable, as an outsider looking in, is that gun people seem to think they are safer because anyone in the country can easily get a gun.
It's a no-brainer ONLY if you assume that guns are the only way to murder large amounts of people.
Personally, I think that if someone is crazy enough to want to kill a roomful of people they will do so, gun or not. There are lots of tools for the task, and many are far more effective than a gun.
There is something about a gun, the remoteness of it, that makes it easier for a detached lunatic to commit the crime. Anything else that might easily come to hand - a baseball bat, machete perhaps - is a more connected experience.
This is why the people who operate drones can deal out death so easily. If they had to enter hand-to-hand combat with the 'terrorists' and their children it might take on a different perspective.
If Obama, and Cameron, and the rest of the political leaders who play with their soldiers lives were at the front with swords in their hands we would likely have no wars at all.
But I am digressing. When I walk into Heathrow airport and see armed police patrolling due to the ludicrous and exaggerated terrorist threat designed to instil fear into the population and allow the military machine to get more budget - I feel less safe.
The idea that my neighbour could possess such weapons would make me frightened. I believe that Americans are frightened - of each other and the world - and that guns are one of the reasons.
Good point in that "remoteness" and I think it is very true when speaking of the average person or even soldier.
The average madman slaughtering a room full of small children isn't normal, though. I would think that either they would prefer not to have that remoteness or not care one way or the other.
Another good point that Americans are frightened, and one I've considered. I think that, in a sense, Americans are more self sufficient, more willing to take care of themselves. At the same time that self sufficiency is deteriorating as we expand government control over our lives and specifically require more and more protection from government. This creates a paradox that we don't know how to handle, giving rise to the fear. We can't protect ourselves any more while at the same time telling ourselves that we can and don't want government to do it. In addition, some people think they can protect themselves while others think they can't and thus fear those that will try. A psychological mess, we are.
I'm happy to agree to disagree - we all have different points of view, and of course, I have no idea what living in America is really like.
Nice to see that Facebook has no qualms at all over gun related profits, you'd think they might pull adverts for a few days...
The worst school mass-murder in U.S. history (perhaps the world) was not carried out using guns at all. In Bath, Michigan, in 1927, 38 children and 6 adults were killed, and 58 others injured. The attacker used dynamite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Take away the guns, the deranged people who plot this sort of thing will find something else.
Having said that, I take a more moderate stance than some gun owners: I would support a ban on assault weapons, since they are needed neither for hunting nor for defense of one's self, home and family. Studies have shown (and most law-enforcement agencies agree) that a shot-gun is the most effective weapon against home invaders.
First, with all the caps it feels like you're shouting at us. Of course you're free to use whatever style you like, but can I ask you to consider using Italics or bold for emphasis instead of caps. Check out the formatting panel if you're not sure how that's done.
Second, your information is wrong I'm afraid.
As you can see, Switzerland actually has a higher gun homicide rate per 100,000 population than any other developed country in the world, second only to the U.S. (Chile and Turkey are actually developing countries).
The U.S. and Switzerland are the only developed countries in the top 45 of all countries by gun homicide rate per 100,000 population.
The U.S. and Switzerland have the 1st and 3rd highest levels of gun ownership in the world (Yemen is 2nd).
Japan has the lowest level of gun ownership than any country in the world. Japan also has the lowest rate of gun homicides per 100,000 population in the world.
Poland has the 2nd lowest level of gun ownership in the world relative to other developed countries. Poland is in the bottom 10 countries for gun homicide rate per 100,000 population.
Also, a U.S. study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that "states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men."
So there is a clear relationship between levels of gun ownership and rates of gun homicide.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
Harvard School of Public Health
Gun homicides aren't relevant here, homicides in general are. Can you compare gun ownership to homicide using any means?
Of course gun homicides are more frequent with higher gun ownership, but that says nothing about the general homicide rate using other tools.
USA Guns are the cause of most murders and suicides in America,
Why do people protect such harmful weapons?
Good find Don W
You know better than that - guns cause vanishingly few deaths. The mind pulling the trigger is the cause.
Glad to see a gun owner finally acknowledge the relationship between higher levels of gun ownership and higher gun homicide rates.
Can I compare gun ownership to general homicide? No, but the New England Journal of Medicine can, and has. One of the conclusions of their study, entitled Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, was:
"We found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun ownership in any subgroup, including one restricted to cases of homicide that followed forced entry into the home and another restricted to cases in which resistance was attempted. Not surprisingly, the link between gun ownership and homicide was due entirely to a strong association between gun ownership and homicide by firearms. Homicide by other means was not significantly linked to the presence or absence of a gun in the home."
In plain English: Owning a gun made no difference to the likelihood of people getting murdered in their homes. The only difference they found was that if you own a gun, you are more likely to get shot.
It's not difficult. From wikipedia (forgive the formatting, I don't know how to make it look good here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … icide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ … by_country
Country, guns per capita, homicide per capita
US, 88, 4.2
Sweden, 31.6, 1.0
Finland, 32, 2.2
New Zealand, 22.6, .9
Australia, 15, 1.0
Israel, 7.3, 2.1
Poland 1.3, 1.1
Note that I cherry picked countries, looking for ones that are at least somewhat similar to the US. Inclusion of African nations or the cultures of the far east will change the graph considerably. Culture plays a very large part - including the near east makes the US look like a piker in homicides if all the bombing deaths are included. I also picked a range of homicide rates based on how the wiki charts were arranged.
There does seem to be a correlation, but it is a very rough one. Look at Australia vs New Zealand or Sweden VS Finland. Nor is the correlation at all linear; if the US limited gun ownership to that of Israel it should have the lowest of all by a large margin which I would not believe. You held up Poland as a good example, but look at the homicide rate vs the gun ownership rate.
In short, the correlation is there, but probably not a strong enough one to justify assigning cause to. Culture probably plays a larger part in homicide rates than does gun ownership.
*edit* Find the four countries with homicide ranging from .9 to 1.1. Now look at the gun ownership figures for those countries. I didn't catch that until just now, but it gives a lie to the idea that the two are actually correlated. Of course, a much larger list might show those to be unimportant.
That's pretty much what I said. There appears to be no link between gun ownership and reduced general homicide rates, which gives the lie to the idea that gun ownership makes people safer in their homes. In the case of general homicide, it clearly doesn't. As your own research indicates.
On the other hand, as we've already agreed, there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun homicide rates per 100,000 population. I made no claims about Poland and general homicide rates, but Poland is as an example of the link between gun deaths and levels of gun ownership.
So according to the data, high levels of gun ownership does not reduce the likelihood of people getting killed in their homes, but does increase the likelihood of people being shot.
I think I'm missing something here.
If there is no link between gun ownership and murder, why are we discussing limiting gun ownership? It won't change the murder rate and isn't that the reason for a limit?
What the data seems to indicate is that without a gun, the murder will be carried out with a different tool, that's all. Sure, you won't be killed with a gun, but you're still dead!
You are getting yourself confused. Gun homicides are a subgroup of homicides. So of course gun homicides affect the overall homicide rate, but not other types of homicide. That's the point I thought you were making. It's obviously not so let me be a bit clearer.
Studies have found that more homicides occur in areas with high levels of gun ownership than in areas with low levels of gun ownership. After controlling for other variables, they have found that guns are one of the main factors. So reducing gun ownership would not lead to an increase in other types of homicides, because the gun is one of the main factor. Does that makes sense to you?
No. It does not make sense.
We both agree that gun ownership does not affect the overall homicide rate, but here you are claiming that homicide rates go up in areas with high gun ownership rates.
I would probably agree, off the top of my head, that the claim is true if those "areas" are extremely limited in size. Say, to the size of the slum areas in large cities.
If the "area" you are describing is a country, then the data we have plainly shows differently.
The point I'm making is that decreasing gun homicides does affect other homicide rates. We know this because the overall homicide rate remains constant when guns (and homicides from guns) are taken from the equation. Removing gun homicides (and I mean the actual deaths, not just statistical numbers from a spreadsheet) from a country results in additional homicides (from knives, bats, whatever) leaving the total homicide numbers unchanged.
As I keep telling you, numerous studies have shown that after controlling for other variables, higher levels of gun ownership relate to higher rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population. Lower levels of gun ownership relate to lower rates of gun homicide per 100,000 population. There is no increase in other types of homicide in areas of low gun ownership. In other words there are not more knife homicides in areas with lower gun homicides. So gun ownership levels do not appear to affect the rate of other types of homicide. These studies indicate that the gun is the risk factor. I don't know how to express it any clearer than that.
If you want to dispute those studies, okay, present some peer reviewed papers that conclude otherwise and we can discuss . Otherwise, all you are doing is obfuscating the issue which is not helpful. You seem to have an unwillingness to accept objectively verifiable information. Sorry to be so blunt, but I do wonder if this stems from the fact that the data is not telling the story you would like it to tell. Regardless, the nature of such information is immune to the desires of those hoping it will tell a different story. That's the good thing about objectively verifiable information.
The story is clear. Like it or not, higher gun ownership correlates to higher gun homicide rates, both in global comparisons and State by State comparisons.
One could, given those very limited stats, conclude that gun ownership decreases homicide rates.
Compare ownership vs homicide for all those listed except the US. In general the more guns, the lower the homicide rate. It isn't statistically significant, but might be worthy of further investigation. Should we, rather than limiting guns, encourage the proliferation?
1. You are comparing developed countries with developing countries which is silly for obvious reasons. In all the data I've presented, I only compare developed countries with other developed countries. That makes more sense.
So what does the data tell us if we compare developed countries? It tells us that the U.S. is the first developed country to appear in the list ranked by the rate of homicides per 100,000 population. The biggest contributor to that homicide rate are gun homicides.
2. I agree that data is very limited, but you are the one who presented it. Are you questioning the data you yourself presented? Regardless, I find it better to look at peer reviewed academic research rather than data sets on Wikipedia. There are many research papers that conclude there is a link between high levels of gun ownership and high homicide rates.
Denying all the research that's out there confirming that fact is futile and disingenuous.
1. Sorry - I would have considered all my choices of countries as developed except perhaps Poland. That was an afterthought and included only because you mentioned it.
2. Of course I question it; it is far too small a study to be truly meaningful and I don't trust wikipedia any more than you do. It is, however, the only thing in this thread that produces any data at all concerning gun ownership and overall homicide rates. I would much rather have seen a peer reviewed comparison of those two items per country but was unable to find any.
Don, you know that statistics can be given to "prove" almost anything; that's why they must always be carefully examined. In the case of the numbers you produced those numbers are worthless as a study showing that high gun ownership is a cause of a high homicide rate. They don't address that problem at all; only gun homicide rates. It is obvious that ownership of guns will produce gun homicides as even one death "by gun" is sufficient to prove that nations not having guns will have lower gun homicides than nations with guns. What it doesn't show is whether guns will be replaced with another tool when guns are not available and that's what is germane to the question of limiting gun ownership.
Another thought as well. A very, very common fallacy in dealing with statistics is to assign causality based on correlation.
We might find strong, indisputable correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide, but that doesn't mean that gun ownership causes high homicide rates.
It could actually be that a high homicide rate is causing people to fear and thus purchase guns! And if the fear is justified then taking their guns could cause the homicide rate to go up!!!
You'd have a hard time convincing me that was actually true, but it is a possibility and illustrates one of the dangers of relying on statistics. Great care must be taken in not only compiling stats, but in interpreting them as well.
Nope sorry, squirming doesn't get guns off the hook that easily I'm afraid. Correlation does not equate to causation, but it does serve as an indicator, especially when other variables are controlled for, which in many of the studies I mention they have been.
Perhaps further research could have enlightened us, if the N.R.A. had not stymied funding of research in this area to protect the sales of its corporate sponsors (who happen to be firearms manufacturers and retailers).
Ive come to one certainty concerning this. I will not change a single mind about firearms.
Oh, I don't know. While I'm a gun owner, it isn't particularly important to me personally. I haven't hunted in years and don't carry either open or concealed.
My own concern is more about freedom and the constitution. Given sufficient reason freedoms can, should be and are limited in the interests of society as a whole. If I thought that limiting gun ownership further than it already is would limit the tragedies such as Sandy I would be all over it. If I thought that it would even cut the homicide rate significantly, same thing.
I don't, though, and that's the rub. Few people want to actually look at reality, preferring to use their built in bias or using irrelevant data such as showing that gun homicides decrease with decreasing gun ownership.
Thank you for that information. I shall give it the amount of consideration it thoroughly deserves.
Oh, not squirming - my own comment that I would find a hard correlation as near proof of causality here should indicate that. The very last sentence was actually my point, and why I think your initial stats were of no value.
But the comment on NRA certainly has nothing to do with the question. It could also have enlightened us as to the opposite of what you want and expect to see.
I would still like to see hard stats on gun ownership vs total homicide rates for various countries. I think it is very pertinent here, and could very well change my mind about the rights and advisability of gun ownership. Any ideas on how to find that, short of compiling it ourselves from separate studies on the matter? Although that might actually be the best way to find true and actual data as it won't come from someone with an axe to grind.
It takes skill to kill someone with other tools
Any fool can pull a trigger
?? And your point is? You are replying to a post concerning the validity of statistics in general, and the dangers of concluding that a statistical correlation is a cause. Not the ease of using a gun.
In any case, though, it is easier, quicker and cheaper to buy materials and construct a pipe bomb or molotov cocktail than it is buy and learn to use a gun with any proficiency at all. At least it is easier and quicker in my area.
Any fool can throw a chunk of pipe or a bottle.
Very low suicide bombing goes on in the American countries
Between 1981 and 2006, 1200 suicide attacks occurred around the world, constituting 4% of all terrorist attacks but 32% (14,599 people) of all terrorism related deaths. 90% of these attacks occurred in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Sri Lanka
Suicide worldly carries more deaths than murder, war, and terrorist deaths combined
To demonize Islam, to make Muslims look stupid, fanatical, and murderous. To create worldwide terrorism that they can claim has nothing to do with Israel, but everything to do with Islam.
USA and Russia hold 90% of the world’s nuclear bombs, that is a huge concern and America’s are the only ones who have used them.
I must be exceptionally obtuse today - I'm just not picking up what you're putting down. So far there has been no discussion about terrorism, just gun control issues, and I've tried to keep the results of those homicides out of my figures and considerations. Nevertheless, I would respond to a couple of things.
Your "why's" are totally a matter of opinion and are not supported by any data I've ever seen. To claim that Islamic terrorists are killing people to intentionally make themselves look bad is beyond my comprehension. If, instead, you are claiming a plot from the rest of the world to do the killing themselves, blame it on Islamic terrorists and thereby make them look bad, that's even worse. I have no idea how Israel came into the idea, unless it's more of the world wide plot to denigrate Islam. I'm not much into conspiracy theories of that nature and in any case don't find that it has anything at all to do with US gun control.
I haven't a clue, either, why the nuclear arsenals of two countries are mentioned. I don't consider them guns, don't know of any individuals that own one, and don't know of any use since WWII where they were used exactly twice to prevent additional American bloodshed in a war time scenario. I would have to say that the world has seen remarkable restraint in their use since being invented, which is to the credit of any nation owning them.
You were comparing guns with other tools to kill by
In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.
Little guns lead to bigger Guns and all it’s about power of controlling people. The biggest threat to mankind is nuclear weapons and our natural Environment, would be the point. Guns are useless for our well being. Replace fear with love , make love not war, and make love, not debt. Iraq is costing more than world war two
"Guns are useless for our well being"
I would agree. AFTER the concept of "make love not war" is accepted and followed by every other culture on the planet. Until that time comes and mankind graduates from it's childishness, guns will be necessary for individual well being. (or at least weapons, whether guns or something else).
The key words are :Guns are useless:
Sure Doctors, pool drownings, cars, supermarkets all killer greater than Guns. Yet they are all better for our use than Guns. Besides, per capita there is less wars worldwide than any other time in human history, it's already in progress, USA is way behind.
"Guns are useless".
Will you also include in the "useless" category marijuana, sporting events, alcoholic beverages, water skiis and music? Or is it just those things primarily used for entertainment/pleasure that you personally don't enjoy?
Will you include such things as vegetable seeds, tomato racks, fertilizer and garden hoes, or is just things that you personally don't use to feed yourself with?
Will you include things like martial arts classes, door locks, security systems and the police force, or is it just things that you personally don't use to protect yourself with?
The war on marijuana is the worst idea since the concept of Hell was invented. No one in world have proven one death directly related to pure pot.
Clamp down Alcoholic beverage, yes because it's half of auto death
I grow most of my own food, do not trust supermarket most of all
Martial art and security system is over all healthy enough, only kill if you run out of ideas to protect yourself, I can't imagine running out of ideas. Murder dose not make the top 30 ways to die, you are only making excuses to protect yourself unethically.
Authorities kill more people than the criminal do. Tell me the USA will reduce their offensive bully war budget down to 4% rather than 50% of the world’s war budget and I might believe you.
USA is not civilized until their average war defense budget is in accordance with their population. The rest of the world people are equal to you as people, yet greed comes to mind
Gun Control Laws Fail To Keep Mentally Ill Away From Guns
Gun Control Laws Fail To Keep Mentally Ill Away From Guns
i dont get you...are you for or against gun control...this statement u made is exactly WHY we should not have a ban on guns...the mentally ill/deranged and just pure evil will always have guns regardless of any laws...ppl will no longer be able to defend themselves against such monsters.
Killing in general is an mental illness except for food. If the end the world comes, sure I might Kill and eat few zombie. When men in uniform kill more people than the crinminal do, then there is a great illness across the land.
If everyone has no guns including police, problem will be solved in time.
Funny, more people call me insane for calling on such things as these acts of kindness.
That will be a relief to the thousands of victims of IED's and car bombs in the near east.
And the thousands of Kurds Hussein gassed, as well as the holocaust survivors.
Man doesn't need a gun to kill with; there are lots of alternative methods.
First, yes. In fact, I'd support a total ban on possessing a gun in America.
As for game hunters, here's an idea. Rifles are given out with licenses. At the end of a season, the rifle must be returned. Firing ranges, likewise, provide rifles for practice, but only on their own premises.
Taser sales should skyrocket as a result.
Sally Trove. Superb post and reply here. Thank you very much. You comment here comes like a breath of fresh air. You are among few who want to ban guns but your perspective is loaded with peace and common sense. Thank you very much.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. No gun ever brought peace to anyone.
Not for nothin' but I'm not so sure that the old saw about an armed citizenry being able to protect itself from an over-reaching government really holds water anymore. Let's be honest, if the US government ever REALLY wanted to start slapping people down, they've got bombers, Apache helicopters, remote controlled drones, and God knows what else. A bunch of homeowners with rifles wouldn't stand a chance against it.
As for the original question ... I don't own a gun, I've never owned a gun, and I have no plans to ever own one in the future, so a total ban on gun possession wouldn't make much difference to me.
That response assumes a military populated by American Sons and Daughters would blindly comply with their orders and attack their own Mothers and Fathers, Brothers and Sisters.
I submit to you as the father of three currently serving in the military and relative of many more, whoever gives that order will be sorely disappointed in the result. The domestic enemy our military is sworn to defend would indeed be the entity issuing such an order.
I'm hearing all this bitching about people saying they are trying to take my right to defend myself away. Seriously, if you own a gun, would you ever really use it to defend yourself. If someone wants to kill you or do harm to your family, I don't think owning a gun is going to change that. Even if you had a machine gun in your arsenal, how much time do you think you have to get to it, before a killer got to you.
The problem is, the media glorifies murderers. Every time someone pulls out a gun and shoots someone, they plaster it all over the news and won't shut up about it. There are also way too many crime shows on TV that exaggerate the minds of criminals, making them look like they are too smart to get caught, and the stories are long and drawn out. Where in real life, a violent crime takes a matter of seconds, and the criminal doesn't say, don't move or I'm going to shoot you, they just do it and walk away. How much time do you think those kids had before they were mowed down.
People also keep saying that criminals will have guns no matter what. But, if you look at all the mass killings that have taken place, the guns were purchased in a store, or the family had a huge collection of guns, which the murderer used to kill innocent people. The average criminal does not own a machine gun, and they are far out numbered by average morons who have a stock pile of every weapon you can think of in the gun cabinet.
So yes. I think we should have gun control. There are not as many criminals in this world as there are gun owners who seem to snap for no apparent reason. As it is now, anyone can go into a store and buy any gun they want. Also, new laws are not going to stop some stores from looking the other way to sell a gun. It happens all the time. Most likely there are probably more gun stores who sell weapons illegally, than there are criminals who sell them on the street. Not to mention the gun and knife shows, where there is nobody checking to see who sells what. They also sell very nasty knives, for the sole purpose of killing.
Gun control will at least cut down on the mass numbers.
Gun control will at least cut down on the mass numbers.
Gun crowd control, I would rather be gay and control over population
One things about gays. Very few of us own guns. We are way too busy having fun and caring about humanity, to give a rats ass if someone is so selfish that they need to have a machine gun. That would be the last thing on my want list. A hot dude holding a fake but realistic machine gun, while wearing a jock. Now, that I might be ok with.
I would not advocate outlawing all gun ownership in America.
There is a huge difference between gun control and outlawing guns. Gun control will mainly weed out people who should not legally own a gun. Like having any past criminal record, a stricter age requirement, and a limit to the amount of multiple shot weapons.
New gun control laws will not eliminate guns all together, it will just cut down on the number of those who have them, and maybe make some places a little safer.
The dead mother whose son killed her was presumably LESS safe with guns in the house. Had she lived she would be suffering terribly having had her guns used to kill children.
I assume gun owners are taking a lot more care with their guns now which must be a good thing.
So they lock them up and store the ammunition in a separate place.
Then there is a knock at the door.
"My God" they exclaim "T'is someone come to kill me and rape my cat". They ask the caller to hold on by shouting through the door and find the keys and get the guns and the ammo. Still shouting "Hold on" they load the weapon of maximum peace and adopt the crouch position.
Only then can they open the door and peer up at the visitor.
"Oh it's you Mom" they explain and put the safety back on. Then they put the gun and the ammo away, lock it up, and hide the keys where junior won't find them.
There was a kid from next door armed to the teeth who had walked up behind your Mom and is now taking aim.
Where does it stop I wonder?
Don't encourage me. I might end up talking nonsense.
"Hollywoodism: Jews, Movies and the American Dream" "An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood"
But mostly it uses newsreel and film footage to demonstrate the influence of early American film on history and culture, and how the content of that film was determined by a handful of studio executives who happened to be Jewish immigrants.
High noon is one example
Went a world trade show, guess what culture the USA was showing, “Hollywood”
This is what I think, and in fact said to my Husband the other day. When everyone has a gun, then everyone is back to a 'level playing field' with no advantages over the others around them, what happens then? Does everyone 'raise the stakes' and start getting rocket launchers or hand grenades just to get the upper hand on their fellow humans? Unless something changes to get rid of guns, or create incredibly strict gun controls and severe penalties for those found in breach of those laws, then the only thing that will happen is more deaths.
We are already seeing this kind of 'weapon competitiveness' happening between countries, only these are massive weapons, and as soon as one country starts to look like it might be 'catching up' the other country does its level best to go one better and create even more destructive weapons.
It is a sad world we live in today, and more guns in private hands will exacerbate the problem, not provide the solution.
I'm not for banning all guns, but I feel people shouldn't be able to sell their guns on ebay or classified to others. Selling in those fashions can easily put a gun in the wrong hands! (No background check between private parties needs to be changed in my opinion)! The existing background check is useless if this isn't changed.
A smart person would learn the art of hiding.
In new Zombies movies they show zombies learned how to fire a guns, where is your Zombies hand guns?
For hunting wildlife, there is always the hunting bow and arrow.
For hunting wildlife, there is always the hunting bow and arrow.
by Onusonus15 months ago
I've never owned a gun perivately But after reading this E-Mail, I'm considering it.A LITTLE GUN HISTORYIn 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend...
by My Esoteric10 months ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso...
by lesliebyars3 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
by Don Bobbitt14 months ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby...
by Jeff Berndt4 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to...
by A Thousand Words4 years ago
I know that many, if not all, of you are aware of the tragedy that took place at the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. The "suspect," James Holmes, "allegedly" shot 70...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.