ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why Americans Need More Guns (and Less Gun Control)

Updated on February 3, 2014

In the coming days and week, America will be having a national conversation. This conversation will be a turning point for the future of America’s gun laws. After the horrific, inexcusable act of pure evil that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School, American are scared. They are angry. They want to know why this happened, and how to prevent it from happening again.

The problem in America is not guns. Guns themselves do not kill people. It takes a person to load, aim, and fire the weapon at another human being. All physical objects can be used in a way to create death in the right (the wrong) hands, from cars to planes, to screwdrivers, hammers, golf clubs, and more. Any of these can be used to harm or kill another human being. In terms of guns, think of it this way. There are currently more than 235,000,000 guns legally owned in the USA. Just fewer than 9,000 people were murdered by a firearm in 2010. If you do the math, assuming that these people died from separate guns (which they all did not), guns used for murder account for just 0.000383% of all guns owned in the USA. If guns themselves killed people, that number would be a lot higher. If you add in illegally owned firearms used to kill people, that percent gets smaller. You can’t spin the facts, America does not have a gun problem; it has a violence problem. All of these mass acts of terror have one thing in common, (and it’s not guns, Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists did not need them), and that one thing is a mentally deranged, sick, person committing the crime. We as Americans need to be able to defend ourselves from the horrors that are reality in the world we live in.

America needs gun laws that work. America needs to have more guns in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens. In 1993, a study by Gary Kleck found that 2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the US by potential victims who used a gun to deter the would be criminal. Most recently, a 77 year old grandmother in Atlanta shot at a man who broke through her window, in Detroit, an 81 year old man did the same. A store clerk in Texas shot a man in the leg after he tried to rob the store with a knife, and at an AutoZone Store, a store clerk who escaped the robbery, went to his car and got his handgun, brought it back in, and scared off the robber who had the store manager held at gunpoint. Stories like this happen daily. Most criminals don’t want to die; they just want their crime to be as easy as possible. They usually run when threatened with a gun. For those few sick individuals that don’t care and are planning on killing themselves anyway, being able to shoot them dead before they inflict harm is a must. At the Oregon mall shooting, which has become lost in the news because of this last tragedy, a man who heard the gun shots and was in the mall crossed paths with the murderer. He pulled out his legally concealed gun and took aim, only hesitating to fire because an innocent shopper who was fleeing the area was in his line of fire, before he had another clear shot; the murder took his own life before the police could end it themselves.

To prevent this unnecessary bloodshed, America needs a call to arms, not a gun ban. If we are allowed to bring guns into church, to the mall, to banks, to movie theaters, into restaurants across the nation, criminals would think twice before attempting to rob someone. More guns in a location won’t increase crime. That hypothesis is flawed. Banning guns from certain locations does nothing to deter gun crime. If you jam pack an area full of law abiding citizens, carrying firearms, guess what? The law abiding citizens don’t murder people. On the contrary, criminals don’t care about gun laws, and gun free zones, if they did; there would be no bank robberies or school shootings because they wouldn’t be bringing the gun inside in the first place. In reality, they do. Criminals break the law and bring guns to places they shouldn’t. Imagine that. That’s why we need fewer restrictions on where firearms are allowed. All gun free zones do is let would be criminals know where they will find an unarmed target. A federal judge recently overturned an Illinois ban on conceal and carry noting that a typical citizen of Illinois faces a greater chances of being threatened on the street, then in their high rise apt. Law abiding citizens make up over 95% of gun ownership. If we were allowed to bring guns with us anywhere, citizens can react faster than the police can get there. It takes the police on average 2-3mins to get to a particular location. It doesn’t take a killer that long to unload a clip or two. Citizens who are armed and ready can take down the would be assailant in seconds, not minutes after he or she starts the crime.

Gun Control Activists say we need to ban assault rifles and high capacity ammo. This will not solve our violence problem. Of the 12,996 murder victims in 2010 (8,775 by firearm), only 358 or 0.027% of all murders, were caused by rifles. More people die every month via handguns then we have had die in mass shootings this year combined. Since 2008, more than 400,000 Assault Rifles have been sold in the US. If guns killed people, and if the sole purpose of only assault rifles was to inflict harm on other humans, wouldn’t you expect there to be more incidents of mass death?

What happened in Newtown, Connecticut is beyond atrocious. Anytime a person dies needlessly it’s sad, but when it’s an innocent child, it hits you right in the gut. To prevent further horrors like this from making the headlines we need not to disarm law-abiding citizens and make it harder for those citizens to get the guns they need to make them and their families’ safe, but rather put measures in place that will stop shootings like this in the first place. We need armed personal in schools. One school district in Texas already does this. The school is 18 miles and about 20minutes away from the nearest police station. It has some of its teachers in the “Guardian” program. Those teachers and staff not only go through conceal and carry training, but also additional guardian training focusing on aim. No one except the principal and the superintendent know which teachers are armed. Pray to the heavens that they don’t ever have to use the guns, but if a gunman enters the school, the teachers will be ready. It only takes seconds for a school gunman to inflict harm; it takes minutes for police to arrive, and longer for Special Forces. In school shootings, teachers are the first responders. Why should we ask them to protect our children, but not allow them to be armed?

We need measures like the guardian program across America’s schools. If we armed 10-15% of our teachers and staff at each school, one could argue that any would be shooter would be dead before they got 20 feet. Yes some people may still die, but it wouldn't be in the double digits. After 9/11, we beefed up security screening and put air marshals on airplanes and 10 years later, we have had no terrorist attacks on America. We need to same attitude towards our schools. We can disarm and pass all the gun controls we want, but evil knows no bounds, and respects no law. If an assailant wanted to make a bomb to place in the school cafe, he could, if he wanted to use a crossbow, he could. Guns are not the only means of carrying out violence, but guns are one of the best ways to respond to violence. America needs guns, more of them.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Alberic O profile image

      Alberic O 4 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

      In my profession, I use and carry firearms. Most aspects of gun control do not make sense in part that they are generally written up by people that are not familiar with them. However, I do believe in that the following needs to be implemented:

      1. Those diagnose with psychopathy, antisocial personality disorders, schizophrenia and severe depression will be banned from possessing and purchasing firearms and ammunition. Once the diagnosis is made, it will be submitted to the FBI database for background checks for those purchasing firearms.

      2. Enforce all background check requirements.

      3. A safe firearms safety test will be mandatory for all those wishing to purchase firearms. This is fair- for the military, law enforcement and armed security, we go through strict courses to include firearms safety standards.

      I believe guns in TRAINED hands can make the difference. Those who plan to use firearms for defense MUST train constantly at the range and dry fire. Simply going to the range 1 every month after getting a gun is not enough.

    • profile image
      Author

      Jmiller17 4 years ago from Marietta, Georgia

      @ Alberic O

      I agree with youe point 1), people who have voices whispering to them to "kill" shouldn't have guns. I also agree with your point 2) in the sense if we are going to do them, we need to do them right and thoroughly for everyone.

      I disagree with your point 3) as the Constitution declared owning an gun a "Right" not a responsibility. Driving a car is a responsibility, and proper instructor and training is requires, as well as passing a test before one can get a driver's license. When the Constitution was written, it was the fathers (or mothers) job to teach their young ones how to shoot, and when they were trusted with it, they were griven a gun, no Qs asked. I am old school and believe in the "Right" to own firearms. According to the Consitution, no further training is requires.

      My girlfriends father is an active poice officer, and yes he still to this day goes through active firearm training. But here is the difference between him or any other police or military personal and a common civilian; it is his JOB to be able to shoot, it is not ours. If we are paying someone to defend us, and shoot someone if needed, then yes, they do need additional training, but we as civilians constitutionally do not.

      I will say if people decide to purchase a firearm, or conceal and carry, they need to use common sense with it, and I think our founding father's assumed this common sense would be followed. they need to find and practice with a gun they are comfortable with in terms of use, aim, and recoil and practically, weekly practice would be best.

      thanks for your comments

    • Alberic O profile image

      Alberic O 4 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

      I see your point. Unfortunately, common sense is not common anymore. Guns weren't taboo back then as it is today. I was recently flagged at the gun range by a shooter who was shooting a 9mm pistol. At some other range, I had to help a group of shooters clear a double feed in their semi auto pistols. If you can't even clear a double feed or stovepipe (failure to eject) for your own weapon, you probably shouldn't carry. We may have made some technical processes but boy people are sometimes dumb or ignorant. How many people shot themselves in the late 1700's? Far less than in the 20-21st century.

      People don't know this but possessing knowledge and the tools that can kill involves a lot of responsibilities when you carry outside your home. A civilian is legally responsible for every round fired- just as much as police and military if not more in a self defense situation. In addition, you are responsible for knowing when deadly force is tactically and legally allowed. When you start to sling lead or plan to sling lead in self defense, shooting is your job regardless of profession.

      The training and legal requirements listed are all covered in many conceal weapons carry courses states require people to take before conceal carrying in public.

    • profile image
      Author

      Jmiller17 4 years ago from Marietta, Georgia

      I totally agree with you on people when to know "when to shoot" and "when not to shoot." The line is different in each state, and it is up to the person to know what is legal in his or her state.

      I see what your saying with your assessment of the common sense (or lack of) in today world and how guns are taboo. Its amazing how far we come from a technological standpoint, but yet people are more idiotic today then in the past. I tend to assume people have common sense because it like how do you not, but I see your point on making sure capable people are handling the weapon.

      I would personally like to see abroad change in American culture where guns are just as common as video games and are once again engraved into our society. If guns weren't considered taboo, maybe people would be more responsible with them. I believe most of them are, but yes there are those who are not.

      For me personally, I consider myself responsible and able, but, just to make sure, I will be taking a series of gun control classes after the new year that covers everything from gun care to conceal and carry, to night fire tactics. Maybe if we made these courses tax deductible, more people would take them?

      thanks for your comments

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Probably not a bad idea, JMiller, allowing a tax deduction for state certified (to weed out the scams) gun safety classes. While the bumper sticker that "guns do not kill, people do" is popular, it isn't technically correct; would those 20 children be dead if Lanza didn't have a gun? It was the gun that did the killing, at the direction of the human pulling the trigger; no gun, no killing, at least with bullets. Now, to kill those 20 kids and the 6 adults, he would have had to stab them all to death. What is the likelihood of that happening? No, while the gun didn't initiate the killing, it facilitated it.

      While owning a gun is a Second Amendment right, having that right doesn't relieve the owner of the responsibility of using it properly; just as person as a Constitutional right to free speech, it doesn't give a person the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

      My personal opinion is that with gun ownership comes great responsibility, such that if you own a gun, you have what is legally known as a "strict liability" for any harm that comes from the gun while it is in your ownership, regardless of who did the harm with the gun. That means if you lose possession of the gun because you didn't secure it well enough, too bad, you are responsible for any harm that comes of it.

      Finnaly, the stats are clear, the more guns on the streets, the more dead Americans there are because of them.

    • profile image
      Author

      Jmiller17 4 years ago from Marietta, Georgia

      @ My esoteric

      I agree with the state certified idea. Yes, technically “guns kill people” (actually it is the bullet), but it takes a person to pull the trigger. I will reference China (which has major gun control laws), where on the same day as Sandy Hook, a man walked into a school and stabbed a dozen people. That came two years after a man killed in china killed over 30 school children (closer to 50) with a sword, so it is possible, and likely that if not guns, knives. Also homemade bombs might be a vehicle for death. As I have argued elsewhere, evil will find a way to manifest itself.

      Car accidents kill more people then guns, heck drunk driving deaths alone kill more people each year then guns do. Properly prescribed prescription drugs kill over 150,000 people each year due to adverse reactions. Advil and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs kill 16,000 people each year by themselves. All of these examples by themselves are needles deaths, and all kill more than guns, in some cases much more, but you don’t hear about people trying to ban alcohol, cars, or Advil, or making it harder to own such killers.

      I couldn’t agree more with how much responsibility comes with owning a gun; however that can be said about owning a car. Should we punish car owners whose car was involved in a fatal car accident while they were not driving? Car accidents do kill nearly 4x as many people as guns do (34,485 car deaths in 2009 to 9,199 gun murders in 2009.)

      And while yes, the more guns we have, the more people die, the same can be said up all causes of needless death. The more cars we have on the roads, the more car accident deaths, and the more people taking drugs (legal and illegal) the more deaths they cause and so on. A study was done in the early 90s, and it found the over 2million crimes were prevented each year by guns. In cities with tight gun control, like DC and Chicago, the crime rate is up, the murder rate is up.

      As for gun control laws, can you explain the logic for banning guns and creating gun free zones? My hub, http://jmiller17.hubpages.com/hub/Why-Gun-Control-... argues against it. Since 1950, every major mass shooting, except the one in AZ, with more than 3 deaths happened in a place that banned firearms. My logic is that criminals don’t follow the law anyway, so why disarm people who obey the law?

      I would say over 85% of gun owners are law abiding. There are millions of handguns in the US, hundreds of thousands of so call Assault Rifles that don’t kill people each day, so I will continue to support my claim that guns don’t kill people, a crazy person with a gun (or knife, or bomb, or car) kill people.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      JMiller, I had forgotten about those China incidents, but my return question would be what is the per capita rate of mass killing by blade in China as opposed mass killing by gun in America? I don't know the answer to that, so I just leave it out there to ponder.

      Yes, you are quite right that if a person is intent on killing large numbers of people, he (I don't think there are any she's yet, or at least very many) will find a way, guns or no guns. But, again, with no guns, would the rate of these increase to the level to which guns are used for that purpose today?

      Further, guns, swords, and bombs have one thing in common not found in any other commonly used device to end another persons life, and that is that is why they were invented. Killing people with a knife or a car is an ancillary use of that device, that wasn't why they were created. The former three items were created with only one purpose in mind ... to kill. The fact they may be used for tarket practice, ceremony, or fun for the innocent teenager like me, until I almost blew my finger off, is immaterial. That is why I see trying to compare knives and cars, as others have, with guns is a spurious analogy in my mind.

      And that answers one of your questions; no, the same strict liability doesn't carry over to things whose primary purpose is benign, not deadly. A person who steals a car does so, except in rare circumstanses, for reasons other than killing or potentially kelling another human being. A person who steals a gun rarely does so to go target practicing. Instead, they have a violent, probably criminal purpose in mind. To me, that is a huge and decisive difference.

      Again, you are falling into the black-white trap, at least as it relates to me. I don't favor banning guns, never have, never will. I am for regulating them more than states like AZ and the South does.

      Yes, it is ipso facto that the more guns there are in the hands of people, the more per capita deaths there are. But, what is also true, is the per capital death rate is higher in states with loose or non-existant gun regulations than in states that regulate guns more stringently (except, as you pointed out, for DC) .

      Can you direct me to that study you cited about guns preventing crime?

    • profile image
      Author

      Jmiller17 4 years ago from Marietta, Georgia

      @ My Esoteric

      I am not sure about the per capita rate of mass killings by blades in China compared to gun killings in the US. China doesn’t always release accurate data, but to sort of answer your question, a person is nearly 2x as likely to be stabbed in the UK (also high gun control), then shot in the US. http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323 is the main source of this conclusion, however googling the statistics and comparing, plus reading other articles confirm this conclusion.

      There is no way of knowing if there were no guns, if mass killings would decrease. I would think not much because again, I think if they are intent on doing it, they will, however we will probably never know for sure. I do see your point on comparing the intended use of varies products that can cause death.

      How far would you go in punishing gun owners for crimes committed with their weapon? A police officer was recently overpowered and her weapon took by a criminal. The criminal shot two other people, should she be punished because she was overpowered? The problem with laws that punish people who were victims themselves (theft) is that there are endless scenarios on how the killer obtained the gun. Was the gun stolen by force? Was their safe broken in to? You would have to have a clear cut definition of what was truly negligent. I would say if we were going to punish the gun owners, then we need to punish the people who come out after a mass shooting who said “oh yeah, he was pretty crazy.” These people said they saw the signs, but did nothing to report the person, or maybe we should punish the people who send text messages to drivers, many not knowing what the other person is doing. We can’t punish people for the action of others. The gray area is just too big for this to be fair. Unless Bob said to Tom, give me your .22 so I can go to the mall and kill people, Tom shouldn’t be punished for Bobs shooting spree with Toms stolen gun.

      Also, a person rarely knows the mental state of people and their intent. You could be best friends with Jane for years, maybe even hunting buddies. Jane is a person you trust and have for years. Because of the history, I wouldn’t think of hiding all my guns and changing the gun safe password because Jane came over (like she has for years). Except this time, Jane is depressed and while I am getting a beer out of the fridge in the garage, Jane takes my gun I have in my nightstand for bedtime defense. I didn’t know Jane was crazy, I might not even known that she knew where my nightstand gun was. Why should I be punished? Should the person who sold the ammo to the killer also be punished? This may sound insensitive but we can’t punish or take away the rights of the many, for the sins of the few. We can’t live in a world where we police every action by people that may contribute or have help facilitate a crime.

      Gary Kleck did a study in 1993 about gun control, (and yes I know he has his critics). I also would reference the 2 books I have listed in my amazon capsule, especially More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott. It is a long read, but very heavy with stats (which I think you like) I do not own it personally, but have read several excerpts from it. His other book, I also reference makes a direct claim to over 2 million crimes prevented by guns each year. I also just do simple google search for articles about people (mostly homeowners) using guns to deter crimes. Recently in Atl, an elderly woman used a gun to shoo away a would be robber who had just broken into her home. I have also recently read several articles about people with conceal and carry permits thwarting robbers in public places (often at restaurants and gas stations). Stories like this are everywhere online. It happens; it is just not well reported by the media. In bigger cities like Chicago, DC, and Atl, searching the police reports usually leads to several stories like this monthly.

    • ssingam profile image

      ssingam 3 years ago

      I m sure you would never approve this comment, but I wanted to let you know the following:

      Not only do I find the logic in this article horrifying, it seems the author is bent on dragging society back to the 19th century. Among the few facts not mentioned in the article would include the one million firearms stolen every year by criminals from the homes of idiots. Also failed to mention the only other countries with a higher firearm death rate would be Mexico and Africa. Also failed to mention the same firearms available in the USA are also available in 1st world countries like Japan or Germany, yet those countries with strict gun control policies have a far far lower gun death rate per capita. Going by the authors logic, he believes that if 10 million people all carrying fire arms(such as in a major metropolitan city), somehow there would be less gun violence and crime. There is no evidence to back this opinion, and if you put a sign outside your house that says I am gun owner, Im sure it would be the first house on the block to get robbed. Crime and violence stems from poverty, and flooding a nation with a sagging economy full of guns is a recipe for more violence. We can see that evidenced by the surge of mass shootings since 2005. But instead of trying to get rid of poverty, the rightwing has labeled them enemies of capitalism. One last thing I would like to point out are the fake apologies from pro gun nuts. The "Im sorry your daughter got a hollow point to the head at school; but don't touch my gun rights." paranoid attitude is absolutely dispicable. Obama has been president for 5 years, how many guns has he taken away from you?

    • profile image
      Author

      Jmiller17 3 years ago from Marietta, Georgia

      I have no reason to deny publishing your comment. If you have something to say, why not put it on an open forum?

    • profile image

      LSO 541 3 years ago

      First I will not admit that there is no evidence saying “Going by the authors logic, he believes that if 10 million people all carrying fire arms(such as in a major metropolitan city), somehow there would be less gun violence and crime.” Because you can look at L.A. and D.C and Chicago and New York City all have exactly what you want and those places our dangerous. I also think that it is horrible that because I bare arms that now you put this commit on me. “I would like to point out are the fake apologies from pro gun nuts. The "Im sorry your daughter got a hollow point to the head at school; but don't touch my gun rights." paranoid attitude is absolutely dispicable. Obama has been president for 5 years, how many guns has he taken away from you?” If I start saying I will make all Black Americans slaves, how would you act? What would you say? What would you do? I tell you what I would do I would grab my GUN and March on Washington D.C. What can you do? Say please stop, paint a sign? Every man is born equal, and I have the right to bare arms, they are one and the same these are RIGHTS not privileges of the people. They are both liberties and freedoms we have paid for in blood and I and many others will not just give these rights away. They only way to have effectively prevented this is to have people with GUNS!! There to protect our children. I would also like to point out If my gun was there I would have been there and If I had been there things I would have been different so why restrict me? Now I want to say that the politicians who want to keep schools a gun free zone have people with guns protecting their kids so why is it ok for my kids to be shot and killed. You don’t see people walking around Fort Knox with only a tazer!! So why can we not protect something that is infinitely form precious? Next I would like to point out that even an England on an island they cannot get rid of guns so what makes you think that you could even if you want to, and yes I saw where you wrote that you do not want to take guns away from people but the fact is bad people do bad things. You can and will never be able to prevent crimes but you will be there when it happens to you.

    • ssingam profile image

      ssingam 3 years ago

      LSO, wow. First, I don't think you live or have been to a major metropolitan city. If you did you would know that regardless of the weak gun laws, guns are readily prevalent, and easy to acquire. You can walk into a gun shop in Los Angeles and see a tree made out of AK47s at $250 a pop. One can purchase a gun in a back alley as easy as buying a sandwich. Gun laws in major cities are a joke thanks to the NRA lobbyist fighting every effort to curb gun violence tooth and nail.

      This notion of gun fighting the government if they make slaves out of white, black, yellow people is a complete and utter fantasy. If the government were making slaves of us, I'm sorry but you would be standing next to me in line at the FEMA camp. Lol. The prevailing Rambo attitude from pro gun nuts is entirely comical. Your pea shooters wont help us when staring down the barrel of an Abrams tank, or getting carpet bombed by an F16. So save the bravissimo armed march to Washington DC,be civilized and use your brains and the law(CRA of 1965) to fight injustice. Gandhi removed the armed British Empire from India without firing a shot. How many dictators have the pro gun nuts overthrown? How many fathers wives sisters and children have died in US mass shootings?

      Also the constitution says the right to bare arms in a well regulated militia. How many pro gun nuts are in a militia? I'm sure no one that posted on this hub.

      You can help me prove how irrational and unbending pro gun nuts are when it comes to curbing gun violence. How would you feel about a law stating that all fire arms must be kept at a privately owned and licensed gun club or firing range locker. Individuals can take their firearms home after signing a checkout receipt stating the dates the firearm will be in possession and returned to the locker. This is the law in first world countries including Japan.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      You can add Martin Luther King to your Gandhi example; the only people killed were the Freedom Marchers by the NRA-gun loving Conservatives (both Democratic and Republican, to take Party out of it).

      Empirical evidence clearly shows three things 1) the less regulation a State has, the more per capita legal gun ownership there is, 2) the more per capita legal gun ownership there is, the more per capita death by guns there is, and 3) the per capita rate of legal gun ownership has no bearing on violent crime; as a category, it neither increases it or decreases it in a statistically significant way.

      Having said that, the stats do show that more legal guns do lead to more homicides, but on the flip side, it leads to less robberies.

      I can't quite go as far as you do, @Ssingam, in your regulation of guns, but the one clear need is background checks on ALL gun sales, that will go a long way to reducing the number of firearms in the hands of criminals (they get the vast majority through legal means) and a law assigning "strict liability" to the registered owner of a firearm. The latter means if they are found simply negligent in their security of their guns and it is used in a crime or to harm someone, the owner is liable for civil damages.

      BTW, there is no statistical relationship between gun ownership and forcible rape or aggravated assault, either.

    • ssingam profile image

      ssingam 3 years ago

      My esoteric, conservatives at the time of CRA , the NRA backed gun nuts were both democrats and republicans, but it was during a major political power shift with Nixons Southern Strategy. Today those same people would almost all be republican.

      Regarding regulation, I don't think mere background checks will reduce firearms in the hands of criminals. There is no evidence to back this. The penalty for not doing a background check is a slap on the wrist. How about a law stating that if an individual is caught with a firearm without a back ground check, that individual is charged with attempted murder, or attempted armed robbery.

      I agree with you on the liability and the negligence of gun owners. But again pro gun nuts will not budge on this. I am apt to start calling these people pro mass shooters. The same way they label liberals as pro abortion. Lol.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I don't know what the penalty is for a background check violation for a licensed retailer, I suspect it is nothing in a place like AZ to pretty stiff in CA; I tried looking online but found nothing. I think civil liability and criminal violation or loss of license should be sufficient to make the point.

      As to putting a crimp in criminals access to guns, consider that they get over 50% of their guns, according to them, from family and friends. Another 20 or more percent, I have to look at my hub on it to make sure, come from other legal means such as the Internet, gun shows, and licensed dealers, albeit a very small percentage from the latter source.

      How likely is it that friends and family are going to keep providing the bad weapons and not doing the checks when it can easily be traced back to them if the gun is used in a crime and comes into the possession of the police? Just as you suggest, now they become an accessory before the fact to the crime. That is why I would think having universal background checks would put a big dent in the number of firearms in criminal hands.

      There is no question, crime among criminals will go up as the supply of guns goes down, as will attacks on gun stores (putting them in the same danger category as pawn shops and pharmacies) and the like; but the net result, I would think, is a lot less firearms in dangerous hands.

    • AngloSaxon profile image

      AngloSaxon 3 years ago from England

      I just don't understand the arguments of gun-control advocates. They make no sense, logically, statistically or by way of common sense or principle. I've outlined some questions for gun-control advocates on my own hub ... https://hubpages.com/politics/Questions-for-Gun-Co...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Statistically, for sure, they make all the sense in the world. For me, gun controls are also logical and make common sense as well.

    • AngloSaxon profile image

      AngloSaxon 3 years ago from England

      I've yet to see an argument for gun control that can be logically constructed. In fact, seeing as a gun is nothing more than property and that everyone has the right to own and control their own property the debate could stop there.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Isn't heroin "just property"? Why can't I legally own and use heroin?

    • ssingam profile image

      ssingam 3 years ago

      ooohh. My Esoteric for the logical butt spank. Anglosaxon please read mine and My Esoteric comments for a logical argument for gun control.

    • AngloSaxon profile image

      AngloSaxon 3 years ago from England

      You should be able to own heroin. The drug companies do, the police do, how come it's not a crime for them? Why would a plant or a chemical be inherently wrong to own? How are you committing a crime by owning something (assuming you didn't steal it)? A crime is when you intentionally violate someone's rights - when you steal or murder or rape or kidnap or defraud or harm or vandalize or destroy. There must be a victim.

    • ssingam profile image

      ssingam 3 years ago

      I got this. If someone steals your gun and commits murder, who is responsible? The theif, of course. What about you? Your incompetence led to murder. Should we all be able to own a nuclear bomb?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      To be honest, I do think all drugs should be legal to possess and use as individuals; but, I think the production, sale, and distribution must be controlled by the State, not necessarily accomplished by the State, but controlled by them.

      I also think, as @ssingam suggests, that gun owners must be strictly liable for what ever harm comes from the use of the weapons under their responsibility.

    • profile image
      Author

      Jmiller17 3 years ago from Marietta, Georgia

      @my_esoteric I think we have touched on this argument before, but what if someone steals your car and is recklessly driving away and hits another vehicle and kills its occupants. Should the legal owner of the car be liable for the actions of others with his property, even actions that occurred without his consent?

      @ssingam Incompetence is a loose term and is widely debatable. In my above example, what if the car was in locked in the garage??? I believe any reasonable court would find that the owner did his/her duty to secure the vehicle that was stolen and used to kill an innocent. In what terms would a gun owner be deemed incompetent and liable if his/her gun was stolen? Maybe it was locked up, maybe it was in his nightstand drawer for an emergency. What if a family member steals it? In the case of Sandy Hook, the gun was stolen by the owner's son. In this particular case, given his history of mental illness, i would have found her judgment on how she stored the guns questionable, but she was also a victim of the massacre and therefore can't be charged with any negligence.

      However, often a person who steals from his family never shows any signs of being crazy. they are a trusted member of the family and reasonable the family shouldn't have anything to hide from the. Teens steal their parents wallets, cars, credit cards, and etc... all the time. Sometimes in the case of the car theft, crimes occur. The parents didn't secure the car from there children because they didn't think they had to. We can not know the intention of every person in our household. If that was the case, parents of children that have committed suicide by taking a knife from the kitchen should be charged with negligence leading to death of a child due to their "incompetence" of leaving a knife, which can also be a deadly weapon out. So why are you singling out guns?

      @everyone The bigger issue of course is the 2nd amendment which explicitly gives all Americans the right to bear arms and they added the phase and that right "shall not be infringed", with infringed being the key word. They didn't add that phrase to any other amendment, including the 1st amendment which is the amendment from which many of our freedoms are derived from.

      The chief of police in Detroit recently said in an interview that he is for arming citizens and putting more guns in the hands of citizens to deter and reduce crime. Recently a 63-year-old Louisiana grandmother shot and killed a robber who was trying to rob her for the 2nd time in a month. She had her young grandchildren with her and feared for their safety. The family of the young man actually sided with the grandmother who killed there son, saying she had the right to defend herself from their intruder son. Point being, if she did not have a gun to protect her, she would have been robbed again, and she or her grandchildren could have been hurt or worse. Guns do stop crime and they do protect innocent people from being a victim of crime.

      More gun control laws sound good on paper, and are an easy way out of a complex problem. If the logic used to enact more gun control legislation made sense we would ban alcohol. Alcohol leads to drunk driving, which kills over 11,000 annually (Same amount as people killed by firearms and by some people's logic the bartender should be liable for serving the alcohol). We would also take Advil and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs off the shelf because they kill 16,000 people (more than firearms) each year by themselves.

      Lastly, an example on why more guns deters crime in an entire nation. Switzerland, a country with more gun rights then the US, has virtually no gun violence. In fact, by law, nearly every man is required to own a gun, and not just any gun, an assault rifle. There are 2 guns per 6 people in Switzerland, including 600,000 fully automatic legally owned military assault rifles, 500,000 handguns, and numerous other machine guns. Virtually every home is armed. Due to this fact, gun crime is not a problem. In 1997, there were only 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. In contrast, Chicago, a city with strict gun laws, probably sees that in a month. There were only 2,498 robberies in the entire nation, and more than half were from unsuspecting tourists, oblivious to the gun culture in Switzerland.

      I will reiterate my stance, America does not have a gun problem, it has a violence problem which is induced by high levels of poverty, low education, and a lack of positive role models in "broken" homes, which has increased in urban areas with high crime.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      We have, @jmiller, and where we left it, in disagreement of course, is that the purpose of guns is to kill other people, although it can be used for other reasons, and the purpose of cars is to convey someone from one place to another.

      People steal cars, for the most part to sell the parts, joy ride, use as a get-a-away car in a crime or some other non-lethal purpose.

      Other people steal guns not for target shooting but to commit crimes where the likelihood of the gun being used for the purpose it was designed is very high. As a result, it is my position that guns require special rules regarding their ownership where cars don't.

    • profile image
      Author

      Jmiller17 3 years ago from Marietta, Georgia

      I will agree to your point about the difference of intent when stealing a gun vs stealing a car.. although I do believe it is significant point that gun control advocates cite the "high" amount of deaths guns cause, but forget about all the other things that kill us...

      To be honest, i have lost track of what point everyone is arguing for or against, I am going to bring it back to the bigger issue that is the 2nd Amendment and whether we agree it was a smart decision or not to put it into the Constitution, Americans have the Constitutional Right to own a firearm. The founding fathers didn't put any ifs, buts, or exceptions in that statement. It was Americans have the right to bear arms... and that right shall not be infringed upon. We both have disagreed on the intent of the founding fathers many times before in different articles, i welcome your thoughts on this.

      Going back through my article, i am going to cite the fact that compared to the vast amount of firearms that are legally owned, the number of gun crimes resulting in death per gun is incredibly low. It can be concluded from that data that guns themselves do not incite violence or death.

      Do you think that Gun Free Zones have hurt or helped the violence problem? I am going to argue that they have hurt. On paper it seems like a good idea, Gun Free Zone = No Gun Deaths. That whole notion is based on the thought that would be murders would obey the law and not bring guns into the zone. You and I both know that this simply does not happen and what actually occurs is now we have created zones of helpless, unarmed, people. The police don't magically appear when you dial 911, today some response times, even for emergencies are over 30 minutes. I would argue that as a person, with the right of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that I have the right to protect myself to defend my right of life in particular. As a gun control advocate, would you rather wait for a police officer to deal with a life threatening emergency, only protected by your prayers, or would you rather be able to fight for your right to live?

      The US Constitution does not give police power to the federal government and does not explicitly give it to the states either. "The powers prohibited from or not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE". This implies that the states do not possess all possible powers, since some of these are reserved to the people. I would argue that the 2nd amendment confirms my right to defend my right to life. The 2nd amendment wasn't included so we could all go out on the weekend and shot a couple of bucks, it was for self-defense, self-preservation, and protection from enemies foreign and domestic. I is my belief that guns do not kill people, that violent people kill people (and can use many objects to do so), and that America would have less crime if moer people were allowed to be armed in public.

    • ssingam profile image

      ssingam 3 years ago

      It's some what annoying how anti-gun control advocates bring up the 2nd amendment, but never completely state the whole amendment. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Are you in a militia?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      @Ssingam, as of the last Supreme Court ruling, that is a moot point. Justice Scalia circumvented that argument with a little English precedence which brought personal self-defense into the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Consequently, @Jmiller's point is now valid because it is the Law of the Land; although I am sure he would argue that it always was.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      You will never get any argument from me about the righteousness of the 2nd Amendment, even in its new form of including the right to possess firearms for self-protection reasons. The Supreme Court has, however, given both States and the Federal government the authority to regulate access to firearms so long as the regulations are reasonable and do not interfere unreasonably with possession by qualified persons.

      That means States and the Federal governments do have the right, if they so choose, to accomplish background checks, register, and license ownership if they so choose; there is nothing unConstitutional about any of those.

      As to legal guns and violent crime as a whole ,,, I think you read my analysis on the subject ... there is no statistically significant relationship between the two. There is if you only look at Homicides and Robberies. In the former case, the "higher" the rate of legal gun ownership, the "higher" the rate of homicides. HOWEVER, the "higher" the rate of legal gun ownership, the LOWER the rate of Robberies.

      The bottom line of my study, however, was the more sensible regulation of legal gun ownership in America overall, say to the level of Nevada, Utah, or South Carolina, the lower the number of total deaths resulting from guns. That is what the data from the FBI and CDC show.

    • profile image
      Author

      Jmiller17 3 years ago from Marietta, Georgia

      @my_Esoteric: I will respond to your above comment as soon as my crazy midterm marathon is over. Due to the snow in GA, we lost nearly a week of school and all tests are now being crammed into just a few days time...

      @Ssingam, this is recently from the 9th circuit court of appeals that drew its reference from the Supreme Court decision that My_Esoteric mentioned.

      “The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said in the majority opinion. (in reference to the court striking down law that requires an applicant to show just cause for receiving a conceal and carry permit)

    • profile image

      Armed and Free 2 years ago

      @ssingam, you made a comment that in LA you can find a tree made of AKs for $250. Please pray tell where this can be found. At last count there were less than a dozen gun stores in the City of Los Angeles.

      Someone brought up the comment that we should have a common sense approach to gun control. If we look at laws in general here are some standards that we can apply to determine if a law is sensible.

      1) it must target offenders, rather than law-abiding citizens

      2) it must have a historical track record of making a difference in some US jurisdiction, without adversely affecting the law-abiding citizen

      3) Must not be designed to gratuitously target or handicap or burden the average law-abiding citizen.

      Jmiller pointed out the book by John Lott Jr, More Guns, Less Crime. It is a very dry read but he literally gathered information from EVERY county in the US. Based on the complete pool of data he has reached the conclusion of the title.

      The CDA under the Obama admismanagement did a study regarding gun control and found that is was ineffective.

      Another interesting read is The Mountie, the Samurai and the Cowboy.

      @jmiller, thanks for a great article

      keep your powder dry and be eternally vigilant

      Armed and Free

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Your points are slightly off the mark.

      1. it must target those who are likely to be irresponsible with a gun; meaning those who refuse to be trained in their use, the mentally ill, those with record of violence, and, of course, criminals.

      2. It does have a track record. It is extremely easy to show, which I have done in other hubs, that states with reasonable gun control have less deaths per capita. In fact, the better the regulation, like universal background checks, the less deaths per capita.

      3. Obviously.

      As to Lott, his work has been debunked as being extremely flawed for some time now; basically, he cooked the books. See http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-g...

      The facts are:

      1. there is no statistical correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of violent crime, which consists of homicide, robbery, rape, and assault.

      2. There is also no statistical evidence that concealed-carry is a significant deterrent to violent crime

      3. I did find in my own research that there is ALMOST a statistically significant direct correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of homicides, meaning higher rate of ownership, higher rate of homicides

      4. I did find in my own research that there is ALMOST a statistically significant indirect correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of robberies, meaning higher rate of ownership, lower rate of homicides

    • profile image

      SanXuary 22 months ago

      Most of all every American needs a gun because our apathy has gone to far. Its time for change in this country and its time to stop being afraid of doing something about it. I am not saying you need a gun to create change but you need one if the powers that be decide you have no rights. If they took guns away then only the rich and the government they own will have them.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 22 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      That is simply paranoid thinking SavXuary.

      Granted, a few politicians and cities have tried effectively, if not outright, ban ownership of a gun you can easily pick up and shoot your spouse with (happens a lot) or kids can pick up and kill themselves or others with (no trigger locks, but doesn't happen very often). But, every time they have tried, the Supreme Court has properly slapped them down (yes, I am pro-gun ownership) and, in the last case, effectively added new words to the 2A to make clear James Madison meant "self-defense" as well as making sure a state can protect itself from the central government, which is what was really on everybody's mind back then. Having said that, while I think Scalia overstepped his judicial authority, I don't mind that he did.

      I would hope that you would chose to spend your energy supporting regulations that save lives from guns. As I pointed out above, the argument from both sides about violent crimes and guns are essentially a red-herring; but the argument that better regulations saves lives from death by gun for ALL reasons is strongly supported by the data.

    • profile image

      SanXuary 22 months ago

      I have a government that forces thousands of men to pay ridiculous amounts in child support to the point that they have no financial future. These men are imprisoned by a state that has made them slaves and indentured servants. How would you like to have no future in this country and to be imprisoned because you lost your job and can not pay 2 grand a month for one child. We are way past apathy and the suicide rate for men has been increasing by 4 thousand each year since the institution of child support. They need guns to at least kill themselves before having no choice but to live on the street.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 22 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      They should have manned up and not run away from their responsibilities in the first place, or kept their pecker in their pocket, or at least adorned it with rubber. For every state which has a draconian child support policy (yes, a few are excessive) there are two that leave children to suffer because the support is so meager as to be worthless.

      While FL is not one of those states in either category, it would work this way. If both parents earned the median income of $50,000, that would equal about $8,300/mo. That would translate into $1,313/mo for one child up to $3,400 for 6 or more children. In my example, that amount would be split equally between the two parents. If earnings are unequal, than the amount each parent pays is a ratio of their income to the total income. By comparison, if the two parents earned a total of $800/mo, then child support for one child would be $160, split between them.

    • profile image

      SanXuary 22 months ago

      It would be nice if it worked that way but it doesn't. I just began a book on the subject and the more you research it the sicker you get. When I am done every young man will probably give up on women completely. If I had the information I would have. The title of the book is Love made me. That is the inscription over the gates of hell in Daunte's Inferno. I spent a wonderful day in court and met the most prejudice, sexist female judge ever. Did you know there is not even an HR to report her to. Its a nightmare you would not believe. None the less its going to make a great book. Three ring circus and yes no man has any rights. The book will be very informative to men but it will be a how to legally harass a male guide for every woman. Interesting enough there are some women who have been put through hell as well. Still its quite a minority. Did you know 95 percent of all custody is awarded to women. That excludes unmarried men and you can not find a percent of a percent. 50 percent of fathers never see their children. Once again non-custodial parents no statistics. If you our a non-custodial parent and not married good luck. If you think the systems remotely fair you would be wrong beyond belief.

    • profile image

      Philip Eurtank 21 months ago

      ASSININE

    • profile image

      Erick 17 months ago

      in Brazil the restriction to arms has led to more crime to become the most ruthless criminal. They are capable of killing a person with gasoline on fire because they not found money with the victim. They rape and kill teenagers, they shot you in your car to steal his mobile phone. do not fall in this scam of disarmament.

    Click to Rate This Article