jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (96 posts)

Gun-Control Hypocrisy

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Politicians, stars, and media folk... there's one resounding theme among those calling for gun control. They are overwhelmingly surrounded by and protected by guns.

    All these people, from TV anchors to movie stars to the POTUS, send their children to schools that have their own private armed staff. They are followed around by armed security. For some reason, they have no problem saying that 'more guns aren't the answer' while they surround themselves with more guns for the protection.

    The 'demand a plan' ad really rubbed me the wrong way, and I'm not the only one apparently. 40% dislikes on Youtube, and now this:

    Warning: various scenes of violence from movies
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OayyLQi … e=youtu.be

    1. livewithrichard profile image85
      livewithrichardposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Cool find... celebrity whores would sell their own mothers for a buck.  Do as I say not as I do.... what a joke.

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      On the web site for the Capitol building it says:

      "In order to ensure the safety of visitors and staff and to preserve the collections, facilities and historic buildings and grounds some items are prohibited at the U.S. Capitol."

      Hold on. Are they suggesting that prohibiting certain items helps ensure the "safety of visitors and staff"? Surely not. Well I'm sure those "prohibited items" wont include guns because that would be an infringement of people's "rights" which those Representatives opposed to gun control would not tolerate. So what's on the list of prohibited items:

      "While certain exceptions for medical needs can be made, the following items are strictly prohibited:

      Liquid, including water
      Food or beverage of any kind, including fruit and unopened packaged food
      Aerosol containers
      Non-aerosol sprays (Prescriptions for medical needs are permitted.)
      Any pointed object, e.g., knitting needles and letter openers (Pens and pencils are permitted.)
      Any bag larger than 18” wide x 14” high x 8.5” deep
      Electric stun guns, martial arts weapons or devices
      Guns, replica guns, ammunition and fireworks
      Knives of any size
      Mace and pepper spray
      Razors and box cutters"

      Oh so it does include guns. And pretend guns too. In fact they are categorising guns as dangerous items along with knives, mace and pepper spray. And they are "ensuring the safety of visitors and staff" by prohibiting those items. Yet various Members of Congress oppose gun control.

      So they don't like gun control and think guns should be carried in schools, movie theatres, bars, churches etc. Yet they are happy to apply gun control to their own place of work, and prohibit guns on the grounds that it "ensures the safety of staff and visitors".

      Seems like hypocrisy works both ways.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Wow Don... really trying to stretch things, aren't you?

        Let me get this straight. A politician going to his job in a building that doesn't allow firearms, whether or not he ever supported or didn't support the laws that make it that way, is hypocritical?

        If the politician voted for gun control in that building, but opposes general gun control, then yes, that would be hypocritical. So who exactly is being a hypocrite?

        Can you not see how that is different than someone saying 'More guns will only make things worse', and sending their child to a private school that has a dozen armed guards?

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          "Let me get this straight. A politician going to his job in a building that doesn't allow firearms, whether or not he ever supported or didn't support the laws that make it that way, is hypocritical?"

          Politicians who reject gun control as protection for others, but accept gun control as protection for themselves are hypocritical.

          "If the politician voted for gun control in that building, but opposes general gun control, then yes, that would be hypocritical."

          I agree it would be. In addition, their rejection of gun control protection for others and acceptance of gun control protection for themselves is also hypocritical regardless of whether or not they voted for it.

          "Can you not see how that is different than someone saying 'More guns will only make things worse', and sending their child to a private school that has a dozen armed guards?"

          Can you not see how talking about the evils of gun control as an affront to "freedom", but accepting such gun controls for their own protection is the same. Why are those politicians quick to reject gun controls in other establishments, but happy to accept gun control as protection in their own? If armed guards are the answer, why are those politicians who oppose gun control not campaigning for the removal of metal detectors in the Capitol building? And why aren't they campaigning for the right of private citizens to carry firearms (concealed or unconcealed) inside the Capitol building?

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Don, you don't seem to understand how hypocrisy works. According to you, a Senator who tries to make it legal to carry in government buildings is a hypocrite because the current rules don't allow it. That's not how it works.

            Hypocrisy entails doing something that you are in control over. An action or words, etc... An individual politician doesn't have the power to decide whether or not he is allowing guns around him in a public building. You are saying that they are hypocrites just for being there, then you contradicted yourself(doesn't matter if they voted for it or not vs. why aren't they campaigning against it). You can't have it both ways.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              "Don, you don't seem to understand how hypocrisy works. According to you, a Senator who tries to make it legal to carry in government buildings is a hypocrite because the current rules don't allow it. That's not how it works."

              You've misunderstood. Politicians who reject gun control protection elsewhere, but do not campaign for the removal of gun control protection in the U.S. Capitol building, are hypocrites. Unless you are suggesting every such politician has also campaigned to remove such protection from the Capitol building. If so, you'll need to support that assertion.

              "You are saying they are hypocrites just for being there".

              No they are hypocrites for not campaigning against it. Even if they have voted against it and were unsuccessful, that doesn't mean they can't campaign against it. If gun control protection is an affront to people's freedom, why aren't they campaigning about it?

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image74
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Good point.

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe their celebrity brings out the wack jobs that wish to make a name for themselves. There is conjecture and then there is reality. Your bias once again brings out ridiculous assertions.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        What?

        Yes, I'm biased in favor of gun rights.

        What does that have to do with anything? A celebrity saying we need gun control, who walks around with armed guards is still hypocritical.

        1. scottcgruber profile image87
          scottcgruberposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          We gun control advocates don't have a problem with armed, trained security personnel having guns. Those are controlled guns, by definition. So it is not hypocritical to advocate for controlling guns and hiring security personnel who are trained to control guns.

          Hypocritical would be a celebrity advocating gun control and carrying around an unlicensed Glock.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Spot on. At last somebody who recognises hypocrisy.

    4. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It always bothers me when I see wealthy individuals who are strongly anti-gun yet have armed guards or live in guarded compounds themselves. Well, most of us peons can't afford our own armed guards, so we have to protect ourselves.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Although you are well known in these hub pages, did your celebrity ever set you up for a family member kidnapping or extortion threat? Your anonymity is your best defense while celebrity takes that comfort away and increases the chances for it to happen to you.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          That doesn't matter.... unless you think celebrities are more important than us 'regular' folk.

          What if I happen to live in a part of town that is very dangerous? I can be 20 times more likely to be killed in an urban area than a suburban area, so shouldn't I be allowed guns to offset the increased chances?

          You can't have it both ways. (Unless you want to be a hypocrite like the people you are defending)

        2. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I've never been the victim of kidnapping or extortion, but I have been the victim of an attempted burglary. I was home alone with my three small kids one night when some men tried to break in our home. I met them with a shotgun, and they left immediately. I don't know what would have happened if I hadn't been armed and prepared to defend my family and my home.

          My dad owned a grocery store for decades, and he was held at gunpoint one day. Luckily, he had his hand on a small pistol that he carried in his baggy pants. He let the assailant know about the pistol and told the guy the gun was pointed at his head. The robber saw the outline of the gun and fled.

          Guns are useful tools in the right hands. If it hadn't been for our guns, we might have starved when my ex-husband's union was on strike. As it was, we ate lots of venison, quail, rabbits, and squirrels. I like guns and grew up with them, but I'm pretty reasonable about them. For example, I see no need for semi-automatic assault weapons that have large capacity clips. I'm also for gun safety courses and common sense. I don't think carry permits should include all places. Take political events, for instance. In my opinion, being armed at such events is just asking for trouble.

          1. movingout profile image58
            movingoutposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Aiming a gun at an intruder and having to actually shoot those intruders are two different things. I'm not saying you weren't prepared to shoot, but I believe many in the same circumstance wouldnt shoot and could possibly have the gun used on them. Again, in your second example, your dad was lucky he wasn't shot. Not all criminals are going to run away if a gun is pointed at them. Many will start firing. Many, like your examples took it seriously, but left with the ability to do harm to others. If they run, they're not going to stay around to get arrested. Glad it worked out for you both though. Too many people are in the news anymore for intentional or unintentional shootings. Fear and anger work very differently for us all.

            1. habee profile image90
              habeeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              What my dad did was crazy! I thought my mom was going to kill him when she found out about it. He was a tough old WW II vet, and I guess the assailant could tell Dad wasn't bluffing. Ironically, Dad ended up shooting himself with his favorite pistol at the age of 85 (on purpose).

              As for my incident, I wouldn't have shot to kill. I assure you, however, my mother instincts would have allowed me to shoot to wound in order to protect my babies. I'm very comfortable with guns and have won shooting competitions. I also hunted for years - deer, quail, dove, duck, rabbit, squirrel, etc. I'm glad the sight of the gun was enough to stop the intrusion. Do you think I would have gotten the same response if I'd been armed with a kitchen knife?

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                habee, you're sane, have as many guns as you need.

                I'm sure that if I was lost and came to your door in the middle of the night you would ask questions first and only shoot me if I didn't provide satisfactory answers, unlike others.

                1. habee profile image90
                  habeeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL, John. If that happens, just ring the bell. Most burglars don't extend that courtesy. Oh, and don't let the huge, snarling dogs frighten you away. They sound/appear much more menacing than they actually are.

    5. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Merry Christmas, Jaxson!

      Still another hypothetical constructed for the sole purpose of making a case against reasonable gun restrictions needed to improve public safety. At the same time, the premise fails to mention that we are living in a country where citizens already own enough weapons to arm nearly every man, woman, child, and new born infant.   

      It should be obvious to you, Jaxson, why “all these people, from TV anchors to movie stars to the POTUS, send their children to schools that have their own private armed staff.” If there was adequate and effective controls of both gun sales and accessibility, then all your theoretical politicians, stars, and media folk, your so called hypocrites, would have less need to surround and protect themselves and their children with guns. 

      I hope, Jaxson, you have a safe and healthy New Year.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  2. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    I don't see anything hypocritical in wanting the protection of guns but wanting the types of gun and access to those guns to be controlled.

    Would you, for instance, consider the makers of alcohol to be hypocritical if they requested users to act in a responsible manner?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So if I say that having armed adults in schools won't help, and will only make things worse, and then send my kids to a private school with a dozen armed adults... that's not hypocritical?

      If I say we need to do something about gun violence, as a person that the average American looks up to, and watches in movies, and I make my fortune from portraying 'cool' characters who run around shooting tons of bad guys... that's not hypocritical? It's OK for me to make millions by making someone with a gun look cool, and then tell people that guns are icky?

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        If the armed adults are just members of the public and the dozen armed adults are professional guards then not hypocritical at all.



        So you are saying that no actor can ever portray any negative aspect of society?
        Whilst I share your antipathy to graphic depictions of violence in films is it not hypocritical to suggest that all violence should be hidden away?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          What makes 'professional guards' better than members of the public? If that's your concern, then you wouldn't have any problem with a public citizen carrying a gun at school if that citizen had the same level of training as those guards, right?



          I'm saying an actor is hypocritical to make money off of making gun violence look cool and exciting(it's not a depiction of reality, hollywood violence is so far removed from reality it's not even funny), and then to demonize guns.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            What makes professional doctors better than members of the public?



            Is it the actors fault that some people can not see the difference between reality and fantasy?
            It is a function of being adult that you know that when the bad man kills you, you are dead.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Hence the rest of my post.

              Training for an armed guard is something that a citizen can easily match on their own. Training for a doctor isn't.

              So, if I'm trained as well as those guards, you have no problem with me carrying in that school?

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                But surely professional armed guards will have a much deeper training than a few hours on a range target shooting! They would hopefully be recruited from the ranks of ex policemen and have some psychiatric profiling.
                You surely don't advocate entrusting the care of your children to just anybody who fancies the job do you?

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes or no? If I'm trained as well as them, are you ok with me carrying?

                  You would be very, very surprised, I think, to find out just how little training many police and guards actually have.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    If you've gone through an extensive background check and psychological evaluation... YES.  As long as you also agree that if someone living in your home takes your gun and uses it to kill someone then you are also responsible because you failed to keep your gun out of the hands of those less skilled and/or sane. Then I'll be happy.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                If you're trained as well as those guards and undergo the same level of scrutiny, including psychological testing, drug testing, and thorough background and reference checks, then by all means, have a gun or two.

  3. movingout profile image58
    movingoutposted 4 years ago

    Yeah, lets arm everyone! Give me a break! We need stricter arms registration at the very least. Right now only guns, for the most part registered are hand guns. ALL guns should be registered and go thru background checks. And YES, this should include private sales. You selling guns to other private citizens, can easily put the weapons in the wrong hands! Again, background checks for all gun sales and gun owners.

  4. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    I think you're stretching to call this hypocritical.  Advocating for stricter gun regulations is not the same as allowing no one to have guns.

    As long as they are not violating the law, if they want to pay for a school with armed guards because they consider it justified due to their fame, then that is reasonable.  You cannot equate a celebrity who has to deal with crazy stalkers and potential blackmailers with you or me.  I'd be willing to bet that the people they hire to protect their children undergo much more thorough screening, complete with in-depth background and reference checks, than the average citizen who wants to buy a gun.

  5. innersmiff profile image68
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    None of these celebrities seem to be in favour of controlling the government's use of guns either, that cause more innocent death every day than a month's worth of gun-homicides at home.

  6. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 4 years ago

    HYpococooracsky.

    Have I abused that word enough?

    I'll try a bit harder.

    Hiphippyopocrancy.

    There. Now, it is completely meaningless and will fit perfectly into this thread.

  7. mio cid profile image65
    mio cidposted 4 years ago

    huppssphrocoocsoty,there is only one thing that matters to the Nazionalsocialist Reapers' Asociationtofillmypocketsandgunmanufacturesrs', and that is money,they couldn't care less about the Constitution.

  8. profile image59
    whoisitposted 4 years ago

    Why don't you anti-firearms people search google for the many stories of women who have defended themselves in their homes against intruders. People protecting themselves is exactly what destroys your arguments.

    1. mio cid profile image65
      mio cidposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I can totally agree with having a gun to defend yourself and your home,but what destroys you gun hugging freaks'argument is the need to have in your private homes enough guns and ammo to invade a small country.

      1. profile image59
        whoisitposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        How is my having ammunition going to harm you? Why do you attack instead of putting a reasonable argument together?

        1. mio cid profile image65
          mio cidposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The fact that every time you turn around there is a mass shooting in this country with people armed like a one man army where innocent people die is not a reasonable argument to you?well it definitelly is a reasonable argument to the majority of the population in this country as the latest polls show.and some kind of gun control will be undoubtedly start to be implemented ,and rightfully so.

          1. profile image59
            whoisitposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            That wasn't your argument, no, mass shootings do not happen every time I turn around. They happen very little as a matter of fact. Chicago with its very,very strict gun laws has managed to top the nation in murders with 500 so far this year, removing gun ownership as a right to citizens in this country will not have the desired effect. A majority of the people in this country own firearms and are responsible, the few cases of mass shootings doesn't change that fact.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Who's talking about removing guns?

              There is a world of difference between removing and controlling.

              1. profile image59
                whoisitposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                They are being controlled, start enforcing existing laws and these problems happen even less. And there are a lot of people talking about removing our right to own firearms.

              2. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Both are an infringement.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  So is using an assault, or any other kind, of rifle in a public place where there are members of the public around.

                  1. profile image59
                    whoisitposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    We have laws pertaining to assault with weapons, murder, etc.

                  2. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    So?

                    You have the right to liberty. Some people kill other people. Should we take away your right to liberty to prevent murders? Lock up everybody in solitary confinement from birth?

  9. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Just to add John, we have 730 per 100,000 people incarcerated.

    UK has 150.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So much for your gun laws!

      1. movingout profile image58
        movingoutposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        John, they will just spin it any way theylike. Probably think guns in schools is a good idea, who knows. All I do know is this country has more gun accident/killings then really reported. In my town the paper reported 3, but in reality had 18 incidents. Who would want tomove here if they knew the true count? I'm sure, not many! Guards or cops in schools? Accident waiting to happen. Money would be better spent with bullet proof doors on all egresses and class rooms that can only be unlocked from the inside.

  10. Quilligrapher profile image90
    Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago

    Good evening, Jaxson. There are so many facets to this issue. It is impossible to address them all.

    The centerpiece of most of your arguments in this thread seems to be liberty. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of quoting many of your statements about the rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They include a few assertions in red that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights grant rights to citizens when actually they only enumerate the rights that citizens grant to the government.

    Jaxson Raine wrote:
    “You have the right to liberty. Some people kill other people. Should we take away your right to liberty to prevent murders?”


    I would answer “yes” to this question. The English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) wrote in his Two Treatises on Government (1690) that the protection of life, liberty, and property was the basic objective of government. His thinking found its way into the Declaration of Independence as the now famous phrase identifying “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” as “unalienable Rights” of citizens under a government. As a result, existing US laws in harmony with our Constitution do indeed limit some rights and liberties to prevent murders and to promote public safety. {1} If you disagree, I will gladly post a few examples.

    Jaxson Raine wrote:
    “Again, we have the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to keep and bear arms. A right of an individual can only be taken away by due process of law.

    “You have the right to live in a gun free environment on your own property. You don't have the right to live in a gun-free nation (in the US), because gun rights are protected in this nation.

    “You have the right to live in a place without guns, if you own that place. You don't have the right to make the rules at someone else's place, or in public.

    “The bill of rights…
    gives the right to keep (own) and bear(carry) arms(weapons and armor)… There is nothing in the bill of rights that says you have the right to go out into a gun-free public.”

    As shown above, Jaxson, some protections in the Constitution may be altered in order to protect lives and provide for public safety. In addition, any argument that opposes gun-sale restrictions just because they constrict freedom and curtail the “right to keep and bear arms” is ludicrous. As you already know, under the terms of the social contract, all governments do, in fact, infringe on society’s rights and liberty as they exercise their mandate to achieve order, freedom, and equality.

    Jaxson Raine wrote:
    “They worded it as they did exactly because they had foresight. They lived through tyranny, and they had the foresight to
    give us rights that would allow us to overcome it if need be (among other things).”

    This tired and frayed old argument warns we must be prepared to resist tyranny. Sadly, it is based on groundless fears and not on reality. Others with a similar mindset also say, “Laws will never prevent criminals from getting guns.” Fox commentator Bill O’Reilly told us right after the Colorado movie theater massacre, “The truth is, criminals will always get guns.” {2} You stated how you agree with the first of these two claims, Jaxson. Do you also agree with the second as well? The supreme irony of these two positions lies in the fact that the second argument nullifies the first. If our republic ever needs to repel tyranny, Jaxson, these pro-gun claims assure us that citizens can get all the weapons needed from the same sources the criminals now get their guns.

    Jaxson Raine wrote:
    “No constitutional right has been considered limited to the available resources at the time it was written.”


    Finally, Jaxson, your stated conclusion appears to be false. Most firearm advocates focus on the protection granted in the Second Amendment and they completely ignore the rest of the Constitution. This last quote is not only inaccurate but it has the potential to bring down the entire pro-gun establishment. At the time our Constitution was written and ratified it contained the following provisions related to this discussion:
    1. Amendment II protects the right of the people to bear arms.
    2. Article IV, Section 2 protects the rights of slave owners.
    3. Article V provides for amending the Constitution. {3}

    The Constitutional rights of slave owners, once protected by Article IV, Section 2 in 2 above, were ipso facto “limited to the available resources at the time it was written” because they no longer exist. Amendment XIII completely abolishes the right to own slaves. {4}

    The entire pro-gun establishment can learn a lesson from this. It needs to consider the consequences of their embarrassing stance. According to the NRA, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” {5} Gun enthusiasts drone the rigid mantra claiming the only way to avoid future massacres like the carnage in Newtown is to place more guns in schools. A likely result of their stubborn refusal to acknowledge the need, and to offer support, for reasonable gun-sale restrictions could very well lead to a national grassroots movement to reduce or repeal many of the protections covered by the Second Amendment.

    Never the less, there is a shameful lack of empathy from gun enthusiasts for the victims of Aurora, CO, Tucson, AZ, Columbine, CO, Blacksburg, VA, Austin, TX, San Diego, CA, Newtown, CT, and many other cities in the US. Blood is literally running in their streets, Jaxson, and the National Rifle Association, firearm manufacturers, and gun enthusiasts do not give damn! Personally, I do not support a ban on all guns, or even most guns. You live with a fear that Big Brother will take away your guns. I live with a fear of the unjustifiable power of the NRA and the money it receives from gun manufacturers, distributors, and retailers worldwide.

    There is ample evidence showing how the NRA, firearm manufacturers, and gun enthusiasts spend a lot of money opposing common sense controls on the sale of guns. {6} They thwart every effort to keep guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people. Their reckless, self-serving stance shows a callused disregard for the many victims of gun violence. While every American has the right to own a gun if he wants one, every American also has the right to know that this is one right that is being exercised by stable, law-abiding, citizens.

    I hope you have peace, Jaxson.
    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
    {1} http://bhs.bettendorf.k12.ia.us/teacher … ciety.pdf, p.8
    {2} http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi … un-control
    {3} http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … 27.html#13
    {4} Ibid.
    {5} http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012 … lapierre/2
    {6} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … n-1-chart/

  11. jerjnks profile image56
    jerjnksposted 4 years ago

    The trick is, you have to disarm people that have a history of violence, people that use the gun as a status symbol and have them illegally before you can ask law abiding citizens to give up some control over their own firearms. I personally would not feel the need for a mass amount of firearms if I felt there wasn't a danger to my family due to the criminal element being disarmed. Now the really tricky part....can anyone give me a definite number on the amount of illegal, unregistered gun owners in the United States...remember most of the people that use these to maliciously kill aren't allowed to legally have them anyway.

    1. movingout profile image58
      movingoutposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      There would be no way of knowing how many guns have gone unregistered. Thats part of the problem. Every weapon sold on ebay, garage sales, bartering, facebook junking sales, and the list goes on! Those weapons can be in the hands of anyone! Those type of sales need to end. All weapons need to be registered, holding the registered owner accountable!

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Just guessing, but I doubt that but very few killings are done by a registered owner. 

        You've also got the problem that thousands upon thousands of guns were purchased quite legally but were not required to be registered.  Nor will many owners register a gun unless they have to when purchasing a new one; too many view registering as nothing more than a requirement to provide paperwork that can (and likely will) later be used to confiscate their guns. 

        So who will you hold accountable?

        1. jerjnks profile image56
          jerjnksposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          And that is part of the problem, well a major part of it. 9/10 times the people that are using guns to wreak havoc don't care about the legality of having the gun. They have it, it was easy to get, they can ditch it and if they get caught with it they will serve time most likely, so if they are going to get 15 years for being a felon with a gun then what do they care about getting 20 for murder? I know I'm targeting felons on gun control and their are other's that shouldn't but it is just to make that point.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            But how about doing five years just for illegal possession without even using the gun?

            That tends to focus the mind somewhat.

            1. jerjnks profile image56
              jerjnksposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              As in, if the gun isn't registered to you? I think that if you are going to carry a gun, and I believe that if you have shown yourself to be responsible you should be able to carry, you should only be able to carry what is registered to you.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Which is going down the route of gun control isn't it?

                1. jerjnks profile image56
                  jerjnksposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't have a problem with control measures, I just think that the people making the decisions on the matter aren't looking at all aspects. They are too focused on controlling what they can track, I want equal measures..strike that , better than equal measures to control whats already out there, in the hands of criminals and what precautions can be made to ensure that they don't get more guns.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Unfortunately,many on here do have problems with gun control.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          In the case of the Newtown shootings I'd blame the Mother who bought the guns legally... but this responsible citizen is dead at the end of her own gun... so I guess she died the way she lived.

          1. jerjnks profile image56
            jerjnksposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            That can be tricky, did she not have a right to bear arms? The son was of age that he could easily figure out where it would be and how to get it. I think that if you have someone in your household that shouldn't have access to a gun, the gun should have more than a trigger lock on it, maybe a full, heavy gun locker with key and combination lock that is kept from the person with mental,behavior or social issues. I'm sure that at some time the state or a doctor was involved to say that the son was unstable, at the time of prognosis it should be law and fall on the gun owner that the weapon is locked up in such a manner. I do not think however that having a family member that is not supposed to own a gun should infringe on a sane and civil persons rights to own one.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              With rights come responsibilities.  By all means you have the right to own a gun... with that right comes the responsibility of making sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands.  The fact is that a potentially mentally ill person knew that his mother had a gun.  She knew he was mentally ill and she also knew that he knew she had a gun.  At that point along with her right to own that gun she had the responsibility of keeping it out of her son's hands.  There were so many options to doing that I couldn't list them here. Ultimately she paid the price for her own irresponsibility.  Unfortunately other innocents-mostly children- also paid the price.  If she were still alive I would be calling for her to spend time-lots of time-in jail.

              The call for tougher penalties for those who provide others with the weapons that cause these tragedies in no way threatens the right to bear arms.  It just means that the gun owner (or bomb owner or sword-owner whatever) is required to not be negligent.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Or to put it more simply, exercise control.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  If you must.

                  Public safety laws are numerous.  If you chose to think of them as control then have at it.

 
working