Some people already have a lot of guns. So if gun laws are passed, how will the government actually get guns away from people. Some guns are registered and some are not, how could the government find out, and how could the government actually take guns away from people?
The h is that if gun laws pass here and guns are collected, the only people who will still have guns are the same people who kill with them or use them illegally. Criminals.
In Australia when the gun laws were tightened, there was an amnesty and, more importantly, a buyback - so people got paid to return guns. That meant people with unregistered firearms were able to hand them in without penalty, and could earn money by doing so.
The buyback reduced the number of firearms in Australia by only one-fifth, which doesn't sound like a lot - but it subsequently reduced the rate of firearm suicides and homicides by around 80%.
Part of the reason for its success was that it was national, so people couldn't just hand in a firearm for the money, then cross the border and buy a new gun in another state.
Unfortunately, it did not reduce homicides by much, if at all.
Gun homicides decreased considerably after 1996, but overall homicides saw only a very modest decline, and one that simply continued the downward trend from prior years.
You have raised a pertinent question.The fact is there are 325 million guns in the USA and I suppose even God cannot come and find out about them, let alone confiscating or controlling them
Generally there is an amnesty period, with or without compensation depending on the specifics of the situation, for people to surrender illegalized weapons. After the amnesty period the weapons are seized as police come across them during searches etc. If the weapons have been illegallized they certainly can seize them just like any other illegal item from tigers to WWII ordinance to drugs.
What about people with guns that are unregistered? Or illegal? Do we have enough police to take away that many guns?
Nope, it's not going to happen. Many guns would have been previously 'sold' to someone else, or 'lost in a boating accident'. Many many people would keep their gun(s) hidden, and would probably consider it better, if necessary, to use a gun to defend their family and go to jail for it than to let their family be killed.
There would be some seized during searches and subsequent to reports, then there would be a steady level of illegal ownership determined by supply/demand/seizure rates.
There is no mystery about how this works as many countries have illegalized weapon types, including the US with the past ban on assault rifles.
Australia is one country that went from permissive to restricted. I personally have a preference for keeping gun ownership at lower levels, limited to those using guns professionally or with high levels of training.
That is, only good guys with good reasons are allowed to have guns. Others may get them, but lose them as soon as cops lay eyes on them.
So you would support unconstitutional searches and seizures?
No, but Obama appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and she has signed on to a Supreme Court opinion, stating that there is no individual right to "private self-defense" with guns.
Oh Sotomayor the completely unqualified Justice. I had forgotten about her.
I was talking about the seizing of guns secondary to a normal legal warrant during the investigation of criminal activity. No nation that illegalized weapons has conducted door-by-door searches.
A rough comparison could be made to the illegalizing of exotic animal pets in Ohio. There have not been door-by-door monkey raids. You will only get in trouble if your monkey escapes or it becomes a problem to your neighbors.
The Zanesville event proved that one. I was also volunteering in a stables that had horses which gave therapy to children with disabilities. I was in there one night when a wolf who belonged to the man on the farm " next door" came in. I just jumped into a stall. Wolves don't go into stalls. It left, nothing happened. Maybe I was overreacting. The wolf went away and the horse kept eating.
Did anybody follow that story from Rochester, NY where the volunteer fire fighters were killed in cold blood? The man took the gun from a neighbor. The man is so stupid, he admitted to it in a letter. Such a shame.
Bottom line, good guys need to have guns to keep the bad ones at bay. Apparently it's good enough for Rahm Emmanuel, mayor of Chicago, who hires an armed guard for his daughters at their private school.
They will come door to door like they did in Germany during the time of Hitler..
these are scary times..
I dont like guns.. but if the criminals have guns and we don't then we cant defend ourselves..
People are evil.
They would not come door to door today. I don't think Obama would make them do that. Hitler was way worse. Besides, the guns people have now are more powerful, and people are not like sheep. Here in the U.S. I don't think they are.
Your imagination is working overtime here. No one has suggested banning guns or civilian ownership of guns. Reasonable regulation of some types of firearms has been suggested. Multiple ammo clip regulation has also been proposed and the expansion of background checks and the closure of the gun show loophole. Frankly, all of the comparisons of President Obama to Hitler are sick and paranoid.
Oh! I forgot! I guess it is pretty scary for 'some' to think that there is a black man living in the White House. Get over it! President Obama was elected by a majority of the voters in this country, including me, to be the leader of our country.
Los Angeles has a gun buy back program that was too successful. Read about it here:
That was wonderful. But, would that work on a National Scale?
Ugh... no questions asked. I love that, we'll destroy a gun you murdered someone with, and give you anonymity to do it.
Those 1700 guns they bought would account for maybe half of one-tenth of one percent of all the guns in LA. Buying them back no questions asked though?
Michele , Happy holidays sweety ! I am a gun "nut" , I own relics oft he black powder days , modern firearms , mostly single shot hunting and sporting stuff! Here's a prediction IF , and only if this government decided to confiscate ...........I believe this would incite an out break of a civil war ! Our entire heritage , our constitution , our history , our freedom , our very culture was based and still exists because of the second ammenment rights in unison with all our civil rights , have so protected our place in the world !..........Our problem isn't guns , our reality is that our legal system and our punishment for crime system is plagued with problems. ! ...........Bless your little heart for dialog !
Happy Holiday's ahorseback!! I think your prediction is very close to reality. I really do!
That would be a very serous problem.
Michele, I don't believe that hand guns will be banned but assault weapons made to kill people should be. It would make for lots of crime if all guns were banned.
Criminals, would not think twice about breaking into home if all guns were banned. I think that people should have protection. No assault weapons.
The man who was throwing rocks on the roof of the house we lived in, my believed and so do I, that he would have broken in and raped my mom, had she not shot him.
Mama and the prowler really happened. The man knew that my dad was away in the Army, and mom was alone with he little ones.
My grandfather taught all the grandchildren to respect guns, they are for hunting and protection only. Grandpa is the one who taught me to shoot, and he made sure I could hit what I aimed at.
I don't believe that the feds will take away our firearms (a gun made after 1894) but can ban certain guns and accesories, like magazines that hold over 5 rounds. They cannot illegally search your house without a warrent. But if you caught with a "banned" firearm without permit, you'd be looking at 10 years in prision. It would like shooting a mugger in self defenc in New York City. Defending yourself isn't illegal, but in posession of a gun is. Unless you have a permit and your chances of getting one is next to nothing except for law enforcement.
The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from the government; When the government fear the people, there is liberty, and when the people fear the government, there is
tyranny. If we didn't have guns, we never would have gained our independence from Great Brittain, and if you do not think that history is unable to repeat itself, you are naive,
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Literally concerns the maintaining of a militia. Since there was no regular army at the time and we depended on state militias till after the Civil War, it basicallly gives members of the militia the right to bear arms, nothing about the individual.
It appears you are misunderstanding the concept of - militia.
Here is just one of many variants of the definition. (but they all refer to civilians)
A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
Even in this negative meaning it still refers to civilians:
A military force that engages in rebel activities.
A militia is not a standing force that is maintained, it is a volunteer force that is created from the civilian populace.
So of course the 2nd amendment referred to civilians, (individuals) - how else could they form an armed militia?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms " ......doesn't mean just the military .without individual people there could be no militia , Jillian , keep the "race card "out of this , who do liberals always go to that !
You and I disagree on many aspects of proposed gun regulation, but please don't tell me what to do or what not to say. I won't do that to you, either.
However, I am so sick and tired of hearing the Hitler remarks, the "He was born in Kenya" remarks, the "He doesn't know what it is like to be an American" remarks. I am done with it and will call it racially motivated, because that is how I see it. You don't. I do. We disagree and that is fine, but I will not be told what to do...Don't expect you would either...
Is everything spoken in objection to Obama racially motivated? Just trying gauge your position. If I think his policies are socialist in nature but think that he has them honestly and just doesn’t know that democracy and socialism have a very a history together but that his policies are tilting the balance toward socialism. Is that racial?
Personally, I think I’d like the man Obama, he seems very cordial and good humored, but I do not think he has the slightest idea in how to approach America’s problems. I also think he has a problem with keeping The Constitution intact.
Absolutely not! You are stating your opinions in a respectful manner, minus the references to Hitler, being born in Kenya, etc. We all have differing opinions, but when opinion is laced with the types of references I have pointed out. I think they are racially motivated- that's all and I stand by that belief.
There was a day in America's past where there was far more decency in mature poitical disscussion . One that didn't involve much in the way of where a man or woman was from or thier skin color . However today the personal immaturity of throwing in flags of racism , prejudism , gendre , and vulgarity is more prevelant than ever ! Heres a news flash , Pres. Obama does lean towards the political theory of socialism , simply put . Thats where we are now .subsidized labor unions , social entitlements of more welfare , more government in your day to day life , more federal controls and taxation ! Publicly subsidized housing , on and on . He models his political visions on many euoropean countries . The people of America have spoken and elected him again , so there goes the majority -in the directions he leads . Racism in reverse though is all you can come up with ! Is blaming any political division on "racism" merely anew way to end all arguments in your favor ! There is less racism in America today BECAUSE he has been elected and then re-elected , trying to mature with that knoledge should be your mission and not using it as a tool to use becausee you disagree!
You gave your opinion on our President minus the references that so anger me. I have no problem with that. I strongly disagree with your opinions, but have no problem with the way in which you present them. I am in no way calling you a racist- you have said nothing that leads me to believe that you are. I do not believe that just because you disagree with the President that you have done so with a racial motivation.
But again, I will call out anyone that presents their opinions with those references that I find so unacceptable, and if you feel that is immature and disrespectful, then so be it. I can be just as immature and probably far more disrespectful than they can be. That is not the way in which I prefer to make a point, but will respond in kind.
Have a feeling (I may be wrong) that you and I could sit and argue for a week, without any disrespect on either side, and both come away looking forward to doing it again- As long as our blood pressures didn't spike and kill one or both of us...
This forum is about the present government coming for everyone's guns. There is no evidence of that- some sensible regulations? Yes, I am in agreement with that, but even though I am a liberal, would never support mass confiscation of guns. You already know that, ahorseback...Now I will go respond to your latest comment on my hub... You might be surprised...
Jilliam Hah ! Blood pressure rising ! And I dont even have a problem with blood pressure , your probably right though . Jillian, you and I were raised by decent and well meaning parents no doult , you cant help it though that you became a liberal ! LOL..... Thats a joke ! I am a bit over- sensitive to some of the buzzwords of debate in this day and age though , one of them is racism! Forgive me if i sounded offending , I believe that racism is a sword that cuts on both edges ,especially with those of us who are decent , even if different , people . I find the word itself personaly offensive and certainly the use of it in the forums today seems a bit too easy . Dialog is our best use of our forums perhaps ! Can we solve the issues of the day or will we just understand each other more , who knows .......
Points taken, ahorseback, and thank you! Spend enough time talking to me, however, and I guarantee that your blood pressure will rise! I am stubborn and admit it. Have a feeling that I am not alone there...Realistically, You and I will probably not solve any of the major problems facing our country, but have a feeling that if we were in those positions, would at least talk to each other respectfully and probably agree on much more than we disagree. And we would walk away with the knowledge that we had done our best!
Ah, yes! In spite of being raised well, I became a liberal, although in some areas, am very conservative. And in spite of being raised well, you became a conservative. It happens... Liberal or conservative, I am quite sure that we both love our families, our friends, God, and our country. Would I want to live anywhere else? No.
I wish you a Happy and Healthy New Year!
I have not, believe it or not, accused anyone, prior to this, of being a racist in any of the forums. I lost my temper and went there. Am I proud of it? No. But there are times that my mouth acts before my brain engages. Not often, and although my kids may say otherwise, don't believe them...
Hi ahorseback! I am one of those crazy people who is sometimes votes like a liberal and sometimes a conservative.
But, am still wondering, how could the government take away our guns? Is there any possible way?
I am pretty sure there is no way they can take away the guns. How could we protect ourselves? The guns the people used for the mass shootings, they need to be gone.
But will the people who have them now keep them?
There are a lot of people who have them now. Even the people who are afraid of the world coming to an end, as we have seen on TV, or even people who are afraid of a lot of things, like how our country is changing. You are not the only person who has mentioned civil war.
Maybe the judge who talked about it was nuts, but there might be a few more who are like him.
How many guns will the government really try to take away, if they even try to take away any at all?
Hi Michele sweety ! I don't honestly think the Government could do it if they wanted to . Yes there will be legislative moves that'll change things ever so slightly ! Magazine sizes , barrel lengths etc, maybe even closing loopholes which I actually agree with . But government acts slowly and talks loudly ! Thats their job ! LOL..... What we need is more maturity in the public sectors , For instance ,whats the difference between a fifty round clip for a gun that five ten round clips ?......To a gun owner ....none ! And an assaul riffle ? I have a primitive muzzle loading black powder rifle , single shot , like that used in the civil war . If I'm practiced enough , I can load shoot and reload 4 times in a miniute. That sounds a little crazy but , that and the inherent acccuracy could do a lot of damage in a half hour as well . No , Im afraid we are all just pointing our fingers in the wrong directions today , we need to look WITHIN to cure this desease ! How do we raise our kids ?, How do we hold the "right people " accountable ? How can we make it safer for kids to go to school ? What are these kids ,who will offend , doing right at this moment ?.........I am dissapointed in our culture , our society and our "leadership" today more than ever , yet it will take you and everyone else here and I too , to change something here today .
Well the mother of Adam Lanza, the one who killed those innocent children in Newtown, was horrible. Yes, he had some kind of mental problem. It has been said he had some type of Aspuger's Syndrome. But, no doctor has come forward. His mother kept him at home and would not let anyone come and basically socialize with him.
She had the guns he used to do what he did.
She went on vacation and left him alone,
He did have some kind of mental issue,
But, we are not helping people with mental problems, Why is that? Why are we not helping people who have mental health issues? Not helping people with mental health issues is like denying insulin to someone with diabetes. It is wrong.
You guys are all forgetting, we had a ban on assault rifles in 1994. It lasted for 10 years and then was lifted because of the sunset provision in the law. Here is the Wikipedia link that explains the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As … eapons_Ban
As far as I know, the government never confiscated one weapon.
To be honest, I don't think they ever will. The NRA is making too much money. Money has a lot of power in Washington.
If it's about money then, we should be ok; That way Obama can OVER tax the NRA too, like he wants to do to the rest of us.
Michele seems like your forums like your hubs can generate great dialogue. Your topic has been hit from every angle. I decided to jump aboard because our mental health system (or state of) was finally mentioned. What is the saying Guns don't kill people -People kill people? My plea as always is that the legislature not only for gun-control be modified but also that our mental health systems get a shake-down as well. Many will assume that people with mental illness have a predisposition to violent acts due to the horrible tragedy in Ct. The factors that put a weapon in the shooter's hand are much more then his easy access to firearms. If the bigger picture is never addressed this is just going to happen again and again and again. Opinions mean nothing action needs to be taken the time for discussion has long been past.
Thank you! The medical system is not helping people who need help. But, I do think that most of the violence is committed by people who are not mentally ill.
This is from Fareed Zakaria's show last Sunday on CNN.
"The U.S. gun homicide rate is 30 times that of France or Australia, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, and 12 times higher than the average for other developed countries.
So what explains this difference? If psychology is the main cause, we should have 12 times as many psychologically disturbed people. But we don’t. The United States could do better, but we take mental disorders seriously and invest more in this area than do many peer countries."
I forgot: I didn't paste the rest of it. Here it is:
"Is America’s popular culture the cause? This is highly unlikely, as largely the same culture exists in other rich countries. Youth in England and Wales, for example, are exposed to virtually identical cultural influences as in the United States. Yet the rate of gun homicide there is a tiny fraction of ours. The Japanese are at the cutting edge of the world of video games. Yet their gun homicide rate is close to zero! Why? Britain has tough gun laws. Japan has perhaps the tightest regulation of guns in the industrialized world.
The data in social science are rarely this clear. They strongly suggest that we have so much more gun violence than other countries because we have far more permissive laws than others regarding the sale and possession of guns. With 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has 50 percent of the guns."
I can't give an answer to what the difference is, but I can say that while gun homicides are much, much higher than other countries, homicides in general (and that number includes gun homicides) are only slightly higher.
The obvious conclusion is that guns aren't the problem; something else is.
Where are you seeing that data? I can't find any sources which demonstrate that. I just tried wading through the UN data and it seemed to say the rate of intentional homicide in the US is three to four times the rate in most European countries. Then I found this Wikipedia entry which did it all for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … icide_rate
This article says that homicides in the US are 6.9 times higher than other high income countries.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news … her-develo
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/ … n=JR-email
Your first link concerns only gun homicides, which is particularly pertinent when looking at the effect gun controls might have on homicide rates.
The second does indeed show a much higher homicide rate, one so high that I have trouble believing it. Europe as a whole shows a homicide rate of around 3.5; if the US is 7 times that it would mean that nearly all of us personally knew someone that murdered.
Mine came from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … icide_rate
Which in turn came from the United Nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat … _and_Crime
I like mine better simply because it shows actual numbers rather than a composite of numbers without real indication of where they come from. Who can really say which is more correct, though?
*edit* and after posting the link, I see it didn't come from the actual UN office, but another wikipedia site about that office. Oh, well.
As you know, the trouble with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and sometimes those editors have an agenda. The misinformation about dance on Wikipedia is huge - I used to monitor it and fix things when people changed them, but I've given up because it's an endless job and the misinformation on that topic doesn't do much harm, unlike some others!
Barfootfaae: Sure that's why he has won all these awards and accolades. I suppose you have the credentials to pass judgement on him and call him the epitome of a hack.
Fareed Zakaria is host of CNN’s flagship international affairs program—Fareed Zakaria GPS, Editor at Large of TIME, a Washington Post columnist, and a New York Times bestselling author. He was described in 1999 by Esquire Magazine as “the most influential foreign policy adviser of his generation.” In 2010, Foreign Policy named him one of the top 100 global thinkers.Since 2008, he has hosted Fareed Zakaria GPS, which airs Sundays worldwide on CNN. Dr. Zakaria’s in-depth interviews with the Dalai Lama, heads of state including Barack Obama, Manmohan Singh, King Abdullah II, Dmitry Medvedev, Moammar Gadhafi and Lula da Silva, as well as countless intellectuals, business leaders, politicians and journalists have been broadcast in more than 200 million homes around the world. Within its first year, GPS garnered an Emmy nomination for an interview with Premier Wen Jaibao.Dr. Zakaria was introduced as TIME Editor at Large in October 2010 after spending 10 years overseeing all of Newsweek’s editions abroad. His cover stories and columns—on subjects from globalization and emerging markets to the Middle East and America’s role in the world—reach more than 25 million readers weekly. While his columns have received many awards including a 2010 National Magazine Award, his October 2001 Newsweek cover story, “Why They Hate Us,” remains the most decorated. Before joining Newsweek in October 2000, he spent eight years as managing editor of Foreign Affairs, a post he was appointed to at only 28 years old.
The Post-American World, which is Dr. Zakaria’s most recent book, was heralded in the New York Times book review as “…a relentlessly intelligent book” and The Economist called it “…a powerful guide” to facing global challenges. Like The Post-American World, his previous book, The Future of Freedom, was a New York Times bestseller and has been translated into over 20 languages.
Born in India on January 20, 1964, Dr. Zakaria went on to receive a B.A. from Yale College and a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He has received honorary degrees from numerous universities including Brown, th
I am glad you know all this about Dr. Zakaria. I like him very much.
Gun Control: I am very much in favor of the ban on assault weapons. I also think that anyone showing signs of a mental disorder, their families should not have guns in the home. I do think that guns have very little to do with violence and I am no stranger to violence. I prevented someone from getting a gun permit, that possible saved my life, I saw my mother smashed in the face with the stock of a double barrel shotgun, for trying to stop a man from beating a boy when I was 6 years old.
Adam Lanza's easy access to his mother's guns should have been prevented. She knew of his mental problems, but still kept the guns in her home and it cost her life and those lives of Sandy Hook Elementary.
In People magazine, it says that Adam was not a loner and had friends.
People who have mental problems, or are just plain evil may not kill if they don't have easy access to guns, or they may kill some other way.
I pray that the ban on assault weapons and magazines be put back in place. It will not prevent evil and shooting from happening, but it will prevent some of the lives from being lost.
I'm not sure how they would do it but I made sure to buy my self defense before the government took away my rights to buy it. Just got my Smith & Wesson Compact 40 today.
I am against any gun regulations of the past and present and future. It won’t matter if you get rid of guns, people will blow things up and burn things down and people will die in large numbers until the end of time. 9/11 killed over 3k people and not a single gun was used. Timothy McVey killed a load of people and not a single gun was used.
Should we burn books that teach chemistry? Should we end college educations that teach biology? Both of these have been used to kill massive amounts of people. Aviation and transportation technologies has killed more people than guns. Should we stop technology?
Making guns illegal does not get rid of guns. It only gets rid of legal guns. Most of the guns used by criminals are already illegal.
With all due respect, you people have all bought into a loaded question.
A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption.
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question that presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
The title of the this forum is "If gun laws are passed, how will the government take guns away?" It presupposes that guns are going to be taken away, it a gun laws are passed. There is no evidence that is the case. In fact more than likely if history is any proof, all they want to do is re-instate High Capacity Assault Weapons ban which prevented gun manufactures making those specific guns available to sell except to law enforcement and the military, not to the general public.
No, it is not the same. And there is history to prove this. In the past the Government banned the sale of alcohol. And the mafia was created. If the Government bans guns ( which they probably will not) will a gun mafia be created? If that happens, things will go from bad to worse
I think that just suggesting the government wants to 'take guns away' just adds unwarranted fear to the conversation. I'm certain there are some politicians that want to jump onto the bandwagon when a tragic shooting happens but we have representatives on both sides that are gun owners and pro gun rights so at most there will be a 'discussion' and very few solutions will be offered.
I'm a gun owner... I've stated in other threads that I have numerous guns and rifles, and shotguns, I'm down to 19 in all from 25 just before Christmas when I sold 5 and gave one as a gift. I don't hunt but I do enjoy shooting. The enjoyment cannot be explained to any that has never fired a weapon. Other reasons for my ownership are financial and collective in nature. I use to invest in silver until a friend showed me that firearms were a better investment. 4 of the rifles I sold before this past Christmas went for 5 times what I purchased them for. I'm not some nutcase either... I'm ex-Army, vetted by the FBI, hold an Illinois FOID card, have had psychological evaluations and held one of the highest security clearances by the military. Now I'm a private citizen. I don't work in law enforcement or security so I don't have a need for my guns. I want my guns and I can afford to have them.
As far as gun control laws, I'm all for registration. In Illinois, hand guns have to be registered and prior to purchase, an owner has to apply for a FOID card (Firearm Owner's Identification) and submit to a background check. Rifles and Shotguns do not have to be registered but I have no objection to having to register mine. I already have them listed with my insurance company. I'm also in favor of more thorough background checks and also annual psychological evaluations if they are performed by a personal doctor and not a political flunky.
In my state, firearms registrations are not a matter of public record. There is no database that is accessible through freedom of information. The database is only accessible by state police agencies and only then if the police are granted a warrant, which is fine because only weapons found near a crime scene or in the possession of a criminal (or suspect) are subject for search, as it should be.
Any other gun control laws should be a matter of debate at the State level and not the Federal level. Such regulations could include: age of ownership, safety courses, security and transport, use and carry in public places, and even taxes.
Here in Chicago, the ban on gun ownership was lifted within city limits not too long ago, and just before the Newtown tragedy, the Governor of Illinois signed into law a conceal carry provision. Our Mayor was in full favor of lifting the ban but he is now under political pressure because Chicago just reached its 500th homicide by gun just a few days ago. It is a very high number of course but the reality of it is the majority of these homicides are Gang related and in areas infested with crime. The irony is that this area also has the highest gun control provisions in the world. They have gunshot monitors that can pinpoint the location of a fired gun within a few feet. The housing is majority Section 8 (public housing) that prohibits the ownership of any type of firearm as a clause or be subject to immediate eviction. Gas stations and convenient stores are protected by bullet proof glass. Personally, I would feel safer waling the streets of Baghdad than walking in the above neighborhoods in broad daylight. There are few police and fewer opportunities such as jobs or investments. The economics of this area relies on guns, drugs, and a large black-market for ill-gotten goods. Gun violence is not racial either here. Most is on the South and West sides of Chicago where the majority is black on black violence or Hispanic on Hispanic violence and more times than not, an innocent victim is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Taking away their guns didn't work... The city police use to do sweeps of public housing to confiscate guns and other weapons but corruption always tipped off the bad guys who would temporarily relocate their MAC10's and Uzi's so the only weapons that were taken were from those that only needed them for protection and then those otherwise good people would also get their eviction notices.
If we don't address the underlying cause to the rise in gun violence, which I believe to be socioeconomic, then no manner of gun control will ever be sufficient.
The government banned certain guns in Australia and a gun mafia was not created. The government banned certain guns in Britain and a gun mafia was not created. Prohibition was the total prohibition of alcohol and absolutely no one is suggesting a total prohibition on guns.
I hate it when the gun lobby takes things to extremes every time gun control is suggested. They stir up fear in people that they won't be able to have a hand gun to defend themselves, or a sporting rifle to go hunting, when that's not the case at all. Every other developed nation in the world has laws preventing ordinary citizens owning military-style weapons. That's what gun control is about.
You don't need an assault weapon with a huge clip to defend yourself. Sportsmen don't need them. Farmers don't need them. So why allow them?
This is one American who is glad we are not like other countries.
Doesn't it strike you that if you're the only civilized country in the world that's the odd one out, that perhaps you're the one in the wrong?
How many massacres of innocents have you had in America in the last decade? How many massacres has Australia had? (I'll tell you: one, which killed only two people). Or Britain?
When will you realize most of us don't want to be like Australia or the U.K.? We are happy being who we are.
So you're happy having your children massacred, all because of your need to have huge penis-substitute guns. Oops, that's fine then.
The left in this country uses a tactic known as incremental ism.
Today we just want you to give up "assault weapons."
Tomorrow you won't have any.
The criminals will....you won't.
The criminals always will because they are criminals.
There is no need to explain they know exactly what is going on, most of these people are shilling for the tyrants.
The left in your country is no different from the left in any other country.
Australia tightened its gun laws in 1996. People still have handguns here. Farmers, hunters and recreational shooters still have guns. There has been no "thin end of the wedge". That argument is just being used cynically by the gun lobby to prevent sensible reform.
I don't need an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine (please learn the difference between a clip and a magazine) I want an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine. I don't need a corvette but I want a corvette. Why? The vette and bushmaster are high performance and I want the best.
The best at what? The best at killing, that's what. So what do you want to kill? It's not exactly sportsmanlike to kill animals with something like that - hunting is supposed to be about skill, isn't it? So what else are you going to kill? People? Sounds like a good reason not to let you have one!
Once again it does not matter what I want to do with it, it is my right to own either a vette or a Bushmaster. Its not your right because you are obviously not an American, I'm sorry for you.
Don't feel sorry for me, honey. I've lived all over the world and yes, I have visited America. It's probably the last place in the developed world I would ever want to live. The sad thing is that most Americans are brought up to think they live in the best country in the world and they've never been anywhere else to find out it's not.
I feel sorry for you, because you have no idea what you're missing.
First, a 'gun mafia' is reaching at best... more likely there will be an increase in the black-market for banned weapons of any sort.
Secondly, it is not a matter of NEED to have large clip or military style weapons, it is a WANT. Nobody NEEDs to jump out of an airplane or swim with sharks... they WANT to. Same thing with assault weapons, they give a responsible user a rush of adrenaline and not everyone will understand or sympathize with this because they fear these types of weapons. They fear them because they are sensationalized by the media when tragedy strikes. Newtown, CT is a perfect example. Those 26 poor souls were taken by a loon with an assault rifle, and I'm not trying to make light of the tragedy, but 26 is a 'drop in a bucket' compared to the 500 lives lost to gun homicide right here in Chicago in the past 12 months and so few of those were caused by assault weapons and almost all were from illegally obtained weapons on the black-market.
Assault weapons are no threat to the public if they are in the possession of responsible owners. Our biggest problem is vetting the responsible from the irresponsible. A war on guns is a losing war, just as the war on drugs, the war on homelessness, the war on poverty, and the war on guys who leave the toilet seat up.
If we don't accept gun availability *is* one of the root causes, the same applies.
According to the Brookings Institute , In America there are something slightly less than 20,000 gun laws at all levels of goverment . If liberals want to promote something positive why don't you promote the enforcement , policing , procecution and punishment of laws that are broken already ! Instead of adding one more useless bit of legislated nonsense . America as a nation will never take guns from gun owners ! At the beginning of the second world war the Japanese decided against a land based invasion of America because "There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass ".....How DO you like your freedom ?
That is a very good reason not to invade America. In the Revolutionary war men would hide very well, then kill the enemies. Invading the U.S. on foot was a bad idea and still is a bad idea.
Sooner or later any invasion will be by foot, unless the desire is to glass over the whole country and make it worthless to anyone forever. And yes those millions of guns would make it a risky proposition, military equipment or not. You can't live in a tank 24/7 after all.
You see now why I just LOOOvvee Michele Travis ..........Hmmmm!
Totally restricting gun laws would probably play out to mean the good people will obey the law, although I'm not certain of that at this deteriorated stage, but the criminals and the cops will be armed. At this point in time, that translates to the decent people being unarmed, criminals being arms, crooked cops being arms, and what remains of the police force that is not corrupt being armed.
by strengthcourageme 7 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by ga anderson 2 years ago
Beto O'Ruarke put it out there, center stage:"Hell Yes we're going to take your guns away, your Ar-15s, your AK-47s . . ."Regardless of how you feel about the issue of "assault " rifles, how do you think this will sit with non-progressive and anti-gun citizens?A couple of...
by flacoinohio 8 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
by Marcy Goodfleisch 3 years ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
Ask the 59 people who were killed and the 525 people who were wounded and all of those who were traumatized by this horrific event, if we need gun control. Why does any civilian need access to assault weapons? The problem is the mentally ill are an unknown quantity until after they commit the...
by nightwork4 9 years ago
Why do you think that gun laws don't help with crime?The U.S. has some of the least strict gun laws but an extremely high rate of murder compared to other countries, why is that ?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|