I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
Gun control is not definitive as it could be banning completely or just a few restrictions but i am against banning guns. Legal guns are not the real motivation for crimes to start and banning them is not the proper way to end crime.
It happened before when banning assault weapons in the 1990's and no relevant crime reduction was found. On the other hand in China a male murdered 22 children with nothing no gun no other thing no thing no other thing but just his bare hands and a knife. Murder is not a Crime of opportunity like shoplifting, it is developed in the mind and planification fo the perpetrator regardless of the weapon at his disposition as anything used in a manner likely to cause death can be a murder weapon. Cain turned violent on his brother Abel and so murdered him with no gun.
If referring to the recent incident in China, the man did cut them but didn't kill 22. There is a difference, if he really wanted to he could have slashed their throats. I agree that banning guns will not end crime, crooks don't adhere to laws.
In the UK here it our gun controls are much more strict here,than in USA. I think its important to have proper gun controls,where every body who wants a gun has to apply for a licence,like here in UK.
i'm for laws which restrict the sale and ownership of assault weapons, any which are clearly manufactured to kill people. however, i also believe that rather than simply outlawing these weapons wholesale, begin reasonable discussions with pro-gun groups to arrive at a law which accomodates those who choose to own a variety of weapons. canada has more guns per capita than the US yet their murder-by-gun rate is far lower than ours.
while the numerous guns we own doesn't help, it is not the only factor in the problem. the cowboy attitude prevalent in our population, insensitvity to killing all contribute.
I do not favor any form of gun control. In real terms gun control would be applicable only to the good and honest citizen as the hoods and crooks will always have them, gun control or no control. Some nations have tried gun control in a democracy and failed. in India there is a restriction on guns and the result is that there are 40 million unlicensed guns.
Gun control can only succeed in a dictatorship state like China where even owning a air gun is a crime. You just can't control guns in a democracy.
The argument that appeals to the right-wingers is that it's not guns that kill, it's people; they say things like it's not the pencil that spells incorrectly, but the person; and so on. This view is really trite and not subtle enough to look at all of the issues, but does appeal due to its simplicity, and gains ground because it's easy to understand.
In the UK stricter gun laws came in after the 1996 Dunblane school massacre. At first it looked good and then there was another mass shooting (not a school shooting) in 2010, which put the stats into question. However, and I quote from a page on CNN: "Criminologist Peter Squires said the real picture shows a slight but significant decline in the use of firearms since Dunblane. The figures don't tell the whole story, he said, but "the murder rate has fallen and all the indicators are moving in the right direction."
For the full article read here: http://www.cnn.co.uk/2012/12/17/world/e … index.html
It's worth reading. It looks good for gun control.
Less guns lying around, less likely kids can get their hands on them.
I'm Canadian, living in the US, so I've come from a more restrictive to less restrictive environment WRT gun control.
To me, it makes no sense to have such open access to military-style weaponry. Yes, it's ultimately "people [who] kill people," not the guns--but let's face it, human capacities, including the capacity to commit wholesale slaughter, are strongly affected by the tools available to us.
I know some think that weapons help guarantee liberty, and respect their concern for political freedom. Indeed, I share it. But in my opinion, talking to your neighbors and getting to know them, working in the community, appropriately expressing your opinions on political and social questions, and similar activities that help keep the larger society healthy and connected are far more radical and effective measures in maintaining freedom.
The U.S., and many countries, already have gun control to some degree or another. There are many military grade weapons that are illegal to own. The 2nd Ammendment has already been definied by the USSC as not being absolute, just as the 1st Ammendment is not absolute (e.g., yelling fire in a crowded theater, libel, etc.)
The current debate in the U.S. is whether to take gun control one step further than it already is and ban semi-automatic weapons, and whether to make things such as background checks for gun purchases mandatory. While it is hard to believe that banning all assult weapons could be done effectively, I don't see why sensible controls, such as making background checks mandatory for all types of gun purchases and making gun running between states a federal crime. Legal gun owners have nothing to worry about if background checks are being done to keep criminals and the mentally ill from buying guns legally, and throwing people who buy guns in one state and then sell them illegally in another state into prision. I think many Americans are just exasperated by the lack of any flexibility in the position of some who want no gun controls at all. Reducing gun violence is in everyone's interests. After all, the gun issue would be a non issue if there wasn't so much gun violence.
It is perfectly legal to yell "fire" in a theater. After the fact it will be determined if there was necessary cause to do so. If so, then everything is jake. If not, the yeller might be prosecuted on various charges... but not for "yelling."
I don't personally own a gun, but I don't want the option to be taken away. Fun fact: More people are killed with hammers every year than guns. Should those be taken away as well? Seattle just tried to do a gun buyback and it was a total failure because people just stood outside the event and paid more for people's guns than the police.
In summary, gun control is fun to debate, but Americans will never allow their guns to be taken away.
Hillarious in a sarcastic way of course. I hope that Americans will never allow their guns to be taken away but I don't like the politicizing of tragedies to attack the rights of law-abiding owners. Go after the criminals, not law abiding folks.
The NRA lobby has prevented the government from going after criminals with guns. Why is it not a federal crime to buy a bunch of guns in one state legally and then sell them illegally in another state? Why no full background checks? The NRA lobby.
The NRA has little if anything to do with the thousands and thousands of laws on the books currently. I am all for background checks or even longer waiting periods. Just don't want more limits placed on what I can buy as a law abiding citizen.
Express 10 is absolutely right. I to am for background checks , longer waiting times and mental competence tests but don't tell me what guns I have the option to buy.
Gun control is a very tricky thing. It all depends on what they mean by "control".
I am against banning of guns. I am for having to take a firearms safety course and have a license to purchase and posses firearms and an indepth background check should be done as well..
I also hate it when politicians and anti gun advocates use the term "assault style". This can be anything from 22 calibre up that merely looks like a military assault weapon. My 9 year old son has a 22 calibre semi auto that looks like a military assault gun. Do they want to ban that as well?
I own many guns. Two of which are AR-15's. What the media want people to think is that this type of gun is evil. What they don't tell you is that it is a small calibre firearm. The AR-15 is a varmint rifle. Many other guns (hunting guns for instance) are of larger calibre and some are semi auto also.
Guns are not the issue. Unstable people are.
99.999 percent of all people who own guns will nver hurt anyone with their firearm. Yet, you want tens of billions of dollars spent on useless mandatory training and background checks which the bad guys who do hurt people will never take?
I'm "against" gun control, but only if it's simply being used as a quick fix solution to everything that's happened recently. Right now, we clearly have a social/ cultural problem-- we have a generation of young people like Holmes and Adam Lanza who've become fascinated with the idea of committing mass murder. And the worst part is that they're "resourceful."
Simply banning guns isn't going to stop them, because if they're resourceful enough to ambush places like a trained mercenary, they'll also be resourceful enough to get around the gun ban by using pipe bombs, chemicals, etc. to carry out their schemes.
So rather than just go "grrr ban guns!" what we need to do is try to figure out what it is that's causing so many young people to go "psycho killer" and what to do about it once we come across more like them. Otherwise, what'll be happening is that instead of waking up to a mass shooting, we'll be waking up to news of some kid killing people with pipe bombs or pulling off another Oklahoma City.
Literally speaking, every country should have "gun control," in terms of enforcing whatever it takes to keep weapons from the mentally ill and/or convicted criminals. These are most definitely 2 groups of people, who logically must not be in possession of a gun. This is only partially up to law enforcement, and must have the attention and cooperation of the law abiding public.
Having said this, I'd like to add that our Mental Health System is in pathetic shape. There needs to be money and effort placed where it does the most good in caring for these people, keeping tabs on their activities, mental health status and treatment...etc........(Another conversation, at another time)
I am not in favor of any Constitutional right being altered, re-defined or mistranslated to suit the government's whims and wishes......ESPECIALLY the government. The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the American citizen from possible tyranny....Government corruption and or take over.
I do believe that making gun ownership illegal or a crime, guarantees that only criminals will have guns......they do as they please...Laws mean nothing to them, OBVIOUSLY. If normal, sane, law-abiding citizens are left defenseless, it could mean utter disaster.
I admit that I do not know enough about "types" of guns or ammo. I also understand all the hoopla, based on egregious tragedies, which have taken place in recent months. Innocent, precious children being slaughtered by a mad man, is bound to rip and tear into emotions and spark various movements. This is to be expected. Passions flare in all directions....both pro and anti.
My hope is that EXTREME or misguided actions are not taken, where the 2nd amendment is concerned. This country has to be smarter and better than to believe it's ALL or nothing. A safe, sane and acceptable result is possible and should be sought......Thank you for this question.
I don't know if this fits under the subject of gun control or not, but I feel like there must be a way to restrict who is allowed to get their hands on a gun. For the most part, I feel that if I want to own a gun, then I should be able to own a gun. At the same time, I would not mind if there was some scrutiny involved. I went through more hoops to get a real estate license than it takes to get a gun. I don't mind being put under the gun (pun intended) in order to obtain a gun, just so long as everyone is put through the process. And, yes I understand criminals don't go by the rules - which is why (don't hate me) I need a gun of my own for my own protection.
I am against more gun control because criminals are the ones that need the stern lesson and they are the ones that need guns taken away from them. In the majority of injury and murder cases there are criminals and those aiding them to get their guns in one form or another illegally. I don't understand why the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves or hunt is always under threat, yet criminals are not being sought out and prosecuted as they should be. Law abiding citizens will one day have few options to protect themselves against those who show no respect for the 20,000 laws currently on the books. But, criminals that don't care about laws will certainly have plenty of guns and ammo. We don't need any more laws, what we have need to be sternly enforced.
I feel that those who cite countries outside the US are comparing apples to oranges yet if others feel this must be done, why is it they don't ever cite the fact that the vast majority of men in Sweden have military style assault rifles given to them, yet Sweden doesn't have the violence we see here in the US?
Crime is different in the US. We have overly angry/jealous people with little self-control, stalkers, homicidal co-workers, street criminals, gangs, drug users/sellers/transporters, etc. and often these people have shown warning signs or have had brushes with the law yet nothing is done about them. These types of people often cannot be avoided for the vast majority of US citizens.
The frequent, silly refrain is that "they haven't hurt anyone...yet." Then when someone is injured or killed, the kneejerk reaction is to take guns away from those who abide by the laws. This is simply not logical. Only criminals and thugs applaud these efforts because slowly, law abiding citizens will become sitting ducks.
SCM: Please read my three hubs. I'm for the right to bear arms & registration for all.
But think about your question... there's always going to be some sort of gun control. Even in Texas or Kentucky, a 9 year old can't go buy a guy by himself. And an adult can't buy a machine gun that fires 100 rpm. So...
The question might be: what kind of weapons control do you support? KT
Good points. There are already gun controls in the U.S.. This is not a debate over whether to establish them. Most people do not favor outright bans on all guns (a red herring), but want sensible laws to make it harder for psychotics to get guns.
So many stupid uneducated answers. We have the second amendment for a reason and it's not so we have our rifles to shoot game with, hell we could use a bow for that. It's also not merely to defend our families from criminals either though it can be necessary. We have the right to bear arms in order to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government, in order for that to be possible our guns would need to be up to at least a certain par. I understand that a lot of you don't ":get" what freedom really is because you were raised to be repressed by your government, it's all you even know. Taking guns from innocent people does nothing but give criminals and the Government to much control and leaves you defenseless, criminals don't register or give up their guns and it's ignorant to think otherwise. You can argue with my opinions all you want but I am an American, I am free and I will not under any circumstances give up my guns. Have a nice day.
You do not sound rude and I agree that taking guns from those innocent of any infractions just makes those same people sitting ducks for any who choose to do as they please. Criminals don't care about laws, laws only affect the law-abiding.
There could be a lot of conspiracy theory stuff at play, but just think if even 10% of this interview is true:
Against - it will serve no purpose except to insure that law-abiding citizens will have more burdensome restrictions on them. What if one person refrains from purchasing a weapon because the government makes it so difficult to do so and then he/she gets shot in a burglary with no way to defend him/herself? It it worth it? Would have "gun control" prevented the burglar from possessing that gun? Do you think the burglar would have used a registered gun in the commission of a crime? Think about it. And let's stop the knee-jerk reactions every time a firearm is used in a crime.
Firstly, just reading through the replies to this question is illuminating. I really get the sense that Americans don't actually see the issue in a way that people outside the USA do. I suppose that is only natural.
From an outsiders viewpoint, much of what I read seems to say that firstly, Americans see 'assault' weapons or 'military style' weapons as being different from 'normal weapons' and that, somehow, 'normal' weapons are ok.
And then there is the viewpoint of the one really well balanced, upstanding parent in one of the posts, who says: . . . . .My 9 year old son has a 22 calibre semi auto that looks like a military assault gun. Do they want to ban that as well?
For goodness sake, is your country REALLY one big asylum??
There seems to be much talk about 'amendments' and 'rights' and, to me, it seems as if people are saying that talk of gun controls is a violation of some bizarre right under the American constitution.
I also read, a couple of weeks ago, something which seems to typify the problem that America has and that was that some schools in America are sending their site maintenance staff (not teachers) on gun training courses and equiping them with guns so that their schools are protected in the event of another gunman attacking your children.
As a nation, you are simply hooked on guns, aren't you?
It is simply a chicken and egg situation that you have - the bad guys have guns so we need guns to protect ourselves - as bad guys we need guns because the good guys have them and will use them against us and so on . . . . .
Question: What possible use will gun controls be in a nation that has millions of guns already? Would it really matter if no one in the USA could buy a gun for the next 50 years? You already posses enough guns between you to arm a small to medium size country! What on earth will gun controls do for you?
The problem you have, in terms of guns and gun control is one that simply has no solution.
You all have guns, you are all willing to use them and most of you believe this is your 'constitutional right'
You are hooked.
You will never beat drug addiction or prostitution or terrorism. The more people have tried, over the decades, the bigger the problem has become and guns are just the same.
You have them, you love them, you are obsessed with them and you are stuck with them.
Aaahhh . . .God Bless America: The land of the free and the home of the brave, gun toting, subscriber to the American way of life!!!!
maharg...OUCH! I believe you have just told Americans off! However, I see your point, clearly. "Gun control," in our country, at this point, does seem a bit like using birth control after getting pregnant. We're really "nice people," you know.
Just thought I'd comment that Maharg is from the UK... The reason we originally needed to all have guns was to protect ourselves from your country! It feels great to have the freedom to protect myself. There's a reason the rage virus destroys the UK.
great comment NotPC. maharg can hate on us all he wants but he will never know what freedom really is, only what his Queen allows them to.
maharg gets his idea of "freedom" from Oliver Twist... "May I please have some more?"
It is respectable to want to own a handgun for the protection of one's family. It is also understandable that some would want a hunting rifle, as many in this country hunt which is perfectly legal. However, there is no need to own a working assault rifle or machine gun for any reason. I don't think anyone should be able to "collect" these items any more than they should be able to "collect" nuclear weapons. Machine guns are intended for the mass destruction of human life. There is no other use for a machine gun. Why would they be accessible to the common man? The NRA, in its never ending quest for power, has convinced enough people that limiting the right to own a machine gun is equivalent to stripping a family of its right to protect itself. The NRA doesn't care about Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Columbine. They care about one thing - power on Capitol Hill.
Go Roger D! See: http://kenja.hubpages.com/hub/Theyre-Co … -Cars-Away
Roger has no clue about guns. To anyone familiar with how guns work Roger sounds like a flat earther. He doesn't know the NFA of 1934 yet he is compelled to comment in his ignorance. And ~this~ is the "common sense" that we are supposed to trust?
Like said In other replies, the assault weapons ban we had in he US did nothing to reduce the crime rates it was passed to reduce. That's why it expired so easily years ago. I've done my background checks, I'm licensed to carry. I'm not for anyone telling me what I can carry and can't. It has been my experience that once they push through gun control measures, you only slow down or stop people who want to be legal, try getting a permit in NYC. It's impossible to carry unless you are in law enforcement, rich or famous.
I am in total agreement with you. Isn't it ironic that the politicians forcing changes on those who have broken no laws will not give up their own guns, armed security, Secret Service, etc.
Yes sir. Many years ago NYC tried to ban all Glock pistols. We were putting together a lawsuit against top NYPD officials for carrying these banned guns. It was overturned and was used as a primary for the police force.
Here is my opinion http://kosanya.hubpages.com/hub/The-Rig … -Own-a-Gun
We already have gun control, all we need to do is enforce it.
As debate continues in the US about gun control, here's an Australian gun owner's thoughts on the issue. read more
A pro-gun here. I guess with the existence of gun control, I'll just train my vocal chords so that I can scream to catch someone's attention for possible help.
I just want to say that there's no one that can help you more than yourself at the very moment of threat and having gun is a great help.
by lesliebyars 7 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso facto an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of ALL citizens; this is the...
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 ga anderson 17 months 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 MR Black 8 years ago
Don't you think it's abot time America take a serious look at gun control?With the regular stories of young men shooting and killing peope, even in high school our kids are not safe. To keep the gun industry alive many claims gun don't kill people, people do. Well if there was no guns who could...
by Jeff Berndt 8 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|