Gun Grab North America . In your opinion, are the anti gun groups going too far,

1. 36

   thomasczechposted 10 years ago

   Gun Grab North America .
   In your opinion, are the anti gun groups going too far, or not far enough?
   
   The governments of both, United States and Canada, along with the anti gun groups are pushing for tighter restrictions of firearms and an all out ban on certain guns. However, those who have firearms know that these restrictions and bans will not lessen crime, they believe it will make more victims of crimes as less people will have the ability to defend themselves. What is your opinion?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 80

   lovemychrisposted 10 years ago

   I agree with them. Too much senseless death every day after day after day. More restrictions, no AK 47's, no bullets that rip through bullet-proof vests.

   replyreport
3. 87

   raymondphilippeposted 10 years ago

   Not far enough. I never got the preoccupation of the north americans with guns.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It is not just North America, Norway has a fairly high gun ownership rate, as does Switzerland.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "On average,32 Americans are murdered with guns every day,and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.Every day on average,51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun." ourprice

      replyreport
4. 77

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   Everyone should want to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. That means registration, background checks and mental health checks, and perhaps more stringent requirements for storage, and perhaps severe penalties for those who let their guns get out in the wild.
   
   The pro-gun side resists all of those things. If they as a group are responsible for irresponsible gun policies than they deserve to be punished. Anyone in the NRA (or other such group) should have all of their guns taken away if you ask me.

   replyreport
5. 83

   M. T. Dremerposted 10 years ago

   If the self defense argument were true (I'm using a gun to defend myself) then wouldn't there be less crime and gun deaths in a country with more guns? Based on other advanced nations that have implemented strict gun control, the opposite holds true, that less guns means less gun violence. No, it can't prevent 100% of gun deaths, but neither can owning a gun for self defense. It's a game of statistics. If country A has very few gun laws but has a 60% death rate (for gun deaths) and country B has strict gun laws with a 40% death rate (for gun deaths) then which country is doing a better job of keeping its citizens alive?

   replyreport
   1. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Gun ownership rates do not relate to gun related death rates, as much as you think.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp … hip/table/

      replyreport
   2. 83

      M. T. Dremerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Give everyone a vial of the Ebola virus and watch Ebola outbreaks rise. Multiple factors will influence the results, but there is a correlation.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      In Switzerland due to the lack of a military nearly every male over 18 has an assault weapon.  And one of the lowest homicide rates.  There is no correlation.  Many states with flexible gun laws have some of the lowest firearm related homicides.

      replyreport
   4. 83

      M. T. Dremerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      With a higher gun concentration in the U.S. we should have even less gun deaths than Switzerland. Except we don't. So either Americans are just irresponsible with their guns or there is a correlation.

      replyreport
   5. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The US has the highest gun concentration per private citizen.  If that were true we would have the highest gun murder rate per citizen.  But we don't.   There is no established correlation. Brazil has far more gun violence and far less guns.

      replyreport
   6. 83

      M. T. Dremerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If there is no correlation then pro-gun advocates have no grounds for guns as self-defense. Guns would have no effect on the level of gun deaths any more than a lack of guns.

      replyreport
   7. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That statement makes no sense. I don't have to kill a person to defend myself. Just the presence or suspected presence of an armed person can be a deterrent.  People us firearms to defend themselves against intruders with a knife.

      replyreport
   8. 83

      M. T. Dremerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There is no correlation that more guns equals less gun deaths.

      replyreport
   9. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Correct..no proven correlation either way. An increase in home cutlery sales doesn't prove that we are more likely to stab each other. We are talking about inanimate objects.  People and other societal problems are the issue, not the object.

      replyreport
   10. 83

       M. T. Dremerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       And yet, legislation to prevent the wrong people from getting guns, is seen as an attack on guns and isn't allowed to pass. If it's a societal problem, then why do pro-gun advocates fight against societal fixes?

       replyreport
   11. 68

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Because the removal of an inanimate object doesn't prevent people from doing terrible things when determined. But the global history of what gov't do when they disarm the population is riddled with tyranny. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.

       replyreport
   12. 83

       M. T. Dremerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I'm not talking about gun removal, I'm talking about things like universal background checks. It assesses the person, to see if they are stable enough to own a gun. It doesn't take guns away from existing gun owners.

       replyreport
   13. 68

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Except people that shouldn't have them buy them illegally anyway. And all that happens is the innocent citizen is harassed.  It is completely illegal to buy explosives for retail use.  Didn't stop Tim McVeigh from building a bomb with fertilizer.

       replyreport
   14. 83

       M. T. Dremerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       But an innocent citizen wouldn't be harassed. Responsible gun owners would be unaffected by things like universal background checks. Sure, a devoted criminal can still get a gun, but why can't we stop the non-devoted from getting them?

       replyreport
   15. 68

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       But they are harassed,  It is nearly impossible to get a pistol permit in NYC, which is the place the innocent citizen needs it the most.  Yet every low life in the city has a gun.  I can buy one illegally in 15 minutes on any corner.

       replyreport
   16. 83

       M. T. Dremerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Then why aren't unarmed new yorkers protesting gun control? The only people I ever see fighting it are those who already own an arsenal of weapons.

       replyreport
   17. 68

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       There are dozens of lawsuits right now in NY against the safe act.  Ultimately people gravitate towards places they agree with.  Places like NY, Chicago and DC are very liberal politically. Yet their laws have done nothing to reduce crime.

       replyreport
6. 68

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   Yes..they go too far but it is somewhat irrelevant.  Putting aside the fact that you are more likely to be stabbed to death or killed with a blunt object then a rifle, and gun homicide related deaths have actually been on the decline...most of these laws mean a whole lot of nothing.  No they won't do anything to prevent bad people from doing bad things.  But if you actually read the stupidity of some these laws it is frankly comical.   As one basic example, here in NY we have the Safe Act in relation to what is called an "assault weapon"    At first I was a bit irritated, then I actually read the text. My AR-15 does not have a collapsible stock or a muzzle break.  So the only thing that makes it an assault rifle is the pistol grip.  By simply having a gunsmith remove the pistol grip and replace it with a standard rifle grip...it is no longer an "assault weapon"  These are cosmetic changes which do nothing to alter the functionality of the firearm.  Yet, that means it doesn't have to be registered by the April 2014 deadline.  It is complete idiocy. Furthermore...many local sheriff's have no intention of enforcing these laws anyway. 
   
   Large numbers of law abiding gun owners are simply just now beginning to disobey the law. Very few people registered under CT's new law.  So we are making the innocent citizen the criminal now.  Enough people know there are examples like NYC where registration ended up becoming confiscation.  So they won't do it.
   
   There is enough historical record around the globe of what has happened to societies that allowed their gov't to disarm them.  And like it or not...a key reason for the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from the gov't...not the other way around.  Hopefully and ideally that would never ever need to be a concern again.  But in most of the world...past and present it is still absolutely a concern.  The 2nd amendment simply gives pause to a potential totalitarian leadership that could emerge one day. History has shown over and over that it is much harder to impose tyranny on an armed population.  And while sometimes bad people may get a hold of a gun and do something bad...no law will prevent that.  Criminals and insane people don't follow the law.  That's what makes them criminals and insane people.  Where I grew up in NYC, when bad kids didn't have the money to buy a gun on the street they would just make their own guns out of a couple of pieces of pipe.  We called them zip guns.  No law was going to stop them.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ha! Why am I not surprised that you have an AR15?
      How do you feel about climate change, a woman's right to choose and whether Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya?

      replyreport
   2. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Firearm ownership is up sharply over the past 20 years while the death rates attributed to fire arms have fallen in half from 6.6/100000 to 3.2
      http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 … erica?lite

      replyreport
   3. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph Deed's. Why I am not surprised that you would say something so stupid and unrelated to the discussion.I believe climate change is unsettled science. I think abortion is a terrible thing and Obama was born in America to the best of my knowledge.

      replyreport
   4. 36

      thomasczechposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Great comment. We, the law abiding firearms owners need to take a stand against the stupidity of the unjust laws that some are trying to pass. Canada and the USA need to come together and stand together, work together. both have high gun ownership.

      replyreport
   5. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The irony in the attacks against groups like the NRA is that they do more than anyone to promote gun safety.  In fact if you want a firearms safety training course I would highly recommend them.  They had a great instructor for my wife.

      replyreport
7. 36

   thomasczechposted 10 years ago

   We here in Canada have a very high gun ownership rate and it is increasing. I own several firearms. I have a problem with the labelling of firearms...such as assault rifles or sniper rifles. We are allowed many types of firearms such as AR style and even 50 calibre "sniper rifles" . The problem with labelling rifles is that they are labelled inaccurately. The AR type are not assault rifles if they are not capable of firing in full auto. I own two AR type (Remmington 15's) and they fire either 5.56 and 223. this is a small calibre. I also own a Mosin Nagant which is a rifle that was used by Russian Snipers and Sharp shooters so it was a sniper rifle but is now used by many hunters, so it is a hunting rifle now. I also own a CZ-858 which is a modern rifle used by Czech soldiers, so it is a assault rifle if used by soldiers but mine is not because the ability to fire it in full auto is removed. I use it of target shooting, therefore it is a target rifel.
   Anti gun people and government call anything that looks like a AR and assault rifle. My son owns a 22 Calibre Mossberg tactical, its furniture makes it look like a AR-15, but it isn't one. I can buy any furniture for any one of my rifles to make it look like anything, but if I do not change its calibre and firing mechanism, then it is still that original firearm and not what it merely looks like.
   I think that anti gun people and politicians need to learn about firearms before pushing for unrealistic and unjust laws. Gun crimes are committed by illegal firearms (Stolen or illegally purchased firearms) not by legal gun owners.

   replyreport
   1. 36

      thomasczechposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Anyone interested in joining our Responsible Gun Group please click this link and join. https://www.facebook.com/groups/responsiblegunowners/

      replyreport
   2. 73

      tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Great Q&A tczeck, not because you take a side but because the answers here clearly demonstrate the intelligence, logic and facts used by the pro-gun answers compared to the total opposite (and in Ralph Deeds case abstruse) reasoning antis give.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I prefer to be called anti death, if you don't mind. You cannot use that label like we use anti abortion. Anti abortioners want to outlaw abortion. With guns, people want them safer, not outlawed Truly anti gun is pro life, and that's a joke.

      replyreport
   4. 77

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The policies meant to curb the flow of weapons to illegal uses are things like registration and background checks, both things Canada does, but are rabidly blocked in the US. The assault rifle misnomer is a bit of a strawman.

      replyreport
8. 73

   prektjr.dcposted 10 years ago

   My personal opinion is that guns do not fire themselves.  Gun laws will NOT stop criminals or deviants from using them against the innocent.  The ability and right to own a gun gives the innocent a fighting chance against those who would try to harm them.  That being said, laws about gun safety should be stricter.  Small children have no need to hold or shoot a gun and idiots who leave them where small children can get them should be held responsible.  Just like parents are held responsible when their child steals, drives or damages a car, they should be responsible in like manner for the use of a weapon of any type.  Children must be taught safety measures for weapons just like they are taught water or fire safety.  Restricting ownership of guns will not protect those that people think it will. 
   
   I personally did not have a weapon in my home until my youngest child was 10.  My parents had guns in the home when I was young, but I was taught NOT to touch them without a grownup there AND they were locked up away from my natural curiosity.  I am fine. My children are fine. They are a Marine, a Teacher and a Law Enforcement Officer.  Even the Teacher has her own weapons and they are secured in a locked cabinet away from her children. 
   
   She is attending a conceal and carry class to carry her weapon at work.  Yes, at work.It is essential in this day that we have GOOD people armed to protect us everywhere!  That is caused by the actions of criminals, NOT guns.

   replyreport
   1. 36

      thomasczechposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your comment. Very well said. I agree 100% with you.

      replyreport