What are your thoughts on gun control?

1. 76

   Josh Ratzburgposted 9 years ago

   What are your thoughts on gun control?
   
   With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws.
   "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of these mass shootings were done by previous criminals?
   It should be harder to get guns, not impossible, but harder, in this country. America is the only country that continuously has these issues, it needs to stop.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 84

   ronbergeronposted 9 years ago

   I think the first step is to fully use the laws that already exist. There are plenty of laws on the books already, but many of them aren't fully used.
   
   For example, here in Massachusetts there's a mandatory 1-year sentence for the illegal possession of a handgun. It's been on the books for decades. However, even though people are caught illegally possessing nearly every day, no one serves that sentence. It's always used in the pre-trial plea-bargaining phase.
   
   I'm against adding laws that further restrict rights when the existing laws aren't being used to their fullest extent.
   
   That being said, I fully agree that there's a problem in this country. I'd call it a "violence problem" rather than a "gun problem". Unfortunately, guns are frequently the chosen method of perpetrating the violence, but they're not the only method.
   
   I don't think there's a single answer to the problem and I don't think there's a quick answer. I think the solution needs to start in the home where respect for oneself and one's community and the concept of personal responsibility should be learned, but often isn't for one reason or another.
   
   There's a generation (or more) of irresponsible, disrespectful people creating the next generation of even more irresponsible, disrespectful people. I don't know how to break that cycle, but I think it's crucial to solving this type of societal problem.

   replyreport
3. 86

   Anna C Taylorposted 9 years ago

   I agree that there is a serious violence problem in this culture. But I think its a mixture of a lot of things. I agree on tightening gun laws - but we also need to take a serious look at how we handle mental health and education.
   
   1) We shouldn't take away guns, obviously that would never fly in the U.S. Instead I think it's a good idea to have a mandatory class (it could just be one session) you have to take when you purchase a gun, much like when you get a driver's license. It'd be annoying for some people but it could teach parents not to give their kids access to guns, how to work a safety, etc. You'd be surprised how many people own guns and don't know anything about gun safety. Also I still don't understand why people fight background checks so hard. If you have nothing to hide when you buy a gun it won't affect you. It seems like a 'duh' situation to me.
   
   2) We have to work on the stigma and price on mental illness. Mentally ill people are treated like trash in this country and lash out. So many of these needless acts of violence are cries for attention. The shooters know the media will talk about them and everyone will know their name. Even if they've already died, it's what they want. School shooters have a lot of different reasons for what they do but it all boils down to they feel they've been wronged (whether it's personally or just because they hate a certain kind of people) and they know this violence will get them attention.
   
   Hate breeds hate and there is a lot of hate in this country.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      ronbergeronposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that a class is a reasonable minimum requirement for gun ownership. This is more of a mental health issue. The idea of taking away guns is simpler to grasp than treating mental health problems.

      replyreport
4. 70

   Aime Fposted 9 years ago

   I think a quick look at the gun deaths/lack of mass shootings in Canada, the U.K., Australia, and especially Japan tells you all you need to know about gun control.  Guess what?  You make it harder to get guns, you get less people with guns, you get less deaths and a complete absence of the horrific mass shootings that happen so often in the U.S.
   
   The rest of the developed nations in the world think you guys are kind of loony when it comes to this particular issue.  Truly.
   
   I know people like to say that these types of criminals would still kill people with another weapon, but honestly, how many people is a guy going to be able to stab to death if he walks into a school with a knife?  Probably not a whole lot given he'd have to be in close proximity and it would take longer, and people would have a better chance to stop him.  Guns just make it way too easy to do way too much damage way too quickly.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Josh Ratzburgposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you, but the argument is more of "They are still going to find a way to get guns, and now you are preventing 'good' people from owning guns"
      I personally think it's absurd, it shouldn't be easier to get a gun than a drivers license.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah but that hasn't really proven to be the case in the places I've just mentioned. I also wonder how many people actually have their gun handy when someone pulls a gun on them and manage to save themselves. Is that # higher than people who die?

      replyreport
   3. 61

      days leaperposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The special task force that are the only police allowed to have guns in UK works.  &are only called out for such as hostage situations etc. It works with strict licence restrictions & only one or two types being "club" legal. still 1or2 RARE

      replyreport
5. 83

   peachpurpleposted 9 years ago

   yes gun laws needed to be change. People can easily buy guns and rifles,  that is a bad idea. In malaysia, nobody is allowed to posses any firearms

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Matthew Harveyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      it's not as easy as most people believe to buy a gun you got to fill out what is called a 4473 form thats the FBI back round check

      replyreport
6. 82

   wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years ago

   Making it harder to get guns, will only affect those who care about the law. Criminals look to exploit weakness, that's why they're attracted gun free zones. It makes sense that an armed populous deters violent crime because the cost of crime is higher for the criminal.
   
   The Oregon shootings happened in a gun free zone, which shouldn't be a surprise because so were the shootings at fort hood, the Lafayette movie theater and in Chattanooga.
   
   A 2013 study by Pew Research found that gun violence had fallen by nearly 50 percent since its 1993 peak, a 2014 FBI analysis noted a marked decline  in violent crime over the last 5 years. In other words gun violence is not the epidemic that its portrayed to be by the media.
   
   The perpetrators in the majority of these mass shooting have been mentally impaired individuals. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Confiscating guns would require a near police state to accomplish and also the trampling of personal freedom for a policy that has continually failed.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Josh Ratzburgposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not suggesting removing guns from households, but why is it easier to get a gun than a drivers license? That shouldn't be.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If I'm correct and more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens make it safer then why would you want to make it more difficult for them to get guns?

      replyreport
   3. 76

      Josh Ratzburgposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You said it yourself, "The perpetrators in the majority of these mass shooting have been mentally impaired individuals." Why isn't there some sort of mental evaluation before you can purchase a gun?

      replyreport
   4. 84

      ronbergeronposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Gun laws vary from state to state and even town to town within the states. Massachusetts requires a class and a background check. Then it's up to the Chief of Police for the final say. Some CoPs reject everyone. Others respect citizen's rights more.

      replyreport
   5. 82

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I think you could have a data base of mentally ill people that would be included in a background check and still not impair the vast majority of law abiding citizens access to firearms.

      replyreport
   6. 84

      ronbergeronposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't disagree about the database, but a large number of privacy advocates do. Part of such a database should be the ability to view your own records and contest any inaccuracies. Like many gun owners, I'm in favor of background checks.

      replyreport
   7. 82

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      No doubt you're right.

      replyreport
7. 76

   Josh Ratzburgposted 9 years ago

   
   
   There are many arguments against any sort of gun control, but most of them are not good... here is a good article: http://prospect.org/article/ten-argumen … eyre-wrong
   
   And here is a good article about why the gun free zone myth is in fact a myth: http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-gun- … shootings/

   replyreport
8. 84

   Buildrepsposted 9 years ago

   You cannot just wish away (or 'law away') the cowboy genes of the US. The whole foundation of the country is still corrupt, since it is built on violence and power from the beginning i.a. by killing the natives and stealing their land. The US has over 300 million guns. With 25 bullets in each gun, is this mad country theoretically able to kill the whole world population. It's still a miracle that so less people are killed in the US with such an insane amount of guns.
   
   The facts are often unpleasant to see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of … by_country
   
   The only way is by changing the capitalistic system rigorously. As long as money and power are in control, violence (and guns) will also stay in control, and the law of the jungle will rule.

   replyreport
9. 61

   Matthew Harveyposted 9 years ago

   The U.S. is not the only country with these issues the media blocks out a lot of it. But lets look at where all these mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Gun free zones are the problem because the law bidding citizens follow this law. But the people that want to kill won't follow this law. So whats an easy target where no one will challenge you and shoot back a gun free zone every time. We do need to arm our teaches great example Israel had one major mass shooting in a school and after that they trained and gave the teachers guns. Now there hasn't been a mass shooting in there schools since. i say the gun free zones are the problem to the mass shootings not the gun.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I can't see how your logic can be disputed, good point!

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree. Many in the media and many who are irrational refuse to acknowledge this fact. Easy targets & easy targets in large numbers are appealing to those wanting to harm or kill.

      replyreport
10. 52

    stevefon2004posted 9 years ago

    Yes.  We can have gun control just like in France.  There are no mass shootings there.
    
    The problem here is that the liberals don't understand nature. Criminals and terrorists would love for America to disarm.
    
    Can anyone answer why shootings occur always in "Gun Free Zones"  aka  slaughterhouses.
    
    With terrorism on the rise and a so called commander in chief who doesn't even acknowledge it as Islamic terrorism, why would I want to disarm?  Who will protect me if not me.
    
    When will the multi-cultural experiment end?  It has been an abject failure everywhere.  People prefer to associate with their own by nature.  Why is that so bad.
    
    Liberals attempt to solve problems by using the cause of the problem as the elixir.  How foolish and blind.
    
    Try learning more about nature and nature's God.  The simple answers are right there in front of you.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Josh Ratzburgposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       no mass shooting has been prevented by a "good guy" with a gun... Why not make it a little harder to get a gun? In most shootings the guns are obtained legally...

       replyreport
    2. 52

       stevefon2004posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       How dumb is that.  I guess you think it is better to be killed by a legal gun.  Why don't "good guys" with guns stop mass killings????
       Use a little logic.  "Good Guys" obey the law.  They don't carry guns into a "GUN FREE ZONE"  AKA slaughter houses.

       replyreport
    3. 82

       wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Of course, many shootings never happen in the first place because the perpetrators usually choose not to target places they suspect have armed people.

       replyreport
    4. 61

       Matthew Harveyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       the good guy the prevented a major mass shooting was a woman in Colorado at the Colorado Mall on the open of the dark knight new batman movie she shot him with a .357 Mag

       replyreport
    5. 76

       Josh Ratzburgposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       have you seen the stats on the number of mass shootings that actually take place in a gun free zone? it's something like 17%, look it up...

       replyreport
    6. 61

       Matthew Harveyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … ree-zones/ here is what the washington times had to say about gun free zones

       replyreport
    7. 64

       gconeyhidenposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       what your saying doesn't make any sense.  you dont need an assault weapon to shoot one of these maniacs in the back of the head. most legislation isn't even about the kind of weapon most folks are carrying, you can still shoot hero.

       replyreport
11. 64

    gconeyhidenposted 8 years ago

    Gun control legislation will not result in a zero crime rate or shooting rate. Remember Murphy's law. whatever can go, will go wrong. Neither will  gun control laws do anything meaningful in terms of banning gun possession in the US.  Most of the legislation put forward, in my humble opinion, is not even trying to ban guns in general. only certain guns and assault weapons that were never designed for personal civilian use are usually singled out as overly excessive for defensive purposes. These are not defense weapons, they are as the name says, assault weapons. Even the NRA can't dispute that fact. The fact that many members in the NRA have bomb shelters or reinforced safe zones stocked with survival food isn't reassuring.  These folks have a different mind set then the average city dweller.  Many believe Armageddon is near, but certainly NOT by any silly man made climate change.  Some folks collect teddy bears, these folks are addicted to the idea in US of the unrestrained right of citizens to own any weapon as long as it can be considered a gun.  NRA would make a good case why nuclear guns should't be banned. The NRA's strategy has always been the old domino theory, start one piece falling and the rest will follow. That's the line they feed all gun owners.  its time all gun owners stand up and decide if this rhetoric is true or not.  let each gun legislation stand or fall on its merits. nobody's here is trying to ban all guns, that's simply out of the question.

    replyreport
12. 83

    tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

    There are cities and whole states ignoring federal immigration law (sanctuary cities).
    There are cities and states ignoring federal drug laws on cannabis being illegal, passing their own rules on recreational marijuana or medical marijuana.
    Since that's been going on for years, conservatives have a basis to ignore new federal gun laws. In fact, they have a better standing for ignoring more restrictive federal gun laws because the Second Amendment is in the Constitution, whereas drug laws are more derivative.

    replyreport
13. 0

    JDWilhiteposted 8 years ago

    Denying me the right to own and carry a gun is the ultimate in hate speech.  You are effectively denying me the ability to defend myself, which can only be motivated by hatred.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Josh Ratzburgposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       ...lol... i don't even know how to respond to this.

       replyreport