This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: "https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr"

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (25 posts)

Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?

  1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image96
    Marcy Goodfleischposted 18 months 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?

  2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image98
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months ago

    Seeing as how most gun violence happens within the confines of the large cities, the only gun control that makes sense would be relative to those cities. That said, Chicago is the shinning star of failed gun control.

    But the gun crimes in Chicago are rarely involving the 'boogeyman' guns the government seeks restrictions for. So I find no sense in any further gun control.

    Guns aren't capable of causing someone to want to kill someone, or lots of someones. Until someone bothers to focus on factors which are not material hunks of wood, plastic, and metal; then the violence will surely continue.

    1. Tusitala Tom profile image65
      Tusitala Tomposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Deliberately taken action to shoot someone is only one part of the argument against the proliferation of firearms.  The other is due to the numerous accidents where people - especially children - are either ignorant or careless with them.

    2. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      When tom gets around to understanding there is no perfection in the human race he can jump back into the discussion. Otherwise he can explain to us just what other areas of human endeavor he expects perfection.

  3. lions44 profile image98
    lions44posted 18 months ago

    There are hundreds, if not thousands, of gun laws on the books but they are not enforced. The ATF only has a few hundred agents and local law enforcement can't afford task forces to take guns off city streets (most, some do).
    If would take very intrusive law enforcement to slow down guns from getting to the street and removing them from those possessing them ( I don't use the term "own" because I bet most handguns in tough city areas are illegally purchased).  So if you really want to keep gangs and other losers from having guns, you would have to accept (and especially those communities sensitive to tough policing) a renewed broken windows policing effort.  Will they go for it?  Probably not.

    One more thing... expand the waiting period and enable the Feds to do background checks 24/7, 365.  Also, communication between the FBI and local law enforcement for these checks is very poor. See the Dylann Roof case in particular.

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      There is no federal "waiting period" and only a very few handful of states require one.

  4. Shyron E Shenko profile image82
    Shyron E Shenkoposted 18 months ago

    I believe that guns made to kill people (i.e. assault weapons) should be banned, just like they were when President Clinton was in office. It should be illegal to sell or own assault weapons.

    Background checks should be more stringent.

  5. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 18 months ago

    We need less regulation, not more.
    Strict laws on gun control haven't stopped Muslim knife attacks a la OSU and many incidents in the EU.
    Stricter gun laws won't prevent people from committing suicide in other ways or criminals from getting a hold of weapons.
    Stricter gun laws will make it easier for criminals to kidnap, burgle and rape people, as has been seen in the UK and Australia after guns were nearly banned. A gun is a force equalizer, allowing a woman to stop several would be attackers, and all the myths of the fantastic martial arts fighting femme fatale are irrelevant when faced by reality. Leaving the woman defenseless leads to the liberal advice to wear running shoes, travel in groups, pee on yourself, cry, carry a whistle and pray someone helps. Making people helpless victims leads to more victims, and that is immoral.

    1. profile image58
      yourhomiebrianposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Black skin is actually good 4 protection.

    2. Marisa Wright profile image99
      Marisa Wrightposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      I think you've been listening to the false propaganda peddled by the gun lobby.   There is a fake email which they've used to claim that gun violence has gone up since gun control in the UK and Australia - it is completely and utterly untrue.

    3. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      You can believe Marisa or you can believe actual Australians

      http://tinyurl.com/hbu5lxj

  6. Jack Burton profile image82
    Jack Burtonposted 18 months ago

    Hello Shyron

    Unfortunately, your comment is what happens when someone has no factual information about firearms. I don't blame you, but you are just  repeating the lies that you have been told without any attempt to understand the subject. However, this has the end result of losing you any credibility in what you have to offer. And, as you know, a writer without credibility is one who has no ability to persuade others.

    And no, it is not a matter of "It's my opinion." If opinions are based on factually wrong information then they are without credibility also. You just might want to revisit that old journalist saying, "If your mother says she loves you..."

    ALL firearms can "kill" someone, along with hammers, knives, and even fists. According to the FBI there are more people killed each year with hands and feet than with what you mistakenly considers an "assault weapon." The actual number is so low they just get lumped in with generic "long guns" like all rifles and shotguns.

    And BTW, rifles just like you want "banned" were NEVER banned from being owned, sold, or bought during the Clinton years. A few cosmetic changes comparable to changing the hubcaps and decals on a car and *poof*, a supposedly "illegal" rifle was changed into a completely legal one. A few minutes of study could tell people that.

    And Shy, do you really, really deep in your heart believe that the midnight-in-the-alley-behind-the-bar-illegal-gun-seller-from-the-trunk-of-his-car is going to run a "background check" on his thuggish, social deviant customers.

    Can you see that those of us who actually know about firearms, firearm laws, and firearm owners consider this is what passes for "common sense" amoung those who would limit  freedom and liberty?

  7. profile image58
    yourhomiebrianposted 18 months ago

    Black skin is the only protection a man needs. So many white females are dating black males because they feel safer.

  8. David Branagan profile image96
    David Branaganposted 18 months ago

    There of course should be tighter controls. Who needs a semi automatic. In reality who needs a gun at all? How many people in the US die each year due to private gun ownership?

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      When people claim "no one wants to take your guns away" we'll point towards David's post to prove otherwise. BTW, David has no clue as to what a "semi automatic" firearm is. He's like a 5 year old on his first tricycle giving racing advice to a pro.

  9. Marisa Wright profile image99
    Marisa Wrightposted 18 months ago

    Yes, I find it unbelievable that the United States doesn't implement gun laws the same as Australia and the United Kingdom.

    The gun lobby claims the restrictions haven't reduced murder statistics, and that's true.  What they have done is prevent massacres.

    How many massacres, using any kind of weapon, have occurred in Australia and the UK since 1996 when controls were introduced?   None.

    How many massacres have occurred in the US since 1996?  Can anyone tell me how many children were killed?

    Even if that's all gun control achieves, wouldn't that be worth it?   

    Note:  there's a fake email circulating which claims that levels of other crimes have risen since gun control, but the statistics are completely fake.  Gun control has not resulted in more crime, so the US can save its children without any downside.

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      When people claim "no one wants to take your guns away" we'll point towards Marisa's post to prove otherwise.

  10. Brians Review profile image81
    Brians Reviewposted 18 months ago

    Yes, but not in the way that other top commenters have written. We should not set up the same laws as Australia. They would be a violation to our basic Constitutional rights. Part of the issue is, our law makers are not familiar with the products they are trying to outlaw. If you want to win over gun owners and gun sellers, it's important to start with the proper nomenclature.

    1. Tusitala Tom profile image65
      Tusitala Tomposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Those 'Constitutional rights' to bear arms came into being when the British were still a very real threat to the brand new United States and when the Red Indians constituted a real threat.   Neither still applies.  Amend the Constitution!

    2. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Sorry tom, but you're pretty clueless about the subject. As Heller noted, the 2nd Amendment merely codified a long existing right that is independent of the Constitution. Remove the 2nd Amendment... the right still exists by itself.

  11. Tusitala Tom profile image65
    Tusitala Tomposted 18 months ago

    Yes,and yes, and yes.   Marisa Wright is right.  But I'll go further.  The laws I'd like to see is a ban on all concealable weapons such as pistols of any description.   Also on the ammunition for such.

    Same would apply to any automatic, machine-gun type guns.  These are military weapons and should never be allowed in the hands of anyone but trained militia.    And even then, only sanctioned for military exercises or actual wartime action.

    As for all other firearms - strictly licensed.  Checks on who buys, and even then subject every firearm being both registered and traceable.   A log book on all sales, both from shop to customer and private seller to private buyer.  Jail terms for those who break this law.

    Illegal arms dealers would be jailed.   Jail would be mandatory.  No getting away with a monetary fine.

    There would be education about the dangers of weapons delivered in school, right down to primary school.   People would be encouraged to view weapons with repugnance.   The ultimate aim here would be to reduce the number of firearms sold to the point where very, very few had them and they, only for very good reasons as sanctioned by worldwide law.

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      When people claim "no one wants to take your guns away" we'll point towards Tom's post to prove otherwise. BTW, Tom has no clue as to what an "automatic" firearm is and the laws concerning them.

  12. wba108@yahoo.com profile image79
    wba108@yahoo.composted 18 months ago

    No I don't believe in tighter gun control laws. Statistics are mixed at best and common sense should tell you that restricting the gun rights of law abiding citizens will not make a safer environment.

    To my knowledge, the laws that we have now already restrict true automatic assault type weapons, so if true, the questions regarding laws against selling or owning some types of guns are a mute point.

  13. Ken Burgess profile image89
    Ken Burgessposted 7 months ago

    Some stats:

    Chicago - from Jan 1 to Dec 31 2016 - 4,368 shooting victims.

    Now Admittedly, Chicago's gun laws have been rolled back:
    June 2010: Chicago's ban on handguns was ended by the Supreme Court in the McDonald v. Chicago case

    • December 2012: Illinois' concealed carry ban — the last of its kind in the United States — ended in a court decision, though the state still restricts where people can carry concealed guns

    • July 2013: The Firearm Concealed Carry Act went into effect, providing regulations for concealed carry

    • September 2013: Chicago ends its gun registry

    So while the almost total ban of guns in Chicago has been chipped away at since 2010, the reality is it takes a while for the wheel of change to turn... Chicago is still largely a reflection of a city where law abiding citizens don't carry or own guns, but those that ignore the laws and commit acts of violence do have them.

    Contrast that Chicago to:

    Kennesaw City - Georgia – where gun ownership is mandatory.
    “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’ The award was aimed at identifying the best communities nationally that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools, wide-open spaces, and less stress.”

    In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

    (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

    (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

    The city’s website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populous counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

    The total number of aggravated assaults in 2016 was 43.  43 nearly double the amount they in 2015

    1. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Kennesaw Pop - 34k
      Chicago Pop - 2.7 mil
      So much depends on the state, city, town, the population size, where it is (border state vs non border stat) it should be left up to the States, I don't think any definitive answer is perfect for all places.

 
working