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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Black skin is actually good 4 protection.
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.
You can believe Marisa or you can believe actual Australians
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?
Black skin is the only protection a man needs. So many white females are dating black males because they feel safer.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
by Don Bobbitt 2 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
by Ytslemp 5 years ago
How do you feel about 'common sense' gun control laws?
by Earl S. Wynn 7 years ago
Does gun control prevent crimes?
by strengthcourageme 3 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by tobey100 7 years ago
Now that the left is beginning to realize the mantra of 'conservative vitriol' isn't working regarding the tragic events in Arizona 60% plus don't believe the template set forth by the media), they've gone to page two; tougher gun laws. I've been in law enforcement for 25 years and the very...
by Credence2 5 years ago
Somewhere within the tapestry of recent history a determination was made that fully automatic sub machine guns like the Thompson could not be obtained by the private citizen for self defense. These were the weapons of choice for mobsters of the twenties and for time, beyond. Conservatives have...
Copyright © 2018 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 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.|