Gun control, do we need more of it?

62 Comments

With the Oregon shooting being in the news, Im still confused as to why people think it's a good idea to have lesser gun control laws. Im not saying that having tighter laws is the only way to go but is there really a way to stop crazy people from obtaining guns without creating tighter laws or penalizing the 99% of normal people? I would think that having less gun control would equal easier access for the very small amount of crazy people out there. I don't know. Does someone want to try and explain?

Other	3
I am neutral	8
I am for less gun control	15
I am for more gun control	26

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!

[ Report Post ]

Comments ( 62 )

anti-hero

8 years ago | pl

I am for going back to muskets. Like the founding fathers intended.

Comment Hidden ( show )

7

7
NeuroNeptunian

8 years ago | pl

I'm military and a gun owner and I earned my right to those guns. I'm totally cool with gun control but understand... guns are merely a weapon. A tool. People who want to kill will kill regardless. Last night, I accidentally stabbed myself with an anti-nerve agent injection I got an old army med kit. There is some pretty weird shit in this world and in weird places! Gun laws won't stop killers. Ask the Unabomber.

Comment Hidden ( show )

6

6
- modernism
  
  8 years ago
  
  Gun laws won't stop killers, but can we all agree that it certainly will hinder them? Which is more than enough motive to enforce these laws.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  2
  
  2
  - NeuroNeptunian
    
    8 years ago
    
    Hinder them? There are plenty of killers out there who are so dead set on murder that they'll jump through any hoop to get a gun. None of the criminals I work with legally possessed their gun. Failure to report a missing firearm should be illegal.
    
    I definitely do support gun control laws but all they will be is another obstacle - they aren't going to fight these events nearly as much as many like to think.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    1
    
    1
    - modernism
      
      8 years ago
      
      I never said gun laws would end all massacres, or anything as such. All I said is that they would hinder certain killers - not necessarily stop them all.
      
      hinder - create difficulties for (someone or something), resulting in delay or obstruction
      
      Which is basically an obstacle. So, I'm pretty you're just agreeing with me in the most opposing way possible.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
      - NeuroNeptunian
        
        8 years ago
        
        Please directly quote where I made those claims and I'll gladly apologize. But you can't. Because I didn't.
        
        Anyway, I halfway agree with you but I disagree that it would be as much of a hinderance as many think but please keep throwing the dictionary at me as an attempt to intellectually show your offense by my not agreeing with you wholeheartedly.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        -
        
        modernism
        
        8 years ago
        
        No, you didn't say that directly. But it was obviously implied by your first couple of sentences. I'm not asking you to apologize because you have nothing to apologize for.
        
        I never once said how much of a hindrance it was - I simply said it indeed would hinder. That of which you agreed with by saying gun laws would be an "obstacle". You'd be mistaken if you think I'm dead-set on having you utterly side with me - I couldn't care less. Believe what you want to believe, but by the looks of it, you seem to have the same belief as me though insist on regurgitating the same idea as if this is some kind of argument.
        
        I'm a bit confused by why it seems like you're a bit aggrieved by me telling you a definition - but if you want to showcase your mighty knowledge through condescending sarcasm, be my guest.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
- LittleGirlBrutallyViolated
  
  8 years ago
  
  Ask the Unabomber...
  
  Something delicious was said about cake
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - NeuroNeptunian
    
    8 years ago
    
    If you got it in the mail, you might want to leave it alone.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    1
    
    1
    - LittleGirlBrutallyViolated
      
      8 years ago
      
      That was a little over-the-top buddy.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      -1
      
      -1
      - VirgilManly
        
        8 years ago
        
        I thought is was funny:)
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
jethro

8 years ago

After every act of terror we are told that we should not judge all Muslims on the actions of a few. Isn't it time the 80 million gun owners in America get the same treatment. It wasn't the guns that shot anyone. It was the crazy person who was supplied with guns by his stupid mother. If you want a gun bad enough all of the laws and controls in the world wont stop you from getting one. The drug laws have proved that fact very well.

Comment Hidden ( show )

5

5
- billygoatgruff
  
  8 years ago
  
  The logic you are using here going with your terrorist concept would be equivalent to saying that bombs don't kill people, terrorists kill people, so there is no reason to restrict the purchase of bombs from good law abiding citizens that want them. If that is what you believe, I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't share it.
  
  No one is saying that the majority of gun owners are not to be trusted. We are just saying that if guns were not readily available, it would be harder for people who can't be trusted to get them. Most criminals obtain them illegally, but they illegally obtain them from someone who had them legally. So if no one has them legally, yes that makes a big difference. This has proven to be the case in most countries that have heavy gun restrictions or bans.
  
  You are correct that some people will find a way to get ahold of one anyway, but that is no reason to make it easy for them. And the number of people who want one that badly goes down significantly when no one else has them, because the need simply doesn't seem as great.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
  - LittleGirlBrutallyViolated
    
    8 years ago
    
    When they are not aware guns exist in a utopian society, like being born with in the walls of confines. "If I'm not aware of it,it doesn't exist?" Similar to the Trueman Show with Jim Carry, the ideal utopia?
    
    Remember in the end when his ship-tip penetrated that flap which separates the woman's birth canal from her uterous, so fine a point penetrates her cervix, the whole movie drops.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
  - jethro
    
    8 years ago
    
    Surely you are joking. Do you think that every gang banger bought their weapons at the local gun store? No they got them illegally just like all of the criminals and crazies out there. Easy access isn't the problem and restricting access to guns for legitimate people isn't the answer either.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - billygoatgruff
      
      8 years ago
      
      You either didn't read or didn't understand. Did they buy them at their local gun store? No. But they likely did do one of the following 3 things...
      
      1) stole them from their local gun store (or in transit to that store, warehouse, shipping facility etc.).
      2) stole them from someone who bought them legally from a gun store.
      3) bought them on the street from someone who did one of the first two things.
      
      So what I am saying is that when guns are not available for sale in stores or in homes or other places that criminals can easily steal them, criminals are less likely to steal them. That is way saying laws don't matter because criminals don't follow them makes no sence. If you pass laws restricting the availability of guns, you restrict the opportunities for criminals to steal them. You can't steal what isn't there.
      
      Surely you must realize the the least secure, easiest place to steal a gun in from the home of a person who legally purchased it. If the gun is not in the home in the first place, no one can steal it. This has been proven to be the case in most countries with heavy gun restriction. Few guns available has resulted in fewer criminals getting their hands on them, which has resulted in less gun violence.
      
      So yes, if you make guns abundantly available, you are making it easier for criminals to obtain them.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
Redcoats

8 years ago | pl

Yes. Now before people jump down my neck hear me out:

I'm not saying ban guns or take them away from the citizens, but to adopt some laws that makes it harder for the crazies to get their hands on firearms when they're so readily available.

Stricter control on selling and stricter control on storage.

Sure, criminals don't care about gun laws, but why would you need a black market, when you can just walk into a Walmart and buy an automatic rifle?

Maybe adopt the Australian law on storage, where every fire arm must be locked away in fire arm safe which is bolted down to two irremovable surfaces eg a wall and the floor.

Ammunition must not be kept in the same safe but locked away in another lockable compartment. Hide the damn keys or keep them on you.

See what I mean? (:

Don't ban the guns or take them away, let's just make it not so easy for crazies to get a hold of.

Comment Hidden ( show )

6

6
- VirgilManly
  
  8 years ago
  
  You can't walk into a Walmart and buy an automatic rifle. An automatic rifle is a machine gun.
  
  Just how do you suppose they go about enforcing the storage laws?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - Redcoats
    
    8 years ago
    
    Oh that's easy.
    
    A register of the persons address, the type of fire arm etc etc and police checks. The police visually inspect the fire arm safe and ensure it meets the select criteria and standards.
    
    This is what they do in Australia.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - VirgilManly
      
      8 years ago
      
      So you want people to register their firearms and the police come to people's homes and inspect to make sure the guns are locked up? Good luck with that working in America.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      2
      
      2
      - Redcoats
        
        8 years ago
        
        Make it the law and they'll have to do it. People always go on about, don't blame the gun, blame the person, but if the person can't get the gun, how many schools can he shoot up?
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
flyingnostalgia

8 years ago

No more guns!

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  8 years ago
  
  Meowth! Thats right!
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
victorygin

8 years ago

I'm with Basil Marceaux on this one. People should be fined $10 if they are found not carrying a gun at all times.

But seriously, if I lived in America I wouldn't like the idea of the second amendment, which shall not be infringed, being infringed upon.
Now, maybe people will still have the right to keep and bear arms - just with a few restrictions. But I'm skeptical of any move in the direction of eroding the right at all.

But, what do I know?...I live in a place with tight gun restrictions that hasn't had a "crazy" shooting in years.

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
LittleGirlBrutallyViolated

8 years ago

If guns kill people do pencils misspell words?

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  8 years ago
  
  not helpful -_-
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  2
  
  2
  - LittleGirlBrutallyViolated
    
    8 years ago
    
    A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the SECURITY of a FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. - 2nd Amendment
    
    There's no debate unless there's something you'd like to add to that.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    -2
    
    -2
    - billygoatgruff
      
      8 years ago | pl
      
      Nothing to add at all. I just didn't realize that the Oregon shooter, or the vast majority of gun owners in the US, were members of regulated militias or that they were considered necessary for the security of the State.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      6
      
      6
      - Greasy_Spics
        
        8 years ago
        
        You missed the key point. If you go back and look for it, you'll see the words, FREE STATE.
        
        You must enjoy your rights being eroded, unless you're too stupid to understand not exercising them is the same thing.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        -
        
        billygoatgruff
        
        8 years ago
        
        I not only saw it, I specifically mentioned it. I said that I am not aware that the majority of gun owners in the US are members of a regulated militia contributing to the security of the State.
        
        Do you have information showing that they are members of a well regulated militia being used to ensure the security of a free state? If so, please present it.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        4
        
        4
        
        See More Comments =>
      - LittleGirlBrutallyViolated
        
        8 years ago
        
        I haven't heard of this latest Organ Trail with the pulling ox?
        
        One death is a tragedy, a million is not a statistic?
        
        Off-The-Grid-Miscegenation
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
Cindy1980

8 years ago

Did you delete my comment? I said I was neutral.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
iEatZombies_

8 years ago

I already made and deleted a comment, but I wanted to make another that makes a little more sense to me when it comes to answering your question.
I don't think gun control or lack thereof has as much to do with killings as people are lead to believe. It just doesn't make sense to me that anyone would believe that less guns = less killing. That statement feels very elementary. It isn't so black and white.
Any society that's worth a grain of salt has always had some standard for the treatment of it's people. In the U.S., however, the mentally ill are ignored and dismissed until they become a hazard to themselves or others- it's practically written as law for the field of psychology to do this.
If we took the resources we use to hurt people and helped them instead, we would clean up our streets quickly. The problem is that there isn't any profit in our government doing that.

It could take some thinking, but there is definitely a solution to all of this that involves giving the power back to the people, including the ones who could've been helped or cared for but instead ended their lives or others with violence.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Beep_Beep
  
  8 years ago
  
  Easy to say, hypothetically. But how do you make it happen? Canada is another country in addition to Switzerland that has lots of guns but low gun violence. In others words, data for comparative studies is out there.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
Beep_Beep

8 years ago

Switzerland has a civilian militia. The Swiss general public is good at marksmanship and owns rifles. Yet, their gun violence is low. Wish I knew how they did it.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- iEatZombies_
  
  8 years ago
  
  Proper education and training, possibly? Happier, healthier environment?
  Most of our shootings happen because those particular young people are often ignored and bullied. Perhaps the Swiss don't ignore the psychological needs of their citizens.
  Then there's also the issue of trust. Any time the people don't trust one another, there's going to be some exchange of offensive behavior. Americans don't trust one another.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  8 years ago
  
  You and me both
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
BrulkBrotheon

8 years ago

Short of outright banning firearms, what would have stopped the Oregon shooter?

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0

Are You Normal?

Gun control, do we need more of it?