What is your opinion on gun control?

89 Comments

We all seem to have different thoughts on gun control. What do you think about it? Should we blame a gun for the actions of a purportour or should we blame the person for the actions. Do things have an influence on us or should we be responsible for them?

(No law)I think those people chioce to shoot not the gun	18
(yes law)I think anyone with a gun is wanting to kill	6
(no law) Those who get them illegally will always get them	23
Some law)I think only military and police personal should have them	39
(lots of law)I believe they should out law this, tv, and video games	1

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!

[ Report Post ]

Comments ( 89 )

charli.m

11 years ago | pl

"I think those people chioce to shoot not the gun"

...

*brain implodes*

Comment Hidden ( show )

11

11
[Old Memory]

11 years ago | pl

We all tend to forget...that police and military personel are persons too. They are no more, or less trustworthy with firearms than you or me. Once you submit absolute power to an "authority," that authority's power becomes absolute...

Comment Hidden ( show )

7

7
wigsplitz

11 years ago

I think people who support gun bans are reacting out of irrational fear and not logic. It's sickening.

I live here too, I and my children live among all these guns, we don't live in fear! I fear the consequences of a disarmed people FAR more than the minute chance of being a victim of random gun violence by some criminal.

Comment Hidden ( show )

4

4
LizardSkin

11 years ago

By the way, no offense again, but your thread is kind of pointless. Obama swore an oath to office to uphold the United States Constitution. To start trying to ban guns or restrict guns from THE PEOPLE, would be considered an act of TREASON in the United States of America. Not only would he be removed from Presidency, he would go to Prison.

Reid v. Covert,

"Treaties do not confer powers not authorized by the constitution."

Mr Obama: The second amendment of the U.S. constitution does not talk about protecting government or government resources, but it does talk about being necessary for a free state. It also states, "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

Comment Hidden ( show )

3

3
LizardSkin

11 years ago

I can't vote in your poll because it says "No Law"

Um, genius, in the United States has long since written into law that civilians have the right to gun ownership.

Comment Hidden ( show )

3

3
LizardSkin

11 years ago

Now to answer the heavily leading answer on this poll.

"Some law - I think only military and police personal should have them"

Really? Why, because your country is a police state?

Dangerous people will always be able to get guns and as it is written innocents should always maintain the right to defend themselves with equal force.

The 2nd amendment isn't there for duck hunting. It's to protect "We The People" from tyrannical governments and street thugs.

Hitler took the guns
Stalin took the guns
Mao took the guns

Enjoy your New World Order, idiots who voted. Enjoy your globalization by the political elite, silly lemmings.

Bunch of morons and kids need to educate yourselves.

Comment Hidden ( show )

3

3
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  Best response I have heard.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
- ToxicCrayons
  
  11 years ago
  
  Why are you such an asshole? Get the fuck over yourself.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  -2
  
  -2
princesscashh

11 years ago

I used to believe that guns only serve one purpose and that is to kill. However, my roommate told me about this documentary he watched and there was a quote from a Japanese general during WW2 and he said that the main reason that Japan never invaded the US was because they knew that every American either owned a gun or had a friend or family member who had one. Many countries have very strict gun control laws and the US is one of the few countries where almost everyone owns a gun. I believe that guns should only be used for protection. I'll probably end up buying one to protect myself from any strange countries that have the balls to attack the US.

Comment Hidden ( show )

2

2
suckonthis9

11 years ago

Live by a gun, die by a gun.

However, guns can be a useful tool, for the purposes of self-defense, last resort or preemptive measures, in accordance with Rule #14.

Comment Hidden ( show )

2

2
dirtybirdy

11 years ago

You hit more stuff when you have good gun control.

Comment Hidden ( show )

2

2
robbieforgotpw

11 years ago

We are guaranteed the right to bear arms by the constitution in order to protect ourselves against criminals and tyrannical government.

Comment Hidden ( show )

3

3
- dom180
  
  11 years ago
  
  ... as part of "a well regulated militia". Everyone seems to forget that part. I wonder how many gun owners in the US are part of a well regulated militia, as specified by the 2nd amendment as the basis for legal gun ownership? :P
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - robbieforgotpw
    
    11 years ago
    
    We are the well regulated militia, the last line on defense against tyranny. I think it's only fair if criminals have guns then citizens should have a fighting chance.
    Chicago and NYC have been failed social experiments. Despite what crazy libs think crime didn't decrease when they banned guns. It's like a big sign to the thugs..."gun free zone, come commit your crime here"
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    4
    
    4
    - dom180
      
      11 years ago
      
      Unless you are well organised, hierarchical and prepared to act as a group in the face of attack, you are not "well regulated". You are just a group of men with guns - there's a difference between that and being well regulated.
      
      Although this has nothing to do with my original reply to you, and I'm not quite sure why you brought it up: gun free zones are not a good example of how a wider ban gun ban would look (not that I'm advocating a blanket ban on guns) if it were scaled up to cover the whole country or a whole state. The failure of gun free zones isn't an argument against gun control, it's an argument against... gun free zones.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      -1
      
      -1
  - KnightNigelWellingtonXXI
    
    11 years ago
    
    Lots of people also seem to forget "shall not be infringed."
    
    Signed,
    Knight Nigel Wellington XXI
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    2
    
    2
  - shade_ilmaendu
    
    11 years ago
    
    I think this would be a better solution to the debate. Everyone seems to be speaking of extreme, either ban guns or don't change anything. Why not just reform the process? Regular mental health evaluations, more training, and actually start regulating a militia of the people. I don't think you could force all gunowners to do militia because some people only use them to hunt. But surely a system could be implemented to better ascertain responsible gun ownership.
    
    Yeah you'd still have people who go above the law but that can't really be avoided.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    2
    
    2
    - dom180
      
      11 years ago
      
      That's a very good idea. I would definitely support that.
      
      Obviously the setting up of a militia would be difficult, because a citizen's militia would be by its very nature separate from the government. The government would also probably never allow that, because it would take power away from them. Another example, perhaps, of governments acting in self-interest.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
  - [Old Memory]
    
    11 years ago
    
    Nobody forgets that part. Every time the 2nd Amendment is quoted, it's mentioned.
    
    We also have the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property, and the means to protect it.
    
    We also have the right to secede, and the 2nd Amemdment protects our ability to do so. The Supreme Court agreed. Game over...have a nice day.
    
    I'll be honest...I know that you're European. If you like the way your own country is run, that's great...keep on doing what you're doing. Leave us alone. Quite frankly, it's none of your goddamn business...it doesn't affect you in any way. I don't mean to seem hostlile, but half this country doesn't want to become Europe...let alone Cuba.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    2
    
    2
    - dom180
      
      11 years ago
      
      I care about my fellow man. I don't care if they're European or American or Asian or African or from anywhere in the world, I will get involved in debate if I think it's helpful to my fellow man. For someone who presumably values First Amendment rights, you seem awfully keen to shut me up :P Just as you have a right to comment about politics in my country (whether you choose to exercise that right or not) I have a right to comment about politics in your country (whether you like it or not).
      
      I'm just trying to debate people. Why does it matter if it has an impact on me or not, and why does it matter what country I'm in? I have a view on gun control. The OP never specified if had to be specific to the United States ;P
      
      You might not want my input into debate, but some people clearly do or else they wouldn't debate with me. I fail to see how me debating is ever going to change your country. If the people in America dislike my ideas they will not happen, so you have nothing to fear.
      
      I'll presume your comment about secession was a typo, because the Supreme Court absolutely does *not* grant states the right to unilateral secession from the Union.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - wigsplitz
        
        11 years ago
        
        "whereas guns are anything but essential to economic development."
        
        They may not be "essential" in a broad sense but there are people, a LOT of people, who work in manufacturing, sales, ect who would be out of work if guns were banned. Remington Arms is close to where I live and they have been in the news a lot speaking on gun bans, the effect of them shutting down would be detrimental to many people. The ripple effect of these people losing their livelihood is enormous. There's a LOT of people who depend on hunting for meat. You might not realize this but lots of people would literally starve or be in really bad shape without being able to hunt. It's not just a hobby for many, it's life or death.
        
        Not that that's even a valid argument for or against guns themselves Constitutionally but it's still a concern related to the topic.
        
        You're also not American and you don't know what it's like to live here where guns are an actual NEED of many. Our country is HUGE and many parts of it are still very wild! People in remote areas need to have firearms for protection and hunting. You guys in the UK don't have the same threats we have. You don't have the same needs we have. You guys don't have rabies, you don't have bears, you don't have large game, you don't have as many farms, you don't have a lot of what we have. Many people here don't live where police/rescue can reach you in a reasonable time frame.
        
        But, we're not allowed guns so that we can hunt or protect ourselves from dangerous wildlife...we're allowed them to secure our freedom.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        3
        
        3
        
        -
        
        dom180
        
        11 years ago
        
        I don't think the risk of unemployment is a good reason to avoid doing something. The unemployment caused by gun control laws would only be a single-generation problem, as the next generation would stop developing those skills and instead develop other skills.
        
        The hunting argument is one I won't get into, because I'm a vegetarian and I don't believe in people having a moral right to hunt animals in the first place. Although if I did believe in the moral right to hunt, I wouldn't be able to argue against your point.
        
        Okay then, let's control guns in cities only. That's where I would guess most gun crime happens anyway. I'm not necessarily advocating federal gun control laws, but how about state gun control laws? How about people who need guns in rural areas to protect against dangerous wildlife are allowed them, but people who live in densely cities who aren't at risk from wildlife do not?
        
        I don't think guns are necessary to freedom at all. I think it's pure paranoia that makes people think a tyrannical government is going to take over America, and I think it's ridiculous that people think having guns could stop that happening when your government has one of the largest militaries in the world at its disposal. I think the air of paranoia regarding the threat of a tyrannical government is what makes so many anti-gun control advocates seem so annoying to me, because it's very frustrating arguing with conspiracy theorists.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        See More Comments =>
      - [Old Memory]
        
        11 years ago
        
        I value 1st Amendment Rights well beyond your capacity. My own parents, to whom I owe my very life, and respect beyond your wildest dreams, disagree with me on most political views. I would risk my own life to defend the right of any citizen who disagrees with me..as I would any of the other 26 Amendments. Life's value is absolutely dependent upon freedom, and when people sacrifice freedom for safety, they deserve neither.
        
        I presume you're happy with they way your own country's run? Great! Revel in it and live there happily! Personally, the idea of sacrificing individual rights for the sake of the collective doesn't appeal to me, nor did it appeal to the founders of this country, for whom you must hold a particular distane. I don't care..and neither should you, since you don't live here.
        
        If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile? Your time would be better spent, saving MANY more lives, and attacking a tool that isn't protected by Civil Liberties.
        
        If you're going to make condescending, nitpicking remarks about spelling or typos, this conversation ends.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        2
        
        2
        
        -
        
        dom180
        
        11 years ago
        
        "nor did it appeal to the founders of this country". I don't believe the founders of a country should have any bearing on how it is run *now*, in the present. The past is that past, let it die and start considering new ideas objectively.
        
        "neither should you, since you don't live here". I will decide what I care about, thank you. Refer to my two sentences of my first reply to you.
        
        "If you care about saving the lives of your fellow Man, why don't you lobby to ban the automobile?" Cars also make millions of lives easier. Cars aren't designed to kill, they have a greater purpose; guns are designed to kill. Cars would be much, much, much harder to ban than guns because cars are (at the moment) essential to economic development, whereas guns are anything but essential to economic development.
        
        It was hardly condescending or nitpicking - your comment was unclear. It was hardly a simple spelling mistake when you substitute a whole other word in. I didn't start this (unnecessarily hostile) conversation with you, and I don't really care if you want to end it.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
  - dom180
    
    11 years ago
    
    Thumbed down for facts.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - [Old Memory]
      
      11 years ago
      
      "Facts" that you can find anywhere on the internet.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
      - dom180
        
        11 years ago
        
        "Facts" which are important, and which are too often overlooked no matter what you might think.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      I thumbed you up.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      -1
      
      -1
      - dom180
        
        11 years ago
        
        Dear God, I must have been thumbed down twice then :P Oh well, thank you. I guess I should stop putting so much stock in thumbs...
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
kingofcarrotflowers

11 years ago

I was shocked at how many gun deaths had happened in America since the recent school shooting. As someone not from America it's easy for me to say that the American gun law's should be much stricter but sometimes I forget just how ingrained gun ownership is into American society. It's a hard one.

Comment Hidden ( show )

2

2
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  I really do not think guns are the issue in those cases. As many of the children who go off in schools are children who were bullied. I really do not blame them for what they do. Children are cruel. Why did the child kill anyone at all? Did you ever stop to think why they did this at all? Maybe they had a legitimate reason. Children are sent to school and assumed they will be safe. Should ignoring a child being beaten and abused be permitted? You really think you can blame this all on guns? Even without those guns these children are still being abused. Yes I did look into these cases. It means schools are not disciplining the children. When children are not disciplined they go wild. All you people ever focus on is weapons. Every killer has a motive. These are not just a bunch of idiot children playing with guns. These are all planned out mass murders.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  None of you see the big picture. You assume everyone is going to be nice and dandy since they do not have any weapons. House wives still kill with knives. The fact is anything can be used as a weapon. So saying "They died since that kid had a gun" is a terrible argument. Why do you think the child killed? This was a plot in many of those cases. Now some idiot kid playing with a pistol and shoots his eye would be a great argument. Since that child should never have a gun. I do not believe in gun control not for the sake of guns. Just the fact it takes away peoples responsibilities. People blame everything on that. Maybe the school had that shooting coming. Every case it is kid who was beaten, laughed at, humiliated, picked on every day. Maybe the schools should protect the children apposed to letting them run around and beat each others like worthless little monsters. Maybe the school should pay attention. School should not be a jungle it should be a learning facility. Yet in many schools it is not.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - kingofcarrotflowers
    
    11 years ago
    
    I agree that children can be mean and I think there is a lack of care and attention for these bullied and miserable children that you speak of that needs to be improved. that might just be the tiny start of fixing this problem. However. How can you say that because of 1 individuals problems its okay for many innocent children to die? Many of which would have had nothing to do with the individuals problem anyway. Lets not forget the poor families of these children too. friends, and the community Did they also have it coming? the fact that you said that maby the school had the shooting coming makes me wonder if you are a troll and I'm just stupid for getting angry and biting
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    3
    
    3
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      You think anyone actually paid enough attention for them not to hate themselves and the world? No they probobly ignored it or laughed. With the group mentality. They fallowed the crowd. You think every kid in the world is going to say "Hey leave them alone!" You really do not understand how most children work. Children will sacrifice morals to look good. Even if it means someone is being eaten by wolves. You think they care? If someone is being beaten in the middle of the room you think they will stop it? They will either walk away, watch or pretend nothing is going on.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      Also do you think if the children were raised better they are going to let this happen? If the school stopped them from bullying someone to the piont they want to kill? So are you going to say killing in self defense need to be taken away? How about if someone was being raped everyday of his life and killed the people doing it is he bad? The child that was beaten everyday and he could do nothing so he killed them and took his own life. Is he bad? If this kid was beaten and ignored and ridiculed by everyone, mistreated and ignored. Do you think they want to live anymore? When they are forced to go back everyday to be beaten, hurt, laughed at? You think anyone wants that? You think anyone deserves that?
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      How is any part of this funny? You think the kids who shot up the schools are trolls? How about those cases of pedophile teachers? Have you looked into any of those? You really assume that a teacher can not abuse the job they are given? If a kid asks for help and is ignored you think it will not escalate? Children can not govern themselves. This happens when you ignore the issues.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - kingofcarrotflowers
        
        11 years ago
        
        Did i laugh at any point? Did I call them trolls? bad troll is bad. Try harder
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
  - kingofcarrotflowers
    
    11 years ago
    
    Despite what you think about "people like me" whatever that means I don't think guns are the cause of all this violence. Believe me I have studied enough to know that there will always be violence and your right if there were no guns people will turn to as the example you used knives. However guns are capable of so much more than knives. If every shooter America has know was carrying a knive there would be less fatalaties (but still too many). So like you are saying it is a problem far beyond guns, BUT. Guns are still Allowing people to cause more death
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    1
    
    1
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      I really do not want to live in a world you want to. I prefer not being stabbed everyday. That is a freighting world you must live in. Where everyone carries knives around ready to stab.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - kingofcarrotflowers
        
        11 years ago
        
        Your argument started off as a valid point on a hard and important issue. In my opinion it has lost all logic and reasoning or chance of a discussion of opinions.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        -
        
        Anonymous Post Author
        
        11 years ago
        
        Yes sorry I went way off topic. I am not really even talking about guns anymore. My point was simply that if you want to begin to say how to fix schools you can not just blame incident that should have never happened. If you really want to discuss fixing it you have to look at everything not that one little thing. Since that is not the key issues here. Since many things must operate together to run a school. Since these things would not happen if the kids were being supervised. It is like saying we must take away homework or the children will destroy us. You say guns need to be done?
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        See More Comments =>
don't/haunt/this/place

11 years ago

It said someone replied to my comments but now its not even here wtf?

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- LizardSkin
  
  11 years ago
  
  Same here, but I don't blame people being afraid to debate me on this subject.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
NeuroNeptunian

11 years ago

I'm not opposed to gun control. Outright banning guns? No. Of course we need regulation, in fact, California's regulations are fairly stringent and I don't quite see the issue with them. People who have been convicted of a violent crime have already proven their lack of respect for the safety of others, they shouldn't be sold a gun. I believe that when you infringe upon the rights of others, you effectively become untrustworthy.

However, I have mixed feelings regarding full-auto weapons so I'll just hold back on this part. I don't agree with the way gun control legislation is being handled and I don't agree with the "you don't NEED it so it should be illegal" argument, nor do I take the "well you people (presuming that everyone that disagrees with gun bans/the Democrats version of gun control is a staunch, Conservative Christian Republican) want to regulate vaginas but you don't approve of regulating guns?" argument very seriously when I see it.

I'm interested in seeing where this legislation will go and until I've done my research and heard what they're proposing, I'll sit down for now so as not to talk out my ass. If we can't ensure a rational law protecting our safety that doesn't blatantly trample our rights at the same time, I can't support it.

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- wigsplitz
  
  11 years ago
  
  Full-auto weapons aren't really legal, they were banned a while ago. Very few people have them, you need a mega-license from the ATF and it has to have been manufactured and properly registered/transfered prior to the ban.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  2
  
  2
Theadage

11 years ago

I am fine with people having handguns for protection and all, but what would someone need a machine gun for?

I think some military grade guns need to get regulatedI don't understand what use they would be to civilians unless you're planning a massacre. You can't hunt with them, and it's going overboard for protection.

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  You make a good point.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
- wigsplitz
  
  11 years ago
  
  We aren't given the Constitutional right to hunt, we are given the right to defend against a tyrannical government. But fully automatic weapons ARE banned already anyway.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
  - Theadage
    
    11 years ago
    
    I'd be pretty surprised if the creators of the constitution had to acknowledge something that helped develop the nation. (hunting) It's just that perennial.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    1
    
    1
  - Theadage
    
    11 years ago
    
    They're not banned, they're highly regulated. Civilians can still purchase fully automatic weapons.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    1
    
    1
    - wigsplitz
      
      11 years ago
      
      They were "banned" in 1986, so they have to have been made before then (and have the proper paper trail) in order to be sold/possessed by a civilian.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
      - Theadage
        
        11 years ago
        
        Yes, the point is that they are still circulating, and are allowed to be purchased.
        
        Also, military style Semi-Automatic weapons regulation ran out on 2004. Meaning people can purchase high-capacity magazine guns.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        -
        
        wigsplitz
        
        11 years ago
        
        The capacity of magazines you're allowed to have varies by state. My state just passed law to restrict it to 7 rounds, previously it was 10, however you could have larger magazines if they were made before 1994.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        See More Comments =>
dan_sas

11 years ago

Really, I love guns but the society isn´t prepared to deal with it so I don´t say it

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
dom180

11 years ago

I think America already has gun control, and therefore the debate should be "where should the line be drawn?" not "should we draw a line?". Most people who are against having new gun laws now seem to be against all gun control as a concept, which I think is an opinion nobody could possibly defend.

I think extensive gun control is the right idea, but I think it needs to be implemented in a way which is practical.

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- wigsplitz
  
  11 years ago
  
  It IS extensively controlled, the problem isn't legal gun owners, it's criminals. Criminals don't care about gun laws.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
  - dom180
    
    11 years ago
    
    Criminals don't care about any laws at all. So, by your logic, why even have laws?
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - wigsplitz
      
      11 years ago
      
      Don't be silly. Hopefully the laws deter crime but in the event that they don't, it's so that we have recourse.
      
      I just find it incredibly stupid to attack legal gun owners when they're not the problem. MORE gun laws is not the answer. I'd rather see action in other areas such as improving our mental health care "system" (which doesn't really even exist) and addressing social issues. I think it's a "people" problem, not a gun problem. Why are people turning to crime and violence? Can we help them? I'm sure we can. Creating more gun laws does not help these people with whatever struggles they are having.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      2
      
      2
      - dom180
        
        11 years ago
        
        I agree we shouldn't *just* focus on weapons. I just think that weapons are something else that would obviously reduce crime if there were less of them. Less instruments of crime = less crime, less instruments of death = less death. It is a people problem, but giving the people more powerful weapons is just going to multiply the impact. I'm not "blaming guns" for crime and I don't think anyone is - people who say pro-control people are doing that are just creating a straw man argument. What I am saying is that guns make those crimes worse. You can kill far more people with a gun than a knife. Guns don't cause crime, but they make crime much easier and much more destructive.
        
        Anyway, once crime is reduced by those measures, what then? Then we don't even need guns to protect ourselves from crime, so we might as well get rid of them.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        -
        
        dom180
        
        11 years ago
        
        I'm not even necessarily attacking legal gun owners. Maybe law-makers need to think outside the box and generate a new type of law which minimizes the damage to the liberties of legal gun owners. People seem to hear the words "gun control" and think "blanket banning certain types of guns from everyone in society", when that just is not the necessarily case. Although, as I value life more than liberty (at least on a wider society level), I think if they can't generate such a law the liberties of legal gun owners are a necessary sacrifice (but as this is entirely hypothetical that is besides the point).
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
  - Anonymous Post Author
    
    11 years ago
    
    Saying that means gun laws are pointless. Since criminals do whatever they please.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - wigsplitz
      
      11 years ago
      
      I don't think that all gun laws are pointless, many serve great purpose. However, we have so many already. The response to a tragedy shouldn't be MORE gun laws at this point (especially if the perpetrator was not a legal gun owner!!). I think we should be looking harder at improving mental health care and exploring other avenues in caring for our citizens rather than more gun laws.
      
      Shit happens. It's a small price to pay for having free gun ownership. Nothing is ever perfect, there will always be a small number of people who will break the law and use weapons for bad purposes.
      
      Most criminal gun violence is not "random", either. The average person shouldn't be in fear of being "randomly" killed/maimed by an armed criminal. It's often criminal vs criminal. Not that that's not a concern but it's a dimension that needs to be recognized when discussing gun violence. It's about risk. The average person's risk of being a victim of gun violence is astonishingly low. The probability of a legal gun owner being the perpetrator of random, unjustified gun violence is also astonishingly low.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
      - Anonymous Post Author
        
        11 years ago
        
        Well that is not always true. Some criminals will still rob Innocent people for things like money, shoes and so on. Though a lot of those do not evolve weapons but multiple people ganging up on one person and jumping them.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        -
        
        wigsplitz
        
        11 years ago
        
        Of course, and I said 'MOST'...most gun violence isn't "completely" random.
        
        Look into the circumstances of any gun homicide or attack, it's generally not "random". There is generally a connection. People don't typically go around shooting people they have absolutely no connection to. People who engage in criminal activity have a higher chance of being involved in a crime involving a gun.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
        
        See More Comments =>
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  I do not think till maybe till recent years as it says "Right to bare arms".
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
dinz

11 years ago

Obviously the United States is one of the safest countries in the world with it's stance on gun control. Look at the rest of the West with all of those gun control laws and see how criminals rampage through communities causing havoc and stirring fear in the minds of these poor people.

*Observes a pig flying over the horizontal*

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- LizardSkin
  
  11 years ago
  
  Switzerland has the lowest crime rate per capita in Europe and the Swiss government encourages gun ownership.
  
  Guess who has the highest violent crime rate in Europe? The UK.
  
  80% of gun violence in America is a result of gang bangers.
  
  Should learn something before you speak.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  3
  
  3
frakenchoots

11 years ago

we'll always have mass shootings until we all mutually agree to give them up like they did in Australia. Then again when the wold ends its us agains the gvt.

Comment Hidden ( show )

-1

-1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  You act like the whole world is going to agree? Not unless we have a mass dictatorship. You can not go under the assumption everyone agrees with you. Since that will never happen!
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - frakenchoots
    
    11 years ago
    
    no im talking about mass realization.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      Even if that were true this is not going to happen. Fact is we can never get along. Now I am not saying all races and minority groups should start lynching each other but we will always be divided. I do however believe we should respect each other enough to not try and murder each other on such little differences.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
TecaT.

11 years ago

I can't believe how the USA allows every deranged and normal man to carry a gun. Seriously, ban it everywhere.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  Yes but only letting deranged men carry it does not seem very safe to everyone else does it?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
[Old Memory]

11 years ago

The dangerous people are the ones who steal guns from the homes of those who have them for their safety and use them on them and others.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  11 years ago
  
  I do not think that is where they are all really getting them?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - [Old Memory]
    
    11 years ago
    
    not all, many
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      11 years ago
      
      So any criminal with a gun stole it from a responsible owner?
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - [Old Memory]
        
        11 years ago
        
        That's my observation yet not all of them I'm sure
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1

Are You Normal?

What is your opinion on gun control?