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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
What is your opinion on gun control?
← View full post
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.
--
wigsplitz
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It IS extensively controlled, the problem isn't legal gun owners, it's criminals. Criminals don't care about gun laws.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Criminals don't care about any laws at all. So, by your logic, why even have laws?
--
wigsplitz
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
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.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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).
Saying that means gun laws are pointless. Since criminals do whatever they please.
--
wigsplitz
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
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.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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.
--
wigsplitz
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
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.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes.
I do not think till maybe till recent years as it says "Right to bare arms".