Gun Control: Are you for or against ?

Question

and why ?

Answer 1

Little known fact, in every municipality that has enacted concealed carry permits, crime rates drop by a significant margin.
In Australia they strictly restricted gun ownership and confiscated many types of personal firearms. Crime rates have been growing exponentially.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
·Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
·Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
·Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
·In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
·In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
·There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly


Liberal motto - Ignore the facts and concentrate on their feelings

Answer 2

I don't fit into the for or the against column completely. I am more likely to take the position that guns kill far more often than they protect. At the same time, I believe that gun control legislation, as it exists today, doesn't work. I think it would be great if we had a gun safety education campaign that would work in the same way as some of the campaigns that have gradually turned us against smoking over the last 70 years.

Answer 3

Against it. Some answers talked about control of automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons have had strict laws since the gun control act of 1938 and even stricter manufacturing control after 1968. Anti gun types do their best to make you think that some self loading rifles are machine guns but it is a lie.

Others have stated that guns hurt more people than they help. That also is not true, at least according to the in depth work of prominent criminologist Professors Gary Kleck and John Lott. Their work is separate and independent but both show that law abiding citizens use guns far more often to stop crime than criminals use them to commit crime. Read their work. The best statistical minds that the anti gun crowd could hire have been unable to refute their findings.

You will just never hear about it in the anti gun media.

Answer 4

For gun control, against gun removal. People should be allowed to have guns, because aside from hunting and personal protection guns are the last safeguard citizens have against an oppressive out of control government. In the event that things really go to hell (if the libs think Bush is bad, multiply by 50) then we still have the ability to violently revolt.

Also, the old saying is true, if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns. :(

Answer 5

Against excessive control. Their sale should be regulated, but as we all know, most criminals don't buy their guns through any legal means, so any rules imposed upon society would not apply to them anyway. Those on the gun control kick will leave innocent people defenseless against the criminal element. They just don't think.

Criminals love gun control proponents. It will make their job so much easier.

Answer 6

I think the common perception of "gun control" is equivlaent to "gun ban" or "gun confiscation", and in that context, I would stand steadfastly against it to my last breath.

At the core, we all must realize the difference between a "right" and a "privelege". A "right" is something we are born with, and posess by the very nature of being born an American. Governemnts can recognize rights, such as ours does in our "Bill of Rights", but they do not GRANT rights, nor can they deprive us of them without due cause, (such as a conviction for a felony, as an example). A "privelege" is something one usually earns, but definitely is something one is granted by another, such as a driving privelege being granted by your state government.

Let's discuss a bit the concept of registration. Is registration "gun control"? A previous responder did not seem to believe so, but I do. First of all, driving is a priveledge, not a right, a privledge which one must earn and prove skills to keep. Gun ownership is a constitutionally recognized right we are born with. It is not "granted" by the government, just "recognized" by the government. Secondly, one can own as many cars as one wants, without registration, you just have to register them if you want to drive them on the government's created roads. You can drive them on your own property all you want without telling the government you own them.

If you think about it, if one of the reasons Americans have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear firearms is to defend themselves against threats from others, AND threats from a despotic government, then registration is a step toward confiscation. In theory, a government that is against guns could use the registration records of law abiding people as a list from which to work when they confiscate guns. Although this would be unconstitutional, the government could do it anyway, and keep the whole mess tied up in courts for years after the fact. Even when they ultimately lose at the Supreme Court, they will have successfully deprived millions of their rights.

Answer 7

Always better to control the gun instead of it controlling itself. I'm for people control.

Answer 8

Just a few days ago, I posted a question about why Americans were so adamant about their right to gun ownership. And I received overwhelming, genuine responses that explained well their feelings. And truly, it changed my attitude. I'm not 'pro' gun ownership, but I certainly understand it a whole lot better, and respect those who believe in their rights.

Having said that, I do believe that registration and proper paperwork MUST be carried out...just as you do with your cars.

Answer 9

Gun Control: Use of two hands when firing. Good idea.

Answer 10

Since gun control is being able to hit your target. I am for it all the way.