What should be the future of gun control laws in America?

Question

After yesterdays school massacre what do Americans think there should be stricter gun control laws. I know that there have been many incidents like this in the US and that working class black areas have long been plagued by gun crime. I know that in the US people see it as their constitutional right to bear arms but this was written in the 1700's and technology has made weapons much more deadly since then. Where I live in Ireland there are problems with gun crime but on nowhere near the same scale as in the US. There is a lot of violent crime involving knives and other weapons here and I know for a fact that if people here had easier access to guns that crime would instantly rocket as criminals would have access to more deadly force. What price are Americans prepared to pay for their right to bear arms as I am aware that at the time of the Vietnam war that more Americans died from guncrime at home than died in Vietnam.

Answer 1

The Second Amendment is the most retarded piece of literature ever vomited onto paper. Short-sighted, short-sighted, short-sighted.
Handguns need to be restricted. Automatic weapons need to be prohibited. Mandatory firearms safety training every 5 years. Mandatory firearms registration... ALL firearms. Maximum clip size for semi auto's need to be set. Background search on all would-be firearm owners.
The NRA dinks can have their guns, but they should have to jump through a hell of a lot of hoops to have them.

Answer 2

Both sides can use the recent VA massacre to further their argument. The pro-gun people can say, "If the laws weren't so strict then somebody could have shot the guy before he killed so many people." The anti-gun people will argue in favor of banning all guns. Personally, I would never be in favor of giving up my right to own and carry a gun. The laws only hurt law abiding citizens, criminals don't care what the law is. It can be argued further, so many guns are produced and so many are already out there unaccounted for, I don't see any easy answer to the gun problem in the USA. One thing that can be done immediately is to stop the drug war and focus more on the illegal gun trade. One argument would be to limit or ban the manufacture of new guns, this would drive up the price of existing guns and put the poor at a disadvantage, they have an equal right to defend themselves. One thing to consider, it is ultimately the duty of the people to defend ourselves, take the 9/11 terrorist attacks for example, all the money, intelligence, miltary, police, air marshalls, etc. in the world couldn't stop a few guys with razor blades, in the end it was the citizens who defended themselves, armed with nothing more than information, and brought down the plane in Pennsylvania and saved who knows how many lives. But then one could argue if the terrorists were allowed to bring guns on board then nobody would've been able to stop them. I really don't know then answer, except to say I would never want to give up my guns, ever, because it is a dangerous world we live in and I feel much safer being armed.

Answer 3

Reading comments from the answers here, I got looking around the Internet and came upon this discussion that took place in 2002 after a similar shooting incident in Australia. The comments made then are still valid now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2352855.stm

Stricter gun control won't solve all of our problems, but it will help change the culture of the US for the better. We need to stop seeing the world in black and white, right and wrong, dead or alive. "Might makes right" is an unsupportable philosophy for a civilized society, yet one which many Americans (including the current President) seem to view as our perfectly natural destiny. The discussion gets interesting when you say: "Without guns, how will you protect yourself?" That's when you start getting answers like "Improve education, reduce poverty, treat drug use as a medical problem, etc." In other words, you get answers which address the roots of problems and lead to a more equitable, progressive society. This is clearly preferable to barbaric, ultimately suicidal solution of "kill the bad guys".
Adam Reed, US

While I've read some interesting arguments on both sides, I can't help feeling that if someone broke into my house and I went for my gun there's a good chance someone would end up dead and it would not necessarily be the burglar. I think I would rather just let them take my stuff, life's are more important than belongings.
Dominic Smith, Reading, England

Okay, this is for all the folks that don't have a clue. In 1997 there were 32,436 people killed by guns in the US. This figure is .0125 of 1% of the population. Now, of these 32,436 people shot, 33% were accidental. Which means 10,703.8 people were accidentally killed by firearms in the US. This figure is approximately .0038 of 1% of the population. (out of 280m people). Now, in 1992 drunk driving in this country killed a little over 100,000 people. Lung cancer in 1992 directly linked to cigarettes killed 400,000 people in the US. All loss of life is regrettable, but for anyone to recommend that guns are the biggest threat to society is nothing short of being incorrect. It is quite obvious that lifestyle choices kill more folks than guns do, by far.
D., USA

Answer 4

Too many people with too many guns, you will never disarm this nation.
In other countries where gun ownership is illegal the murder rate is almost zero.
In Japan the crime rate is so low, I spent time their and could not believe all of the bicycles and items of value that are left unattended, they would ALL be goen if it were here in the US.
Integrity and honor are still considered ones most valuble possesions in some cultures.

Just a side note, how many have ever had or witnessed an argument where things are said and it escalates out of control?
Everone of us, now put handguns into the equation, that is the main reason gun possesion is a BAD idea. A high percentage of murdurs are commited by people that know the victim.
Much harder to kill 32 people with a knife or club.

Answer 5

Sean D what you need to realize is that in Ireland the amount of gun violence is dwarfed by the United States because the size and population of Ireland are also dwarfed by the United States. And if you look at statistics less than 99% of violent gun crimes are committed by lawfully licensed gun holders here in the states.Making broad based unfounded statements are not an argument against firearms possession.

Answer 6

Gun control causes crime, not the other way around. Gun control has never worked anywhere so why cite it as a solution?

I think it was a tragedy first and foremost and my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

The killer alone caused the crime, but the high number of victims is directly caused by gun control. The Virginia Tech killer never registered his gun, so why cite registration as a solution?

They were just sitting ducks with no way to defend themselves much like the victims of Colin Ferguson. Concealed-carry advocates warned us all long ago to expect tragedies like this as long as we have gun control.

When only criminals have guns the rest of us can only ponder tactics like "notifications."

In a state where concealed-carry is allowed or promoted, the loss of life could have been much less. He may have shot one or two, but a concealed-carrier would have dispatched him right quick.

Sadly there is no way to prevent a killer with a gun. In tribal Africa where there are no manufactured guns, tribesman make them from pipes and rubber-bands so clearly gun control is not the answer. You can make a gun out of wood in an hour! He could have stabbed just as many with a knife.

Since you will never stop the OFFENSE, we must allow ourselves a DEFENSE. We are not all of one culture anymore, so violence will only increase.

HB 1572 was a Virginia state bill to allow college students to carry arms on campus to protect themselves from tragedies like what happened at Virginia Tech. The bill was defeated

The spokesman for Virginia Tech was happy to hear the bill [HB 1572] was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

The fact is NOT passing the bill allowing students to defend themselves caused many more deaths. States that pass concealed-carry laws experience lower crime rates, Texas is a good example of this.

The only way to prevent these killing rampages is concealed-carry. Would you rather protect yourself or wait for the folly of police or school "notification?”

Answer 7

We needed the right to bear arms during the revolution. But now? Allow a person to buy a gun which should be registered. Caught with a non-registered gun? Go to jail for 5 years. No semi or fully automatic guns allowed.

Answer 8

...agree with John D and Ireland is on a island, smart one.

if the US was to come under attack, I wouldn't want to be without a modern weapon(aka a gun). Self defense.

You are comparing apples and grape fruit.

The US has more variables. Mixture of races, land mass and borders to protect, the list could go on and on. Fact.

Answer 9

I see how well gun control worked here. He broke two laws to get to that point. Think if we made 5 or 6 more laws it would have made any difference?

Answer 10

rigid enforcement of the laws we have on the books now....an extra 10-15 years added on to the sentence of any criminal that uses a gun when he does his crime...oh yeah...no parole either....lock their butts up...federal hard time for any crime with a gun.....after 5 years of this,if guns crimnes havent gone down by 40%,Ill endorse extra new laws

Answer 11

your facts are not corretc, and you just said it yourself, if your people had access to more violent means of killin yourselves, that there would be more killin?, what does that mean?, where do you stop it?, you cant legistrate morals, you cant stop wacko's, you cant fix stupid, so, the best thing is to let us protect ourselves, if there had been an armed person there to confront him, the body count would have been far lower, and out of respect, i should not engage in a debate such as this, I catch myself and stop..