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

Question

After yesterdays school massacre 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

Tight gun controls the most powerful weapon

Shrinking the nation's firearms arsenal has been a lifesaver, write Simon Chapman and Philip Alpers.

TEN years ago tomorrow at Port Arthur, Martin Bryant killed 20 innocents with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds in the Broad Arrow Cafe and an adjacent souvenir shop. This lone "pathetic social misfit" (the judge's words) was empowered to achieve his record final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by a type of gun openly sold by law-abiding firearm dealers as "assault weapons".
No more. Attitudes to firearms and gun laws changed almost overnight. After a decade of very public gun massacres - Queen and Hoddle streets in Melbourne and at Strathfield Plaza - people had overwhelmingly had enough of anyone with a grudge gaining easy, mostly legal access to weapons designed expressly to kill a lot of people in a very short time.

Just 12 days after the Port Arthur shootings, John Howard's first major act of leadership, and by far his most popular in his first year as Prime Minister, was to announce nationwide gun law reform.

The new laws specifically addressed mass shootings, banning rapid-fire rifles and shotguns. In the 1996-97 Australian firearms buyback, 643,726 of the newly prohibited guns were purchased by the Government from owners at market value, funded by a small surcharge on the Medicare levy. Tens of thousands of gun owners also voluntarily surrendered non-prohibited firearms without compensation. In all, more than 700,000 guns were removed from the community and destroyed. No other nation had ever attempted anything on this scale.

So, 10 years later, can we see a difference? Resoundingly, yes. The results are in: Australia's tightened gun controls have been followed by remarkable reductions in gun deaths.

In the decade up to and including the Port Arthur event, Australia experienced 11 mass shootings, which are defined as taking five or more victims. One hundred people were shot dead and another 52 wounded. In the 10 years since Port Arthur and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting has occurred in Australia. For this reason alone Australia is a safer place.

But for each Australian killed in a mass shooting in the past 17 years, 80 have died by gunshot in less high-profile events, many of them in family violence. It is here, in the day-to-day tragedy of firearms-related homicide and suicide, that Australia's new restrictions and, perhaps equally importantly, changing attitudes to guns and gun owners, can most plausibly claim to have had the most effect.

Even before Port Arthur, gun-related deaths - suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings - were declining slowly. But the rate of decline accelerated markedly after the tragedy. From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot, with an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997-2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331.

With firearm homicide - the gun deaths that attract the most attention - the downward trend has been even more dramatic. In the same two periods, the average annual number of gun homicides fell from 93 to 56. But it was the acceleration in the rate of this decline which proved most remarkable: it fell 70 times faster after the new gun laws, than before.

Have murderers simply switched methods? While the annual average number of all homicides has increased since June 1996, the rate per 100,000 people has fallen marginally, but can be described as steady. This suggests that partially removing a single type of weapon may not reduce a type of crime committed using many possible means. This could change if Howard moves to tighten controls over handguns, which he has flagged.

Guns have a very high lethality index (or, as it is sometimes indelicately put, a high completion rate) in both homicides and suicides. Had the gun law reforms not occurred, more Australians contemplating suicide - in particular, impulsive young people - might have more easily found a method of instantly ending their lives.

Reliable national data on suicide attempts is not available to examine whether suicide completion rates changed after Port Arthur.

By destroying one-fifth of this country's estimated stock of firearms - the equivalent figure in the US would be 40 million guns - Australians shrank significantly their private arsenal. In 2002-03, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the US.

Simon Chapman is professor of public health at the University of Sydney and author of Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control. Philip Alpers is adjunct associate professor of public health at the University of Sydney and editor of www.gunpolicy.org.

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

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 4

Whenever something like this happens it is very disturbing on many levels. As a result, people start looking for some kind of control to prevent it from happening again. Gun laws, stricter security, special alarm systems etc. will be all suggested. But the truth remains that nothing can stop a nut from killing a lot of other people. (read the attachment)

This is very difficult for people who live normal lives as they go to work or school to accept. We are always looking for some way to head off disasters proactively. That is a good thing. However, if you really think about it the answer is right in front of you. West Virginia is a "right to carry State". Normal law abiding citizens can apply and after training receive a permit to carry a firearm on their person. Unfortunately, the law was written so as to allow certain institutions to prohibit people from carrying a weapon on their premises. This is the case with this school. The death toll would have been much less if any of the people present had his/her firearm with them so they could fight back.

Once again, outlawing guns only assured that the only armed person there was the outlaw.


.

Answer 5

The future should be that Schools cannot create "Gun Free Zones" like Virginia Tech, so that everyone is defenseless. The future should be that people actually use their right to bear arms and not wait for the swat team to come clean up their bodies. The future should be that we learn from all the past failures of Gun control. The future should be that not only the criminals have guns. If you outlaw guns, they will dissappear just as fast as all the illegal drugs did when they became illegal.

Answer 6

People kill people guns don't. Tighten the gun control so what i say it won't do much, many people already have guns. Then the people that can get the guns what if they go postal? There still will be shooting and killings from criminals and now "good" citizens that go off the deep end. Guns should stay, we have the right to bear arms, its in the consitution maybe amend that then ill give up guns.

Answer 7

You must understand that gun control laws helped to CONTIRBUTE to the body count.

Virginia Tech, like a lot of colleges in a misguided attempt to keep students safe, prohibits legally licensed firearms owners from carrying on campus. Had this not been the case and some staff member or student been armed, he or she could have ended this killing spree a lot sooner.

Guns are a reality.....you will never abolish weapons and in a free and open society with open borders guns will always be here. Also, let me point out, it's not that hard to manufacture weapons.

To those who would leave their security to a government or police, I say you are sheep waiting to be lead to the slaughter.

Answer 8

I don't really think stricter gun laws will really help. Those people who abide by the gun laws and have permits to carry generally aren't the ones involved in these types of violent crimes. Most of the crimes that you speak of are committed with illegal guns. Criminals don't have any regard for the law as it is, so why would they change their ways and start abiding by gun laws. Criminals obtain their guns illegally; that's the bottom line. The black market aids criminals in this. As a police officer, I don't believe that we will ever be able to get all of the illegal guns off of the streets. Period.

Answer 9

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 10

OK, Japan has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet so there's no gun crime ther, right?

TOKYO (AP) - The mayor of the southwestern Japanese city of Nagasaki was shot outside a train station on Tuesday as he campaigned for local elections. He was in critical condition, police said.

Mayor Iccho Ito was shot on a street near his office, just in front of Nagasaki train station, according to local police official Isao Teramoto.

A man with links to organized crime was quickly detained, according to Kyodo News agency. NHK footage from Nagasaki showed several officers escorting a man into a police car, and an ambulance leaving the scene.

It was the second shooting in recent years of a mayor of Nagasaki, which was destroyed by a U.S. atomic bomb in 1945 and whose leaders have actively campaigned against militarism.

In 1990, former Nagasaki mayor Hitoshi Motoshima was shot and seriously wounded in 1990 after saying Japan's emperor, beloved by rightists, bore some responsibility for World War II.

Rightists have frequently been linked to organized crime.

Answer 11

Black areas a plagued by high crime, period. Guns are not the cause, guns are merely a tool. The causes of the problems are societal in nature and not easily solved by simply restricting legal access to firearms. All that will do is create an armed criminal element and an unarmed, law-abiding populace without the ability to defend themselves.

I would much rather have to ability to fight fire with fire, rather than cower in fear, hoping that I'm not the next target.