Why is it when you point out facts about gun control......?

Question

People seem to plug their ears and go, "Blaah Blaah Blaah I still don't like guns." Is there any real reason why someone would have a problem with a responsible individual carrying a gun? Who wouldn't want a trained law abiding citizen carrying some heat next to you on the street? Most concealed carriers are retired cops or soldiers. Would they really increase the crime rate? If my next door neighbor is in trouble, I can be to her house, with a gun in hand in 1 min. The cops take 10-20 min. People who are FOR gun control, seem to be the most ignorant about guns or crime statistics or anything to do with the topic. And if you try to educate someone, they do exactly like I said, "....I still don't like guns." No reason needed. I wish people would educate themselves, and stop spewing ignorance.

www.nra.org Listen to Cam and Company 9-12 at night

Chi-guy. If you listen to what gun advocates are saying, we are pushing for tougher punishment on criminals, and allowing law abiding citizens to essentially supplement the police force. Who would you rather mug, someone you know can't carry a gun, or someone who might shoot you first?

Lets_get_dangerous...It is not an opinion if it is based on facts. The facts are, criminals will get guns. More restrictions only penalize the people who are going to obey the laws in the first place. All gun control does is give criminals an advantage.

Gomanyes526....Your point is ridiculous. Do you have any concept of a background check? That is what prevents criminals from getting guns. The #1 way guns are attained is from theft. Period. Crime rates were super low back 30 or 40 years ago when you could purchase a gun at the local hardware store. So law abiding citizens have a harder time getting guns than criminals.... maybe that has something to do with it.

Epublius76....."..I would have no trouble with it. But this isn't the case. Gun deaths aren't caused by 'well trained' people who have gotten their guns through legitimate sources."

You are entirely correct. So why do people insist on restricting their carry and ownership rights? Criminals don't follow any laws. Felons are currently not allowed to own a gun. So why would they give a crap if you make a law that says they can't carry one in county buildings? If they are going to break the law, they will break the law. Gun control is misguided and off target. Punish the criminals, not the people who get a permit to carry a gun and protect their lives!

About your other questions...It has to do with the fact that gun shows are not where criminals get guns, they try to protect people's information. If you want to know better answers to those questions, hear it from the horses mouth. All you have to do is check nra.org and they will tell you why.

Lindsey G... you represent the liberal argument very well. Unfortunately it is based on nothing more than your emotion. I want to know who polluted your mind with the notion that the second a gun is placed in someone's hand they become an angry killing machine? Why should we trust police officers with guns when they could get mad at someone who didn't see their flashing lights and pull over right away? Maybe they would get angry and shoot the innocent driver? We should just give policemen pepper spray. They can't be trusted. After all, there is a thin line between cop and criminal right? Please, it would make things easier on you if you would just stick those fingers back in your ears...and keep repeating to yourself that guns are bad and you don't like them.

che-leo...you are getting my blood boiling. I can't believe you would say that physical safety is a job of the government. The Supreme Court has already said that police are NOT responsible for that.

"Why does the American who wants to own a gun get the right to possess one and live amongst other Americans who want them off the streets?"
Because it is in the damn constitution of the United States of America. It is the exact same reason you have the right to say whatever you want. You have the freedom of speech, and the right I have to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. You tout England as some model of safety, when crime actually skyrocketed after the handgun ban. Knife crime my butt, do you honestly think that criminals turned over their guns? Who was actually affected by the ban? Anyone who gave a hoot about the law in the first place. Great job England. You just disarmed anyone who actually obeys the laws. More is coming.

The exact same thing happened in Australia. Crime goes up when the criminals realize they have defenseless citizens. This is the point that no one seems to understand. More gun control is not going to stop crime. People who think guns are the problem are not truly looking at the facts. Being soft on crime is the problem, and taking away people's right to carry is the problem.

Spiderpig, you are right, there is no real reason for needing that many bullets all in one clip, but there is no real reason to not allow it. Magazine capacity has no affect on the amount of crimes committed. In fact, watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls4Uq1aCiTA

Kinda makes magazine capacity restriction seem pointless. That is really the issue. Sure extra bullets aren't needed, but it is pointless to restrict them. Give people the right to waste ammunition on the range if they want to.

First my belief is not indoctrinated. I corrected my indoctrination of being raised to fear guns. Is the 1st amendment out of date as well? Surely the founding fathers didn't want us criticizing our own American government. The protection of freedom of speech only was intended to allow the ridicule of the British government. It has been manipulated to mean that we can say whatever we want. How can you say that when the founding fathers penned the words, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." they didn't mean that power of government should truly lie within the hands of the citizen? John Adams said, "Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense ....
Whether defending against British invaders or a home invader, personal protection is our right. The principle of the 2nd Amendment stands.

Lindsey, do you honestly believe I would plug my ears if you had a valid point? I'm sorry if I came across as rude. I know that you don't want to see people get hurt, that is fine. Neither do I. But you have to listen to what is being said. Your argument is essentially that guns are what is causing violence. History has shown that not to be the case. Violence is independent of guns and most certainly gun control laws. Cops would most definitely still have guns even if no one else did, unless you think they would want to get into sword fights with people. And is stabbing someone to death a less violent crime? Step back, put biases aside, look objectively at the argument, and see which one makes the most sense. It might result in a shift in your thinking, but that can be a good thing.

Answer 1

Fair enough argument. If a majority of citizen who carry weapons follow the safety laws, and use the weapons only for self-defense, I don't see what the problem is.
Growing up in the north-east, I knew plenty of hunters in school who were responsible with the weapons they used for hunting.

Answer 2

I understand your question, but how does someone know if that person is a trained, law abiding citizen? Don't get me wrong, just playing the devils advocate here. I personally think everybody should bear arms (or is it arm bears?) Just kidding. I am all for guns. Back ground checks tell if you have any prior arrests, are a felon, etc. Being trained only means you are more lethal. How many people that are law abiding citizens have gone postal? How do you know when someone is going to go over the edge, or turn to a life of crime?
This is a topic that is going to be argued for years and years to come, with no side really making an argument that would satisfy either side.
Britain outlawed guns, and their crime rate went up. A town in Tennessee made it a law that anyone over 21 could carry a concealed weapon. Their crime rate dropped. Just using those statistics would tell people that guns are a deterrent. On the other hand, a couple of law abiding citizens go postal, there goes the argument.
See, people don't want to hear, "yeah, that was less than .05 of the population in that town or city that did that. The fact remains is that people died.
Stop trying to convince the people who are against guns, and stick to those that are for guns, like the NRA and fight to keep your rights to bear arms in tact.

Answer 3

There are already many laws in place but criminals still have guns. The Virginia Tech shooter should not have been able to get a gun. Heck to be honest he shouldn't even have been out of an institution for that matter. What's the point of more gun laws if they don't work? If a violent person wants to commit a crime they will find a way ... again the Virginia Tech shooter had a vivid imagination and wrote about using a chainsaw ... would that have been better? Do you think fewer people would have died? To the person saying guns are the number one killer of children No, car accidents are the number one killer.... so let's ban cars first.

Answer 4

You don't get the most essential point here.

This is a free country, to the extent that laws are supposed to guarantee the safety of all individuals. Physical safety is a task delegated to government, via federal institutions at the national level (the armed forces, intelligence services, etc.) and at the local level - your local police force.

Why does the American who wants to own a gun get the right to possess one and live amongst other Americans who want them off the streets? With the pathetic enforcement of existing regulations and the open availability of serious firepower and devastating types of ammunition, why has the solution become to arm oneself for self-protection? If we entitle the government to the job of securing the streets, where is the justification for escalating the circulation of firearms rather than a total ban?

Other countries, such as England, worry about "knife crime." Meanwhile, we have kids shot execution style in Newark, and a Pastor and his congregation shot to death. And that was just in the last week 1/2.

Give me a break. This violent culture has to stop. No one can guarantee or vouch for the responsibility of individuals that possess firearms. Certainly not the NRA, a lobby group representing gun manufacturers themselves.

Your blood is boiling because you can't tolerate any view that does not follow your indoctrinated belief that a Constitutional clause that mentions the training of armed citizens' militias to combat the Royalists and the British Crown of the 1700's has been manipulated to support private citizen gun ownership in the 21st century.

I can go on forever here. (1) Armed crime is not on the increase in Britain. The BBC confirmed that in its World News as of yesterday. (2) Australians never had the constitutional right to carry weapons. The possession of firearms was always restricted to groups that either (a) had occupational reasons (b) approved sporting clubs (c) collectors (d) hunters. All insinuations that crime increased after Australia's 1997 gun buy-back program are thus categorical lies.

Answer 5

If this scenario were really the case...

"Is there any real reason why someone would have a problem with a responsible individual carrying a gun? Who wouldn't want a trained law abiding citizen carrying some heat next to you on the street?"

...I would have no trouble with it. But this isn't the case. Gun deaths aren't caused by "well trained" people who have gotten their guns through legitimate sources.

Tell me why the NRA is opposed to mandating that gun owners show weapons competency (kind of like a driver's license)? Why does the NRA oppose ending the loopholes that allow private sales and sales at gun shows that receive NO background checks? Why is the NRA opposed to maintaining the records of people who purchase guns?

If the case were what you describe above, I would be all for it...but the NRA is championing positions that make sure this doesn't happen.

Answer 6

Oh I've noticed the people who are most vocal about gun control and can wedge themselves into news, generally have armed security all around them. Then wasn't there a Mayor of some city who advocated gun control "big time" but in fact was caught packing himself.
But your talking about the superstitious anti gunners who think that by just looking at a piece laying all by itself on a table they may be shot. They don't even want to be in the same house with a "gun".
They probably have been programmed since birth, no hope for them. They'll die ignorant.

Answer 7

I guess I am conservative on this point, I like the debate being in progress.
The mention of a "law abiding citizen carrying some heat" instantly reminded me of that off duty police officer that assaulted a bartender for refusing to serve him more alcohol.
I don't want guns taken away, for the same reasons the right was put in the constitution, and that's a worrisome concept.

Answer 8

BECAUSE....the point is you can not trust ANYONE with a gun. Whether they have a clean record or not. Anyone with a gun can shoot another person with it. Humans are unpredictable and can do unexpected things. Why should we trust people with a gun when they can kill someone with it at any time? Someone could be a perfectly good citizen/gun owner at one moment and then get so angry that they decide to use their weapon for violence the next. They could kill someone! What do you not understand...this is not about emotions. It is about trusting people with lethal weapons! Why should people be trusted with a weapon they could use to kill? If no one had guns we would not need our cops to have guns...people were ok before guns were invented and they will be okay without guns now. Seems you close your ears and say blah blah blah to anyone who disagrees with guns. Think about it! Yeah I am so ignorant...I mean I only want to stop violence and murders...but I guess I am stupid. It makes so much more sense to let people own guns than stop murders. Oh please!

Answer 9

In the state of Virginia there is only one place where it is illegal to carry a gun.
The campus of Virginia Tech, the site of the worst gun crime in US history.
Just to the North of Virgina is Washington DC where there is a total ban on ALL guns.
If you are a male between the ages of 10 and 25 you are 85 times more likely to be killed by a gun shot wound in DC then in Baghdad.
Should we pull out of Washington before we pull out of Iraq?

Answer 10

The Boston Globe and Boston mayor Mennino were trumpeting the fact that gun licenses have been reduced by 25% in the city of Boston. Apparently they think that licenses = ownership.

On the other hand, we're on track for a record number of murders this year in Boston. Funny how that works out.