Gun control?

Question

what do you think about gun control?

do you believe that restricting the ownership of guns has any impact on the safety of our lives or would it just lead to other forms of violence.?

Answer 1

I think more gun control would reduce crime of passion murders. A person has more chance to get away from a knife or a baseball bat during a heated argument or bar fight than they can a gun. Also, it is known that just possessing a firearm intended for home defense causes a person to consider more violent means of solving problems than otherwise. I personally know a couple people with concealed carry that make sure you know they are packing, so you will be intimidated. On the other hand, I know some people who are frightened by crime news on the TV and have concealed carry to feel safe. One of those ladies has depression, and I worry that she's far more likely to kill herself with the gun than any burgler breaking into her 1965 mobile home that contains little of value. Rational or no, she's afraid. So the ready availability of guns for home defense can lead to more crime of passion murders and more suicides (most other suicide attempts fail) but on the other hand, some people really ARE being stalked, or really do live in a dangerous neighborhood. I'm a rural person, I keep a .22 around to get woodchucks and the like, don't keep it for home defense. But we really are in the middle of nowhere, if i were a nervous person, maybe I would.

I think if we severely restrict gun ownership and it doesn't work, we will never get our gun rights back again. For me, the issue is near and dear, because I go hunting, and I have bipolar disorder (a severe form of mental illness - a kind of depression). In some states, I would not be allowed to have a gun, even though folks such as Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill also had severe mental illness. The gun control people go after people with mental illnesses first because we are not good advocates for ourselves & society fears us as a group, even though there are no more violent people among folks with mental illness than among the population in general. Banning guns from men would be statistically more effective than banning people with various mental illnesses from having a gun. But anyway, I can see that it's folks like me who will lose our rights first. Nazi Germany tested their gas chambers on the mentally ill first, because nobody cared about them, and the US will restrict gun rights in that population first, because nobody cares.

I think this issue is VERY complicated, and the outcome of restricting guns is unclear. I think it could create a large population of "patriots" who will keep their gun rights thru violence if necessary. And Americans in general don't like to be told what to do.

Those were a few rambling ideas I don't often see mentioned regarding gun control. I don't know if it would help or not, but in general, I am NOT in favor of further restricting guns. In fact, I think most people who lost their gun rights due to a psychiatric commitment should get them back again if their doc says ok after a couple years. Most people who get committed are totally non violent and don't do scary things like the people we hear about in the news who stalk people or torture animals and then go off and kill a bunch of people. I bet some of those VA Tech students and faculty who were killed or injured had mental illnesses themselves. But you never hear about it when the victims or the good guys have that problem. Further restricting the rights of mental patients is a back door effort to increase gun control, in my opinion. In general, for ANYONE, it would be just awful to be stalked by someone and you can't buy a handgun. That's a case where I probably would own one.

Answer 2

It is the personal belief of mine that gun control does not and will not every work. Now, although the gun ban info you have is quite intriguing it does not mean it is true. I am spending alot of my time to verify all that you said to further my argument that gun control does not work. What I can say that a victim that fires back LIVES LONGER. That is the truth because that person ahas something to defend themeselves with. If the people in all the countries listed were to have had guns and the government still tried to kill them they would ahve been met with armed resistance and a there would eb a much smaller body count. I dont want to venture far from topic but when the colonists fought for the freedom of the colonies to give us America there was the Minutemen (Militia) and the Military. The militia was almost entirely armed with Kentucky Long Rifles while the military was armed with smooth bore muskets. The long rifle was rifled which made the bullet go straiter and it went farther. When our forefathers wrote the Bill of Rights it was their intent to make sure that that always stayed the same that the US citizens had equal footing with that of a government controled miltiary incase the US government became corrupt the citizens could fight back.

Answer 3

The bad guys prefer unarmed victims!!.
When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option.

Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!
**Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.**

Answer 4

It's common knowledge that DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US. Yet it is historically one of the top cities for gun crimes and for homicide by guns.

Consider that most murders are committed by people using shotguns and revolvers (six shot revolvers were number one the last time I checked a few years back). In spite of this gun control advocates always target "assault rifles".

Far fewer murders are committed where gun control is least prevalent, yet gun control advocates still persist.

Given the irrefutable evidence and statistics worldwide, not just here in the US, gun control advocates persist. While I believe some are well intentioned but misguided, I am still left to wonder why they persist when the goals they claim to have are so clearly not going to be met even if they were successful.

A brief perusal of government stats shows that physicians kill far more people every year than guns do.

I think it should concern people when any rights are being threatened. It is not a stretch to see that the loss of one right will easily be followed by others.

Answer 5

I would live to see what the murder rates were before we had guns. I bet more people per capita were slashed and stabbed than have ever been shot in the US. Liberals like to blame the object, not the person. Some places with very strict gun control laws, like Mexico, have very high murder rates. While countries with very high gun ownership, like Finland, have extremely low murder rates. The problem is the person behind the firearm- or knife, club, whatever. Some ethnic groups and nations are simply more violent than others.

Answer 6

I believe that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the common citizen had the means to overthrow the government should the need arise. The tool that the government will use is the military, which is far better equipped than any civilian militia.

Based upon that argument, one can ask if there should be ANY restrictions at all, including helicopters, heavy artillery, and assault rifles. A handgun won't do much good against a bombing run.

That said, no, gun control legislation won't eliminate gun crime. But it will make it tougher to commit.

Yes, a lot of objects can kill people, so we shouldn't ban or restrict all of them. But a car is intended to transport; a gun is intended to kill. That's the difference many people are missing.

Answer 7

Gun control is just more laws. How many criminals are going to obey laws.

To ferret in Australia: You live in a much different culture than we do. Also your numbers are slightly off. In 2004, the last with available stats, just under 13,000 unintentional deaths were caused by people with guns. Incidentally, about the same number of people were killed by drunk drivers.

Aztrain: Guns are not soley intended to kill. I shoot one type of gun or another about once a month at least, and most of the time I am not intending to kill anything.

Answer 8

I think that when the ownership of guns is restricted, it will only lead to other forms of violence. If the government does away with the 2nd amendment, those who break the law will find other ways to do harm to people.(knives, bows, or whatever they can get their hands on). I own a rifle and the government will not take my rifle away from me. I belive in the 2nd amendment, and don't believe the government has the right to do away with it.

Answer 9

Sure, it creates safe zones for criminals. It violates the U.S. Constitution which leads to other violations that make's the government dangerous. In the last century more than 170 MILLION people were exterminated BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT! In each gun control was a major factor.

Gun Control = People Control

And to answer aztrain23 above.

Our military can't even control a few thousand insergents in Iraq. How in the world would they control 80 MILLION gun owners in the USA? The second amendment is more needed today than in anytime in history.

Answer 10

in the UK there are no guns but lots of stabbing deaths each year.

It's some people's nature to kill and they are not going to stop just becuase there are no guns if that was the case there would be no murders prior to the invention of guns.

Where there is a will there is a way.

I will say that when I am staying at my place in the states if someone breaks in they will be met with the business end of one of my guns, I dont have this luxury at my place in the UK