Should there be gun control or not?

Discuss.

Yes. Various people have various views as to how far guns should be controlled, but that's not really relevant to the question - I don't think anyone would argue that gun criminals, or children, or mentally ill people prone to hallucinations or violent tendencies should be allowed to buy, own or use guns.

NRA, the Tea Party, they would. They have. Because they are absolutely against any form of gun control. Now they could say they don't "want" that stuff to happen, but by being against such, they are saying "but we're okay with it!"

Anyway, yes. I'm for.

Good luck with that. Gun control would work about as well as drug control. No matter what you do, unstable people will still find a way to get a gun.

But God help someone who decides to take mine away. After 2 stalker exes (I pick winners-yay), I had to get one. The last guy was very dangerous, and while the police arrived before I got a shot off, it could have been worse. Five more minutes and I probably would have shot him. When the police arrived, he had already shattered a glass patio door and was breaking through my locked bedroom door. My little girl and mother were in there with me. And I had my gun ready. I'm not very strong, and I haven't had fight experience to know if I'd be quick enough in close combat with another weapon.

Nobody needs an Uzi. Just sayin'.

Here in Canada, we have a bit of a different perspective. And fewer gun nuts. People still commit crimes, but the damage is probably more limited than it might otherwise be if everyone was allowed to run around with a machine gun.

(I think most of the illegal weapons come from the U.S., so gun control is something that we tend to be concerned about. The more guns down there, the more will end up here.)

When people do not have guns available it saves a lot of impulse shootings, because people cannot shoot in an impulse of anger or frustration anymore. However, one might suppose this will only work in countries with not too much criminality and a proper level of protection for citizens on itself.

I think that there should be a moderate amount of gun control. There will always be illegal ways to get a hold of guns, so the citizens who follow the law should have some method of getting a gun legally to protect themselves against those who get them illegally. The average citizen won't need anything more powerful than a handgun or maybe a shotgun, so I think it is reasonable to outlaw automatic weapons, sniper rifles, silencers, etc. - basically anything that would only be useful if the attack is premeditated or the intent is to cause as much harm as possible.

I think that it is possible for a society which outlaws guns to function, but I think that one that allows guns (in a restricted manner) is safer. There seem to be two points at which gun crime is lowered - when guns are outlawed and when guns are only very moderately controlled. In the US, states that allow citizens to carry guns openly tend to be safer for their law-abiding citizens, as criminals have to be more cautious.

Do you have statistics on that? I find it a little hard to believe. A lot of gun criminals are not in a state of mind to be making rational decisions. I'm not sure they're going to say to themselves, "Well, my next-door neighbour might have a gun, so I'd better not have a psychotic episode and shoot half my apartment complex."

I have a very personal attitude about this issue because I own several historic weapons. My prize is a 1911 Colt .45 that was awarded to my grandfather because he was the best shot in the country in 1944, during World War II.

I care for it properly and shoot it regularly. I would hate to lose it because it is a part of my history, and this country's history.

If the law could somehow grandfather in the historic weapons?

I am for gun control, yes. My biggest issues with the gun control laws in the US are that they are established at the State level and fluctuate wildly. I am in favor of a uniform Federal law governing the sale, distribution and use of firearms that would be enforced at State level.

It is unrealistic to think that banning guns completely could or would happen in this country. I do support a full ban on assault rifles and automatic weapons, no one needs to own an Uzi.

While I concede there are grounds for the owning of handguns for protection purposes I do not think they should be easily obtained. In order to obtain a permit to own and carry a handgun I think you should be required to take a course in gun handling and usage and pass a safety test. You are buying a weapon not a toy you should at the very least have to demonstrate you know how to put the safety on.

I also support a 7 day mandatory waiting period prior to purchase. While this would not deter premeditated crimes it might lower the murder suicide rates. Really you can't wait a week? Then you probably shouldn't be buying that gun in the first place.

Last edited by Clashfan : 31st Jul 2010 at 05:15 AM. Reason: typo

I suppose I spoke too strongly, as there is little to establish a correlation. According to this and this:

-Vermont, one of the states that does not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, has the second lowest gun homicide rate. Alaska (another not requiring a permit) also falls, albeit only barely, into the lower half of state rankings by gun homicide percentages.
Arizona (yet another), on the other hand, has the 4th highest rate.

-Illinois, which does not allow its citizens to carry concealed weapons at all has the 8th highest rate of gun homicide, though Wisconsin, the other state which does not allow concealed weapons is in the lower half of gun homicide rankings.

-Maryland, which is highly selective about issuing concealed weapon permits, has the 2nd highest rate of gun homicide. California and New York are similar in restriction and both fall in the top half of the gun homicide rankings, while the other three states with similar restriction fall in the lower half.

-The rest of the states are somewhat more permissive than Maryland and comparable states, but less so than Vermont and comparable states.

So, ultimately, there seems to be little correlation. Lower on the page it talks about studies and published works that are similarly divided. It does show that those who have concealed carry permits are not generally responsible for committing gun crimes, however.

Researching this has made me realize that I live in one of the worse states (Maryland) for gun crime, though.

The gun laws here in the UK are fairly tight: you need a licence to own a gun. This involves filling in an application from the police station which includes declaring any criminal convictions and providing medical history. It must also be countersigned by someone of 'good social standard' who has known you for two years. Whilst the application is going through, you are visited by the police who will check that you have a safe, lockable gun cabinet to keep it in and will ask you more questions. If a licence is granted you are routinely checked. My dad owns guns for shooting, I also found it hilarious that the photo on his gun licence makes him look like a criminal!

I am perfectly happy with the current gun laws in my country and I must admit I find it odd that in America it is so easy to purchase something so dangerous. Personally I do understand why people feel the need to have guns as a means of protecting themselves; why a gun? Do people feel this because they want to protect themselves against other guns? If the laws were tightened so that it is much harder to get a gun would that need to own one lessen? I honestly don't get it. Yes, there is gun crime in the UK but because of the law here, homicides involving firearms are, on average, about 45 per year, and the majority of these are carried out with illegal weapons. We also have far fewer gun killing sprees (about four in the last 25 years).

I also agree with Vanito. I think that with guns it is too 'easy' to shoot someone when they didn't need to be shot, and this includes police use.

Basically, I don't they should be completely banned for civilian use, but there need to be stringent security checks on people who wish to own them. They are not a necessity.

Last edited by el_flel : 31st Jul 2010 at 12:39 PM.

^ Agreed, El flel.

I don't recall what magazine it was that I read; something random on the table at work, but it had an article about the States that allow people to carry weapons unconcealed. Apparently it's a large thing for women, because it makes them feel empowered and makes them believe they're less likely to be attacked. That's all very well, but the people they interviewed about it were wearing them like fashion accessories. They can buy them in "pretty, girly" colours. I find that reprehensible, that they can go out an buy a deadly weapon and then make sure it matches their outfits. You can kill with a gun, it should not be used like an accessory or a toy. Hell, they were wearing it whilst they were ironing. That's more than a little obsessive, and is suggestive of a deeper problem.

I don't understand that mentality.

Well, that's the thing. Power is addictive. So wearing a gun all the time literally could be an issue of empowerment, but also an issue of one getting drunk on it.

It doesn't have to mean a deep problem. Wanting to feel safe is a fairly normal thing. When you come out of a scary situation alive, you tend to not want to be in that vulnerable position again.

These people hadn't come out of a scary situation alive. They were soccor mom's and an eighteen-year-old, going about their regular day. It was their blase attitude that was the problem, and their actions contradicted what they verbally claimed.

And one could argue that getting drunk on power, to the point where you do not take off your gun at all, is a deeper problem.

Alaska's total human population is around 700,000, and nearly 300,000 of them all live in the city of Anchorage.

Alaska is the first state to adopt carry laws mimicking Vermont's (normally referred to as "Vermont Carry"), in which no license is required to carry a handgun either openly or concealed. However, to be in complete compliance with Federal Gun Free School Zone act, licenses are still issued to residents who want them for purposes of carrying in other states via reciprocity. The term "Alaska Carry" has been used to describe laws which require no license to carry handguns openly or concealed but licenses are still available for those who want them. Some city ordinances do not permit concealed carry without a concealed carry license, but these have been invalidated by the recent state preemption statute.

But that doesn't mean people comply. I went on a camping trip with my sister-in-law, her family and my family. I was watching the youngest kids while she and the other adults went up the river to fish. She failed to tell me that under her jacket she'd left her handgun in a holster draped over the chair, safety off. I will not understand Alaskans and their need to always carry a firearm.

I think we can all agree that there should be some form of gun control, insomuch as your neighbors have no reason to own an infantry fighting vehicle, an attack helicopter, a tank, or a grenade launcher.

You might laugh, but not only does a "ceiling" form of control exist, it's necessary, since it has been shown that, in many countries, people will seek to acquire things like assault rifles. They do so in the US, for example, wherein certain provisions (how many bullets can be fired from a single weapon without reloading, the rate of fire, the size of the bullets) were skirted around until the Federal Assault Weapons ban expired (leaving the states themselves to deal with the issue, which they all have in varying ways). It respects the notion of Americans to have the right to own firearms in a defensive measure (Which is often agreed upon as the most reasonable request to have a gun) or for certain sports (hunting), but not to own a firearm in different capacities (for example, something that could shoot through an armored police vehicle--open rebellion is de facto, if not de jure, illegal, and the state and federal governments have no need to make a provision to facilitate it in their populations).

Of course, that's just the US. In Taiwan, our civil law code and gun control provisions are derived from Japan, and there isn't a hunting culture (outside the aboriginal population). So there isn't a practical reason not to forbade gun possession period (with the exception of the aboriginal population).

This goes without saying, yes!
Then again, one has to take into account all the ''tough-living'' areas, where a person or family might wish to carry a gun simply out of self defense.
However, firearms have become to common, to the point where there are huge advertisements for gun shops adorning tour buses (for sure in Vegas, I saw one myself) and on billboards across cities and highways.
Based on fragglerocks's explanation though, I see it as a hit or miss. Some people need the security that could be provided through the ownership of a gun.
Unfortunately others use such an item for all the wrong purposes, and too many times we hear on the news of various tragedies across the nation (many of them
domestic disputes) involving guns.
So we can't technically 'control' them unless we know who is using them and for what purpose... and that's always tricky. :/

Let me clarify that I really don't much like guns. (I noticed the disagrees ha) I have never had to fire mine off in self-defense. I pray to God that I never, ever have to! But I feel I have a right to own it. I am a good citizen. My records are squeaky clean (except for a speeding ticket I got when I was 16). I have only been in two fistfights in my entire (almost) 30 years, and they were not started by me. I am not aggressive and I do not do drugs or drink. I did have a bad time with liking bad boys, but I haven't dated since my daughter's father, and she's almost 4 now.

Gun control is already in place. It could be tougher, I guess, but I do not know how to do it. But if you take away the rights for the good citizens to own a firearm, you make them vulnerable to the bad ones who will still find a way to get a hold of whatever it is they need to rob, steal and kill other human beings. Have you ever seen cops try to tase a perp who is high on meth? They shock him over and over, and he just keeps going! I've seen videos where it has taken over ten cops to bring one man down. Its a scary world.

People are already going to be vulnerable to the men and woman who would rob, steal or kill. There are certain situations that increase the likelihood of you (the general "you", not you personally) of being a target. It might make you feel safer by carrying a firearm, but that doesn't necessarily make you safer. If you come into contact with someone who wants to mug and/or kill you, and they have a weapon and are used to mugging and/or killing, then their victim having a weapon isn't necessarily going to be a deterent.

They would be used to using their gun, and until the gun-carrying potential victim has been ina situation where they may actually have to used their gun to kill someone else, to protect themselves, they won't know if they can actually use their weapon. No amount of practising (I'd like to assume that most who carry a gun to protect themselves have had some basic training), can prepare you for the moment when you actually have to fire on a living being.

I bolded the one part of the statement, because I was curious about why it was there. Is it a suggestion that instead of tasing the person numerous times, they just shoot him?

Ah, no. I should have clarified better.

I don't mean the cops bring him down by shooting him, as they've had a lot of training for dealing with that specific situation.

I was just wondering, I guess to myself a bit, what the average citizen could do if they encounter someone like that who is after them. No amount of self-defense classes could help when you are dealing with a person who doesn't feel pain.

Sorry for not being more clear.

That's fine, . I thought it sounded a bit random and unlikely that that's what you meant!

I suppose it does depend on the situation, and the people involved. Not all addicts are going to attack people, for example.

I like guns (any kind of precision/skill weapon) and would hate to see them gone. Honestly I feel the root problem is the people who use them to kill others have no respect for human life. Often times this isn't necessarily their fault but a problem of biology (overly aggressive/psychotic people have physiological reasons behind their issues). That is why I think gun control should focus on who they distribute to more strictly. Disagree with me all you like but firearms are not the issue, people are... As with most things, people make living on this planet a lot harder than it has to be.

I could argue that any person who wants to carry guns has no respect for human life. Or, at best, they're pretty selective about which human lives deserve respect.

I'm not saying that to be disrespectful. I'm just pointing out how I see it. Don't try to tell me that, by carrying a weapon whose intended purpose is to end human life, you're actually respecting human life. That doesn't make sense.

I own guns and know how to use them, although I have never shot anything living except a rabid raccoon once. To counter what fakepeeps said, I respect ALL life, not just human life. I do not hunt, and it would take a LOT for me to shoot a person, probably involving that person trying to hurt a child, whether it be mine or another person's. And even then I would not shoot to kill (although I'm fairly confident that I have the aiming ability to do so, I'm not at all sure that I have the guts), but only to disable. I would aim for the knee, not the head or the chest. As a bumper sticker on my redneck truck says, "Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my gun."

And it should be pointed out that guns are not used solely to kill either humans or animals. In my case, I simply enjoy shooting targets, for several reasons. I believe that it helps to keep my eyesight sharp, for one. (I don't know if this is really true, but I do know that most people my age -- mid-40s -- start to lose visual acuity, but I have not, and I shoot targets regularly. I just came in from doing so, in fact.) When using large, heavy rifles with powerful recoil, extended target-shooting is a good physical challenge, promoting muscle endurance. And it is very satisfying to blow, say, a watermelon to kingdom come when you're annoyed, as opposed to hauling off and hurting a person either with actions or words. I also enjoy entering (and occasionally winning) dot shooting tournaments, for which there is sometimes a cash prize. Both my son (almost 16) and my daughter (12) own their own guns and know how to use them. My son is a dead-eye sharpshooter and has definite plans to join the Army when he graduates from high school, with hopes to get into the Rangers. My daughter simply likes to shoot targets, as I do. I live in rural Colorado, cowboy country and prime hunting grounds for in particular elk, and it is not at all unusual to see people walking around openly carrying a rifle or crossbow around here, especially during hunting season. No one panics.

All that said, I don't believe that anyone "needs" to own an assault rifle or automatic weapons of any kind, and I also believe that some sort of licensing program should be required, to ensure that people know how to properly care for and are competent at using the guns that they buy. Kind of like how you have to have a license before you can drive a car. This would ensure that people who buy guns for "self-defense" would actually be able to use them for that purpose, should they ever be put into a position where they have to do so. People who buy them for that purpose without learning how to use them are fooling themselves that they could be at all effective and, in fact, are a potential danger to society. But I also know that, in reality, those who wish to kill with a gun or commit a crime with a gun as "backup" will acquire one no matter how "controlled" they are. For those who have a yen to kill...even if they can't get a gun they will simply find another way to do the killing they want to do. Like, they will build bombs, which can be made out of common household materials that can't be regulated and that have the potential to do FAR more damage to life and to property than any one person can do with a gun. (Oklahoma City, anyone?) So really, any "controls" only apply to people who will obey laws that are made about them...and those people don't tend to be the people who have the capacity to go out and kill another person, yes? Those who think "gun control" will make crime go away and create some sort of utopia are dreaming in the extreme, just as much as a person who buys a gun for "self-defense" but then never takes the time to learn how to use it. What is required to reduce crime is "people control." As the old adage goes, it isn't the guns that kill, it's the people pulling the triggers.