Should laws be passed to limit gun ownership further?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from...
The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic ...
Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture...
Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings. No amount of property is worth a human life....
There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because...
A new era for USA
You must hold into account that you have nothing to do with your gun if the federal government comes against you with tanks.
The far west times is gone. Your culture should change. You do much more damage to yourselves and the world by having guns. It grows a culture of fear, need for protection and violence.
Compare yourselves with other countries. What does this ability to buy and hold guns do for you, as a citizen, in practical terms?
The provision for gun ownership in the US was originally created to allow the common person to stand before his government and defy it should it become tyrannical. While many make the claim that tanks, mines, drones, and technology make the guns a private citizen own seem useless, I would point out both Afghanistan and Vietnam as examples where superior technology failed in the face of superior morale. While the US in such a scenario would be fighting a war of extermination, the defenders would only have to demoralize the loyalist US forces to cause US defeat. As such, firearms still stand as a bulwark against tyranny today. As a citizen, firearms allow you to remain free and capable of providing your own defense against the potentially tyrannical US.
For those who bemoan the criminal elements that exist in the US and not in countries where guns are outlawed I would suggest looking into the skinheads of Russia or the chavs of Britain. Both countries have much more strict laws against gun ownership than the US and both still have crime. Switzerland has the largest number of militia owned firearms on Earth yet has one of the lowest crime rates. A better predictor or gun violence (and violence or crime in general) would be the gap between rich and poor in a country - the bigger the gap the greater the violence (check US GINI of 51 as compared to Switzerland's GINI of 34 according to World Bank statistics).
In short, firearms are a red herring for the intellectually lazy - this is statistically born out by looking at the statistics available.
cut guns = escalation in knife crimes
Gun control will only lead to a reversion to ubiquitous knife crime.
Yes; we look to America and think racially/penury motivated high-school shootings, muggings,mobsters, shootouts ; more specifically Columbine, V.T killer etc and also that Britain didn't have this problem until guns were legalised/legalized.
Now, we aren't trigger happy Texas rangers and certainly not attached to guns but let's put it this way:
If say, you had to be killed would you rather be shot or gutted with a sharp kitchen utensil? Personally, I prefer the former.
In fact, being bombed thus dying instantly is probably the best way to be killed.
Warning:Parental advisory Content: certain murder-method- descriptions are graphic and might cause readers to regurgitate:
It is disgustingly defeatist/fatalist to claim that murders are inevitable or that being shot is relatively painless.
Gutting(or death by laceration) takes time(either for sufficient blood loss or to cut the right organs) ; mass gut-tings(or throat/wrist slits) are virtually unheard of and physically impossible to carry out (unlike 'mass' shootings: spraying/splaying ricocheting/streaming bullets alternatively bombing massacres from bombs set off in crowded public places.)
While the humanity of passing onto the other realm, is important (certainly suicide by barbiturate overdose is a lot less painful than being shot/bombed/burned/dying-by-laceration) ; the general rule is 'sacrifice the one for the many' we are interested in reducing numbers of murders/attacks/fatal-injuries and gun control is effective in this regard.
people keep guns for their own protection; sometimes only to scare potential attackers/intruders rather than to use guns as weapons
Gun Control Leads To More Crimes
Gun Control Laws are designed to prevent incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech from occurring. If an individual is so mentally unstable that they desire to shoot random classmates, it is not feasible to believe that a gun control law will stop them. If an individual truly wants to harm others, then they will try to do so regardless of laws or regulations. This greatly prevents the laws from serving their purpose (to prevent gun crime). If anything, gun control laws will increase crime.
A saying often muttered in the Southern United States is, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." This statement is often ignored but it is true. Criminals rarely go through the legal channels to obtain their firearm so it is easy to conclude that criminals will barely be affected by gun control laws. The average citizen will be the one affected. The only real accomplishment gun control laws will have is hindering law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right [[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaubin.html]] If citizens are heavily hindered from getting guns they will have a harder time protecting themselves. I believe that citizens should rely on law enforcement, but on average Seattle's emergency crews took 8 minutes 46 seconds to respond (by respond, I mean arrive and begin helping victims), Oklahoma City 7 minutes 36 seconds, Tulsa 8 minutes 48 seconds, Columbus, Ohio, 7 minutes 49 seconds, Charlotte 6 minutes 56 seconds, and Fresno took 22 minutes 11 seconds [[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ems-day2-cover.htm]] . If you have no protection, what could happen to you in that time?
In conclusion, I believe that gun control activists mean well but, in the end, these laws will cause more trouble than they're worth. If someone is determined to commit a crime using a gun, a law will not stop them. If they break one law (murder, robbery, etc.), they will not mind breaking another (gun control law).
History repeating itself
What do you think?