Gun Control.

Yeah, I mean I like to shoot with my dad and my papaw every now and then, but no assault rifles and any military grade weapons are unnecessary. And background checks need to be much more thorough.

 

You shouldn't be able to access any guns at all unless you have a really good reason.

If you went up to someone and asked them if everyone should have carte-blanche access to objects that can immediately and indiscriminately remove someone from existence as soon as looking at them, any sane person would say no. But use the word "gun" instead and their reasoning skills seem to be turned off.

 

I understand what you're saying, but honestly handguns and rifles and shotguns are used for sport and home defense. I'm not talking about hunting either (I don't approve of it), but like trap shooting and target shooting is actually enjoyable. That probably sounds pretty strange coming from me because I'm so meek, but I do like it. The problem is the guns are in the hands of people who aren't responsible or stable. There definitely needs to be restrictions. Sorry, I just don't think it's reasonable to take them away because if you take all the guns away from people who can handle having them and use them for home defense and things like that, then the only people who will have them are the bad people who obtain them illegally anyway.

 

Shooting for sport/leisure can be provided by shooting ranges with their own guns. It could also come under my "having a very good reason".

You may be right about illegal gun trade and it may be too late for the US because of this, I don't know, but in other countries there just isn't the supply available. It's difficult for someone to get their hands on a gun, legally or illegally, so it is unjustifiable to have one for self defence.
Providing guns for self defence is also inevitably providing guns to the people that they are trying to protect against, so it's an ineffective arms race that just becomes more dangerous as time goes on.

 

And you're right if ranges provided fire arms it'd be fine, and you're right home defense is really a tricky issue. You'd have to have it on you 24/7 in essence to keep it from anyone else. :/

 

I'm not against the Second Amendment, but there should definitely be bans on assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and the background check loophole needs to be closed.

It's absurd to think that banning certain guns would significantly reduce gun violence because there is more guns in circulation in the United States than people. But doing nothing at all is irresponsible.

 

Means hitting your target.

 

Increased background checks and registries are incredibly important. I'm eh on assault weapons because, while they are incredibly dangerous, the number of gun related deaths in the US due to any form of rifle is WAAAAAAY lower than the number due to handguns. Overall, I'd say I'm pretty "pro gun controls".

 

The fact that gun laws are so lax is the reason why there are so many guns in the US. Fully banning handguns (rules were already quite strict) initially didn't have too much of an effect in the UK, but within 15 years it has fallen from by over 50% - admittedly the figures didn't start very high, at ~100 per year.

The UK having a firearm homicide rate 40 times lower than the US is the reason why we don't question our almost-total banning of guns and why most of the rest of the world thinks the US's laws are crazy.

 

Well, like I said, I'm against completely banning guns. But even if America completely banned guns, gun crime would still be really high because there's already so many in circulation as I said.

It's a huge problem that isn't going to be fixed easily or quickly.

 

The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. Enough said.

 

I believe that queers will always need guns to defend themselves and one another against violent homophobes. I believe in conflict-avoidance, but if lethal force is necessary, it's necessary.

 

I've already stated in another thread that I'm staunchly pro-gun. No distribution of guns among the citizens, and you have a populace ripe for oppression.

With that said, we have too many stupid/crazy people to treat guns like pizzas where anybody can go and pick one up. The Second Amendment clarifies that any (and I mean ANY) law that restricts weapons at all is unconstitutional, but I'd be okay with having a firearm safety and orientation class which grants a gun license upon completion. It is a minor form of registration, which is bad juju should the government decide it wants to take our stuff, but it's not as bad as specific gun registration because it doesn't mean you HAVE any, it means you are allowed to buy them.

As long as some force keeps the gun licensee database decentralized and kept in check, I think it would dramatically cut down on negligence and, to a degree, crime. But above and beyond that suggestion I am adamantly anti-gun control.

 

Oppression from what exactly?! The government? You mean that if the government attempts to oppress its citizens, at least they'll be able to 'fight back'?

And what's the issue with the government knowing whether you own a gun?

Yes. But I don't see why banning guns wouldn't be a good start...

The time to act is now, which is why I'm bothering to post in this thread.

 

Because there is a Second Amendment? The government has tried to infringe on our rights, and ignore the Constitution enough let alone completely ban guns.

Liberals are in a fantasy world if they think completely banning guns would improve things quickly. It would take hundreds of years. Bad things are going to happen in society regardless. That's just life.

---------- Post added 15th May 2013 at 11:04 PM ----------

Uh, well, because privacy is implied in the Constitution.

Again, the government has made enough attempts to circumvent the Constitution. The Patriot Act comes to mind.

 

This is what I was going to post. (*hug*)

Noone is going to protect us except ourselves. All of the weapons in the world should not be in the hands of institutions that are generally hostile to us and anyone they can't control.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, a government needs to have a reason to fear its people.

 

I think that background checks should be necessary. However, I an really against government regulation about the individual rights of each citizen, so I believe that people should be able to purchase guns for protection and for sport. The problem isn't the guns; it's the people who are firing them at school children. There have been some sick crimes commited in the last few years that are truely devestating to our nation. If morality was taught by their parents or schoolteacher, this shouldn't be an issue. If you look back about 30 years, there wern't nearly as many school shootings. Often, my father and his friends would go clay shooting or hunting directly after school, and they left their guns in their cars. They never shot anyone because they knew what was right and wrong behavior. If we just make it where mentally unstable people can't aquire guns, I believe that will solve the issues with school shootings. Also, if you ban guns, do you really think that criminals will follow the laws? I seriously doubt that gangs or other criminals are worried about legislation against guns, and they have illegal ways of acquiring guns, so why punish law abiding citizens that have liscences to use guns when they are using them properly? The issue here is morality, not passing another useless piece of legislation that criminals will break anyways.

 

You talk of rights and amendments, but you don't point out how taking away these rights would be problematic for you in any way whatsoever. Having rights for the sake of rights?

Bad things are going to happen in society regardless but the number of them occurring can easily be changed. That's why we have prison sentences, CCTV, a legal system. Gun control is just another one of those things that only seems to be very controversial in a country with such fiercely individualist laws. Saying the level of crime is inevitable and unchangeable is wrong and infuriating. So much so, I even have to bold what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that banning guns would improve things immediately, but you need only look at the statistics. Banning handguns in the UK, as I've said before, has halved the number of murders by handgun, and this has even been accompanied by a decrease in the number of murders by any method: it's not a case of 'if someone wants to kill someone, they will do it anyhow'.

 

I have a few problems with this, even though I do understand. We always say that we can't control stupid - well, in this instance, we can. Here's the thing - there's a lot of factors. The biggest thing I can say is the whole mental health factor - not everyone who has mental problems is getting therapy or has been diagnosed.

Also, just because you are dealing with mental illness doesn't mean you shouldn't have a gun. I don't want a gun, but just because I'm anxious doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to get one. I'm extraordinarily responsible.....so I just think this is one of the issues with this argument. I mean no harm...just giving my opinion!