An arms debate--I think it's now time.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

While the Newtown shooting is still an emotionally charged topic, I think that enough time has passed that we can have a reasonable debate. However: If the topic of guns is a trigger (sorry for the pun, but it's really the only word for it) for you, please take care of yourself! Your emotional well-being is far more important than a debate on the internet.

 

I encourage you to address any or all of the following issues:

 

1) Should guns be legal at all? (If you don't think so, then I can guess your answers to the rest of these questions.)

 

2) Should assault weapons (semi-automatic, automatic, whatever) be legal? Any specific guns that should not be legal? Limits on magazines?

 

3) Should there be a national registry enforced on all gun sales? What about private gun owners selling their guns or giving them to someone else?

 

4) Open carry, concealed carry, or no carry at all?

 

5) Background checks? If so, what exactly should we check for? (What crimes should disqualify someone from buying a gun? What mental illnesses should disqualify someone?)

 

6) Why do you think America has such a huge problem with gun violence compared with other countries? I would love to hear input from people from other countries. (But be nice :-P)

 

 

Please remember, as always, to be respectful. Again, I know that this is a very emotional debate, but please fight arguments, not people, and please use evidence and logic in debunking someone's argument, not mean words of how poopy they are.

 

I'll post my own later.

 

EDIT: I just realized how tasteless this is, posting this on a holiday commemorating a wonderful civil rights activist who got shot and murdered. I feel really bad because I actually lost track of time and forgot that was today. Forgive me, ladies and gents. Forgive me, Martin.

[Anxious Zombie]

In my opinion:

Yes, guns should still be legal but assault weapons should be limited to police/armed forces/people who go through months of paper work and evaluations. I believe there should be a registry for EVERY gun sold or even just given, if the gun trades hands even on a temporary basis it needs to be known. Open carry should be default, with a concealed carry in special circumstances (again with paperwork and evaluations). Background checks are a must, a gun should not be able to fall into the hands of anyone with a criminal background involving guns. The only place that I know of shouldn't (I don't live there so I can't say for sure) have bad problems is Japan. They have very tight gun laws there and I support that, it works for them.

Lastly I believe that just like driving, you should have to have so many hours at a shooting range/gun safety class with a temporary gun license before you can get a full one.

 

I am a Canadian, but I still celebrate in the name of Martin Luther King Jr. So do forgive me as well but this is a topic close to my heart. I know people who just barely survived shootings, and I read daily about the poor souls who don't.

 

 

Edit: I forgot to state why I think guns should be legal. As many pro gun advocates have argued, the 'bad guys' (bad term, some who do school shootings were victims of bullying who just couldn't take it anymore) will always find a way to get a gun, so eliminating guns legally wouldn't actually help that much.

[karmacow]

It's probably too late to outlaw guns outright in the US, because so many people already own guns. That would put law abiding citizens at disadvantage. But I don't think any civilian should be able to get their hands on machine guns or any weapon that can cause a high amount of damage in a very short time. There's no legitimate need for anything like that. Not until the zombie apocalypse.

I also think that in order to get a gun permit, you need to be trained, just like getting a drivers licence. If you can't drive, you can't get a car and if you can't handle a gun and everything it means to be a gun owner, you shouldn't be able to get one. I am in favour of psychological tests, but I don't know enough to say what to look for. But there are professionals for that.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Before I get all long-winded (ha, I'm a liar--I'm totally about to be long-winded anyway) about my beliefs, I just want to address a few arguments that contradict each other...

 

*Cars kill people every year, too, but nobody tries to ban cars!

*Register my guns? Get a permit? That infringes on my freedom!

 

Many gun rights activists sadly use both of these arguments at the same time.

Cars are not banned, but you ARE required to

a. pass a test to be allowed to drive

b. register your car

c. pay extra taxes where applicable--for example, here in Massachusetts you have to pay an extra tax for every car you own, so that's an extra $100 a year per car

d. get a very specialized permit for certain kinds of cars. You can't just buy a bus--you have to get a special permit.

 

Another contradiction--at least I think so--this time regarding assault weapons:

*Assault weapons need to be legal so defenseless people can protect themselves better against multiple invaders, or because if you miss you need to be able to have another shot.

*The Newtown shooter stole his assault weapon--criminals won't follow laws and will obtain them illegally.

Both interesting arguments, definitely, but contradictory. How? The Newtown shooter stole his assault weapon, yes, obtaining it illegally. He stole it from his mother--one of those people who many would view as a defenseless person who needs to protect herself against an invader. Had she not had the weapon, he would not have had an assault weapon to steal.

 

If you are unable to defend yourself without an assault weapon, and you get yourself an assault weapon, *perhaps* you can fend off your attackers. Maybe. But what happens far, far more often is that your weapon gets stolen, and then your weapon gets used to kill tons of people. You'd have been better off with a baseball bat.

 

Oh, and speaking of baseball bats...if any of you have seen that statistic floating around, that baseball bats kill more people every year than guns...it's not true. Not even close.

[Anxious Zombie]

If anyone wants a real statistic with guns, statistically one third of gun deaths in 2011 were from accidental discharge and undetermined intent. another third was suicides.

 

referance: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year

[anorexorcist]

1) Should guns be legal at all? (If you don't think so, then I can guess your answers to the rest of these questions.)

- Yes. America is based pretty firmly on the ability to protect yourself by owning fire arms.

2) Should assault weapons (semi-automatic, automatic, whatever) be legal? Any specific guns that should not be legal? Limits on magazines?

- No. The whole point of owning a gun in this country is either to hunt, or to protect yourself. Nothing that can mow down 20 children should be sold legally. My personal opinion is that the only gun an anverage citizen would need is a shotgun that requires reload each shot. if someone is threatening you, a shotgun is more than enough to take them down and call the police. Hunting is different and I understand, but to buy weapons with more than one round, you should be required to go through an extensive back ground check and get a permit. Nobody needs the type of weapons that have been harming so many people in the last year. I myself was quite surprised when I saw the weapon on television. I can't believe it is legal right now to buy a weapon that is obviously meant to kill a large amount of people.

3) Should there be a national registry enforced on all gun sales? What about private gun owners selling their guns or giving them to someone else?

 

4) Open carry, concealed carry, or no carry at all?

 

Open carry is fine. Concealed carry should require a permit. I understand if someone wants to have their gun with them in the car is they live in the ghetto. I grew up in a pretty scary neighborhood, and I know my mom always carried a handgun with a permit. Might have saved our lives a couple times. However, I do believe the back ground checks required to get a concealed weapons license should be a lot more extensive.

 

5) Background checks? If so, what exactly should we check for? (What crimes should disqualify someone from buying a gun? What mental illnesses should disqualify someone?)

- Personally, I think the back ground checks should go back for your whole criminal history. Any crime with violent indications, (breaking/entering, battery, assault, etc.) should not be allowed to owna weapon. Also, any felony charge should be a disqualification, even if it's not violent. Any mental illness should disqualify someone. The guy who killed those kids had asperger's syndrome, which is a generally non-violent disorder. Practically, he had mild autism. But he ended up shooting people. And I think that to do everything we can to prevent violence in the future, we should only allow people with no history of mental illness/brain disorders to own fire arms.

 

6) Why do you think America has such a huge problem with gun violence compared with other countries? I would love to hear input from people from other countries. (But be nice :-P)

 

America has such a huge problem with it because owning guns is in our constitutional rights. We're one a few countries to have it written into our constitution. The right to own weapons has shaped this country a large amount. It's just a part of America. Add in a government who does not try to help it's poorest residents, and who allows the inner city to fall into disarray, and you end up with gun violence. In fact, you end up with more violence in general. It's because violence is one of the few ways out for people in a bad position. Robbery, gang violence, etc, are all results of not taking care of our poorest. And that's why Americans kill so many Americans.

[Emily]

I'm not American, but I think gun control, theoretically, should be universal.

 

America has such a huge problem with it because owning guns is in our constitutional rights. We're one a few countries to have it written into our constitution. The right to own weapons has shaped this country a large amount. It's just a part of America.

 

This is probably the #1 argument FOR gun-holding rights. What a lot of people don't realize (or choose to ignore) is that this was written centuries ago. This was at a time when much of the US was uninhabited frontier and incredibly dangerous. People travelling cross country via Wagon, on foot, or however else used the guns for protection and for hunting to support themselves. You could (this is going to sound kind of funny, but accounts of the period pose it as a serious thread) be camping with your family while working on building your new home and have a bear wander into your midst. Fists and sticks aren't going to be a lot of help there. Guns were a necessary part of life. The problem lies in abiding by an outdated document (The "Constitution") that largely no longer pertains to modern society. We don't still abide by other laws that old (or even newer laws that are outdated), so why does the constitution still have such sway? Just because something was founded a certain way hundreds of years ago, does that mean it should not be allowed to change to adopt to the dynamic civilization it's meant to govern?

 

Nowadays, no one actually NEEDS a gun. The only reason you would NEED a gun is to defend yourself against someone else who also has a gun. Which is sort of a catch-22. As with anything, making something illegal doesn't mean no one will be able to posses it. People will find a way to get guns, regardless of the laws, and as long as guns exist, it seems we'll always have the "I need it for protection" argument.

 

The same applies to semi-automatic, military-grade weapons. Do I think people should be able to have them? No. Will making them illegal stop people from getting them. Probably not. As long as you can have a way to justify having any type of gun for any reason (police, military, etc), and the weapons are in production, they are going to inevitably fall into the hands of people who aren't meant to have them. As long as guns are being manufactured, people will acquire them, legal or not. Even outlawing the manufacturing, though it may slow supply, wouldn't eliminate it. Again, making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it.

 

Harsher penalties would likely deter some, but there are always people who simply don't care. Not only would it not completely rectify the problem, it would be forcing more people into underfunded, understaffed and over-populated prison systems (another huge problem that I'm not going to bother going into here). To me, no matter what you do, people will have guns, and some of those people will use those guns for horrific things.

 

In regards to the last question, why America in particular has such problems with guns compared to other places, there are numerous factors. Largely, American laws and generally accepted "rights" are very individual. They stress the rights of the individual more than many other national constitutions/doctrines/what have you. I've studied this scholarly from the linguistic, psychological, religious and philosophical standpoints before. People are brought up in this culture of entitlement which is a double-edged sword. Yes, having rights is something to be proud of and enjoyed. But where is the line drawn? CAN one be drawn? Are individual rights appropriate until they affect others? To what extent must they affect others to be considered inappropriate/illegal? If they affect others and are taken away from you, isn't that detracting from your so-called freedom?

 

This obsession with what "I" deserve and what "I" want is something that is largely a Western construct. We are so hung-up on what we want for ourselves, we forget to think of how it might affect others. Call me a communist, a socialist, whatever, but this selfishness is an inherent problem when it comes to any matter of opinion, especially in relation to laws that affect everyone.

 

In short, theoretically I would support a universal ban on the production, owning and operating of guns because, as I say, the only reason we NEED guns are because others HAVE guns. But in practice, this is both naive and unrealistic because of the human factor. There will always be corruption. There is no plausible way to institute the theory in practice.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

All right, you showed me yours, so I'll show you mine...

 

1) Should guns be legal at all? (If you don't think so, then I can guess your answers to the rest of these questions.)

Yes.

 

Pro gun rights people say that guns should be legal for a variety of reasons, and I will agree with some. The right to hunt--I am very much in favor of hunting, because I feel like it's kinder to the animals than raising them for meat. The right to self-defense. I agree that if guns are illegal, then only criminals will own guns. People WILL be able to get guns, and it IS good to be able to defend yourself. You can't defend yourself with a baseball bat or a knife against someone with a gun--or even if you can, you are still at a severe disadvantage. If you own a gun safely, then you will not hurt anyone.

 

2) Should assault weapons (semi-automatic, automatic, whatever) be legal? Any specific guns that should not be legal? Limits on magazines?

No.

 

However, we need better definitions. For me, I'm thinking anything that shoots more than, say, six shots without reloading...that is an assault weapon that should be banned. But the people who have argued in favor of semi-automatic weapons have claimed that the definitions include ones that shoot one right after another. Just two shots in close proximity, one right after the other. That, I would be okay with. That, someone explained to me, is really good for hunting because if the first shot misses, the second one is likely to hit.

 

But going with my definition, an automatic weapon (>6 shots) is no better for hunting than a regular rifle--in fact, it's worse because you'll tear up the landscape too. It's no better for self-defense than a regular handgun--if you try to defend yourself with it, it's worse because you have less control over it, so a lot of stray bullets will cause a LOT of damage, possibly to innocent bystanders. You can kill (or hinder by shooting the hand, if you're more kindhearted) someone with a regular handgun and one bullet. The only thing an automatic weapon is better for is killing multiple people at once and causing lots of damage.

 

3) Should there be a national registry enforced on all gun sales? What about private gun owners selling their guns or giving them to someone else?

Yes.

 

This one kind of seems obvious to me. You have a registry, and the gun is registered in your name. If you sell it or give it to someone, you have to notify the registry. If it is stolen, you have to report it to the police and to the registry. Why? Because that way we CAN keep tabs on guns. If we find out a certain gun has been shot, we can narrow down our list of suspects to those within a certain radius. If we find a gun at the scene of the crime, one that has a serial number on it, we can investigate the owner. It will help solve crime, really. Oh, does that mean a gun owner will be under investigation all the time? No, just when someone's gone on a shooting spree with the same type of gun. Really, the questioning doesn't have to take too long. You can even tell which guns have been shot recently and narrow it down more...find alibis...it's not hard.

 

4) Open carry, concealed carry, or no carry at all?

Concealed carry, by permit only; permit must be carried on person whenever the gun is.

 

I understand why so many people on here think open carry is better than concealed carry. If someone has a gun, you'd like to know, right? I, however, don't. I'm completely against open carry, simply because if I see someone pull out a gun, I don't want to wait to find out if they're just showing someone. If I see someone pull out a gun, I'm going to act. If I wait until they start shooting, then people will already be dead. No, I'd prefer not to see a gun at all until it's definitely a case of self-defense.

 

I'm okay with concealed carry, though, in case someone does want to start saving lives in an attack. I'm still quiiiite hesitant on this one, though, and so if anyone wants to sway me against concealed carry, give it your best shot. (Oh, not the accidental puns again...)You are likely to succeed.

 

5) Background checks? If so, what exactly should we check for? (What crimes should disqualify someone from buying a gun? What mental illnesses should disqualify someone?)

Yes. Violent crimes, including any history of brandishing any weapon at anyone in any context that was not self-defense. People with mental illnesses should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

 

Rape--no gun. Murder--I should not have to say this. (And why are you out of jail anyway) Theft--depends on the theft. If it was a pickpocketing, I feel a touch more lenient. If it was sneaky theft (shoved a loaf of bread under shirt), then I would not rule the person out for a gun. But if the person held up the cashier at a grocery store, with a weapon or even PRETENDING to have a weapon, no gun for you. Domestic violence--no gun. Marijuana--okay gun. Harder drugs--proooobably no gun; review case by case.

 

Mental illnesses are more difficult, and of course, how would a person prove that they DON'T have a mental illness? And if they do have one, how do they prove that their mental illness won't affect the ability to own a gun? My *best* solution is to have a psychiatric evaluation before owning a gun, done through your doctor's office so they can review your full medical history. But of course, that can make owning a gun quite expensive.

 

6) Why do you think America has such a huge problem with gun violence compared with other countries? I would love to hear input from people from other countries. (But be nice :-P)

I'm working on it. I have no freaking clue.

 

 

 

By the way, thank you to everyone who brought up gun licenses with training and tests. I didn't think to mention it in my topic intro, but it's definitely something that belongs in the debate. I agree--before you should be allowed to have a gun, you should have to get a license, and the way to do that would be to prove that you are actually competent in using a gun. And, you know, competent in gun safety, so you don't have a gun loaded in a case at a gun show and then accidentally shoot people just by taking it out of a case. Just, you know...a hypothetical example...

[Anxious Zombie]

Your example was actually in a gun shooting case I just read, along with a kid accidentally shooting his brother with a gun on Christmas.

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_2512916.html

 

http://perezitos.com...-little-brother

 

In the second case, I believe the adult who owned the gun should have at least had a fine, if not their gun taken.

[anorexorcist]

Nowadays, no one actually NEEDS a gun. The only reason you would NEED a gun is to defend yourself against someone else who also has a gun. Which is sort of a catch-22. As with anything, making something illegal doesn't mean no one will be able to posses it. People will find a way to get guns, regardless of the laws, and as long as guns exist, it seems we'll always have the "I need it for protection" argument.

 

Uh. No, I don't agree with this. What if you're a woman and a significantly larger man is breaking into your house or threatening you with a knife, etc. A gun would enable a level playing field, whereas without one, you'd be at a severe disadvantage. I know that growing up, nearly all of the adults in my life had a gun chilling in the closet just in case. And it was rare for someone to use it, but when they did, usually it was for intimidation rather than shooting. If a family wants to have a shotgun for protection, I think that's fine. Usually all it takes to get rid of someone is you pointing a gun at them. Most people will leave.

 

And like other people have said, I am not comfortable with the only people having guns in the US being police and dangerous criminals. If we KNOW that people will get guns anyway from illigitimate sources, we should encourage people to get them legally and learn how to use them properly. But yeah, I don't want the only guns in my country owned by drug dealers, gang members, and sociopaths. Just saying.

[passiflora]

I think I mostly agree with Emily - it would be nice if we could just get rid of guns, but we're at the point now where it's almost impossible to do so. I also Karina's car analogy (you should take classes, pass a test, register your weapon, etc.)

 

That said, I'd prefer if people left their guns at home. It's not necessarily a sound argument, but I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of people owning guns for "self defence" or anything other than hunting or sport (like at a shooting range). It's nice to think that we can defend ourselves better if only we had a gun, but does owning guns for this purpose actually produce any measurable effect in harm reduction or improved safety? I guess I'm not very experienced, but I just can't easily visualize a situation in which having a gun would be all that effective against an armed adversary or wouldn't dramatically escalate the situation farther than it needs to be. Even if police and criminals were the only people who had guns, I personally (just an opinion) would feel more safer than if a whole bunch of average citizens had guns on top of that.

 

This mostly all stems from the fact that I have no desire to own a gun; I don't see it as necessary and if I was denied access to one I wouldn't consider it an infringement of my rights. This is where Americans differ - the first argument in favour of gun ownership when it comes up is "It's our constitutional right!!!!!111!!1", usually without any evidence or thought about why that is. Seems to me that our society tends to be pretty egocentric/people have this sense of self-entitlement that I'm not sure is always deserved.

 

 

I've heard, but someone could correct me on this if it's not true, that the Second Amendment wasn't originally written to apply to the way gun ownership works today. It was more to protect people from the government, that they have the right to end tyranny should it occur; i.e. it was more military in nature than "errybody should own a gun, just because."

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I've heard, but someone could correct me on this if it's not true, that the Second Amendment wasn't originally written to apply to the way gun ownership works today. It was more to protect people from the government, that they have the right to end tyranny should it occur; i.e. it was more military in nature than "errybody should own a gun, just because."

 

You're basically right, and that's kind of scary based on what's going on right now. The right to bear arms was specifically written in so you could defend yourself from a tyrannical government. The problem is...what is "tyranny"?

 

According to some of the crazier fringe gun rights activists, "tyranny" means "the government is trying to force me to register my gun." They will actually threaten to kill people who enact any kind of legislation they disagree with. It's pretty scary how insane people are.

[Emily]

What if you're a woman and a significantly larger man is breaking into your house or threatening you with a knife, etc. A gun would enable a level playing field, whereas without one, you'd be at a severe disadvantage.

 

Insight on this from arstechnica:

 

In a study of three metropolitan counties that is cited by the review, "Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides." In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house; no protective effect of the gun was found.

 

Though admittedly, this only covers homicide and not robbery. I'd be interested to see if someone could dig up some similar (verified) statistics on B&Es/confrontations without intent to commit assault/murder/homicide.

 

Citation:

Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home

American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine November/December 2011

5: 502-511, first published on February 2, 2011

 

(not sure if everyone will be able to access the above article. I have access through our university library subscription service)

[hrtbrk]

I encourage you to address any or all of the following issues:

 

1) Should guns be legal at all?

Yes, but not all guns.

 

2) Should assault weapons (semi-automatic, automatic, whatever) be legal? Any specific guns that should not be legal? Limits on magazines?

No. I cannot fathom one valid reason why the average civilian needs to have this caliber of weapon in their possession.

 

3) Should there be a national registry enforced on all gun sales? What about private gun owners selling their guns or giving them to someone else?

Yes. It's not going to eradicate illegal sales of guns or prevent guns from making it into the wrong hands, but it keep track of the general gun population.

 

4) Open carry, concealed carry, or no carry at all?

I'm on the fence. I can understand why someone would want to be carrying for that *just in case moment*, but at the same time I don't understand why you would need to unless you lived in a place where you have to dodge bullets just to cross the street. I'm betting majority of people in America do not live in that type of situation.

 

5) Background checks? If so, what exactly should we check for? (What crimes should disqualify someone from buying a gun? What mental illnesses should disqualify someone?)

Heck yes. Check criminal record and mental record - if you have something showing up in those columns than too bad for you.

 

6) Why do you think America has such a huge problem with gun violence compared with other countries? I would love to hear input from people from other countries. (But be nice :-P)

The lack of support for people with mental illness is one. Two, they turn these people into infamous celebrities. News stations run their face on the news for weeks. And lastly, I think it's the American mentality. You have "the right," it is your "freedom," guns are "patriotic."

 

It's... very weird to me. You can buy all of this and more at a Walmart for crying out loud.

[~Xandria]

1) Should guns be legal at all? Yes. I think people should be allowed to own guns on a limited basis. This means thorough background checks, possibly a mental evaulation. In America they pretty much give out guns like candy. Anyone can own one, and that is a problem. I think the legal age for gun ownership should be changed from 18 to 21. Give that person a chance to be more matured and also to see if that person shows signs of a possible adult criminal record. People need guns for protection, period. Especially here in America. Criminals will still have guns imported, just like they smuggle in drugs. So the criminals will be armed but the citizens won't? It would surprise you that guns have actually saved more lives than they have killed. If we ban guns then where does it stop? Should we also ban hammers, saws, knives, gasoline -insert item used to kill here-? Also, try and think about farmers and people who live out in the country. What happens if coyotes attack there animals? Just something to think about. I don't personally think just anyone should own a gun, don't get me wrong. I just think it's impossible to get anything like 'banning guns' passed by congress. Ever. Period. Not even close.

 

2) Should assault weapons (semi-automatic, automatic, whatever) be legal? No. I don't think so. I don't see how some random person needs one of these weapons unless they are in the military.

 

3) Should there be a national registry enforced on all gun sales? What about private gun owners selling their guns or giving them to someone else?

Yes, of course there should. Private gun owners selling there guns to someone else is a major loophole that needs to be fixed. I can't think of much of a solution that though.

 

4) Open carry, concealed carry, or no carry at all? Concealed carry and open carry. This is where a lot of people probably disagree with me. Please see my response to the last question if you're unsure of why I feel this way. Definitley not no carry at all. We had a recent shooting at a movie theatre in Colorado as most of you probably know about. If one single person would have had a gun on them, they could have protected themselves and others.

 

5) Background checks? If so, what exactly should we check for? (What crimes should disqualify someone from buying a gun? What mental illnesses should disqualify someone?) Felonies, Assault charges, Sexual predators, Thieves, stuff like that. As far as mental illness goes, that's a tough one. As people who are mentally ill would probably go balastic because they can't own a gun because of there depression. So I'm unsure where we would draw the line.

 

6) Why do you think America has such a huge problem with gun violence compared with other countries? Simple answer: We have the highest rate of gun ownership. Stricter gun laws need to be implented, yes of course. MUCH STRICTER. Compare the US to a place like Japan who has virtually zero gun related deaths yearly, while the US has 12,000 or so yearly. That's a big difference. Most guns in Japan are illegal with the few that are legal being restricted tightly.

I agree with this and I wish America was like this. However, it's in our consitution. It's not something we can change overnight, if ever. We have become a nation of gun totting idiots. Okay, not all are idiots, but still...

 

I think the US could learn a great lesson from Japan if they would open there eyes. First off, in order to obtain a gun there you have to pass a written test that are held once per month. You must also take and pass a shooting range class. Then you must have a mental exam and a drug test which is then filed away for police records. Then a background check is preformed to make absolutley certain you have nothing too bad on your record, and only then can you own a shotgun or air rifle.

 

This is what America NEEDS to do. Will it be done? I'm not crossing my fingers.

[Emily]

http://news.blogs.cn...lege/?hpt=hp_t1

 

This is from this morning. From Texas, a notoriously pro-gun state. Both sides had guns. Did that make them any safer?

[~Xandria]

http://news.blogs.cn...lege/?hpt=hp_t1

 

This is from this morning. From Texas, a notoriously pro-gun state. Both sides had guns. Did that make them any safer?

No it wouldn't have. You're right. But, what I'm saying is that America will always have guns. It's not going to change. If guns were outlawed there would be riots and things would not look good for this country. I say we are better off dealing with this effectively by making guns a lot harder to obtain, that still comes with it's issues however. It'd have to be passed by congress, and with the republican party that's not an easy thing to do. Either way there would be riots.

[hrtbrk]

Didn't Australia buy back majority of their guns after a mass murder? Or am I thinking of England? Granted both countries' mentality towards guns probably differs immensely.

 

At any rate, I think removing a large chunk of guns can be done without rioting. The people who are in favour of guns should be going out of their way to legally obtain them and have them be controlled imo. They should be just as appalled as we are because it's people who abuse their rights and freedoms that give guns and gun owners a bad name.

[Anxious Zombie]

http://news.blogs.cn...lege/?hpt=hp_t1

 

This is from this morning. From Texas, a notoriously pro-gun state. Both sides had guns. Did that make them any safer?

 

The three injured people would say not. When I saw this on the news I nearly got sick right in McDonalds. Where ever I post I now push:

 

Cars need to be registered, why not guns.

[RazzlyFrazzly]

1) Should guns be legal at all? (If you don't think so, then I can guess your answers to the rest of these questions.)
I dont know. Gun sales should be more...limited. I think guns should only be legal for hunting, but that would definitely be abused. But maybe they should be illegal altogether. People can buy some hamburger at a store, they generally don't need to hunt for food. And killing for sport? Here's what I think about that: KILLING for SPORT. No reason other than entertainment... maybe you should invest in an Xbox.
2) Should assault weapons (semi-automatic, automatic, whatever) be legal? Any specific guns that should not be legal? Limits on magazines?
No? I dont know much about guns to be honest, but "assault" sounds bad. see #1
3) Should there be a national registry enforced on all gun sales? What about private gun owners selling their guns or giving them to someone else?
Yes. We have to know who have guns, no matter what.

5) Background checks? If so, what exactly should we check for? (What crimes should disqualify someone from buying a gun? What mental illnesses should disqualify someone?)
Yes. Abuse, assault, etc.I dont know much about mental illnesses, but most of them should disqualify someone. Multiple personality disorder, depression, even. Schizophrenia. Stuff like that.
6) Why do you think America has such a huge problem with gun violence compared with other countries? I would love to hear input from people from other countries. (But be nice :-P)

Just gonna add that we probably have a higher population than those countries. (Not saying we don't have a lot of violence, I'm just putting that out there.)