Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[Monique]

If you look at the stats, many more people die from car accidents. It's just not as news worthy. Gun violence is "news", car accidents aren't that exciting. So one can get the impression that shootings are happening everywhere all the time. They just get a lot of press.

When I compare the local city news of Detroit with the news here in the Netherlands, there is world of difference. I had the feeling everyone in Detroit owned guns and everyone was shooting everyone, a lot of gun violence.

Neighbours killing each other because the freshly mown grass was blown by the wind into the next doors' neighbour his garden. Children finding guns and shooting themselves or their friends. Stuff that happened on a daily basis, which never happens here. If people didn't have guns available, they wouldn't reach for it in conflicts and children couldn't find it.

I know violence in Detroit is fueled by more than just guns, but I'm convinced that without guns (and other weapons) people would just fight it out in words or fists instead of blood.

 

[russ_watters]

Just to clarify my position a little: I'm not in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment and I occasionally shoot guns recreationally (and in the Navy). However, I just spent $200 on my annual car inspection and I had to take two tests to get a license to drive it. And this for a machine that though it is inherrently dangerous, engineers and regulators go to enormous lengths to minimize the dangers. The effort that goes into regulating and engineering cars for safety is far, far greater than for guns, despite the fact most guns sold are the only product class specifically designed to kill people. I think that warrants tight and sensible legislation.

 

[Castlegate]

I'd rather find kids dieing by the busloads by guns that protect us, than take the the extra chance of being ruled by an iron fist.

 

[ukmicky]

IMO THis poll is pointless adn this thread should be locked.
The gun debate is an emotionally charged topic to begin with which makes it hard to debate at all any time let alone now.
I espesially don't like the idea of bringing up a poll like this right on the heels of a very public news making gun related incident. It smacks of thinly vieled confrontationalism.
Again I would ask a moderator to please lock this thread as I see no usefull debate coming from it especially so soon on the heels of what happended in the news today at Virginia Tech. T
His thread will just spiral into a flame war at some point and judging by the rhetoric it doesn't seem to be to far off from happening.

Agreed, not the time or place for this thread. A flame war is probably inevitable.

I disagree ,this is the perfect time for a DEBATE on the issues of guns , its normally public opinion at times like this when people can actually see all the dangers right in front of them that actually causes the people in power to think and possibly take action to prevent them from occurring again..

I didn't start this in order to produce a flame war and i hope it doesn't go that way ,its a simple debate and I'm sure the MODS will watch over it.

 

[Anttech]

I'd rather find kids dieing by the busloads by guns that protect us, than take the the extra chance of being ruled by an iron fist.

Because your guns will protect you against that right? Bravado BS. Your Education system, and people, and political constitution, and History protect you from that, not your semi-automatic guns!

 

[Integral]

It's really a pretty stupid question, since it is totally meaningless. There is virtually no way to enforce such a law if it were passed, so ?

One thing we certainly do NOT need is yet another rights robbing law such as the one proposed by this thread. Rather then considering new laws why not look for laws to repeal, we have way to many, and as the Patriot Act has proved, our lawmakers don't even read them before voting on them.

 

[Castlegate]

Because your guns will protect you against that right? Bravado BS. Your Education system, and people, and political constitution, and History protect you from that, not your semi-automatic guns!

For starters - I don't own a gun. Never shot one either, but would be perfectly willing to get one should it become illegal to own one. History is rife with governments gone bad. We need to at least make em work for their booty.

 

[Kurdt]

Well it works fairly well in countries that don't allow guns to be sold to the public. There are still gun crimes but there are a lot less and to be honest who needs the right to own a dangerous weapon, and what purpose does it serve?

 

[drankin]

Guns are dangerous, and they aren't going away. They day "they" come to take away our firearms is the day this country has another revolution. We need to embrace the fact that they are here to stay and educate on the proper use of them rather than fear them. Fear of guns is why none of those college students or the staff were able to defend themselves.

 

[loseyourname]

When I compare the local city news of Detroit with the news here in the Netherlands, there is world of difference. I had the feeling everyone in Detroit owned guns and everyone was shooting everyone, a lot of gun violence.

I know violence in Detroit is fueled by more than just guns, but I'm convinced that without guns (and other weapons) people would just fight it out in words or fists instead of blood.

Violent crime in Detroit is six times the national average, and murders are eight times the national average. It's not a very representative city. Baltimore, Newark, Washington DC, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Detroit always top these lists and far outdo the rest of the country when it comes to murder and violent crime. I really don't know what it is about these cities, except that they have very large poor black populations and huge drug problems. The problem with drug violence is that getting rid of guns would likely do nothing to prevent or lower it, being more likely to affect crimes of passion and accident.

 

[ukmicky]

It's really a pretty stupid question, since it is totally meaningless. There is virtually no way to enforce such a law if it were passed, so ?

You would never catch everyone breaking it . but it would be enforceable enough to make it worthwhile if the law makers and politicians want it to be so

In the beginning you couldn't imprison everybody who broke it as the prisons would soon fill up but give everyone a few thousand dollar's fine if caught breaking it in the first two years and the majority of people would obey.

And then after two years put those caught breaking the law or who haven't handed their gun in in prison for 12months and i think you will find that the vast majority of people would be compliant.

 

[ukmicky]

um so far that's 19 more than likely US citizens voting against the ban .

I wonder how many of the 12 people voting for the ban are also US citizens.


_________________________________________________________________

Anything which saves lives is good and worthwhile ain't it.

 

[Anttech]

I voted to ban them, and I am not American...

 

[ukmicky]

I voted to ban them, and I am not American...

I think you would probably find that the vast majority of people voting to ban them are non American

 

[scorpa]

Guns are dangerous, and they aren't going away. They day "they" come to take away our firearms is the day this country has another revolution. We need to embrace the fact that they are here to stay and educate on the proper use of them rather than fear them. Fear of guns is why none of those college students or the staff were able to defend themselves.

That is true to *some* degree, people tend to fear what they do not understand. If the kid with the gun could have been overpowered, the students could have taken the gun, safed it and unloaded it...but would they have even known how to do that? That being said it is one big *IF* that they could have overtaken him...pretty hard to get close enough to someone with a semiauto to disarm him.

I agree with the education. Like I said before I learned about guns in school. If I came across a loaded gun I would be able to safe it and unload it no problem. I could also if need be shoot it to defend myself, however it would be unlikely it would come to that. That program has been running at my school for over 20 years, and is taught in grade 9, an incident has never once occurred. I am very glad I had the opportunity to take it.

 

[scorpa]

So so far that 19 more than likely US citizens voting against the ban .

I wonder how many of the 12 people voting for the ban are also US citizens.


_________________________________________________________________

Anything which saves lives is good and worthwhile ain't it.

I voted not to ban them, and I am not American.

 

[ukmicky]

I voted not to ban them, and I am not American.

Canadian ,near enough

 

[Bystander]

You would never catch everyone breaking it . but it would be enforceable enough to make it worthwhile if the law makers and politicians want it to be so

In the beginning you couldn't imprison everybody who broke it as the prisons would soon fill up but give everyone a few thousand dollar's fine if caught breaking it in the first two years and the majority of people would obey.

And then after two years put those caught breaking the law or who haven't handed their gun in in prison for 12months and i think you will find that the vast majority of people would be compliant.

You've got the gist of the "political" attraction for such legislation --- same game as seat belt laws, mandatory auto insurance, implied consent, vehicle emissions inspections, and all that crap --- cops behind every billboard and hidden in every ditch at the ends of fiscal quarters making up the revenue shortfalls to cover their own payrolls. However, if you'll think back to the Stamp Act, Boston Tea Party, Whiskey Rebellion, and other such historical precedents springing from overzealous revenue acts, you may get some idea of the chances of success for such nonsense --- taxes and other revenue mechanisms are tolerated in this country only so long as there are benefits to be derived --- given a legal system that takes 10-15 years to stir-fry or needle the likes of Ted Bundy or Clarence Williams, plea bargains felonies to misdemeanors, and is generally underfoot rather than facilitating the business of living by the law-abiding, it ain't going to fly.

 

[Kurdt]

Fear of guns is why none of those college students or the staff were able to defend themselves.

I don't think even the most educated people in that situation would have been able to do much. If you've got somebody seemingly determined to kill as much and as indiscriminately as in this case then there's nothing much you can do as you'll most likely be shot before you get near. If however you could enlighten the rest of us as to how to take out a crazed gunman while unarmed we'd all love to know.

 

[drankin]

I don't think even the most educated people in that situation would have been able to do much. If you've got somebody seemingly determined to kill as much and as indiscriminately as in this case then there's nothing much you can do as you'll most likely be shot before you get near. If however you could enlighten the rest of us as to how to take out a crazed gunman while unarmed we'd all love to know.

Actually, what I meant by that is that fear of guns is why they aren't allowed on campus. So, no one there was armed and able to defend themselves against a gunman. Most mass murders like this happen in "gun free" zones. "Gun free" zones were created because of an unhealthy fear of guns. These zones supposedly make you "safer" when in fact you are more vulnerable.

 

[Huckleberry]

Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote:

Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.[8]

One example given by Webster of a "power" that the people could resist was that of a standing army:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[9]

Guns are a part of our pursuit of liberty. A populace without weapons has no resistance to a tyranny, foreign or domestic.

Personally, I don't know why people are so afraid of guns. Where I lived in Arizona most of the men wore pistols or revolvers on their sides as they walked around the town. Every other pick-up truck had a rifle rack in the back. Guns were all over the place. Criminals had them too. They didn't mess with the town and the town didn't mess with them. The criminals mostly shot other criminals.

Like others have said, a ban on guns will only remove from law abiding citizens the ability and the right to defend themselves from criminals. There are laws that prevent criminals from having firearms. They still have them. A ban will not affect a criminal because they have no respect for the laws they break.

From the information I have read, crime has increased in nations that have firearm bans.

 

[ukmicky]

According to the ITV news the US PRO GUN LOBBY have said that guns shouldn't be banned and that
"if the students had been allowed to carry their own guns they would have then been able to defend theirselves".

How mad is that.

 

[scorpa]

Canadian ,near enough

Hey!

I don't think even the most educated people in that situation would have been able to do much. If you've got somebody seemingly determined to kill as much and as indiscriminately as in this case then there's nothing much you can do as you'll most likely be shot before you get near. If however you could enlighten the rest of us as to how to take out a crazed gunman while unarmed we'd all love to know.

It would be impossible or nearly so in that situation. You would have to have a large group of people willing to charge at the gunmen... not easy to convince people to do that when half will probably get shot in the process. Not to mention in the mayhem you can't really hold a meeting and make such a plan.

I guess you could argue that if firearms were allowed in colleges someone could have just shot the gunmen, hence problem solved and 30 people's lives are saved. However I think it's pretty safe to say that school's are not a place for firearms or weapons of any kind. Really people have no reason to just be carrying guns around with them. On the farm yes. Cops yes. To go to the shooting range sure. Hunting yes. But to go to town or school there is hardly any need and really I don't see the attraction or desire ----and this is coming from someone who doesn't think they should be banned.

 

[drankin]

According to the ITV news the US PRO GUN LOBBY have said that guns shouldn't be banned and that
"if the students had been allowed to carry their own guns they would have then been able to defend theirselves".

How mad is that.

What do you mean? It is totally correct. If the adult students and staff there were allowed to carry their own guns this would have went down with a lot less casualties. Like I said earlier, I carry my handgun at all times. If something like this were to happen around me, I'd at least have an opportunity to stop it and possibly save a lot of lives.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

American here, voted for the ban. Then again, LYN often (teasingly) calls me un-American.

 

[ukmicky]

What do you mean? It is totally correct. If the adult students and staff there were allowed to carry their own guns this would have went down with a lot less casualties. Like I said earlier, I carry my handgun at all times. If something like this were to happen around me, I'd at least have an opportunity to stop it and possibly save a lot of lives.

Your not seriously saying that students in a university, a place of learning should be allowed to carry guns into class.
If you were a parent would you really want your child to go to a university and sit along side a bunch of hormonal kids with guns strapped to their waists .

 

[scorpa]

According to the ITV news the US PRO GUN LOBBY have said that guns shouldn't be banned and that
"if the students had been allowed to carry their own guns they would have then been able to defend theirselves".

How mad is that.

It probably would have saved a lot of lives. Not saying I condone carrying guns in schools, just stating the truth that in this situation it probably would have prevented many deaths.

 

[Bystander]

Pair of 9 mms? Three people rush the loon, and one gets shot. They've got to be prepared to, "Ohmigod!" hit him, maybe break a couple bones. It's called education: the operator of a firearm has to aim at each target and pull the trigger, and tenths of seconds are required for each shot by a skilled user --- how long's it take to cover the five yards between me and him? Second? Couple shots? He hits one of three in a hurry at a moving target, he's NHL material.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

bah, i meant to say automatic guns. so why do they sell automatic guns anyway?

 

[drankin]

Your not seriously saying that students in a university, a place of learning should be allowed to carry guns into class.
If you were a parent would you really want your child to go to a university and sit along side a bunch of hormonal kids with guns strapped to their waists .

I said "adults". And, of course, the guns would have to be concealed. It is completely legal in most states for an adult to carry a firearm provided they have a permit and it is concealed. But very few people excercise that right. I would have no problem sending my daughter to college knowing that there are licensed adults carry handguns there. In fact, I would worry less if that were the case.

 

[Anttech]

Random speculation, perhaps if the manic wasnt born this event wouldn't have happened. Perhaps if his gun jammed he wouldn't have killed as many.

The fact of the matter is that he did, and the pro-gun lobbiest spin only works on the ones who want to believe that guns make a happier safer place for all people... Let's just forget todays events shall we...

 

[Kurdt]

Actually, what I meant by that is that fear of guns is why they aren't allowed on campus. So, no one there was armed and able to defend themselves against a gunman. Most mass murders like this happen in "gun free" zones. "Gun free" zones were created because of an unhealthy fear of guns. These zones supposedly make you "safer" when in fact you are more vulnerable.

You are only more vulnerable because guns are available relatively easily. Of course with the prevailance of guns in the US there would have to be a huge amnesty and it would be very difficult to administer if they were to restrict guns.

 

[Evo]

Since the person was Asian, he probably could not have legally purchased a gun. So, a non-American carrying an illegal weapon?

 

[drankin]

bah, i meant to say automatic guns. so why do they sell automatic guns anyway?

I think there is only a state or two that allows automatic weapons to be owned by everyday citizens. Everywhere else it's very difficult to obtain the required permits. But, this incident did not involve automatic weapons.

 

[Anttech]

I said "adults". And, of course, the guns would have to be concealed. It is completely legal in most states for an adult to carry a firearm provided they have a permit and it is concealed. But very few people excercise that right. I would have no problem sending my daughter to college knowing that there are licensed adults carry handguns there. In fact, I would worry less if that were the case.

Happy you have so much faith in your society even after 1 manic just killed 30 people. Seems some people can't see the wood for the trees, Statistics show us how violent the USA is, yet you argue that by making sure there are more and more guns everywhere society will be safer? The maths on this one just doesn't add up for me.

America won't ever get rid of its guns, that's for sure. I am just happy that we can all look at your mistakes and not do them in our societies.

 

[Anttech]

Since the person was Asian, he probably could not have legally purchased a gun. So, a non-American carrying an illegal weapon?

Asians are allowed to own guns in America?

 

[ukmicky]

It probably would have saved a lot of lives. Not saying I condone carrying guns in schools, just stating the truth that in this situation it probably would have prevented many deaths.

It could have also saved lives if someone took in a shotgun or kalasnikov or a crossbow . I know what about a grenade, even though their quite indescriminate it may have caused less deaths How about a nice selection of throwing knives, no forget the kinives there to dangerous.

scorpa I know your not saying that's guns should be allowed in universities but seriously the gun lobby statement is dumb,guns don't belong in a place of learning under any circumstances.

PS This forum needs spellcheck

 

[drankin]

Happy you have so much faith in your society even after 1 manic just killed 30 people. Seems some people can't see the wood for the trees, Statistics show us how violent the USA is, yet you argue that by making sure there are more and more guns everywhere society will be safer? The maths on this one just doesn't add up for me.

America won't ever get rid of its guns, that's for sure. I am just happy that we can all look at your mistakes and not do them in our societies.

The more law abiding citizens carrying firearms WOULD make it safer, absolutely. I don't see why you disagree? How would it not be safer from maniacs going on killing sprees?

 

[Evo]

Asians are allowed to own guns in America?

Did you mean "are not"? If he had a student visa, he could not legally buy a gun.

Who Cannot Have a Gun in America?

Guide Extra:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any
crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;

Fugitives from justice;

Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;

Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;

Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;

Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;

Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and

Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htm

 

[Kurdt]

Guns are a part of our pursuit of liberty. A populace without weapons has no resistance to a tyranny, foreign or domestic.

Personally, I don't know why people are so afraid of guns. Where I lived in Arizona most of the men wore pistols or revolvers on their sides as they walked around the town. Every other pick-up truck had a rifle rack in the back. Guns were all over the place. Criminals had them too. They didn't mess with the town and the town didn't mess with them. The criminals mostly shot other criminals.

Like others have said, a ban on guns will only remove from law abiding citizens the ability and the right to defend themselves from criminals. There are laws that prevent criminals from having firearms. They still have them. A ban will not affect a criminal because they have no respect for the laws they break.

From the information I have read, crime has increased in nations that have firearm bans.

I'm not sure what kind of liberty would be instilled by a mob of gun toters. It would most likely be a tyrrany in which those who disagreed got shot. Countries have military for protection from tyrrany in a foreign land. They have democracy in the west to ensure that tyrrany at home does not occur. A ban on guns all logistics aside would remove in the most part the oppourtunity for criminals to use them. If they did get their hands on guns then a population that couldn't retaliate with fire would be a lot safer for reasons russ outlined before.

I'm not sure who "the enemy" is that you seem so afraid of, but I can't believe that level of paranoia in anybody.

 

[Quaoar]

Since the person was Asian, he probably could not have legally purchased a gun. So, a non-American carrying an illegal weapon?

Wow, now there's a blatantly racist comment. There are plenty of Asian people in this country who are US citizens and attend college. You have no evidence that most Asians who attend college in the US are expatriates.

 

[ukmicky]

The more law abiding citizens carrying firearms WOULD make it safer, absolutely. I don't see why you disagree? How would it not be safer from maniacs going on killing sprees?

So what your saying is, in the the future if it were to happen again but instead of killing 32 the maniac only kills 15 people, OK I'll be kind he only kills 2 people because someone in the next room happens to have a gun and shots him, your saying that is better than banning the gun full stop and preventing anybody getting killed.

 

[ukmicky]

Wow, now there's a blatantly racist comment. There are plenty of Asian people in this country who are US citizens and attend college. You have no evidence that most Asians who attend college in the US are expatriates.

I don't think she quite meant it like that.

 

[scorpa]

Random speculation, perhaps if the manic wasnt born this event wouldn't have happened. Perhaps if his gun jammed he wouldn't have killed as many.

The fact of the matter is that he did, and the pro-gun lobbiest spin only works on the ones who want to believe that guns make a happier safer place for all people... Let's just forget todays events shall we...

I think what people are trying to say, is gun ban or not, the guy would have been able to get ahold of a gun had he wanted to. Why should the rest of society be helpless against that? People have the right to defend themselves, and saying "please sir I really think you should think this through, you could really hurt someone you know!" probably isn't going to help them.

That being said I would once again like to say I do not condone guns in schools, I am just making the argument for arguements sake.

It could have also saved lives if someone took in a shotgun or kalasnikov or a crossbow . I know what about a grenade, even though their quite indescriminate it may have caused less deaths How about a nice selection of throwing knives, no forget the kinives there to dangerous.

scorpa I know your not saying that's guns should be allowed in universities but seriously the gun lobby statement is dumb,guns don't belong in a place of learning under any circumstances.

PS This forum needs spellcheck

Cross bows are to bulky to carry around with you all day

I thought I had clearly stated that I did not think guns belonged in universities, they have no place there. I only made that point for arguements sake...you cannot deny that if someone in that school for example a security officer had had a gun it could have had the potential to save many lives. And yes it is dumb to think that people should bring guns to school, I agree with that.

On a side note...I thought a lot of American universities/high schools had metal detectors in them nowadays to help prevent this type of thing? I remember hearing that somewhere but of course I could be wrong.

 

[scorpa]

I don't think she quite meant it like that.

Agreed

Wow this thread moves fast.

 

[drankin]

So what your saying is, in the the future if it were to happen again but instead of killing 32 the maniac only kills 15 people, OK I'll be kind he only kills 2 people because someone in the next room happens to have a gun and shots him, your saying that is better than banning the gun full stop and preventing anybody getting killed.

Guns cannot be banned in the US. It is a basic right. To even discuss it as if it were a possibility is pointless. So, that being understood, to restrict the ability to have guns in places like a university, when they are everywhere else, simply puts the people there at risk. Which has been the case today.

 

[Kurdt]

I think what people are trying to say, is gun ban or not, the guy would have been able to get ahold of a gun had he wanted to. Why should the rest of society be helpless against that? People have the right to defend themselves, and saying "please sir I really think you should think this through, you could really hurt someone you know!" probably isn't going to help them.

That being said I would once again like to say I do not condone guns in schools, I am just making the argument for arguements sake.

Well that's not necessarily true. I think people are blinded to the fact that there are a lot of guns around in The US at the minute and it is relatively easy to steal one from somebody you know or obtain them illegally. I think most proponents of the ban are thinking ideally as I am to a place some time in the future when there have been amnesties and it is very much harder for a young person to get hold of a firearm. In many cases the difficulty at obtaining such an item might prevent the person from doing as they plan. Is it not a coincidence that the US has the most high school massacres in the world whereas places with stricter control have fewer? And it is not a question of allowing security guards with guns in schools in other places either.

Its like the old chinese proverb. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. You can continue in this vein or take the first step to correcting it and solve the problems as you go, because there will be lots in a place so rife with firearms.

 

[ukmicky]

I thought I had clearly stated that I did not think guns belonged in universities.

It could have also saved lives if someone took in a shotgun or kalasnikov or a crossbow . I know what about a grenade, even though their quite indescriminate it may have caused less deaths How about a nice selection of throwing knives, no forget the kinives there to dangerous.

Scorpa I know your not saying that guns should be allowed in universities but seriously the gun lobby statement is dumb,guns don't belong in a place of learning under any circumstances.

PS This forum needs spellcheck

You did state that and i did sort of point that out.

 

[scorpa]

You did state that and i did sort of point that out.

Just wanted to be clear

 

[russ_watters]

Did you mean "are not"? If he had a student visa, he could not legally buy a gun.

I think you may be jumping the gun on that. I was watching the news when the kids said the shooter looked asian, but I didn't take that to necessarily mean a non-citizen.