All guns? No, of course not. Only automatic weapons and assault rifles. Hunting rifles and hand guns should be legal, as long as improved background checks are implemented, loopholes are closed, and waiting periods are enforced no matter where the weapon is purchased. Ammo also should be subject to the same background checks and waiting periods. Total prohibition is to illiberal for my taste. "The right to swing my arm ends at your nose". Violence can not be legislated out of existence; in China, on the same day as Sandy Hook, there was a mass knifing. At some point prohibition only takes away individual rights, without guaranteeing improved public safety.
I am somewhat torn on the issue personally. On one hand I don't see any reasonable reason for someone to actually have a gun, the idea itself seems demented. Guns are weapons, they are specifically meant specifically for people to shot stuff. Proper training does not mean people suddenly are rambo or qualified to shot at a potential James holmes or adam lanza, people don't turn into rambo with training. While a scenario where someone with actual training is located precisely where an incident like that is occurring and that he is also located at a point where he would get a good shot and minimize casualties by killing the culprit before more damaged is done is conceivable, it is also IMO the least likely scenario. At that point its no longer one guy shooting, its a mexican standoff. Is that a preferable scenario? What if the person who turn this thing into a standoff is not qualified for such a thing even with proper training?
In turn, I have no issue whatsoever with actual recreational target practice and such things (in spite of the fact that I have never shot a gun in my life). I don't see that different from any other hobby. Overall I guess the issue is more along the lines of why should someone be armed at home or in the street. I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable if I know there is a guy next to me with a gun even if he has passed every conceivable test and gotten every permit. Heck, I'd be pretty tempted to kick someone out of my house if he gets there with a large enough swiss army knife, a gun (even with the proper permits) would make me consider whether that friendship is even worth keeping. Obviously I would have some serious issues with someone who takes a gun to the movies even with a permit.
I guess my stance would be more along the lines of people having the bare minimum to be able to do whatever legal thing they are going to do with the guns. If they use them recreationally for target practice then keep the gun with you only when you are going to do specifically that and have the bullets supplied to you when you are at the place where you are going to do said target practice. If you are going to hunt (I don't really have an issue with hunting provided there are no endangered species involved) then keep whatever gun you want and have the bullets supplied to you wherever you are hunting. I guess that would be a pain for people who own guns and use them only recreationaly however I just can't see how it is acceptable for people to have guns which can be potentially loaded at will at their homes or while they are at the street. I barely give a damn on whether guns kill people or people kill people, I don't trust either.
the background check thing seems to fail, because the perpetrator is often not the owner of the weapon. while you can respond saying 'well i can't worry about theft', in this case we need to because guns kill too fast.
And what right do you exercise by owning a gun? the right to protect yourself? you can do that with a non lethal weapon.
We are not allowed to own supersonic jets(right to fast travel), drugs (right to pleasure), nuclear energy(right to energy) etc but somehow we can own guns.
Personally I am not a gun fanatic, never shot once in my entire life, but if I were raised in a gun culture like the US, I would be on the side of the anti-gun control people. I really do think that if you are brought up in an environment of responsible gun owners, a family, relatives and friends, these things tend to be under control.
Criminals do not need permits and stuff, all I really want to do is to knoo more about this gun phenomenon, I have never lived in it, just comparing the information I am getting, so not the best judge, just wanted to give my two cents.
An interesting article: A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths
This is possibly one of the most complex issues in the US, I dislike it when people oversimplified this problem. I personally think banning all the guns would be a stupid action. Stricter controls are absolutely needed rather than saying "All guns are prohibited". The way I see US gun controls right now are fairly lax. I don't know the details about the current background checking, but I believe that psychology point of view is essential, since the problem related with gun killing by the civilian are committed by people who have deep psychological problems.
I didn't mean to suggest that guns should be outright banned in US, I don't even live there, it's something their people should decide. I don't know how accurate it was but in one of the CSI episodes people were firing all kinds of automatic firearms at a shooting range and really enjoying it, it's not just a matter of protection, people of US indeed have a gun culture. What Japan shows us is that banning guns may be an effective solution against crimes committed with guns but I agree that every country has different priorities and perhaps Japan has gone too far in that regard. I never owned a gun and I would feel myself more secure if I knew none of my neighbors had guns contrary to all of us being armed but I live in a city and I guess I might have a different opinion if I lived in rural areas. In any case, making gun regulations stricter until no such tragedies occur seem to be a necessity, at least this is what I would do but as I said, this is what US people will decide after weighing pros and cons of the situation.
do you have the time or means to check who has been brought up in a responsible environment or can you define what is a responsbile environment?
Public sentiment is everything. Government in the US rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much. If the news media gave an honest, accurate, and non-stop account of the realities of gun violence in the US - the US has no national database for background checks, there is a correlation between the availability of guns and gun-related deaths, the people who run the NRA have an unusually cozy relationship with the firearms industry, etc. - then meaningful action via government could be taken to lessen the number of gun-related incidents. But I doubt any meaningful action will be taken on this particular matter (as usual).
But individual choice matters too. I don't know how it is with other families in the US, but allowing children easy-access to guns in the household is ignorant, stupid, and extremely dangerous, yet commonplace in my experience. People taking responsibility for their own actions could greatly reduce the number of accidental shootings without forcing government intervention.
Well the same argument goes for pro-gun control meaning more guns=more crime, violence, murder ect. But maybe it's that these statistic serve no purpose in determining what to do on the issue? Many do use them, on either side.
Well not the environment but the person, and more responsible people consist of the responsible environment. It can not be denied that there are people in the US who own guns yet have never committed a crime with them, just self defense. But not a fan of grouping side, since both have a pretty large number on their side.
Well, in this regard I would think a big part of the issue here is that the issue which is supposedly being discussed is not clear. Would gun control have an effect on the amounts of holmes or lanza'a over a period of time?These guys are not quite ordinary criminals, they are the weird ones among criminals. Most criminals go after food and perhaps more commonly money and a gun is simply a tool which they hope simply intimidates people. Lanza and holmes are nothing like that, they are by no means even remotely comparable to common criminals. Neither of them had something which they wanted out of this, they were not after food or money, they were out there specifically to kill people.
Being innately different from the average criminal and having an entirely different mindset, would gun control actually help prevent future lanzas or holmes? If guns at large became less widespread and more difficult to acquire I could see an actual decrease in gun related crime however how relevant is that to guys like holmes? I have trouble actually believing they would be unable to get guns illegally if they really wanted one at large. More gun controls would make it more difficult for those like them to get guns but if they really set their minds to it would they be unable to actually get guns no matter how hard they try?
Next thing, lets assume an scenario were lanza and holmes were actually unable to get guns at all. what then? Not having guns does not make them less disturbed, they did not become rampaging kid murderers because they held guns. The sociopath thing must have necessarily come before the gun owning part. Even in an scenario where those guys did not get guns, are we to assume that those guys would not have done something else? Do we know they wouldn't have gone to a couple of pharmacies and buy stuff which google told them could make a homemade bomb? Even if that is too far fetched how do we know they wouldn't have grabbed a nailgun and fired it at people at a mall? Or how about them just grabbing a kitchen knife and simply stand people for a bit? I don't think gun control is a solution to statistical zeroes like holmes or lanza. I would think that limiting their access to guns is simply a way to force them to come up more complicated and less efficient violence. Of course destroying the possibility of shootings to happen is important and in itself a great thing and would save lives however it does not actually deal with the underlying cause of this tragedies(at least I wouldn't think so). If all gun control does here is change the way they would have acted then its only a half victory in the end (and important half victory though) as it does not deal with the fact that at any point statistical zeroes like them can simply snap.
In this regard I am not for gun control because I think it would actually protect me or others from people like them. I do however think that at large there is no reason for people to be armed in a peaceful society. I do think that at large guns being less widespread will result in criminals also having less access to them which would like in japan result in gun crimes being less common(unless in the particular culture were are talking about people are so desperate for guns that once they are not legally available they would go to any lengths to get them illegally thus resulting in a flourishing black market). How do you prevent guys like lanza or holmes in the end? I guess people close to them could have done something but I would think it a rare scenario for anyone to predict or think they were literally dangerous to others in the way they were. Gun control should not aim to stop statistical zeroes like holmes or lanza, it should aim to make guns at large less widespread because at large there is no need for people to be armed at their homes or public places and to make guns at large less available for common criminals.
Get rid of guns. There are always going to be irresponsible people who get their hands on them. Saying people kill not guns is silly. Guns is the one thing the government can control; how does the government expect to control all these people with different mindsets? Look at Canada, we hardly have gun violence let alone school shootings. Hunting rifles may be kept to shoot game, but there is no need for handguns. The only purpose they serve is to kill other humans.
Let's say we have two homicidal maniacs, a guy loaded with a pistol and another with a knife in two different rooms with the same amount of people.
Whatever variables you might add to this circumstance, I think it is okay to say that in the end the guy with the gun will probably end up with more dead bodies than the guy with the knife.
Stricter controls might work....for a while IMO. I think the important thing here is to change the people's mentality of guns.Quote:
or you know, it could be a robbery, gang fights, or just an unexpected firing.Quote:
All this crimes could be done without a gun but guns makes it easier for criminals and also makes a lot of things much more dangerous. I don't live in the USA but from the media(not sure if it's a good example), I see gunfights breaking out suddenly in streets and innocent people getting killed because of the weapons. This might apply only to certain parts of the US but I think just it happening is a terrible thing.
I don't think people should just accept that everyone should be carrying a weapon. It is called a weapon because, either way and for whatsoever reasons, it will be used and when it is used, people will be hurt. And in most cases, not just hurt but killed.
People can call it self-defense or whatever morally right reason people can think up of but in the end it doesn't change the fact that they killed someone.
It might be naive and childlike , but I still believe there is another way of living instead of "shoot him before he shoots me" or "guns are a form of security".
They are a form of security because people are actually planning to use them.
No offense, but I think it is fortunate that Sg is a small country and with low crime rates and no body can carry any guns here without our local SWAT zooming on them. Perhaps that is why I can never understand the gun culture in the USA, maybe I'm ignorant but I will choose to throw away whatever gun culture that exist in the society and go for a society where people don't feel insecure unless they get to hold something that takes away other's life.
I don't think the US situation is so bad that you have gun fights breaking out of nowhere at all times. Surely the recent shootings have been tragedies and criminals are bound to have weapons but the US is not an actual war zone just yet. I lived there for 3 years and I never even saw a gun (although I did end up learning of all the places where there had been shootings from when the city had not yet controlled their gang problem). As far as the topic goes my only real shock was during a class when a teacher asked people to raise their hands if they had ever fired a gun and to my surprise I was the only one who had never done so (I have to assume my 150 classmates at the time did so in a recreational manner).