What are your thoughts on gun control?
Many liberals say that guns are evil.
In fact, I had one liberal tell me that all guns should be thrown in the ocean.
However, how would people protect themselves from others that wish to do them, or their family harm?
Listen to what woman said, after being a victim of a gun-related crime, which cost the lives of her parents.
Gun control from a victims perspective
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Why can't people take responsibility of their own actions instead?
Well, I might have an interesting perspective on this, seeing as I'm a liberal gun-owner with a CC permit.
I support some gun control measures and find other ridiculous. In my opinion, gun control should focus on keeping guns out of criminal hands, rather than restricting certain kinds of weapons.
I'm pro-background checks and waiting periods. Smart guns are great and I wouldn't mind a national firearm registry. I'm fine with NFA restrictions on automatic weapons and silencer.
I'm 100% anti assault weapon ban. It's bad legislature that targets particular firearms based on superficial accessories or notoriety, rather than any credible threat they pose.
On the fence about high capacity magazines. 10 round limits sound good on paper, but most semi-automatic handguns take a minimum of 13-16 rounds. Think about how many guns would have to be recalled until new magazines could be manufactured and issued. 5 round limits are even worse, and would result in even six-shot revolvers being banned. It just seems like a logistical nightmare.
Tl;dr: People should have the right to protect themselves. But sometimes, the best means of self-defense is keeping guns away from people who shouldn't be using them.
Agreed on all of it. Especially the last part. Couldn't say it better.
Why does an average citizen need an assault rifle though? I would ban any weapon that's not a hunting rifle. Any benefits of owning more dangerous weapons are greatly outweighed by the risks. You seem reasonable, so I'm genuinely curious if there's something I'm missing here.
I support people's rights to own guns, but I think it should be far more difficult to get one. I don't think people should be allowed assault weapons. I just don't see the point. If you need a weapon for personal defense then alright, but I don't think you need an assault weapon for that. Heck, even the term "assault" undermines that notion.
Guns, yes. More strenuous standards to own guns, yes. Assault weapons, no.
Well for one, you've misconstrued assault weapon with assault rifle. An assault weapon is any firearm that was banned under the expired federal Assault Weapon ban. An assault rifle is just a select-fire rifle that fires intermediate rounds. These are illegal for Americans to own without special permits.
My main problem with banning everything but hunting rifles is this. What's the basis? What constitutes a hunting rifle vs. an assault weapon? As I already said, the main difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle (like an M1A1, which might I add, the government SELLS) and a semi-automatic "assault weapon" (like an AR-15) is the appearance. One is wooden, the other is black and scary. One is plain and the other has add-ons like a flash suppressor or forward grip that make it look more like a military rifle. In terms of lethality and threat to the public, there is almost no difference.
One thing I wouldn't mind is if semi-auto "military style rifles" like AK-47 and AR-15 derivatives were restricted under the NFA, like machine guns currently are. You could own one, but it requires a permit, extensive background checks/paperwork and a $200 tax stamp. It would significantly reduce violent 'impulse buys', while allowing responsible gun-owners who go through the proper channels, to keep their guns.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed...
However, I think there should be more gun control on illegally obtained guns than those of law abiding citizens.
A well regulated Militia,
That's the national guard. But 'people' refers to all US citizens.
Bullet control? You mean like "cop killer" rounds?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Without the people meaning the militia this statement makes no sense. Without the people being the militia they have no reason to bear arms by this amendment. Unless I am misinformed, in which case I would love to be corrected.
But every US citizen who follows the 2nd amendment can defend their country and join the militia.
But they're not part of the "well regulated militia" as laid out by the second amendment? Even if they can join it. Just spit balling.
I mean to prevent innocent people getting shot.
We have to remember back then, every able-bodied man was the militia. I still think that applies now because if the current well regulated militia needs help, there's armed citizens ready to join in the fight.
If you couldn't tell, I'm not a gun person. For some reason I had it in my head that hunting rifles were all single shot, which apparently isn't true. If people are commonly using semi-automatic rifles to hunt, then I guess they have to be allowed.
Follow up question: where do you stand on concealable weapons, ie, handguns? Seems to me that we shouldn't be making it easy for people to walk around in public with a weapon. The Charleston shooter was able to get into the church and wait for everyone to settle into the Bible Study Group before opening fire. If he had been walking around with a noticeable weapon, his job would have been much more difficult.
The only thing I would ever support for gun control is that a gun owner needs a license that needs to be renewed to own a gun.
It's not as if it would be difficult for a criminal to conceal a firearm, regardless of it being illegal to do or not.
I think it's more of an issue that gun stores and merchants should be more harshly regulated and more strict on who they sell guns than anything else, having a gun for protection is not bad thing itself, selling guns to people that have records that show that they should not be trusted with a gun is, also I don't people should be able to own military grade weaponry, I mean what is even the point?
Guns aren't toys you shouldn't be able to collect dangerous weaponry just because you want to, then again I live in a country where nobody really knows what the gun control laws are and are generally very confusing and nonsensical, I know you can own weapons and hunt but that's about it, you cannot carry guns outside of hunting areas, I don't know laws here are pretty weird and since we have much bigger problems than gun control laws I can't say I actually care all that much.
Some gun control is definitely needed in my opinion in the United States. Nowhere on the scale as we had here, granted, but if they were to further regulate access to firearms i.e. introduce federal laws ( not state laws ) and have lengthened background checks AND ESPECIALLY a liscencing system, then I think things would be much better. It is simply left too open as it is for people there to aquire a firearm with ready accesibility and legality should they intend to commit a crime, according to my eye.
It made sense back then, when the US was a young nation, open to invaders and without a proper defensive force. Now, with the second largest military and largest defence budget in the world. I hardly think that is the case.
That is the thing. A criminal does not wish to take responsibility (usually).
People hunt with many types if gun, but rarely single-shot. Most are either bolt-action or semi-automatic. Most small-game hunters use a small caliber firearm that looks much like an AR-15.
Once again, should it be banned? No. Should it be restricted? Yes. Concealed weapon permits should only be issued conditionally, based on the individual's competence and the issuer's gut feeling. But the problem is that many states have a 'will issue' policy that allows everyone who passes the background check to recieve a permit. You also shouldn't be allow to purchase a handgun without a CCW permit, in my opinion.
I have a CCW permit in Pennsylvania, but I don't like carrying much. I'd rather forfeit my valuables then take my chances shooting it out.
DAMN COMMIES TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM MACHINES!!!! HOW WILL I FEEL LIKE A BIG MAN WITHOUT MUH GUN!!!
Comment on the video in the OP: If guns were banned the shooter would not have been able to shoot anyone.
Doesn't matter, they can pass whatever law they want, won't change anything. If you want a gun, there is always a market for it.
Unless he was a criminal and got the gun by illegal means. Like a criminal. Having a law against something does not prevent the item from existing in a country, don't be naive. If having laws against things did anything there would be no "war on drugs."
What country?
The man was clearly insane, he would most likely not be able to have Gotten his hands on a gun if they were banned
People have the right to protect themselves and I agree with that "guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people". Therfore, gun control (a.k.a.: limits on gun possession) stops people with guns kill people. With one gun, you can kill many people at once but, without a gun, it's hard enough to kill one person.
Yeah, the illegal market.
I think people should be allowed to have some guns, the larger dangerous ones however should be controlled. I don't understand the type of logic these days about having assault rifles and military grade weapons around their house then quoting the constitution. Guns then and guns now are far different, plus the uses of them.
All that gun control is going to do, is make it harder for the average Joe to acquire a gun.
It's not gonna stop the criminal from getting a gun.
The criminal be able to get one on the black market.
Banning guns does not mean they all despawn from existence. It didn't mean that with alcohol during prohibition, it didn't mean gold was no longer able to be obtained when it was outlawed and confiscated by the government, and it doesn't mean drugs are unable to be obtained either. If guns were banned people would still acquire them, probably a group of people known as criminals, or law breakers if you will. The sort of people that don't follow the law, and therefore will have whatever outlawed substance or items they please, because they will still exist and still be trafficked.
As the woman in the video stated: "The purpose of the 2nd amendment is so that average people can protect and defend themselves against the Government if the it should ever turn tyrannical."
Hence it makes sense why so many buy Assault rifles and such.
If the government wants to go tyrannical, there ain't a damn thing you can do. You have an AR-15, they have helicopters, tanks, drones, warplanes and long range artillery. Sorry, but that argument is completely lame and unrealistic.
But yeah, if you want to defend yourself from the tyrannical government, go right ahead. I'll be busy not getting turned into red paste by an Apache.
I was just merely acknowledging what the 2nd amendment is about.
And that is, it's basically a fail-safe that the founding fathers put in place, in case the Government they were creating ever turned into another England, which at the time of the signing of The Declaration Of Independence, America had just ended a two-year war with.
You mean the constitution.
Exactly, which means it's outdated; we don't need to worry about England anymore. I wish people would focus less on the constitutional amendment and more on the practical implications of gun laws. Otherwise the argument will just boil down to "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" versus "a well regulated militia" ad nauseum.
Can you truly be safe if people are allowed to wield dangerous weapons that could seriously injure or kill someone either intentionally or unintentionally?