CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Gun Control - should we have it?
In the aftermath of all of the recent mass shootings, many have been complaining about needing stronger gun control. Now, we have Newtown. A place where innocent children were executed by a clearly deranged individual. It is clear that the Obama administration is looking to put gun control back up for consideration.
Statistics does not lie. 33 dead a day in US by usual legally owned guns. That's more than rest of the civilized word together.
Nothing better than stressed 40 years old High School teacher on heels with automatic weapon... off course unless she undergoes Marines boot camp and a turn in Afghanistan...:D
Yes, but this is one sided. How many are saved my legally owned guns? And if i was a killer and i wanted a AR-15 and it was illigal i would get it none the less. Buy it from the underground or somthing. They will allways find a way. THe AR-15 was also not Automatic, it was simiautomatic.
The argument that he would get the gun elsewhere is BS. First Assault rifles on black market are $4000-5000 which is far from his budget. Second he took the weapon after murdering his mother is she had no weapons there will be no shooting in a first place.
Weapon smugglers with military grade stuff do not sell to random people because it may attract unwanted attentions.
When assault rifle saved someone? Why do you even need that like weapon? Enemy soldiers would kill you anyway, same as anyone else who would surprise you.
Many buy assult weapons as a hobby, sport shooting, target shooting or to just have a good time. I am one of these people, i own a M1 Carbine for target shooting and just to shoot for fun. Assult weapons save many in the military, which is besides the debate but i thought it would come up.
I don't need an assult weapon but others do for a few reasons.
1. Fear of others. They fear their nabors. My cousin lives in a bad naborhood and bought a gun for his protection.
2. Fear of the government. This fear is irrational yes but there are people who think that our government is out to become a monarchy or communism. Once again, this fear is irrational and i understand this but they buy these guns for protection out of their own fear.
1. fear from neighbors, I would rather move out than living in fear.
2. Fear of the government. irrational, unlikely to happen and even if it will be bunch of rednecks with rifles against tanks, bomber and proper trained people...
It should be limited like one gun per person max cal .22. Two full clips limit. It's enough for self defense.
Last AK47 was made in June 1953 and it's in museum. Authentic ak-47 type 1 costs more than $30 000 (it's a collectible stuff) You and your havoc scope are most probably talking about AKM and it's clones. Those $500 AKs are build from "decommissioned" pieces (kissed by automatic hammer) with some home made parts. I saw them, yes they shoot but not in full auto, it would just blow up. You can buy them in Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia... You cannot buy these in US.
Proper AR in good condition costs 10x more and again it would not to be sold to random guy it's very very risky.
You cannot buy it for less that $2000. Those weapons are imported to US if you would be willing to sell them for $500 why do so in place where is it illegal? For same money you may sell it in places where no one cares without paying smugglers.
Last AK47 was made in June 1953 and it's in museum. Authentic ak-47 type 1 costs more than $30 000 (it's a collectible stuff) You and your havoc scope are most probably talking about AKM and it's clones. Those $500 AKs are build from "decommissioned" pieces (kissed by automatic hammer) with some home made parts. I saw them, yes they shoot but not in full auto, it would just blow up. You can buy them in Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia... You cannot buy these in US.
Proper AR in good condition costs 10x more and again it would not to be sold to random guy it's very very risky.
You cannot buy it for less that $2000. Those weapons are imported to US if you would be willing to sell them for $500 why do so in place where is it illegal? For same money you may sell it in places where no one cares without paying smugglers.
According to this roughly 75 million AK47s (don't blow up in your hand) exist today, only 5 million being originals.
That's the sourced part. Unsourced says that small tribes use them. And havocscope, a meta collection of criminal databases, confirms the prices.
However, I would like to know more about how non-authentic AK type weapons will just blow up in your hand... You'd think they wouldn't be one of the most popular black market weapons if they were unreliable.
The modern AKs are actually one of the most reliable black market weapons because of its durability. Even the M16 and M4s could never match up to its durability until recently.
And, according to the original link, in California an AK47, knockoff or not, is less than 500 dollars.
most of aAKs are decommissioned the way that something like huge hammer hits it in barrel and around the trigger. After that it's classified as a metal scrap and it's not controlled anymore. After that they are being repaired from home made spare parts usually made from random metals/materials that tends to expand after heated up. Cheap something-like barrel gets slightly thicker and bullet stuck... full auto is a bad idea... I've had this way restored cz58. The Californian AK will be something very similar.
AKs are reliable because of loose parts m16/4 are build differently. You are comparing apples with oranges.
Here is a little statistic for you, America ranks 107th homicide rates, but ranks 1st in gun ownership. From 1960 to 2010 our homicide rate has dropped from 5.1 per 100,00 to 4.8 per 100,000 however violent crime rates have risen from 160.9 per 100,00 people to 403.6 per 100,000. After 70 years of gun control you have slightly lowered the homicide rate but drastically increased violent crime.
Gun control doesn't stop illegal gun sales, its like saying "lets make drugs illegal, it will take them off the street." Criminals will still get the banned guns, the problem with mass shootings is not guns, but its crazy people, you can't fix crazy by banning weapons.
UK: Cumbria shootings and Dunblane school massacre.
Regardless of gun control laws people can still acquire illegal arms. Only difference is that law abiding citizens can not have them but criminals can. When you bring any weapon into a school zone you have broken a ton of laws, a few more about firearms would not have stopped anything. Gun control fails.
You didn't address that since we have started adding more and more gun control that violent crimes have gone up and how even though America is #1 in gun ownership it tanks only 107th in homicide rates.
30 000 shot people in US a year, more that whole Europe together That's quite extreme. Why do you need automatic Assault rifle for self defense? What about mortar? Wouldn't be better?
Look at countries where you cannot have any weapons? What about UK or Japan?
Why do you need automatic Assault rifle for self defense?
You don't have assault rifles so you can shoot at deer, you have it to resist oppressive governments.
Look at countries where you cannot have any weapons? What about UK or Japan?
What about the 2011 UK riots? In places where only the government have weapons its called a police state. In the UK criminals have more access to guns that law abiding citizens, seriously, its illegal to buy an airsoft gun unless you are part of a club.
Most UK police have no weapons? Oh, that makes sense, so when they see someone with a weapon committing a crime they have to call for someone who actually has a gun to help, great job protecting people.
You and your cousin can't beat the air force, a large citizen militia could stand a chance against an army.
If you don't think that bad things can happen in government and that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself, well, that says a lot about you.
In UK nobody has gun, there is practically no gun crime, it's extremely rare. I've never seen police man with a weapon.
Militia may work in Africa. No chance against proper army. How would you untrained redneck squad take out armors or planes artillery, mortars, snipers, missile systems?... ? By praying?
How many untrained rednecks you can accumulate on one place with food and ammo 50, 100? That's one hour fight without looses... One drone will wipe you all out.
You cannot defend yourself against government, whole that idea is a stupid fallacy.
Militia may work in Africa. No chance against proper army. How would you untrained redneck squad take out armors or planes artillery, mortars, snipers, missile systems?... ? By praying?
Most "Red necks" don't just buy a pistol and go "we'll lordy lordy I can take down the whole army" and our military is not constantly drilling and preparing. You have to remember two things: 1. many people who own high powered weapons practice 2. our army is made up of mainly weekend soldiers that have never seen combat, most of them just went to boot camp and then were labeled as part of the reserves.
How many untrained rednecks you can accumulate on one place with food and ammo 50, 100? That's one hour fight without looses... One drone will wipe you all out.
Boot camp is two week training, most of these "rednecks" use their guns on a weekly basis. Also you fail to understand how a war on civilians works. You send a drone in and kill 10 rednecks. You can guarantee that there will be a good amount of their friends and family that will take up arms against the organization that killed them. Also if a country is opening fire on their civilians and is killing a large amount that nation also has to worry about foreign opinion and intervention.
You cannot defend yourself against government, whole that idea is a stupid fallacy.
You seem to have this view of the government that they don't bleed or die, they are people, they can perish.
Basic military training (boot camp) is 4 months followed by another 6 month. Rednecks practice/? ...like shoot a magazine into barrel and get drunk?
You cannot compete Army, just Marines are about 200 000, 420 000 active soldiers, Air force has about 18 000 planes also there are 9000 tanks, 35000 Tomahawks ...nobody will follow you because it's a suicide run.
You do not need weapons, you cannot fight Government or anybody else, you are just danger to yourself and innocent people walking around.
Statistically 12 drunk rednecks will shot each other before I respond to your next reply.
Its rather biased of you to assume that anyone to think about rebellion must be a drunk redneck, actually, thats really biased of you.
Even if you couldn't fight the government during a time of oppression (which you could) you would still need guns to defend yourself against criminals.
One low powered hand gun with two clips, thats it? By the way, there is no such thing as a pyscho test, if you are refering to a mental health test these are usually expensive.
So deadly weapons should require testing? Alright, better make tests for knives, bats, crowbars, chainsaws, gasoline, cars (mental tests to), hanging out in groups ect.
"That testing isn't so expensive and I find quite important that a person who wants to carry deadly weapon around is not some sort of mental." - Banana_Slug
knives, bats, crowbars, chainsaws, gasoline, cars, even just hanging out in a group are all deadly weapons. So should you be required to take a mental test over all these simply because they have the potential to be deadly? Seriously, from the products in your laundry room you could make chlorine gas, which is a deadly chemical weapon (was used in WWI)
Its not babbling its an argument you just don't want to get into, you can kill a ton people with things other than guns.
As I said before, Guns are item designed to kill another people, they have no other use, you cannot cook with them or build a house. It's an item with only one purpose, to kill another human being. So if someone is going to buy weapon there could be only one reason why... that's why civilized countries tests potential gun owners.
Yes you may kill person with pencil but the purpose of pencil is to write things down and wast of majority of them have been are and will be used that way.
Yes, we do need guns. You know what else only has one use? Screwdrivers, hammers, nails, light bulbs. Guns are for hunting, sporting, and defense. That's 3 uses right there. They are a tool. Bad guys are the people that give guns a bad rap. Guns are an equalizer; a way for the weak to defend against the strong. Every firearm owner knows that since they own a weapon, they must carry the responsibility of owning it, taking care of it, and being smart with it. The vast majority of guns do NOT kill people. Let me give you an example:
99.9% of guns in American are not used in a crime, only .1% are. Only 4% out of that .1% were guns that were obtained legally. Guns are used 4 times more in self defense and in those cases, 98% of the time it is not fired. Cars kill more people than guns annually. There were 33,883 car fatalities in 2009, versus 9,146 gun homicides in 2009. Out of those gun homicides, 366 were caused by a legally obtained firearm. The rest were illegally obtained. And I don't think it conditions people that killing is okay. Criminals do not have the same values as the general populace, so they view killing as okay, but not some average joe defending his home. Gun control does not work.
These facts came from the FBI and the CATO Institute. You want to deny the FBI?
Guns are designed to kill. Handguns and assault rifles are specially designed to kill another human begin. Why do you thing that 5.56 was chosen for assault rifles as a standard? I was not for it's long range accuracy nor ability to penetrate materials, it was specially designed to cause maximum harm to human beings. Shooting isn't real sport same as poker isn't. You can use low powered weapons for shooting.
0.1% of guns in US = 300 000 guns used in crime. Your .4% number is a BS, wast majority of guns used to kill people in US were legal purchased in gun stores but one buys guns for multiple people and that makes them "illegal". Guns that killed people in the latest shooting are technically illegal too because they were his mother....
In US about 30 people a day being shoot.
UK & Japan no guns allowed 0 shootings a year.
It's just a stupid fallacy forced into your simple mind by gun companies that you "need" a gun. Nobody does.
The 5.56 was designed to wound, not straight out kill. The idea behind it is that if you wound a soldier, he has to have 2 other people carry him out, thus you have 3 hostiles out of the fight. It does kill, that is true. Any well placed round can kill. Now I cited guns used in homicides, not all gun crimes together. If we go to the 300,000 guns used in any crime, that is still 12,000 legal firearms out of 300,000 firearms used in crime. Lets say legislation makes it so that there are no guns allowed. Congratulations, you have now prevented 12,000 gun crimes. But what about the other 288,000 that were obtained illegally? You have now disarmed the law abiding citizen and made a haven for the criminal. The 4% number came from the FBI. Do you want to contradict the head law enforcement agency in the United States? In the United Kingdom, including N. Ireland, there were 46 deaths from guns in 2010. Granted, it is a lot less, but it is still there, not the 0 you claim. This comes from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. However, even though there were less deaths, there was a surge in gun crime, death and non-death related, after the ban on guns. It increased 35%, while handgun use in crime went up 46%. But how can this be? You can't get a gun in the UK! It's illegal! Surprise! Criminals don't care. It is only less violent because the UK has a CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK. That's more than Communist China! Cameras would be a good idea in the US, but it is not feasible. We are too big. I am not influenced by gun companies, I am influenced by facts. I could claim that your "simple" mind was influenced by the liberal media machine, but you would just deny it. Or would it be a compliment? We need guns. The founding fathers used guns to gain our independence from Britain. The only way for us to stay free is to even the playing field. One of the reason we are the country we are is because of our right to own guns. It is not something that the government can just take away. It is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT! Be it from Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Father of Jesus Christ, which I believe in. You can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands. By the way. Merry Christmas!
You have used land mine argument for ammo. 5.56 is designed to maximize damage not to wound.
Those 300 000 guns are from legal gunships thing that made them "illegal" is just formality they were brought in Licensed gun shops.
Now you are comparing 46 dead from UK with 11000 in US? I'm missing your point.
CCTV is not observed in mealtime they used only when they look for someone.
The obsolete 2nd amendment was not given by god but by people whose intention was to make people able to protect them self against British Imperialism. That's long gone, so there is no reason for 2nd amendment anymore, it's became obsolete. The only use for it is to increase weapon sales to rednecks, you are definitely one of them.
Weeel I'll be. I gues Imma redneeck. Yee haw! You ignorant peon. You poor fool! The second amendment is for defense against a tyrannical government. Our government, thankfully, is not. Let me give you some quotes from some of history's greatest minds.
"Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny."
Aristotle in Politics
"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)
"We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution."
Daniel Webster (1782-1852) American Statesman, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State under three (3) U.S. Presidents
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart, Philadelphia, December 23, 1791
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit,
occidentis telum _est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands")
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
"There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice; not by instruction but by natural intuition: I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) Roman Orator and Statesman at the trial of T. Annius Milo in 52 BC
”A free people ought to be armed.”
~George Washington
”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
~George Washington
”By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
~John F. Kennedy
”The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.”
~Edward Abbey
”God grants Liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.”
~Daniel Webster
”To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
~George Mason
I am sorry you feel that your country is not good enough for you. I truly am sorry for you.
P.S.
The 5.56 is disliked by our own soldiers. They say it is too weak. They want something better.
Nice citations of a philosopher, murder , few politicians, essay writer... all of them long time dead and don't have vote. They lived in different world where ordinary people with percussion weapons could do a difference. Now they can do only harm. It's not 18th century anymore there are no more British sailing ship waiting for goods....
You don't want dead guys? Here are some live ones.
...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents."
-- Don B. Kates, writing on statistical patterns in gun crime
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
-- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On
The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session
(February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5
In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.
-- Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984
"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
- Dalai Lama
"In England, if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun and you don't have a gun. If you commit a crime, the police will say 'Stop, or I'll say stop again.'"
- Robin Williams
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."
- James Earl Jones
Here are few more dead ones, but NOT from the 18th century.
" ... the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law."
- Martin Luther King
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
I'm sorry, but how are these out of context or wrong? They aren't from works, they are direct quotations. Have you seen these speeches? Read these "works"? If you have you must be middle aged. If your not old enough, don't accuse me of things you have never done yourself. Show me. Show me your facts. You haven't yet. Show me why these are wrong. Being an actor doesn't count? Being a civil rights activist doesn't mean your talking about guns? Being a respectable psychologist doesn't count either? Being one of the most famous religous leaders means they cant support guns? Hitler did believe in disarming his own people. That's why we have Jews for the Preservation of Firearms. Show me. Try it.
As I said before, Guns are item designed to kill another people, they have no other use, you cannot cook with them or build a house. It's an item with only one purpose, to kill another human being. So if someone is going to buy weapon there could be only one reason why... that's why civilized countries tests potential gun owners.
Only one reason? Yes obviously if I buy a gun its to kill someone, not to defend myself.
You are blabbing, people does not need guns.
It sickens me that authoritarians such as yourself view talking about guns to be blabbing.
It was proven that countries like UK and Japan, that are more democratic than US has banned weapons long time ago and yet the amount of killing done by any weapon is incredibly lower.
You wrote to me 49 minutes ago, in that time was statistically person shot dead in US...
UK has a higher violent crimes rate. You also have to factor in that in America there is alot more gangs that in the UK or Japan. Never trade Liberty for security, you'll end up losing them both.
Why do Americans really need heavy guns if not to shoot people? The fact is that if there were no guns America would be a much safer place.
So if someone wants to protect themself from a wild animal do they need a gun? Well, if they live near an area where there are creatures such as this then I do not see a real reason why they should not have something to keep them safe, such as a small pistol to wound an animal to give them time to get away and to freedom. Surely there is no reason to walk around with a heavy machine gun to protect yourself from a bear?
I think that it should be the people who are in need of self-control. Guns are good if used properly, but considering the lack of discipline by man these days, I think guns should be controlled until man becomes more responsible and worthy of holding one.
Hang on there, did you just say that an instrument whose invention hinged on the will to kill things more efficiently is a good thing? No man is worthy of holding the means to end another man's life.
The 2nd amendment rights should be protected, and US citizens who are well qualified to own such weapons should be able to, however implementing better gun regulations such as taking a test, and doing things to continue to ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands. For it is not the guns fault, but the person who is using the gun, we need to regulate these guns and make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands by implementing proper tests and procedures to do so. If guns were as regulated as automobiles, we would be in a safer environment.
The benifits of no gun control are far outweighed by the negatives, thus gun control is neccisary.
Also in reference to the picture in the OP, gun control is like the liscence to drive a car, and the pathetic level of gun laws at the moment pretty much means nothing.
Well, the past people were allowed to keep guns because those guns couldn't kill 30 people in 30 seconds. However, now people for some reason started buying modern weapons. If guns make people safer why America is not the safest place in the world? Generally speaking guns have harmed people a lot because some mentally ill people misuse it.Every person who wants to get gun have to be pass some tests of mental health. Nowadays it's cheaper and easier to buy a gun than a driving license. 119,079 children and teenager’s lives have been taken since 1979 by gun violence and this number will increase unless the government will fix this problem.
It's beyond belief to me that any person should carry a gun , I remember my first time in the states and actually seeing armed police as an outsider (Ireland) I was shocked , now I know Americans find that strange , but by definition a gun is life threatening thus my shock . Guns have no place in society and much and all as I love the USA and its marvellous people I don't like guns . No other passage in the US Constitution is as hotly debated as the Second Amendment. In full, this controversial sentence reads:
“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.”Although most people focus on the “bear arms” part, the real key word is “militia.” The thing is, in 1791, no-one really knew if this whole “Union” thing was going to work out. Many of the States distrusted each other, and everyone distrusted big government. The possibility of invasion was frighteningly real, and the Second Amendment was put in place to make sure that a citizen’s militia could defend the principles of the constitution. What the Second Amendment didn’t do was grant any drunken asshole the right to stagger into a gun shop and buy an assault rifle without a single background check. In 1939, the Supreme Court even ruled that:“The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia.”By 2008, they’d extended that to cover self-defense in the home—something else that doesn’t require a high-capacity magazine and the ability to kill everything within a three block radius. But that’s all they’d extended it to: there’s no constitutional “right” to carry a concealed weapon, no “right” to use armor-piercing bullets—just the right to defend yourself against intruders. And as Stephen King famously said: “if you can’t kill an intruder with ten rounds, you need to go back to the shooting range.”
Now, I suppose the argument from gun control advocates is as scattered as arguments from gun advocates. There is little to no consensus on either side on what level of gun control is "right."
Here are some things to note, however. The weapon used at the Elementary School and Movie theater was an AR-15. It is a semi-automatic assault rifle. As assface has pointed out in an earlier debate, this weapon is no more dangerous than your standard hunting rifle. It doesn't "spray" bullets. Automatic weapons are not the most tactical nor are they the most reliable. The military rarely even uses automatic weapons. It really does depend.
So killers, either trained by the government or just lunatics, tend to not use automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are for non-skilled people who would rather unload a magazine and make sure they hit their target. They are also for people like me, who enjoy guns as a novelty. And they are even for hunters, who are about killing the shit out of their prey.
In general, when it comes to preventing these horrendous mass murders, going after automatic weapons is pointless. Going after all assault rifles is only in the right track if you get rid of all hunting rifles as well. However, assault rifles are RARELY used in gun related homicides. Handguns are. Handguns, in fact, are the most dangerous type of guns, for they are easy to conceal and not as expensive. However, they are the most reliable for women who need to fend off attackers for they are small and easy to use (depending on the handgun, of course.) Assault rifles are big and bulky, very difficult to conceal, and for a woman being attacked not very accessible or usable. In general, your average American prefers handguns because of its affordability and easy to carry. You are allowed to keep a handgun on your persons in states with right-to-carry laws, which is good for people whom are afraid of being attacked in dark alleys or other areas where they are at risk.
So what kind of gun control would prevent a mass murder like what we've seen in the past few years? If we had a nationwide ban of all guns, it's possible that it would be difficult for lunatics, especially those who aren't very well-connected, to get their weapons right away. A killer like John Holmes wouldn't have been stopped, for he definitely knew his shit (considering how he even rigged his entire apartment with explosives, which I will get more into detail later,) however the recent murder at the Elementary school could possibly have been prevented. Or, it would have merely delayed it. Best case scenario, the kid would have only killed his family and maybe only a few kids. Some of them would have possibly escaped, considering he didn't lock the door. In total, we could have seen a few less deaths overall, or maybe none of them could have died. It's very possible that this kid would have not been able to chop up or beat the life out of these kids after doing it to his family, since it is far more intimate to use blunt or sharp weapons than guns.
But what about explosives? They are not hard to come by, especially if you have a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook. This kid might not have been able to make devastating explosives, but John Holmes did. He didn't use them to kill those people at the theater because he had his AR-15, a grim but important fact to note. Now, rigging an entire theater to blow MAY take time, but not that much time. Maybe he could have gotten caught, but if not he would have killed even more.
And then we look at the murders at Virginia Tech. roughly 30 killed with handguns.
So an all out ban and "War on Guns" is really the only thing we could try to prevent shootings. Explosives would become the new weapon of choice for people hoping to get a lot of kills in short times, but as a country I suppose we'd deal with it then.
However, maybe disarming the populace isn't the best choice.
1. No guarantee that this will work. Prohibition rarely works in this country, and guns are pretty much everywhere in this country. There is little to nothing we can do to get rid of the guns that are already here. Not only do guns get smuggled in here, we smuggle guns everywhere else. America is a major gun nation, and a "War on Guns" would be a full-scale war that may be even more detrimental than the War on Drugs. Especially since we have enough trust issues with our police and military.
2. Disarming the populace won't necessarily make the people safer. People have used guns in self defense for many [different cases]. More people use guns for self-defense than they do for murder. A dick load more. It's very easy for a murderer to use a knife instead of a gun, for murder tends to be by surprise. Guns for self-defense, on the other hand, are either in fire-fights or something of the such. Not to mention it's a lot harder to apprehend someone if you only have a knife, especially if you know nothing about knife fighting.
I had more reasons, but this is pretty long already.
So what CAN we do to prevent these massacres? Two main things, luckily:
1. Loosen gun control. Gun free zones are basically areas where you can't defend yourself or your family. School shootings are terrible and scary, but fear of the guns instead of the people doing the shooting is more of a problem than the tools of murder. If teachers were armed, they'd be far more likely to prevent a school shooting... like in Israel. Israel is a more dangerous place, so they keep their teachers armed. It has proven to be of good results. There's the fear of unstable teachers, but that's all it is... fear. Fear, the thing that keeps us from protecting ourselves. If a teacher wants to kill his kids, he's not going to listen to the "gun-free" rule put in place. However, another armed teacher could prevent him from doing too much damage. It's more of a fact, that the greatest threat to a mass murderer is another person with a gun.
2. Focus on the Psychology of these people. We focus so much on shifting blame, be it gun control, violent video games, or heavy metal, and we never think about the fact that these people were unstable and created by society in the first place. there are probably so many preventative measures we could have made in raising our children or spreading media that would stop these spree killings, but instead we seem to only provoke it by spreading the fear and paranoia. A lot of these people are bullied, abused, or simply not right in the head. They find that a mass murder is exactly what they need to get their emotions on the media. We as a populace eat this shit up. Whenever a tragedy occurs we start saying "omg, what a monster, he's not human, he's evil," and avoid the fact that he was human and that we are all just as capable. Maybe our Psychology isn't fucked up like his, but something made it fucked up in the first place. It's not the devil, it's not that he's an asshole, it's something to do both Neurologically and Socially that is causing this.
This is going on for awhile, so I'll cut it short here. I hope I've made my point well.
This is so true, especially that last paragraph on psychology. The media fails to realise that when they shovel shit like "he was an evil monster and anyone like him should be killed", they immediately alienate anyone who has the potential to be in the same state of mind as him, and become more likely to do terrible things like Columbine/Aurora/Newtown or whatever.
I'm not saying we need to encourage these people to think the way they do, but a little less aggression and vitriol in our media would be more effective than a million gun control laws.
We don't need gun control we need people control. We need to make sure that people who want to kill don't get guns. In the case of newtown he got the gun from a family member but this idea would have stopped the shootings at the Seik Temple and at the Movie Theatre showing Batman.
People want to ban assult rifles because they think they cause crime. If i was a criminal i would get it illagly if i wanted it. And if i couldn't get that i would get a M1 Carbine or another rifle that is simiautomatic. They want to ban assultrifles because they look scary. One could do just as much damage with another rifle or a pistol.
What next? The NSA can wiretap my phone and monitor my internet usage just in case i might be planning a terrorist attack?
By the way, if you want to stop the unstable from getting firearms, they probably shouldn't be available for legal purchase on every other streetcorner. so yeah. Gun regulation is necessary.
The fact that the weapons could be found, despite being banned, isn't the issue. We know that. The point is that someone a little fucked up on meth or some shit can't walk into walmart and walk out with a beretta and a hundred rounds of ammunition and go slaughter his ex girlfriend because she said "hi" one time.
It should be obvious that we need more guns, not less, less is the reason that got us into this mess with GUN FREE ZONE, this is a welcome mat for mass shootings.
Honestly, this was closer to what I wanted to see than gun control. This shooting was the result of irresponsible gun ownership. The woman should have had her guns locked up, not out in the open. The woman knew her son was mentally unstable, and should have taken the initiative to not give him the opportunity to have access to the guns without her supervision. I am sorry to say it, but it is kind of her fault. We need to preach gun responsibility, teach owners to lock up their guns, or hide them away, not have them easily obtainable for whoever wishes to pick them up. Gun control was not the issue here, lack of responsibility was.
Indeed, this was a result of irresponsible gun ownership. Which just goes to show the lack of gun control is letting our guns fall into the hands of unexperienced and unqualified gun owners. If we put regulations in place and regulated our guns so they don't fall into the wrong hands we could prevent more accidents like this happening.
Yes because let us ALL go by what they think! By your logic, we should purge all those agaisnt the country because the hold a threat to the glorious leader! (Stalin)
On a serious note, though, think of Texas. Lowest crime rate- yet everyone has a gun. Having more gun control is like punishing someone because they knew Stalin.
This debate is getting old. I've seen it on several other sites. I say just arm everyone, give them some training, then let the problems resolve themselves.
and the first thing people like me would do is throw that gun away. So what does that accomplish? the mass murder of everyone who refuses to bear arms and the appearance of some kind of sick and twisted anarchist state where the last man standing gets to rule the world? Sure, alot of problems solved all at once. Poverty disappears, world hunger no longer relevant, the environment has time to repair itself with no more human interference. But humanity dies. That's it, we're done. All because some genius decided to arm everyone.
Any gun control is unconstitutional. So no, guns should not be banned nor should any type of ban be in place.
2nd amendment: 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.
any law to limit type of gun used, owned, or banned guns, ammo, magazine size, etc. is by definition INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd amendment because the government is telling its people whats ok and not ok. where in any of that ideology of gun control laws does that spell freedom?
once the infringement begins with the 2nd amendment where will it stop? government says movies and video games are to violent and ban them. big macs, soda, and fries make you to fat so we'll ban those.
Gun laws and bans are put in place that only affect good law abiding free citizens.
Criminals do not follow laws. That is BY DEFINITION a criminal!!! They will steal guns, get them from the black market, or from any illegal shipments from other countries if they have to.
Most of these mass shootings happen in so called "gun free zones". where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others. These gun free zones like schools, hospitals, post offices, most government areas, as well as buisnesses and public conventions that post no gun allowed signs, are basically advertising to these criminals, psychos, and mass murders that this will be a easy place to slaughter people because no one can defend themselves!!!
how often do you hear of a mass shooting or gun related firefight at a place where there are known 100's of gun carriers like gun shows, police stations, or nra conventions? Because criminals know some people will be packing a gun there and it will not be easy. there are thousands of stories where armed citizens stop criminals, in many cases without firing a shot and just showing the gun. The liberal media today mostly just films the major gun massacres and shootings because its big news, gets peoples attention, ratings, and promotes their agenda for gun control.
Patriot, your right to keep and bear arms is not so that you can blow away the guy your wife cheated on you with. It's to stop an oppressive government from enslaving you. The stupid thing is, you're looking the most progressive government America has had in ages in the face and saying "Nah, bro, we don't like that. Fuck safety, i want my guns for all the WRONG reasons."
Obama isn't trying to infringe your rights, he's trying to save you from yourselves.
every dictatorship and communist country started by taking away guns. Hitler did so while surrounded by children, saying it was for the good of the children. True, mentally disabled and disturbed people and felons convicted of Violent crimes should not have them, we have rights. The 2nd amendment people!!! We need to keep our guns, because we are losing rights one by one. The right to bear arms is needed or else the police and army would be the only people to have them. Oddly enough, there is a picture of President Obama Shooting a rifle at the white house.
Gun control is pointless. I am very anti-violence and hunting but if we take all guns away, the people we are trying to get them away from will still find a way to access them. This is as pointless as trying to ban drugs. Why take away from the people who use their weapons to hunt and such?