Do you support stricter gun control in the US?
Yes
Side Score: 36
|
 |
No
Side Score: 36
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with over 70% of the country. "Stricter gun laws", NOT gun takeaway (except for assault weapons). We need a license to drive a car, a license to hunt, to practice medicine, to run a childcare, etc.. We should have one to have a gun AND have qualifications to use it! The Second Amendment needs to stay, but be "amended" to be modernized. Musket rules are not sufficient anymore! The National Guard is now our "well regulated militia". It protects the people as well as the government. The COUNTRY, which is what it was intended to DO! Side: Yes
Yes, exactly. There should be mandatory classes and I'm even ok with having to renew a license every year, to have the ability to own a gun. Even making the wait to own certain ones longer than it is could potentially help reduce some of the gun violence here. I also think when companies (like the FBI or military) drop the ball and either don't provide information necessary to refuse selling to someone or doesn't look into multiple reports that should have brought up red flags there needs to be repercussions. It takes everyone doing their jobs to prevent this and even then sometimes it may fail and some monster still makes it through to kill but at least we can then point at the shooter instead of other people who failed. Side: Yes
Jewel will you Progressives ever address the real issue of guns and criminals ? As you Progressives do you want to put stricter gun control laws on the law abiding as you turn a blind eye to the criminal element and guns. Will the mandatory nonsense you spew keep criminals from running guns or having guns ? Side: No
Got to like it when Progressives refuse to address guns and criminals ! What you Progressives want are stricter gun control on Law Biding Citizens and that will some how keep guns from the hands of criminals ? Let's get it straight gun control laws don't work for those that are lawless ! So address a real issue other than your Totalitarian Dream Side: No
2
points
We should have one to have a gun I'm pretty sure you've never bought a gun before, and if you have then you bought it either illegally or in another country. We already have extensive background checks and tests in place that someone has to pass before obtaining a gun. The Second Amendment needs to stay, but be "amended" to be modernized It is modernized. There's nothing that needs to be done. The amendment in full states "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." Now, who would form and arm a well-regulated militia, if not the people? Musket rules are not sufficient anymore! What musket rules? The Second Amendment doesn't mention muskets in any form, and it wasn't just written for muskets either. Assault-style weapons existed back then, and the Founding Fathers loved them. The National Guard is now our "well-regulated militia" Yes, but they work for the government. Do you really put that much trust in a group of people being paid by and who work for the government? I don't. It protects the people as well as the government. Yes, the National Guard does protect the people. But, you cannot seriously put too much trust in them. The Second Amendment lets people arm themselves when they are in fear of a tyrannical ruler, and many people, especially the party pushing for gun control that already exists, are in fear of Trump becoming tyrannical. Side: No
I bought my guns before we NEEDED any background check, when we didn't have over 400 gun deaths in one weekend .. like we did THIS weekend. I WAS an NRA member for years before they went radical. Taught NRA sanctioned hunter safety courses to kids, shot in NRA sanctioned matches (One wrong assessment).
If you've ever been a National Guard member, you would know that it is ALL local people, with local officers, that would NOT stand for anything that hurt their families ... even under orders! I wouldn't have! What musket rules? THAT was the only firearm (other than another single shot pistol or "Pepperbox" available at the time of the amendment .. what else could it BE about! I put my trust in AMERICA and its democratic rules, including its ELECTED government ...at least until this one, which I don't think will last! Yes! I DO put my trust in the N.G. to protect U.S. from the Second Amendment ABUSERS who are opening the way FOR a tyrannical ruler ... TRUMP (Who would be "dealt with" by Putin AFTER he ... um ... "outlives" his usefulness!) Wake UP, self appointed hostile! The NRA is NOW tyrannical, it's getting control of our government! Side: Yes
Do you honestly believe in the event of our government, and in turn our army, turning tyrannical; You and your neighbors can actually stand anything of a chance against them? They have tanks, helicopters, missiles, armored cars, and far, far superior guns. The idea that a "well-regulated militia" is even feasible in the event of the US government becoming tryannical is completely laughable. At this point, your AR-15 is useless; why fight for the right to allow these weapons into the hands of people who go and slaughter schools? These are things that are actually happening, unlike your militia fairytale gun activists cling to so ignorantly. Side: Yes
2
points
Will the national guard stand up to you or against you if Trump asks them to secure the people of the nation and take 1/2 of everyone's wealth to pay off our national debt. Once the government takes all ability to retaliate the government is poise to rape the public at will as history proves it is what government does and that is why all previous governments have been overthrown. The militia is not protection from a foreign power but to prevent the government from oppressing it's people. Side: No
Stricter gun controls are essential. The argument of the the N.R.A, and their supporters against change is akin to the mother watching her son in the passing military parade remarking;- look everyone is out of step except my Johnny. The N.R.A., which has blood on its hands has displayed it's callousness, and PROFIT BEFORE LIVES ATTITUDE, on this issue by refusing to accept, never mind voluntarily instigating the long overdue enhanced controls. Side: Yes
2
points
So what kind of stricter laws prevent violent people from killing others when that is what they have decided to do. A gun is one of many tools that can be used to kill multiple people. So murderers care enough about laws that they would not kill people if it were not legal right? Stricter gun laws have not reduce the number of homocides that have occurred in the world. It just causes people to kill with a different tool Side: No
A gun is one of many tools that can be used to kill multiple people. Here's the rather obvious problem with such thinking: Firearms are more lethal than knives, machetes and hammers. Gunshot wounds frequently cause catastrophic damage. And the ability to maintain a quick and steady rate of fire allows a gunman to maximize casualties. There is a reason that American mass killers choose assault-style rifles to carry out their attacks, not knives or hammers. On Dec. 14, 2012, a man wielding a knife assaulted people at a school in Chempeng, China, stabbing 23 children and one adult. Hours later, a man armed with an AR-15 attacked an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., shooting 20 students and eight adults. At Sandy Hook, all 20 children and six of the eight adults died. In China, there wasn't a single fatality. The gun made all the difference. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/ Side: Yes
3
points
Most of the ideas the 2nd amendment were originally created for are now obsolete. The only people who should be in possession of firearms are people who need to hunt to survive based on their geography, law enforcement and the military. We should be focused on overhauling our law enforcement to have a better trained, mentally stable, efficient police force to protect the people and uphold the law. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" Guns are a tool designed specifically to kill. It's the same as saying "Nuclear bombs don't kill people". Having such a destructive device so embedded into our nation's culture is sickening. We should be cherishing knowledge, compassion, and level-headedness; instead we're full of gun fanatics that ignorantly believe their rifles could do anything in the event of our government becoming tyrannical (which seems to be the only argument I get nowadays in favor of guns). It wouldn't be the old school, line-up-and-fire type duels back in revolutionary times, people. You are powerless in the event the US militarized itself against their people. "Bearing arms is our constitutional right" It was also once legal to own a slave, no? Simply stating we shouldn't change things because it's the way it's always been is the epitome of ignorance and negligence. The US makes headlines nearly WEEKLY with some new tragedy involving guns; be it a school shooting, church drive-by, hate crimes, etc.. Tradition isn't always what's best, sometimes it is necessary to re-evaluate your ideas and beliefs and look at things from a new perspective; reality. "A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun" This is what the police are for. Your neighbor who you call a "good guy with a gun" has no idea what he's doing in the event of an actual emergency; going down to the shooting range to practice firing at a still target after minutes of breathing and focusing isn't how it's gonna go down in real life. A study by the National Gun Victims Action Council put 77 people of varying levels of firearm training(i.e. your neighborhood "good guys with guns") through some realistic self-defense scenarios. In the first, seven of the participants shot an innocent bystander. Almost all of the participants in the first and second scenarios who engaged the "bad guy" were killed. And in the final scenario, 23% of the participants fired at a suspect who didn't actually pose a threat. Overwhelming empirical evidence corroborates the simulation. Of the 160 active shooting incidents identified by the FBI from 2000 to 2013, only one was stopped by an armed civilian. In comparison, two were stopped by off-duty police, four by armed guards and 21 by unarmed civilians. "Criminals don't follow laws, so why have gun laws that punish the good guys?!" Probably the most ignorant and idiotic argument I've seen against gun control. Applying your logic here, why have any laws? If criminals are going to do what they want, why try and stop them? Why have traffic laws if speeders are gonna speed anyways? If drunk drivers are gonna drive drunk anyways, why make it illegal? The answer is because the laws help. A study over domestic terrorism showed over the past two decade, terrorists have largely abandoned the bombing method; partly due to the aftermath of the '95 OKC bombing that resulted in federal legislation making it more difficult to obtain bomb-making ingredients while also allowing law enforcement more access in monitoring these purchases. Ironically, this showed a trend of terrorists slowly replacing bombs with guns in their attacks, shown very apparently in the fact that an investigation by Trace revealed 95% of terrorism deaths occurring between 2002 and 2015 were caused by firearms. "If murderers want to murder, they'll use anything to do it; knives, hammers, anything. Why make guns harder for us to get when murderers will resort to any means?" POLICE PRESENCE. Having a better equipped, better trained, highly respected law enforcement presence really does make all the difference. Also, knives and hammers pale in comparison to the lethality of a gun. On Dec. 14, 2012, a man wielding a knife assaulted people at a school in Chempeng, China, stabbing 23 children and one adult. Hours later, a man armed with an AR-15 attacked an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., shooting 20 students and eight adults. At Sandy Hook, all 20 children and six of the eight adults died. In China, there wasn't a single fatality. The fact that these mass shooting are now becoming routine in US news should be indicators that we need to fix the gun problem here; we don't need ignorance, we need a country that can look at itself, realize a problem is in front of us and that something needs to be done about it. Side: Yes
Well, my proposals would have to be introduced, stealthily, in carefully timed stages. The end result of my gun control legislation would be as follows. No automatic firearms of any description to be issued to the general public. All rifles would be of a single shot type, (before having to be reloaded), and would only be issued to those people who are members of authorised target shooting associations or licenced game hunting clubs. Personal protection weapons should not exceed a calbre greater than .38 and should be of a 'six shooter revolver type, no automatic pistols. All arms issued under the aforementioned conditions would have to be securely locked up on the club premises. No firearms, other than P.P.Ws to be taken home. An in-depth profile of all existing firearm licence holders and a reassessment of their psychological state along with an evaluation of the continuing necessity for them to retain such deadly weapons. All new firearm permit applicants should be vigorously and positively vetted. The issue of new firearms should be dependant upon the recipients accepting to being lawfully bound to notify all changes of address and to present their weapons for inspection at specially dedicated ballistic testing centres and having to account for any ammunition used. Well, it's a start. Side: Yes
Now i am going to have disagree here. With what you have as a start does not address criminals and guns. What you purpose is laws on the law abiding gun owner without addressing the real issue. Really are the criminals going to abide by laws pertaining to guns ? People should really learn that Prohibition of any type does not work. In Fly Over America what might the private sales of guns and ammunition be ? Government and Laws cannot control it but what i see is if gun control fanatics want controlling laws in place on guns then the black market of guns will skyrocket and what's to stop it other than a Brown Shirt Posse ! Side: Yes
Very valid points which should cause the authorities, and indeed us all, serious concern. In my estimation the gun crisis is a double barreled problem. FIRST BARREL;- 1) Reducing the number of automatic firearms in circulation and making those legitimate license holders more accountable. 2) When deemed appropriate by the proper authorities people should be allowed to possess a personal protection weapon of the type I described in my previous post- thus giving the good guys a fighting chance. 3) Rifles used for competition target shooting and/or hunting should only be allowed to practise their ''sport'' with a single shot rifle. SECOND BARREL;- Concurrent with the introduction of the aforementioned restrictions the government must tackle the 'gangster element and take whatever steps are necessary to rid the nation of the 33,000 gangs of armed criminals. The elimination of these gangs will be impossible but they can, and must be disarmed. There is no other nation on earth which lives with an estimated 1.2 million armed criminals who commit deadly crimes on a daily basis with relative ease. Remove/reduce the automatic weapons and our country will be a safer place for all our citizens. Side: Yes
2
points
"No automatic firearms of any description to be issued to the general public" Automatic firearms are not sold legally in the USA without a special Federal fire arms license (anything is legal if you pay the government) laws don't change that. "All rifles would be of a single shot type" I wonder if you realized that only a very small amount of gun homicides are committed with rifles. You have no idea how to prevent violent criminal behavior. There are millions of people who own rifles and less than 1% have used their rifles to commit a crime. I fail to see how your logic fixes anything. "Personal protection weapons should not exceed a calbre greater than .38" So you are okay with killing people with a 9mm but not a .357 there is some intelligent thinking. So in your opinion the government which has proven that it doesn't do anything well would implement a fool proof system, LOL How does the logic train always get from legally purchased firearms are the cause of the most gun related deaths, UNTRUE. Yet almost all fatal automobile homicides are from a legally purchased automobile. Interesting that you would think that because an oppressive government outlaws something you think murderers would not be able to acquire a firearm. Just like illegal drugs can't be purchased by those who want them. Or better yet our government is proven to supply both illegal drugs and illegal weapons in order to fund their covert activities. Side: No
According to The Washington Post the AR 15 assault ''RIFLE ALONE'' was used to kill 173 people since 2007 including 17 students at the Parkland, Florida carnage But I guess in the overall scheme of things what's 173 deaths here or there? NO ONE BECOMES A MASS SHOOTER WITHOUT A MASS-SHOOTING GUN. Now I'll read with interest your proposals detailing how to reduce the risk of further carnage in our schools and streets. I held a legally issued .38 Smith & Wesson revolver P.P.W, for over 20 years. The initial background checks and profiling was extensive. Three bullets were discharged at the shooting rage of the issuing Police Barracks to record its ballistic fingerprint. I had to produce the weapon along with the issued 25 rounds of ammunition for inspection every two months. Although there were 1000s of firearms issued employing the aforementioned vigorously enforced stipulations there wasn't one instance of the weapons being used illegally. If you don't know why the gun laws need to be significantly tightened then there is no point trying to explain the reasons why. To repeat myself;- YOU SUBMIT YOUR OWN PROPOSALS FOR CONSIDERATION. Side: Yes
2
points
Sniveling cowards with skinny arms have to have a gun hidden on them to feel brave enough to walk into a grocery store and buy a gallon of milk. So cowardly they pretend they need the school shooter weapon of choice to shoot a deer. Apparently they walk into the woods and spray bullets in all directions. Anybody who needs more than 5 rounds to kill a deer shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun or a rifle or even a damn squirt gun. Side: Yes
2
points
bad things happen to good people who are ready to defend themselves with lethal force. Why should they have to be victims if they have a choice? Just so you know people don't have AR's to go deer hunting to suggest such a thing is ignorant. We have an AR for fun and home protection Side: No
|
3
points
In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools? Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc. If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders? I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places. Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked! The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL! Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive? You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers? I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF? A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church. You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns. You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun. You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT! IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving. Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice. Side: No
Alcohol is a detriment to society and should not be legal at all. I agree that the substantial amount of death associated with the substance should speak for itself. However, that doesn't change the fact that mass shootings are becoming routine in the US, and it's sickening. The way to combat this is a stronger, better trained and highly respected police force; a much, much smaller gun presence in the US; and in my opinion, adults should need to be certified to have and raise children. We are a species that's evolved to the point where one of us can cause catastrophic damage if raised improperly and grown up with very serious problems that are never addressed because the parents didn't have the knowledge to know what was wrong, what to do about it, or that there was a problem at all to begin with. Mandatory parenting training, in my opinion, would drastically reduce many problems we're facing in the US today. Producing level-headed, well rounded individuals will lead to nothing but more success. Maybe if every child was raised properly, they wouldn't feel the need to drink as heavily as the US does to cope with any emotional problems they were never taught to deal with properly and the number of alcohol related deaths would plummet; or better yet, people will stop glorifying and consuming alcohol altogether. The key to fixing your problems today is knowing how you want the world 100 years in the future and working towards it now. Start with the ideal and the process will come naturally. Side: Yes
1
point
If you did your research you would realize that Law Enforcement is responsible for a large number of the gun deaths that are quoted all of the time. Many are LEO's killing themselves with guns, Yes that is part of the homicide by gun stat. suicide makes up a whopping 40% of the gun deaths in those stats. The government doesn't do much well, the less control of our lives the government has the better life will be. You claim that people should have to be trained as parents (by the government)? That is a scary thought. I would like to point out this observation the people who have committed horrible violent crimes have siblings that were very normal they were raised by the same parents in the same household. Maybe it's unfair to jump to the bad parenting excuse. Side: No
0
points
You are supporting the many debates I have created concerning our nation before and after the lie of separation of Church and State. We did not have these mass school shootings when the very mention of God was not censored from our public lands. We had no need to teach parents how to raise their children because our nation's majority Christian faith lifted up the ways of raising moral well adjusted children. We are seeing the results of what happens when our majority Christian faith is attacked and censored by the Left. It's not the weapon of choice. It's the person using that weapon. When children are not abandoned, and living with their real parents, and raised with love, they will not become killers. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
It's always entertaining to watch gun control fanatics push for stricter gun control laws on the law abiding while avoiding reality ! I want one gun control fanatic to tell me what criminal is going to abide by said law ! Is there anyone Out There that can address the real issue ? Criminals still move drugs and drugs are illegal ! Has it stopped the influx of drugs into America ? So with all the stricter gun laws Progressives want in place will it stop the criminals from moving guns and selling guns ? Side: No
1
point
No. There are no more gun control tests that can be put in place. Background checks are required, including mental illness and criminal background testing. You have to be 18 or older to purchase a handgun in the U.S. with exceptions few and far between. The only "stricter gun control" option is for only the police to have guns as a last resort, which effectively repeals the 2nd Amendment. Side: No
Hello the, Nahhh. There’s a huge private market in gun sales that require no background check. Look at craigslist if you don’t believe me. Secondarily, when private sellers sell at gun shows, the people they sell guns to don’t require a background check. So there’s plenty of room for new controls. excon Side: Yes
1
point
Keyword: private. It's a private market. Also, the gun show loophole doesn't exist. You have to have a license. Check this video if you don't believe me: https://www.youtube.com/ Side: No
1
point
1
point
Guns are not the problem people are the problem and there is no magic pill that will prevent the next tragedy. If we are saying 21 is the legal age then the Draft age must go to 21, the voting age must go to 21. Violent movies and Video games must be illegal for anyone under 21. Parents allowing their minor children to play violent video games must be jailed and their children taken away as these activities are associated with a desensitization of gun violence and death. If this is the road you want to go down it does no good to only remove a couple of specific tools that have caused well less than 1% of all death by firearms. It's like most political bureaucracy it serves no purpose it's just political posturing Side: Yes
1
point
1. Smaller variants of the uzi 2. Heckler & Koch MP7 3. Beretta 93R 4. Brugger & thomet MP9 5. Steyr TMP 6. OTs-02 kiparis 7.minebea PM-9 8. Walther MP 9. Saab bofors dynamics CBJ-MS 10. Calridge Hi-Tec/Goncz Pistol These pistols have the exact same capabilities. The only difference is the size. And most of them dont have the same range. But its pretty damn close. Side: Yes
1
point
We have strict gun control in many areas yet they are the areas where gun violence is at a high. I live in a very rural area and everyone has many guns yet no one is shooting each other. So I don't think that guns are the problem. I have an AR with a bumpstock and my children and friends have a lot of fun shooting it. Why should I be held accountable for the actions of a very small percentage of the people in this country? I support harsher punishment for committing a crime with a firearm. I support the death penalty for people who murder innocent people. I support age limitations on violent movies and video games that glorify murder and killing indiscriminately. This problem is new and guns in a household is not a new thing. I would be willing to say that 40 to 50 years ago the number of households with firearms per capita was higher than it is today yet was no problem. Something changed maybe that is what we should focus our energy on Side: No
|
