Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

Gun control; should we ban them?

edited January 2016 in Gun Control Debates Posts: 2
Should we ban guns? Are they too dangerous, have we lost the privilege to have them?
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • yes, we should
    guncrontrolgal17
  • I don't personally believe in the use of any fire arms or weapons of any sort. To live together as a people, we must be peaceful and treat each other with respect in regards to the way that we resolve our issues. bless.
  • John and guncontrolgal, you people should be ashamed. The U.S. needs guns, they are essential in keeping our dominant reputation. They are manly and I love them.
  • Sorry John, I only meant guncontrolgal, clearly you are a real man.

  • Establishing a gun ban would be counter productive to establishing a country where we feel safe in our own homes. What do you think a gun ban would accomplish? Banning guns is like banning drugs. I don't know what I would do with out my prescription blood pressure medicine and I don't know what I would do with out my legal firearms. Guns are only dangerous in the wrong hands. Guns are a privilege I agree but it would be a nightmare for all gun owners to have to surrender their guns because guns do get into the wrong hands.

  • If we banned guns only the people with legal guns would suffer. People with illegal guns already don't care about the law, so it would just leave the rest of us vulnerable. That's not the answer.
  • GunsGunsGuns, please, if I am wrong correct me.  Are you saying that only men should own guns?  I am asking because of the phrasing of your comment.  Again, if I misunderstood, please correct me.
    Thanked by 1CherylTorrie
  • Guns shouldn't be banned. They are our right and they're protection. If we ask if we should ban guns, then should we ban knives as well? People can kill with their own hands. There are plenty of weapons out there, there's just all this media propaganda surrounding guns so the American people will be defenseless against a tyrannical government and military.

  • Posts: 234
    I think banning guns is totally ridiculous,this sounds like something the criminals would vote for though they would love to see all the law abiding citizens disarmed,that would be their dream come true.I can't believe anyone in their right mind would even suggest such a thing.If they think criminals would follow this law,then they wouldn't be criminals in the first place if they followed laws now would they.We need to hold the criminals accountable for their actions,and not try to punish the innocent.That is what a ban would be,is this the kind of nation we have become to punish the innocent and take it easy on criminals.

  • All I have to say about banning guns is look at Prohibition.  People weren't allowed alcohol legally, so they set up speakeasies.  Look at marijuana.  It's illegal, but people still use and grow it.  People who want guns will get guns, laws or not, as long as there are those in society who will be willing to supply them.

  • I do not think that all guns should be banned, but i think the automatic and semi-automatic rifles should be.  Although I believe it mirrors the cold war arms race.  Getting a weapon that is bigger than the other persons only leads to further escalation.  In order to stop the escalation the amount of heavy weapons needs to be decreased.  For example, after the Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut passed a new law that bans all semi-automatic rifles as well as high capacity magazines.  The governor of Connecticut issued a statement saying “Today's decision acknowledges our state government's obligation to take every sensible step toward reducing gun violence.”  Other states, like New York have also issued new gun control laws.  The state has banned AR-15’s and other weapons that are linked to mass shootings.  
    I believe The United States should follow Australia’s lead in banning close to all firearms. The Australian Government passed the NFA (National Firearms Agreement) after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, where 35 people were killed and many others injured.  Since the NFA was passed there have been a total of zero mass shootings in Australia.  I am not suggesting that the United States should use as extreme measures as Australia, but I do think we can learn something from them.  I am suggesting that the Government should just make it harder to acquire weapons.  If weapons are harder to obtain, then it is less likely that mentally unstable people will be able to get them.
    I also believe that weapons should be harder to obtain because handguns are linked to suicide.  This may seem like an obvious statement, but the fact is, if you own a handgun you are more likely to commit suicide, and if the gun is taken away then many people just decide not to take their own life.  
    Many Gun Control groups have created Alliances with the Black Lives Matter organization.  They did this because the Black Lives Matter group believes gun control is “too white”.  They say that the NRA does not accurately represent the urban beliefs of gun control.  Members of Black Lives Matter say that they are very against guns.  The members say that guns have ruined many of their lives, and without guns gangs would be a lot less prominent.  And children will be more likely to go to school without the presence of local gangs.  Black Lives Matter members have found statistics and have proven that the majority people are against guns, it is just that gun supporters are louder with their opinion.
    In conclusion, a decrease in the amount of automatic and semi-automatic rifles will help keep American citizens from being the victim of a mass shooting.  It will also allow people in urban environments to feel safer as well as possibly having a better chance of attending school and getting an education.  Guns are an important part of the American past, I just do not think they need to be at prominent in Ame
  • Posts: 234
    First of all I would like to say that this is the US and not Australia,and Australia have never had the gang problems we have so that was never their issue like we have or the drugs we have or the population we have,along with many other variables,so their answer is not our answer.Disarming legal citizens is no answer to the problems we have,just take a look at the gun free zones and see what happens there,all that did was open up them to being easy targets and they have increased sense making them gun free zones.Then they think we should make the whole country that way,that is a open invitation to the criminals.How many mass shooting have ever been done with the types of rifles they want to ban,slim to none.I have a semi auto .22 cal. rifle I use for squirrel hunting and according to what they want banned would also ban that,come on you need to think and use common sense it is not a type or caliper,or how many shells something holds or shoots has anything to do with it.It is what ever is there at the time they decide to commit the crime.The criminals don't care if the gun is legal or not or what country they get them from.Then to say it would cut down on suicides is non sense if someone wants to kill them selves there are numbers of ways besides guns,maybe no guns not as many by guns but not other ways so where did it help.If you change one statistic to another where have you really improved on anything.Like I have said before anybody can make numbers say what ever you want them to all you have to is add or subtract a view things.
  • I have to say as far as gun control laws being "too white", criminals come in all colors.  It is not gun control laws that are racist, it's the people who are doing the shooting. 
  • Posts: 234
    I blame no certain color,of course it is all colors,crime does not discriminate just like fear and ignorance.(no point to you Tommigun).We need to deal with the people that are doing the crimes,not the guns.This is just a cover up of the real situation we have in this country.You can't just make a new law,or restriction,or ban,and poof the problem is solved,life doesn't work that way.There wouldn't be any crime if a law was the only thing needed to stop it,just look at all the laws being broke already.Now who do you think is doing this the law abiding citizens or the criminals (think hard now) you don't punish one group to get at the other group.That is like blaming me,because someone else shot someone,does that make sense,if it does I feel sorry for you.
    TommiGunn31
  • The horrific public shootings that have taken place in recent years have sparked a mass debate across the country regarding gun control, and it has begun to change the way that Americans use guns today. I believe that the enacting of stricter gun control laws would help to decrease the likelihood of these events occurring, and prevent them from taking place in the future. Controlling the use of guns is seen by some as a denial of the basic right a citizen has to bare a firearm, but that is simply not what the supporters of gun control seek to do because “control” does not completely ban the use of them. The purpose of controlling guns is to decrease the likelihood of such events like the Sandy Hook and Aurora Movie Theater massacres from taking place, and it all starts with limiting the availability of guns. Many believe that the issues regarding gun violence has solely had to do with the people misusing the weapon, when in fact there would be no issue with unfit gun owners in the first place if there were laws that controlled who could purchase them. The guns themselves are not too dangerous for the public to use and I believe that we should all have the right to own or use them if we wish, but there must be specific criteria each person must meet to be able to purchase one. When a person has the intention of buying a fire arm they are subject to background checks that search for any criminal activity, but there have not been any changes in how they review the person’s mental health records. Mental health records could be indicative of whether a person’s is able to safely own and use a gun regardless of whether they have committed any crimes in the past, and the government has taken steps to initiate these screening. According to the U.S Government Accountability office, “From 2004 to 2011, the total number of mental health records that states made available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) increased by approximately 800 percent” (GAO), which shows how the government is recognizing that there should be more thorough evaluations to effectively limit purchasers of firearms. Controlling who can legally obtain a firearm will in turn decrease the amount of guns amongst the public and lower the likelihood of gun violence. The public shootings that have been seen within the recent years has been devastating, and were a sign that there needed to be a change in our country. One of the most impactful public shootings took place in Newtown, Connecticut, where a mentally unstable man shot and killed 20 children and 6 adults in an Elementary School. This kind of catastrophe caused heartbreak around the world, and almost immediately after the incident the New York Times, “…concluded that the massacre ‘appears to be profoundly swaying Americans' views on guns, galvanizing the broadest support for stricter gun laws in about a decade…” (Merline). The public being so heavily influenced by this massacre demonstrates how there is a new found motivation to change the current gun laws, which have obviously not been effective or sufficient in any way. Along with the public moving toward the idea of increased gun control, the government as well has showed many steps it’s taking forward to create more restrictions and guidelines when it comes to providing citizens with firearms. If this nation continues to move in this direction it is with increasing gun control, there will be a great change in how the public uses guns and how safe firearms are within the public.
  • Posts: 234
    The biggest share of legal gun owners have no problem with keeping guns out of the wrong hands,that is not our issue.It is what all they are after besides that,and all the laws we already have if they would just enforce them we would not have all the issues we have today.These mass shooting could have been reduced if they were just protected in the first place.You can't just put a sign up and think that solves something,it has in reality made it worse,and then try to blame it on, it is to easy to get a gun,and it is not that easy to get a legal gun.The anti's always try and lump all us legal gun owners in with the criminals and this wrong.We have a federal or state or both background check already if you buy from a FFL dealer,what the state or federal allows in that check is on them not us.If someone privately sells a gun to a known criminal or mental ill person there is a law for that already to and if someone does that then they are a criminal and not a law abiding citizen.This is the point we have been trying to make the difference between law abiding and unlawful,there is a big difference and this is not being seperated.In IL. where I live like I have said before we all need a F.O.I.D. card to have a gun and if you sell a gun privately you need to see the F.O.I.D. card of the buyer,and you need to write that number down along with their name and serial number of gun and keep that in your records for 10 years.If you don't have a card you can't sell or buy a gun,again we have a law for it.Maybe more states should have a law like that,I know I won't be popular for saying that,but that could help.I think at the same time it should be a state law not federal.There is nothing going to stop anything altogether,that's called dreaming.It will not address the problem with criminals though or the mentally ill when their intent is to get a illegal gun.That is where the real work needs to be done.I hope this helps clear up some of the issues there is between the anti -gun and the pro-gun and the difference between the lawful and the unlawful outlook.
  • Tommigun, your example that banning guns would be like banning drugs is more spot on than you think.  Think about how easy it is to get alcohol right now compared to when there were only speakeasies.  The whole point of banning something is to make it harder to acquire.  Obviously people will still be able to get guns if they're banned, just like people can still get heroine now even though it is illegal.  That doesn't mean auto-rifles shouldn't be banned because they are still getable.  The whole point of banning something is to make it hard for common people, and mentally ill people to obtain it.
  • Gun violence has been haunting our
    nation since the tragic shooting that occurred in Sandy Hook. Unsurprisingly,
    the shooting sparked a nation wide debate on gun violence, gun control and,
    unexpectedly, mental health. It would be easy to say that there are black and
    white sides of this argument, but it is caught in an unclear gray area. Some
    say that we should do away with guns and our second second amendment rights all
    together, saying that we have lost the privilege of guns and they are far to
    dangerous to just be given out with just a permit. Others say the answer lies in
    more guns, so that they may protect themselves. We have been caught in an
    equilibrium of two opposing sides that leaves the government with its hands
    tied, “How did we get trapped in this deadly cycle of gun violence,
    deliberative dysfunction, and political inaction?” (Hogan,
    J. Michael)
    The only way this can be settled is to find a common ground
    we can all agree on.

     Before I explain my common ground I feel the
    need to share the information that has helped me reach my conclusion. The most
    important is about the Second Amendment, while most are all familiar with what
    the Second Amendment entails, I think that not all people are sure of the
    reasoning behind it. When the founding fathers created the amendment, the
    revolutionary war fresh in their minds, they were acting on how they felt as a
    people who were being unfairly treated by what they saw a tyrannical government.
    The motivation behind the Second Amendment was, for if there was ever a time
    when the United States was treating its people in the same tyrannical fashion
    that they felt they underwent, the masses could rise up and rebel against them
    as we did with Brittan. This probably seemed perfectly logical to keep the
    masses armed, so that they could fight for their freedom if there ever became a
    need too. However, I’m sure the founding fathers never imagined the
    technological advancements the world would take. We have reached an age in
    warfare where wars can be fought from behind a computer screen with drones and
    missiles. It is now a pointless amendment that we have outgrown.

    Now I am not saying that no one should have a right to
    a gun, I believe that if you are concerned about the safety of your family that
    you should have the right to own a weapon for protection, or if you have a
    passion for hunting you should be able to own a hunting rifle. I do not believe
    that anyone on this earth needs an automatic combat rifle, too many times have
    been used to take innocent lives. Banning those guns would be a huge step in
    the right direction but it faces one glaring problem. The more these tragedies
    occur the more people feel they need these guns to protect themselves because
    they feel the government cannot,

    “(…) gun control laws is lower than it was in 1989, when 65%
    backed stricter laws. In fact, more now oppose stricter laws than support
    them(...) ‘"I believe the reason is that people don't trust the government
    to protect them anymore, and, in fact, that they don't trust the government in
    general,"’ (…)Nor does the public trust politicians who say they only want
    to keep guns out of the hands of "criminals and crazies," not
    confiscate them from law-abiding citizens
    .”(John
    Merline)

    If the government is going to win
    our trust there should be a much larger set of rules and regulations set by the
    Federal Government to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them
    in harmful ways. Which is where the problem lies, while there should be, more
    extensive background checks, checkups to make sure guns stay in the hands who
    they were given too, and a full psychological analysis should be administered.
    While I feel most people would agree with me the problem is that people don’t
    want the Federal Government to enforce it,

    “The
    intent of the Second Amendment would therefore be to keep the federal
    government from overreaching its constitutional authority. According to this
    argument, any form of gun control on the federal level would be
    unconstitutional because it would exceed the enumerated powers of the
    government. The argument is not against gun control
    per se, but about the constitutional right of
    the federal government to get involved.” (
    Howard
    Ponzer)

    I think with these sort of rules in
    place, that we can together, as a community, take back our feeling of safety
    from gun violence. 

  • When it comes to gun control, I have a strong opinion that
    all guns should be banned in the United States. I truly hope that we as a
    nation do not have to experience many more shootings before we can move
    together as a society to resolve this issue. An example to prove that guns
    should not be allowed would be the story of the banning of guns in Australia.
    In 1996, there was the Port Arthur massacre in Australia. This was a killing
    spree, where 35 people were killed and 23 people were wounded. In the ten years
    before the massacre there had been ten massacres as well. Immediately after this
    incident, the government implemented new gun control laws, which banned a large
    array of guns. They also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that significantly
    reduced gun possession in Australia. As a result of these new strict gun
    regulations from a conservative government, gun suicides and homicides
    immediately fell. “The Australian murder rate has fallen to close to one per
    100,000 while the U.S. rate, thankfully lower than in the early 1990s, is still
    roughly 4.5 per 100,000 – over four times as high.” To add the cherry on top to
    this clear success of banning guns, there has not been a massacre in Australia
    since Port Arthur. Although there were many angry Australians at the time of
    the newly passed gun control laws, the nation now has strong support for the
    regulation and going back to the old way of Australia would not be tolerated. I
    believe that this is a clear indication that banning all guns will clearly make
    a nation much safer. Unfortunately, when shootings happen in the U.S., the
    government does not act as strongly as Australia and the only argument is to ban
    some, but not all guns. Many Americans think that we should have guns so that
    we can use them for protection. This argument is highly illogical and will lead
    to more killings. Not to mention the fact that people are more likely to
    accidentally shoot themselves with their gun then actually use them for
    protection, it is a bad idea. The average person is not properly trained to use
    a firearm for protection, let alone be a hero in a situation of a shooting. The
    truth is that Americans want to have guns because they like them, not because
    they need them for protection. Also, if a family has a gun for protection, it
    could be dangerous for the kids, who could accidentally shoot themselves. Guns
    that are used in a home are much more likely to be used accidentally then for
    actual defense. “Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are
    22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or
    suicide attempts. There are thousands of stats that point to how terrible guns
    are in the U.S. and it is clear that if all guns were banned then it would be
    much safer. Our government should be firm in their decision, like the brave
    prime minister (John Howard) in Australia, and terminate the selling of guns. 

  • It's a weird phobia running through America that people really want to take the guns away. NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY. The call for gun control does not mean taking the guns away and it's sad that the NRA and its lobbyists and advocates keep telling the same lie about people wanting to take the guns away. People have a right to bare arms to protect life and property. That is way cool. That is also constitutional. But what about looking at the preservation of life by restricting people who are unfit to have guns from getting them? Don't you think accessing guns is way too easy for persons who are not responsible enough?

    So we ask for background checks and we ask for restrictions on sales of high powered guns, or guns in general, to minors by  gun shop owners just wanting to roll in the money. Do we really need to get upset about this and start talking crap about the nation being disarmed? It's time to get the message right and stop talking with our heads stuck in the wrong place.
  • Posts: 234
    Perhaps you have not been listening to your counterparts on this issue,most anti groups want a total ban on guns and to change the constitution,and want a buy back program.Just look at the post above yours,this is really what us pro-gun people are up against,it doesn't even seem the anti's can agree on what they want,and we are suppose to be trusting of this.Has any of the changes the anti's have made already really made a difference in anything for the better,take a good look at the gun free zones,I know you still try and blame us for it,but really is not protecting someone ever a good idea.When will your false claims and blames stop.
  • I think that one of the main problems is everyone breaks it down into the anti-gun and pro-gun parties.  There are more groups than that.  There are people who are in the middle of the road, who don't want guns removed but agree that there should be some kind of compromise.  There are gun control advocates, who want stricter rules, but don't think law-abiding citizens should have guns taken away.  There are many more, but I don't want this to get longer-winded than it has to be.  One of the biggest problems is that everyone gets grouped into all or nothing categories.  (Just to let you know, rbower, this isn't about you; you just happened to be the poster before me).  Nothing gets solved if you point fingers.  Also, I realize that gun control laws are created in the mindset of making it more difficult for people who are criminals or mentally ill to not be able to get ahold of them as easily.  I support some of the proposals, like smart guns, where only a select few people can use them.  However, there will always be people who can obtain them legally and sell them illegally.  Heck, with all the corruption, there are people who can get them illegally and still sell them by greasing the right palm or some other methods.  They get away with it and are not as uncommon as you think.  Also, you forget the many people who can inherit guns.  There will always be crazies who like hurting others.  Most pro-gun folks are mostly concerned with owning guns to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones instead of waiting for a cop or, sadly, an ambulance or hearse because the police weren't fast enough or they didn't have enough man power. 

  • In my opinion this is easy. Absolutely not!!! If this were to happen it would only apply to law abiding citizens that have guns to protect themselves, their families and property. If you take guns out of the right hands then they will only be in the wrong hands. Our Constitution gave us the rights to keep and bear arms. If good law abiding taxpaying people cannot protect the ones they love or themselves what happens to this country.
  • Yes I am aware that there will be people out there that can get ahold of their guns even if they are banned. But, when thinking about the dangers of guns I do not only think of the insane serial killers. I do not think it is safe for the average person to possess a gun even if they think they are responsible. We have to walk as slow as our slowest person and the statistics show the dangers of owning a gun. People that own guns are much more likely to cause an accident then actually use them properly for defense.

  • And as for our right to bare arms in the constitution. This is an amendment, which means it can be changed and is definitely not set in stone. I cannot help but compare U.S. to Australia. I know they are two vastly different countries but it is definitely worth examining. The fact is after banning many guns and enforcing the buy back law, crime rates plummeted. The Australian murder rate dropped to 1 per 100,000 people, while the U.S. is 4.5 per 100,000.
  • Tommigun, I understand the fear that drives gun owners to keep their guns, but what is the probability that someone is going to attack them or their loved ones.  It is a fact that the United States right now has the least amount of crime ever, and the numbers are still dropping.  I just don't think guns have a part in the future of the United States.  Statistcally, guns only make people feel safer, but the harsh reality is that firearms account for 21,175 of all 41,149 suicides in the United States last year, while according to the FBI, only 213 homicides with firearms, while protecting from home invasions, were justified.  This means firearms are doing much more harm than good for Americans. 
  • Guns shouldn't be banned. They are our right and they're protection. If we ask if we should ban guns, then should we ban knives as well? People can kill with their own hands. There are plenty of weapons out there, there's just all this media propaganda surrounding guns so the American people will be defenseless against a tyrannical government and military.

    Harpazzo22, although I agree with you that guns should not be completely banned and ruled out, I don't agree with your rational. Just because there are several deadly weapons and ways that the public can continue to cause harm to each other does not mean that there shouldn't be an attempt to create a safer environment for everyone. The purpose of gun control is to try and completely eliminate the chances of any crime, because that is simply not realistic, but the purpose is to decrease the likelihood of gun related violence from happening. Limiting the amount of guns available to the public will help to keep them out of the hands of people that are not fit to responsibly own a gun, which is key to preventing events such as the Newtown School shooting from taking place.
  • Perhaps you have not been listening to your counterparts on this issue,most anti groups want a total ban on guns and to change the constitution,and want a buy back program.Just look at the post above yours,this is really what us pro-gun people are up against,it doesn't even seem the anti's can agree on what they want,and we are suppose to be trusting of this.Has any of the changes the anti's have made already really made a difference in anything for the better,take a good look at the gun free zones,I know you still try and blame us for it,but really is not protecting someone ever a good idea.When will your false claims and blames stop.

    Thank you for your input rbower80, but your first statement about our "counterparts" view on gun control is simply not true. There is no way that you can just assume that the majority of those who are pro-gun control want a total ban on guns, especially when having no statistics to support your claim. I along with my counterparts that are communicating through this forum do not believe in a total ban of guns, and believe that controlling the use and distribution of firearms is what needs to be the focus of this issue. Despite this disagreement, I do happen to agree with you when you say that guns should be available because of how they can be used as a means of protection, because it is true that there will be crime regardless of what gun laws are put in place.
  • Posts: 234
    I can see where this is going again,and that's nowhere,and I am not going to turn this into another empty argument.It seems the anti's can't even agree between themselves what they want.I think at least us law abiding gun owners at least know what we want.
Sign In or Register to comment.