U.S.A Gun Control

to sum this ALL up

 

In my honest opinion the 2nd amendment has its pro's and its cons. I do think they're should be tougher laws obtaining these weapons though. Handguns right now you have to be 18 to own and rifles 21. The government should consider pushing back those requirements even farther. Possibly even have you take a test our two on gun knowledge and safety. This could stop people from hurting themselves by accident and other people. Some people like myself were raised around guns and know what and what not to do with them. In the south, to hunt you must own a hunter's safety license. Possibly the could implement something like that to slow down the purchasing of guns and stop the less educated from owning guns period.

 

I agree with him ^^ on some points.

There was a report/poll whatever about how people are against alot of this because there saying that's Obama is trying to change history by changing the amendments that we put in place years ago.. They want some sort of change but then flip and decide against there own will. It's like there being controlled :O The gun store in my town marked all of there guns down 20%. So that really threw me off. An even more sad thing is you can't legally buy a gun if you've done something criminally while being mental, but you can have a gun if your mental and haven't done anything criminally.. really REALLY messed up..

 

The law itself seems like a more responsibility thing.

I still think about the school shooting, it should be compulsory for each teacher to have a safety gun or at least the headmaster.

 

Hell no. You hear quite often about a teacher getting so pissed off they hit the kid or flip out and start going mental. Can you imagine what would happen if you basically put a gun in their hand? Even if they never used it, the psychological effects of a teacher threatening to shoot a student no matter what age the student is/

 

Working in schools can often be very stressful and frustrating, especially with little kids who can be stuck up and won't do as told. I think giving guns to teachers is just an accident waiting to happen.

 

Not true. They're not supposed to sell you a gun if you have a history of mental illness, but most places don't care about that and they just push the guns through anyway.

 

both are true, although, not all teachers flip out, but i do believe that school staff that has extensive fire arm training, should be able to carry a fire arm, and every quarter any person that has the ability to take a firearm to the school should have a mental evaluation.

 

Yes lol, but the restrictions sound very easy to evade. What difference would it make if, as someone said earlier, criminals will always find a way to get what they need?

 

handguns are 21 and quite a few states require a permit just to own such as NY. rifles and shotguns are 18 and even some states require a permit to own such. people like myself just manufacture firearms i know how to use a CNC mill with cad etc. i can just make my own guns 100% legally. putting a ban on something doesnt mean you cant obtain it. rather than blaming guns blame the people you dont blame forks for making people fat and if i stab someone with a fork does it make it an assault fork.

 

exactly, so if we take out guns, lets take out every thing with a point above a 45 degree angle, or we should drop the whole debate, and keep the 2nd amendments with no changes, thats my vote

 

The topic of gun control. Oh boy, here we go, better stretch my hands out and get ready to type.

I have come up with one very simple way to look at this. Its no secret, drugs are rampant throughout the united states, and I'm talking about the illegal ones. Those drugs such as cocain, meth, and heroin are very present and real in our society here in America. Meth being the foremost around where I live. What makes you think that taking away assault rifles, or just firearms in general is going keep the bad guys from getting their hands on them. If millions of people can get their hands on drugs, there are people out there who are bound to wind up with guns. If someone is going to commit a murder with a gun, what makes you think that they're going to be deterred by some law that says you cant own a gun.

Secondly, how do they plan to track and recover all of these weapons? I live in illinois and we have a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card. Sure, you'd be able to track weapons especially with that system, but its mediocre to say the least. Its simple to trade and swap guns, but unless you're dealing with a registered gun shop, most people don't transfer the registration. So that leaves a gap in the weapons that the government could recover. Its also no secret that people scratch serial numbers off of guns, so there goes the guns ability to be identified and recorded.

Another point that I don't think people think about is what the gun ownership per capita means for the nations security. For every 100 people in the united states, 88 of them own guns, statistically. Now how would another country invade a nation where 88% of the 300+ million people own firearms. It's just not very feasible. So any time a gun control debate comes up, keep that in the back of your head.

A bit long winded? Yes, but I get fired up when it comes to gun control, as I own quite a few myself. Basically what it comes down to is that trying to take away guns is like pissing into the wind. It just wont work.

 

The fact that England has 3x the violent crime rate that the U.S. has kind of defeats the argument of European gun law doesnt it?

 

Sagro, i'd like to know where you got those statistics from, as that is absolute bullshit. UK Violent crime rate per 100,000 people = ~1600 cases (16 cases per 1000 people). Just as a comparison in Oakland CA in the US just in one year the violent crime rate was ~1,682 per 100,000 people.

 

You both should link your sources.

But you shouldn't compare an entire nation to one city in a country, that's not really accurate or fair.

 

My research came from the Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

im just basing it on statistics that one city in the same year in america has more violent crime per capita than the entire of britain, so if you totaled up the entire violent crime rate per capita in the USA it would be a lot more than the UK

 

FBI which does not advocate policy

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

USA- 386.3 per 100,000.

England + Wales 56,000,000 population.
762,515 incidents of Violent Crime according to Home Office.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0812/hosb0812?view=Binary

ENGLAND- 1361 per 100,000.

So in truth, its 3.5x our violent crime.

 

I'm sorry bud, but your Math is flawed haha.. You werent looking at "total crime", you were comparing crime in instances of every 100,000 persons.

 

I support the Right to Bear Arms.

It would be completely idiotic to "disarm" American citizens.

Criminals and those that commit crimes with their weapons will and can get guns however they want. Be it: stealing them or buying off the black market.

If a criminal really wants a gun, they will get it, nothing is going to stop them.

Statistically, when citizens are armed, crime rates have gone, when they've been disarmed, the rate has gone up.

The problem isn't with law abiding citizens that own guns for protection and hunting, it's with the criminals that gain access to their guns through illegal means.

Sure, if you put a ban on guns being owned by citizens, then they won't be stolen, but guns will still find their way into the hands of criminals.

People need to consider all points of view pros and cons, before going crazy about taking away guns that are used for protection and have shown to lower crime rates against citizens.

 

Good sources. I'm just quivering in anticipation of what the response will be.

"u 'mericans r hiding teh truth of ur statistics! you guys shoot eachotha up erryday"