statistics show that those who own a gun are more likelier to get shot now that doesn't mean a person who owns a gun is gonna get shot for sure nor does that mean this person won't get shot for sure the same can be said for a person who doesn't own a gun Murder has existed before the time of guns banning guns can be seen as a breach of liberty there's also the 2nd amendment defense for the weak but I can also understand those who are for gun control kids take them to school, horrendous shootings, etc. gun control can be a seen as protection there are so many pros and cons to gun control The question is: Which one is for the betterment of society? cases can be made for either side

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm leaning toward pro-2nd amendment, mainly because of the argument that this can protect us from tyranny, but I understand that there are many pros and cons to it, and gun control is not likely to be a deciding factor for me when choosing who to vote for.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think the fact that it is our Constitutional right to bear arms is automatically a winning argument. In Chicago, it's clearly not working, so essentially they are *almost* denying the right to have a gun, for no reason. There's also the logical argument, criminals don't abide by the law.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Gun-control is actually also constitutional too, since the Supreme Court has already ruled before that there should be limitations on the amount and type of "arms" available. The problem is in the wording. Also, one must remember that unlike the 18th century, a myriad of deadly weapons now come into this constitutional "right", and so it makes sense to study and amend it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You also didn't answer my comment at the bottom about what such figures represent in terms of change before gun control was employed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think that any pro-gun-control people would ever claim that getting rid of the gund will magically make everything better, If you encounter one, then i follow your sentiment. But a society where people can't get access to guns so easily is invariably going to be a better one in the long-run. Gun-nut zealots are just as deluded as the aforementioned pro-control people, if they think that everyone owning guns is going to make things safer.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Switzerland would disagree. Every citizen is issued a gun and taught how to use it, and they have one of the lowest gun related crime rates in the world.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes because we all know that everything that works in a tiny nation such as Switzerland will absolutely work across the continental united states. Suuure.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I wouldn't argue that everyone having guns would make things safer because we simply don't know. We don't know what would have happened if everyone in the theater in Colorado had weapons to defend themselves against the killer. More could have been killed or injured from misfire or more lives could have been saved. We simply don't know. We definitely don't know what would happen if we suddenly prohibited guns in a nation that's full of them. I mean what do you do? Just go door to door and expect people to fork over their weapons? Closing the gun shops will most likely open underground trade.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You're totally polarizing the issue, as most anti gun-control people do. Gun control is not simply about "getting rid of everyone's gun" as the NRA would have you believe. It's about making it DAMNED hard to get your hands on one. If you are qualified to have a gun and have reasonale purpose for it, then you will get one. What's wrong with tightening the filter as much as possible. Are you saying we should risk nutcases getting their hands on guns so that you can get yours faster? Of course an outright China-style ban would never really work, but the NRA idea of just letting people have the guns they want is equally ludicrous. The OP has also failed to answer my query as to what his figures truly represent. usually this type of statistic only shows that it hasn't been eradicated completely, but is markedly down from before. Typical tactic, totally transparent to anyone with sense.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The government wouldn't make it harder to obtain weapons without evaluating the people who currently own them. If they did that, I'm sure they'd find some nutcases who need their guns taken away and I doubt these nutcases would go down without a fight.. because they're nutcases. I suppose I should have started with my stance: Freedom and liberty. The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. If America is truly a free country, then we have the right to own weapons. There are plenty of nutcases who legally get their hands on a drivers license and a car but being killed by one of them is a risk I'm willing to take to have my own rights as an individual. The same applies with guns.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Another classic tactic, the car argument - a car is not an offensive weapon, the arguments are quite different. A gun's functionality is considerably narrower than that of a car. The line of logic you employ there is severely flawed. As for freedom, anti-gun people ALSO have rights, the right not to feel intimidated by the fact that people around them could ALL be carrying guns. Many state that the very presence of guns is unnerving. Do these peoples' rights not matter?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Do the research yourself if you'd like, this post is old and I don't have time to re-do my research for you. Obviously you care enough to comment several times just research it, comment back if you'd like. Drugs are illegal. We spend billions of dollars on the war on drugs, and does it help? No. Drugs are easier to get than alcohol when you're under 21. Simply making something illegal does nothing but take it out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals break the law. Talk about sense.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Also, I'm interested to know what kind of change these figures represent. How many people were killed in shootings before gun control was employed?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Criminals will get guns. No matter what. At the end of the day, the only difference is whether or not normal citizens have the ability to protect themselves. Can there be gun-related accidents? Sure. That's why caution and basic common sense is needed when a gun is owned and stored. The value of being able to own a gun and protect yourself outweighs the cons. Do you know how many people die from car accidents every day/month/year? Perhaps driving should be banned.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's a whole load of objectivity with no proof there. Criminals will get guns --- so, we just let people buy any gun they want do we? To "protect themselves"? Are you encouraging us all to become vigilantes? The system you propose makes it EASIER for criminals to get guns. Saying that they'll always get them is not a meaningful argument. There's no guarantee either that you having a gun is any kind of protection, but what IS guaranteed is the greater risk of accidental shootings, misfires and other assorted crap nobody wants. Gun control is NOT about taking away all the guns from EVERYONE. It's about making is harder for the WRONG people to get them. Why don't you go weight the pros and cons of that!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I hardly call possessing the ability to defend myself "being a vigilante." Also, you're putting words into my argument that were never there to begin with. I don't think just anyone should be able to get a gun, and there would have to be certain restrictions and precautions in place. It wouldn't make it easier for criminals to buy guns if they have to submit to background checks and are denied a legal purchase based on a set of criteria. And perhaps there would be some gun accidents, things happen, but I don't think it's on the scale you seem to be playing it up to. If you have kids in the house, you obviously don't stuff the gun under your bed or leave it out. Again, precautions and common sense would be employed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So basically, you're in favour of greater gun control. You are aware of what gun control supporters ACTUALLY want, I assume?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Except the attempt is ridiculous, you can't compare that to any other situation because taking them away from people harms them, and leaves them without protection.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Comparing driving and gun control is entirely ridiculous. For starters guns are designed for one thing: to kill, cars are not designed for killing they are simple designed to get from point A to point B faster with the unfortunate side effect of sometimes injuring people. Furthermore guess what? There are LAWS in place to help lower or stop completely these injuries and deaths caused by driving, why do you think we have speeding laws? Traffic lights? Stop signs? Saying that we do not need government policies and regulations to control a tool as dangerous as a gun is just foolish.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Totally, I also posted somewhere above just now about the ridiculous comparison of guns and cars

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Guns were created to protect arguably, so that statement is not necessarily true. Sure, we should regulate it...but until it is unrealistically hard or next to impossible for a person to own a gun for protection.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Guns were created to protect people? No that is simply untrue, guns were created with the sole purpose to kill. The first gun was invented as a means to pierce armor that arrows could not, there was no intentions for "self defense" anywhere along the line.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Pierce armor? Do you even hear yourself? Why are they WEARING ARMOR? Because of war...and what is war often used for? For protection of their people. The world isn't perfect and people use things to fuel their own personal agenda, that doesn't change it's sole purpose in the first place. Another countries soldiers, wearing armor, are an enemy at that point.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why are they wearing armor? To protect themselves. Why were guns used to pierce that armor? To kill the person wearing it. The gun has always been a means to an end and that end is the death of the person at the other end of the gun. If the end goal of the accumulation of all those deaths is that your family won't be killed then that changes nothing about what the gun's purpose was: to kill.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In war, it's about winning and winning is equated with surviving. What must one do to win and survive? Kill. What is surviving considered? Protecting ones own life. War is not a choice and as much as idealists like to think differently, it's necessary and will always be around. Just like guns and criminals.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It is absolutely right and consitutional that this issue be looked at and modified if necessary. The right to bear arms was written at a time when the types of arms available were limited, and the threats to the nation very different. It was based on the likely counter-invasion of the colonies by the British. It was a different AGE. You cannot simply copy and paste this right into the 21st century without a SINGLE amendment. You pro-gun people wanna talk common sense? Think about THAT! Furthermore, the Supreme Court already ruled that gun control was constitutional, because the word "arms" is too vague, and so the government for instance has the right to limit the type of weapons people can get. Why anyone thinks an automatic machine gun for example is a necessary tool for defence of one's home is a mystery to me. Pro-gun people need to stop polarizing the issue and accusing gun-control supporters of trying to rob them of their rights or deprive them of any kind of firearms. This is a fallacy, and you DAMNED-WELL know it!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Most people don't buy automatic weapons to protect themselves. They buy them to shoot targets because they find enjoyment in doing so. I shot a .50 caliber sniper rifle once and obliterated a 24 pack of soft drinks. It was awesome. Would I have used it for self defense? Hell no. That would be impractical. Why did the owner buy it? Because it's fun to shoot. The majority of people don't buy these guns for protection. They buy them because that's their hobby and if they're willing to spend lots of money on them then they have every right to do so (the .50 caliber rounds cost my friend $5 each).

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thanks for proving my point that anti gun-control people continue in their delusion that gun control is about depriving EVERYONE of their guns regardless of reason. Hobby shooters will always be able to get the guns provided they meet the requirements. Gun control is about making those requirements stricter, harder to pass and generally more stringent, to ensure that guns only go to the right people. What's really wrong with that?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Like I said. The point of the 2nd amendment as put by the founders, was a means to avoid tyranny. If the Government can get it, the people should be able to as well. It's a dangerous, slippery slope to assume big daddy Gov needs to protect us from ourselves.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No no no no. Have you read the constitution? The right to bear arms was put into the constitution to avoid TYRANNY.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And did you read my post all the way through? The Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled in the past, that the term "arms" is too vague, and already imposed restrictions on the types of arms people can get their hands on. The time of the writing of the consitution and today are two very different ones. That was a world of single-shot flint-lock muskets --- this is the age of automatic machine guns. Do you really think it's reasonable to allow exactly the same unrestricted and unmodified right to absolutely everyone? And furthermore, to protect your from WHAT tyranny? What do you think will really change if gun control gets tighter? Hmm? What?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

According to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guaranteeing political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be. Go read the 2nd Amendment lol.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You are missing the point, sticking so rigidly to this point of the constitution is unreasonable and unrealistic. You can go look up the Supreme Court decisions on this. They have ALREADY ruled before that gun control is constitutional in that it is right and proper to restrict what types of arms people should be allowed to have. Also, it's ridiculous to assume that guns are the only way to oppose a lousy government. The UK has NEVER needed an armed revolution to rid themselves of a bad government. Why should you? You're talking as if the only way is guns. How narrow-minded is that? You also harbor the delusion that gun control means taking away absolutely everybody's guns everywhere. You're the one who's being ignorant here. Btw, did you see the news? Another shooting in Oregon yesterday. How many more will it take to make you think that making guns harder to get isn't a bad idea?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Like I said, drugs are easier to get than legal alcohol, when will you realize violating a civil liberty is wrong, and also pointless to the cause? Oh that's illegal, better not use one! Said no criminal ever.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nice dodging of the issues there. Drugs are easier to get than alcohol? Wow, you've been drinking the conservative kool-aid too much my friend. Get a frickin' clue. Maybe you should spend some time in the real world and maybe then you'll know what what liberties are truly worth fighting for. Jeez you're ignorant.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In 2010, an estimated 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were using drugs. That's on the NIDA site, who runs the "war on drugs". A huge percentage of those are under 21...why? Because you need an ID for alcohol. That embarrassing moment when you show sheer ignorance while insinuating someone else is lol.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You are drawing false conclusions. Of course it's actually easier to get your hands on booze than drugs FFS. People just pull the wool over your eyes with pointless statistics like that, and you gobble them up like an idiot. First, 22.6 million americans 12 and up were "using" drugs...which means what? That number of people admitted to having tried them, or used them in the past 12 months. And I'm guessing it's all-encompassing, meaning the VAST majority took a toke of a joint or something. WOW, hardcore. The fact that people are using them doesn't mean you can conclude that the drugs are easier to get your hands on, idiot. You offer NO evidence for that, and you maintain an inability to answer any of my questions on your post. Ever considered a career in politics?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Also, while were on the subject, alcohol IS a drug, you know that right? have you covered that in high-school yet? And most kids get their first drink from either their own home or a friend's...no ID needed for the kitchen cupboards....tard

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Hmm lets use some cute little logic here...which is harder to get generally, the thing you do not need an ID for, or the thing you do? LOL And I'm the idiot. Also, Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia Crime Rate Plummets Chew on that, it's tasty. http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What most people don't know about Kennesaw Georgia is that the crime rate also plummeted at the same time other reforms were introduced to police administration. And the gun ownership thing is just being used as a ploy. But I suppose you're well versed enough in these things to know that, right? Oh, and you definitely don't need any ID to grab some booze from the kitchen cupboard, which incidentally is what most kids do. Which is harder to get? the one in your kitchen cupboard? Or the one you need to find a third party dealer for? Buuuurn

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Incidentally, violent crime and gun crime rates went down in the UK too after implementing national gun control. So...what does any of it really prove? You are too big a fan of news media and unreliable stats my friend. If you were a historian you'd be the laughing stock of the community. Tabloid logic.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

As soon as you explain how making guns illegal will work better than making drugs illegal. That didn't work and we still spend billions on it every year. I went through a hard time in my life for several years after a tragic death, and I can personally vouch for how easy it is to get pulled into the drug world. And I'm not just talking marijuana. I didn't even live in one place for the duration of that awful experience, I lived in several states. Drugs are massive problem and clearly, making something illegal doesn't take it off the streets. With drugs, we're doing what we can. I personally think they should be legal and regulated as to save more lives because people are going to do with their body what they see fit, but that's another discussion. With guns, it's different. It actually has the potential to hurt people, innocent people. If criminals can still get a hold of guns, and they will be able to, but civilians cannot how does that paint a picture of safety? We need to pay attention to mental disorders, instead of throwing them in prison. It's easy to talk about guns, lets talk about the source of the problem and that's PEOPLE.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Would you care to address ANY of my original points? Or are we going to play this dumb game of who can paste the most links to the post? Why not share your thoughts on the things I asked before? Refresher: What were gun crime rates in Chicago pre gun control? The vaguness of "bear arms" and constituionality of limiting type and amount of arms. And what gun control ACTUALLY means on a national level.

by Anonymous 11 years ago