I am interested to know what you people all over the World and in America think of the current legislation and the historical amendment in America of the right for it's citizens to be able to legally bear arms/ guns given the past and present atrocities (e.g., Columbine and more recently the Connecticut school massacre). Whether you are a conscientious objector or pro-arms I would be extremely grateful if you would share your opinions and beliefs regarding this highly controversial topic.

As gun crime and mental illness are ever increasing, how safe is it for there to be such a blatant loop hole in the law which can be exploited by people who are mentally unstable and subsequently able to purchase weapons without thorough and comprehensive background checks? I personally believe that people have a right to defend themselves and the lives of their loved ones of whom they cherish, but how is it possible to differentiate between sanity and insanity in such perilous cases aforementioned? I also believe that susceptibility to mental health illness in children and the flaw in legal gun acquisition makes for genocide waiting to happen.

I recently saw how easy it was for an undercover  BBC correspondent/ reporter to acquire a lethal firearm at a gun convention with no questions asked. She later took part in target practice with an Austin firearms instructor called Johnny Price who told the reporter she had passed the test even though one of the bullets went astray, which in a theoretical sense would have killed a child as Johnny Price stated.


Your thoughts please!

Kind regards,

Lee (UK, England)

Why'd you not put it in debate?
Either way, i think guns being legal is the stupidest idea people could come up with. I also think that america is so awash with the things, that they are completely screwed. There best bet is to really get strict with guns, as it stands now you can get one far too easy, with little qualification or background checks. The fact you can buy a gun before you can buy alcohol really says it all.

Hi,

sorry man! I am new to posting here and didn't see the debate forum. Bummer!

Your views are creditable for sure and I have to agree with them.

Regards

If what I read is true, then every single massacre of the past 50 years (except one or two) happened in gun-free zones. And in History, many massacres happened with disarmed populations (USSR, Natives in the US, China...)

If guns kill people, then forks make people fat, pencils make mistakes and alcohol causes drunk driving

janus :
So the guns came from the gun free zones? By that logic, the uk should all be dead by now.
The massacres happen because its too easy to get weapons.
You can use forks, booze and pencils for peacefull purposes, they arent designed to kill.
Falacy.

thenumberone : I think Janus meant massacres by governments.

Also, the places that most of the high-profile shootings happened were in "gun-free zones". Unfortunately all that does is add a few years to a criminal sentence to someone who is already going to jail until they die and is pretty much useless. You don't protect anyone by taking away their ability to protect themselves.



As for my personal opinion: gun ownership should continue to be legal and should be restricted as little as possible. The idea that you can change the gun ownership situation in the US right now is naive. Even if you were to start confiscating guns across America you would only create a black market out of Mexico (or Canada even) that would compensate.

Thank you for your correspondence, Janus, thenumberone and geeogree. I am not saying a gun amnesty would be an effective solution but I think it is just complete incompetence for everybody to be able to acquire a gun. I must reiterate that people who carry guns are not always of sound mind, therefore, legislation and the amendment to bear arms needs to be addressed and reviewed because from what I am seeing it has become archaic and allows ease of access to weapons for people to carry out premeditated cold blooded murder whether they are a minority or not.Of course there have been massacres, genocide and crusades through-out  history without the use of guns but we are living in the Twenty-First century now in countries that are supposed to be democratic and diplomatic (I suppose that is ambiguous depending on your outlook). I feel there is a colossal humanitarian divide in the world anyway and it is definitely too late to make such changes as there are continuous power struggles between civilians and dictators. Governments are never held accountable for anything they have ratified and I believe us mere mortals would be truly shocked if we ever discovered what historical events took place that were manipulated by the powers that be.Kind regards,Lee

"The massacres happen because its too easy to get weapons."

What if people in those gun-free zones had access to guns? There are dozens of stories of people who stopped gunmen because they had access to weapons. And if easy access to guns causes massacres, why aren't there killings at gun shows?

Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about them

Hi janus,

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. The massacres occur because there is a severe case of mental health illness which goes under the radar, undetected. There are no deterrents whatsoever to prevent these incidents from taking place as the amendment is futile because it does not discriminate against people who are unstable and should not be able to bear arms, and as a result it becomes detrimental to law-abiding citizens. Anybody in America from deprived or affluent areas are able to purchase weapons and cause destruction. It does not matter about creed, education or religious beliefs. It is transparent that people from academic backgrounds who have been raised in good, law-abiding Christian families, or any other persuasion are just as likely to commit such gun-crime atrocities if they suffer from mental health illness. The point I am making is that mental illness in America is increasing considerably at a fast rate and with the population at approximately 315 million, gun crime in gun-free states will be also increase. I believe that classification is needed and new robust measures taken to stop any person from carrying a firearm. There can never be a watertight solution or a gun amnesty but surely there must be a complete overhaul of such preposterous legislation regarding the right for citizens to bear arms!

I have access to a car with a current drivers licence - the car has the potential to be used as a deadly weapon. I'm sure that I could access a gun here too in the UK if I really wanted to but as a conscientious, law-abiding citizen it is something I would never do. The point I am making is that without intervention or an ounce of intelligence within the constitution, this battle will become progressively worse.

Peace!

I think the right to bear arms is necessary for self defense, and the right to self defense in turn is crucial to maintaining a free society. I'm so sorry for all the families of victims who've been shot and killed by a gun, but I don't think more gun control is the answer. A lot of these killers are not only mental, but have well developed plans to engage in such a massacre. Some of them have taken guns behind someones back. I think in order to stop incidents from occurring, there has to be more accountability on the part of gun owners with an unstable person in the house. There should also be more done to prevent potential shooters from killing when there are critical warning signs present. All in all, I think this is a cultural problem that won't necessarily get solved with more and more laws.

Hi Hoochman,

a well constructed response. This was always going to be difficult topic and one that would obviously divide opinion due to the ambiguity of  its nature. In the face of adversity it is definitely not in the interest or well-being of the majority of good American/ naturalised citizens to disarm themselves in these unparalleled times of uncertainty and criminality. The only way to minimize gun-crime incidents is to be vigilant and alert I suppose. I do believe that issue will never be eradicated but that does not necessarily mean the American Government can not introduce new measures to help prevent firearms falling into the hands of potentially unstable and dangerous individuals. I won't sit here and say that it is the nature of the beast and this kind of thing happens as I don't believe that can be accepted by anybody who has lost their beloved son, daughter or relative to a lapse in firearm regulations. There is always a way forward as long as people are willing to view this topic objectively and not bow down to a mentality of acquiesce as that is not good enough for the World's most influential country, whether you love America or not.

Kind regards,

Lee

I've got nothing against people owning guns, though I do agree it is a good idea to screen for mental instability and criminal backgrounds. However, I wholeheartedly believe that military assault weapons should not be available for any civilian to buy. I don't see the need for a civilian to have that kind of weapon. I'm sure I'll get a lot of responses explaining the "necessity" for general ownership of assault weapons, but honestly, I can't imagine anyone actually providing a valid reason that will change my view on this.

Hi hypermonkey,

a very positive response which I agree with completely. You could be forgiven for thinking that common sense would prevail regarding the gun culture situation but alarmingly it doesn't and I'm not sure what it will take for there to be stringent intervention.

Kind regards,

Lee

hypermonkey : What would you define as an 'Assault Weapon'? I'm against civilian ownership of automatic weapons, but I'm completely for allowing the ownership of guns. Honestly, just because guns are illegal doesn't mean that all bad guys will lose their guns. there will be people who will still have guns, despite government regulations. I'd rather be able to protect myself in case of an intruder, than sit there and say "Please don't take my stuff, and please don't shoot me..." I don't see the sense in it.

I'm against gun control. So is the Constitution, fyi.

mrfe : I know this isn't the actual classification of assault weapons, but basically anything automatic. And, actually, you pretty much summed up my views yourself. I know that no matter how many laws and regulations are put into place, people (and many of the wrong people) will acquire guns anyway. But at least we should be able to make it more difficult to get weapons that were essentially created for the purpose of killing people.

And as a side note, I wouldn't own a gun myself. I'm more of a sword person.


Nostalgia Gaming : You don't need to reply to every new post in the thread, just so you know.

No worries hypermonkey, just like to be part of the debate.

As far as I am concerned If you have a sane and a rightful reason to own a weapon, then you should have one if you don't have a criminal record or a mental illness. Simple as that pretty much. If you want an Ak-47 to shoot squirrels of your porch, then forget it. If you belong to a hunting or a shooting club or can prove otherwise you are experienced and knowledgeable in using a gun, then no problem either. If you are an adult.

And no, I don't have a gun myself. They are expensive and I have no purpose for it,  though in my family there are many guns for various reasons and I haven`t fired one or held one after my army service. I am lucky and happy I don't need one even for self defence and still believe I live in a free society.

considering they have dropped a planned ban of automatic weapons, its clear people have already forgoten the lessons of late.
It will happen again, there will be the, "we must change" speel, and it will come 'fool' circle.
Empathy is apparently dead.
R.I.P

In some situations, when the guy comes in crazy, a bystander is carrying a gun and kills him before he does even more damage than he could have potentially dealt. Crime goes down whenever the potential offender has a fear of having a gun turned on them. Guns may cause harm, but they are only tools that people use. I'd rather everyone own and be trained on how to use a gun. Who would mug someone? Who would rob a store? Violent crime would be met with great opposition by those actually being preyed on.

Serious example, if Rome had violent crime, do you think it would be smart for them to ban swords? Or maybe the sword can only be so large, and can't be made of material that makes it extremely sharp. That's ridiculous.

Txgangsta :
You can defend yourself sword to sword, a gun can kill unseen and in rapid succession. Although on the sword front,in the uk knives are not allowed on the streets, in technicality you arent really permited to carry knives home from the shop. You have to be 18 to buy them too(even kitchen knives).
Knife crime is the main weapon related death in the uk.