janus : I doubt that could be proven but the fact that fire arms can be brought legally did play a part, it doesn't matter if the person buying the gun is good or bad that gun can be stolen and then used in crime

Txgangsta : swords were needed in the military in rome and nearly anybody could be called into the military at that time so they had to have swords, also most people had some degree of swordsmanship so it was no where near as a bad as a gun because you can not stop a bullet easily

Which is exactly my point : criminals don't care about laws. All that gun laws do is disarm honest citizens

I think only the police and members of the government  should be allowed to own fire arms simply because there has been why to many shootings specially of the younger generation and yet they claim there is enough gun control yet there are so many people under the legal age with guns running around shooting people.

The whole " guns are a part of American history " thing is just a horrible argument...
Guns have a history in almost all countries.. you don't see Germans, British or Japanese people running around with guns in there pockets

janus : You ended the conversation.

Firearms, when regulated and controlled by law-abiding people, are no problem.  When they're stolen or illegally purchased, you have problems.

As far as I'm concerned, gun-related violence is something that happens.  Ban firearms, or make them illegal, and people will use something else.  They'll get their hands on baseball bats, explosives, machetes, swords, or other weapons.  Heck, automobiles and alcohol can be linked to killing how many people a year?  We don't scream to ban them.  At least the U.S. hasn't banned them in 80-odd years.

Can anyone give some stats on total gun deaths the past few years, per capita, for the U.S. and other industrialized countries?

To be honest think of this: if they ever do decide to outlaw guns, when the time comes for us to hand over our guns, the people who follow the laws will hand in their guns, while criminals will find a way to keep them, and how will we protect ourselves from people who have guns? By calling 911? The police won't have guns either, so how will they help you? So more deaths by guns will happen. And besides guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Back in the 1980's and even in the early 1990's (Not the 1970's or 2000's) Gun Control Was Very Possible.
I had (REPEAT HAD) the notion that civilians only needed Six shooters, Shotguns, and Common Hunting Sniper Rifles. I also had the notion of registering and recording where every single purchase of ammo went to too. (If someone buys more than 200 rounds I would want the cops to know who and when "A.S.A.P." ...I still believe that the ammo should be carefully tracked. All of it this time.)

Today???
Not a good option. (Accept for the Ammo Tracking. That is still a Good Notion.)
Particularly with half of the population of the U.S. being out of work today.
Mental Illness is not a disease that you contract like a cold or flu.
The increase of many shootings is the result of desperate people. The Media tends to report the Loons more often is all.
That aside. Why do you think they are free? They were not dangerous before?
Taking away a citizens ability to defend them self with a gun only harms the innocent people who follow the rules and laws.

Criminals do not follow rules or laws.
They will always get armed with any kind of weapon they need for their task.
They even make them if they can not buy them. (Ask any Prison Cop.)

I am a fit person with multiple ways of weapon disarm tricks and training. So guns are not too big an issue for me. (Besides. I tend to not upset people to desire shooting me.)
For many years that was enough.
In 2010 the world changed dramatically and I eventually decided to get a firearm myself.
The News reported "Bullet Shortages" in several states (People were buying all of them.) and that should tell people something.
I have not used my weapon on a person and I pray I never need to.
Another thing is... the Shootings that are reported... envolve lone gun men.
In my experience? Stupidity Never Travels Alone.
The chances of gunmen being alone are slim.

We All Have The Right To Stay Alive.
Even if life sucks.

Good Luck To All.
Peace.

Have you guys heard about the 3D printers? Even if purchasing guns becomes illegal or more difficult, in the next few years, I'm pretty sure that people will figure out how to create their own guns, and there is no real way to be able to control that considering there really would be no way to tell whether or not you're purchasing these 3D printers with the intent to create guns.

So let's say gun control is enacted. Let's argue from the most extreme case: Complete gun control, with a government buy-back or seizure program that confiscates the majority of guns from law-abiding citizens. Note: not giving the guns up would mean that a person is not a law-abiding citizen, and these would most likely be people who are more prone to violence. In fact, the chances are that there would be little record of these guns existing.

I'm of the belief that violence will rise as guns are removed from the public's hands. So in my scenario, as the murder rate rises, these 3D printers become available, and it's impossible to know that you're making guns with these, so...

All of the sudden, people have access to guns again. But this time, it's impossible to track them because they're being manufactured by the PEOPLE THEMSELVES. Gun control has backfired in a major way.

Obviously, this is an extreme case, but I'm trying to highlight the point that even if gun control was enacted, in the next five to ten years, it will essentially be obsolete because of the fact that these new guns will be untraceable. The only way that this could be prevented would be to ban 3D printers, and I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen considering the huge change to the financial impact this product will likely have on our economy when it really hits big.

Guns are stupid. Why don't we get rid of all guns and bombs or whatever and go back to fist fighting in wars?

Barathemos :

I agree.
But ... Like the song goes.

"This is the world we live in."

Good Luck To ALL.
Peace.

If a person wants a gun they will get one. I agree with background checks and all but if you take guns away/ ban them you will take them away from the honest owners of guns. In addition I think we need to educate more people about guns and stop making them seem like they are the root of all problems and are evil.

I know getting rid of guns is one thing to get the country (or world) saver, but technically that’ll make things much worse, because people needs guns to defend themselves and look at the murderers, they use other weapons like melee weapons (like knives and baseball bats). So taking guns away is a very bad idea.

In this statement I will debunk first the gun-laws,then the validity of the evidence which suggests mental health was a issue and finally I will debunk the supposed weight of the crimes.


Any law that infringes on ANY persons freedom to carry any of the following; Firearms,hand grenades,automatic/silenced SBRs and/or NFA items,is a attempt by the government to restrict the items needed by the people to keep the government in check.
The only reason that any person would want to restrict or ban any military weaponry,is to shift power to the government. If you do not believe this,then ask Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler, both of whom stated in their writings that disarmament of the people was a pre eminence to their death. Stalin killed more of his own people that Hitler did Jews and yet he is not talked of,but that is for a different time,I digress.

Now let us move on to the question posed by this threads creator. Should people of low mental health be allowed to own guns? Or should extra steps be taken to ensure they do not acquire these items?

The easy answers would be 'Yes they should be allowed to own guns,and no there should not be laws against it.'. Now,how did I reach this conclusion? Well first I would say that crime related to metal illness is greatly exaggerated.
As in the case of the "sandyhook" shooting,that man was originally supposed to be mentally ill,however no evidence was ever provided to this end. Also it was originally reported that he used a AR-15,yet was later revealed that he used 3 hand guns.
So we know the police do not make the best "first reports" so why should you continue to believe that he was mentally ill? In the case that he was mentally ill then look at the result,an un know amount of children lost their lives (I say unknown because many of the children supposedly "dead" were later seen on TV ) . Now that seem pretty bad  true? But wait! Is not that number outweighed by the number that were killed be GOVERNMENT guns in the last few wars? So then if we are principled and state that anyone who kills
little children should not own guns,why are we not asking the government to be disarmed? You see,my train leads me to say that no matter how many mentally ill people run around killing other people,that could not add up to the amount of atrocities committed by each and EVERY current world government.

It would appear I have digressed and covered my last two points without pause. I ask forgiveness for this,and hope that it dose not take away from the validity of my argument.

Viktor Von`stah : I think you brought up some great points and I'm happy to know that there are people who believe the way I do. People don't understand that every government throughout history has always had the capacity for power, because the people in charge always seem to be addicted to power. One of the ways to get more power is to be the only group with arms, leaving the rest of your populace defenseless. That doesn't necessarily mean that that government will put them in concentration camps or heinously torture/murder their people for no reason, but if they want to enact a tax or something that isn't popular, it is a lot easier to strike fear into the hearts of citizens if they are not armed and the government is.

That being said, I also want to point out that Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the entire United States, many of which are perpetrated by guns. Why is that? Because, as we have pointed out before, the criminals will stop at nothing to get their hands on weapons, and law-abiding citizens who choose not to live in the city (and have guns) are therefore left defenseless, subject to whatever attacks criminals want to do. Putting arms in the hands of the citizens reduces this type of crime, and while there will always be a couple of lunatics who might be able to get their hands on guns, if more people have guns to defend themselves, then those lunatics won't get far before finding a bullet (or a hail of bullets) lodged between their eyes.

Sometimes I think the right to bear arms just shouldn't exist and weapons especially guns should only be allowed to be carried by police and other law agencies and I think  this  because of all the recent shootings that have happened lately. 

I think it's funny how so many people say "if we control gun possession , criminal won't listen obey the laws", seeing as many other developed countries have gun control and have vastly lower gun casualties that the USA.

It boggles my mine that people think the answer to peace and security is weapons. But some people like their guns, at it will be some hard to take it away from them.

 

pray75 : rn"Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the entire United States, many of which are perpetrated by guns. Why is that? Because, as we have pointed out before, the criminals will stop at nothing to get their hands on weapons"rnrnhttp://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/11/chicagos-homicide-rate-rank-top-american-cities.html