DISCLAIMER: This will probably get locked

[David_4x4 0]

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

So we need more redundant laws or use both hands while shooting?

[Jason Harris 31]

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

That's ludicrous.

I'd wager big money that the majority of the people who'd like to see a tightening (or better enforcement) of gun laws believe that it will help diminish the senseless gun violence that is too pervasive in our society. Whether that is a good strategy, we don't know, since we've seen statistics that back up both sides of the position.

Further, the statement doesn't make sense when the demographics of each side are considered. if you were to ask people which side of the political spectrum would be more likely to want to create a police state, I'm confident the consensus would say far right versus far left. And the far left generally isn't clamoring for more guns.

Let's leave it that we have to assume that virtually everyone would like to see an end to gun violence, but we can't agree what will bring that about -- less guns or more concealed guns.

[usahockey22 0]

We need more criminal control, a la Joe Horn:

(Just food for thought, I don't necessarily support this guy)

[Jason Harris 31]

I think if the founding fathers could have predicted the controversy in the future caused by the clause, "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state", they certainly would have left it out. It seems clear from what I have read that their intention was individual gun rights....

Very well written, usahockey.

Where I diagree is in the hypothetical realm of what would the founding fathers have done if they only knew? I think if they knew what the evolution of firearms would bring, they would have written even more specific language regarding ownership of firearms. How long did it take to load a musket for one shot? Twenty seconds maybe? If they knew that an unhinged lunatic could kill twelve people in that same time, I imagine there would have been wording with specific limitations about "well regulated militia", "protecting one's property" or "hunting for food."

[usahockey22 0]

Where I diagree is in the hypothetical realm of what would the founding fathers have done if they only knew? I think if they knew what the evolution of firearms would bring, they would have written even more specific language regarding ownership of firearms. How long did it take to load a musket for one shot? Twenty seconds maybe? If they knew that an unhinged lunatic could kill twelve people in that same time, I imagine there would have been wording with specific limitations about "well regulated militia", "protecting one's property" or "hunting for food."

In my mind, the real issue is personal defense, which, currently is best accomplished with a gun. I think that if they knew about the technological advancements in firearms, they might have added other limitations, though we've done that ourselves through other legislation since anyway. But really the main point I think is keeping everyone on a level playing field. It's unrealistic to expect a gun ban, or tight regulations to keep guns away from criminals who will acquire them no matter what. So if the criminals can all get them, might as well keep everyone equal as far as armaments goes. I'm not pro-gun, just pro-defense. I think this is how it was seen for the bill of rights back then. Firearms were simply the tool used for necessary defense, whether it be from criminals, hostile Indians, the British, etc. Regulating guns is regulating your ability to defend yourself. It does nothing to control the bad people.

[Remman 0]

We need gun ownership as much today as in the past. You give up one right, you're willing to give up another right and so forth.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

It is about guns. It's about controlling them, like you partially stated, which is nearly impossible. They are available either way. From what I understand, most states require a permit and/or registration for pistols. Rifles, it doesn't matter.

[kosydar 0]

It wasn't that the original Constitution was "inadequate" and they had to change it, it was that the Anti-federalists wanted to limit the power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to protect individual and states' rights. Sure the Constitution has flaws, and things have been corrected throughout time, but its pretty impressive that it still stands as the foundation of the most powerful nation in the world some two centuries later.

Any rights not granted to the federal government in the original constitution were assumed to be state rights. The Bill of Rights was written to grant rights to indivuduals and protect them from state and federal abuse.

True, but it was formally written in the 10th Amendment.

[mrusse01 0]

I'm not trying to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, I live in Canada and we do alright up here without 'the right to bear arms', thank you.

Individual gun ownership isn't illegal in Canada. There are some 7 million firearms in individuals' hands in Canada that are registered. You all just have a tighter system for ownership.

I think it's pretty obvious that you're an anti-gun person. Might I ask why you hate guns so much as to think North America should confiscate and melt them all?

I just believe that guns, and handguns in particular, are a highly dangerous product that should be against the law to own. Why? Well, if you break it down, the purpose of a handgun is to kill people. That's what they are designed to do. You may argue you need them for 'personal defense' or whatever you want to call it; but all those reasons come back to the sole purpose of the weapon, which is to injure or kill someone.

Does nobody else see the circular logic in that y'all need guns to protect yourself from someone else who has a gun? Why don't you just get rid of all the guns (by making them illegal), then everybody won't need to have one to protect themselves from each other?

[Chadd 916]

Does nobody else see the circular logic in that y'all need guns to protect yourself from someone else who has a gun? Why don't you just get rid of all the guns (by making them illegal), then everybody won't need to have one to protect themselves from each other?

Do you know how naive that sounds?

Short version:

1. Ciminals are committing too many gun crimes

2. Ban guns

3. Law abiding citizens turn them in

4. Criminals don't

5. Criminals still have guns

6. Criminals commit more gun crimes

That still down't factor in the impact to the economy of suddenly outlawing a multimillion dollar industry building or repairing guns or the multi billion dollar industries supplying hunters and competition target shooters. Or even collectors who have large and expensive collections, they would be hit with large financial loss. Then let's consider the fact that we can't prevent people from crossing our borders with drugs or even to relocate themselves. What makes you think we would be able to stop guns from crossing the border?

[usahockey22 0]

I just believe that guns, and handguns in particular, are a highly dangerous product that should be against the law to own. Why? Well, if you break it down, the purpose of a handgun is to kill people. That's what they are designed to do. You may argue you need them for 'personal defense' or whatever you want to call it; but all those reasons come back to the sole purpose of the weapon, which is to injure or kill someone.

Does nobody else see the circular logic in that y'all need guns to protect yourself from someone else who has a gun? Why don't you just get rid of all the guns (by making them illegal), then everybody won't need to have one to protect themselves from each other?

I would be all for just getting rid of handguns altogether when it comes to civilian ownership, IF (and this is a big if) there was a 100% guarantee that no criminal civilians would be able to acquire them and use them illegally. The problem with your logic is that it is not feasible (or possible in my mind) to simply ban handguns and take them away from everybody. Just like we banned cocaine and heroin years ago, the criminals still have free access to as much of the stuff as they want. So really the only thing banning handguns would do is take them out of the hands of lawful citizens who need them in defense from criminals.

Then there's also the argument of living in a police state where citizens have to rely on the big government for protection. Handguns I suppose wouldn't fall under this argument, because rifles are better anyway if it came down to a real battle situation. Handguns do make it easier for criminals to kill, because they are easily concealable, they can be worn anywhere without other people knowing. Again, the problem is that you really won't be able to take them away from the criminals, so given this fact, the best option in my mind is to allow everyone to have them. That way, you at least have a fair chance.

Also, you are arguing this issue from your own little security blanket up in Canada, where gun crime does not compare to the United States. (Although I have read that it is increasing now due to drug/gang activity in the larger cities up there). Come down to the United States and tell someone who lives in a big city that they aren't allowed to own a handgun. Many will say that you are nuts, and that it's necessary for survival, at least in some areas. You can't exactly understand the mindset, especially if you haven't ever been affected by gun violence. (Even the constant stories on the news of people being shot dead are enough to make you want a gun).

For instance, my aunt and uncle live in the city of Chicago, where there is supposedly a ban on all handguns. They live on the south side, which as a whole is more poor and filled with crime, however their particular neighborhood is semi-gated, and nicer, more sheltered than the rest of the area. Just in the last month, my aunt purchased a new car at a Chicago dealership and drove it back home, not knowing that 2 guys in a car were following her the whole way. When she got out of the car, they came up to her and stuck a gun to her chest, demanding the car keys. She gave them to the guys, and fortunately was not physically harmed at all...the car was then later recovered using OnStar, which can GPS locate any car (dumbass hijackers). The point is that Chicago technically bans all handguns, yet it didn't stop these guys from carrying and using a gun in a criminal manner. Strict illinois gun laws didn't stop the recent mass killing in Tinley Park, or the NIU shooting. It doesn't stop the hundreds of other killings that occur with guns in the Chicago area.

These types of incidents make you realize you need to protect yourself and not rely on the cops. And laws don't work on people who are intent on breaking them.

[David_4x4 0]

I just believe that guns, and handguns in particular, are a highly dangerous product that should be against the law to own. Why? Well, if you break it down, the purpose of a handgun is to kill people. That's what they are designed to do. You may argue you need them for 'personal defense' or whatever you want to call it; but all those reasons come back to the sole purpose of the weapon, which is to injure or kill someone.

Does nobody else see the circular logic in that y'all need guns to protect yourself from someone else who has a gun? Why don't you just get rid of all the guns (by making them illegal), then everybody won't need to have one to protect themselves from each other?

When did criminals follow the law? Laws are only in place for law abiding citzens.

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

I could see how cops would hate for these things to be legal....Imagine them mistaking it for a toy and having their own life in danger....i really dont know what to make of this

[Chadd 916]

I could see how cops would hate for these things to be legal....Imagine them mistaking it for a toy and having their own life in danger....i really dont know what to make of this

wow, someone back on topic.

Simple solution, all toy guns need to have orange tips and all real guns are not permitted to have any orange on them at all. Now if the cop is colorblind we're all screwed.

[mrusse01 0]

I agree with what you are both saying to a certain point. I actually thought about putting a disclaimer in my last post stating that I know it's probably logistically impossible to do, to get rid of all the handguns in the United States.

But I am glad you at least seem to theoretically agree that if it were possible to make every handgun in America disappear, that would be a preferrable situation to what you've currently got.

As for the Canada/US thing, I don't really want to get into it again...but I live in downtown Toronto, a city comparable in size to Chicago, and in the 24 years I've been alive I've never seen a handgun (except on a cop), never heard of a single person that owns one, or even know of a store that sells them. I don't even know if you can buy them, it's simply not an issue.

[chk hrd 164]

my 2 cents worth:

a gun by itself has never killed anyone. It is an inanimate object that needs a person to use it. Criminals do not follow gun laws and generally get thier guns illegally. Educate people on how to use weapons so that they are not looked at like toys or hidden from curious kids who find them. Why should my right to protect my self and my family be compromised because of a criminal who obtained his weapon illegally. Stop the bullshit lawsuites, the only ones who get anything are the attorneys. Something is definitely wrong when manufacturers get taken into court because someone used thier product irresponsibly.

[Oberon 0]

As for the Canada/US thing, I don't really want to get into it again...but I live in downtown Toronto, a city comparable in size to Chicago, and in the 24 years I've been alive I've never seen a handgun (except on a cop), never heard of a single person that owns one, or even know of a store that sells them. I don't even know if you can buy them, it's simply not an issue.

A quick Google search shows that there were 84 homicides in Toronto in '07, 42 of which were shootings (with 6 more unspecified). It's an issue.

[kosydar 0]

And the same quick Google search shows there were 442 homicides in Chicago in 2007. Couldn't find the number of shootings, but its safe to say its far more than 42.

[number21 3]

And the same quick Google search shows there were 442 homicides in Chicago in 2007. Couldn't find the number of shootings, but its safe to say its far more than 42.

Lowest rate since 1965! (googled)

[Oberon 0]

I was in no way trying to compare Chicago and Toronto crime statistics, just pointing out that there is an issue of gun violence.

[David_4x4 0]

I was in no way trying to compare Chicago and Toronto crime statistics, just pointing out that there is an issue of gun violence.

Of course there's an issue of gun violence. It's a fact of life. Guns are simple effective tools for killing. That's life.

What's to be done about it? It has nothing to do with banning guns or creating more guun laws. It goes beyond that.

[kosydar 0]

I was in no way trying to compare Chicago and Toronto crime statistics, just pointing out that there is an issue of gun violence.

I understand you weren't trying to compare them, and obviously Toronto (like any big city) will have problems with violent crimes. But I think the fact that Toronto has 1/5th as many homicides as Chicago, and also has stricter gun laws makes for an interesting argument at the very least. I'm really on neither side of the fence on gun control. Obviously it is a protected Constitutional right (which I support), but I really can't see any reason why civilians "need" handguns. That being said, violence doesn't start with guns, and it certainly doesn't end at guns.

[Rustpot 1]

I understand you weren't trying to compare them, and obviously Toronto (like any big city) will have problems with violent crimes. But I think the fact that Toronto has 1/5th as many homicides as Chicago, and also has stricter gun laws makes for an interesting argument at the very least. I'm really on neither side of the fence on gun control. Obviously it is a protected Constitutional right (which I support), but I really can't see any reason why civilians "need" handguns. That being said, violence doesn't start with guns, and it certainly doesn't end at guns.

It's not a Toronto v. Chicago thing, it's a Canada vs. US thing. As a whole the northern entity has far less issue with crimes and killing. The fact that people are being killed by guns in Toronto just illustrates that people have them and use them to illegal means.

If Toronto were anything like Detroit you'd be pining for something to help keep the bad guys at bay.

If I lived in an area where crime was a big issue and I felt unsafe at night hearing gun shots and sirens, I would feel the need for a gun. Granted I'd probably go for a shotgun, but most people want something small that will fit in a drawer, kill someone who is intent on hurting them and not be unwieldy.

California has some strict gun laws, many that Canada doesn't, but LA gangs are still getting everything imaginable with which they terrorize neighborhoods and police. If by chance I lived in South Central or some other bad area you better bet I'm not going down without a fight.

Do you have locks on your door? Has anyone ever tried breaking in? No? Then why have them at all? Do they make you feel safe? If someone smashed in your door would you still feel a lock was adequate? If someone broke into your home and had a knife or gun and all you had was a hockey stick and you tried to defend your home and loved ones would you regret not having taken better measures to protect yourself?

Some people rely on Brinks or some alarm and wait 15 minutes for the cops to show up. Some people rely on Remington, Berreta, Smith&Wesson, Mossberg, Heckler&Koch, Benelli, or Winchester to keep things safe before the cops arrive.

[usahockey22 0]

And the same quick Google search shows there were 442 homicides in Chicago in 2007. Couldn't find the number of shootings, but its safe to say its far more than 42.

And most of those were committed with handguns, which is quite interesting considering handguns are illegal to own in Chicago. You can also look at Washington DC where the current debate over the handgun ban is going on. Since their handgun ban in '76 I believe, homicides have only increased, and handguns are still used in something like 80% of them. Banning handguns in these places obviously does not stop criminals. Banning them for the country would certainly conclude with similar, less than favorable results.

[Monty22 834]

I could see how cops would hate for these things to be legal....Imagine them mistaking it for a toy and having their own life in danger....i really dont know what to make of this

As was stated earlier, the folks spending a couple hundred bucks to customize their firearms with duracoat aren't typically the ones brandishing at policemen. The vast majority of firearms I have come across have been painted/refinished in earth tones and various camouflage patterns. CT tried to pass a bill banning any guns that were not black, citing the same irrational fears as the original story/posts. It would have banned the 80+ year old .22 short Winchester I inherited from my father, as the finish is considered blue (like the majority of sporting arms). Government is invasive enough without dictating what color my belongings should be.

[RadioGaGa 162]

...Government is invasive enough without dictating what color my belongings should be.

Granted. But most of your belongs can't KILL someone.