We Must Call for Ceasefire
Firearm regulations must be tightened and more strictly reinforced in order to further the safety of American citizens; this is the most surefire way of preventing future massacres.
Oct 31, 2017
Aurora, 12 killed; Sandy Hook, 26 killed; Virginia Tech, 32 killed; Orlando, 50 killed.
Las Vegas: 59 killed.
In the years between 2005 and 2015, according to PolitiFact, over 280,000 citizens were killed in gun-related incidents; in 2017 so far, nearly 12,000 have fallen in the face of such dangerous weapons.
These statistics are horrifying. While many, including the presidential administration, have focused their energies on preventing terrorism from abroad, homegrown terrorists murder thousands of Americans with a weapon that is tirelessly protected by politicians who claim to want only the best for this country. It is time to face the music, take responsibility, and initiate immediate measures to prevent further disaster.
How many more children, parents, and lovers must be killed needlessly before the government gets a hint? How many more tears, hearts, and bullet casings will fall before someone calls a ceasefire?
I believe this is a time for mourning, yes, for Las Vegas and for all the horrendous memories the tragedy dug up from the past. I believe it is a time for solidarity. However, this country is rarely united as a team, even in its conception. Therefore, since we cannot as a people seem to manage teamwork, I believe this is a time for fury.
It was wholly pathetic that gun control continued to be debated so hotly after Sandy Hook when twenty children were murdered in cold blood, and it has grown more and more embarrassing, dispiriting, and irresponsible with every death since.
It is absolutely infuriating that people, especially leaders, are willing to risk the lives of countless citizens for the sake of upholding a single amendment, which was written over two centuries ago in a completely different era.
And it is entirely sobering and terrifying that there is an estimated 270 million guns in the USA (many believe there could be as many as 30 million more than that count). It’s no wonder how Stephen Paddock, the gunman in Las Vegas, got his hands on 33 firearms within a year without anyone blinking an eye.
Indeed, the right to own guns is still a right by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. However, when it comes to gun control in this nation, many people, politicians and citizens alike, seem to neglect the very vital fact that the Constitution is a living document, designed to change with the times for the safety and happiness of ‘We the People.’ Once people are dying in the thousands for the sake of this one rule, changes must be made.
Those in favor of maintaining current regulations or even initiating looser oversights argue that people seeking to do widespread harm will find the weapons they want through illegal means if the government tightens gun regulations. They also claim ‘if we tighten control, sound-minded citizens won’t be able to buy defensive weapons.’ So. . . we should instead allow ill-intentioned people to obtain weapons capable of massive damage and terror easily and legally? Should we hand the guns to these criminals on a silver platter? With the way regulations currently stand, Paddock might as well have ordered all his near three dozen guns on Amazon, express delivery.
Why not make these terrible weapons exponentially more difficult to find and access for people who seek to do harm? Trying to buy guns illegally raises red flags instantly, alerting authorities to keep an eye on anyone who was so desperate for such destructive machines. In that case, the criminal would have a very difficult and costly time trying to get their hands on firearms, not to mention planning a plausible massacre scenario.
The efficiency and effectiveness of gun control is already evident in other nations, and could be just as impactful in the United States if we follow through to protect our citizens. In terms of ranking, the U.S. takes first place in both number of gun owned per capita and number of deaths by firearms among the more developed countries around the world. In contrast, where firearms are much more restricted, homicides are much rarer.
The Council on Foreign Relations has collected information on the regulations implemented in various nations and has compared their rules to the U.S.A.’s current state.
Canada: must have a license, a background check, a public safety course, a federal registration certificate from police; 172 gun-related deaths total to America’s 33,563 in 2012.
Australia: automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles prohibited, stiff licensing rules with ‘genuine need’ cited, temporary buyback period for guns, and firearm safety course; no gun-related mass killings since 1996.
These are just two exemplary nations with stricter, and more effective, gun control than America.
Admittedly, stricter gun control may not lower homicide and mass killing rates as much as we would hope. Another massive factor in the high amounts of gun-related violence is the extensive and deep-rooted “gun culture” in this country. Citizens here own an estimated 48% of all the guns in the world, and the firearms are constantly celebrated through media, television, and interest groups who spend millions in support of candidates who favor their loose-regulation policies. The solution for this is more complicated; it involves changing the psyche of the American public. Hopefully, if gun control tightens, then the culture will lose influence as well.
Here’s what needs to change: regular background and psychological tests should be implemented for gun owners and those who wish to own guns, citizens’ licenses should require certified and specific reasons to own firearms, amounts of ammo purchased per gun owned by a citizen should be strictly limited per a period of time, devices like bump stocks which allow non-restricted guns to be transformed into restricted weapons should be prohibited, and regular public safety courses should be required of all gun owners. The most effective strategy which would be both more easily enacted and less controversial is the buyback idea where, for a period of time, citizens can return their guns for a value slightly higher than what they initially purchased the firearms for..
Until the government decides on their next move, the citizens, including those of us who can’t yet vote, need to be active in transforming our nation to be a safer and happier place for all the current and future generations. A word of advice to the readers: keep up on the news, get involved, contact your representatives, and stay safe. Remain open-minded and considerate, but back up your beliefs. History looks kindly upon those who get involved.
Jake Nipper ◊ Nov 6, 2017 at 8:56 pm
Donald, just a few things I’d like to address.
First of all, where is your evidence that gun restriction legislation will have any effect on the amount of firearm deaths in this country? You can bring up other countries who have higher firearm restriction and happen to have a lower homicide rate, but using this as evidence requires one to operate under the assumption that there is a definite, proven correlation between gun restriction legislation and lower homicide rates. This correlation cannot be proven with the little information we have and the amount of variables that go into gun homicide rates per country.
For example, the lowered gun homicide rates in Chicago can easily be explained by the fact that the majority of gangs in the city have either called ceasefires, made alliances, or stopped invading one another’s territory since the 90’s. The rate of gun homicides in inner cities has been on the decline since the famous Watts truce in Los Angeles, when the Bloods and Crips in LA called a truce, in 1992. No gun restriction caused this.
Second, your interpretation of the second amendment is wrong. Claiming that the founding fathers only intended citizens to keep muskets for the rest of this country’s existence is an extrapolated claim. Don’t you think the founding fathers knew weapon technology was going to advance, just as it had been since the invention of gunpowder? The fact that “semi-automatic weapons” has become a scary, hot-button term is ignorant and foolish. Semi-automatic weapons are simply the evolution of gun technology; just as cars have gained automatic transmissions, computers have gotten smaller and more powerful, and a vaccination for polio has been developed. All a semi-automatic weapon is is a firearm that utilizes either recoil or gas pressure in the chamber after a round is fired to rechamber a round automatically. It essentially does the bolting mechanism from a bolt-action rifle for you. Muskets were military-grade during the colonial era, and civilians had them all over the place. Semi-automatic, gas piston-operated rifles and blowback, recoil-operated pistols are the evolution of technology, and that’s okay. They aren’t evil objects, they’re shaped pieces of metal with small pins in them that strike primers on the backs of the casings of cartridges and move projectiles through the air in a semi-straight line. That’s all a gun is. I’ve fired five guns, and I am by no means homicidal. In fact, my experiences with shooting have taught me to respect the gun’s power and potential, and to know how NOT to accidentally discharge a round and shoot something I didn’t intend to shoot.
Long story short, don’t make claims not based in evidence or fact, and don’t fear pieces of shaped metal.
For God’s sake, some crazy guy just ran over a crowd of pedestrians and crashed into a school bus, killing 8 people, in Manhattan. People will keep on killing people, as long as people have free will. That’s a price I’m willing to pay for being able to make my own decisions and live freely.
Donald ◊ Nov 7, 2017 at 4:15 pm
“First of all, where is your evidence that gun restriction legislation will have any effect on the amount of firearm deaths in this country? You can bring up other countries who have higher firearm restriction and happen to have a lower homicide rate, but using this as evidence requires one to operate under the assumption that there is a definite, proven correlation between gun restriction legislation and lower homicide rates. This correlation cannot be proven with the little information we have and the amount of variables that go into gun homicide rates per country.”
True, but it is just logic that gun control laws prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. After all, how can you shoot someone with a gun if you can’t even get a gun legally? You may get it illegally, but that is much more difficult as opposed to if it was legal in the first place. Besides, gun control laws don’t affect those that are perfectly clean in the records, gun control laws just make sure criminals have a harder time getting weapons.
“For example, the lowered gun homicide rates in Chicago can easily be explained by the fact that the majority of gangs in the city have either called ceasefires, made alliances, or stopped invading one another’s territory since the 90’s. The rate of gun homicides in inner cities has been on the decline since the famous Watts truce in Los Angeles, when the Bloods and Crips in LA called a truce, in 1992. No gun restriction caused this.”
I was pointing out how gun control laws did not increase crime. I did not say that gun control laws reduce crime directly. There is a difference between the two, and I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough.
“Second, your interpretation of the second amendment is wrong. Claiming that the founding fathers only intended citizens to keep muskets for the rest of this country’s existence is an extrapolated claim. Don’t you think the founding fathers knew weapon technology was going to advance, just as it had been since the invention of gunpowder? ”
Sounds fair but going by that logic, do you then think that a US citizen should have the right to own nuclear weapons or RPGs (since nuclear weapons and RPGs are arms, with the right to bear arms being protected under the 2nd Amendment)?
“The fact that “semi-automatic weapons” has become a scary, hot-button term is ignorant and foolish. Semi-automatic weapons are simply the evolution of gun technology; just as cars have gained automatic transmissions, computers have gotten smaller and more powerful, and a vaccination for polio has been developed. All a semi-automatic weapon is is a firearm that utilizes either recoil or gas pressure in the chamber after a round is fired to rechamber a round automatically. It essentially does the bolting mechanism from a bolt-action rifle for you. ”
Ok
“Muskets were military-grade during the colonial era, and civilians had them all over the place.”
Times were different during the 1700s and cannot be compared directly to today. After all, civilians today cannot legally own automatic weapons such as a M16 (which are military-grade weapons) since 1986.
“Semi-automatic, gas piston-operated rifles and blowback, recoil-operated pistols are the evolution of technology, and that’s okay. They aren’t evil objects, they’re shaped pieces of metal with small pins in them that strike primers on the backs of the casings of cartridges and move projectiles through the air in a semi-straight line. ”
Ok, but I already know how gun a works.
“That’s all a gun is. I’ve fired five guns, and I am by no means homicidal. In fact, my experiences with shooting have taught me to respect the gun’s power and potential, and to know how NOT to accidentally discharge a round and shoot something I didn’t intend to shoot.”
That is just a personal example. This is in no way shape or form considered a fact that applies to everyone. Mentally ill people may not be able to control the use of their firearms, for instance.
“Long story short, don’t make claims not based in evidence or fact, and don’t fear pieces of shaped metal.”
You just used a personal example, which is not a fact. Besides, I understand how a gun works, you do not need to explain that (and even then, do you really need to bring that up in gun control debates? People don’t talk about how voting works when people are talking about Voter ID laws, why should people need to know the technical information about guns?).
“For God’s sake, some crazy guy just ran over a crowd of pedestrians and crashed into a school bus, killing 8 people, in Manhattan. People will keep on killing people, as long as people have free will. That’s a price I’m willing to pay for being able to make my own decisions and live freely.”
I can agree with that, but I am just saying that gun control laws prevent guns from going into the wrong hands. I do NOT want to completely ban guns (nobody does except for a very small amount of people), I just want to make sure guns fall into the right hands and not the wrong ones. As for the running people over in a car part, you have to keep in mind that the most common form of murder is done by guns, not cars (according to the CDC in 2014, out of 15,872 homicides done that year, 11,008 are done by firearms). That is why people focus on guns and not car control, since more people are murdered by guns than cars.
Donald ◊ Nov 7, 2017 at 9:32 pm
I understand the whole nuclear weapons/RPG part is an exaggeration, but it is still a question regardless.
Robert Berarducci ◊ Nov 2, 2017 at 1:04 pm
The Second Amendment was put in place by the founding fathers, to protect against government tyranny. Not for hunting as so many ‘experts’ claim, not for sport, nor for personal protection. The United States Constitution is in place in order to protect the rights of its citizens, and although it could be considered a ‘living’ document, it should not be edited as to wholly remove an amendment as important as the second. When guns are removed from societies, that societies citizens risk direct harassment from a government which once democratic, had turned tyrannical. Before Hitler could round up millions of innocent adults, children and lovers, he first removed their ability for gun ownership. This move was simple, as nobody thought the government could turn brutally fascist, nobody thought that Hitler would go on to murder millions of innocent jews, and cause the greatest war in our planet’s history. That could easily happen again, and for that reason alone we must ensure the second amendment is instituted exactly as written, and never amended or removed.
Donald ◊ Nov 3, 2017 at 3:26 pm
“The Second Amendment was put in place by the founding fathers, to protect against government tyranny. Not for hunting as so many ‘experts’ claim, not for sport, nor for personal protection. ”
Sounds possible in theory, but is it actually possible in reality? The US has changed a lot in past 200 years, what happened in the 1700s isn’t completely relevant to today.
“. When guns are removed from societies, that societies citizens risk direct harassment from a government which once democratic, had turned tyrannical. Before Hitler could round up millions of innocent adults, children and lovers, he first removed their ability for gun ownership. This move was simple, as nobody thought the government could turn brutally fascist, nobody thought that Hitler would go on to murder millions of innocent jews, and cause the greatest war in our planet’s history.”
Again, what happened back then isn’t completely relevant to today. Nazi Germany in the 1930s is VERY DIFFERENT to the US in the year of 2017, whether culturally or anything else. If you really want to play this game of history, keep in mind that tyranny has existed in the US before, as seen in the Jim Crow laws and the interment of the Japanese Americans. Did guns prevent any of these events of tyranny? The answer is NO.
“That could easily happen again, and for that reason alone we must ensure the second amendment is instituted exactly as written, and never amended or removed.”
If you really believed that the second amendment should be instituted in the exact same way as it was written, than the only guns that would be legal are muskets, as the founding fathers did not intend anyone to own handguns or rifles. Besides, if the government does go tyrannical, will handguns and rifles stop tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers, and cruise missiles from attacking the people. The government did use tanks in Waco, TX in 1993, so any arguments that the government won’t use these military weapons are wrong. The idea that the people need guns to protect themselves from the government when it becomes too powerful is complete nonsense, as guns are useless against tanks and other military vehicles/weapons. A gun won’t stop a fighter jet from dropping a bomb on someone’s home.
Carter Peterson ◊ Nov 7, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Is your argument guns are the most common tool for murder? I got curious about that statistic. You say guns are about 70% of all murders in the US, making knives, swords, rocks, bats, or any other objects obsolete. This I don’t disagree with. However, would you consider a gun as a tool of terror? It seems to be your main point that guns cause terror in this world.
According to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism(START), guns are not the main killer in terrorist attacks.
In the compiling of over 2,000 terrorist attacks across the world,
49% involved explosives exclusively
36% involved arson exclusively
9.2% involved firearms of any caliber – This is important
5.4% involved a vehicle plowing through a group of people
And in the years between 2002 and 2016 of all terrorist attacks, gun usage was the lowest at only 20%
Maybe you’re just looking at America, and that’s okay. So then look at the lowest number in that pile of stats, terrorist attacks involving a vehicle.
According to the National Safety Council, the probability of getting hit by a car and dying is 1 in 114. Which means nothing until you compare against getting killed by an assault weapon, 1 in 370.
You’re more than twice as likely to be killed by a car than an assault weapon.
Why can’t cars be banished? They’re more dangerous, right? We see car crashes on the news all the time, so it’s not something that only the researchers and nerds see. What are the things we don’t get to see everyday? Vehicular terrorism.
November 28, 2016
Ohio State University
Student rampaged the campus by driving his vehicle on the sidewalk, hospitalizing 11 people.
October 31, 2017
New York City
A citizen rented a Home Depot truck and drove down the bike lane, killing 8 people and injuring 12.
August 12, 2017
Charlottesville, VA
A citizen drove through a protesting crowd, killing a 34 year old woman and injuring 19 more.
It only takes a truck or a van, and someone willing to kill.
It’s important to notice the second part of that sentence.
Someone willing to kill is the point behind any attack regardless the weapon of choice.
Cars are large, heavy, killing machines. So why do we just brush off an act of vehicular terrorism as if it’s inferior to terrorism by guns? They’re both made of metal, both require an age to operate, they both require some sort of psychological test or licensing to operate, and they both can kill. Yet, guns are still seen as something more dangerous. They might be, but so is everything else in the hands of the capable.
In the hands of a trained weapons artist, a knife can cause more damage than a civilian with a sawed-off.
It’s not hard to see that guns are bad, I don’t disagree with that statement, but why take away everyone’s guns if someone who is psychologically unstable shoots up a church or fires into a crowd?
With that thinking, we should get rid of everyone’s car because my neighbor was drinking last night and drove into the 7-eleven, and cars are just as easy to purchase as a gun.
In the event that occurred in New York City, the person behind the wheel rented the truck from Home Depot, costing him only 40 dollars. Forty dollars is not worth 8 innocent lives, the life of any human is priceless.
My conclusion to this discussion is simply put, why banish guns when there are many other means of terrorism in this world?
Don’t punish those who reform to the rules and are safe because someone who breaks all of the rules uses the same material. A school of intellectuals shouldn’t all have to go to detention because the school idiot didn’t finish his homework.
Guns aren’t the cause of terrorism, it’s the willing the person has to kill with the gun, the car, the truck, the crossbow, the knife, the rock, the bat, the lighter, the explosive, the tank… etc.
I appreciate the mature discussion.
Sources:
http://www.start.umd.edu/
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-guns-terrorist-attacks-20171006-story.html
http://www.nsc.org/pages/home.aspx
Donald ◊ Nov 8, 2017 at 7:02 pm
“Is your argument guns are the most common tool for murder? I got curious about that statistic. You say guns are about 70% of all murders in the US, making knives, swords, rocks, bats, or any other objects obsolete. This I don’t disagree with. However, would you consider a gun as a tool of terror? It seems to be your main point that guns cause terror in this world.”
I never said gun causes terror, I said that guns are responsible for the majority of murders/homicides. Terrorism and homicide are not the same thing, don’t get the two confused.
“According to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism(START), guns are not the main killer in terrorist attacks.
In the compiling of over 2,000 terrorist attacks across the world,
49% involved explosives exclusively
36% involved arson exclusively
9.2% involved firearms of any caliber – This is important
5.4% involved a vehicle plowing through a group of people
And in the years between 2002 and 2016 of all terrorist attacks, gun usage was the lowest at only 20%
Maybe you’re just looking at America, and that’s okay.”
You are right, I was just talking about the USA.
“So then look at the lowest number in that pile of stats, terrorist attacks involving a vehicle.
According to the National Safety Council, the probability of getting hit by a car and dying is 1 in 114. Which means nothing until you compare against getting killed by an assault weapon, 1 in 370. Which means nothing until you compare against getting killed by an assault weapon, 1 in 370.
You’re more than twice as likely to be killed by a car than an assault weapon”
Most deaths resulted by cars are accidents, not deliberate actions. On the other hand , most deaths from guns are deliberate. The two are really not exactly comparable Besides, according to the CDC, the number of people killed by guns is 33,594 in 2014, with 33,736 people being killed by cars in that same year. (Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) If you just look at the deliberate killings, out of 15,872 homicides in 2015, 11,008 are done by firearms, according to the CDC (which means about 2/3 of the homicides are done by firearms while the other 1/3 is done by other means).
“Why can’t cars be banished? They’re more dangerous, right? We see car crashes on the news all the time, so it’s not something that only the researchers and nerds see. What are the things we don’t get to see everyday? Vehicular terrorism.”
Gun death occurs almost everyday as well. If you look at the facts, more people were deliberately killed by firearms than cars. I don’t want cars or guns to be banished, I just believe that restrictions should be placed on who can own either of those two things.
“November 28, 2016
Ohio State University
Student rampaged the campus by driving his vehicle on the sidewalk, hospitalizing 11 people.
October 31, 2017
New York City
A citizen rented a Home Depot truck and drove down the bike lane, killing 8 people and injuring 12.
August 12, 2017
Charlottesville, VA
A citizen drove through a protesting crowd, killing a 34 year old woman and injuring 19 more.
It only takes a truck or a van, and someone willing to kill.
It’s important to notice the second part of that sentence.
Someone willing to kill is the point behind any attack regardless the weapon of choice.”
True, but it is easier to kill people with guns than cars, according to the facts. After all, there is a reason why 2/3 of the homicides are done by guns and not cars.
“Cars are large, heavy, killing machines. So why do we just brush off an act of vehicular terrorism as if it’s inferior to terrorism by guns? ”
Because more people are purposely being killed by guns than cars. That is why people are more concerned about guns than cars.
“They’re both made of metal, both require an age to operate, they both require some sort of psychological test or licensing to operate, and they both can kill. Yet, guns are still seen as something more dangerous. They might be, but so is everything else in the hands of the capable.”
Actually, in many states, you don’t need licensing or a psychological test to own guns. Only 14 states require people to have permits to purchase guns and only 19 states conduct background checks to those purchasing guns (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/state-gun-policies/). The majority of states don’t require licensing or background checks to own guns legally.
“Yet, guns are still seen as something more dangerous. They might be, but so is everything else in the hands of the capable.”
You are right, guns are more dangerous because 2/3 of homicides are done by guns and only 1/3 are not done by guns.
“In the hands of a trained weapons artist, a knife can cause more damage than a civilian with a sawed-off.”
If that is true, explain why 11,008 homicides are done by guns in a total of 15,872 homicides. Explain to me why more people are killed by guns than knives. Clearly, guns cause more damage since more people are killed by guns.
“It’s not hard to see that guns are bad, I don’t disagree with that statement, but why take away everyone’s guns if someone who is psychologically unstable shoots up a church or fires into a crowd?”
Gun control laws do NOT take away guns. They just ensure guns do not fall into the wrong hands. This is just like how Voter ID laws do not take away the right to vote.
“With that thinking, we should get rid of everyone’s car because my neighbor was drinking last night and drove into the 7-eleven, and cars are just as easy to purchase as a gun.”
I never said I want to get rid of guns or cars, I just said restrictions are needed to make sure the wrong people do not purchase either of those things. Guns are easier to purchase than cars since guns are much cheaper than cars (guns range around a $1,000 while cars easily cost 20x of that). Besides, in 36 states, no licensing is required to own guns while every state requires a license to drive.
“In the event that occurred in New York City, the person behind the wheel rented the truck from Home Depot, costing him only 40 dollars. Forty dollars is not worth 8 innocent lives, the life of any human is priceless.”
Just like how having $20 to rent a gun isn’t worth of the lives of many either. The attack in NYC could have been prevented if barriers were placed alongside sidewalks to prevent a car from driving into a group of people. Besides, one instance of cars being using in an attack does not describe all instances of attacks in the US.
“My conclusion to this discussion is simply put, why banish guns when there are many other means of terrorism in this world?”
Again, I never said I want to banish guns, I just want to make sure guns are not in the wrong hands. You replied to my comment, so I am going to assume you are talking about me and not the person who wrote this article.
“Don’t punish those who reform to the rules and are safe because someone who breaks all of the rules uses the same material. A school of intellectuals shouldn’t all have to go to detention because the school idiot didn’t finish his homework.”
Your comparison to homework and guns is not true at all. Gun control laws do not punish people at all, assuming their record is clean. This is similar to the homework situation in that the teacher checks everyone’s homework to make sure they are all complete. The students who did their homework are not being punished. Your comparison to having students being put into detention is a massive exaggeration. This is like saying that everyone goes to jail if they own guns, which is obviously not true.
“Guns aren’t the cause of terrorism, it’s the willing the person has to kill with the gun, the car, the truck, the crossbow, the knife, the rock, the bat, the lighter, the explosive, the tank… etc.”
True, but the facts say that guns are responsible for the majority of homicides, which is why guns are such a concern to people. I do agree that the person who is behind the killing is responsible.
“I appreciate the mature discussion.”
I do to.
Darius Rahmanian ◊ Nov 1, 2017 at 11:37 am
Guns themselves are tools of warfare, tools of trade, and tools of recreation. People need education about guns to learn more and understand, rather than fear a metal contraption that fires some copper. If a dude walked into a movie theater with a sword and started hacking away, it wasn’t the sword that did the killing, it was the dude. Sure guns are powerful and in some instances can shred a person a new one without even touching them, but those are the ones used in the military. If I am not correct one has to go through weeks of training to be even considered to fire a rifle or even touch one. If you teach a kid that this piece of metal will hurt someone and demonstrate it, then they will learn that the gun should not be used to harm others that are not harming you.
The thing is when you are buying a gun illegally, is that people do not know. The whole point is that big brother is not watching and you can get your MUH WEAPONS REEE so they can commit crime. Restricting gun laws only makes it worse, just look at Chicago and Puerto Rico, one completely banned guns and the other has heavy restrictions. Yet they have almost ridiculous amounts of gun violence.
Australia and Canada are bad examples because one is an almost homogeneous nation economically and politically, and the other is some forest with near socialist levels of taxes and regulation. We are the United States and we are the most unique nation in the world economically and politically, to compare us to them is not a proper way to solve the problems because their nation thinks in different tones than we do and their people are going to decide on things easily. We on the other hand have Corruptocrats and Cheetoservatives who for some reason cant decide on a single thing even though one of them has a majority in both houses and the executive government.
Your main flaw is that you don’t realize that the people owning the guns legally are not the ones committing the crime. So why punish them? Why restrict their right given by the Constitution which has no correlation with illegal arms sale? Citizens deserve the right to bear arms legally and the founding fathers had it in there for a reason, its the same reason why ANTIFA and Neo-Nazis can protest in the streets. Its a freedom of expression through monetary spending and its also supported by one of the largest civil rights interest groups in the nation. The National Rifle Association can provide excellent training and information for anyone interested in guns.
Just like Jake said, guns have been around for so long you cant just purge all the information from the world. Violence breeds violence, and it always will. Even if you restrict guns, people will still find a rock to bash each others head in with. Its not guns, its people.
I would suggest using more supported thoughts other than your feelings. Like I said, guns are out there, you can research them and the way people use them. Taking away what people like will only add flames to the fire and that would only divide our nation further.
Donald ◊ Nov 3, 2017 at 5:04 pm
“Guns themselves are tools of warfare, tools of trade, and tools of recreation. People need education about guns to learn more and understand, rather than fear a metal contraption that fires some copper.”
I agree with that.
“If a dude walked into a movie theater with a sword and started hacking away, it wasn’t the sword that did the killing, it was the dude. ”
I also agree with you in the statement that the person who did the killing is at fault. However, you have to keep in mind that it is easier to kill people with guns as opposed to swords and knifes, according to the facts. In a study by the FBI done in 2014, the majority of murders in the MAJORITY of states in the US were conducted by guns. For instance, in the state of Pennsylvania, there were a total of 609 murders in 2014. The number of deaths resulted from guns was 453 people, which is more than 2/3 of all murders. Every other weapons besides firearms made up less than a 1/3 of murders in PA. In Arkansas, 154 people were murdered, only 43 of those murders were NOT done by guns (this means that 72% of the murders in Arkansas was done by guns). In California, there were 1,697 murders in 2014, guns were responsible for 1,169 of those murders (which is almost 70%). In Indiana, there were 299 murders, 222 of those murders were done by guns (which is close to 75%). In Kentucky, there was 160 murders, 112 of those murders were done by guns (this means that 70% of the murders were done by guns). We can go on and on, as this trend exists in almost all states in the US. The idea that other weapons can kill people as well is a very weak argument, as these facts I just listed prove that guns kill FAR MORE PEOPLE than any other means COMBINED.
“Sure guns are powerful and in some instances can shred a person a new one without even touching them, but those are the ones used in the military.”
No, handguns can shred people without touching them as well. You do realize that the majority of guns deaths were done by handguns, not rifles or automatic weapons. Looks like the facts proved you wrong again.
“If I am not correct one has to go through weeks of training to be even considered to fire a rifle or even touch one. ”
In many places, you do not need any training at all to own a rifle.
“If you teach a kid that this piece of metal will hurt someone and demonstrate it, then they will learn that the gun should not be used to harm others that are not harming you.”
Sounds fair.
“The thing is when you are buying a gun illegally, is that people do not know. The whole point is that big brother is not watching and you can get your MUH WEAPONS REEE so they can commit crime. Restricting gun laws only makes it worse, just look at Chicago and Puerto Rico, one completely banned guns and the other has heavy restrictions. Yet they have almost ridiculous amounts of gun violence.”
You do realize that the gun violence in Chicago is at historically low levels. In 2015, 440 people were killed by guns. In 1994, 928 people were killed by guns, nearly double of that compared to the present (keeping in mind that Chicago is the third largest city in this country). This information was according to the Pew Research Center. If you looked at the rates, Chicago had 18.5 murders per 100,000 people, which is nowhere near the highest in this nation. The idea that heavy restrictions on guns making violence worse is simply not true. New York City has heavy gun laws, yet the violent crime there is at record lows and way below the national average (NYC had a gun violence rate of 3 per 100,000 people). New York City has a lower murder rate that many towns. In addition, there are many states with WEAK gun laws that have VERY HIGH violence rates. Michigan (which has very open gun laws) is home to two of the most dangerous cities in this country, Detroit and Flint. In Flint, the murder rate in 2012 was 62 people killed for every 100,000 people. In Detroit, there were 54.6 murders per 100,000 people. Both of these rates are way higher than Chicago and NYC, so the idea that strong gun laws increases gun violence is simply not true. These facts both prove very much the opposite. You have to understand that there are more than weak/strong gun laws that affect the violence rate.
“Australia and Canada are bad examples because one is an almost homogeneous nation economically and politically, and the other is some forest with near socialist levels of taxes and regulation. We are the United States and we are the most unique nation in the world economically and politically, to compare us to them is not a proper way to solve the problems because their nation thinks in different tones than we do and their people are going to decide on things easily. We on the other hand have Corruptocrats and Cheetoservatives who for some reason cant decide on a single thing even though one of them has a majority in both houses and the executive government.”
Australia is divided between the left and the right, it is not homogeneous politically or economically. As for Canada, how is the tax rate even related to guns?
“Your main flaw is that you don’t realize that the people owning the guns legally are not the ones committing the crime. So why punish them? Why restrict their right given by the Constitution which has no correlation with illegal arms sale? ”
How are gun control laws (such as background checks or databases) a “restriction” on the second amendment? People can still get guns even with gun control laws, gun control laws do not completely ban guns. These laws just make the guns fall in the right hands and not the wrong ones. I highly doubt you would call Voter ID laws a restriction on the right to vote (which is given by the Constitution as well), so why are gun control laws a restriction on the right to bear firearms? Keep in mind that it is easier to purchase guns in places with little gun control than to get it illegally or build your own guns. This is just simple logic.
“Citizens deserve the right to bear arms legally and the founding fathers had it in there for a reason, its the same reason why ANTIFA and Neo-Nazis can protest in the streets. ”
Again, gun control laws do not restrict the right to bear arms legally, just like how Voter ID laws do not restrict the right to vote. Besides, if you think citizens should have an unrestricted right to bear arms, should people be allowed to bear nuclear weapons (since nuclear weapons are technically arms, with the right bearing them being protected in the second amendment)?
“Its a freedom of expression through monetary spending and its also supported by one of the largest civil rights interest groups in the nation. The National Rifle Association can provide excellent training and information for anyone interested in guns.”
That is true
“Just like Jake said, guns have been around for so long you cant just purge all the information from the world. Violence breeds violence, and it always will. Even if you restrict guns, people will still find a rock to bash each others head in with. Its not guns, its people.”
The people part is true, but people using rocks to bash people is not. The fact is that it is easier to kill people with guns than any other means. I have the facts to back that up, which is in my second statement.
“I would suggest using more supported thoughts other than your feelings. Like I said, guns are out there, you can research them and the way people use them. ”
I just looked up the facts and posted them in this post. The facts seem to disagree with you.
“Taking away what people like will only add flames to the fire and that would only divide our nation further.”
Gun control laws don’t “take” away guns, they just make sure those that shouldn’t own guns don’t get them in the first place. Besides, most people DO SUPPORT some forms of gun control. According to the Pew Research Center, 89% of gun owners and 89% of non gun owners support preventing the mentally ill from purchasing guns. 77% of gun owners and 87% of non gun owners support background checks. 82% of gun owners and 84% of non gun owners support the ban of selling guns to those on watch lists. 54% of gun owners and 80% non gun owners support tracking down guns through a database. The numbers don’t lie, MOST Americans do support gun laws.
If you or anyone else disagree with anything I said, feel free to reply.
Darius Rahmanian ◊ Nov 6, 2017 at 7:33 pm
Dang dude, thanks for the feed back. Its very rare I get such respectful comments back rather than just getting scrutinized for it! I really do appreciate your feed back and commentary.
Yes I am aware guns are far easier to kill with than just a sword etc. Though my point came across, It wasn’t as strong as it should have been. I will continue to develop a better one as time goes along but for now I believe you have elaborated better than I have.
“You do realize that the gun violence in Chicago is at historically low levels. In 2015, 440 people were killed by guns. In 1994, 928 people were killed by guns, nearly double of that compared to the present (keeping in mind that Chicago is the third largest city in this country). This information was according to the Pew Research Center. If you looked at the rates, Chicago had 18.5 murders per 100,000 people, which is nowhere near the highest in this nation. ”
Thank you for the facts. This is really appreciated as I was to lazy to go check them out myself. This information will help further my arguments in the future. Thank you.
The part about Australia is also true. When writing this I seemed to have forgotten that the Australians are having significant troubles with their own politics yet its not as severe as ours I would say. Yes, the tax part about Canada is kind of dumb to say, but at the same time I still do not think they are a good example. Historically, we are nation that screwed over Great Britain and said a big F-You with the guns the early Americans made. Canada was apart of the empire until it democratically seceded, Australia as well democratically seceded. America is a very powerful nation because America likes its guns and it likes screwing over anyone who dares messing with its people.
The recent Texas shooter could not have been suppressed or even stopped without one of the residents who was a LEGAL gun owner who put his property to good use.
“Again, gun control laws do not restrict the right to bear arms legally, just like how Voter ID laws do not restrict the right to vote. Besides, if you think citizens should have an unrestricted right to bear arms, should people be allowed to bear nuclear weapons (since nuclear weapons are technically arms, with the right bearing them being protected in the second amendment)?”
I think we might have a misunderstanding due to my somewhat vague wording of my initial response. I have no quarrel with gun control legislation, but the way Aine was putting it, all guns should be banned because why not that fixes it right? I am completely for constitutional constructions and amendments that help clear a path to ending massacres. I am not for willy nilly removing original amendments without addressing both sides.
“The people part is true, but people using rocks to bash people is not. The fact is that it is easier to kill people with guns than any other means. I have the facts to back that up, which is in my second statement.”
Yeah but people are still the ones killing though. Sure a 40 caliber round can make a criminal feel happy, but what happens when he knows the Cops and potential civilians wont blow him away to. People will always, and I MEAN ALWAYS find a way to kill each other. Its just ignorance if you think MUH GUNs are the only reason why people are mass murdering now. Any death is a tragedy, whether by sword, by rock, by pencil, or by gun. The difference here is that you can EDUCATE people and not just tell em MUH GUNS are bad.
“I just looked up the facts and posted them in this post. The facts seem to disagree with you.”
Yeah like I said I was being lazy and one should always fact check but at the same time Aine didn’t really include the rest of these facts either, and I am not the one writing the original piece. My analysis was yes, a little pathosy, but at the same time its common sense as you like to put it , to have these statements already in there so people like you dont have to go searching to reply to a obscure(and poorly written) comment on the Sage.
In the end, we could have an entire day discussing different views about gun laws and I would suggest contacting either me or Jake Nipper to get a spot on SagePOL to discuss further, as from what I have seen you are well versed and dedicated to getting your points across. Once again thank you for your very well worded, non aggressive tone that ultimately made this a very pleasant reply to craft. Thank you @Donald or could it be OP Herself?
Lucas Gutierrez ◊ Nov 1, 2017 at 9:48 am
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Lucas Gutierrez ◊ Nov 1, 2017 at 9:46 am
When have you ever heard of a gang member getting a gun legally, they don’t go through the process to get a gun to kill someone so what would making tighter gun laws do, it would make it harder for normal person trying to get a gun to protect themselves from the gang members what good does that do cause that would cause just as many deaths. Take Alaska for instance over 62 percent of people own guns and do you see people going into theaters killing people? no cause they know half the people in that theatre are packing too. If you take guns away then normal people cant defend themselves and then those gang members are still getting guns illegally just like they are now your not making things better if anything you making these things worse.