Gun Control

[deleted account] ( 85 moms have responded )

I am all for the right to bear arms, but I am so sick of these stories. Why are people so opposed to stricter gun controls that still allow people to own guns? These kids obviously obtained the guns they used illegally. I feel that tighter control over where guns are kept and how they are registered could reduce situations where people who should not have guns, get them.
Yes, I know that criminals will get guns, but we CAN make it more difficult for them to do so. But it seems that every time I read a story like this, it's not a criminal with a gun, it some irresponsible citizen who came by their guns by stealing them from a relative's night stand or glove box, or gun safe that they shouldn't have know how to get into.
These were kids, they didn't have the cash or connections to buy a gun off the black market. They stole the gun, and I feel the owner of the gun should be held responsible just as much as these kids. I know, that is "victim blaming" as well, but I'm sorry, if you own something that can kill people, you need to be responsible for keeping it out of the hands of killers.


(CNN) -- Police responding to a 911 call in southeastern Georgia found a baby boy shot dead and a mother with a leg wound Thursday morning.
The incident in Brunswick prompted a search for two young male suspects, one between 13 and 15 years old, and the other possibly as young as 10.
While the mother said she was the victim of an attempted robbery, police said they had not identified a motive so far. They did not provide any other details of the alleged crime, other than to say that after the "senseless act," both suspects fled on foot.
The mother, who was treated and released from a hospital, told CNN affiliate WAWS that she was walking her 13-month-old in his stroller Thursday morning when the two youths approached her and demanded money.
"He said, 'I am going to kill you if you don't give me your money,'" said Sherry West. She said she insisted she had no cash so the older boy shot her in the leg.
"He says, 'Well, I am going to kill your baby.'"
She tried to shield the baby, but the boy shoved her away and shot the infant in the head, she said.
CNN affiliate WJXT reported the baby died at the scene.
No weapon was recovered at the scene in a residential neighborhood, Police chief Tobe Green told reporters. City Manager Bill Weeks said no other witnesses have come forward.
"This is obviously just a terrible day in the city of Brunswick," Mayor Bryan Thompson said at a news conference, "and made even more terrible by the senseless killing of a young child and it appears perpetrated by children themselves."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia...

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jenny - posted on 04/16/2013

842

5

24

Anybody watch D'jango Unchained recently? Who'd want to live like that where "everyone" has a gun for their "protection".

Living in Australia where there are strict gun laws in place its hard to understand how people think restrictive laws on guns will have no restraining effect on criminals trying to obtain guns.

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/...

Tim Fischer "We too value freedom. But that's not the freedom to own machine guns in the main streets of the U.S. of A.," he says. "The facts are you are 15 times more likely to be shot dead per capita in the U.S.A. than here in Australia."

"Gun violence hasn't been completely eliminated in Australia. But gun-control advocates are quick to point out that there hasn't been a single mass shooting in the 16 years since the laws came into effect."

As opposed to the 42 that occurred in the US in the same time period (1996-2012).
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012...


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politic...

"These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.

A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms."

And yet ignorant nitwits still think gun laws will make no difference or would make things worse???! People on this post defending their right to arms just blow me away. Seem's pretty selfish to defend your right to own a gun in the face of these mass murders.

Jodi - posted on 04/13/2013

25,928

36

3891

You are still not showing anything factual Lilie. At least what I have provided is fact. Go and look up the statistics for yourself instead of relying on what pro-gun lobby are telling you, because at the moment, that's what you are spouting.

It is very disturbing to me that you believe every person in your country should have a gun....with absolutely zero regulation, INCLUDING a background check. Can you not see the insanity of that?

[deleted account]

Sorry, I don't think the scenario would have played out much differently if the mother had a gun on her hip. This happened very quickly, and the kid would have shot her the moment she reached for it. He didn't even hesitate before the first shot when she said she had no money--if he'd seen her hand move, he'd have shot her in the face. Now if the gun were actually in her hand, ready to be fired, no safety on, then yes, she might have saved the baby, but carrying a gun like that while trying to push a stroller could have just as easily ended with her shooting the baby on accident. She could carry a tube of mace in her hand safely while pushing the stroller though. That said, I think it is pointless and rather callous to blame the mother for her son's death because she wasn't carrying a gun.

Furthermore, no one is saying the government should eliminate or even limit access to guns. We are only asking that the government require gun owners/carriers to receive proper training. What is so restrictive about that? You want a gun, you don't want to learn how to use it?
Honestly, I don't see how anyone can WANT untrained individuals carrying guns around. Do you really think that $50 & and 8 hour class are too much to ask of someone who wants the ability to kill someone in an instant at their hip?

Furthermore, without regulation, ANYONE can go buy a gun--ANYONE. Do you really want the violent criminal who just got out of jail for assault, rape, and armed robbery to have a gun?

I'm sorry, but I think that people who support completely unregulated gun rights are refusing to see the whole picture. They are picturing every citizen in the US as a responsible person, but we have loads and loads of proof that all of us are not as responsible as we should be.

ETA: Forgot to mention the point about the right to bear arms being in the Constitution. You are right. The Constitution does protect our right to own and carry guns, BUT it says absolutely nothing about our rights to hide said guns from the government, or the government's right to keep record or regulate training for the use those guns. In other words, the government cannot take your guns away, but it CAN require training for certain uses. Right now, training is only required for Concealed weapons, but I would like training to be required for ALL guns.

Besides, the Constitution has been changed 27 times. No reason we can't make it 28 if it is for the betterment of our country.

Sal - posted on 07/13/2013

1,816

16

33

There is one more point I'd like to make and it is about how guns are viewed in aus.. As I said I know a lot of gun owners, most see them as a work tool, many farms have them to shoot wild dogs foxes dingos etc or ethensise wounded animals , and those who are hunters and have them recreationally also see them as a tool of their sport.. Nobody I know feels that they need a gun for protection they are not viewed as a safety issue
This might be because the only time a gun is a useful safety deterrent is against someone else with a gun and that is a very unlikely situation here..

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

85 Comments

View replies by

Mikey - posted on 07/06/2014

4

0

0

I'm 15 years old I've had guns in the corner of my room since I was 9 I have 3 guns live on a farm I hunt and keep 3 in the corner all are loaded I was raised if we touch papas loaded gun we would get our ass beat unless we used it to hunt or self defense and sandy hook could have happex with a single shot 22 if the teacher would have had a gun she could have shot him and nothing would have happened no need for more control if anything we need less if everybody carry a gun crime rate would drop

Cindy - posted on 08/08/2013

7

0

2

My stepdaughter is 6 and got a BB gun just before her 5th birthday from Santa. She's a good shot, hitting the target every time nice the first time. She knows to be responsible with a gun and that people good and bad have them; grandpa is the sheriff so she talks about crime occasionally. When my husband shoots his guns, she shoots hers. Out to dinner for my birthday my husband told me about Newtown and my stepdaughter said the name of the school; it floored me because a friend lives in town and her children go there. Even before that shooting, I believed in background checks but I also know anyone can snap so it's not 100% guarantee they won't do something illegal. I also think if someone in your home has a history of mental illness you should not have guns on the premises. Gun control is important and I think you should have to report owning them on your drivers license or a state ID that I think everyone should have to carry. The yearly fee would cover any number of guns you own and the money made could pay for teaching programs.

Amanda - posted on 07/26/2013

104

0

2

I think we need to teach gun safety to everyone! In addition to that we need to make it harder for people to get guns. for example make people who want to own guns pass a mental stability test and make sure they aren't domestically violent. I'd also say this needs to be done yearly for everyone with a gun.if they're not mentally stable don't give them a gun and if they become mentally unstable take their gun.

Diana - posted on 07/19/2013

109

0

0

I know this probably seems overly simplistic, but I feel that part of the problem is teaching not our children about gun safety regardless of whether there is a gun in the child's home or not and teaching them basic regard for human life.

Growing up with my grandparents our gun cabinet was unlocked in the living room where we played with the ammo on top of the cabinet and out of 6 grandchildren & countless neighbor kids and friends' children playing virtually unsupervised in the same room not one of us ever touched the cabinet or thought about it. Wanna know why? Because we were taught from the time we could crawl that the guns & cabinet were off limits. We were taught that they are not toys. You do not point them at anyone...ever...even if you thought it was unloaded. We were taught that all guns should be treated as if they are loaded. We were taught that if it looked like a gun even if you "thought" it was a toy, you were not to touch it. We were not allowed to pretend shoot each other even during games. We were taught that if we were over at someone else's house and saw a gun, saw a friend with a gun, or found a gun, we were to immediately tell a grown-up, but never to touch it.

I teach my children (both girls) the same principals. They are getting to the age now where they are learning how to properly handle guns starting with their own Red-Rider BB guns. It is interesting to watch them watching us. They always ask their dad & me if we put the safety on when we are finish target shooting before they will pick up a gun and even if we say that we did, they will double-check. They are extra careful to make sure it is not pointed at anyone or anything before they are ready to shoot. They take the privilege of shooting a gun very seriously...because that is what we are instilling in them.

It's great in theory for parents to try their best to keep guns away from children, but that is not to say that at some point that child won't come across one. How different would the story have ended if perhaps some of that common sense had been instilled in the boy with the gun? Perhaps he wouldn't have ever picked it up in the first place let alone pointed it at another human being.

Sal - posted on 07/13/2013

1,816

16

33

As an Aussie I don't fully understand the right to bare arms mentality to the USA has, this is not a criticism but living in a country where it isn't part of our culture makes us see things differently..
I have always lived in rural areas where there are still lots of fun owners but these people don't feel they have the right to own a weapon but they are given the privelegde and know they can lose the weapons if they don't follow strict guide lines.. There are fire arms Audits where (in our local area at least) the police go to the house check the weapons against those registered they also check how it is stored a d carried.. If you ate arrested for domestic violence you have your weapons seized and having an unregistered or un restrained fire arm is an offence ... But you can own a gun if you stick to the rules it's just the police know About it..
There are still criminals with guns, and always will be but like Kelly snxe mentioned In her post the chance a angry teen or disgruntled employee can grab one from a family member or neighbour without being noticed are pretty slim..
I don't fear that my husband will be ambushed by someone with a gun on a domestic call as they know if there are guns in the house ..
I think someone has Mentioned this but since the gun amnesty after the port Arthur shootings there has been a total stop in mass shootings in aus, before that our rate if mass shooting was roughly on par (on a per capita basis) with the USA
There are still some people who think the restrictions are too much but on the hole it is just accepted that this is what you must do if you want guns

Jodi - posted on 07/03/2013

25,928

36

3891

Well, we have knife control laws too, so......yeah. One of the safest countries in the world. Much safer than yours.

That clip you posted? A gun would only have helped her if it was already loaded and accessible within moments, which means it would also have been readily accessible to her children (if she had them, inappropriate parenting) and the invader (oops). Did you know that your risk of being shot is significantly higher if you have a gun? You are far less likely to be shot if you don't. Interesting really.

And please (as I have asked several times now), enlighten me as to how background checks are such a problem when purchasing a gun? Why is such a SENSIBLE control measure such a big deal for people? Are they worried that their criminal record would mean they can't have a legal gun? Why make it easy for them?

Jamie - posted on 07/02/2013

1

0

0

Pretty sure a gun would have helped this woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARRM4MaMubw
Thank goodness they finally caught the guy who did that. God knows how many other people he's done it to.

Gun control helps nobody but the criminals who break the laws anyway.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...
If someone is bent on killing people and can't use a gun, they will use something else. Seen the recent stabbing sprees? So, do we enact knife control laws too? Bat control laws for those who would use a bat to beat someone to death? The list can go on and on...
Just one of the most recent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/0...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/...

Erika - posted on 04/20/2013

68

7

3

My opinion about gun laws: background checks should be required. I fluctuate about controlling certain types of guns...some I don't know why people need to own (hunting with assault weapons seems ridiculous), but I don't necessarily believe the government should make that call. I think registration should be required, not to trace guns back to law abiding owners or "keep tabs" on them, but we register vehicles which I think is a comparable asset to guns (licensing, registration,
etc).
I'm not sure enacting more gun laws solve the problems. When comparing the US to Australia there are so many variables that can skew numbers. I don't know, but would be interested to see, the difference in mental health services between them, general violent crime stats specifically non-gun, and some other things (social programs, tax rates, health care, poverty rates). I think much of our gun violence can be traced to mental health failures or distinct cultural/ social problems that we have in this country. In my opinion, gun violence is the end result, but it's not the cause...finding the root cause is where the focus needs to be.

Kristi - posted on 04/15/2013

1,355

3

78

I'm done with Lilie...she's an unimportant, lost cause. We were just attacked by terrorists again. I wonder if that's something she thinks is worth focusing on. After all, "only" 3 people are dead and 114 injured. How fucking minuscule is that?!

Jodi - posted on 04/15/2013

25,928

36

3891

Sounds like Lilie should go and live on another planet. Societies since the beginning of time have had some form of government and would not be able to operate properly without one with the scale of population we have. So therefore, your comments are essentially waiting for some form of apocolypse in order to live in your Utopian society. Either that, or you can just go an live under a rock off the grid and pretend that such a society is possible.

Kristi - posted on 04/15/2013

1,355

3

78

You don't know me. Don't tell me what I do or don't know about suicide. Medicine has come a very long way. If you don't like our government and you think we're a bunch of ignorant nitwits...go live in a country better suited to meet your needs.

Lilie - posted on 04/15/2013

23

0

2

When cops, and everyone else stopped and started acting civilly, than I can see your point. These laws are only directed to law-abiding citizens therefore I am against any more laws. We have too many laws that judge's, lawyers, and police have a hard time keeping up with, let alone how many of them are unconstitutional. We are living under a corporate government, and it is a for-profit and control program. When we don't need government anymore and can rely on science to assist people and meet everyone's needs and finally live in a more peaceful environment (i.e. when the monetary system fails), then we will see a natural decline in gun-ownership, death. We will still have problems, but solvable problems. And people like you scare me because you have no clue what you are living under and don't understand all the circumstances that lead to any of these deaths. You should really be questioning why that many people have to commit suicide. Life should be great for everyone!

Kristi - posted on 04/15/2013

1,355

3

78

Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said gun violence was the leading cause of death or even close to the leading cause of death. I also did not say these statics correlated to gun show purchases. They were to support the fact that there is a problem and to support Jodi's statement that anything that is preventable from killing people should be a focus.

I believe in our 2nd Amendment rights. I believe in our right to life and liberty more. It is people like you and David Keene, Wayne LaPierre and other close minded extremists who scare me. I don't feel like we should have to live in a military nation, so to speak. We've grown out of the Old West and if we all walked around packing, there'd be dead people every where.

Jodi - posted on 04/15/2013

25,928

36

3891

LOL....that's all I've got.

I pity you having to live somewhere that you feel you need a gun for self-protection. I like living in a society where we don't feel the need to shoot people to protect ourselves. I feel VERY safe in my home with no gun. So do the absolute majority of Australians. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Lilie - posted on 04/14/2013

23

0

2

Yeah, no sorry. There are too many people that benefit from gun ownership exactly due to these statistics you show. Most of these are probably in areas where guns were banned or severely restricted. I did my research, I even posted some links. There are worse problems in the world and this isn't one of them. You have shown no correlation between these statistics and gun buyers from gun shows. Are you kidding me? As a society we should be combatting the only real problem, and that is the monetary system. But you can sit here and plug away at the symptoms all day long and in the end I wouldn't feel safer if it ends up that less law-abiding citizens have guns.

Kristi - posted on 04/14/2013

1,355

3

78

What are you smoking?

For one thing, my point was that universal background checks are an easy preventative measure to help limit the number of guns getting into the wrong hands. Never did I say they would have prevented this specific crime nor did I say they would prevent all crimes. You can't even give me ONE logical reason why people at gun shows shouldn't have to submit to a background check while people who buy a gun in a store do.

"Lets focus on the important things and guns may just take care of themselves by then."

I guess the families of the nearly 32,000 people killed by guns will be happy to just let the problem go away on it's own.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61...

**Deaths by firearms**
--222--undetermined intent
--11,101--homicides
--19,766--suicides
--851--accidental
**Total--31,940--2011**

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...

Violent Crimes 2011 (Homicides, Robberies, Agg. Assault, Forcible Rape)
**Total--1,203,564**
Homicides--14,612--67.7% committed with a gun
Robberies--354,396--41.3% committed with a gun
Agg. Assault--751,131--21.2% committed with a gun
Forcible Rape--83,425--weapons data not collected for forcible rape (don't ask me why!)

I'm going to cheat and just end with this:

"What a ridiculous comment (ad Lilie)! As a society we should be focusing on ANYTHING that can prevent death or injury. That INCLUDES gun-related death and injury. Any cause of death that is preventable should be a focus. Gun death and injury IS a real issue. Try to tell someone who lost their child to a situation with a gun involve that could have been prevented through gun control laws that is isn't a real issue. How very offensive to them that it isn't considered a "real" issue......."-----Thank you, Jodi!

Jodi - posted on 04/14/2013

25,928

36

3891

Uh, no, as I said, anything that is preventable from killing others should be the focus. Guns will never just "take care of themselves", are you serious? That's like saying we'll let bad drivers just "take care of themselves". And don't try to tell me that's different. In 14 US states, the gun deaths are higher than traffic accident deaths. So are you saying we shouldn't focus on measures to make driving safer for everyone? Gun deaths are JUST AS IMPORTANT AS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DEATHS. I don't see you advocating that everyone should be able to have a driver's licence because it is their right. Oh, that's right, there are controls in place.

Sorry, but there are people in the world who simply shouldn't own guns, and measures should be in place to minimise those risks.

Lilie - posted on 04/14/2013

23

0

2

OK, so focus on that, not guns. Guns is minuscule in comparison. Every chart I have seen linking guns and death, guns is at the tale end. Lets focus on the important things and guns may just take care of themselves by then.

Jodi - posted on 04/14/2013

25,928

36

3891

"More people die from doctors, poisons, junk food, and name any other cause of death. Why don't we focus on the real issues facing society. "

So we shouldn't focus on reducing road deaths either? What a ridiculous comment! As a society we should be focusing on ANYTHING that can prevent death or injury. That INCLUDES gun-related death and injury. Any cause of death that is preventable should be a focus. Gun death and injury IS a real issue. Try to tell someone who lost their child to a situation with a gun involve that could have been prevented through gun control laws that is isn't a real issue. How very offensive to them that it isn't considered a "real" issue.......

Jodi - posted on 04/14/2013

25,928

36

3891

But clearly, by gaining it illegally, someone had the gun unsecured in the first place. There need to be heavier penalties and laws in place for storage of guns and ammunition as well as sale of guns and ammunition. This is just common sense.

And if you solely rely on that site, then you are clearly not doing your own research. There are many studies on that site, that when you dig through them, have flaws in their methodology.

For example (just one, because I haven't got time to go through all of them)"

"A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Surveys which include questions about defensive gun use are trying to estimate a rare event, in which even a small false-positive rate will lead to a relatively large overestimate. By any measure, including the Kleck-Gertz estimate, defensive gun use is a relatively rare event. If 0.5 percent of adults experience a DGU each year, in a survey of 1000 adults only about five would logically have the opportunity to provide a false negative therefore inflating the statistics to a statistically significant degree.

I invite you to consider how such "facts" (as you view them) are not actually "facts" when you make the decision to "actually" do your own research:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers...

In addition, you need to consider that this particular study did not specifically ask a question about defensive gun use. So therefore, it was not a controlled study about defensive gun use and can't be considered and authority on that particular statistic. It is problematic in that there are varying levels of "defensive gun use" and one of these positive responses may have only been that they yelled at the intruder that they had a gun. Is that really defensive gun use? Because the survey wasn't looking specifically at defensive gun use, the term "defensive gun use" was not defined and has been assumed.

I could go on with independent research, but a site just listing the results of a bunch of studies and surveys is not researching the topic. So please don't tell me you ONLY rely on that site and consider yourself informed.

Lilie - posted on 04/14/2013

23

0

2

It doesn't even matter in this case because he obtained the gun illegally. There is no law put on law abiding citizens that would have changed this, except maybe making sure the women had a gun on her. Sorry, you haven't proved your point.

Lilie - posted on 04/14/2013

23

0

2

Here are the facts I am going by http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp. I stand by my statements. I don't understand what the need is. I won't feel safer and will actually feel less safe if more gun control laws pass. Sorry, but the numbers don't match up. I don't care who said it, there are too many people that have guns illegally that will use them illegally that I am more worried about. I am not as worried about the ones that obtain them legally. More people die from doctors, poisons, junk food, and name any other cause of death. Why don't we focus on the real issues facing society.

Kristi - posted on 04/14/2013

1,355

3

78

Lilie--

A snipit from my post on 3/28:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/0...

States that have closed the "private sale loophole", and required background checks for private gun sales have decreased certain types of gun violence.

**women killed by intimate partners down 38%

**gun suicide rate down 50%


This next link is an opinion piece, but there are indisputable facts in it, not to mention basic common sense and logic.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/do...

"We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone." Did President Barack Obama say that? No, that's from an advertisement taken out by the NRA in USA Today in 1999.

Why do you think they are back tracking on that now, Lilie?

Read the article...it's not very difficult to comprehend. Although, it isn't designed to instill fear, rage, hostility and all the other BS the NRA rhetoric is, so then again, you might not get it.

"Making everyone subject to something that 1% of the people (that will get around the laws no matter how strict they are) irresponsibly use them is ridiculous and is a false faith"

1--Are you saying only 1% of the people who posses guns use them for criminal purposes and other irresponsible activities? Please show some remote evidence to substantiate that.

2--Point out where any of us put all of our faith in background checks. It is merely one easy, common sense measure of prevention.

3--Give me 2 logical, justifiable reasons that I should NOT have to have my background check just because I buy my gun from a fat redneck under a big tent at a gun show when you HAVE to because you buy it from an authorized gun dealer? Shoot, give me 1.

Take a little advice from a wet behind the ears pup, you're running with big dogs in here...you have to be able to back up at least SOME of what you claim to be true or you're going to get chewed up and spit out without a second thought.

Lilie - posted on 04/13/2013

23

0

2

Florida actually prosecutes cases and gun crime is down. There are great examples everywhere... But the new gun laws being introduced are NOT them. Sorry, show me a law that should be passed, and actually might be, that would work. Our whole system is broken. I hate Hippocrates that say we should have gun control yet their gun carrying body guards are all around them. And I don't understand what the whole big deal is anyway... the big media gun issues they portray would not have been prevented. So I don't understand what your argument is, I guess. I know where it is banned, the criminals have em leaving the innocent at the criminals will and there are plenty of statistics to show this as fact. I don't believe you and what you say about the gun lobbyist. Sorry!!!! Not while we spend that much on defense in America. I think every person in our country should have a gun and things would be much easier. Funny also how the ones portrayed on tv are in gun-free zones.

Jodi - posted on 04/13/2013

25,928

36

3891

"Guns save more people than kill. Check the statistics. That is a FACT!!! "

Actually, it isn't fact. It is, again, gun lobby propaganda used in order to maintain power over the people and the politicians. Even Paul Blackman, the research co-ordinator of the NRA has admitted that indeed, they stretched the numbers of a research project that wasn't even set up (and therefore didn't have the appropriate controls) to investigate the hypothesis that guns save more people than they kill.

I quote Mr Blackman: "I don't know of any criminological study that has tried to quantify the number of lives saved based on the number of guns that were successfully used for protection."

So please, by all means, provide me with this "fact" you speak of. You can't come here and claim it is fact if you can't back it up. Fact is a strong word. I strongly suspect the word opinion may have been more appropriate.

"You have absolutely NO FACTUAL basis to say these new laws will save more lives."

People have plenty of factual basis to say that doing background checks on all gun purchases, having proper training and licencing and limiting the type of gun available to the average citizen, etc, will save more lives. It has been shown in MANY countries around the world as fact. Why would it not work that way in the US? Are Americans somehow more violent than the rest of the world? More inclined to commit crime than the rest of the world? No? If not, then the statistics in the rest of the world could logically be applied in the US. You have NO FACTUAL BASIS to say the new laws won't work. But you would rather sit back and do nothing, because that is being REALLY pro-active about finding solutions to what is a problem in your country.

"POLICE KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS!!! "

Yet another opinion I see, with no fact to back it up. A national survey in 2011 estimated that police shot and killed 607 people (although this could have been a little higher) as compared to 8,583 total gun deaths that year. Not seeing what you are claiming. Not even close. In fact so far off, I would have to consider you entirely brainwashed and not capable of doing your own research.

Clearly the gun lobby have you right where they want you. I would suggest when you see claims and make these outrageous statements like you do (yes it does sound ridiculous), you actually be able to back them up with real statistics, such as those from the Bureau of Statistics and well controlled studies, not only from the US, but countries where gun control laws ARE working.

Lilie - posted on 04/13/2013

23

0

2

Making everyone subject to something that 1% of the people (that will get around the laws no matter how strict they are) irresponsibly use them is ridiculous and is a false faith. Better to know where you live and how dangerous it is and be prepared (i.e. packing if need be, or pepperspray, etc.) than to rely on some gun control law. It will not work. They already have gun control laws but they are not prosecuting them. The new laws will be the same or they will be used against law abiding citizens. That is not fair. There are better ways and more gun control is going in the opposite direction. And no, it wouldn't be hard to stab and baby in the head with a knife or slit his throat. I doubt this kid would have hesitated to do so. I don't thing all the faith was in the gun. I think that is your projection on the matter. I guess we will never know though. Either way, this kid found this gun and didn't purchase it so no amount of gun laws would prevent this. Guns save more people than kill. Check the statistics. That is a FACT!!! You have absolutely NO FACTUAL basis to say these new laws will save more lives. I stand behind what I posted. POLICE KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS!!! So take it from them first... how about that...
Sounds ridiculous huh? That's what I'm saying about all these pro-gun law people.

Kristi - posted on 04/13/2013

1,355

3

78

Lilie--

You think it would have been just as easy for that kid to stab that baby in the face or land down on him with a crow bar? No. Those items require more personal contact. Yes, I am well aware they were basically point blank range. With a gun you point and squeeze the trigger. It's over before you even know you did it. At that range, you don't even have to look at your target.

A knife, you have look at your victim, you have to force a knife into his/her body. Most of the time, the first stab or slash does not kill your victim. Do you really think that boy could have looked down at that baby sleeping peacefully in his stroller and still plunged a knife into his little body? That takes balls and/or sociopathology. Neither of which these boys have, IMO. Same goes for the crowbar, baseball bat, pitchfork, hatchet, the bra and shoe laces someone mentioned earlier.

Pesky background checks may or may not have prevented this specific case but they would help overall. Even though the dumbass NRA president is backtracking, he admitted background checks helped keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I'm wondering if many of the current gun sales are being made "rebels," you remember, member...mom said NO, which made you want whatever it was even more. Half the time you didn't know you wanted it until your brother/sister/friend asked for it first...they were told NO, now it was your mission to get it. The difference here is that nobody is trying to take guns away from or keep law abiding citizens from buying/owning guns.

Jodi - posted on 04/12/2013

25,928

36

3891

There's plenty that gun control would stop happening. People are just too stubborn to open their eyes.

Lilie - posted on 04/12/2013

23

0

2

Your argument makes no sense. They could have done the same with a knife, crowbar, or name your weapon. Wy are you so focused on the gun? He could have gotten it from his older brother, uncle, or whoever that bought it illegally from the guns that were given away by our own government. Gun control wouldn't stop this from happening, it would happen more.

[deleted account]

AndyandBelle, no one here is saying that guns are the entire problem, or that people are not the problem--we established rather early on that BOTH people and guns are large PARTS of the problem. I totally agree with you in that guns would not be a problem at all if not for the people using them. Unfortunately, people ARE using them, and they are using them irresponsibly.
Right now, the best way for us to keep people from using them irresponsibly or criminally is to regulate who has access to them. Certain people are more likely to use a gun to kill than others. It only makes sense to keep guns out of their possession, yes? I understand that those people might also use other objects to kill, but as we established earlier, other objects are not as effective at killing multiple people quickly as guns are, thus, they are not as dangerous.

If someone steals your gun because you are storing it irresponsibly, it IS your fault. As gun owners we have a responsibility to keep our guns out of the hands of criminals. We have a responsibility to keep others safe from being killed or hurt with our guns. With freedom comes responsibility. When people refuse to take that responsibility, freedoms are lost.

AndyandBelle - posted on 04/10/2013

26

0

0

i own steak knives, a car, toxic if swallowed cleaning products, rope, and guns (just to name a few) and if someone steals one of them and kills someone that isn't my fault. Also, I believe if more people actually disciplined their children while they were still young so many young people would not be going on these sprees. Guns aren't the problem....people are. People who think they are somehow entitled to more than what they have, better than what they've been given, etc. People in general need to grow up.

Lauren - posted on 04/08/2013

131

6

5

Kelly, not having read everyone's posts, I'll post my thoughts as all this unfolds. I agree that purchasers should have to undergo background checks, attend a safety class and show understanding of using the weapon they purchase. If you want to be a gun owner, you should be willing to learn how to responsibly use and own one.

Do I think this will STOP gun violence? No, because, as you alluded to, the people doing the shooting weren't the purchasers of the guns. And I don't necessarily support all guns being taken away because I do believe the government needs to have some sense of fear of the people it's supposed to be representing.

Personally, I think these issues lie in two areas--one of which you lend to. 1) Many people aren't responsibly for the weapons they purchase, their children's actions, teaching their children that guns are not safe, locking up guns, etc. One would hope requiring safety classes would help some parents/relatives/friends better safeguard the weapons they own from others that might make irresponsible decisions. 2) I think there is a much larger need across our society to work to address children's needs before they become adults and find ways to cause bigger problems. We pay so much attention to our bodies but not our minds. As more and more parents work and more attention is paid to material things, less and less attention is paid to children as they grow. Our society doesn't support family and real connections beyond the individual. I think this itself would help alleviate many of our problems.

Hopefully we can all come together and work to help our children so they know they have support rather than arguing this topic to death over little details!

[deleted account]

Sally, obviously you didn't read my last post. The argument that stricter laws would not affect criminals is flawed. First off, that could be said of ANY law. If criminals are not going to obey them, why have them? Second, stricter background checks, stricter registration, and enforceable laws limiting owners from loaning out guns WOULD reduce gun related crime because the people SELLING the guns are not criminals, and they will follow the law. Meaning if you are a law abiding citizen, your right to buy, own, and operate a gun will not be limited. If you are a criminal, a law abiding gun seller will not sell you a gun, thus, your access is only limited if you are a criminal, and it is limited by the fact that the seller is following a stricter gun law. Yes, the criminal can then go to the black market and get a gun, BUT only if s/he has connections, knows where to go, and has a sizable sum of money or other tradeable goods. Thus, limited.

Here are 9 references that indicate stricter gun regulation will decrease gun related crime. If you wouldn't mind, please cite your sources, Sally. I would love to read them as I have not yet read anything indicating that less gun control would lead to less gun related crime.

1. Wintemute G.J., “Broadening denial criteria for the purchase and possession of firearms: Need, feasibility, and effectiveness.” Pages 77-94 in Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick, Eds., Baltimore, M.D.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
2. Zeoli A.M., Frattaroli S. “Evidence for optimism: policies to limit batters’ access to firearms. Pages 53-64, ibid.
3. Swanson J.W., Robertson A.G., Frisman L.K., Norko M.A., Lin H.J., Swartz M.S., Cook P.J. “Preventing gun violence involving people with severe mental illness.” Pages 33-52, ibid.
4. Webster D.W., Vernick J.S., Bulzacchelli M.T., Effects of state-level firearm seller accountability policies on firearms trafficking. Journal of Urban Health 2009; 86: 525-537.
5. Webster D.W., Vernick J.S., McGinty E.E., Alcorn T. “Preventing the diversion of guns to criminals through effective firearm sales laws.” Pages 109-122 in Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. [link]
6. Braga A.A., Gagliardi, P.L. “Enforcing federal firearms laws against firearms traffickers: Raising operational effectiveness by lowering enforcement obstacles.” Pages 143-156, ibid.
7. Braga A.A., Cook PJ, Kennedy D.M., Moore M.H. “The Illegal Supply of Firearms.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research Volume 29, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
8. Truman J.L. Criminal Victimization, 2010. National Crime Victimization Survey. NCJ 235508. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; September 2011.
9. Cook P.J., Ludwig J., Venketesh S., Braga A.A. Underground gun markets. The Economic Journal 2007;117;F588-F618.

Jodi - posted on 04/03/2013

25,928

36

3891

Um, Sally, if you are going to make claims like that, please point us to these "real" studies. Because it isn't actually true, it is gun lobby propaganda.

Besides, you still haven't answered as to why, as a minimum, people shouldn't have to have background checks.

Sally - posted on 04/03/2013

961

14

8

Every real study (you know the ones that actually look at more than one factor, double check for correlations and contradictions, and get peer reviewed) has shown that every time gun laws are tightened all forms of crime (but especially violent crime) shoot up rather dramatically and that the fastest, easiest way to reduce all forms of crime (and again especially violent crime) is to loosen restrictions on concealed carry.
When legal gun use is restricted, the good guys lose the ability to protect themselves because their access to a very efficient and easy form a self defense has been lessened. The bad guys feel no ill affects at all BECAUSE BAD GUYS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW. A person who is willing to break all the laws against theft, rape, murder, etc. is NOT going to magically start following the laws that require background checks and only taking guns into certain areas. Why do you think every successful mass shooting has happened in a gun free zone? The bad guys are evil not stupid. They know that the victim rich environments are where the law abiding people can't defend themselves.
As for the idea that "if there are fewer guns available, the bad guys will have a harder time getting them". England, Australia, Chicago, and Washington D. C. are only a few places to prove that one absolutely ridiculous.

Jodi - posted on 03/29/2013

25,928

36

3891

Personally, I am quite disturbed by the fact there are real people who don't think you should, at minimum, have to have a background check to purchase a gun.

Kristi - posted on 03/29/2013

1,355

3

78

Sally--

I refer you back to my earlier post with the link to the Mother Jones article. Simply making background checks mandatory and universal regardless of where and from whom you purchase your gun would make a significant cut in the number of people who should not have guns from getting them.

Since 1993, 1.7 million people have been denied the right to purchase a weapon as a result of their background check. That is an average of 85,000 people per year. Now consider that today, 40% of gun sales take place without background checks....common sense says a large majority of those are to people who can't pass a background check.

Do I believe this will stop criminals from getting guns, of course not. But, I do believe it will make a dent in their business. I think if you are a true, law abiding, American citizen "you" (generalized) say you are, then I don't see why "you" should have such an issue with it.

No one on here thinks any or all gun regulations will stop all criminals and gun violence. We aren't ignorant. We are not suggesting our 2nd Amendment rights be withheld. Kelly, who started this thread, owns guns. If I had the money, so would I. I have no problem with anyone looking into my history, I don't need 10,000 rounds of ammunition or a 30 round mag. (especially since I have my bra and a spoon teehee) there is no reason we need to make guns easier to buy than alcohol.

Jodi - posted on 03/29/2013

25,928

36

3891

"The reason why gun laws do nothing to reduce crime is that criminals do not follow the law."

And that's why it should be more difficult for them to get a gun.

[deleted account]

Sally, Stricter gun laws still reduce gun related crimes because the people selling the guns are NOT criminals. They are not going to break the law to sell guns to criminals, thus the criminals' access to guns becomes more limited, whereas if there are no laws dictating who can buy a gun, a criminal can walk into the pawn shop and buy a gun just as easily as a law abiding citizen.

I would like to see some of the statistics you have read that indicate that higher gun control leads to higher crime rates. Everything I have read indicates the opposite. Australia, Great Britain, and many other first world countries have much, much stricter gun laws than the US, and they all have lower rates of violent and gun related crimes.
I'm short on time right now, but I may be able to post links to some reliable stats later.

The legislation before my state currently is aiming to do just that--make concealed carry easier. Currently, to obtain a CWP in my state you have to pay $50 and take an 8 hour class on gun safety (and pass a background check). Honestly, it doesn't get any easier. Except now, they want to eliminate the training class, so we can have a bunch of people walking around with guns who don't know how to use them. Many with short tempers unable to think things through. It's a stupid idea.

Sally - posted on 03/29/2013

961

14

8

The reason why gun laws do nothing to reduce crime is that criminals do not follow the law. Many different people have run the statistics many different ways and the simple fact is that tighter gun controls increase crime because the criminals no longer have to fear that their law abiding victims can defend themselves. The fastest way to lower crime (at every time and in every place) has been to make legal concealed carry easier.

Kristi - posted on 03/28/2013

1,355

3

78

Me-- "and no, anyone can not go out & legally buy a gun. Your name gets run through a data base, you get finger printed before you can buy a gun through a gun show or any authorized (legal) gun store. Whether its a pawn shop or actual gun store......at least in my state."

Then you live in 1 of ONLY 11 states that require background checks for at least some gun purchases at gun shows. The ATF states there are approximately 5,000 gun shows annually throughout the US.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncont...

Let's move on, shall we? If you're unfortunate enough to miss all 5,000 gun shows and are still worried about those pesky background checks, don't give up hope...just log onto Armslist.

"The site allows private sellers to offer guns for sale to other private purchasers. Buyers can contact sellers via phone or email to set up the sale, and avoid going through a federal background check or even leaving a paper trail. Such transactions are more anonymous than purchasing a weapon at a gun show, where people who can’t pass a background check can buy large quantities of guns."

A Russian immigrant, then living in British Columbia was not allowed to legally purchase a gun anywhere in Canada or the US. However, through Armslist, he obtained a .40 caliber handgun from a WA State man, traveled to Illinois, stalked his ex girlfriend for several days and finally pumped 12 shots into her chest.

This ad was placed after a restraining order was filed against a man for domestic violence. The RO barred him from obtaining a weapon from buying a gun legally from a dealer.

"Looking to buy ASAP. Prefer full size, any caliber. Email ASAP. I constantly check my emails. Hoping it has a high mag capacity with the handgun, ammo, accessories. I am a serious buyer. Email me ASAP. Have cash now and looking to buy now. I am mobile."

That ended in a shooting spree. He killed his wife, two others, injured four more and killed himself.

Private gun sales like this are not illegal unless the seller knows (or will admit) the buyer cannot pass a background check.

But I guess their 2nd Amendment rights are more important than any of the victims' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/0...

States that have closed the "private sale loophole", and required background checks for private gun sales have decreased certain types of gun violence.

**women killed by intimate partners down 38%

**gun suicide rate down 50%

Shine a little more light on why we don't need common sense gun regulation and how nobody can purchase a gun without background checks and fingerprinting...which btw, is rare and varies from state to state. (Fingerprinting)

Kristi - posted on 03/28/2013

1,355

3

78

I'm so totally pissed! I just posted, or at least thought I did, a comment with some very good information about how easy it is to legally obtain a gun no matter who you are under the current legislation. And POOF! It disappeared. Damn it. I'll have to repost later, not enough time right now.

[deleted account]

" Having a gun in a bank, is not going to help you when you need it the most. Good place if you never plan on using it."

Yes, it is a good place for a gun. I do never plan on using that gun. I never plan on using the ones in my home either. I have a security system that will stop intruders long before they reach my front porch, much less a window or door. I also have Mace in my bedside table and several other locations throughout my home and the surrounding buildings and areas outside. I can spray up to 50ft continuously, and if you've ever had mace on your skin, or in your eyes, you would know that it is VERY effective for killing someone's ability to aim a gun at me. Furthermore, it's not going to kill my child if one of his uneducated friends gets nosy, finds it, and decides to experiment. I don't need a gun.

I will agree that we need better enforcement, but with the laws on the books right now, the hands of the police are tied. We need ENFORCEABLE laws. The laws we have are unenforced, not because the police don't want to enforce them, but because they can't. You cannot prosecute someone for buying someone a gun to be used in a crime because the person who purchased it can just say "I bought the gun for me, he stole it." and the police have no way to prove otherwise. THAT is specifically why I feel that proper firearm storage laws, and gun registration laws need to be in place. It would simply give the police a leg to stand on when a gun purchased for someone who shouldn't have one is used in a crime.

[deleted account]

Wow. It's going to take a long time to go through everything you wrote. I will read it all, I promise, but for right now, I can only address one post at a time because my time is limited, and my son is out of school for the rest of the week & all of next week, so I won't have much internet time.

First, I'll address this comment:
" your good at getting stat's....how about actually research & look. Its a proven fact that guns kill less people then baseball bats & knives." --Me

Yes, I am good at getting stats, and I get those stats through extensive research. It is a FACT that guns kill MORE people than baseball bats & knives combined. I cited and even linked research to support that statement. If you can show me statistics that support the opposite, I would love to read it.

I don't know what your account of the several suicides among people you know had to do with the argument at hand. I made it very clear that people would still commit suicide, but limiting access to guns would significantly reduce those statistics.


As for the Black Market
I also never said that regulating guns would stop criminals. I'm fully aware that it will not "stop" them, but it will limit their abilities, and thus reduce crime rates. The black market is not a part of this debate. I understand that tighter gun control laws requiring training, registration, and background checks will not address the issue of black market guns, however, I also understand, and you should too, that black market guns are a very SMALL part of our gun problem. The majority of crimes committed with guns in the US are NOT committed with guns purchased on the black market--they are committed with stolen guns and legally purchased guns. Regulation for black market guns, and legally purchased and stolen guns cannot be addressed under the same legislation--they are two distinct and different problems. I DO agree that additional regulation is needed to address the black market--no argument there, even among the most staunch gun defenders--but I also believe that additional regulation is needed to address the issue of legally purchased guns being used in crimes.


"A man killed 20 children in Japan or China with a sword.....20.....in the same amount of time or less that it took that sicko to kill the child in Ct." --Me
It was a school in China , and the man attacked with a knife. NONE of the children, teachers, or staff died. 20 people were injured, but there were no serious or life threatening injuries.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer and other chemicals used to make a bomb. As a result, you now need a permit to purchase large quantities of fertilizer in the US. That legislation is really no different than requiring a permit to purchase a gun that can fire large quantities of bullets.

I specifically made a point to mention that some people would not be deterred through lack of access to a gun because I KNEW you would bring up the mentally ill and their lack of remorse. The reason the mentally ill lack remorse is NOT for lack of consequence, it is because they are mentally ill. A few years in prison, or a ton of years in prison will not cause them to feel remorse--regret, maybe, but not remorse. I am speaking specifically of the mentally stable, responsible citizen who commits a crime of desperation--trying to get out of trouble, catching a lover with someone else, murder during a robbery. It is known that most people who kill during a robbery never intended to kill when they set out to rob someone, but the moment got tense, they had a gun, and the got scared and fired. If a person is robbing someone with a knife, they'd be a lot less likely to kill their victim.

I will agree that we need stiffer punishment for violent crimes, I think anyone would agree with you there, the problem is how do we fund it? Prisons are currently over populated, criminals escape every day for lack of security. Longer prison sentences will only add to the over population and lack of funding that we are already facing. We must address these crimes at the root--preferably before they happen, by preventing crime rather than stiffer punishment afterwards. No amount of punishment will ever make a crime go away, it is pointless. Even if a murderer does life in prison, or gets the death penalty, or is killed in prison, the person he killed is still dead, and that person still died in a horribly senseless, usually violent way. We need to focus on stopping the crime before it happens, and that is what gun control is about.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/28/2013

18,870

9

3002

And my BIL and SIL are legally trained with guns. Funny, they did it in a couple of sessions. That does not sound like a whole hell of a lot of training to me.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/28/2013

18,870

9

3002

Guns are specifically MADE to kill. They are not made to hold up your boobs, or keep your shoes on, or use as an eating utensil. Why do people grab a gun instead of a spoon to kill? It is a bit more effective to kill. You can stand a great distance from people and just shoot the shit out of them....like say a clock tower, or standing in the front of a theatre. Lets think of the success rate of killers coming at you with a spoon, yeah...nuf said. Or coming at you with a bra to strangle you...the one advantage you have there is your victim will be incapacitated with laughter while you are trying to strangle them.

Give me a break. You can say whatever you want about guns. They have one goal. To kill. Yeah people can kill with just about anything, but other items are going to be made with a different use in mind and are not going to be as easy to wield as a gun, and you are certainly not going to succeed in more deaths than with a gun.

Me - posted on 03/28/2013

15

0

0

seriously? Ok now that is scary......if you can not afford to be properly trained....you seriously have no business owning a gun (especially since it costs more to buy most guns then it does to be properly trained to fire it).

yikes

Me - posted on 03/28/2013

15

0

0

A gun is a gun.......its our right to own a gun.......there is not specific type of gun we have a right to own, there's no limitation to what we legally have the right to own (under the constitution)
BUT!!!!!!! everyone should have a background/finger print done prior to (which they do) (or at least in most states that i'm aware of do).

It is Constitutionally our right to own a gun w/o a police check. BUT!!! I don't see anything wrong with it. I do not agree that our government needs to know everything that we own (that just gives them a list of who to take weapons from later) BUT!! mine are registered.....everytime I have purchased one, it is automatically registered with the federal government.

I also agree (I think i did earlier) that a gun own should get firearm training from a certified instructor.....absolutely.

The violation of civil rights is easy to address......whether we are law abidding or not, not everyone wants the government to know our business. It shouldn't matter to the government how many homes have firearms within, it shouldn't matter how many guns an individual owns. They don't want to know for our safety, they want to know for theirs.
And that dates back to the Revolutionary War.

Our rights of privacy are infringed upon when we have to let the government know what we have & how many.
BUT!! again.......that's part of being a law abiding (wow i've missed spelled that a lot) citizen....you give up some of your individual rights. :)

How is it your right to own semi-automatic weapons? How is it your right to own a gun without a police check? How is it unrealistic to require firearms training? I'm curious as to how these things are not only unrealistic for the average person, but also how they are violating your "rights".

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms