Billy Zhang

an undergraduate student,

This conversation is closed.

How would you feel if the government carried out a serious ban on guns?

Here in China, the government doesn't allow the free gun sales and the man who want to have his gun (usully for protecting the forest or animals) legally must have the arm licence which is also hard to obtain.
But I hear about that in many other countries ,any adult can buy guns freely just as biscuits.But as you all know, terrible shooting accidents are happening now and then.
Does your government start to draw out decrees over gun control or gun ban?How do you feel if the government carry it out seriously? I just want to know your true feeling without any offence.Thank you!

  • Jun 29 2013: Billy Zhang,
    The government should ban the research, development, manufacture and use of guns,
    and all weapons that kill and main humans and innocent animals.
    These are my true feelings.

    My feelings are not reality.
    They are but a dream. A dream --

    I was born into a time of war. As I grew I discovered that the government that
    I was taught to swear allegiance to each morning in a school room, was evil.

    It didn't take long to realize.
    I found out that the Sunday Funnies in the newspapers were propaganda
    for evil government. My Dad read my favorites, Terry and the Pirates,
    which became Terry and the Flying Tigers, and as the wars changed
    the P-57s became F80's and F86's, while the enemies changed from being
    Japs to Gooks. Evil government, supported by it's own evil news print media.

    I could take you all through the years and depict the changes in own evil government
    as they continue to do war year after year, never ending the killing and maiming of
    innocent men, women, and wee children. But, you folks don't want to hear about the
    bad things that need changing. It is so much easier to let it go. Have a cappuccino.

    The reality is --
    Our evil government is the world's leader in the manufacture and sales of
    deadly weapons, and deadly weapons of mass destruction. They provide
    deadly weapons to overthrow other evil governments that can then install
    new evil ones. A never ending story. Iraq is a fine example. Afghanistan too,
    and 50 more before and since WW2.

    Who gets the "spoils of war". Spoils are what wars are all about, --
    Who gets the Gold, Oil, Money? The answer is, -- Who financed the war,
    The Banks !!!

    There is no Trickle-Down. The evil government doesn't share spoils with you.

    So, if the evil government takes your guns, and has all the money already... hmmm
    Regardless of my feelings, you might want to hang on to your guns.
    • thumb
      Jun 30 2013: Confronted with a world filled with undying wars, cold or hot, it seem that owning powerful weapons which threaten the peace is just the way to defend the peace. What a contadiction!
      How I wish that there would be no war around the world and maybe it's just impractical.
      Thank you for sharing your feeling with us, Frank!
      May God bless you!
      • Jun 30 2013: Billy, I fear writing this answer may not be practical.
        I wonder why, with the proliferation of so many nuclear weapons,
        the strongest government has not been challenged.

        Were I the head of the strongest government,
        I would reside in a bunker,
        a deep one.
        But then, I am proud to be a coward. lol

        The seat of any government is no match today for the weapons manufactured
        and sold on the world's war marketplace.

        Someone, some government, somewhere is bound to slip up and push a deadly
        button. After governments build and/acquire these mass killing machines, what
        do they do? Catch-22.
    • Jun 30 2013: Frank, there are two ways to deal with evil in the world. You can either go unarmed, and be a victim, or you can arm yourself and fight back. Bullets are a matter of physics and reality. You cannot fight them with hopes and dreams of a utopia. Once you become Neo from the Matrix you can control the world with your mind, and not need weapons. But in the real world, you need a gun to protect yourself from armed criminals. Wishing they didn't have anywhere to get guns is not going to help you or anyone else.
      • Jun 30 2013: Clay, First of all you are right. Keep your guns.
        They can be dangerous to innocents and wee children, but they are necessary.

        My motive is not utopia, but to let a little bit of light shine on evil.
        Evil does exist. We do not want to admit it. Far-fetched, but it exists.

        Wrap your mind around not a dream but a reality --
        Democrats and Republicans ( 2 parties sharing government )

        The DNC and RNC use paid psychologists to assess, understand and
        solve the problems of how to select and get a politician elected to office.
        Nothing illegal about that.

        Also using paid scientific research related to the manipulation of mental
        processes and behaviors of voters, and the controlling of the three media
        outlets, print, audio, and video, through payment to them of vast advertising
        dollars milked from unions, corporations, and individuals.
        Nothing illegal about that.

        Neo from the Matrix?
        NAW just the Democrats and Republicans sharing control of our evil government.
        Nothing illegal about that.
        Unless you consider the evil results.
        • Jun 30 2013: Yeah, our foundingn fathers tried to create a system to empower the citizenry and stop governments from being able to control people, and take away their rights. Yet, since 1776 the government has managed to control every aspect of our lives, tax everything that exists, and now it wants to disarm us completely (10 round mag IS complete disarming if you ask me), tell us how to act, even to the point of "thought crimes" (hate crimes), and spy on our every move. That's total powerlessness and control. Our founding fathers would be shocked at how our rights have been eroded over these 200 years.
    • Jun 30 2013: Frank I must agree with the fact that our government has lied swindled and killed to put money in the hands of the banks that fund them. War is good for Banks. because Governments begin taking loans out.
      courupt? yes which Is why the Rockefeller family made oil additives for Germany, during WWII. Their plans couldn't fly without the stuff. we made it they bought it. But taking a citizens gun away is no way to prevent war. infact.... it would give other countries an extra reason to invade. (not that I expect any invasions) But in the event that we we're invaded it wouldn't be a lousy 3.5 million man army they were facing (which is still smaller than the army Germany invaded Poland with) they would have 150 million armed citizens fighting on every street corner. fighting invaders every step of the way. Any country that de-arms their citizens has a sinister plan for their own people in the works.
      • Jun 30 2013: Zachariah, I agree with you fully.

        We all know our government is corrupt, in many many ways.
        Our government must know it also. But no one says a word.

        Now come the Whistle-Blowers. Our "well know to be corrupt"
        Washington DC leaders sic the dogs on them. But no one says a word.

        Other newspapers around the world pick up on the Whistle-Blower's
        agony. They tell what is happening, and only then do our own. controlled
        content. White House hand-out, newspapers start to bark.

        The Washington DC leaders can buy Ecuadorian support by giving
        monetary support in a number of ways. The pressure must be intense
        for Ecuador. Washington DC wants Assaunge also.

        A squeak is heard yesterday from the Monterey Herald. Seems that the
        Defense Dept employees at the Presidio are being hindered in their use
        of the internet. This is not the first time. Restrictions of Websites they can
        visit, etc. Just like the Chinese. What in the world is going on?
        Will civilian Internet be restricted next?
  • thumb
    Jun 27 2013: No guns is a great idea, more guns means more guns. In other words if there were no guns there wouldn't be the need for a single gun. Peace.
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: yeah,I can't agree more! Maybe that's why here in China people seldom ask for owning a gun.
      Thank you for your incisive idea!
      • thumb
        Jun 28 2013: The day the Sandy Hook shooter slaughtered more than 20 children in five minutes, a man in China also attacked a school. He did it with a knife. He injured many people but did not kill one.
    • Jun 27 2013: What makes you think that?

      Situation 1. A riot happens and the rioters come down your block, going house to house raping and killing. They have no guns but you don't either. You are left to mob rule because you were not armed and the mob was not afraid of death.

      Situation 2. A gang of four comes to your door. They are unarmed and you are unarmed also. They break in and have their way with your wife, your child, making you watch the whole thing, then they kill your wife and children, torture you, and kill you.

      Situation 3. A woman lives alone. She's a rape victim. She refuses to ever be raped again but she can't depend on her neighbors because they won't always be there for her. She feels sad and fearful that she'll be raped again and all she can do is wait for it.

      As it goes now, a mob with guns think twice about attacking a single person with a gun in their home. At least one of the mob is going to die that day. In the LA Riots the mob didn't go door to door looting because it's LA, and behind almost every door is a person with a gun. Death was on the other side of individuals doors and the rioters knew this.

      So you live in a world where the individual is not an individual at all and the rest of us 100+ million gun owners in America will retain our individuality. The only way to be secure against the mob in your world is to join a group yourself or depend on the police, who are corrupt, and take their time coming to help. The gun made man (and woman) an individual who needs no one but his hard work and good morals. No government is needed.
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2013: Maybe the difference lies in the way of thinking. People with the background of western culture seem have more frequent crisis awareness than people infected with eastern culture.Thus,the reason for owning a gun can be summarized as providing against the potebtial risks am I right?
        Here in China, we tend to think that crisis are small probability events so that we seldom think about owning a gun, even if there isn't a decree over gun ban.
        THANK YOU FOR YOUR INFORMATIVE IDEAS!
        • Jun 28 2013: I can only speak for America gun owners and obviously I don't speak for all Americans, many of which are vehemently anti-gun.

          Your views on China are interesting. Japan is the same way. Same with Sweden and many or the Nordic countries etc.

          I think because America is a melting pot of ALL the worlds cultures that there are certain societal things that keep the peace, such as work ethic, TRUTH, and yes, guns.
      • Jun 27 2013: So you are saying that we should shape our national gun policy based on hypothetical situations which may or may not ever happen instead of basing it on actual crimes that have happened?

        Situation 1 - The last riot I remember was 20 years ago

        Situation 2 - That was a Charles Bronson movie.

        Situation 3 - My heart goes out to any woman but statistically she has a better chance of having her own gun used against her than she does of ever using it to defend herself. Get a dog.
        • thumb
          Jun 28 2013: Sorry, it seems that I get the wrong point. American seems have a strong sense of independence and you all want to depent on yourselves rather than the government, even in some emergencies. That's a good character which will benefit you in many ways, especially in dealing with such emergencies and in doing academic researches.
          MANY THANKS!
        • Jun 28 2013: Seriously I don't know where you are coming from. I live near Oakland in California. There are tough parts of the Bay Area where it is literally not safe to go. Most big cities nation-wide are like this.

          There are daily occurrences of mob behavior. For instance on the bus a mob will get on the bus and start robbing and punching everyone and then jump off the bus laughing. This kind of thing happens regularly. Home invasion robberies happen frequently.

          If you want to know what is really going on in the news, don't watch the news, but rather go to your local police departments website and look at the crimes that have occurred. They update the list daily usually and you can see what kind of stuff really goes down.

          So 1. mob rioting behavior happens DAILY in America
          2. Charles Bronson movies happen daily in America
          3. who are you to tell any woman what she can and cannot use to protect herself? Read the FBI stats on gun ownership in America and you will see that gun states have lower crime rates than the states that over-regulate guns.
        • thumb
          Jun 28 2013: As others have pointed out, most of those are simply fantasies. Crime rates are now lower than they have ever been since such statistics have been kept. You are safer now than you were in the "good old days."

          Guns are dangerous. The raped woman would be much less safe with a gun in her house than without one. If she's that worried about a second rape, then a good stout deadbolt and a roommate or a dog (as someone else suggested) would be best. Counseling would be better.
      • Jun 28 2013: if you can have a gun then they can have guns too.

        situation 1: if you have a gun then so does everyone in the mob, the situation is unchanged. you are at there mercy because there are more of them.

        situation 2: same deal. though if no-one has a gun you can at least run away and try to get help or give someone in your family time to run away. furthermore your gun is somewhere in the house while theirs are in their hands.

        situation 3: same again, without guns she can run, with guns she can be shot while attempting to escape.
        • Jun 28 2013: Situation 1: FALSE. A pack of gun-toting thugs DOES NOT WANT TO BE SHOT. At least one of them is going to die if they attack. That is a strong deterrent.

          Situation 2: FALSE. We all don't have the luxury of being able to run anywhere. Disabled, elderly, children, you name it. Running away from your own home is cowardly and unworthy of being called the one responsible for the security of your own home.

          Situation 3: FALSE. See 2 above.
      • Jun 28 2013: situation 1: not false. a pack of gun toting thugs isn't thinking about not getting shot, they're thinking about doing the shooting themselves. this is evidenced by the countless gang shootouts that happen across the country every year. they don't care if the other guy is armed or not. if your argument is true you must explain why gun-toting thugs regularly confront other gun-toters.

        situation 2: also not false. there's nothing cowardly about running for help when a situation that you can't deal with (such as 4 strong thugs against you and some children) arises. also you haven't disproved my argument that when everyone has guns you definitely lose, but if no-one has guns you still have a chance. you also haven't countered my argument that criminals aren't going to wait for you to go and get your gun, or suggested what happens when you are not home with your family. your argument only works for the single case where you go to the door with your gun in hand and there is only 1 person on the other side of it. in reality it's not like that, they don't announce they are coming and there's always more than 1.

        situation 3: see above? are you serious? "A woman lives alone. She's a rape victim. She refuses to ever be raped again but she can't depend on her neighbors because they won't always be there for her." she shouldn't run?
        • Jun 28 2013: Believe me, in bad neighborhoods where there are gangs and other assorted thugs, whether they are armed or not, they think twice before breaking into homes because they know what is possible on the other side of the door.

          I'll take back the cowardly comment. I apologize. Sometimes the right thing to do, especially if someone is physically capable, is to run away. That said, in my home I have deadbolts on both the front and back door. It would take a minute or two for someone to break in and by then I would have my gun at the ready.

          You do realize that not everyone has the physical ability to run don't you?

          I find it interesting that there are over 100+million American gun owners with somewhere near 300 million guns and we only have around 10,000 gun deaths a year. A large percentage of those are suicides and a large percentage are shootings DONE BY police officers in the line of duty. To attribute 10,000 deaths a year to irresponsible gun ownership is incorrect. And just like any other inanimate object guns can be used incorrectly. For instance, there are more killings done with hammers than with rifles. There are man more deaths per year by car accident and I'd be interested in seeing what the numbers are for people who intentionally use a vehicle to kill someone. There are many more deaths per year caused by prescription medicine than there are by guns.

          This is a no-win argument because Americans are not going to give up their right to own guns at anytime. We see it as a way to defend our Constitutional Democratic Republic. Many instances in history have tyrants first disarming the populace and then exterminating people. The very reason for the second amendment is to protect every other amendment in the Constitution. The Constitution was made the way it was so that this will ALWAYS be a free country.

          The only thing that can be done is to make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to be able to get them.
    • Jun 27 2013: Funny, when I'm in a bad neighborhood I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of gangs and thugs.
      • Jun 27 2013: Excellent, Michael. One should really never be afraid of guns. One should be concerned with thugs who will use whatever is at their disposal to take what is not theirs. Now one way a person can protect themselves against such thuggery is with guns. I have spent over a decade in Texas, and have gone to initial and renewal concealed handgun license training. In each class, the majority of people were women or older people.

        A gun is a tool, an inanimate object. How they are used is the issue. With over 300,000,000 guns in the United States, a tiny fraction are ever used in crimes. In my opinion, it makes no sense to ban anything because less than 1% of owners use it in the wrong way. Criminals should be targeted, not law-abiding citizens.
        • Jun 27 2013: A hammer is a tool. A gun is a weapon. The key difference is that tools are used to build something else. A weapon is used to kill. You obviously have no basis for that 1% number btw.
  • Jun 25 2013: In England there are strict gun laws and to quote wikipedia "The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.04 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010"

    I know people will dissagree with me on this but I do think guns should be banned, people say that they need them for protection but if no one else had guns then why would you need one?

    They are machines that are designed to kill, and by having more people owning guns your just increcing the odds that someday they're going to be used for the wrong reasons. If it's really protection that you need thenwhy not get a tazer or peper spray??
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Very good points Louis.

      Pepper spray and tazers just do the trick alright.

      What might help better is use of self-defense techniques and martial arts too.
      • Jun 25 2013: Yup, I own a tazer and did a few years kickboxing too. I no longer live in ENgland but when I did I never once saw an occasion where a gun would be protection. People have guns to protect themselves from other people that have guns . . . to my thinking if no one has a gun, then no one else needs a gun.

        Plus when a country gets to a point when every citizen owns a gun what happens next? Wehn everyone becomes just as potentially lethal as the next, people will start to want things that are more letal than guns to "protect" themselves.

        Thats a good point about martial arts though Simon, perhaps schools should introduce some sort of basic self defence classes? (Plus maybe some more lessons about morals and values)
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2013: True, glad you brought up morals and values.

          I assume that the people that do unconventional stuff with weapons are mostly without morals and values, they have no respect for anything, and are mostly underprivileged people or mad scientists or Christopher Dorner( i mean, lunatics ).

          Guns were necessary back in the days when civilization was not all around and there were mean savage people and lots of wild animals all around. Safety was an issue and having a gun kept a lot of people safe and sound. It would also be used for battles for occupation for land or a princess in distress.

          Now that most counties are civilized enough and have enough brains to decipher whats right and whats wrong and we also have governments are executing parts of a country that puts our consciousness into actions and makes the wrong suffer for their "sins", i believe that guns are a no-good entity for the common man.

          And since some groups and countries are horn-to-horn to each other, possession of weaponry by a country to prevent loss of lives and death of their people, its customary for the military to keep weapons with them. That would be the only exception, ignoring alien invasions of course.

          Also, I think I need to learn some self-defense.

          We would never have to face all these non-sense if we ALL were human.
        • Jun 26 2013: Well Louise, a mad man hatcheted a soldier to death recently. There is no question a gun could have very well prevented or mitigated that crime.

          In the US, guns are used to prevent crimes anywhere from 250,000 to 2,500,000 times per year, depending on which studies you subscribe to.

          Furthermore, England has the highest violent crime rate in Europe, and tops that of the United States. Clearly oppressive gun laws are not a solution.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
      • Jun 25 2013: What you said about values is what I was aiming at, except I couldn't think of a way of writing it clearly. I think a lot of children now have less values than I was brought up with, they live in a world where they feel they want everything, be it money, clothes, phones ect. It's this greed that corrupts people and leads then to do "wrong". When you add gus into this then obviously the end result won't be good.

        In our world I see no need for guns, I know they're needed in the military and that but even then, if opposing leaders could sit down and have a rational conversation, and make comprimises then the guns wouldn't be needed. At what point in our eveolution are we going to stop killing eachother over unimportant things? The more guns there are in the world, the more people there are who are going to die from them.
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2013: Loving the discussion.

          Children now obviously grow with lesser values. I mildly blame the internet for spreading it. The internet speaks the truth and if there's something bad happening somewhere it goes out into the world and it catches on. Kids now grow up with a clearer view of the real world rather than the older days when what they saw at all was very filtered. I'm 17 and I know things that no man should know and I thank my parents and my own curious mind for helping me understand it in a positive way. We can't really blame anybody for what the children learn, its how one puts a line and does what is humane.

          And again, I agree strongly with you Louise, rational conversations are a good idea but truthfully, it is already in action and in some cases it doesn't work.

          There's only one solution: Destroy all weapons and ammunition and use the metals for greater good. Sounds impossible but as they say, I quote Adidas, "Impossible is Nothing".
        • Jun 27 2013: Now you are talking, Louise. Quite often, problems come down to a few things. How parents raise their children: CRITICAL. I'll give you an example. I was raised around guns. My father trained me on how to use guns safely, and what they are for. They are for target shooting (we weren't hunters), civil unrest and protecting our family. I would never dream of using guns for any other purpose.

          How parents raise kids clearly affects their morals, ethics and can be a huge factor in their success or failure as adults. In addition, there is personal responsibility. The more a person is held responsible for their actions, the more likely they will act responsible. Of course, there will always be those who are just bad seeds and/or losers. The best we can do is keep these savages off the streets away from law-abiding people.
      • Jun 25 2013: You have a good point, kids today grow up knowing more of that "bad" things in this world than generations before them. The internet gives people acces to everything instantly, 24 hour news channels show the dramatic truth, which while i think thats important, i do think that being surrounded by all this "bad" stuff can't be morally healthy. And no, we can't and shouldn't stop children from learning about the real world, but as parents, like yours, we should explain these things to them in a way that they can understand.

        Also, your right, unfortunatly there are some people who no amout of rational conversation can ever help, and usually it's these people who are the ones that cause the problems. I also dread to think quite how much spare metal there would be if all wepons were melted down. It would be horrific I'm sure.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 26 2013: Thanks you for your input Louise and hello again, Kate, thank you.

          My idea might be better but its very risky to carry it our.
          Just the basic ban in America has caused so much problems over there in the States while citizens of other country's don't have access to weaponry like its candy.
          And permanent removal of all weaponry will not appeal to everyone, uh-ha.

          Even if we finally succeed at it, many more problems arises. I'm pretty sure not everyone will give up their weapons. Someone somewhere will have them stored someway or the other and it will pose a risk to others forcing them to bring back weapons.

          I seem to have writer's block this morning and am unable to express my full thoughts, but I guess you get my point.

          Also, I just realized that strict regulation and monitoring weapons might be a good idea too.
          Imagine all the weapons with tiny transmitters or GPS that gives it location out to a satellite. This in turn will provide a cheap and effective monitoring.

          What do you think Louise and Kate?
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 26 2013: The problem with thracking divices is again that someone somewhere will just figure out how to remove/turn them off. The same goes with melting them, I hadn't thought of it till you mentioned it Simonbut you're right, there would be people who would find a way to keep guns, or to illegally manafacture them.

          I love the idea of all the metal being used to make some giant modern pyrimid! I know it's rediculus but it would make me smile!

          As for your previous question Kate, I can't see any country ever doing it, as they would then appear "weak" and I can't see any goverment having the stones to be the first. If it ever happened it would have to be done worldwide or not at all. Its a shame because I do love the idea.
        • Jun 27 2013: Stan, No I have nothing against the US, I actually want to vist at some point, and I certainly don't "love" the UK as I left there 6 years again and I haven't been back since. I apoligise if what I wrote offended you so much as that wasn't my intention, I was just trying to point out that the homocide rates in the US were much higher than in the UK. I would rather I was burgled than shot, neither are particuarlly nice but in my opinion losing posessions is less important than losing my life.

          I'm sure also that many assults only stay as assults because the peorson who was assulted survived. The subject here is about guns, and whether we think they should be banned, and in my opinion (as I've stated before) I do think they should be banned, not just in the US but in every country. I believe all forms of violence are wrong, and I think allowing everyone to own guns just increases the chance that.

          A Question for you though, as you agree with guns (and I'm only asking because i'm curious to your opinion.) Do you think that maybe there should be much stricter rules to owning guns then, rather than a total ban? Or do you think that there should be some sort of test to see who is and who isn't to be trusted with guns?

          I've only spoken on here to people who have the same thoughts as me, so it would be nice to know your thoughts.
      • Jun 26 2013: @ Stan Hill - First off if you believe anything that's in the dailymail then . . . But also, that artical was from 2009 (obviously not recent) and all the facts mentioned n the artical were said by the new Home Secretary Alan Johnson in his first major speach. So obviously he is going to make things look like the previous goverment screwed up the country and that he will now fix it.

        If you look on any other slightly more reliable source you can see that the homicide rates in the UK are far below what they are in the US. Plus you mention the tragady of the solider who was stabbed, and yes, it is horrific, and yes, maybe a gun could have prevented it. But I don't want to think what could have happened if the men responcible were the ones with guns.

        http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf
        • Jun 27 2013: So Louise, why should I give some .pdf file you have provided any more consideration that what I read in the Daily Mail?

          But let's take your link, just so I can be agreeable. I never disputed murder rates, so I'm not sure what the point of you bringing that up is. Your assault rate is nearly triple that of the United States. Your rape rate, nearly identical. Your burglary rate, nearly 30% higher than the United States. Based on your own statistics provided, I am not sure why you are here crowing about England and bashing the United States. In fact, I simply do not understand why you are so concerned with us here. I certainly don't give much though about crime in England. I do end up looking at the statistic there when people from there attack the United States. So what... are you just so happy that your criminals assault you three times more and rape you 30% more, rather than murder you? Is that something to crow about? Really?

          Now thank you for conceding the hatchet job could have been stopped with a gun. That was my only assertion, as someone here had proposed he or she had never seen an incident where a gun could have stopped a crime. That is obviously complete nonsense.

          Oh and regarding your mention of Daily Mail using 2009 statistics. Check this out, copied and pasted directly from your link:

          "but the latest report uses police-recorded crime for 2006". Now I will not insinuate personal attacks like you have, but merely point out the information. Or shall I say, "if you believe some organization most people have never heard of over a well-known media outlet, then..."

          So let's keep it simple. What statistics would be better to use. Those from 2006 or those from 2009?

          Or even better, l would prefer not even discussing England. The fact is, the United States was started because people didn't like the tyranny in Europe. I see no reason to start emulating Europe at this point in time. Thank you and have a nice day.
        • Jun 27 2013: OK, then let's try the Telegraph, who says that based on the study you yourself linked to, England has a higher crime rate than the US:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

          Or is it now time to attack the Telegraph? Or your own study? Or is it now time to simply admit why you are so intent on attacking the United States? Or how about a more direct personal attack?

          I bring this up because it is a common theme in this thread. I honestly don't understand your concern. As I mentioned earlier, I really do not care about crime in England or other countries. Well, that is true to a point. I do like to travel, so do inform myself about places I am going.

          But still, I think your desire to attack the US is driving your opposition to guns. Or is it the other way around? I honestly don't know. What I do know is that in the US, we value our rights to keep and bear arms. We do have a crime problem, much like England does. Thugs will be thugs, whether in England, the United States or wherever else.

          Now of course, we do have a very vocal contingent of hysterical liberals in the United States who want to ban guns. And without exception, every time I have debated or attempted to debate a person like that here, they are extremely ignorant about guns. And of course, people tend to dislike or fear things they are ignorant of. That is a universal rule of human nature, not just with regards to guns.

          In the United States, the jurisdictions with the most oppressive gun laws have the highest crime rates. That is simple, indisputable FACT.
      • Jun 27 2013: Hi Stan, I just read your comment further up, when you say ". I was raised around guns. My father trained me on how to use guns safely, and what they are for. They are for target shooting (we weren't hunters), civil unrest and protecting our family. I would never dream of using guns for any other purpose."

        Now despite my personal opinions on guns, I do think you have a point. Like Simon mentioned beofre, one of the biggest issues is a lack of morals. However, if you've been brought up well, and have been trained to use a gun, then I'd much rather see you with a gun than a lot of other people who haven't had your upbringing. unfortunatly though not everyone has been as lucky as you, I would be interested to hear your answere to the question I asked you in my last post. (by the way, sorry the last post is in the wrong place, I got confused with which origional comment I had to reply to, in order to repy to you)
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Hi Louise,

      Some people will always disagree with anything, that does not make them right. By using reason and evidence we can find out what is true.

      And I believe that you're completely right about this, guns are bad, the end.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: "By using reason and evidence we can find out what is true."

        Hm. True in math, and possibly in police work. But in social policy and legislation? It would be nice, but it's not that easy: choices are rarely between all-right and all-wrong options, between the true and the false.
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2013: I agree.
          But they are either better or worse. And it is by this I make the statement "By using reason and evidence we can find out what is true.".
        • Jun 25 2013: Your right, the world is not in black and white, there is never only 100% right and 100% wrong. But on a moral level there are things that are obviously good and will benefite socioty, and there are things that will harm socioty.

          Owning a gun has become almost a status symbol rather than an actual item for protection. I'm sure there are situations where you may need to own a gun, but on the whole I see no way that they do any "good" or benefite our socioty,
      • Jun 26 2013: Inanimate objects are not bad. Some people who use them are. Perhaps we should also ban automobiles. They are bad because so many people drive them drunk and kill innocent people.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: Or perhaps we should allow civilians to carry rocket launchers and mini-nukes on the street?
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: How can be a gun and a car be compared like the way you did? These things are made for very different purposes. I feel tired listening to NRA logics. If a country and its people feel unsafe despite having police, law and order and best security systems in place and need guns to feel safe - well I'd say it's very irrational. And btw, I know about the 2nd amendment.
      • Jun 27 2013: Oh and Jimmy, since you would like to look at evidence, I will tell you a good place to start in the United States. Look at crime rates in jurisdictions that have the most oppressive gun laws. Start with Chicago and Washington DC. They have oppressive gun laws and high crime. Hopefully you can see the correlation.

        What works in one country does not necessarily mean it will work in another.

        Have a nice day.
    • Jun 27 2013: Louise, I am a little confused now. First you said you would like to ban guns, as if no one had one then no one would need one. Then you say that a ban or melting all guns wouldn't work, as criminals would find a way to keep guns.

      While I am interested in you squaring those two clearly opposing points, I do thank you for validating the slogan, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

      From where I am standing, your desire for a ban, along with your concession that criminals will find a way around it means you support criminals being the only ones with guns.

      With facts and logic, can you tell me how my conclusion is incorrect?
      • Jun 27 2013: No your right, I know they seem opposing and I guess they are. Yes, I think guns should be banned (in my own personal oppinion) however, I know that that would never happen, I'm not nieve enought to think that if all guns were melted down or destroyed that every single gun would be included. There will always be people who would hide their guns, the black market would still thrive.

        I guess I'm just trying to say that in my ideal would I think guns should be banned, If all guns were banned and mellted down do you think that everyone would oblige?
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2013: I choose not to own a gun / weapon. I understand violence, war, jealousy, anger, hatred , ignorance, frustration, lust, greed, all the things that lead to stressed out people deciding to kill or injure someone. The pain never goes away. I'm not trying being offensive. However; the idea that the US government would even contemplate seizing weapons from Americans, is so outlandish, so completely ridiculous, it hardly warrants discussion. There are literally ( 330,000,000 guns ) that's million with an M guns in this country. There's millions of rounds of ammunition being stored , by hunters,target shooters, and yes by lunatic fringe militia nuts, dooms day survivalists, and so on. Any attempt at mass confiscation would be met by a hail of bullets from a thousand points of the compass, that includes the authorities. "No" my friend, It's never going to happen without a blood bath of biblical proportions. The best we can hope for is a progressive congress that at least prevents psychopaths from buying new ones, The industry whores, and propagandists seeking to solidify their massive profits have purchased our congress, as we say,( "lock ,stock, and barrel"). The (Citizens United Supreme Court Decision) has doomed this country to a future of servitude, fascism , and corporate feudalism. Unless your in the 1% this government does not represent you any longer, PERIOD! The US congress is utterly, totally, and completely controlled, and owned by fascists, and multinational corporations, Oil, coal, NG, Banks, Insurance, and arms dealers among others. They will kill, disappear,destroy, or imprison anyone who threatens their market share. Hows that for optimism? The America of my childhood the America in the dreams of our founders is dead i'm sorry to say. Welcome to "Murder-mart"! How may we enslave you? Will that be paper or plastic?
    • Jun 30 2013: Peter, if a burglar came into your house at night, are you planning to run, or just use mase or a baseball bat or something? I'm just curious. Also what is your address, and do you have any gold in your house or other valuables?
      • thumb
        Jun 30 2013: "Gee", where do you live Waziristan? In my world view, people who go through life like that aren't really alive. They're living in fear. That's not a real life at all. I've lived in cities all over the world in the last 58 years, in war and peace, even had more than a few confrontations, and close calls, but I'm still here. You know why? I use the most effective defensive weapon ever devised. You may have heard of it. It's encased inside a hard calcium structure, it has fuzzy stuff all over it, it's equipped with sound detection devices. It can pick up sent particles as faint as a few parts per million. It does something no other weapon system is capable of. It smiles. Maybe you,ve heard of it? It's that "tiny little pea sized ball" sitting on top of your shoulders. They call it a brain. You should try it sometime. It takes a little practice, but when you get the hang of it it really works. The situations I,ve been in, would have made a lesser man soil himself, let me assure you. In fact if I had a gun, I most likely would not be here today. I choose to walk as a "man" with grace, courage, and dignity, not a quivering bag of frightened protoplasm. In my experience, people who pack a gun are exactly the type of personality that attracts trouble to themselves. It's really about attitude, and how you engage the world. I don't own gold or jewels. I find that narcissistic. It's not what I value. So there you go my friend, all the more gold and jewels for you. Just don't steal "Me" lucky charms.
    • Jun 30 2013: Peter: On the one hand , you recognize that the US, has evolved in the direction of a tyranny. On the other , you seem to find absurd the idea that the government would attempt to seize weapons from civilians. Were you out of the country when the Waco fiasco was orchestrated by "our" government? 70 odd people massacred, deliberately, and it does seem that the whole idea was to confiscate any unauthorized guns they might have, although why they thought these people were threatening, I have never been able to determine. And , as the Founders were well aware, a better tactic than confiscation is "Infringement" , such has been going on the the US ever since N.Y. led the way with the Sullivan Law of 1914 or thereabouts., One can't say it has been a total failure; it seems the "educated" half of the US has gradually evolved into a strange bunch of dreamers who are "afraid of guns", don't understand what the Militia was supposed to be, and why the government may turn nasty on occasion. And that might possibly refuse to abide by "elections" at some point. A Jeffersonian Plan B requires a lot of guns.
      • thumb
        Jul 1 2013: Mainstream media is capable of any lie, or treason to spread fascist propaganda. Particularly true of fox loose. The treason they committed before the abomination of lies about WMD in Iraq demonstrates that clearly. However; I reject your thesis about Waco, and the "Branch Davidian Cult". What I know about Waco is what I, and most Americans saw. That's a "religious cult", of ignorant, nieve, irresponsible people that were hoodwinked, and brainwashed by a psychopathic cabal of radical, fundamentalist, lunatics. They preached a doomsday scenario, and said David Koresh, was "GOD". "How convenient." There is ample evidence to conclude that he, and others there had sex with under age children as a part of their twisted, perverted, sick, religious, cult. They were stock piling weapons to fight what their twisted self fulfilling fantasy said was Armageddon . There were numerous instances where "War against the federal government" was openly and publicly discussed, by Koresh and his followers, and that, their massive weapons cash was for that "stated purpose". The Federal agents who went to that compound had an absolute constitutional authority to investigate. They obtained a legal warrant, and when they tried to serve it, were fired on, That changed the whole scenario. It was the sick lunatics that decided to fire on a lawful officer of the federal government that made the big mistake. They were the ones responsible for everything, including the fire, and death of those children. It wasn't Janet Reno, or Bill Clinton, or space aliens. When a federal officer presents a warrant to you, verbally, or visually, especially when there are children present that would be put in danger, "this is what you do". You shut your mouth, surrender, and go to court with your lawyer. That's how things work in the USA. When radical, religious lunatics start talking violence That's GAME OVER. Your argument is really indefensible. Violent intent, and violent action begets violence.
  • Jun 29 2013: I am just amazed with some peoples perspective of where we are as humans in the developed world.

    1) We must realize that, at this time, we have far surpassed the point where we, as individuals or as part of a citizen militia, could EVER defend ourselves from a government (domestic or foreign) no matter what firearms we posses. We also must realize that as civilization becomes more and more advanced, seeking stability and regularity, that the chances of a government being taken over by individuals, who would use the government to oppress their countrymen with violence, becomes less likely. Money has the ultimate power. Even the most evil, rich bastards who run this country want it to remain an uneducated workforce that consumes and remains fearful, not one that derails the gravy train. The argument to bare arms to defend ourselves form the government is absurd and shrinkingly unnecessary.

    2) Some countries have guns and can handle violence, and some countries don't have guns and can handle violence. The USA is neither of these. I am sick and tired of listening to people who have nothing to say other than violence will always be around and not to hope for utopia (as if anyone is asking for that). We can, and must, do everything possible to limit violence. It is not necessarily guns, violent pop culture, poverty, or our law enforcement that is to blame for our problems. It is our fear mongering, in every day life in media, about EVERY single issue, that is at the root of the problem. We have been driven to fear everything throughout the history of this country. Fear of government, fear of indians, fear of slaves, fear of poor people, fear of black people, fear of immigrants, fear of terrorism, and fear of a hopeless future. Until we loose our fear, we shouldn't handle dangerous tools.

    3) Strict background checks, improvement of the mental heath services, and the banning of large clips and assault weapons should go far to help, AND an equal education for all!
    • thumb
      Jun 29 2013: Inca
      Don't be amazed by some people's perspective on the developed world. Some other people are amazed by how after 10,,000 years from leaving caves, people are just as greedy, self serving, overpowering and murderous as ever. Others are amazed that the human species has survive as long as it has considering the hostile environment it has faced in it's existence and the propensity to annihilate each other.
      You have addressed tools that mankind has used to accomplish his nefarious deeds. You address the fears of some of the people. You state if these people only address their fears, the tools they use would not be necessary. Probably a valid statement. But, what if those fears are repeatedly reinforced. Maybe, not to them, but others. And they see that what others did to cause them harm could happen again and to them. Fear reinforced. Even today, in our civilized world, things are happening all over the world that can only reinforce fears and the need to have tools to prevent those "bad" things.
      And then there are the others. They have no fears. They want power. In the words of the Books Of Moses, they covet their neighbors goods and wives. They want. And they use the best tools for the job. Should all of the best tools be gone, they will use other tools. That is one of the basic instincts of man, the creation and use of tools.
      So, you are saying that if the tools are gone all will be well. I think mankind is not the civilized creature you hope him to be. The only way to reach those levels of civilization is..... I don't know.
      But, I am not sure that addressing tools is the final solution.
      • Jun 29 2013: We, as individuals, cannot defend ourselves from our government, or from a foreign government, or from a highly armed mob, period. It is just not possible. Even if you gave a man a tank he would not survive for more than 30 minutes. It sounds cynical, but it is reality. I am amazed that people think it isn't.

        I am amazed that people think that government oppression is a looming threat.

        I am amazed that people buy into the fear tactics presented on the news and talk shows, created by the conservative think tanks, and funded by billionaire CEOs, who want us to consume more and vote to give them more money and control.

        I am amazed that we treat the mentally ill by throwing them in the prison system (for the benefit of the prison industry) and then we let them loose expecting them to not murder and steal, even though we never helped their problems, an now they have no future with a felony.

        I am amazed that we remain fearful of each other, of the poor, of minorities, of immigrants, and of terrorism to the extent that we are. It does nothing to improve us or keep us safe. Our attitudes are what drives people to hating us. we spin it to seem like a mass murder or a terrorist act is our number one problem when 11,000 (and increasing) people are dying from gun violence in our own country. Obesity and car crashes are a bigger problem.

        Yes, you are right. The tools are not the number one problem. Our culture of fearing everything is our problem. Canada shares much of the same gun culture, poverty and unemployment, violence in pop culture, changing demographics, and history of involvement in our wars, but they do not have the violence that we do. Our differences boil down to how we handle our problems. Here in the USA, we act as if everything is out to get us and that if we have guns we can ensure our safety. Well guess what, we are dead wrong on both accounts. Our guns inevitably end up in the wrong hands, to be used for crime, against our loved ones, or against us
        • thumb
          Jun 29 2013: So your grand view of man and his civilization was a sham to cover your rather vindictive political views on successful people or those with other political views. In response comes truth. Sorry.
        • Jun 30 2013: The more guns there are in a society, the less violent crime there is, because the criminals are fearful of being shot. If you think shooting a burglar is a sin, and you want to let him kill you as a sacrifice, that's fine. Your choice. My problem is with the arrogance of people who tell me I cannot have more than 10 rounds in a gun to defend myself. How dare you. The belief that one's own rightousness and sense of moral supriority and peacefulness gives you the right to disarm other citizens with anti-gun laws makes you an excellent example of evil yourself, even if you are oblivious to fact. Criminals don't care what the laws are and will always have guns. Anti-gun laws only serve to make it harder for the law-abiding citizens to be well armed themselves.
        • Jun 30 2013: luca: I am amazed that you have failed to notice, among other things, that the 2 "Superpowers" of the modern world ,, the US and Soviet Union,, with all their fancy , expensive weapons, were both defeated by illiterates armed mostly with rifles. I.e. Vietnam and Afghanistan. How do you explan that?! Not to mention all the other heavily armed Thug governments who have been overthrown thru the years.
    • Jun 30 2013: Dude. um.... how long have been been in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who the hell do you think you are kidding to think for a moment that an armed society isn't capable from defending itself even against the best armed military in the world? I mean... WOW you blow me away. while you do make a good argument. You're argument won't be valid for 50 to 100 years if not more. One day we won't need guns.... but I bet we all still have tazers. lol I
      I am sorry though for the foolishness of your first point dumbfounded me to such a degree that i could not continue to read in fear that I would crawl through this computer and strangle you for you're ignorance of the past 10 years. I thought you said 30 mins... right 30 mins? that's how long you said right?
      that was Desert Storm. Not people defending themselves. but people wishing to be free.
      • Jun 30 2013: So you think the people in Iraq and Afghanistan were successful in defending themselves??? Those people are fodder in every gun fight. They stand no chance! even when they had tanks in Kuwait, not a single one of them survived and not a single one of us died. Iraq had one of the largest standing army's in the world at one point. They were demolished. The only reason we suffered some casualties was from IEDs beside roadways and suicide bombers within the last ten years. The only reason we did not end our "war with Iraq" within a Month is because we aren't heartless and we choose not to kill innocents when we can help it. Innocents were the largest group of people to die in iraq unfortunately, which is another reason why the war was pointless. We could have leveled the place in days if we wanted.

        As individuals, Iraqis and afghanis were nothing but fodder. You are kidding if you think they were a success on an individual level.

        SO, you think that in this country, if you went on a rampage with a tank, or with anything for that matter, that you would survive more than 30 minutes. Try it. You will have the news on you in 10 minutes, a full police force on you in 20, and if you aren't down by then, they would have a military strike on you in 30. That is not a joke.

        And to you Clay,
        I would suggest doing a tad more research on the correlation between firearms concentration in a country, and the amount of violence. Some countries like, Switzerland and Canada, have high gun ownership and low violence, but you are dead wrong when you say countries without guns suffer more violence. Many other countries in Europe, like Britain and Germany, or Japan. Have very, very low accounts of gun violence, and in some cases, they outright ban people from owning guns (unless with special permission). Those countries have murders rates ranging in the hundreds or less where as this country suffers from over 11,000 deaths from guns alone. THAT is a huge problem.
    • Jun 30 2013: I just want to asset that I am a little sorry for being so.... rough with my wording. I mean little offence, I'm just dumbfounded by you not consitering the last decade. it's almost like saying, The Afgans and Iraq's should have just shot themselves to save us the trouble of going over there. And please never forget Harvey oswald, or any of the other presidential assassins. They changed the direction of a country with but one single bullet. Kennedy was trying to save us from those bankers I spoke of in an earlier comment. he actually made presidential orders allowing us to print our own money again and dissolving the Federal Reserve Bank...... Then he got shot in the head...... hmmmm.
  • thumb
    Jun 28 2013: I think there should be a background check. I think there should be a national database of gun owners. People who own guns must be required to keep them locked in a separate place from the bullets. I've been reading a lot lately about people who leave loaded guns lying around their house "for protection" and get killed by their children or their children shoot themselves or another child. I think there needs to be stiff penalties for people who are so careless.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Thank you for your input,Kate.
      Yes, mental health issues cannot be an sufficient reason for the murders.
      Kate, do you mean that you are totally against the free gun sales? what's your opinion?
      Look forward to your reply!
    • Jun 26 2013: Kate if melting guns were a solution, England would not have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. Furthermore, a lot more people can be killed in a second with explosives than with a gun. Do we ban fertilizer and other common bomb ingredients as well? There will always be people who abuse freedom. Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens is not a solution.
  • Jul 1 2013: I would feel it time to replace that government using whatever force was necessary to do so.

    The United States constitution was crafted by very wise men. They knew that one day the United States government will attempt to subjugate the citizens as the government in China has done to its citizens. It is with this day in mind that the 2nd amendment to the U.S. constitution was drafted. The right to keep and bear arms being the 2nd most important fundamental right after free speech.

    The 2nd amendment is not about game hunting, or even self-defense, it is about removing from office politicians who have forgotten their place by force of arms in the hands of free citizens.

    See the Declaration Of Independence:
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another……..

    These brave men put everything they had in play to throw off the yoke of a tyrannical government.

    They won, and the Bill Of Rights is the embodiment of their view of a limited government:
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2013: Billy,

    I can not comment on countries where the government has the capability to carry out a serious ban on guns.
    That could not legally happen in the USA. Here, it would require a change to our constitution. The burden of a change is overwhelming. Just recently an amendment was passed that was proposed in 1779.
    Is there a country where firearms can be purchased like biscuits. I have never heard of that.

    My country is a federation of 50 states. Each state is responsible for the sale of guns. Some states are very restrictive. n my state, guns can only be sold by licensed dealers. There are sales regulations, documents, reviews. Some guns require a waiting period before they can be obtained. There are provisions for private sales, I could sell a gun to someone. If I sell 5 guns to 5 people, I better have a license. In addition, there are overarching federal regulations that are in effect. It is legal to own a gun, it's really more difficult to get then biscuits.
    There have been incidents of guns being used to commit crimes by criminals and the mentally ill. These are unfortunate
    tragedies. But, then there are such actions all over the world. No one has been able to prevent these actions, even in countries where guns are not available. I have no answers for that question..
    • thumb
      Jun 30 2013: As a man who have never been abroad, I shouldn't have made the abitrary statement that guns can be purchased like biscuits and I'm sorry for that.
      Mike, thank you for telling me so much valuable informations on gun sales in the US.
      May God bless you!
  • Jun 28 2013: In the end, it's not our government's job to restrict freedoms of MANY for idealists to have a false sense of security. Gun-Free zones are the most common place for mass shootings to take place. When such tragedies DO take place, they're RARELY carried out by legal gun owners .. and the firearms acquired are very rarely the ones "gun control" supporters want to restrict. Small handguns .. revolvers namely .. are the most deadly every year. AR-15's and other "assault rifles" have been used in LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of ALL shootings since the end of the Frankenstin 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban"

    Magazine capacity is not a useful route either, folks. Going back to the COLUMBINE shootings, you know what their MOST DEADLY WEAPON was? They used a Hi-Point C-9 .. which is a 9mm rifle .. ENTIRELY ALLOWED in the 1994 Frankenstein ban. It held ONLY ten rounds .. because that was the REQUIREMENT! Only having ten rounds in your firearm certainly makes it less deadly, right? Unless you simply purchase a dozen extra 10 round magazines and go anyways. WHICH IS NOT EVEN an issue because they acquired their firearms illegally. Just like pretty much all criminals will if they intend to murder. It's not challenging to acquire them illegally .. and you MAY BE confused by this .. but it's been shown that it's common for major criminals within the US to be raided and caught with things like RPG-7 rocket launchers, modern POST-BAN CLASS III select fire military rifles which NOBODY can get aside from police/military .. NOBODY .. unless they feel it'd be DIFFICULT to be a GOOD CRIMINAL if they abided by laws, ya know?

    I have friends/family in law enforcement and ALL of them feel gun control is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce, DANGEROUS for citizens, HELPFUL for criminals (gives them an edge) and generally VIOLATES our CIVIL RIGHTS. Just to give you an idea .. I've heard MANY times how REAL MILIARY M4 Carbines (REAL AR-15) sell on the streets for $600-$1000 bucks to criminals. STORE? Starting @ $15,000
  • Jun 28 2013: I would ONCE AGAIN be disgusted in our federal government for ONCE AGAIN engaging in massive civil rights violations nationwide. Like it or not, we are showing signs of slippage in the direction of a soft tyranny. Unless our leadership LITERALLY SHUT DOWN both major borders and monitored our EXPANSIVE and generally unprotected coastlines, guns and other "banned" goods WILL enter our nation. It will absolutely cause YET ANOTHER black market which is entirely AVOIDABLE with LOGICAL policies .. not involving BANS.

    If you think it's easy to acquire MILITARY weapons, you're not informed. "Assault Rifle" is a political TRIGGER word which was never really used by ANYONE .. other than politicians .. prior to 1986 when our fine leaders banned production and legal sales of modern burst fire and fully automatic firearms known by INFORMED people as "BATTLE RIFLES" constructed after the year 1986. If you wish to buy a fully automatic firearm, you'll need a spotless criminal record .. no signs of any mental health issues on your medical record .. tens of thousands of dollars .. and LOTS of time. AR-15's are not military weapons .. the only "mil-spec" parts on the firearm are minor accessories. If you'd inconvenience yourselves to merely ask a US SOLDIER if he/she would feel safe carrying a cheaply made "BUSHMASTER AR-15 ASSAULT MILITARY DEATH MACHINE" such as the one allegedly used at the Sandy Hook shooting INTO COMBAT .. they will tell you no. We simply have VERY little access to military weapons. What you can buy over the counter at retail gun stores are SPORTING rifles. You can make them LOOK like their military counterparts but a REAL MILITARY VERSION of a Bushmaster AR-15 is rare EVEN IF you have the $15,000 and other things you'll need to legally acquire it. ATF agent will be assigned to closely look at every aspect of your personal life before giving you the OK to take that rifle home.

    On the other hand, you could seek out a criminal and spend no more than $500 to $1K
  • thumb
    Jun 28 2013: Guns kill!!
    If you can honestly ask yourself the question "do I mind dying by the gun?" and the answer is 'no' then, clearly the gun should be available to everybody. ;) ..... hopefully the answer is really 'yes' in which case, guns should not be so readily available.

    Cheers
    • thumb
      Jun 29 2013: Where my ancestors came from, my motherland, the answer was yes and they took up arms against
      Grimaldi and the invaders from the east and lost.

      So, would you take up arms to defend your homeland? Oh, It won't happen in this day and age... There is nothing different today then in the last 10,000 years of human history. And in my motherland, history shows that this small land was invaded and ruled by every major nation that came past in the last 5,000 years.
      So, if you feel it would happen to you, OK, but myself, based on my ancestors, I am not feeling that secure.
  • Jun 28 2013: here in japan the ban on guns works great. i don't have to worry about criminals having guns because they can't get guns. there are no ordinary people to steal them from and if they did get one they will be arrested before they get to use it in a crime. i watched a report some time ago actually where a few gang members clearly said they deliberately avoided guns because it gave police a reason to put them in jail.
  • Jun 26 2013: Aside from other countries, for me, Korean government's ban on using guns is fine.
    I think it kind of depends on each country's own circumstances.

    But in general, I think government's intervention in dealing with weapons like guns could be regarded as preferable unless it provokes seriously strong disagreements among citizens.

    Btw, Billy, I’m also curious about your take on here.
    Do you think, as a Chinese, the government’s ban on guns is fair?
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2013: South Korea is in an unique situation. I believe that the average Korean citizen does not have a legal right to own guns... South Korea has an unfriendly neighbor on it's border, with a very large army. There is an attack against South Korea, The large Army overwhelms the South Korean defense forces and breaks through invading the countryside. Could it be possible? Yes, in spite of what the Generals say.
      On the other hand, consider the USA. I can honestly say, that I believe that Canada has not attacked the USA is because of the 100 million armed citizens in the USA.. Of course, there could be other reasons.
      • Jun 27 2013: hahaha...
        Yes, we’re ‘in a unique situation’.
        But um..that's not how it works

        "Could it be possible? Yes, in spite of what the Generals say."

        Well, I see your point. And presumably, it might be.
        But I'm telling you.

        Not gonna happen in that way.

        it’s quite amusing at times seeing the different points of views of people about Korea, but some people’s ideas just sound a bit ridiculous—far from the reality.

        Perhaps, you should’ve been here.

        We—Koreans, I think, shouldn’t have guns.
        Because we also have horrible 'gun death' history records.
        Those were dreadful.

        We fear guns.

        And I think this is the most important thing here:
        We don't need guns.

        Having guns just because of the fear that the North Korea might(or might not) cross the border and attack citizens willy-nilly...

        That'd be the last decision we'd ever make, I believe.

        Here in Korea, all men are conscripted into the army when they're young TO PROTECT the country.

        Without exception(well, there’s an exception for particular situations, though).

        (And yes, Canada has never attacked USA. Why would they do that?)


        With all due respect, Mike, I think by 'unique', you should have pointed that out more clearly with a proper understanding of the country you're trying to explain.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: Hi Ms. Gu
          I wrote a response to your comments and when I reread it before sending, I realized that there was nothing I could say that would affect your beliefs. So I deleted it.
          I did spend 27 months in Korea back when things were not as they are now.
          I have a great deal of respect for the Korean peoples, their sense of survival and the highs that they have achieved in just a few years after total devastation.
          And I never met a bulgogi I didn't like.
      • thumb
        Jun 28 2013: Canada has never attacked the USA because they are too well-mannered to do something that crude. Do they like our religion-soaked pontificating right wingers? No. Do they like us sneaking across the border for free health care, clean streets and good jobs? No. Do they like our gun crazies? No. If we dropped off the earth they would have a quiet cocktail party to celebrate. But attack? NEVER!
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: As for me, I don't think that guns can be put in use in our daily life and I even thought that guns only belong to the policemen or policewomen when I was a little kid.To tell the truth, we seldom have the oppotunity to get access to guns and it seems a common sense among us that gun isn't a necessity.
  • Jun 26 2013: I have no problem with the government banning guns, as long as they comply too... After all they do have more than anyone else.
    • Jun 26 2013: Tify.
      Please wake up. The government will never comply. To believe, think or wish they will might indicate some delusion or brainwashing on your part. Many are like that.
      They want your weapons so that you cannot defend yourself from them!
      Please take that into yourself.
      It is 100% true.
      Stay armed. If you are not, get armed.
      • Jun 27 2013: 1st, I'm allow to write my opinion, just as you are.

        That DOES not give you the right to insult me, or get smart ass with me. Clear.

        And if you actually read my comment, and your second sentence, then put two and two together you'd get the answer. And you'd have realized there was no point in you replying.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: Hey Billy,

    I'm Indian and I live in India. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject but this is what I understand from my surroundings.

    Very few have actual guns here, and those who possess guns are either ex-military officials who have acquired old weapons as a collectible with no or very few ammo. Others that may have actual working weapons are bought off the black market (such as on the deep web). Militants and small terrorist groups get their weapons smuggled from outside the country.

    Only 'weapon' that can be acquired without a license are air-guns, mostly used during fairs and carnivals as an activity attraction and some air-guns are possessed by the common man as an house-hold utility.

    As per what I know, very very few gun related incidents have happened in India caused by normal people and thus I stand on the fact that governments keeping a strict ban on guns is good.

    (Bro-tip: Don't use smileys when posting on these kind of websites, looks childish and immature. You being an undergrad, it looks silly. You're welcome. )
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: I do not hunt. I trust the good in others to do me no harm. I do not fear others and do not consider the need to carry protection. I fear the monetary system more than anything because it is always more than likely the greatest reason we kill each other.

    I would feel a tad bit safer. Hunting as a career should be an option and should not be taken lightly as it is today.
  • Jul 1 2013: Billy,

    Americans are a vicious people.
    They plunder and assault in the course of daily living.
    So it's no great shock to find our Government doing the same thing.

    A less violent people may exist, such as those who fight the weather
    to survive, Eskimos, Tibetan Monks, Desert Nomads, etc. Or, maybe
    non-violent people are the ones with their Government's shoe on their necks.

    Our American forefather's experiment is failing fast.
    Politicians have control, and the only thing that stands in their way today is --
    Just like Rome, the Military.

    We are seeing today,
    the Military starting to exercise their muscles, attempts to control the
    Defense Dept personnel's personal viewing of Internet Websites.
    This happened when WikiLeaks started to leak State Dept docs,
    and now it happens again when the Whistle Blowers start telling it like it is.
    ===
    You see the problem? It isn't that classified information was exposed.
    ===
    'The problem is that the information was classified in the first place.'

    When enough people, vicious people, get their fill of 'Classified', look out !!!
  • thumb
    Jun 30 2013: it's a great idea in theory.

    it would require that there also be no black market for firearms which i assume would be impossible to prevent.

    it would also have to include all firearms, including the military and police force.
  • Jun 30 2013: There seems to be some disagreement on this topic. Let's try some data to bring people together. I think we have different experiences based on where we live, and that influences obviousness. I have a friend whose adult son lost an eye because someone (a friend) shot him while playing with a gun. I have lost friends to drunk driving accidents, where they were not the driver...

    Anyway, back to facts:
    New York City has 34,500 Police Officers: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/faq/faq_police.shtml#1
    And a response area of 302 square miles: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000.html

    That is 114 officers per square mile (or 44 per square kilometer).

    Texas has about 73,000 peace officers: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113805196
    And a response area of 261,231 square miles: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

    That is 0.28 officers per square mile average (or 0.1 per square kilometer)

    So by doing the math, New York City has 407 times more police officers per square mile of response area than Texas does.

    I live in a town of 39,000 people, in Texas, that has 3.36 Police Officers per square mile. That means New York City has 34 times has many police officers per square mile as where I live. Where I live has 12 times as many Officers per square mile than the average square mile in Texas.

    Why am I calculating per square mile instead of per person? It is based on response time.

    Police in Texas mostly take reports after a crime has been committed, then try to find the people who committed the crime.

    Law enforcement support varies by several orders of magnitude based on geography. Law, and what is reasonable, vary with geography as well.

    I hope this helps bring some agreement, while explaining the the diverse set of views you see from this side of the world.

    The main point being: choose your friends carefully.
  • Jun 30 2013: I know my government, know that they lie to me, and outside of voting have no redress. All the politicians in my country are cut from the same cloth, or evolve into the same cloth. People here forget that the owning of guns is a firm established right that some erringly try to take away. The same people that decry the loss of freedom of speech are more than willing to take away the right to defend oneself. They forget that the British trying to take away our guns helped start the revolutionary war, and THAT my friend is the reason the second amendment says what it says.
  • Jun 30 2013: God if I only had 2 hours to shoot down each and every word of that rant. Living in fear? I also wear a seatbelt, is that fear? I feel safe with my .38 on my side sure. Based on you, I should learn martial arts, and use mind over matter. In Texas we have a 'stand your ground' law that doesn't require us to "use our brains" to flee from a situation. Gun owners aren't paranid, we're just prepared. Some of us started out as Boy Scouts and we learn a certain motto: "Be Prepared". About attracting trouble, that's why Texas has "concealed" carry permit. You aren't allowed to flash a gun. Criminals never know who's gonna be able to shoot back, so it cuts back on their ability to operate freely. But if a young thug throws a punch or a knife at an elderly person, the elderly doesn't have to "use their protoplasm" (according to you) to try to protect themselves or flee. You are precisely like someone who has won the lottery and goes around telling people how stupid they are to own gold or any other investment, because in your own experience you "know for sure" that simply buyingn lottery tickets is the best investment. Don't you see now small minded and arrogant that is? And YES it perfectly well applies, to your "luck" that you ever needed gun, unless you just have bodyguards with you all the time. I'm pretty sure you live alone too, because if you had children to protect, you might realize that "lack of fear" is no defence...and in dangerous circumstances being totally fearless can get you killed. So good luck with your admirable bravery. I certainly hope your luck holds out.
  • thumb
    Jun 30 2013: Most of these comments seem to address the USA and the legal ownership of guns and all the bad things that happened because Americans can legally own guns. A lot of the comments come from people outside of America, probably as many as comes from within. Now, no one can deny the tragedy of a nut shooting up a movie theater...over 70 killed and wounded.
    But...
    I turned on BBC news. Now, I am a typical American. My world is about thirty miles across When people talk about stuff up north, they may as well be talking about across the Galaxy.. But this day, TV filled with summer reruns, I turned on BBC.
    The BBC from around the world. Does anyone realize what is happening out there? Civil War, riots, terrorist bombings,
    assignations, the announcer lamented that nearly a billion people were at war.
    So, I don't understand.
    People outside the US are living in and near all this commotion, and are criticizing US citizens for having a legal right to own and do own guns.
    Critics in the US of gun ownership I can forgive, most like me aren't too aware of what's happening past the shopping mall down the street.
    So, let's see... gun nuts in the US have no reason to have guns or need guns or or or... righttt!!!
    Oh! I forgot the ... if there were no guns there'd be no war... righttt!!!.
    So, can anyone out there in LaLa land really come with a convincing argument that Americans shouldn't be concerned.
    with what is happening?
    • Jun 30 2013: Do you mean concerned enough to keep their guns loaded and sitting on a bookshelf by the door, or on a nightstand? Or do you mean concerned enough to purchase a gun and learn how to safely use it? There is a difference, you know.

      Why should anyone living in a civil society treat the kind of bad news you've mentioned as a warning that the sky is falling? Why should they approach gun ownership in any manner other than the most careful and respectful way?

      Of course, we could embrace the more Roman over the Christian viewpoint, rejecting the inherent value of man, and fob off all of the death as necessary destruction in the course of a more individuated society. Why not, we do that with the automobile and the death it brings?

      Yes, we do recognize that the automobile is capable of evolving in its use and comportment, it may yet evolve into something a whole lot safer which we no longer drive. Guns don't really have a developing future. Their future mainly lies in the current comparison with the car, in the education of their use. But being at that more mature, where they never will operate themselves, stage, they call upon more than what happens at the shooting range or the safety class, they call upon the attitudes toward their use within society. As such their use touches upon a number of things, like mentoring and cultural education into adulthood, which can help quell fear and free people to be more reasonable.
      • thumb
        Jun 30 2013: Micah,
        Were you responding to my comments? You didn't really address the my question except to imply that world concerns are the stuff of a fable. I remember stories about the Brits, Poles and French back in 1938 were not concerned about all the goings on near their borders.
        And most of all, civilized people in the US must believe the the 9/11 incident had no relevance to issues outside the US.
        I am familiar with the teachings of Christianity, but I must have absent that day they taught you were to lay down your life for no reason other then your enemy's need. Of course, if you are accepting of martyrdom, I have heard a number of people are out there to accommodate you.

        You asked about getting gun training and keeping a gun ready in case of need. There is no difference. Purchasing a gun could be a large purchase. Most training or instructions come free, unless you are going for a special license, so the question begs, why would you spend the money and not follow through?
  • Jun 30 2013: I sort of want to know what a more limited access policy on guns in the United States would be like. More than that, though, I wonder how the underlying fear that compels people to lean so fanatically upon the instrument can be addressed. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that if you could properly address that fear, then the number of guns might not matter so much.

    You know that so many children, for instance, die from gun related accidents per year. Usually those are because the gun was kept in some easy to access place in the house, out of fear. Well, children are pretty good at searching around houses and finding things in both easy and not so easy to access hiding places.

    You don't hear much preemptive reasoning amongst gun owners, discussing how guns ought to be kept locked up or have trigger locks placed upon them. You don't hear about it because when the topic does come up it is obvious that the discussion has put its finger squarely upon the real issue, people are afraid. Out of fear they completely reject trigger locks, those being the usual thing that comes up. In their complete refusal to listen to the arguments the basic underlying fear of the gun owners almost palpably materializes.

    My Dad taught me something he learned in WWII, that just because you can point a gun at another person does not mean you can pull the trigger. In the war he learned that many soldiers can't shoot anybody. Only a percentage can actually do that. The rest tend to follow along and point their guns in the general direction of the enemy, but they don't aim.

    One thing about the immediacy of fear is that it fools those who can't shoot at another person into believing they can. It's the wrong time to find out you can't shoot when you have already introduced a gun into a confrontation. This issue is not unknown to the "manly". Why else would so many gun incidents occur around macho posturing. Here too fear is the master.
    • Jun 30 2013: Micah: What you hear about guns in the US is filtered through the "media" , who are almost all anti-gun fanatics. They neglect a lot of relevant information, such that of all the shootings in the US, a great chunk is suicides. Another great chunk is "children" , who are actually young drug gang hitmen shooting their competitors. Another fact: something like 2600 attempted assaults, robberies, rapes, etc every day are thwarted by armed would-be victims. This doesn't count as a statistic, becausse "nothing happened" (usually there is either no firing, and /or no damage, the assaileants (who could guess?) run away, b ecause they don't like getting shot. Then there is the real reason for the 2nd Amendment: namely that the Founders were wise enough to know that governments cannot be trusted automatically not to become corrupt and dictatorial, so that an armed population is harder to abuse, just as an armed civilian is harder to assault.
  • Jun 30 2013: The United States was formed by fire. At the time, [pre-constitution] we had a standing army, and militia. The founding fathers knew this so the word militia does not have the signifigance some put to it.Again, at the time Britain could Take any citizen it wanted or needed for it's use. The FF's knew we couldn't or wouldn't stand for this. The war was started for those who don't read history, when the british decided we didn't need guns, and tried to take them. Now, I have heard it said that the second doesn't mean advanced weaponry, but the colonists had better weaponry than did the British, and wanted to keep it that way.The second amendment was born into that fire, we remember, and we will not be taken again, For those of you out there thinking the right to bear arms shall not be infringed means that the government has the right to take them away, think again. Our government has been swept back and forth over this issue with liberals saying it meant militia, or that it didn't mean this or that, read the history. If we did not have individual freedom to own guns, we would be like Australia, or Ireland. I for one do not want that. My country, and my countrymen have fought and died for these freedoms that some of you want to take away, all I can say is, you will have a fight on your hands.
  • thumb
    Jun 30 2013: "Gee" where do you live Waziristan? In my world view, people who go through life like that aren't really alive. They're living in fear. That's not a real life at all. I've lived in cities all over the world in the last 50 years, in war and peace, even had more than a few confrontations, and close calls, but I'm still here. You know why?
    I use the most effective defensive weapon ever devised. You may have heard of it. It's encased inside a hard calcium structure, it has fuzzy stuff all over it, it's equipped with sound detection devices. It can pick up sent
    particles as faint as a few parts per million. It does something no other weapon system is capable of. It smiles. Maybe you,ve heard of it? It's that "tiny little pea sized ball" sitting on top of your shoulders. They call it a brain. You should try it sometime. It takes a little practice, but when you get the hang of it it really works. The situations I,ve been in would have made a lesser man soil himself, let me assure you. In fact if I had a gun, I most likely would not be here today. I choose to walk as a "man" with grace, and courage, not a quivering bag of frightened protoplasm. In my experience people who pack a gun are exactly the type of personality that attracts trouble to themselves. It's really about attitude, and how you engage the world. I don't own gold or jewels. I find that narcissistic. It's not what I value. So there you go my friend, all the more gold and jewels for you. Just don't steal "Me" lucky charms.
  • Jun 30 2013: By the way. last year in the US more people were killed by Hammers, than by assault weapons.
  • Jun 30 2013: Billy. First you have to understand the culture difference here. Not many places have had such long periods that culture has trumped the desire for independence as China has. Most of the world has been at war with everyone else, if not themselves for a long time. The United States Constitution Gives the right to bear arms as the second amendment right behind freedom of speech. That's because of it's importance with our past. Let me give you a quote from George Washington.
    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
    Most of the world has been fighting with their own governments that we have learned to fear them. and in turn the people who made the USA wanted to be sure that we could always protect ourselves, not just from those who might rob us, but also those who might inslave us.
    That said. I would suddenly have a reason to be a suicide bomber. Because those that wish to take our weapons away Just want the freedom to do what they will without thinking about the people they are hurting, and as long as I'm an armed citizen then I have the power to hurt those that would hurt me. Even if it cost me my life.
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2013: Now, LaMar, you are over top,

    Scalia goes out of his way to read the constitution' as it was written.

    The constitution is not written in stone. there is a well written instruction on how to change it and if you would simply get a copy, you will see that it has been "changed" ie amended 27 times.

    Scalia says that words are words and mean what they say. And so does the CJ. In a ruling last year, he pointed out that the 16th amendment was so poorly written it legally gives congress the right to take any and all income from American taxpayers.
    So, if you are so concerned about the "people" why didn't you pick up on this travesty ?
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2013: Lamar
    I am not a gun seller. But, all those illegal, non reported sales you have seen at your shows are illegal. Plain and simple. At local gun shows there is uniformed deputy sheriffs all over and if they see or an illegal transaction is reported, they are on it. Illegal sales here in Texas are a problem as they go south and get used on our border at us.
    Maybe things at you house are more wild west then here.
  • Jun 28 2013: Interesting fact - Chicago is a city-wide GUN FREE ZONE .. and actually .. if you count the gun murders since the day the US entered the Afghanistan war and put them side by side with US soldier deaths IN Afghanistan since that date? Well .. statistically you're more likely to be shot and killed just LIVING in Chicago's city limits than you are a US SOLDIER FIGHTING IN AFGHANISTAN!

    Chicago - city-wide GUN FREE zone ... more gun deaths in the exact same time period than the world's largest ACTIVE WAR ZONE! INTERESTING, eh?
    • Jun 30 2013: I saw These STATS lol it is an amazing concept. in our Gun free city you're more likely to get killed than anywhere else in the country.
  • Jun 28 2013: Supporters of "gun control" who use the inaccurate political term "assault rifle" and "clips" when describing normal capacity magazines for sporting rifles like the AR-15 etc .. which were DESIGNED to hold 20/30 rounds.. you'd benefit from this ridiculously SIMPLE and ENTIRELY factual presentation. It takes less than 5 minutes and it's VERY easy to understand. Odds are you've bought into inaccurate hype surrounding sporting rifles like the AR-15. You'll learn a LOT in just a few minutes. Oh, and if you refuse to believe the facts presented (which will likely conflict with many folks' pre-conceived bias) you can check their sources and do your own research.

    What have you got to lose? Other than blind hate for inanimate objects, inaccurate bias, and horribly skewed misconceptions about firearms?

    http://www.assaultweapon.info/
  • Jun 28 2013: There are very extreme and polarized views on this issue, particularly in the U.S. Many of us from other places such as Canada, Europe, and Japan, where we have murder and violent crime rates that are much lower than the U.S., and where we also all have stricter gun control, find the whole issue bizarre--why would anyone want to have a gun, unless for sport or hunting? If anything, I think most of us in these non-American countries feel even more "free" than most Americans: free in terms of speech, belief, etc. and also free to walk safely in our own neighbourhoods!

    But when people have had something for a long time, it is human nature that they absolutely do not like having that thing taken away! For example, many smokers in past decades have taken great offense to laws which limit their access to cigarettes, impose higher taxes on their habit, and limit the places where they are allowed to smoke. Yet over a few decades this had led to much lower rates of smoking, and we're all better off for it, with few arguments from anyone.

    The issue of guns in the U.S. I think has become emblematic of the issue of personal, individual freedom and security. It may seem puzzling to the gun advocates out there that the prevalence of guns actually reduces individual freedom and security!

    As with so many questions of this type, though, the only rational way to convince people definitively would be to do a prospective trial of much stricter gun control, and observe that there would be no deterioration in rights or freedoms. Most likely in the U.S. I think this would lead to a small but significant reduction in violent crime, particularly mass killings of innocent strangers. The U.S. murder rate would still probably be quite a bit higher than other western countries, even after instituting strict gun control, because there are a variety of other social problems in the U.S. which cause their crime rate to be higher.
    • Jun 28 2013: Why would anyone want to have a gun .. unless for hunting or sport? Well, my friend .. criminals like to have guns to help them be more efficient criminals. When committing crimes, these people sometimes choose easy targets which are less likely to fight back or generally risk turning the tables on them .. and use said gun (almost certainly a handgun) to rob/rape/kill their victims. That's one reason people want to have guns .. they're criminals. People like this acquire their weapons illegally due to the lack of a paper trail. Gun control will have little to no affect on this.

      Your comparison to Canada and Europe is poor and short-sighted btw. America is the 3rd largest nation on the planet population-wise. We also have very little protection on ANY of our borders or shores. Crime is going to exist because human nature is unavoidable. If guns were gone from the face of the earth, humans would wage bloody war with the next most efficient weapons. They'd rob and kill with the next best thing .. period.

      Another reason people want to have guns is to protect themselves from criminals and general threats more effectively. I don't care HOW MUCH of an idealist you are .. guns exist in this world and they will CONTINUE to exist. Since they are the most effective weapon for individuals wanting to KILL .. they will be sought after by criminals until something better is available. Therefore, people whom wish to NOT be EASY victims to violent crimes are wise to invest in a defensive firearm to protect their lives, homes, and freedoms.

      You can arm yourself with a baseball bat or a knife incase of a home invasion .. but .. you ever heard the saying "NEVER bring a knife to a gunfight?" .. yeah .. that's what you'd be doing. I support you in your choice to be an idealist and put yourself and your family at risk .. and telling me that I should also put myself in a compromising position thanks to the actions of a few madmen. However your views would get many killed.
      • Jun 30 2013: Steven: without disagreeing with any of your points, you might be interested to know the "positives" about guns. Take the Police: their guns are not there to "kill", as if they were an Army, but to protect. And Historically, guns put an end to the feudal system, where expensive armor and horses enabled a Mafia culture to thrive for hundreds of years, until guns, among other things, put an end to it.
    • Jun 28 2013: I'm sure it's nice living in an idealist land of rainbows and unicorns .. but if you'd care to step into the real world .. you'll find the vast majority of guns used in murders are stolen handguns and wielded by people with obvious criminal tendencies. If you really think someone LIKELY to go on a MASS RAMPAGE will actually walk into a gun store, pay MUCH higher prices than they could buying illegally, and actually ASK THE ATF FOR PERMISSION to buy the gun (signing their name/address/social security number/etc on paper) and subsequently go on their rampage .. you'd have to be preeeetty darn delusional. Criminals don't want paper trails .. they don't usually wield the firearms everyone wants to ban either. 5 shot .38 revolvers are the #1 choice actually .. purchased on the street with no exchange of information .. just a small amount of money.

      While it'd be nice if we lived in a world where your kind of fantasy land idealism is useful .. the presence of firearms in the hands of a person who isn't a criminal (most) actually DOES increase individual freedom and security. It boils down to .. if someone kicks down your door at night and ties your entire family up .. you've just had your freedom stripped. When they're preparing to execute you .. bye-bye security. It's not going to happen, right? I'm sure none of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of people living in Chicago over the years who have been murdered by guns there since 2002 thought that either.
    • thumb
      Jun 28 2013: That is murder and violent crime rate by use of firearms. I have been to European football games and Americans are the least violent of all the major nations in that arena.
    • Jun 30 2013: Gar This is a culture thing. I mean the happiest places on the earth last year was 94% white. and the second happiest.... Wait lets use this other chart that includes third world. the top 5 countries (on happinest chart) are 90% or more single race cultures. ..... infact..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index I believe everything in green is 90% or more single culture countries.So please... So blame our 76/24 split its hard being the melding pot of the world. Canada HA 92% of the citizens claim similar heritage
  • Jun 28 2013: Our leadership is elected by the people to serve for the people .. and nothing about their actions in QUITE some time has indicated having any REAL interest in working for us. You'll find we have very few real choices and only the most privileged even having an outside shot at winning a seat on Capitol Hill. Our founders did not intend our government to become so expansive it can't be controlled. They didn't intend our government to pass so many laws that even the most elite law experts in America have shown pretty much EVERY AMERICAN unknowingly violates at LEAST ONE law which could get them FELONY CHARGES .. and in pretty much every case ..could violate that law in front of an experienced police officer or federal agent and .. said LE likely wouldn't have a clue a law was broken .. much less a felony.

    What we have here is a RELATIVELY SMALL GROUP of idealists and hypocrites who have perpetually inhabited the most important offices surrounding the Washington Mall in DC (Capitol Hill/Supreme Court/White House) for well over 100 years now. It's very common for people on both "sides" to look back on presidents and feel they didn't deliver on many promises. Pretty apparent to me it's because party lines only serve to divide and they're fairly irrelevant once these politicians are actually occupying their new positions of undeserved power.

    Looking back at the disastrous presidency that was the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, it's clear there was absolutely no regard for the constitution during that time. On both sides, there was no resistance to the start of two major wars. Once our soldiers were firmly entrenched in the sand, the left decided to backtrack and TALK about love and peace as always .. but in the end .. both parties tend to BEHAVE in nearly identical ways. You'll find the primary difference between Bush and Obama is MAILY their rhetoric. Empty words and promises .. each side playing to their base's HEARTS/MINDS but their actions are what matters, folks. Identical.
  • Jun 28 2013: That is the reason population density is the way to allow some control, if wanted by the majority, to be imposed.
    I live in an area on the outer fringe of rural slowly being encroached by suburbia.
    I describe it as 'ruburbia'
    It takes a sheriff 20 minutes to respond to an emergency call. i feel in my case a gun is necessary even an assault rifle with a large clip, but concealed carry is not a must
  • Jun 28 2013: gun control should be based on population density. whats right for new york city or chicago is not right for rural nebraska any governing body thats population is over a certain numerical density can set up its own gun control laws implimentation could be the same as speed limit signs.if it takes law enforcement over 30 minutes to respond to emergency calls you cannot expect citizens to remain unarmed
    all kinds of practical data can be added to population and emergency response time to allow the governing body to legislate some level of gun control on an opt in basis.
    the default must be NO gun control
    • thumb
      Jun 28 2013: David, it kind of is...
      Big cities have very strict laws on gun ownership and carry and use.
      OK, in my neck of the woods, not so much
  • Comment deleted

    • Jun 28 2013: You forget one thing, the supreme court is there to make sure laws passed by the democratically elected congress are constitutional, and sometimes the court gets it wrong. Challenges to intrepretation are ongoing at all times and change with the makeup of the court. This isn't the last word on this subject, as there probably never will be a last word. One last thing, they didn't state that regulation meant they could take our guns away
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 29 2013: Again, the courts interpret the constitutionalism of laws that WE THE PEOPLE make. You cannot just go out and say it is legal to own another person even if you have a majority.Likewise, taking away a major right [one of the first mentioned] will be hard to do.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 29 2013: The point is certain things cannot be changed by law. My point with slavery was just that, and it was not the will of the people to end slavery, it was a few that took it upon themselves because it was wrong, and unconstitutional to have slaves. I disagree that the second amendment has never allowed anyone to own anything, if that was the case people wouldn't be allowed to own tanks, and guess what, some people do own tanks. I met one when I was in the military, he had an M4 sherman tank in fully working condition, so I guess your argument doesn't hold water. As far as Sandyhook, as much shite as my comparingguns to slaves, your argument about that tradgedy is just as full. We will always have serial killers, taking away guns doesn't solve the problem.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 29 2013: Never said I wasn't for background checks, every time I buy a weapon I go through them, just as every other responsible gun owner does. Anti gun people think you can just go out and buy a legal gun with no checks, nothing is farther from the truth. You are coming at this from a point that all guns are bad, so, all good people should be willing to give them up, it just ain't so. As far as the constitution not giving unalienable rights, maybe you should read it an the preamble that it is based on, for that is the source of the FF thoughts, and unalienable rights are there. My point about the changeability of the constitution is not that it cannot be changed or misinterprteted by SCOTUS, it can and it has been many times depending on the makeup of the court. The recent doma overturning shows this with the fact that Scalia said it was the wrong decision when it clearly is not. Scalia is using his religion to make his argument, not the rights of the people. All rights should be uniform, and should not bemaligned because of a few nuts.We will always have serial killers, banning guns will not change that, nor will it change the numbers much. By nthe way, what does God have to do with the constitution?
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 29 2013: So, I being a citizen that is licensed to carry concealed has bought and purchased a gun from a store and went through background checks sells said weapon to another citizen that also has a concealed permit, then yes you are right at least in my state that you can do this. What you are not seeing is the fact that I went through the checks, and my "friend" went through the checks, so why have to go through them again? There are already laws in place that if you sell weapons to an individual that is a felon, or not able to buy, that you are commiting a felony. The same could be said about buying alcohol, if you buy alcohol and then sell to a minor you are committing a felony, what do you want to do make alcohol illegal? We have tried that, and it didn't turn out to well. There are several things you will never change, besides sex, drugs and rock and roll. Guns and or weapons is one of them, at least here in the U.S. As for Europe, they have guns, and knives too, illegality just affects the law abiding.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 29 2013: Come down off your high horse, gun regulation has never had any effect because Judges do not use the teeth the laws have. You are deluding yourself to think that more gun legislation will keep guns out of the hands of felons or nuts.Gun legislation will not reduce crimes, it will increase crime, if you took the time to look at the FBI statistics you would see that with more availability of legal gun ownership, crime goes down, period. Do I check my "friends" backgounds? Don't have to, I know them, know they have permits to carry, and would not sell otherwise. We have plenty of laws on the books for any illegal transaction, the problem lies with lawyers plee bargaining out of such.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 29 2013: Funny, I look at those statistics and see that DC is about the worst and some states that don't have sweeping gun laws as better, and your wiki stats come from Brady. By the way, I'm a jeweler, and have never sold a gun, I keep em all. I am also tired of the tiraid.
        • Jun 30 2013: Am I? Lets take arkansas and california, ca has less guns per capita and a higher Brady score, ar has 55.3% gun ownership ca has 21.3% Ar has a rating of 4 ca has a rating of 80 yet the gun crime rate is only a fraction different.With ar having 3.2 and ca 3.4 deaths per 100,000. who is really spreading disinformation?
      • Comment deleted

        • Jul 1 2013: If I am the only one that is spreading disinformation, please explain why your argument doesn't hold true for all states? You are clearly an anti-gun person that no amount of facts figures or explainations can sway, if you don't like guns, and you anti-gunners think Eourope's anti-gun platform is correct, why are you still here?

          One last thing, this thread was about banning guns, are you seriously saying we should ban guns? If not why go off on this tangent about regulation?
      • Comment deleted

        • Jul 1 2013: Having been in the military for quite awhile I doubt you can compete,and the fact that you tend to brag about things you have no knowledge of such as my weapon usage tells me everything I need to know about you, but, I will consider the source.
    • thumb
      Jun 28 2013: LaMar,
      Almost, but not quite... the court doesn't interpret the constitution although sometimes... It is more like the constitution is the standard for laws to meet and the court says 'this law is constitutional and this one is not'.
      What you have quoted more then once, is a finding of the court pending a ruling made in a suit before the court.
      You brought up Sandy Hook. A terrible tragedy. Could you explain how a better back ground check would have prevent that incident, or had any perceptive effect?.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 28 2013: LaMar,
          One more time... they interpret the laws for compliance to the constitution
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 28 2013: 11,000 homicides in 2010 and 99% were committed by people who did not have background checks and obtained those weapons illegally not from gun shows or private dealers who must have federal licenses to sell guns and must comply with laws, but from home burglars and black market sellers, without any legal sanctions.

          Further. almost all legal gun purchasers are screened at the local law enforcement offices for criminal backgrounds...
          So, explain exactly how background checks would have prevented Sandy Hook?
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 28 2013: LaMar,
          We can beat this to death.
          Most states including mine have requirements on gun shows are held compliant. Most dealers in gun shows are licensed. Any "private sales" at gun shows must be done out in the parking lot as the show sponsors don't get a cut. Any sales or transfers anywhere not in compliance with the local, state or federal laws concerning guns are by their very nature illegal sales. That is why there are illegal weapons out there and constant beating on legal gun owners is wasted effort. No red herring here.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 29 2013: LaMar,
          Justice Scalia is a strict textural reader of the constitution, there is no interpretation of the constitution for him. It says what it means. No interpretation necessary.
  • thumb
    Jun 28 2013: In England, possession of a firearm is illegal if you are not a member of the police force or in the army or something. I'm not really sure about the laws on it but I'm glad it's banned. Guns were made to kill. And I'm not religious or anything but who are we to take lives - whether they be the lives of animals or humans. I don't agree with other governments making the access to guns so common and letting the younger, easily impressionable, generation be so exposed to violence. There's no reason to complain, there are highs and lows to all the laws governments create - but banning guns is right for all of us.

    However (I couldn't help but combat my own argument), banning guns makes people more likely to purchase or use guns. It's simple psychology. Food for thought.
    • thumb
      Jun 28 2013: I am not sure you are fully on point. government in the USA is a function of our constitution. The government complies and executes the laws. The law says that there is legal gun ownership.
    • Jun 28 2013: Thank God I don't live there!
  • Jun 28 2013: To the last few, you have every right to your opinion. That being said, it doesn't matter what you want in the gun debate, for every one of you against, there is another for. As for comparing us with Europe, we are not Europe, nor will we ever be hopefully.I suggest you talk to some vets and see if they think that you have the right to take away their gun rights.
  • Jun 28 2013: Guns shouldn't be allowed without strong reasons to carry one. This should also be limited to hunting. Only law-enforcement officers, if any, should carry firearms.

    But I do not believe in legislation against carrying firearms. I believe in education and information. That way one would not need a gun, in a utopian setting.
    • thumb
      Jun 28 2013: A utopian world is hghly unlikely, even I as a 15 year old can realise that.
      • Jun 28 2013: A utopian world is inherently highly unlikely. So I appreciate you as a fifteen year old realising that! :-)
    • Comment deleted

      • Jun 28 2013: I reckon my utopia wouldn't need a government. As you put it, people ought to carry guns in order to protect themselves against the government?
  • thumb
    Jun 28 2013: Reasoned discussion is often is trumped by irrational fear-mongering in this debate; and when it comes to the Constitution, there seems to be two main camps: Either the Constitution is a living, breathing document, adaptable to an evolving society, or it’s something of a “holy relic” of literalism. Consider the following:
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – Second Amendment
    "No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living.” – Thomas Jefferson
    So what are we even arguing about? To the Constitutional literalist we must ask, “Where are the ‘well-regulated’ militias today?” The “right to bear arms” has "morphed" regardless of the Constitution, where we can find nothing about the right to arm ourselves for self-protection (whether in our homes, schools or on the street), or, for that matter, against our own perceived “overreaching” and “oppressive” government.
    Ask yourself these two questions: What are we going to do when guns become obsolete, and are replaced by weapons of the future? Can we envision the unlimited availability of high-energy weapons such as those only envisioned in science fiction?
    • thumb
      Jun 28 2013: As has been said, the constitution has provisons for amendments. Just get 37 states ( as the constitution is the basis for a federation of states) to agree to a change..
  • thumb
    Jun 28 2013: All these arguments made in this conversation have been made in the last dozen conversations on this subject.
    That is "how do we take guns away from legal owners"
    So, let's cut to the chase. As long as the USA is a constitutional republic following it's original Constitution, the 2nd amendment will stay in place and gun ownership will be legal.

    Pointing out that there is no gun ownership in your country and how much better it is... rates the comment: "that's nice".

    If you are an American lamenting gun ownership, not a problem, to amend the constitution, you need 37 states to pass the amendment, so get started.

    If you have an original idea on how to eliminate illegal guns, that is an idea we can really use.
    • Jun 28 2013: not true. the constitution gives americans the right to bear "arms", it does not say what kind of arms nor give the right to have guns specifically. you'll note that nuclear arms are illegal as are a wide range of other military grade arms.
      • thumb
        Jun 28 2013: Ben,
        You've got to be kidding. When the situation of a gun owner wanting to declare his nuclear bomb rights under the 5th... We can discuss it.
        • thumb
          Jun 28 2013: The gun rights for all the rest of us are in the language "a well-regulated militia." Apparently most people think a militia is "any goober with a gun" and "well-regulated" means "no regulations or restrictions."

          Nobody is going to go door to door collecting guns. Nobody anywhere has ever suggested that we should. That's always been a right-wing fantasy that re-emerges every time a Democrat is in office.

          There need to be serious restrictions on purchase of fire arms and how those guns are handled. Guns are extremely dangerous. They need to have the same restrictions and oversight as bombs and explosives.
        • Jun 29 2013: my point isn't about the nuclear bombs, my point is that the constitution doesn't grant rights to access to all arms.
      • thumb
        Jun 28 2013: Ben, Susan, LaMar
        I have no idea on these comments. There are legal restrictions on the purchase, selling, types ,etc. of guns in these USA. Yes, firearms are deadly. Yes, they are legal, So, what is this discussion? Is it legal to own firearms? Yes. Don't like the law, change it. But, it is not the legal use of firearms that causes all the concerns, it is the ... illegal use...
        So why do we keep beating this legal gun horse to death.... Has anyone an idea on the removal, control etc. of the illegal guns that criminals use.
        And don't say if all the guns were gone in the whole country... problem solved.
        • Jun 29 2013: i agree that responsible gun owners should be allowed to own those guns. my point is you quoted the constitution as protecting people's right to own guns, which it does not. it says arms, not guns. if you are free to own a knife but not a gun, you are still armed and your constitutional rights are upheld.
      • thumb
        Jun 29 2013: Ben,
        It is pretty well accepted that the term in the constitution "arms" refers to firearms. The term is in both the Federalist papers and other writings by G. Mason.
        • Jun 29 2013: what kind of firearms? perhaps the single-shot muzzle loader types referred to in these papers?

          if it's not specific then we know it doesn't protect the right to every kind of arm, and if it is specific then we know it only gives the right to bear that particular kind of arm. either way the right to anything more powerful is not given by the constitution.
      • thumb
        Jun 29 2013: Ben,
        Local laws and regulations have pretty much limited the "arms" to hand and shoulder weapons,

        Automatic firearms, artillery pieces, air dropped munitions, etc. are regulated and controlled.

        What amuses me, is all the arguments to change or end the 2nd Amendment is because those gun owners have firepower of an infantry division and that is the best reason to change our Constitution.
        It's such a pitiful argument..
  • thumb
    Jun 27 2013: I think people should be able to own guns, but with a lot of regulation and restrictions. Guns are dangerous. We regulate other dangerous things like explosives and poisons, guns need to have the same regulations.
    • thumb
      Jun 28 2013: Thank you for your input,Susan!
      You mean a strict regulation over the gun sales?Someone says that the government could control the sales of gunpowder.Could you please present your ideas of such regulations?
      Looking forward to your wonderful ideas!
      • thumb
        Jun 28 2013: i'd love for them to restrict the sale of gunpowder and require a background check for that as well. I think it's okay to make life inconvenient for terrorists and mass murderers.
  • Jun 27 2013: @Pabitra Mukhopadhyay, who said:
    How can be a gun and a car be compared like the way you did? These things are made for very different purposes. I feel tired listening to NRA logics. If a country and its people feel unsafe despite having police, law and order and best security systems in place and need guns to feel safe - well I'd say it's very irrational. And btw, I know about the 2nd amendment.

    ====== The comparison I made was simple: deaths caused by automobiles versus deaths caused by cars. I can assure you, the people killed by automobiles and guns don't care why either was manufactured, they are just as dead. If you are tired of the NRA, then don't listen to them!

    Now, you assert that a mere police presence should make people feel safe. Complete nonsense. Look at crime rates. There is reason one should be concerned with their safety. In my opinion, one who simply acknowledges there is law enforcement, then decides they feel just awesome regardless of the crime around them, THAT is the person that is irrational.

    I do not make a choice to own guns because they make me "feel" anything. I choose to own guns because it is a tool that perhaps I may need some day.
    • thumb
      Jun 28 2013: It is a tool that will most likely kill you or someone you love someday. Crime rates are at historical lows. You are safer now than you were 30 years ago. You would be even safer if you got rid of your gun. That gun (or those guns) put you at far greater risk than any possible criminal.
  • Jun 27 2013: This is meant as a response to Jimmy's straw man about rocket launchers and nukes, as I could not find a way to reply to him directly. Please bear with me as I get used to and find out the limits of the interface here.

    No one is proposing such nonsense. By avoiding a good comparison between deaths caused by automobiles and those caused by guns, and presenting a straw man argument about rocket launchers, I will assume you have no argument to offer.

    Obviously government can and should do a better job of prosecuting criminals and keeping guns out of the hands of deranged savages. Targeting people who actually commit crime would be a good start. Furthermore, there were plenty of warning signs from recent psychos being treated for various psychiatric issues that can and should have provided warning signs to have been acted on.

    Now, the fact remains that automobiles are used to kill people, over 32,000 times in the US in 2011. Please provide an actual argument or comparison if you would like to be assumed to be a mature adult. Thank you.
  • Jun 26 2013: Australia after a major mass shooting the government allowed no public sale of guns. Guns were bought and sold through the government and only those that had a legitimate reason got guns.
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: Thank you for your input!
      I'm looking forward to more detailed descriptions of "the legitimate reason" from you and Is it difficult for the government to check its authenticity?
      MANY THANKS!
      • Jun 28 2013: some of the legitimate reasons:
        1. your profession needs, such as a pro. hunter
        2. farmers to protect their flocks from predators
        3. competitive shooters and i believe once they retire, they must surrender their weapons
        4. running a pro. gun shop where people can rent and shoot weapons on a approved range.
        (believe but not sure if one wants to go hunting for sport, they must have a guide and rent weapons from the guide)
        5. Since all guns are bought and sold through the government, authenticity would be part of the process.

        Illegal guns have decreased significantly.
  • Jun 26 2013: Take a look at You & Guns A Conversation, by Isabella Hunter. Informative and educational.
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: Thank you for offering the informative talk. Could you please tell me something about your attitude to this issue?MANY THANKS!
  • Jun 26 2013: IT will not happen here, ever. The people would sooner remove all the politicians, and start over than see them make any such legislation.
    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: It sounds somewhat astonishing. People in your country all think that guns are necessities, right? Could you please show me more description about people's attitudes toward owning guns at home? MANY THANKS!
      • Jun 27 2013: Billy, I think the gun culture in the United States goes back to our founding. This country was started with a spirit of independence, and with a lot of guns both to stifle England's attempts to maintain control and in our conquering of the land here, right or wrong.

        Our Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The more time goes on, the more corrupt our politicians have become. As a result, we have seen our freedoms taken away a little at a time, much of the time by corrupt, hypocritical politicians. For example, Teddy Kennedy was a strong gun control advocate, but had guards armed with guns for protection. A more recent example, our president. He is a strong proponent of disarming US citizens. As a state politician, he voted to ban hand guns. As president, he wants to ban "assault rifles". On the other hand, he just signed a bill that increased his gun-armed Secret Service protection from the 10 years it used to be to gun-armed Secret Service protection for LIFE.

        On a separate note, I am very interested in employment opportunities in China. Would you mind if I message you via the system to do so here and get some tips on how to best present myself to prospective employers there based on your culture, traditions and customs?
      • Jun 27 2013: Billy, I think the gun issue here in the United States has a much easier explanation than just necessity. True, this country started out using guns for protection and putting food on the table, something parts of Europe were not allowed to do. Lets face it, the USA was a colony, and it was a colony that was not very well protected by it's mother country. What we really were was a taxable asset. Combine the necessity for food, and the necessity for protection and you end up with an attitude. We definately have an attitude, one we will not lose as long as history keeps repeating itself. Why should we set aside all the lessons we have been taught by the same people that are telling us to disarm?If the rest of the world ever gets to the point where they are peaceful, respectful of rights, and respecters of freedom, we may lay down our weapons, but don't count on either.
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2013: Kate and other Great Brits...
    I read your post about taking all the guns out of residential units... Got to thinking about history. Remember
    that Americans armed in 1776 because... well, what was his name ... George III? Anyway, It seems that Americans were complaining about taxes like that never happened, and George thought that if they get rebellious... so, there was talk about taking guns and raising taxes... Redcoats were involved... the details escape me. Well, there was a rebellion and Americans won. They got lax and older, long muskets got rusty...
    Twenty odd years later, lo and behold, those pesky redcoats came back and burned down Washington, DC the capital. Well, you know the old saying... "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"
    So, Americans keep those old muskets and semi-automatic rifles, well oiled and tucked away in the closets.
    Just incase those redcoats come back....
    It's been about 200 years since the last time the capital was burned. Very disheartening. And you have no idea how much it cost to rebuild.

    So here we are. Many people from around the world tell Americans that "You don't need all those legal guns; they get stolen; they get used to commit mass mayhem and have been used within the household"
    All true, but if Americans get rid of those legal guns, can we absolutely positively be sure that we'll never have some redcoats or other color garbed soldiers come and burn down the capital?

    Not so far fetched. After WWII, documents were found that recorded post war plans by Japan and Germany,
    It seems that North America would be divided with the western part would go to Japan and the east to Germany. It was recorded that the Germans were concerned about the invasion of America because of the number of weapons held by the people.

    Scary, but there are way to many illegal guns in the hands of criminals... no one has a clue how to disarm them. Just the legal guns owners....
  • Jun 26 2013: Oh yes, give our guns to the government that kills hundreds of thousands of innocents in the last ten years alone. Give our guns to the government that hates our freedom at every turn. Give our guns to the government that more corrupt than any government in the history of mankind. Not today. Not any day.

    Just read a story today about America's most deadly soldier. The kill count was around 2,800 in Iraq and probably Afghanistan. One man did this. He did a 9/11's worth of killing all on his own. I wonder how many innocents he killed? I wonder how many more of our brothers and sisters in the military who have killed innocent people and have seen innocent people killed and have tortured innocent people and have seen innocent people tortured will kill themselves today? How many more?

    You want to change the world?

    Change yourself:

    As humans we say and do things...

    When you speak ALWAYS tell the truth. If you cannot do this then don't tell me about honor, because you have none. If you try and try and sometimes fail, that is fine, but as for forgiveness from the one you lied to and seek a way to not lie that way again.

    When you do things to other people that affect them, seek their agreement first. Agreement is peace. Not seeking Agreement causes conflict.

    And we look for the root agreement. So when Jesus kicked over the money changers tables in the temple, they surely would not of agreed to it. But the root agreement was that the temple was a place of God, not of mammon (material wealth leading to greed). He was therefore RESTRAINING their criminality which we can all do. Sometimes good people have to RESTRAIN the bad, sometimes we turn the other cheek to let them hit us on both cheeks, and sometimes we escape into the crowd so that we can escape their iniquity.

    1. Do you prefer that I tell you the truth or that I tell you lies?
    2. Do you prefer that I do things to you with or without your agreement?

    Truth and Agreement comes off EVERYONE'S tongues.GOD
  • Jun 26 2013: People who use guns for protection:

    -Rape victim who lives alone who REFUSES to be raped again and who refuses to live in FEAR.

    -Person who lives in bad neighborhood who sees thugs on the street in gangs but knows that they can live alone nevertheless--without FEAR--that if the gang came into their home they would have protection against them.

    -Old person who lives alone who refuses to not live alone, who sees his bad neighborhood and refuses to live in FEAR because of it.

    List goes on and on and on.

    Of all you anti-gun people, who of you is actually responsible for the security of your home? Anyone? Will you lie down while the home invaders do what they wilt with your family? Not this American, not many millions of Americans. So many millions of Americans own guns that there is no way they will ever be banned. You might as well understand that now or else you're just spinning your wheels.

    Things that can be done:

    -Background checks for ALL gun purchases, but NOT creating a federal database of gun owners in the process. My friend is schizophrenic. Although he is a non-violent schizophrenic, do I want him being able to freely walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun without a background check?

    As long as there is democracy in America there will always be guns. As soon as they are taken away there will no longer be democracy. The ones in power don't like democracy. They like oligarchy. They like national security state. As long as a country is to remain ruled by the people the people have to be able to wield actual force that is meaningful. Maybe this is a completely American way of thought. That doesn't concern me, because I know that we have always been free since our founding and guns have played a large part in that and will continue to play a large part in that.

    London is a cesspool of violence because criminals have no fear. Do you want to be a free individual or subject to the mob? A mob with baseball bats wins in a gun-less society. It's sad.
    • Jun 27 2013: You say below that you live in CA, but you state that London is a cesspool. That's a long long way away... So how do you know that?
  • Jun 26 2013: I live in the US in California.

    I don't appreciate listening to people who obviously are not the person responsible for security in their own home tell the rest of us innocent law-abiding gun owners that guns only have one purpose and that is killing and that they should be banned.

    I was over a persons house today, who has no concept of how to protect her family, because she doesn't know how, she tells me that guns are bad, and then two minutes later I hear her watch a video of a home invasion in New Jersey where the woman was at home all alone and a huge unarmed man broke into her house to steal her things and beat her senseless in the process. Why would a woman who is all alone have to be subject to the whims of any violent man?

    Guns are not for killing, they are for defense, so that you WON'T be killed
    .
    Does anyone remember the LA Riots? Do you even know why rioters in America will avoid HOMES at all costs and only steal from businesses? Do you have any idea? It's because behind nearly every door there is a person who is responsible for their families security with a gun. Do you remember the story of Reginald Denny being beat by unarmed rioters? Do you know who saved him? It was a black man with a shotgun, who NO ONE would go near because they WOULD OF BEEN SHOT. He saved Denny with a GUN.

    Over half the states have very relaxed gun laws and have LOW crime rates. These are FBI stats.

    Guns keep America free and run by the people. The government will always be answerable to the people in a country where the people can wield actual meaningful force if it comes to it. This is HISTORY, not nonsense.

    In America many want to disarm while the government does NOT disarm. A government that increasingly does what it wants, ignores or breaks the law, attacks countries that didn't attack us first, supports dictators and government oppression worldwide in the name of economic and military power, has a corrupt police force, and then wants to disarm US!!!! US?!?!
    • Jun 27 2013: It has been 20 years since the LA Riots. In that 20 years how many died have died from guns shots? Far far more than were saved by them. Its arithmetic.
      • Jun 28 2013: You don't know that!

        Mob behavior happens everyday in America.

        More people have died from prescription drugs than they have from guns.

        Over the last 20 years the US government has INTENTIONALLY killed more innocent people (LOTS more) in countries that didn't attack us first than Americans shooting each other with guns. You would ask over 100 million gun owners to disarm to them? Are you crazy? Our government killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam did in his whole reign. And WE SUPPORTED HIM while he was doing his part to!

        The gun death rate ALWAYS includes suicide. Take out the suicides from the numbers and they are cut in half. A suicidal person is going to try to kill themselves with whatever is available.
  • Jun 26 2013: Here in Canada you need a licence which is a day course, and there is two levels (essentially pistol and long gun) as well as murky laws regarding storage. Pistols are the highly regulated ones, you cannot just waltz around with one like in the states, if your caught outside of a direct route from your place of residence (on your license) and the gun range you can have it confiscated and such (needs to change).

    Most of the time it is for hunting or paper shooting, its just with a much smaller population and many gun owners owning 3 or more. Our problems with firearms are because the US is so lax that illegal firearms come from the south and into law breaking idiots hands.
  • Jun 25 2013: I applaud your question and the discussion here, a more evaluated debate than public media outlets have provided recently. The problem with enforcing any kind of gun ban is that guns will probably be needed to do that. The pin is out of the grenade, as many here have said, and our government failed to pass *any* significant gun legislation in the wake of recent tragedies and with a stacked deck. So much for legislation, let alone enforcement.

    It seems really hard to split the issue of guns into pieces, which all comes back to enforcement. We can't even accept that maybe schools and churches and bars would be safer if guns weren't allowed in those places. Not even a door check. In my view, every attempt at rationalizing gun ownership or reconciling it with public rights and safety eventually comes back to the right to have one, and a historic precedent for exerting those rights as much as claiming them. My gun, your problem. Already, our enforcement laws can't act without infringing on our interpreted rights, because that's all there is. We barely have comprehensive gun laws anymore, so its all up to the Constitution and rights drawn from it.

    Don't our lawmakers know the Batman? Doing violence shouldn't be easy even if it comes easy, see? The way that we do violence says so much about us. Guns make it easy to do horrible violence at a whim. Any hunter knows you don't just assume you're going to kill something. To enforce a ban on ownership you'd have to escalate beyond guns, and that never ends well.
  • Jun 25 2013: The right to bear arms is the way a people have to fight an oppressive government. Without it there would have been no revolution in the United States or anywhere for that matter. When the government confiscates guns they become the only authority. Government is the people. The rulers rule at our pleasure. If there are no guns, none for the people and none for the government then ideas become the means of change. We are not there yet. So from time to time we must fight for freedom. They can have my guns when they give up theirs. A world without guns----an interesting concept
    • Comment deleted

      • Jun 26 2013: Who are the fearful ones? Those who are either afriad of guns and/or those who simply do not have knowledge and training on the proper use of guns.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: I have often heard that the homicide rate in the British Commonwealth committed by firearms was extremely low due to the fact that most commonwealth countries have very restrictive laws on the ownership of firearms by its citizens. Which begs the point... What is the preferred tool to use when a Brit wants to top off another?
    • Jun 25 2013: hahaha, I'm British myself and all I can think of are cartoon style methods involving a cup of tea . . . I just stereotyped myself . . .

      But joking aside, I've never known anyone personally whos ever been topped off, but I'm guessing knifes would be involved??
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 25 2013: There goes my appreciation of the 'Jack the Ripper" stories.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: OK, You Win...
        But, most of your lower crime rates i think, is due to your police forces. They are good and there are a lot of them. Except for New York City, most major American cities are low in the numbers and the justice system is wholly overwhelmed.
        The sad part of the story is that if there were the restrictions here that you have there,and all the legally held guns were turned in... The homicide rate would not be so much lower, less then 10%.
        i don't know how you would get criminals to turn in their illegal weapons.
      • Jun 27 2013: Yes, I am sure those ladies are glad they were slashed to death rather than shot.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: I don't want the government to take our guns because I'm scared of my own government, I'm afraid they might try to turn the rest of the people into their slaves if the people didn't have guns, I want freedom, by the people having guns they keep freedom, the government is afraid to try to dominate them too much.
    • Comment deleted

      • Jun 26 2013: I would say whipped up by propaganda from Europe. I was in the military, have hunted up to a few years ago, and don't lock my door. I do not live in fear, as a matter of fact, the most violent thing that happens where I live is the occasional drunk being whipped on by cops, or hitting his own head on the sidewalk. People that do not live in the U.S. should not assume we are all scared of evry tom and dick, we are most certainly not, we are armed, after all.
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: Actually, things are calm here, Kate, and most people are very nice, but I believe people can change, that one of the reasons our government doesn't try to dominate us is because we have guns, that if our guns were gone our government might turn not-so-nice. I don't know for sure, I'm just a careful person that way. By the way, do you know about other democracies, in Australia are people allowed to own guns, or Britain, or Germany?
      • Jun 26 2013: You appear to be thinking gun fear and hysteria whipped up by the leftist media here is an actual representations of Americans at large. It only represents anti-gun people, who fear guns out of ignorance of them.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: There has been a number of comments on gun related incidents in the USA.
    Any death of any innocent anywhere by any means is a tragedy.
    There are probably nations whose citizens are better armed then the USA., But, we are best armed citizens of one of the largest nations.
    So, what does this mean; more crazed individuals doing bad things and the worse situation of all, because of the individual freedoms enjoyed by Americans, too many take advantage and resort to criminal activities.
    Now the obvious response would be, if there were fewer guns, less problems...
    Well, yes, but... At the beginning of the USA, after the revolution, Americans became suspicious of a powerful central government and unarmed citizens in fact, at the beginning of the revolutions, weapons were confiscated.
    Now people say 'you don't need armed citizens anymore, big central governments aren't so dangerous'....
    Well, when you look at history since the beginning of America.... not so encouraging.

    Look at the United Nations, over half the nations, not so free democratic countries. Many have very strong central governments and some are outright dictatorships.

    Americans overcame a very strong central government once.
    So, does this attitude justify an armed citizenry? Not to many, but it does to Americans.
    So, someday if your government starts to overwhelm you, Americans will be there to help you, if we are not constricted by our own too strong central government.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Thank you for your input, LaMar.

      As I haven't been to the US before, I'm not familar with people's ways of thinking. Now, I have two new questions for you.
      As you have mentioned, you own guns just to enjoy hunting and protecting yourself.Thus, the first question is that to most Ameicans, are self-protection and personal hobby the common reasons for having arms at home?
      The second is one that do you agree that it is the fact that almost everyone have guns at home that makes the neighborhood safe,as criminals wouldn't break into one's house at will in the fear of high power of citizens' guns?

      Look foward to your reply!
    • Jun 27 2013: Lamar, thanks for your reply regarding automobiles. As we are limited where we can reply, I am doing so here. The comparison I made was on two specific aspects of guns and automobiles: DEATHS. That comparison is absolutely true and correct. Of course there are differences in other areas. That does not make the specific comparison I made false.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: Here in the USA, the ownership of guns is a basic right under our constitution. There are some restrictions on them
    in cities and certain types are restricted. As our nieghbor to the north has said, there are elements in the USA that use guns for their criminal activities. Some times when such activities are viewed by those outside the USA, they seem to be more pervasive then they actually are. The power of the media in the USA can take an incident and through the internet and broadcast can bring superlative to any story making it the biggest or the worse or the most outrageous. Sometimes even incorrect. For example, a recent incident where a disturbed individual murdered a number of children was describe as the worse killings of children ever. Not true. The worse happened in the 1920, when a disgruntled farmer destroyed a new school house by explosives. Over a hundred children died. The farmer was madden because
    the government took his land to build the school..
    I have heard that mad men have attacked children in china with knives causing death and destruction. Madness is not
    endemic to the USA or even China. There have been cases in Australia and Canada.
    • Comment deleted

      • Jun 25 2013: And in each case, a mentally unstable person was behind the trigger.

        Is this a gun issue or a mental health issue?
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2013: Thank you for you input, Bob!
          Yeah, such powerful weapons are just tools and how they can affect the society is all decided by us human. But as you know, knifes can also be regarded as a weapon, but it doesn't have dustructive power as guns so that it won't induce the severe consequence as guns do. In another word, guns amplify the bad effects of human's behaviors. If guns are not easy to abtain for the mentally unstable people, will the terrible shooting accidents be avoid?
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2013: Bob,

          Mental instability can be claimed for anything that doesn't have consensus of the masses, it isn't necessarily so.
          Or one could argue that we're all a bit psychopathic... http://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_strange_answers_to_the_psychopath_test.html

          Like Billy says, guns have way more destructive power than say knives, and should not be wielded by men.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: I can't understand how can people defend right to own guns whilst so many innocent kids have died thanks to these damn things. It saddens me...
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2013: They somehow thinks that it keeps them safe... And that it's for the greater good of society...
        • Jun 26 2013: Can I assume you will be calling for a ban on automobiles since so many people are killed by drunk drivers? Of course, it's not quite the same thing, is it? After all, driving is a privilege, while the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right.
      • Jun 26 2013: Of course it is not acceptable, and NO ONE thinks killing is a constitional right.
      • Jun 27 2013: Most if not all of those shooters were whackos or psychiatric patients who gave warning signs that could have and should have been acted on prior to these crimes taking place. If anything, you are pointing out the incompetence of government.

        So now since government is so incompetent, I am to pay the price and have my Constitutional rights abridged?

        That makes no sense whatsoever.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: LaMar,

        You just keep making your insightful and informative comments here on TED...

        I like it, keep it up!
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: Sorry Lamar,
        You looked it up, I was relying on memory... maybe over 100 included injuries, it''s a dim memory and i was only making the point that today's media who have the best resources, better then my old memory don't always look stuff up as you do. Yes,he was angry at someone for taking his land.
        But all you got out of that comment was some example i made was off and said nothing about our national media has surrendered their duties under the first amendment and become the national propaganda agency. Good pickup
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: I will never happen here.
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Do you mean that it's impossible for the government to deal with the large amount of guns people already have at home in a appropriate way so that the US government won't try to draw out such gun ban decrees?
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: Partly, also because it is part of the culture, also because it is harder to enslave people who have guns, also because it is part of the constitution you would literally have to change the definition of the United States to do it.
        • Jun 26 2013: I agree Pat, it would be almost impossible for the United States to remain the same country, if they were to try and push a complete ban. Enslaving the people is something we will not abide. As it is, they have taken away our right to collective bargaining, if they remove our right to bear arms we are again serfs. For these reasons, our right to own and bear arms should never be infringed, even at the loss of life that goes with it. No one ever said that freedom was easy.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2013: Now, I sense that the government seems leave a bad impression on you.But how come,
          timothy schlotter?(A question without any offence.)
  • Jun 25 2013: I would be moving my firearms to a location they wouldn't know about. As an active hunter and enjoyer of gun sports any ban on firearms is just ridiculous. Although here in Canada you need to do a few courses to get your gun licence, we have a higher amount of guns per Capita than the states and yet lower crime. I personally just think the US is really messed up which causes a lot of issues for us law abiding people.
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Thank you for your input, Scott!
      Maybe the US government just wants to reduce the potential risks caused by the gun sales while not violate the constitutional right of people.It's difficult to cater for all taste.Thus, we'd better make allowance for the government's dilemma.
      Could you please tell me something about the gun-related laws and people's reason for have guns at home in Canada? Many thanks!
      Look forward to your reply!
  • thumb
    Jun 24 2013: G'day Billy

    We already have serious gun bands in Australia, by the sounds of it in line with China. Did I like the gun bands? No as they went way too far with them however I never really liked guns anyway even though I knew how to load & fire a gun by the time I was seven yrs old but these new gun laws weren’t made from common sense but stupidity .

    Love
    Mathew
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Thank you for the input, Mathew.
      I once thought that in Australia, people could also buy guns freely.I have learned a lot from your input.MANY THANKS!
      I want to know that in the past, could adults in Australia buy guns freely? If so, how the governmnet do to deal with the guns people already have at home? If not, what about the public's attitude toward guns?
      Look forward to your reply.Thanks!
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: G'day Billy

        Rifles were quite obtainable however side arms/pistols were a little harder to purchase but not as hard as it is now.

        They just made it unlawful to own a gun without a proper need for a gun like shooting feral animals for instance & even then the gun laws prohibited ownership of guns unless you went through stringent processes like resubmitting for a new licence plus any one with a gun had to belong to a gun club.

        My step daughter shoots for Australia in IPSC using a 9mm pistol but the laws are very stringent & costly. She's world champ at the moment.

        Love
        Mathew