TED Conversations

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!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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:


          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?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.