TED Conversations

Billy Zhang

an undergraduate student,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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!

+6
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.