Gun Control

I don't live in the United States but I've read a lot about gun control and as I have an interest in school shootings I can kind of imagine to myself what the situation is like.

Where I live it's really hard buying a fire arm. No one will sell you any kind of fire arm without seeing identification and a legal permit (you need two permits by the way, one for having the fire arm and the other one for carrying it around). It's harder to get that permit here than in other countries I believe, for obvious reasons. We don't have 'weapon festivals' where people just sell weapons with just seeing an ID or anything like that. The selling of fire arms is done in private, professional and legal shops. There's been one school shooting and it wasn't even your typical school shooting (Maa'lot massacre, look it up). Most people that murder with fire arms are law enforcement people that go completely bananas.

I don't think guns should be outlawed nor anything similiar to that. What worries me is how easily it is to just buy a gun. The seller doesn't know if I'm mentally unstable/planning a massacre/thinking of shooting puppies. If they demanded seeing a permit (and if they make it slightly harder to get a permit) crime could decrease. School shootings especially could be reduced to almost none.

In conclusion, I guess I can't really say anything since I've never even been to the states so I can't tell how bad is it/what could be done. I'm used to being around fire arms 24/7; but it's mostly combat soldiers that carry either an M16/TAR-21/ rarely but also 9 mm pistols so yeah. That's what I think that could be done.

In my opinion, I think guns are not a good weapon. In the U.S. we have a great deal more of deaths because of guns. The first reason is because of murders, and the second is because of accidental use of guns.

This said, I think guns should be abolished. If someone has a gun in their house for protection, you should lock it down for safety so no one can get hurt. But if it is locked down, if someone comes into the house, it would take them a while to access it (depending on how good you lock it down).

I understand that having a gun makes you feel safe, but sometimes accidents happen.

@ treat02
What about hunters? I agree with common sense gun laws, I just don't think there's a problem with hunting.

@ dru's not growing up
I really don't bye into hunting, and I don't really like it, so I'd have to say I'm not a big fan on that idea.

@ treat02
Do you think people should have the right to hunt? Do you think that stripping people of that will help stop gun crimes?

I personally don't believe hunting will stop gun crimes. It's not the right type of gun. I'm not saying no one holds a gas station up with a shotgun, but it's much more rare. (We had a triple gas station hold up with a shotgun yesterday in my town, so I know for a fact it happens, but I still think it's uncommon enough that hunting rifles should be legal.)

I despise guns. I live in Mexico in a border town where shootings are not an every day event. They don't protect us whatsoever, because the people who are supposed to be legally able to carry a gun (police, the federal police, the municipal police, soldiers) abuse their power and use it to harm the people.

I have had several instances in which a soldier or a federal officer has tried to intimidate me by pointing a gun at me, either while driving or while being detained for a checkup.

I have seen people being murdered, been in the middle of a shooting, having family members threatened (3 children ages 12, 5, and 2 held hostage in their own homes, each a gun pointed at their heads) or injured (a cousin almost lost an eye because a fragment of a bullet hit her); I don't think guns are there to protect us, but to hurt us.

The situation in my city gets worse and worse with every passing hour and it's all due to drugs and guns.

However, I believe that citizens should have the right to carry arms, but through a very restrictive gun control policies that requires them to take classes, pass background checks, psychological functioning tests, and being registered in a database. I also think law enforcement should go through classes and actually earning a certificate in order to be able to apply for a gun permit (in Mexico, anybody can go to law enforcement careers without any education; most of the people in our army are uneducated men. To be a municipal officer, you only have to complete a 6 month training and that's it.), having monthly checkups, a database with records of incidents or reports against officers.

Despite what the law says on gun control in Mexico (that it's restrictive and you need a permit) we see a lot of people without permits owning non-military weapons (which is prohibited to carry outside of your home). We also see calibers that don't even fit the laws and regulations being bought and used.

There's no enforcement of the law and these weapons can be easily bought through smugglers or the black market.

@ cadaveres literarios
In the US police officers have to undergo a psych eval, but the joke is that you only need to worry about the people who don't pass because if you're smart and crazy enough, you'll know how to lie on a psych eval.

I also agree with your restrictive gun control policy, although I don't think it's even a possibility in the U.S. right now. I think we'll have to wait until we at least agree on background checks and required safety classes.

My boyfriend and I think that you should have to go through different certification processes depending on the type of gun you want. Specifically, he doesn't think we should remove AR-15s and AK-47s from the market, but he also doesn't think his friend should just be able to go buy one (like he did). He thinks that there should be one level of certification for hunting guns, one for handguns, one for assault rifles, etc.

All guns are not created equal.

@ dru's not growing up
Why though? I can kill someone just as easily with a handgun as I can with a rifle. Most guns used in crimes are handguns, not AK-47s or the guns the media parades around on the news.

I mean, any kind of mandatory safety training would be better than the zero training required now, but I don't think it should be tiered. No matter what kind of gun you have, you could kill someone with, and I don't think we should legislate as if one gun is "safer" than another.

@ Kurtni
I disagree. I think a gun like an AK-47 requires more specialized training than a handgun or hunting rifle does. I don't think all guns are the same, even if they all can be used to kill people. The vegetables I plant in my garden can all nourish people, but it doesn't mean they are the same vegetable.

@ dru's not growing up
What necessitates more training? The entire reason we regulate guns is because they (can) kill people, so I don't see why we'd make a distinction. I think someone should take owning a handgun just as seriously as any other gun and be just as well versed in safety. If anything the fact that hand guns are so easy to operate makes them more dangerous.

@ Kurtni
I don't want to take for granted that someone would go get special training for an assault rifle, because I know they don't.

@ dru's not growing up
Isn't that the point? You don't have to get training for any type of gun in the US. I don't see what about an assault rifle would require "special" training over any other gun. All guns should require a comprehensive and detailed safety course/examination for licensing. I think it's dangerous territory to create a gun hierarchy and say you need more training for some than others-they all kill people and the big, bad guns are not the ones responsible for most gun crime. Whether you're buying a pistol or a rifle, I think you need to be just as well versed in gun safety and responsibility.

@ Kurtni
I agree that you need to be just as well-versed in gun safety and responsibility. I'm talking about training in handling and understanding the firearm. Like I said, they're different and you should know how to operate what you're buying.

I am very on the fence about gun control and have a lot of mixed feelings. Honestly, I have heard good points from both sides. I will say a very compelling argument against gun control is that our government, military, and law enforcement will probably not give up their high powered weaponry, which will make them much more powerful than their people. There's also the fact that even if certain guns or all guns were illegal or limited in accessibility criminals would find a way to get them and do bad things; someone willing to break the law and harm others is not likely to be deterred by laws and restrictions.

However, I am a pacifist, and I am no fan of guns. I see them as entirely unnecessary in a lot of ways. Not to mention what is at least a clear correlation (if not a semblance of real causation) between the high gun ownership and access in the USA and the high levels of gun violence and gun related injuries and fatalities.

I don't know. If everyone in the world would lay down all their arms, then that would be perfect to me.

@ This.Useless.Heart.
I feel like if the only reason to keep guns is to overthrow the military, you might as well give them up already. The military has planes, bombs, nuclear weapons, probably biological weapons, sonic noise weaponry, lasers, and shit we don't even know about. Our guns wouldn't last long against that.

@ This.Useless.Heart.
Really, our government and police are already more powerful and much stronger than us. If our military was turned on American citizens, we wouldn't stand a chance. The guns that the average American has wouldn't make a sliver of a difference against the array of weapons our military has. The guns that the average American has probably wouldn't even make a difference against our police forces, considering how militarized our police forces now are. We've already handed over near complete power to our government, military, and police force. Gun control wouldn't make them anymore powerful since they have almost complete power as it is. The argument isn't all that compelling when you get down to the nitty gritty. Our government is already almost completely powerful over us and we don't stand a ghost of a chance in a violent struggle against them.

The second argument always confused me; I never understood why people used it. If we shouldn't have gun control because criminals won't obey those laws, then why have any law at all? Why have laws against murder if people still murder? Why have laws against robbery if people still rob? Why have laws against rape if people still rape? The fact is, laws don't prevent crime. They never have, cime will always exist. What laws do is lessen crime, not completely prevent it. The point of laws is to make it harder to do these things. If we restrict guns, it would be harder for these criminals do get them instead of handing them out like candy like some States are doing. People will still get them, I don't think anyone has denied this. What people are more saying is that we should stop handing out guns like they're candy. We could start with a simple thing like a federal law mandating every person purchasing a gun goes through a background check. America doesn't even that right now.

Maybe it's just my feelings towards guns (I'm a pacifist as well), but I just sort of don't understand most of the arguments people have against gun control.

@ druscilla the misfit
@ Airi.

I thought of pretty much all your points when I posted that. I actually agree with you guys as well. Like I said, I'm very on the fence and I just wanted to post those two arguments because they are two of the more interesting and to me compelling ones I have heard.

My husband and I were talking earlier today about gun control actually and we mention a lot of these points from both sides. (He's on the fence like me but despite pacificism leans a little more towards being against gun control.) Another thing that is interesting to consider in the debates is that the constitution gives US citizens the right to "bear arms" but it never specifies what arms they can and can't bear and, to our knowledge at least, it definitely allows for restrictions. I find that interesting to remember because a lot of people try to say gun control is "unconstitutional"

@ druscilla the misfit

druscilla the misfit:

@ treat02
Do you think people should have the right to hunt? Do you think that stripping people of that will help stop gun crimes?

I personally don't believe hunting will stop gun crimes. It's not the right type of gun. I'm not saying no one holds a gas station up with a shotgun, but it's much more rare. (We had a triple gas station hold up with a shotgun yesterday in my town, so I know for a fact it happens, but I still think it's uncommon enough that hunting rifles should be legal.)

I never said anything about hunting stopping crimes, and I'm kind of confused on what you said.

In the U. S. when people have guns for protection, most of the percent of deaths is a child, or teen, or even an adult finding the gun and accidentally shooting themselves, or someone else.

Not to mention how many murders go on in the U.S.

I don't think that hunting is good, but that's my opinion. If guns were just used for hunting, it would be okay, but that's never going to happen.

I heard in Japan (a while ago) there was a stabbing event that involved children. Nobody died (I'm pretty sure) because it was a knife, not a gun.

I think guns should be abolished, but the topic of Amendment 2 (the right to bare arms) is what's keeping away use abolishing guns.

If we did not have guns, there would be so many less deaths--and murders--in the U.S.

I move about to the U.S., France, and Germany all of the time, so sometimes it's difficult for me to keep up.

Kurtni:

Whether you're buying a pistol or a rifle, I think you need to be just as well versed in gun safety and responsibility.

I agree. If you don't know how to handle a gun, fatal events may happen.

druscilla the misfit:

My boyfriend and I think that you should have to go through different certification processes depending on the type of gun you want. Specifically, he doesn't think we should remove AR-15s and AK-47s from the market, but he also doesn't think his friend should just be able to go buy one (like he did). He thinks that there should be one level of certification for hunting guns, one for handguns, one for assault rifles, etc.

That's a good idea. But people will go around the laws, like selling things illegally. So I'm not sure that that would work.