Gun Violence And Gun Control

Gun Violence and Gun Control

I want to start out by saying that I am not a gun enthusiast or a gun collector and I have no personal stake in this argument. I just want to bring up two points that seems to be lost in all of the frustration and anger resulting from this debate. There are two questions we need to consider:

1. Would new gun laws actually resolve the current problems?

2. Is this recent rise in gun violence directly related to the abundance of guns?
1) Gun Laws: There are two types of gun control laws that could be enacted:

· Add extra criminal charges and more prison time when a gun is used in a crime.

· Eliminate purchasing loopholes and make it much harder to purchase a gun.

We already have extremely strict penalties regarding using guns in criminal encounters. These laws help deter gun use in certain types of crimes and I’m not opposed to adding stiffer sentences to these crimes. However, a person intent on murder (or mass murders) is not going to be concerned about facing additional years in prison because he used a gun. He already is facing the death penalty or life in prison.

This only leaves the option of enacting laws designed to keep guns from these people in the first place. Apart from any Constitutional arguments, is it even realistic to think that this would work? Restricting gun access might work if the U.S. didn’t have many guns in the first place and we could restrict guns from coming across our borders.

Even if the U.S. didn’t have many guns, we would never be able to keep new guns from crossing our very porous borders. Remember, we are almost powerless in stopping drugs and illegal immigrants from crossing our borders. Even with all of our security concerns after 9/11, we still have not been able to seal up these borders.

As of 2007, there were over 270 million civilian guns in the U.S (Small Arms Survey 2007 p. 67). We are not even talking about military or law enforcement guns. Do we really think that all of these civilian guns are owned by upstanding law-abiding citizens? No, it is estimated that around 75 to 100 million of these guns are owned by the criminal underworld or by people who could not pass the current background checks. In addition, millions of guns are currently available on the black market. For all practical purposes, buying an illegal gun is just as easy as buying illegal drugs.

Yes, it is true that many of the recent high-profile shootings were done with guns that were purchased legally. However, is that really the issue? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we are able to enact laws that would completely close off all loopholes for the sales of legal guns. Only solid law-abiding citizens can now purchase guns. Let’s also say that we don’t have over 230 thousand guns stolen from homes every year (Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 8, 2012).

Do you really think that a person who is bent on murder would have a moral dilemma about buying an illegal gun from the black market instead of through legal channels? Unless you can effectively eliminate the sales of guns in the criminal under-world, new gun control laws will be virtually ineffective. Yes, these laws would make us feel good, but they would be unproductive.

2) The reason for the recent gun violence:

Is our recent increase in gun violence a result of a recent surplus of guns? No, the United States has always had an abundance of guns, but we have not always had this level of violence or gun violence. Violence, especially gun violence has increased significantly over the past several decades. If the abundance of guns is not the source of this violence, what is the source?

For whatever reason, there has been a marked shift in the stability of our society. A large number of people are now developing a tendency toward violent outbursts. Their ability to control these outbursts also seems to be diminishing. In addition, a large number of people have taken on the mindset that they don’t need to follow “normal social behavior.” What is causing this shift? I’m sure there are many factors involved in this problem, but I would like to offer a partial explanation.

We are all governed by various sets of values. Some of these values are hard wired within us, such as the feeling that it is wrong to lie, steal, rape, and murder. Other values have been instilled in us by our parents, schools, and community, such as work ethics, cultural expectations, etc. As we grow up we begin to realize that some of these values are man-made and we start to wonder if we need to keep them. Some of these values are discarded while others are kept.

Despite all of these changes, the person still feels that certain behavior is inherently right or wrong. However, what would happen if the person would be continually bombarded with the teaching that there are no absolute truths, no universal standard of right or wrong? Well, basically, he will begin to feel that no behavior is inherently good or bad, nothing is really wrong. He would feel that he can basically do whatever he wants. He would be free to pursue whatever would profit him the most.

Now, couple this mindset with a person who is extremely angry. Normally, when a person is angry, his actions are governed by a value system that prohibits certain anti-social actions. However, when a person believes that there are no absolute values of right or wrong, then there is nothing to hold him back. An extremely angry person who has no anti-social restrictions is capable of doing almost anything. They are hurting deep inside and they want others to hurt. Hurting a large number of people becomes one of their consuming desires.

If the shift in society is the real reason why we have an increase in gun violence, especially the high-profile school shootings, then gun control or even gun elimination will not make any significant difference in the violence we are experiencing. Violent people will simply find a new weapon of choice. If a person wants to harm other people, he will find a way to do it.

If clubs were the only weapons available, this angry person would use a club to try to beat to death as many people as possible. If there are no other people nearby who also have clubs, he will probably be able to hurt or kill a large number of people. As a general rule, any weapon can be used as a weapon of mass murder if there are no other weapons nearby to stop him.

Many people will disagree with me. They will argue that eliminating guns will eliminate the ability to quickly attack a large number of people. While it is true that guns are quick and convenient, other weapons can also be used to attack large groups of people in a short period of time. The stabbing of 14 people at the Lone Star Texas Community College two weeks ago is proof of this. If guns were eliminated, knifes or machetes could easily take their place. Machetes have been used in numerous attacks at school. Following is a quick list of attacks at schools where machetes were used.

· 1977, a man kills five people in El Socorro

· 1996, a man slashed seven people in a primary school in England

· 2001, a man brutally slashed nine people in Pennsylvania

· 2010, a man in Nanping China hacked 13 children, killing 8

· 2011, a student was killed in South Africa

· 2012, a man in Guangxi China hacked 16 people in a private day care, killing 3

· 2012, a man in Guatemala City killed two children

The only reason why we have more shootings at school verses stabbings is because guns are currently the weapon of choice. If guns were eliminate the violent people would simply move to a new weapon of choice.
I'm really not sure. My own position is the we are better off in the UK where there is tight gun control but bad things can still happen (eg. Raoul Moat,, Dunblain massacre, etc.). I think it would be daft to say tight control means no problems but I think that events such as these are so rare that we do remember each one with horror.

As a pretty much anti, I'd still have doubts say about doing it in the US. We do have cultural differences regarding attitudes towards guns. Also, I think there would be the question about the prelevance of existing guns in society.

My own sort of "knee jerk" reaction would be to accuse some nations of being "gun crazy" but I don't think the matter is that simple.
As this is a multinational forum; let me preface this by stating my view is from a USA perspective.

I'll start here:

"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." Amendment II; United States Constitution 1791-adopted from the 'Bill of Rights'

If you don't know-Yes this is the 'Second Amendment' in it's entirety. It should be plainly obvious that "The Second" has nothing to do with hunting & fishing. The first phrase "A well regulated militia" clearly implies an armed civilian force created by the local populous. The founders could have said "Army", "Armed Services" or "Military" but they did not; they chose "Militia" intentionally to designate it as a non-federalized unit. "Military" and "Militia" are of the same root but are not synonymous.

This militia is to protect the 'security of a free State'; meaning to protect the citizens from the governing body. The "how" the militia provides security of a free state is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". And this right "shall not be infringed" by the governing body. It really is self explanatory.

Also, FBI statistics show that violent crime (including gun violence) is actually nearly %50 lower than 20 years ago. ALSO-more people are killed by clubs , hammers, baseball bats (blunt weapons) and HANDS than they are by bullets/ guns in the United States.

Here's where the US citizen is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Less than .01% of gun crimes in the USA are committed by 'law abiding' legal gun owners. So do we really have a gun problem? Or do we have a criminal getting their hands on guns problem? I would say it is obvious it is the later.

So for law abiding citizens who wish to protect themselves from criminals are now becoming criminals because of the 'law' changes happening in our country by the very people whom the Second Amendment is supposed to be protected by under oath of office.

EVERY political leader elected into office including military members and most state troopers take an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. This is why they are trying to change the constitution. By creating laws that outlaw certain weapons and accessories, civilians are being dubbed criminals and the playing field is being biased towards a controlling government body and away from the people. The entire idea behind the second Amendment was to keep the playing field equal between the governed and the government so that liberty may abound. The second amendment is protection against tyranny.

It is media bias, political agenda and popular opinion driving the gun issue in the USA- NOT TRUTH.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
Thomas Jefferson

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison

“The constitution shall never be prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Alexander Hamilton

“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective way to enslave them.”
James Madison

“A free people be armed”
George Washington

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


Account Closed
Dirty , you have written well. But I would go a step further. I have no love for the laws of men, for they are arbitrary and all too often are written to further the ambitions of evil men. I would call upon natural law, that it is the God given right of each and every creature to defend itself against any and all attackers, regardless of their supposed motives.
Dirty , you have written well. But I would go a step further. I have no love for the laws of men, for they are arbitrary and all too often are written to further the ambitions of evil men. I would call upon natural law, that it is the God given right of each and every creature to defend itself against any and all attackers, regardless of their supposed motives.

Didn't want to hog up the whole thread. :D
Think About it. Connecticut already had an "assault weapons" ban. Yet, the kid who shot up the school in New town, had an AR-15.

Massachutts, requireds you to get a permit for every gun bought and for every single time a gun changes hands-whether it be at a gun show, or as a gift. And notice, the boston bombers, had guns, and no, they were not purchased legally-they had no permits for them whatsoever. Yet they still had them to shoot at the police.

There are 2 prime examples, where the existing laws, including ones that congress is trying to push, didn't work. What makes you think, adding more laws, will? What would a nationwide background check do? or loopholes? anything else? all gun laws of that nature do, is punish the honest citizens-because theyre the only ones who will listen to them, if someone wants to use a gun for a crime, well the crime itself is illegal, who cares if the gun they use is illegal. They will get a gun regardless-all gun laws do is make it harder for honest citizens like myself to protect myself from those criminals.