|
|
Post by Davis on Oct 9, 2017 2:32:00 GMT
@lindey I believe that if we have more rules and regulations on guns it won’t make our country safer. The only thing it will make it harder to do is get new guns. There are already so many out in the US that its super easy to get them illegally if you don’t already even own one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hinchberger on Oct 9, 2017 2:45:25 GMT
With the recent events involving Las Vegas and gun violence the topic about stricter gun control was brought to the table again by people and political figures. A number of people believe that creating more restrictions on obtaining a gun would solve the problem of gun violence. However this is not entirely true because the Washington Post stated "the overwhelming majority of gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners" it is the guns that are obtained illegally by people which is causing the crime throughout America. If they did make more intense gun restriction it wouldn't do much "since criminals don’t follow laws, new regulations on gun ownership would only serve to burden lawful owners while doing little to combat crime" as stated in the Washington Post. If people still argue that America needs stricter gun laws against assault rifles (ARs) because you do not hunt with ARs or use them for self defense well they think this way because they have not thought of every reason why people might want or need assault rifles. For instance they could just say that the second amendment was for hunting but this is not entirely true because the second amendment states "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." (www.law.cornell.edu) and this means that we need to have the right to possess the equivalent gun power as the government in case the government tries to overpower the people/state and become an almighty power. The people need to be able to have a fighting chance against the government because if the people of America go to war with the government with a hunting rifle we the people will be slaughtered when we face a semi or automatic weapon. People that don't consider the corruption of the government as a possibility they are not considering the fact that America's republic government is 241 years old and the longest lasting republic government ever was the Rome republic which was only 482 years old before it became corrupt (wikipedia.org). If history remains consistent our American republic government will eventually become corrupt and turn on the people. So if more gun laws are implemented to restrict the types of guns that the American people can own then it is limiting and giving the people a huge disadvantage when the unwritten right to revolution needs to become an action to replace the government.
Do you think if the government implements stricter gun control laws against assault rifles that the people of America will be less capable in defending themselves against the government if they become corrupt?
What are your thoughts on how long the American republic government will last with the historical facts of how relatively short a republic government remains non corrupted?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hinchberger on Oct 9, 2017 2:53:02 GMT
@m.Pierce response to Cole Helzlsouer:
I completely agree that few people are going to ruin owning guns for the entire nation even though the Washington Post stated "the overwhelming majority of gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners" so people that are not already following the law are ruining owning a gun for the people that are following the laws so the government would essentially be punishing the people of america for something that they did not do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davis on Oct 9, 2017 2:58:01 GMT
@cole Helzlsouer It isn’t fair for the general population to be punished for the horrible things a few people do. Almost everybody who owns guns uses them in unharmful ways and for leisure and recreation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hinchberger on Oct 9, 2017 3:09:42 GMT
@cole Helzlsouer response to Dorrier:
I agree with Cole Helzlsouer somewhat because most crimes in the United States of America involving guns are by people who obtain their guns illegally. So implementing a stricter gun law would just hurt or punish the law abiding american citizen which did nothing wrong. This is why I somewhat agree with Cole's statement about the government not restricting on what guns you buy but how intense the background checks are and teh person reasoning for buying the gun, but then again most guns used in gun crimes our illegally obtained guns so implementing more intensive purchasing check won't do much in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hinchberger on Oct 9, 2017 3:16:54 GMT
@dorrier original post:
"The second amendment states "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." (www.law.cornell.edu) and this means that we need to have the right to possess the equivalent gun power as the government in case the government tries to overpower the people/state and become an almighty power. The people need to be able to have a fighting chance against the government because if the people of America go to war with the government with a hunting rifle we the people will be slaughtered when we face a semi or automatic weapon." (Hinchberger). This is why the government should not "Limiting civilians ability to possess and modify assault rifles"(Dorrier).
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Oct 9, 2017 3:22:14 GMT
With the mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas recently, the hot topic of gun control has resurfaced among conversations throughout the country. Guns have always been a controversial subject because everyone has had different experiences with guns. Because everyone has had different experiences, this causes everyone to have such polarized opinions about them. The fact of the matter is that the mom who has never grown up around guns and whose son got killed by being shot by someone is going to have a very different opinion about guns than someone who has grown up hunting with guns and carries one to protect themselves. There is also no “good” way to handle mass shootings because there is not much to change or alter in the gun ownership process, unless it is a major change. The government already does background checks and a three day waiting period before the gun is given to the owner, but the checking of the mental state of the gun buyer is where it gets sketchy because each state has so many different laws in place about purchasing a gun if you have a mental illness. For example, according to the National Conference of State Legislature on the topic of gun ownership and mental illness in Pennsylvania’s only rule is stated as, “no person shall possess a firearm if a person who has been adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution” when California has a law saying, “A person is barred from possessing, purchasing, receiving, attempting to purchase or receive, or having control or custody of any firearms if the person has been admitted to a facility and is receiving inpatient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional opines that the patient is a danger to self or others. This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility” as well as many more in place. Another question that is brought up is if there is a valid reason to limit certain guns than others, and the answer to that is no, simply because, yes, different types of guns shoot differently and can do different types of damage, but a gun is a gun and if it is not going to be used responsibly, either way someone is going to get hurt or something is going to go wrong and either way, damage is going to be done. It’s like trying to limit certain kinds of candy, lollipops and skittles are completely different but they both can still give you cavities. With that, mass shootings can not really be stopped if guns are still in the hands of the people, and because of the second amendment, they will never be completely taken away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Oct 9, 2017 3:28:06 GMT
The question that I pose is should all of the states have the same rules and regulations in place for the purchasing of guns for the mentally ill, or is it okay to have such differentiating laws?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fowler on Oct 9, 2017 3:35:59 GMT
The topic of gun rights and gun control is a very important topic that is fought passionately from both sides, not just because is it is an amendment to the constitution, but because many people see the right to have guns as a natural right. And if this right is opposed in any way, it is seen to as a threat to this "natural right". In light of recent events, the gun control debate has been brought up again, and will accomplish nothing.
The issue is not only that one side is more stubborn than the other, but that it's already too late. America is swimming in guns, drowning in fact, an article from the Washington post says, "There are almost as many privately owned firearms in this country as there are people living inside it — a figure that may also account for about half of the known number of civilian firearms in the entire world." This is an incredible statistic, and creating and enforcing is not only impractical and expensive, but physically impossible.
Aside from this, there is hardly reason to ban one gun over another, if used correctly and with enough skill, an act of murder can be achieved with any of these weapons. Same goes with attachments. Banning the bump stock, and other attachments like it does not stop people from committing these crimes, if they want to do it, they will anyway. Foxs news reported, “Countries such as France may have made all semi-automatic guns illegal, but that hasn’t stopped killers from getting fully automatic machine guns to use in mass shooting attacks”.
Banning these weapons and attachments will not stop anything. The killings will still happen despite any ban, restriction, or limitation. To limit gun violence, the U.S. needs to look at who can buy and sell guns, and get the guns out of the hands of these deranged killers. Although it is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of these killers, background checks could limit a large number from getting these weapons. The U.S. clearly cannot stop every act of gun violence, but there might be certain steps that can be taken to limit these acts of violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fowler on Oct 9, 2017 3:39:06 GMT
@hinchberger I agree with what you said, a big argument for gun rights is that it can protect citizens from the government. But how sound is this argument? In this day in age, and in the country we live in, it is increasingly more difficult for a country to pull something like that. Both sides of the spectrum would be able to stop a full out anarchy. Do you really think this is a sound reason for gun rights?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fowler on Oct 9, 2017 3:43:35 GMT
@malinski I saw your details about background checks and how thourough they can be, but is this true for every kind of gun? Hunting rifles, handguns, and assault weapons are all very different types of guns and are used for a variety of purposes. Along with their different uses, I understand that the use of background checks and the process that is undertaken can be very different for each type of weaponry. Do background checks really protect all types of weaponry from those who should have it, or is it different for each type of weapon?
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Oct 9, 2017 3:48:19 GMT
@hinchberger I agree with you in the fact that the law abiding gun owners are getting punished for the criminals who are doing the wrong doing in the country, and because of that, stricter gun laws will most likely not work. However, when you say people still have the argument about stricter laws with Assault Rifles and you say AR and how we don't hunt with an AR is where I have a slight problem, because the AR or AR-15 is not considered an assault rifle by modernfirearms.net because when the trigger is pulled, it only fires one bullet and then you have to let go of the trigger for it to reload and be shot again. Also, the name AR stands for Armalite Rifle (the name of the model and is made by Colt), not assault rifle, however the AK is considered and assault rifle. I also think that as long as the public has access to an kind of firearm, whether it be a shotgun, a pistol, or an AK-47, the people will be able to fight back, and I'm sure if the government would have a plan to wipe us all out if it got that bad, so us and our guns wouldn't stand a chance anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Oct 9, 2017 3:58:28 GMT
@fowler (reply to reply) I see what you mean about how different they can be and that could possibly have an impact on how the background checks are, but from the NCSL and thetrace.org both show nothing about the process of the background checks being different for different types of firearms. However, in the one article provided in the DB, it mentioned how the process is different to purchase assault rifles because they do have such strict regulations, the background check for assault rifles is like getting a background check for the FBI is how the article worded it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gray on Oct 9, 2017 4:02:31 GMT
Due to the recent mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas, naturally, the topic of gun control arrises. The country is very divided on this topic. Many feel that the restrictions on purchasing guns and owning guns needs to be reinforce tremendously or in some cases a complete ban of guns all together. While on the other hand, others say that their Second Amendment right as an American citizen protects them from a ban of guns and that they can own as many weapons as they choose. Both sides have solid points. However, there has been a a huge increase in shootings in this country. It happens so often that people have often become numb to it or it doesn't even phase them anymore because it happens so much. Obviously some sort of change needs to happen. Even something as simple as stricter restrictions. Having the right to Bear arms is our Second Amendment right as an American citizen that cannot and should not be taken away. 22% of Americans own one or more guns and 79% of men and 80% of women feel safer owning a gun. Guns are great to own for protection and safety and a complete ban of all guns goes against our constitutional rights. And just how effective with that truly be ? For instance , drugs are illegal but people still do them. There are places where gun were banned and people still have them. Bottom line is a criminal is still going to get a gun even if it is banned. On the other hand, restrictions could potentially decrease tragedy. Overall, something needs to be done. Background checks need to become a lot more thorough and people who have a criminal history should not be able to own guns. Anything to prevent more tragedy and more blood shed. We desperately need a change and people who are mentally ilL should not own guns. Restrictions need to become stricter as well.
Do you think stricter restrictions on guns in America will Preevent more mass shootings in the country?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gray on Oct 9, 2017 4:08:53 GMT
Many people come to the conclusion after an act like the Las Vegas attack that they need to have more control on guns. But will just having more control on guns really solve the problems of shootings that happens in this day and age? Many people say that we need gun control when they do not know much about guns to begin with. There are different types of guns such as automatic and semi-automatic, the difference between them is that semi-automatic only fires one bullet at a time with one push of the trigger, while the automatic fires cartridges repeatedly until the shooter takes their finger off the trigger. There have been regulations put into place in the United states such as the 1934 National Firearms act that restricts automatic weapons that are sold. Additionally from PolitiFact, “To buy a fully automatic rifle, a prospective owner must pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms $200 and pass a federal background check that shows no record of domestic violence or felony convictions.” There is restrictions on guns to be able to make it harder for people to get their hands on them, but people can still alter semi-automatic guns and make them fire similar to a automatic gun. Even though it is illegal, there are government- approved devices that allow semi-automatic machine guns to simulate a machine gun fire. From the New York Times, “At least one rifle in Mr. Paddock’s suite had a “bump stock,” a device used to retrofit a semiautomatic firearm to make it function like a fully automatic weapon.” If the government wants to increase gun control, then why would they be approving something that can change a gun that fires a single shot at a time into one that shoots more? Is the government really trying to help control guns? In the article from Forbes it states, “Not that Webster wants to ignore what happened in Las Vegas, but he wants people to understand that the most-publicized mass shootings, as horrible as they are, represent only a small percentage of firearm deaths in the United States.” This shows that not all deaths from firearms are from mass shootings, two-thirds are from suicides, also found in the article. Additionally from Fox News, “ this may be the first mass public shooting in the U.S. involving a machine gun, if it turns out the killer did use such a weapon.” So even though machine guns are commonly used in the rest of the world, it is not the case in the U.S. From the article from USA Today, “showing how this policy or that law couldn't have made a difference, that nothing could have stopped him.” Even though there are rules and regulations on guns it will not be able to stop killers from getting guns for shootings. The Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, and allows people to guarantee safety, life, and freedom. Even through all the Amendment gives us, from Fox News states, “But one sad fact that everyone calling for gun control needs to consider is that, as Europe has shown, you can have all the gun control laws you want and you still won’t be able to stop horrors like this from happening.” So even through all of the background checks and other precautions that people can take, it can still not fully protect people from what others will do. Do you believe that putting more rules and regulations on gun control will help our country become more safe for the future? Or do you believe that nothing will change? I believe that is is worth a try. Something seriously needs to happen in a huge change needs to happen in this country. Of course not everyone will listen to the restrictions and there will be some people that wall still act out or cause problems but greater regulations may decrease this by a lot. |
|
