The second amendment of the constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. As the specter of gun violence continues in our workplaces, roads and schools, the question keeps arising: do guns keep you safe, or just increase the level of violence?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
How ‘Bout Some Common Sense?
- From States United to Prevent Gun Violence
By States United to Prevent Gun Violence - Working To Reduce Gun Deaths & Injuries
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Addressing The Real Problem
Anthropologist David Kennedy (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York) has determined in city after city that less than 0.5% of the population on average is responsible for over 75% of the homicides. When those individuals are addressed, violence in the first year of the interdiction program typically drops by half.
We don't need to control guns to address violence, we need to control criminals.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/418838
- hecate
September 5, 2008 5:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Addressing the real problem
Howdy Hecate,
Until the Justice system starts handing down penalies that suit the crime and start removing the criminal element from society, I just keep my guns. I will stick to my clinging "to religion and my guns," and Obama can keep his "change." Now that is something you can take to the Bank.
- johnk568
March 3, 2009 2:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Faulty Logic
Your argument makes the supposition that gun laws are universal throughout the nation. The Highest murder rates, and violence rates involving guns in the US are (rather obviously) In large metropolitan areas.
By referencing Scalia's decision, you cannot ignore the fact that, Washington DC, one of the most violent places in the United States, has extremely strict laws prohibiting gun ownership. Therefore, if gun laws worked, by your logic, wouldn't Washington DC be one of the safest places in America? By your logic, then Philadelphia would also be a very safe city.
Gun Control is an attempt at treating a symptom of a greater ailment.
- MikesSpot
September 7, 2008 10:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What about the Swiss?
Last time I checked, the Swiss had a higher rate of gun ownership than we here in the States and they enjoy one of the lowest gun related crime rates in the world.
- Wulfgar
October 29, 2008 8:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Availability of guns in the U.S. - and common sense
I am curious, was it the guns that the crips/bloods have make them violent? Was it the guns that the Hells Angels possess make them violent? Are the guns the MS-13 have the reason they are so violent? Remember when skinheads just kicked the crap out of people? I wonder if their steel-toed boots suddenly make them violent? Is it just possible that it is the inherent, violent proclivity of some people the real problem. While I would agree that the act of killing and robbing may be easier when the bad guy has a gun, but if I have a gun as well (which I do) and I have some training (which I do, and I advocate training and regular practice) my chances of surviving a negative encounter with a robber or killer is greatly improved. However, my theory about the miraculous removal of all guns from private ownership would simply result in attacks by a greater force from which I could not defend i.e. more bad guys acting in concert against one person. With a firearm I am a formidable opponent; without one I am a victim and a statistic. I plan on being neither.
As to the issue of common sense, I have yet to hear from the gun control group ANYTHING that even comes close to common sense when it comes to limiting my ability to defend myself and my family. I don't see any common sense in limiting me to one-gun-per-month schemes. When I lived in SoCal most gun owners took that to mean, not a limitation of one-gun-per-month, but a requirement of one-gun-per-month. Many of us purchased many more guns than we normally would have due to that limitation. This was especially true in the case of collectors of hard to find, out of production firearms. At one point I had as many as nine guns paid for but I couldn't take possession of them. I had to wait months before I could bring them home. In almost every case these guns were unsuited for anything but collecting but there was no provision in the law for that. Explain the "common-sense" in that? I'll tell you what common sense is. Common sense is educating responsible, law-abiding gun owners, the ones who buy one gun for home defense, about gun safety. Oops, the NRA does that already. So why is the NRA so demonized and vilified? As a former peace officer I fully support a person's right to own a firearm and common sense does not mean you should be able to do anything to infringe on my right and ability to defend myself and protect my family.
- daveinvegas
October 30, 2008 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are there more guns out there today?
Are there more guns out there today? Yes there is....and a lot more.
If more guns equal more deaths, why has the death rate decreased about 40% in the governments latest statistics.
Japan is a homogenious society that has thousands of years social structure unlike these United States. Yes they have few guns. Yes, the suicide rate is much higher than ours.
Austrailia, Great Britain, and Canada have greatly restricted or banned most firearms and now are experiencing a huge increase in crime compared to before the restrictions. Remember when the Bobbies didn't carry firearms? What has changed?
- captinjack
February 10, 2009 10:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not an accurate reflection of reality
As an Australian, I have to correct your generalisation that there has been a huge increase in crime . This is for the most part, factually untrue. If you look at the links below, you will see that property crime has been trending downwards in the last few years ( http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/property/stats /), while only Assault has risen among violent crimes ( http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/stats /). Irrespective of the statistical aspects, the fact remains that gun related violence is really very rare in Australia. When people do commit violent crimes, they use firearms in only around 15% of cases ( http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/keyFacts_handguns.html ). In any case, even before the bans of 1996 and 2001 (which applied to automatics, semi-automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns, and high capacity semi-automatic pistols), there has never been a law permitting private citizens to carry firearms of any sort on their person for any reason, so it isn't as if people stopped carrying guns or keeping them in their homes to not having them at all.
- Sesquipedalian
May 7, 2009 6:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wait a minute...
SUPGV,
Aren't you the one in another post who said "Causal effect is always hard to determine"? Yet here you're making a blanket statement that more guns equal more violence. It's funny how that whole double-standard thing works with anti-gunners. To paraphrase your comments in "Fewer Guns in North East...", Did more guns really lead to MORE crime or were there many other factors such as DOWNTURNS in the economy , LESS aggressive policing, LOWER incarceration rates, INCREASE in crack cocaine use?
Just a thought...
- rnlanders
March 25, 2009 2:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who doesn't like numbers?
Are we worried more about violent crimes, or just crimes with guns ? Does it make sense to expect that crime would go down with less guns, or merely that gun crimes would go down with less guns? It seems to me that crime is the issue, not guns. Let's look at some facts about gun usage:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x155031
- sank
May 12, 2009 3:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
violence/crime control is the issue
My sense of the Pro Gun/ Anti Gun disagreements are mostly because each side is referring to something different. What makes that important is each side seems to be doing the wrong things for the right reasons. It seems to me we (both sides of the alleged issue) should get on the same page.
The anti gun folk are concerned about firearm violence and see outlawing or restricting firearms as a solution. The pro gun side doesn't want bans and further restrictions. The problem is both are missing the mark. The problem is violence. Both sides would be overjoyed if the problem of violence were addressed. Proposing outlawing or restricting firearms does not address violence. Supporting 2nd amendment rights does not address violence. I think you see where I am going here.
There is a goal displacement in the issue(s) and proposals to resolve them. Nowhere in the anti gun proposals are any solutions to violence and a whole raft of other issues that are not addressed by the application of anti firearm legislation. It may me my mental defects that cause me to question why would anyone want to do something that can't possibly work and only tends to irritate folks who are not a threat. It is one of them there "Same action, same result." It's gotta make you wonder. Like Einstein's definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
- ursamajor2004
June 22, 2009 2:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So, how about some common sense?
I agree, we need common sense! We need to TEACH kids ABOUT guns in school , not teach them this inanimate object is bad. It has NO ability by itself to do much more than collect dust or rust!!
Those who attack guns are the same crowd that do NOT beleive in personal responsiblity or punishment for one's bad actions. Till we solve that lack of understanding of the human being, we can not solve the gun issue. Its that simple!
Till then I will guard my freedom very cautiously!!!
- Explorer1
October 31, 2009 6:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.