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:
Is it rabbit season or duck season? Before you purchase your next firearm, you might need to pause and make sure your driver’s license is valid. ID checks are intended to keep dangerous people from getting guns, but opponents say that these measures are ineffective and perhaps even counterproductive. In the world of gun sales, should we demand ID checks?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 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
ID Checks Are a “First Step” to More Gun Control
- From Gun Owners of America
By Gun Owners of America - A No-Compromise Gun Rights Organization
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Registration Definitely Leads to Confiscation
Along with people using gun control legislation to boost their political careers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE-jrJ-7Sek
- F2XL
December 3, 2008 5:25PM
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.
Sometimes confiscation is worth considering.
If someone is convicted of gun violence, confiscating their guns is worth considering.
If someone has a restraining order (in Australia we call this an Apprehended Violence Order) against them, confiscating their guns is worth considering.
If someone has a history of violence related to drug abuse or mental illness, confiscating their guns is worth considering.
Allowing all and sundry to buy and keep guns inevitably means that:
*Those who have a record of gun violence can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Those who have a history of violence towards their spouses or family can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Those with a history of violence connected to drug abuse or mental illness can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Criminals and terrorists can buy guns and ammunition easily.
I reckon that America might be just a little safer if criminals, terrorists, drug crazies, the violently mentally ill and others with a history of gun violence found it just a little more difficult to get guns and ammunition. Why should these people be offered guns and ammunition on a platter?
- Michael Glass
January 9, 2009 9:10PM
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.
That misses my original point
When I was speaking about confiscation, I was addressing it in the context of EVERYONE having their guns confiscated, not just career criminals.
Nonetheless, there is little evidence that confiscating guns from criminals actually stops them from using firearms in a crime: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:MECiJ8ZufikJ: www.fff.org/freedom/0894c.asp +black+market+guns&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_9_46/ai_64259208
"Allowing all and sundry to buy and keep guns inevitably means that:
*Those who have a record of gun violence can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Those who have a history of violence towards their spouses or family can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Those with a history of violence connected to drug abuse or mental illness can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Criminals and terrorists can buy guns and ammunition easily."
Right, but I think the above articles establish the fact that terrorists and criminals have their own sources of guns even if it's illegal for them to purchase and posses them in the first place.
"Why should these people be offered guns and ammunition on a platter?"
No one is saying they should, only that such laws don't stop them from achieving their ends.
- F2XL
January 10, 2009 2:13AM
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.
Clarification
When I was writing about confiscation, I was addressing several issues including domestic violence and other situations where guns may be in the hands of disturbed people. Even if gun confiscation had no influence on criminals, such laws might help to prevent some other gun murders, where disturbed individuals use guns.
However, there is another point to consider. Americans suffer from a disproportionate number of gun deaths compared with other advanced countries. Why, for instance, should gun deaths be so much more common in the United States than Canada? As other countries do better in this regard than the United States it is worthwhile considering what makes the difference.
- Michael Glass
January 14, 2009 12:37AM
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.
In that context, I can agree
Regarding taking guns away from those we KNOW have committed a crime, we might be able to have some effect on violence even if some criminals get something off the black market instead.
"Americans suffer from a disproportionate number of gun deaths compared with other advanced countries."
Not by a whole lot:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
When adjusted for population differences, we see the gaps close significantly. But gun deaths alone aren't the only cause of crime, we would need to take into account a plethora of other factors such as whether or not deaths by other accessories to crime increase, or whether the lives saved by those who use them in self defense cancel out these numbers altogether (because who reports a crime that doesn't happen?).
"As other countries do better in this regard than the United States it is worthwhile considering what makes the difference."
I think it's a mostly cultural thing, but there could be extrinsic factors that we are unaware of that are causing the higher levels of guns deaths reported. I have yet to see a study from either side that details how other crimes or various laws affect gun violence in the US.
- F2XL
January 18, 2009 5:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
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.
The gap in gun deaths from your source.
While it is true that gun deaths in the United States are not much more prevalent than in Mexico and Brazil, a very different picture emerges when you compare the United States with other English-speaking countries. Here are some figures from the source that you quoted:
Selected gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Northern Ireland 6.63
Canada 4.31
Australia 2.65
New Zealand 2.38
Ireland 0.97
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
If you look at Brazil and Mexico you can say that the United States doesn't look too bad. However, when you compare the American experience with the experience of other English-speaking countries the difference is quite stark. Why should the United States have more than three times the rate of gun deaths as Canada? Why should the US have more than five times the rate of gun deaths of Australia, more than 14 times the rate of gun deaths of Ireland and more than 34 times the rate of gun deaths of England and Wales? Even Northern Ireland, with all its troubles had less than half the rate of gun deaths as the United States.
I think it is worth asking why there should be such large differences between countries in their rates of gun deaths. After all, if the United States could only bring down its rate of gun deaths to that of Canada, the death rate would be slashed by more than two thirds. Surely this would be a worthwhile saving of human life.
- Michael Glass
January 22, 2009 6:28AM
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.
Straight from Freakanomics.
"Selected gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Northern Ireland 6.63
Canada 4.31
Australia 2.65
New Zealand 2.38
Ireland 0.97
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41"
Now what would happen if we factored in self-defense?
Regarding that first paragraph afterward...
Pretty sure "gun-free" zones, unemployment, and other various contributions to crime can cause a spike to all this.
"I think it is worth asking why there should be such large differences between countries in their rates of gun deaths. After all, if the United States could only bring down its rate of gun deaths to that of Canada, the death rate would be slashed by more than two thirds. Surely this would be a worthwhile saving of human life."
Which isn't achieved through gun control legislation.
- F2XL
February 11, 2009 8:51PM
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.
Who's your source?
C'mon, Northern Ireland has only 7 gun deaths per 100,000 people?
- JKM121
March 24, 2009 12:20AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You gap
Using 1994 gun death statisics is simply the wrong ruler, 1994 was close to the worse years of gun deaths & violents deaths period) on record and also when the gun laws were much tighter. The murder rate has been going down since ( I think) 1991 and is now very low from a historical standpoint. Also the proper statisic to use is "violent deaths". It makes no difference to anyone (except gun control minded people) if you are killed from a shovel or a gun, certainly not to the victim. How about the statisics that show a reduction in violent crime in every state that enacted shall issue concealed carry laws after those laws took effect. The whole "gunshow" thing is smoke and mirrors. If you are a gun dealer you have to do background checks, if you are a private citizen you can sell you property including your guns to another citizen. What a gun show law does is tell you you cant sell your gun to your friend, brother, ect. The gun control lobby is very carefull to lie about this and try to convince people a gun show is full of "gun dealers" selling guns in a venue to circumvent a background check. When the antigun lobby starts to be even a little bit honest in their tactics and claims and simply proclaims that they dont like guns and think I shouldnt own one I will welcome their imput on legislation. They are allowed to have their opinion (even when wrong) but They never ever tell the whole truth and knowingly engage in shamefull propaganda. Like many issues if the average person would take the time to find out the facts they would find their opinon changed
- Trapperbob
November 22, 2009 11:19AM
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.