Shared publicly  - 
Are you for gun control or not?

Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin


#WhiteHouse   #GunControl   #Guns   #BenjaminFranklin   #Quote   #QuestionOfTheDay   #Phylosophy   #philosophyfriday  
Hien Dao Thi's profile photoMina Gamal's profile photoDaniel Abrahams's profile photoBug menot's profile photo
There's one more quote I'd like to add.....from a certain Brit that became a citizen of ours.

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill
Murder is already illegal. The coward shot himself before he could be apprehended. I don't understand how that constitutes "winning", honestly. But why penalize gun owners for the cowards' crime?
Standard mag for Ar-15/M-16 is 30 rounds, the "extended" or drum mags are 100 rounds but notoriously unreliable, as was shown in Colorado.

But was the movie theater off-limits to CCW holders? Ours are usually in Ohio.
My handgun's magazine holds 16 rounds. I do need every single round in that magazine for legal purposes.

It's a right that I can take my own chances with my life. No government should have the right to make life and death decisions for me. So the argument that I risk my own life to have a gun in my house is ridiculous.

My gun is loaded and accessible without the risk of anyone but me getting a hold of it.

Had a single armed person shot into the AIR at that school, lives would have been saved. That coward chose that place because he knew he'd have time to do exactly what he wanted.
Plus as a country, we don't want gun control. It's why these bs bills never get voted on. Sure, you'll blame the NRA, but there's a reason why it's one of the more powerful lobbies.
And so as one has the right to take up arms and overthrow the government, what chance does a gun slinging citizen have against a trainer soldier or an army?
The ideal is correct and citizens should be able to overthrow their government when they deem it wrong, corrupt and not working for its people, but having a big weapon is utterly pathetic, outmoded and morally reprehensible.

As has been commented above, a citizen is committing murder if they kill - they are not soldiers so the rules are different.

People in 1st world countries really don't need big powerful killing machines under the guise of overthrowing their government or protection.
It's time to grow up and use guns properly or not at all, shooting people because you hate them or the government is wrong on every level and as humans we know that and must be better than that. 
+Hamish Niven talk to the Syrians about your first question.

We are talking about guns killing maybe 12k a year...maybe. Instead of looking at things that could really help a lot more people we go after guns because a vocal minority are afraid of them. We then apply the boogie-man factor to it and criminalize anyone with a gun.
*Which is more important to you?
Your right to have a gun
Everyone's right not to be shot for no logical reason?*

You can't have both

Kinda looks selfish to work on the premise - the need of one outweighs the need of the many 
+Anita Todd, " Putting any kind of ban or limit on that is only going to put more in the hands of violent criminals." It would be nice if someone, anyone, in the pro-gun camp ever backed up that statement with actual facts. 
My right to own a gun is more important than the illogical premise that someone will get shot with it just because I own it. 
How's Mexico's gun ownership laws treating them?
+George Rapko, is your right to own a gun more important than the premise that the widespread availability of guns makes it more likely that someone will get shot with a gun, even if it isn't necessarily yours?
It is illogical to make the connection between my right and everyone's right when those two are exclusive of each other.

I never claimed my right to carry a gun makes me safer. Statistics are a great thing but they can't be applied individually. They especially can't be applied when they weren't even cited! A cited story about a study, doesn't equate to a cite about a study.

I own a gun because I like to shoot it.

I haven't written a single line based in Neanderthal emotion as you put it, but you have.

Jake Kepner
I usually don't participate in these types of discussions because most of the participants come from the extreme sides of the spectrum when formulating their arguments. In this case, though I feel the need to present a middle ground.

First of all, as I read through various gun control discussions I notice that a lot of people seem to think "gun control" means an outright ban of all guns. Gun control as a concept seems more reasonable as a set of laws and restrictions controlling types of legal guns and prerequisites for gun ownership (i.e. criminal background, psychiatric evaluation) As for the constitutional right to own guns in order to keep the government in check, i hope you can afford a jet fighter.

Another unfortunate misconception is all these statistics about gun owners being more likely to be killed by a gun. Has anyone stopped to consider that gun ownership requires little to no education about gun safety. Not to mention the fact that this country has formed this stigma regarding guns that they are untouchable evil things. This as had the unfortunate side effect of romanticizing them leading to accidental deaths.

Now if asked what I would change about gun control in this country I would make these changes.

1. In order to own a gun one must have completed a gun safety class that not only teaches gun handling and care but includes anger management, and conflict resolution.

2.Teach Jr. High/ Middle school students a basic gun safety class that, instead of teaching don't touch! guns are bad, teaches basic gun safety (i.e. safety mechanisms and disarming procedures) To help remove the stigma of the evil gun

3. Require a criminal background check and a psychological evaluation in order to own a gun bought publicly or privately.

4.Do away with the concealed weapons permit. There is no rational reason why a person should need to both carry a weapon and hide the fact that they are carrying a weapon.

I could keep going but I think I've made my point. Which is instead of arguing the two extremes perhaps we should be looking at some realistic goals to prevent these tragedies.
that quotes sounds profound but if you think about it ,it makes no sense.certain liberties must be relinquished in order for society to function. 
Why is something a perfectly fallible human said over 200 years old held up like gospel in an ever changing world? We should always strive to better ourselves, not live by the laws of the past.
+Gareth McNorton Because to remove the ability to perform actions for a little security only allows room for those whom want power to abuse it in demand for more power, and thus take away more liberties.
A person must be able to perform all actions, for every action has its time of usefulness. This man knew it, even killing and rebellion which were crimes, had their need to create a nation free to make it's own choices and destiny.
+Gareth McNorton First of all no one has stated that Benjamin Franklin was infallible nor did anyone say his word was gospel. We as human beings learn from past experiences both on a personal level and a social level. This quote represents an idea nothing more. It is up to us as individuals to interpret it's value. In order to improve upon our selves and society   
Liberties must be embraced for society to function. The imposition of someone's will on another through the power of law creates the polarized situation we have today in America. When we enforce morals, those who lose their liberties become more and more ideologically distanced from the imposers. It divides and fractures a community until nothing productive is created by that community but moral laws. Free thought is replaced with group ideologies that make it easy for people to pick a side.
Xatolos, you've missed my point, I'm talking about how we use the founding fathers words.

Jake, I'm talking about much more than just his words, for example the constitution. And things all the founding fathers say are treated like gospel by many. They are to many 'patriots' what the disciples are to Christians. I'm not having a pop at anyone, that's simply my observation.
no society can allow its people to do whatever they want however they want,,that's called anarchy,there has to be a balance,so i maintain there must be some infringement on liberties to have a functional society.
+Gareth McNorton Well considering the constitution is the foundation for this country from it's organization to dictating what powers it does and does not have I'd say it's pretty important. If we were to stop following the guidelines set down in that document we would cease being the society we claim to be. As I stated before those word including that document represent an idea. An idea where the government is an entity of the people by the people and for the people. Thus it is up to the people to determine what that entails. I recognize the the constitution and the founding father are not infallible. however, since their words represent ideas by their very nature they should be open for debate. They themselves saw this and purposefully added flexibility to the writing of the constitution so that as latter generations faced problems it would be open for debate.
Anarchist believe in living by principles that are agreed upon by other voluntary participants. That said, it's not exactly a great model for a continuous globalized society. 

You said "Some" restrictions on our liberties. If there were only "some" restrictions I don't think this conversation would be happening.  Many Americans would say there are many. 
Look regardless of what people say, the real reason people hoard guns is to be ready to take out the local swat team when they are mobilized as an anti american police state force. Be prepared to defend liberty.
+Daniel Smith SWAT team? I think if they're afraid of a police state totalitarian regime, then they should be hoarding anti-missile defenses, not guns.
I am a Dutch citizen living in the Netherlands. I have seen the US through the news every day all my life. To me and most of the people I know it's super obvious that all the dramas in schools and theaters is caused by the fact that every fool may posses a gun.

(not saying that anybody who possesses a gun is a fool)

Here and most other countries in Europe most people don't have guns. We don't have these dramas.
When you use THIS argument at the expense of your children's lives you need to think again. if you cannot allow potentially dangerous nations to have nuclear weapons, how can you allow potentially dangerous people to have guns. I wonder what old Benjamin would say when people use his comment after mass school killings.
That is why there are background checks.
It alldepends were its pointing if its at me imm all for gun control if its at u have fun go ahead dont stop now fire away
You can't disarm criminals so give the innocent a fighting chance. Or do you prefer sheep led to slaughter? Guns are not the problem. Selfish and negligent parenrs are.
The actual quote was "Essential liberty" not "a little liberty".
Franklin understood that guns were necessary to prevent tyranny.
Australia's gun control in the 90s was a disaster.

Our idiot politicians are trying to penalize the good people who own guns. By doing this, you are just making the bad people stronger. The ones who don't even obtain guns legally. 
Australia has one of the strictest laws with regards to guns, and to that affect australia has the lowest death rate due to gun related violence
Funny thing about modern society is that it is the liberals that are more willing to give up personal liberties.  
+Shawn Pete actually it had. In my country criminals rarely use guns because they are very hard to get one. Also trying to get a gun illegally can get you into prison - which stops the crime before it happens. Basically guns are used almost only by organised crime. My country is not an exception, but rather a rule in Europe I think.

I know it's hard to grasp in USA, but in my country it was always like that and no one complains. I feel very safe too.
The right to bear arms is overblown and people are whipped up in a frenzy by the arms industry who want to sell more product. Look at all the individuals who took to arms in the past thirty years because they felt threatened (whether real or imaginary)  by the federal government. First they were were written of by the media as crack pots after a short stand of the feds move in and shut them down in most cases fatalities occurred  In no case did any of their brethren in the NRA stand shoulder to shoulder or at least question what they the mainstream media were putting out on the situation. The shoot out a Ruby Ridge is a typical example. A free and open and questioning press is far more powerful then any right to bear arms. This is the very reason governments around the world are trying hard to curtail the openness of the internet.
I think the TSA is a more appropriate reference for this quote
Laws help define what is acceptable in a society. However they never control a members action within that society. ye sub kya hai
All for gun control. It has largely worked in Australia, I think. In my opinion, encouraging everyone to have guns, as the NRA appears to want, is akin to mutually assured destruction at the individual level. It will constantly heighten tension until something breaks.
Enough already, We get it. America  the land of the free to blast the shit out of each other. get on with it.
+Shawn Pete - You are right, laws do define what is acceptable in society. I also agree that an individual may or may not choose to obey those laws. However arguing as you did that gun laws aren't needed or necessary because criminals don't obey laws is short-sighted as there is over-whelming evidence that laws do work, both for gun control and any other activity deemed unacceptable by society. Otherwise we would live in anarchy and our laws would be impotent and futile, but this is not the case.
I can only tell you that we have very strict gun controls in Germany and we don't have these problems you guys in the States seem to be having.
Sure this could be applied to gun control.

Also since 9/11 we have lost a number of other liberties in the name of security. Liberties such as private communication, the right to a fair trial, the right against unreasonable search, the right to assemble peacefully. We traded all those liberties for a little security. In some cases they were taken from us for the security of a few.

But please be worried of a government that takes your semi-automatic rifles and pistols, less you may have to fight tanks and Predator drones.
Ban spoons, they make people fat, people die from being Obese related conditions every day. Ban life, life results in death every second of every day 
by all means stay there then. Those same evil guns kept your your country free along with our taxes.
I see the problem wasnt the finger that released the was what is inside the head of the fella that triggered the senseless masaccre ...i guess there are a rare few amongst us with defective neuron network...need early diagnosis..
Why not sell nuclear weapons to the public: It is not the weapon that is killing it is the finger that pulls the trigger, so no problem...
We're not giving up liberty. We're simply not giving liberty to the people who are too insane to be wielding a weapon, so the rest of us can have the liberty to NOT GET SHOT. Can anybody on the gun side hear the sound of reason, or is it like dog whistles to humans?
Not quoted properly. This quote leaves too much scope for personal perception with the usage of the word "little".  IMHO A better quote is attributed to him on WikiQuote.

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

"essential" and "temporary" are better guidelines than "little"
I don't care who that quotation is attributed to. What an idiotic thing to say. 
R. S.
Fact, there are many gun-related deaths in the US, more than in any other Western country. What we do know is that the solution of the NRA to post armed guards everywhere is totally unfeasible. Both from a cost perspective and the fact nobody can guarantee an armed guard doesn't go on a rampage, can intervene on time and even manages to intervene without himself getting killed first (they would be an obvious target).

So either you institute more stringent gun controls or you accept high levels of gun-related deaths.

My personal position is to go for stricter gun control. "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." A militia can, in my view, be accomplished through having weapons' caches at shooting ranges or town halls, or wherever people feel comfortable to keep their guns. This would cover protection of citizens against tyranny as a group.

Having guns at homes to defend against intruders increases the likelihood of accidental deaths and more often leads to the death of the home-owner than the other way around than when the home-owner does not have a gun and there's a burglar (after all, the burglar is wide awake and you're probably groggy). It's not only safer for your kids but also for yourself not to hold guns at home. 

Now, if the news would show an equal or higher amount of positive interventions by people because they carried a gun and therefore the "good guy" shot a "bad guy", there might be some argument for carrying weapons on your person. The reality is that this is not the case - gun murders greatly exceed killings in self-defence. The positive effects of gun ownership therefore are simply not apparent to me and only give a false sense of security.
S Mann
+Holger K. von Jouanne-Diedrich  that sort of happens with governments already doesnt it. Each country wants nukes.

The US is the only country in the world to have ever used nukes, yet its the 'instable' minds of certain other countries which is the real threat and they should not have nukes.
hypocrisy right there.

This example is being introduced into society now so go figure.
Could someone explain to me why it is necessary to have a licence to drive a car in America, but unacceptable to be required to have a licence for a gun?
You have a better chance at winning the lotto than being shot in a mass shooting! 
S Mann
+TOR WALKER tell that to the kids who got shot at sandy hook. maybe they should have all played a hand at the lotto?
A founding father, who helped to build a country, being discounted by internet elitists enjoying the very freedoms he built that still exist today.  Yet those same internet elitists say those ideas are old and need to be done away with.  If it was not so sad it would be ironic.
Explain to me again how weak is your democracy that you need to keep a house full of weapons to defend it?
No guns should not be allowed. It only entices evil people too believe they hold leverage.
Through this thread probably nobodies opinion has changed only strengthened
Though isn't that a circular argument, more people have guns so more people feel obliged to buy guns to protect themselves. Eventually the logical conclusion is everyone should be armed then no one could get hurt. Please tell me that doesn't sound like good common sense to you.
Can someone please explain why 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' means that people should be allowed weapons?
 If Americans, and America, are unwilling or unable to exercise weapons control in their own country, how can they expect to do so in regards to other countries, and other people ?.
  In my view these two issues are conjoined.  To exclude arms control, is by default, to encourage an Arms race !. Not only, in America, but elsewhere. Other Peoples, and other Countries, will look to America, and say we must at least, match them !
Doug Crosby
I was born and raised in a part of the country where I was and have been using firearms since being a small child. I have been in hunters education classes along with firearm retention and safety classes over the years and feel very strongly about my rights to own and carry weapons.
When I went into the United States Army I was shocked at how many soldiers I was placed with had never even fired a rifle. I was instantly labeled a red neck from Idaho because I could qualify as expert on the M16 right out the gate.
Once out of the military I went into law enforcement and continued my training with firearms. I have always been a law abiding person who had never even had a speeding ticket.
That all being said with all the chatter about taking away our rights to own assault weapons and high capacity magazines is a touchy subject.. When we discuss taking away any type of our freedoms this Country was founded on it becomes a very hot topic. 
I for one can live just fine never owning an assault weapon or high capacity magazine. I am just as content with handguns, shotguns and a trusty 30/30 lever action rifle.
But... how do you know this is not the beginning of the end for gun ownership? Can you honestly say that this will stop with assault weapons?
Do any of you who believe in losing our rights to own a firearm truly feel that a nation who MUST rely on another person for protection can be truly safe?

I am truly afraid that this nation has had a silver spoon in its mouth for far to long. We have become complacent and far to eager to give up rights for a false sense of safety and security.
Taking away your right as Americans to own, carry and responsibly use firearms is not going to cure this issue infecting our youth and adults. It goes soooo much deeper then that.
Now I see our president may possibly use executive privileges and make up our minds for us on this matter. If this happens I will officially be hiding away my unregistered firearms for a rainy day that I pray will never come. But for the first time I will no longer be a law abiding citizen....
+Gareth McNorton the reason the founding fathers words sound like gospel is in contrast to our current leadership.

Now my opinion on this controversial subject...

Civilians should not own nuclear weapons, F16's, tanks, helicopter gunships and powerful assault rifles but there are strong arguments based on historical statistics why some moderate weapons must be outside of government legislation and knowledge. American people do not fear their powerful military but civilians fear a corrupted police state.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~Lord Acton

The bottom line being that one psycho in government can do more harm than a thousand loners outside that power and influence.

We mourn the death of every innocent soul but governments need to consider the possible consequences by looking at a longer time frame.

The real statistics of gun control as seen on a longer time-frame:

In Australia we have a problem with people lighting fires... can you really stop this with legislation? #home   #family   #education  
Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people. So what does stupid people without guns do? Can't be killing people, that's for sure! At least not 30 children in 5min..
I concur, as the saying goes: If they outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have em.

Shutting the stable door after the horse has departed is stupid. Look at the real culprit in the Sandy Hook shooting, it wasn't the asshole's guns in the first place, charge the mother with accessory to murder.

Im sick and tired of the idiots that want to take away people's arms rather than fix the issues - policing the owners, upholding the law. Take away people's best form of defence will only ease the takeover but then again that is the plan...
The problem with the people of today is they are to willing to give up liberty for any reason
I think that age control for guns i a must in the tragic events in the usa
Guns are not only problem, society's history, moral values, childhood of that person there are so many things involve. 
Point is, there was accessible guns in a mentally ill persons home! Even if the guns was not his, they were there. If they wasn't.. What would he have done then? Quick answer, NOT be killing off a lot of children!
+Ross Dmochowski I don't think the issue is responsible gun owner ship.  The problem is responsible child ownership.  Yeah from the day you and your spouse pop out the little spawn of Satan it's your responsibility to steer them in the right direction.  It starts at birth.  Bad parenting = Bad human and whether it's a gun, knife, or strapping on a bomb vest it's the parents fault for not teaching them right from wrong.
Enforce the laws on the books. That's be a good start. Then, let's see where we are before adding even more laws. 
Liberty comes with sense of responsibility, ones life can not/should not end because they give you liberty. If you want to posses gun own upto it
I guess all you are so wise you need the government to control every part of your life reread what old Ben wrote but have some one explain it to you because you obviously.don't understand what he said
Honestly I see no hope for humanity. Have anyone mentioned nuclear weapons yet... Come on its like we are kids playing fire with ants. Nobody cares when the decisions are being made. We built the ultimate weapon of our own demise. And all those horrible movies about doomsday or post apocalyptic, our imagination seeps FAR! So far it becomes true, it scares me. But I know that when we do kill each other off, this planet will come to another intelligence. THAT WILL DO THE EXACT THING. REPETITIOUS NATURE!!! SMH!!!
In Spain, my country, most of the population cannot have guns and the controls to have guns are quite restrictive, consequently, there are not usually people killed because of shootings. I think that in USA is still living in the "Wide Wild West" in spite we are living in the third Millenium. It is a question of common sense, and in USA common sence, in this matter, is less common that I thought.
It would be fascinating to see the result of a referendum of the whole population on this question. It is an unfortunate condemnation of US democracy that such a referendum could never be sanctioned.
Absolutely. Im sure all our founding fathers are turning over in their graves.
Wow this a good quote i should use this sometimes it perfectly plays out the scenario of havin guns banned and people still getting shot
+S Malik Egypt Bus Crash: Train Hits School Bus, Killing At Least 49 Children....
Without guns there would be no control ..........
+S Barton i agree with you whole heartidly just because its the cause of death of a lot of innocents doesn't mean we should out law it it may sound corny but everything is circumstantial in this circumstance "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a very appropriate quote when talking about the sandy hook shooting

Ben Franklin said a lot of things. Consider this racist rant:

the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased

Franklin said a lot of things. Not all of them stand up to history.
I think you might find that the reason the Japanese army didn't invade the US after 1942 was a little thing called over stretched supply lines. Not the fact that they were worried about the man or woman on the street shooting back. A random armed population isn't a sound military force to defend a country. It could be a gorilla force to fight back afterwards but only with planning and organised purpose. Sorry for this dip into history but I read a post above that I didn't agree with. Personal opinion only.
One of the greatest figures in our history, would be ashamed of what have become
I love the armchair liberal arguments for gun control. The fact is the second amendment does NOT exist for us to hunt or protect our homes. IT EXISTS SO WE CAN SHOOT AT THE GOVERNMENT WHEN/IF THEY BECOME TYRANTS. Bottom line? They have no right to regulate or register ANYTHING.
Then we should go back to only having guns like the ones available in the 1700s.
We aren't able to fight the US military, get real. So the tyranny defense thing doesn't fly. Assault weapons and high capacity clips are meant only to do a lot of damage quickly. Those should be restricted. If you can't live without shooting an assault rifle then join the army. 
+Cyrus Shepard everybody says horrible things everybody has done horrible things why should Ben Franklyn be any different we all just xhoose to acknowledge the great things he has done and said because he deserves it not because he was a racist and owned slaves but because he was a founding father and a brilliant mind for his time period
Do not become another China, guns and even knives are banned to let the outlawing untouchable. In some parts of China, people are still fighting against the mafia and the crinamal and sometimes even worse mafia together with the corrupt government. It is always happens like this inord to have a better control in most civilians,you have to minimise the ability they can rebel.maybe you can ban the right for a reliable man who are willing to be responsible to have a gun to secure your children , but the outcome may be a tragedy for this man and later a even greater crisis 
An honest question from me; if not gun control then what is the underlying issue?
+William Frame while you maybe right lets go further back into history when we revolted against the british empire the brits were already here and peoole like you and me banned together with hunting equipment and military grAde weapons banned together and beat back the british even if we had help from the french and germans and the spainards 
S Mann
+TOR WALKER dont see your point. People die of natural causes all the time, accidents, murders etc.

but when you have a tool readily available to act as a catalyst..its not very helpful. people dont go doing mass murders with a butter knife (before you bring up why knives are not banned)
point is, when you CAN help a situation by aiming to reduce tragedy and removing a catalyst, why is that a bad thing? cos you can go clay pigeon shooting anymore when you want? come on dude. and before you go on about how mexico has gun control etc. who gives a shit about other countries. you worry about your own. not to mention its not fair to compare the two cos they dont have mass school shootings as often.

Smoking is a killer too..thats why you have campaigns against it, adverts and what not. so...whats the difference here?
What amazes me most is that, those that have it in abundance are the ones asking people to relinquish theirs; and the principle should be "be a good example to your subordinates or the lead."
'Shooting at the government' worked out really well for the confederates now didn't it.
Ben lived in a different era. We need gun control.
Contole but not simply do what happens in China.

Truly free people must always have the ability to overthrow the government no matter by vote or by brute force. That's one of the ugly price mankind must pay for full fledge democracy.
Hi Russel, fortunately in Spain happens the same and in some little towns you can have your door open without fear of being attacked or robbed. Australia and Spain are more civilised in that matter and in our consciousness we have learned from our past in order not to make the same mistakes. In USA, they have almost the same awareness as the they had in colony and wild west times. This is pitiful, because these terrible events have to happen in order to make a society be aware of that senseless.
I wonder how many paid shills are posting here.
In a civilized world we have social security... When you have angry men with guns in every suburb you do not have security.!
Are you saying I shouldn't give up my right to hold nuclear weapons? Stop being such purists and revel in he bizarre wonder that is democracy 
Living in australia I can have never been able understand how there are people in the usa can think it is there god given right to own a firearm just doesn't make sense to me .......
John Lh
wE chinese has given up all the liberty,for the greatest security of totoalism society, How about you? We almost forget all the instinct of liberty now. You can ask any Chinese of what is liberty, and you will get the same answer:  How much it cost, and what is the taste of it .... Happy New Year !
I just read this article on "smart guns", coded to trigger-lock unless it identifies the registered owner's palm print.  Mossberg is developing one right now.  Then I saw the new Bond flick Skyfall, and he gets one as one of his gadgets.  I think it's a silly idea overall, because it will be easy to circumvent, old guns don't have it, what if you want someone else to fire it and what if the battery dies at a crucial moment?  My takeaway: if you're going to use guns, use them wisely.  More tech won't help the situation.
he also said "Life's Tragedy is that we get old to soon and wise too late".
m arfan
Religion aside, 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."

not just a belief, it is the law.
I believe they should have the right to be honest like giving up the right to own a gun isn't going to stop people who get guns illegal from doing bad. Guns are illegal in Ireland, killings still happen, might as well even the playing field!
m arfan
only to do a lot of damage quickly. Those should be restricted. If you can't live without shooting an assault rifle then join the army. 
m arfan
How do you weigh a 21-foot-long python?
I do not own a lethal weapon and yet my freedom does not feel threatened in any way......
+Simon Muirhead The constitution is about natural rights. And those natural rights does not include firearms, they include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ammendments are there in order to protect the natural rights. It is very clearly laid out in the constitution and the declaration of independence. However this is an agreement between the people and the government.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Anything is subject to change if they people are willing. The foundation of the American ideal is rather smart. 
Yes, and no.

In Canada "fully-automatic" weapons are banned. "Sawed off" or short rifles are banned as well.
They should be.
Pistols are controlled by registration, use limited solely to gun ranges and safe storage at home.
This is fine and good.

To purchase any gun or ammo you must have an firearms acquisition certificate. This is obtained after hunter training from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They are also checking to see if you have a history of making threats or violence or mental illness, or any other reasonable cause not to let you purchase a gun.
Firearms registration for long guns was recently ended in Canada. 
So the government no longer knows which guns I own. 
This is good. There is no need for them to know.
Unless there is reasonable cause.

Semi-automatic guns are legal so long as they meet the other requirements for sale here. 
They are varmint guns, used for the same purpose here as in the USA.
I own a number of long guns. They are stored safely, apart from the ammo.

I don't need an fully-automatic gun. They are not made for any purpose except to kill people. The are not hunting guns, nor are they varmint guns.
Of course I would like one, but if I could get one, then it is very likely individuals (possibly mentally ill or evil) who should never have them could acquire one too. 
This risk is unacceptable to our society.

The vast majority of gun owners both in Canada and the United States of America are good, sound, law abiding folks.

But all it takes is one unbalanced person with an fully-automatic gun to kill 
many children.
So no go, on fully-automatic guns.
Want to protect yourself and your love ones?... One bullet can protect you, Indeed.
But if you need an assault riffle to feel safe... You do not need a weapon, You need to find a better place to live your life!
(Or maybe you just like very much when your buddies tell you how nice your black riffle looks on your wall or in your display cabinet. In this case, do not complain when your fucked-in-the-head son, takes it and...) 
I'm sorry but I think the USA lost the moral authority to make that claim when they invaded Iraq , tortured people etc.....
Banning guns will not stop the violence. The worst school tragedy was in Bath Michigan. The guy used dynamite to blow up the school. 9/11 attacks. Oklahoma bombing. No guns used. The government decided to let pilots carry weapons in the cockpit to protect us from another attack like 9/11.

If you want to require people to go through screening and training to own a gun I'm all for it. Require that they have a safe to store the gun in. That's great. But don't think banning guns is the answer. For one are you going to go door to door trying to collect all the ones out there? The only people that will hand them over are LAW ABIDING citizens. Then the criminals know they are the only people with a gun.

Wake up. People find ways to do evil things regardless of what the law says. Mass murder is illegal last time I checked. 
Jason F
Your guns defend the US every night from what? in reality your guns are to defend you from yourselves, just be honest, it's 2013 if someone attacks a country it's done with  pathogens, computer viruses and other electronic warfare.
Dana when is that ever going to happen in a first world country....really? I'm sorry we really on different planets....
Let the Americans have their guns. Hopefully they will all kill each other and the rest of the world will rejoice with much peace and happiness all singing and laughing together.
If you think the second amendment was for hunting, you need to study the language of the constitution better. What you people consider assault rifles are simply semi-automatic weapons with different furniture. You can't buy any weapons at a gun store that match the description "assault rifle" by definition. I can show you pictures of my 10/22 one with a regular buttstock and the other with a black polymer buttstock with a pistol grip, you'll all swear the second is an assault rifle and the first is a harmless hunting rifle. We should focus more on firearms safety training than on banning firearms. I am stationed in fort bliss, texas. Next to me is juarez, they have confiscated weapons and made them difficult for law abiding citizens to own.... it's still the murder capital of the world. Only the drug cartels have guns now. The government made sure of that by disarming the citizens.
I find it extremely hypocritical that most of the anti gun crowd and the ones calling for more restrictions on my liberties are the same liberals who defend the liberties of gays and minorities. Most are pro choice as it is also another issue of liberty. It only shows ones lack of fore thought and ability to think logically when you are calling for a restriction of my liberty while at the same trying to defend yours from the far right. What will you do when people are calling for more restrictions on YOUR freedom??

This is not about guns people, its about FREEDOM, Remember the idea this country was supposed to be all about???
Why are so many so quick to call for the stripping of my RIGHTS b/c they don't believe as I do in guns?? I don't believe In gay marriage or abortion but I think if that's what people want to do then who am I to deny them their freedom??
And don't try an say its different b/c its a safety issue, anyone with any sense knows removing every gun off the planet will not stop violence. This is about people who don't like guns using the violence as a way to restrict others freedoms! Its a modern day witch hunt and all you are participating.

Then why didn't everyone get their guns out and stop the government.....
Yes, "people kill people." That's why we need better people control and a system of checks that the wrong people are not accessing guns.

We have access controls to the legal operation of cars and we enforce when those laws are violated. One cannot legally drive without passing knowledge tests, practical application tests, vision tests, and in some conditions and with some injuries one must have a doctor's clearance. We must incorporate some of these into gun ownership. That's just part of that Constitutional "we'll-regulated" requirement.

Right now, anyone with any infirmity may walk into a gun show here in Virginia and buy as many tactical rifles, high capacity magazines, and as much ammo as they want. How is that appropriate?

We don't need to eliminate guns, we need to eliminate certain people's access to guns.

Will that eliminate all violence? Certainly not. But common sense laws applied to gun access would very likely have the same positive effect vehicular safety regulations have had on highway deaths.

Current NRA and gun-lobby arguments against such a practical solution are just a protection of the gun sales corporate interests. 
I hate when people try to make a comparison on gun crime between the US and other countries. Of course there is more crimes committed with guns, it's because there are more guns... But this argument makes no sense - it's like comparing traffic deaths between the US and Costa Rica. There are are more cars here, so more car accidents. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
Now, you start looking at the violent crime rate and you will see that crimes like assault and burglary are higher in Australia, the country everyone loves to trot out for the gun control argument. Ladies, you are between 2-3 times more likely to be raped in Australia compared to the US.
An article from a couple years ago details how the UK is the most violent country in the EU, and even worse than the US, and they have almost zero gun ownership.
It's not the guns that cause violence.
People are mistaken - it is not the 'God given right' to own guns, it is the right to defend yourself, with whatever tools exist. We have developed pepper spray and tasers as deterrents against violent people, why in the world would you want to put a limit on what you are allowed to protect yourself with? Those tools exist to give you power over an aggressor, and there is no greater equalizer that man has invented than a gun. Nothing will put a 100lb woman on equal footing with a 200lb man like a gun.
As far as limits to the kinds of guns, you only need to look at what police carry - 15-17 rounds plus 2 magazines. How often does a single police officer come up against more than 1 or 2 people? Yet they feel the need for that much firepower. Why should I not be allowed that same level of preparedness? That same officer has an AR15 style rifle that they will grab in the case of a SINGLE armed criminal, but I should believe that I do not need this tool against the same criminal?
Anything that your average police officer carries or has in his car is OK for me and my fellow citizens to own too.
I am not for gun control. Why?
I think goberment have their soldiers, war games, war planes, explosives, nuclear warheads...we will not be neither defenseless. We know the evil exist. We must confront the evil nature of evil in this, world. What happened in that school masacre only the Principal is the only responsible if anything bad happen inside the school but not outside. Principal failed to childrens for not secure them with armed guards or check points. It is the fact. If goverment keep their killing devices ( war planes, soldiers, explosives, nuclear warheads, etc has not the right to make citizens defenseless. We never will support a president that wants baning the guns and makes us defenseless. Evil exist. It isn't an illusion. Anything can happen.....from zombie cannibalism to home invasion...anything! The "chupacabras"! ...the criminally insane... pum, pum! He is dead. 
+Christiaan Westerbeek So how do you explain the Norway shooter who killed 69 people mostly teens? How did gun control work then? The media didnt really cover that one though because that would hurt the "gun control works" theory
+Simon Muirhead because most of you are pansy ass bitches that's why! people are worried about fucking each other in the ass and afraid to offend someone because most of you rely on politically correct to get through your days... act offended when someone cusses... pussies!
So you are trying to say you are or were a police officer? That would be a correct usage of firearms. People required to maintain law and order or go to war should have firearms . But I am not sure what that has to do with private ownership.
Not pansy enough to hide behind a false name John Doe? Lol 
This must be the most abused quote in American history, you can make it mean anything, but really its an anti-royalist argument. There are many types of security, some of them very subtle, one needs to be very careful about who they are really validating. We need to always be aware of the possibility of the return of royalty, after all for 99% of human history we have lived under it.
Jason F
+john doe .... a pansy ass bitch is a person who hides behind a pseudo user name and calls others pansy ass bitches.
no jack off i,m trying to say it,s hard to revolt when half of you mother fuckers got your pants hanging off your ass!
I think a lot of people like to quote the militia party of the second amendment but forget about thus part- " being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
+Russell Dymond Australia is number 2 in the world for violent crimes with 1677 per 1000 residents.

The U.S. has a rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.

The only country with a higher rate of violent crime than Australia is the UK with 2034 per 1000 residents.

Bans don't work.

i think we can change a lot of things if we invest our real energy together and i experienced them too. basically we ve to understand the core conflicts of interests. then ve to follow the best path. i found myself left alone in my fight for justice for a group deprived the right to unite............... And i think its not fair to stay back to and accuse. Try there ll be a way.
Bottom line is any nutcase who is bent on shooting people will get a gun no matter way type of ban is in place.

Did we blame the planes for hitting the towers? Do we blame the fork because people are fat?

We need better mental health programs.....not a ban on firearms.
People that wants to ban have a false sense of security that all will be well without guns. The current criminals will still be able to get guns and you will not have a recourse. You will be lead or dead by the mafias or cartels that take over police. Look at countries that have strict gun bans. Do a little homework first. Unless you are for being taken over by those type of outlaws you should be supporting the right and ability to protect yourself from such. Treat the ill, punish the criminals, protect everyone including those who are claiming to be citizens.

This is so true Franklin had such insight he's a man before his time
To kill himself before being aprehended is not a coward thing. He may be mentally out of his mind but certainly he is not a coward. Cowards are those that like chicken run for their lives. You see.. you never have been in a such a situation in some school attack. The killer is not a coward. He will blows your head off with a smile! He could be out his mind but not a coward. 
Our Constitution represent our liberties. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Our government rather than try to infringe our liberties for the actions of a few cowards ...they should be cracking down harder on these criminals. For every time an innocent gets shot whether accidentally or intentionally the punishment is 50 years. Every time an innocent is killed by gunshot the punishment is death or life imprisonment whether accidentally or intentionally. Every time someone is caught holding, carrying, or shooting a gun that's illegal or not register to them...automatic 25 years...whether the perpetrator is a friend, relative, partner...sorry Charlie. Tougher sentences, and police action is needed to stop these violent gun crimes NOTHING else! 
Ben Franklin is my favorite Founding Father. His biography was awesome.  
+tyler durden Did you really just try to compare your right to own a weapon to the rights of a person being treated like a human?
+Chad Hernandez US Gun deaths  10th in world at 10.2 per 100,000. UK is 65th with 0.25 per 100,000

This is a RELEVANT statistic
Then talk abt Uganda where the crime rate is highing 98%. 1008 per 100. One individual commits more than ten crimes.
All I can say is that the bigger the government  the smaller our voices...  If we let Washington dictate gun control to us, we lose our voice.
if one of you mother fuckers breaks into my home! what does it matter if i shoot you in the face with a AR 15, shotgun, or a pistol? you,re still fucking dead, and my family is still safe! that is all that really matters!
Words said in a time when it took 30 seconds to reload a musket, you could hardly to a mass shooting back then.  Different time, different reality.  There's room for common sense in there!
+Dana Thornhill do you think you can stop the government from taking your stuff with a gun? I'm not for banning guns but that's not a valid argument.
Profound and inspiring thinking! 
+S Malik Your use of extreme examples in attempts to make your point demonstrates the weakness of your position.

WOMD? They have one purpose. Just like guillotines, or the drugs used in euthanasia. You can't use any of those things for personal self defense. Their one and only purpose is to kill.

Lumping guns into that category isn't a valid assertion.
Surely it's a very simple equation.

Harder to get guns = harder to get guns to shoot other people

It's not some sacred rite that you should be able to own a firearm. Nobody NEEDS a gun. Having a gun doesn't make it less likely that someone will attack you or invade your home. Most people have absolutely no idea how to use a gun in an emergency and would be more likely to injure themselves than whoever they are defending themselves from.

Criminals will get weapons whether they are legal or not. But if they are illegal it will be that much harder.
a few observations... if your country has less than 150 million people, from hundreds of different country's and cultures, please excuse what you do in your country from this discussion as a valid solution. you don't have a similar society to us. I'm pleased that what you are doing is working for you, but before you judge the US, consider: there are over 300 million people there. there is less violent crime in the US than most civilized countries, per capita. 'gun violence' is a small percent of that, and gun violence from rifles (semi auto or otherwise) is a tiny percentage of that. demanding that taking such weapons away will solve any problems is akin to demanding that all trees be cut down to prevent lightening strikes that cause forest fires. if you think we have 'this problem' all the time, I can assure you, It is a very rare occurrence. what you don't see covered in the press are the few hundred times a year criminals are stopped by a citizen with a weapon at hand. or that the majority of 'gun crimes' happen with weapons that are outside the system of proposed controls anyway. making more laws does not 'fix' crime, only making better people does. 
 +Nicholas Vettese its actually the opposite. In a democracy, the bigger the government the more they have to listen to the people... Government relies on the voter, if the majority wants it gets!
When you have the option of voting or NOT and massive multi-national corporations indirectly telling you what to do through media, Not to forget corrupt political forces... You end up with no voice because your voice has been bouhgt and sold before you even had it.   
+Anthony Tordillos was cocaine more or less after the war on drugs began and the violence that followed? Was Al Capones machine gun legal during the ban on alcohol? Violence involving guns will change in one very certain way if a ban was in place. I own guns and will continue to do so. Mandate the laws we have. Keep violent offenders hehind bars.
If a gang comes into your home with those kind of guns, what exactly would you do besides die if that's what they wanted. Argument makes no sense.
The load/reload time is irrelevant.  The point was that we should be able to defend ourselves from our government, should it ever become tyrannical.  We can't very well defend ourselves from a tyrannical government with muskets. 
+Dana Thornhill :) Just making the point that reading too literally into quotes from the 1700's (or the 2nd amendment for that matter) is just as bad as tossing its value out the window.  
As a law enforcement officer. Not as an everyday Joe. 
Three issues jump out at me (as a non resident - nor even a visitor - of USA):
You have the right to own weapons.
It seems, not enough is done to ensure people who are "mentally unfit" don't own weapons &/or are not free to use those weapons to do harm.
Your country is struggling with how to deal with spending more money that it has available to spend.

One way to curb the harm done by those who are not of sufficient mental capacity to safely own a firearm is to remove all firearms of that class from all people. It would cost little: especially if you amend laws to take effect from some time in the future that weapons of a certain specification will no longer be permitted to be sold.

Or. Your country can spend even more money, and subject all firearm owners to some form of mental health screening. This will be forced upon them - or what? Refusal to comply revokes your right to own a firearm? If this is the case - then who pays?

Do only those who can afford to pay for mental health assessment qualify to own a firearm? Or. Does "The Government" pay? Hmm. So the people who wish no American citizen pay to prove that their neighbor is (or is not) mentally fit enough to own a firearm?

And if this increased scruitany of firearm owners discovers a thousand, or even a hundred, or even ten, potential firearm owners with some mental predisposition toward antisocial / psychotic behaviour... well, your public mental healthcare bill will increase to treat this person. Because if you fail to treat the people that you know have a condition which leaves them predisposed to do harm with others, and you do nothing - who is guilty of the crime? The mentally unfit person, or the person who knows someone to be mentally unfit, yet does nothing? I'm guessing the mentally unfit person would be cleared of their crime through reason of being mentally unfit.

Just remove the firearms, and get it over with.
+Ess Dee I disagree.  When the government gets so big, they begin to work from within, and supress the people's opinions.  Look at the US at this time.  We are facing huge, crucial issues, and the Government is not listening.  

We are looking at countries in Europe who cannot sustain themselves any longer, and yet, the US Govt believes it will be different.  The people do not want "Free Healthcare", because it isn't free.

Damn, you took me on a whole other tangent.  If the government was listening, there would be no debate on Gun Control.
+Jake Kepner thank you for putting forth sensible emotionless suggestions. I've felt the same way though I jump into a number of these arguments. Its all emotion from either side. 
I have tried to justapose the rational for and against the possession and dispossession of guns in society since the Connecticut shooting. I have never seen some of the guns that individuals own in america not even with our police or military. Reflecting on what happened in Sieria leon and Liberia in the 1990s where some people just came together in the name of rebble, in possession of guns and went into people's houses and started killing defenseless people. Surely this can never happen where people have access to guns. Also, imaging a super bowl game in a free gun society and the umpire mistakely gave a wrong judgement. Imaging one of the fan shooting at him or at another oppossing fan. Think of what could happen, in a stadium of about 60,000 fans, may be with equal gun strenght. It may be a total loss of 60,000 fans simply because of a mistake of the umpire and the availability of guns.With these two illustrations one is caught between the beast and an angel. In the over all, I would think it is rational that gun control is in place in a human society. In the Hobbesian state where might makes right, uncontrolled guns would be normal but in a civillised society which came into existence after the Jean J Rousseau postulation of modern state where all fundamental human rights are expected to be transfered to the state in expectation of the state protecting those rights. Conclussively, american needs to step up to this era and transfer to the state part of these fundamental human right and trust the state, as we all trust God for things we can not help, that these rights shall be protected by the state. Gun control is a must.
+Slade Walker yes there are exceptions to the rule that drama occurs more often in countries where people may own guns. You must agree with me that these dramas occur more often in the US.
+Nicholas Vettese :)  You're on a roll.  The only problem there is "The people" rarely speak with one voice on any issue...  So one cannot assume that listening = different or even better.  It might, but it might not...
to bare arms is a RIGHT in the United States of America! period!
+Steve Markowski Of course guns are the issue, they aren't the whole picture but they play a massive part. It's nothing to do with morals either. The vast majority of people know the difference between right and wrong.

The simple fact is that if you put a troubled (a probably mentally ill) young person in a situation where they have easy access to firearms you have created a potentially deadly scenario. The developing mind is less capable of dealing with strong emotions and far more likely to take risks.

The simple fact is that if guns were harder to access for these people then there would be a much smaller chance of them committing the crime.

Criminal will get weapons whatever you do. That is a problem for law enforcement. But most of the people that go on shooting sprees at school AREN'T hardened criminals. They are people with mental issues who have easily got their hands on guns.
+John Batty No, it's cherry picking a statistic that seems to support your argument.

Looking at the big picture is what we need to do if you want to make the comparison between countries.

The UK has more than triple the violent crime the US does. Our violent crimes come from concentrated areas where the population is 250 thousand or more. We have 186 of these. In the UK there are only 32 such areas.

And there are many other factors at play here.

The point is that less guns do not necessarily mean less violent crime... As the data clearly shows.

Here's a bit more...

The rate of private gun ownership per 100 people in the United States is 88.82
In the United Kingdom is 6.72
Canada 23.8
Switzerland 45.7
Mexico is 15.02

The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population in the United States is 4.96
In the United Kingdom 1.2
Canada 1.8
Switzerland 0.70
Mexico 21.5

The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population in the United States is 2.98
In the United Kingdom 0.03
Canada 0.50
Switzerland 0.52
Mexico 10.0

If homicide rates (and more specifically, firearm homicide rates) correlated with firearm ownership rates, then Mexico’s firearm homicide rate should only be about twice that of the UK’s, not 10 times higher.

And Switzerland’s firearm homicide rate should significantly higher than it is, with their high rates of firearm ownership, and their overall homicide rate certainly shouldn’t be lower than the UK’s.

When you compare a wider selection of countries–rather than just the US and the UK–you find that there is very little correlation between firearm ownership and homicide rates.

The numbers are all over the board.

Here in the US Chicago is what is referred to as a "gun free zone" . Violent crime is off the charts there. Their murder rate is more than three times the national average.

Freedom is never without limits... the freedom of one person stops where it starts to impede on the freedom of another.
I say killers are not cowards. Period. Cowards are those that run for their lives. It is a fact. Goverment want us defenseless. But they keep for themselves their toys of death. We keep ours for own defense. We have the laws and death penalty for those that violate the law. I don't condem the violence so neccesary for our survival. I condem the bad use we do with our violence. A world free of violence would veryvsoinbwipe out from the face of earth because evil nature exist. We could be subjected to thousand of dangers if we would get ride of of violence. It is just a survival.condition. I only condem the bad use of our violence. We would educate when use our violence and when din't use it for self defense. Any injustified killing we have the laws out there to punish them with death penalty. But a man out his mind that attack with a M16 a school and later kill himsekf is not certainly a coward because he could kill you and not hesitation. Criminals are not coward people. People with no guns for self defense are cowards. If somebody attack you home and you are against the guns you could be in deep could be killed. It is cowardice. 
+S Malik that catalyst (gun) that you speak about saves just as many if not more lives...... do you have this mass murders numbers???

Fifty-five million kids went to school on the day that 20 were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Even in the United States, therefore, the chances of a child’s dying in a school shooting are remote.....

70-80 million legal gun owners in the US in 2012, 84 is the number of mass shooting deaths in 2012. Now I'll use the low number of only 70,000,000 gun owners to give you the best chance at a higher percentage. .0000012% is the percentage chance ...your mass murder Hysteria is all emotion based... arrogantly you proclaim we must help the situation and you have no data... 

Many proponents of gun control have observed that the AR 15, the gun that Adam Lanza used to murder 20 children in Newtown, is now the most popular rifle in America. But only 3 percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with rifles of any type.

John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones.
why then are  gun-free zones the targets of mass shooters?

The General Accountability Office recently found that the number of concealed weapon permits in America has surged to approximately 8 million.
According to anti-gun advocates, such an increase in guns would cause a cause a corresponding increase in gun-related violence or crime. In fact, the opposite is true. The FBI reported this year that violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows.
This comes in spite of the fact that the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Supporters of the ban (not including anti-gun groups who thought it didn't go far enough in the first place) claimed that gun crime would skyrocket when the ban was lifted. That wasn't true at all.

Thirty percent of urban households have at least one firearm. This figure increases to 42 percent in the suburbs and 60 percent in the countryside. As one moves away from cities, therefore, the rate of gun ownership doubles. And yet gun violence is primarily a problem in cities. It is the people of Detroit, Oakland, Memphis, Little Rock, and Stockton who are at the greatest risk of being killed by guns.

Seventy mass shootings have occurred in the U.S. since 1982, leaving 543 dead. These crimes were horrific, but 564,452 other homicides took place in the U.S. during the same period. Mass shootings scarcely represent 0.1 percent of all murders. When talking about the problem of guns in our society, it is easy to lose sight of the worst violence and to become fixated on symbols of violence.

In fact, the overall rate of violent crime has fallen by 22 percent in the past decade (and 18 percent in the past five years).

 liberal mass murder is the conservative anti abortion emotional hysteria......

Obama Quote ('It's Math') ............. 
Obviously, you haven't lost a child to a bullet.
Thank to my guns my sons are safe
mike: that would be a beef with the us government and it's meddling in foreign affairs that are none of our business. a good chunk of our population in the US is ignored for trying to demand that we be better neighbors. sorry about that, doing the best we can. :(
Guns are for responsible owners. Period.
And yet no one who posted do not realize how much more murders take place from drunk driving and yet booze is not regulated. Oh, wait! Tax revenue. Dont forget cigs as well. Guns are a very minor contributor to fatalities.
+Nicholas Vettese sorry to change tangents but the European governments you talk of are corrupt and even the EU knows it, Hence the Instabilty in Europe!! 
I'm just saying when ALL CITIZENS has a say then and only then will it be a true democracy. Even if it votes for a communist regime or dictatorship society wins!!  
Kel G
Soo true..
i long back to the seatbelt free days of horseriding. seriously,  gun posession for everyone is not only a little liberty but a huge 'liberty'. where does liberty start and whose liberty?i am actually quite happy that there is a world wide regulation about atomic bombs and who owns them. i am happy that free selling of fireworks is only allowed on new years eve in germany. i stay in the house because it's dangerous and like in a war outside. i don't want some irresponsable jerks to throw fireworks on me. nor do i feel well in a country where everybody can wear a firegun.  I am all for the liberty of kids to move freely in a society and don t grow up in danger of suicidal and narcistic amok shooters. the foundation of society is common sense. if that common sense is disturbed, you need to make regulations. the loss of common sense is the loss of liberty. common sense is the only security we will ever have. 
Surely its as simple as this? The more guns you have the more shootings there'll be. Of course criminals will have them, but if you lose a majority of guns psyched up kids find it less easy to kill on a whim!
+john doe I have no idea what a AR 15 is but it seems like an elephant to kill a mosquito with.
Here in Holland changes of having a mother fucker in my home is dramatically lower then in the US because not every fool may own a gun here.
Just because somebody famous says something, doesn't always make it true. You think Benjamin Franklin was always right?
Appropriate security or standards enables liberty; and both :p 
I've seen a variation on this, some time ago.
+TOR WALKER I would have to ask you this question - 'What is the maximum number of children innocently killed or injured by gunfire that you consider to be too many?' if your answer is greater than 0, you need to rethink your archaic argument - no-one is going to come and steal America, all the oil is in the Middle East, all the brains are in the Far East and all the culture is in Europe (loosely speaking)
Well, that's Singapore.
Who is more murderer? Goverment has the nuclear warheads . Who kill more people? Goverment and their soldiers. Do you think goverment have not bio- chemical warheads? With that could us wipe out. You think goverment has the right to use letal force anytime? Do you think police officer can menace a defenseless citizen with a gun pointed on his face? The fact is that we have created this jungle. Are not us? 
+Tony zigvab you are already spied on in everything you do by the government and their agencies - you have no freedom as it is
+Jim Hellmore the second ammendment is there so we can defend the first! Plain and simple. Without the second there would be no first!
+Dana Thornhill In a true Democracy if the majority of people vote for someone they have the power!.
Therefore if the majority vote for a dictator or fascist government the country becomes that which the voters asked for.  
+Paul Flores it seems to me you're making up statistics to back your opinion. You're saying US has less violent crime then European countries per capita? Don't make me lookup statistics and prove your wrong.
+Christiaan Westerbeek we aren,t talking about Holland are we! you should do some research before running your mouth if you don,t even know what a popular assault rifle is... but thank you for playing! have a nice day and you may go!
So against the only person that can protect you is the good guy with the gun and I am not talking about the cops no offense
..ای عشق مددکن که به سامان برسیم
+Paul Smith-Keitley , funny if that were true, there would be NO killing by sudden mental patients.
"Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" That is exactly that happened in the US.
Freedom, means for everyone, not only the one that takes right in their own hand. Having handguns isn't per se dangerous. However current-day society is no more related to the 'wild west' that required the guns (not in the big cities anyway). Security doesn't come from guns. But neither does liberty. Liberty of thought isn't liberty of action, or there would be killing and raping all over the world...wait...there is...because people can't coop with 'your freedom ends where that of another starts'.
+Brian Locke No.... They can serve the same purpose. So can a hammer, or a pencil.

Try defending yourself and your kids from an intruder with a guillotine. You can't. It has one purpose and one purpose only.

It's not in the same category as a gun.
You don't have a "right" not to be shot. That is a semantic mistake.

A right is something that you CAN do. Like speak, eat, travel, work, etc.

If you are shot, or have a crime committed against you, that is something someone else has done to you. You can't have a right to someone else not doing something. It doesn't make sense.

Now, you can have a remedy to a harm someone commits upon you. That's why we have civil lawsuits. And it may be a crime, so the State may lock them up. But it is impossible to really have a right to any sort of safety from other individuals.

You can have a right to free speech. You can't have a right to not hear another person speak. It's not within your control...

So you can have a right to bear arms, but you can never have a "right" to others not having weapons, or a "right" to not be the victim of crime. It's fundamentally impossible. 
It starts with guns then what's next, what are you willing to exchange to "feel" safe? So long as their is a society their will always be evil looking for weaknesses, at least with our second amendment they will have more to consider!
" I'll only go to America when  I've traveled the rest of world and am ready to die. Because where else can I by an engagment ring and a colt 45 at the same time"     ANON 
+S Malik What you said to Tor Walker makes absolutely no since. One minute it's look at countries with strict gun control so we do and you contradict .
Guns are bad end of story. Get them band. I would feel unsafe walking next to a person who has a gun. Why should I feel unsafe because of somebody else's actions
This one time. At band camp. We gave up a little liberty in order to gain some security. 
the US is full of enigmas
Why have so many guns when you really don't have to defend yourselves and its cheaper to buy food in Walmart than shoot a squirrel?
Why do baseball players wear pajamas?
Why does the WorldSeries only have teams from one country?
Why is American Football classed as a manly sport when they keep stopping to ask for directions?
Why do Americans call American Football Football when the ball is shaped like an egg and they use their hands?
Grant L
Let people do what they want.
@jon doe. In America we also have the right to wear long sleeve shirts. I don't see how this helps the conversation in any way though.
When the second amendment was passed owning a gun didn't mean military type weapons
It meant your family's old hunting rifle
Not. I have lived In the city. I will NEVER relinquish my personal/family protection. NEVER!
+Grant Lanzalotto , yes, so your neighbor will kill you in 20 minutes because she wants to. You called her cat fat. IF you don't want to participate productively in a discussion, then don't. But don't enter silly lines just to get noted, as of this 'dully noted'.
The anti-gun control people will bring up Benjamin Franklin's "give up a little liberty for a little security" quote as a defense for more firearms, but here's a question. Why didn't the same group use all their power when the Patriot Act was first enacted? Or, when we learned that AT&T was giving the government free, warrant-less access to their core communication trunks?

Look. Our Constitutional rights are not absolute. We have freedom of speech but there are limits on that. We have the right to bear arms, but there are limits on that. Many things that we do...there are limits. It is illegal for me...for drive my car without my glasses or to drive it under the influences of drugs or alcohol. That is pretty reasonable. 

The government is not passing legislation nor coming to get people's guns. But some restrictions and limitations are coming. Get over it. It's reasonable. It's common sense. 

I have been laughing though at lunatics and their sympathizers...who think that their little bit of arsenals...would protect them against doomsday where the Federal government is coming for them. That shit is hilarious. It's not going to happen. But even if it did...there is not a damned thing the individual and small groups of gun fanatics and gun fetishist could do about it. But cry and die. 

These crazy folks might as well be stocking weapons and food to fight back against Space Aliens. LOL. As fucking if. 

This notion in this thread that "if you give up some rights you will give up more or all rights" just silly and ridiculous. We accept some restrictions in rights for the collective good of the order. There really is no valid argument against this; it has been the American way 

We are free. But it has limitations. We can't do whatever the fuck we want in whatever way we want. Ain't gonna happen. Get over it. Or don't. 

I am laughing and pointing at the ignorance.
+Paul Smith-Keitley The terrorist September 11 attacks by Al Qaeda resulted in almost 3,000 immediate (attack time) deaths. no children where known to be killed! the main weapon was a passenger jet! this was a one shot attack! if guns are taken away people are still going to find ways to kill lots of people! lets be real about this! guns are the least of our problems! your child argument is stupid when it comes to people dying! what does it matter if it is a child or grown up? thanks for playing and you may leave!
+Chad Hernandez   your argument is false in it's premises. A gun used to kill, not to subdue. That is not a defense against attack, it's a counter offensive.
Both sides of this debate are based in fear... 2nd amendment advocates fear this as a first step to eliminating our right to bear arms..a right reserved to fight the tyranny of governments.
Anti gun folks fear the idea of getting theirselves and their children shot by some random lunatics.
Which poses the greater threat?.......
+john doe you really want to get into that whole bag of worms about 9/11 - blame US foreign policy - and while you are at it, how about the home grown nutter McVey?
Ben Franklin was the Rush Limbaugh of his era.
+Alen Teplitsky
It meant having the means to protect yourself against any that would infringe on your natural rights.... including tyrannical government.

Times change. Needs change.

You nor anyone else has any bushiness telling me what I may or may not need in any given situation to defend myself or my family.

You may be quite confident in your omniscience... knowing what everyone will ever need.

I'm not.
Maybe we should give everyone a passenger plane so we are all on equal footing?
First when did criminals/nut jobs start following laws. Also more people are killed each year by hammers than find. He'll over 300000 ppl a year for from tobacco use. 
My thought is that "well regulated militia" obligates the government to backgroubd checks, safety course requirements and even weapon class restrictions. Other cases have been a slippery slope of activist judges.expanding the
+Brian Himes     ^ That is the worst kind of argument for guns. More people die from starvation too. What's your point?
Hi everybody,

Please forgive my rusty English; gun control is not the solution, but part of the problem. "Bad Guys" do not care nor give a d... (and will never do) about gun control laws or whatsoever; they'll get guns one way or another and the rest of us (law-abiding people) will then be 100% sitting ducks.

There are not enough police officers in the world, and there will never be. What we need is to be able to defend ourselves. We do need to enforce Frequent Psychological Testing to the best of our knowledge. I strongly believe that our odds would be better if more "Good Guys" were able to fight back.  Personally, I'd rather we had no need for weapons! I believe we would all rather to live peacefully and without fear.

Here is one cliché: There is only darkness in the absence of light, let there be light!. However, we most make sure we keep an eye on ourselves; as humans we are prone to commit mistakes and when it comes to innocent lives, those mistakes cost, us all, dearly. Responsibility above all!
Guns don't pull the trigger. If you ban guns, then you create a bigger black market. Then you have more criminals against more unarmed citizens. Presence alone should be enough of a deterrent.
+Dana Thornhill , would you ever kill another person? By hand or by gun?
Would you kill another person that stole your car?
Would you kill another person that burned your house down?
Would you kill another person that burned your house down while you were in it, but barely survived?
Would you kill another person that burned your house down and killed your cat doing so?
Would you kill another person that burned your house down and killed your kids or whole family?
Would you kill another person that deliberately killed your family and tried to drive over you with a car?
Would you kill a person that gave orders to do the previous?
Would you kill a person that intended to do the above, so to save your family?
Would you kill a person that is (according to hearsay) going to do the above to your family and you?
Would you call yourself sane right now?
Have you ever gone without a nights sleep?
Have you ever been depressed?
Have you ever had an idea that some bureaucrat was irritating you, just because it was you?
Have you ever used more than one tablets of the following medicin: Lariam, Anti-depresia, Aspirin, Diclofenac, sugar-candy?
Do you know that all of the last 4 questions are a possible event that can happen to anyone at any given moment?
Do you know that any of the current day candy or sugar containing drinks can upset your sugar balance in such a way that you are not yourself anymore?
To come back to your 'solution' about 'responsible citizen', I hope I made a point for you to contemplate. There are no sane or responsible people. There are only people that up to the point you 'judge' them have not shown any sign of 'losing their cool'.
There are tipping points. Like 9/11 and now Sandy Hook.

After 9/11 We now accept taking off our belts and shoes at the airports. We accept having armed guards in our train stations and airports. We even accepted movie clerks looking through our purses right after 9/11. We have more wire taps and we have less liberty. This did not come about under a "liberal" government.

Now after Sandy Hook things will change too.

The President is not GW Bush, that 2008 Supreme Court is not in session. The previous Supreme Courts did not give huge amount of weight to individual gun ownership. They put the weight on well regulated militia.

So, here we are in 2013, and the general public did not vote in a conservative, pro gun President.

We the US citizens are fed up seeing mostly young white men with mostly the same type of legally purchased guns committing mass murders.

We are fed up with idiotic slogans like "guns don't kill people....etc." "you can pry my gun from my cold dead body" or "they begin with gun control but then it's a slippery slope and they will ban all guns" or "we have to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government"

Stop being paranoid!

How about common sense? Consider banning the most common type of gun used by young white males when they go on a shooting rampage.

And can we stop the: Since we can't solve all problems we won't do anything attitude? Please? 
While I know this quote has been use for things ranging from guns to national security. I think it also implies to entitlement programs. We have economic freedom, the power to provide for our own selves. However, entitlement programs take money for those that have and give to those that have not. While I am not apposed to entitlement programs in general. we do lose economic freedom (the power to choose what to do with our money) by getting the safety of entitlement programs.
Security is liberty. We made that trade 100s of years ago.
no  +Paul Smith-Keitley we are talking about your child argument and how you and the rest of the sick fucks are using a death of a child to persuade others... as if adults have no meaning! i find that offensive!
+Alejandro Braunschweig   Again the question must be asked. If that is true, why have any gun laws at all? The answer is because it's not true. If it were you would see the statistics backing it up on every pro gun site in the world. What you can see is the exact opposite.
If increased gun control will one day lead to law enforcement also having their guns taken away, then I am all for it. As far as "criminals" having guns . . . I live in chicago, this world of crime you speak of? Exists but not like you think it does, funny that most the people touting pro-gun opinions live in places where they can't even see their neighbors, and where any real crime statistics are so minimal that you might as well start buying lottery tickets with that mind set, it could happen.

I am not for this ban, which is what it is, banning semi-automatic means banning basically any firearm you can think of. But the same degree I also don't want to live in a place that has given the government the power to mandate psychological evaluations. I would rather see real attempts to curb the cause not remove symptoms. Most crime is a result of socioeconomic issues, exacerbated by rampant consumerism and greed, necessity rarely pushes people to crime, we live in an abundent society. But fixing these kinds of deep seeded issues is not quick and is not cheap, this equates to behavior change and more taxes. 
I don't need an AR-15 to hunt deer or to protect myself. Notice how these mass shootings have so few hunting guns on site? Just a thought?
+Brian Locke No. It's your argument that is based on false premises.

A gun shot can (and more often than not does) disable or scare off an attacker rather than kill him.

Take it a step further.

You get it in your mind to rob a home. You have a choice between one where you know the owner is armed and one you know the owner isn't . Which are you more likely to choose?

The gun just served as a deterrent without ever being fired.
Sure, I believe people have the right to defend themselves, but these guns are out of control.  Does no one remember that shooting at the screening of The Dark Knight Rises last year?   I believe that guns should be regulated to a distinct few who are sound of mind. 
The colonies were vastly outgunned and outmanned during the revolution and we won.
Laws only only remove guns from those willing to abide by those laws so it places law abiding citizens at a severe disadvantage.
More people die from car accidents in the US each year than they ever have from guns.
It really doesn't matter how big your clip is if it only takes you 1.5 seconds to load a new one.
Since 1993 ADD and ADHD diagnosis' of children have gone up 500% since the law providing schools with additional funding for having children with these "learning disabilities" was changed.
Call of Duty II took in $500m the first day.
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 and injured over 680 people with fertilizer and gasoline. No guns.

Now someone please explain to me how law abiding citizens owning guns is causing murders and not Riddlin Prozack and Call of Duty being pumped into our children on a daily basis? People are too busy trying to make ends meet or too lazy to care to stimulate their kids in a positive way so they are drugged then sat in front of violent movies and video games. What do we think is going to happen?

S Mann
for all the anti-gun law people. do your feelings for not having gun law control resonate when it comes to countries like iran developing nuclear weapons?
should they be 'allowed' to have nukes or not?
This quote is overused. Look at any official statistics on gun crime, and you will see that countries with outlawed firearms (Australia, the UK, some of Europe) have far, far less gun crime than those without.

This is for the simple reason that if a person has a gun, they will use it. If people do not have a gun, then the most they can easily acquire is a sharp knife - something much easier to avoid than a bullet travelling at the speed of sound.

People always say "but criminals can still get gun if we outlaw them!", but this misses the point - the problem isn't pre-meditated murder, it's the ease of acquiring a weapon and the chance of losing control and killing someone.

We have given up more than just a little already
+Paul Smith-Keitley  what an Idiotic Question..... not worried about anyone stealing america.. another idiotic statement...."Middle East" "Far East" "Europe" that's why they're all emigrating to america... 
we are just fine over here on this side of the pond..  so I bid you all adieu and your Chelsea grin...
People have all sorts of weapons and they don't just use them because they have them. 
Don't get me wrong we need some control but not the way the government is trying so hard to take it away
Whatever Franklin has said is no longer coherent.
thats not going to work with some people coz the phrase the people shal govern is no more
ROFL. +Dana Thornhill your content here is nutty. It is hilarious. 

I'm just gonna say it again. "If" the government comes for you...there is nothing that you and your arms will be able to do about it. Conversely, you are not going to be able to come after the government with what little bit of arms you can amass. 

LOL. This is not 1776. Nor 1876. This is the 21st Century. Get a clue. Even if you or your militia or whatever organized effort you could muster with your pathetic fire power...would rival a small would be taken out. You are not going to have tanks and heavy artillery. You are not going to have aircraft and drones. You have no effing clue. 

It is the funniest thing that lunatics come up with. Kind of like the cliche of bringing a knife to a gun fight. 

If you hate your country so much, you would be better off just moving. You are not going to be able to arm yourself enough to protect your paranoid self from the government. ROFLMBAO. Or to take it over. 

The government is not coming to take your guns. But the larger point is that if they did...there is not a damned thing you could do about it...with the feeble arms that you can amass as an individual or a group. 

HEE HAW. That is some dumb, ignorant mess. 
It is a timeless saying.  I find it humbling to know how much it has proved itself.
+Paul Ferris As has already been pointed out... The UK and Australia are the top two countries in the world for overall violent crime. The UK has a violent crime rate more than triple that of the US. 
Ok . We are long winded about guns . Lets talk about the homeless or starving children in the world today. Leave my weapons alone.
Not a false premise, just knowing from being in the Army that I can reload
and fire more bullets from an M16 than I ever can with a hunting rifle. So
which one would I bring if I wanted to kill or I thought someone else had a
weapon,? It sure wouldn't be the hunting rifle. But this debate will go on
for a long time and that us my opinion and I will keep it that way. Because
I enlisted in the Military to keep us all protected and maintain out
Freedoms, including the right to debate. Thanks.
The United States really needs to come to the realization that we are in a mental health disaster. I work in a prison, we get them after they have committed there crimes. About a third of our inmates are mentally ill. They have to be housed somewhere, why not house them before they get their hands on a gun and kill people. Prison is the worst place to provide mental health care. Also mental health providers need to report people to the Federal Government to keep them from buying a gun. Also if you become mentally ill your guns need to be removed from your home.
Another phrase from dirty harry, "make my day punk".
S Mann
+TOR WALKER read your statistics with great interest. do you have the stats for a country which does have gun contirl. how about the UK. total number of deaths from gun violence was 35. The numbers speak for themselves man. the 0.000001% people youm entioned , thats still 0.000001 % of people who didnt have to die that way my man!

You feel safe with a gun, granted, but you can also be destructive with it too.  but i think its too late for gun control now anyway. and its quite a predicament because as you said, crime and violence will sky rocket with gun control.
LOL. And to be short and more direct to the topic. Today...guns can't prevent tyranny. Sorry. Those days are long gone. 
aboslutely for. And i don't consider an armed citizenry a liberty, but rather a massive risk to public safety, especially in the US. It certainly and also very obviously does nothing at all to keep your government in check.
And like all statistics show that weapons at home aren't helping with the safety of that home either. Quite to the contrary, having a gun makes sure a situation that could have ended with a robbery is going to escalate in a robbery with casualties or injuries, and for the most part, being all that time when you're not acutely being robbed, you're putting your household at the risk of accidents with said weapons, or even abuse and use by one part of the household against the other.

But the question back to you: are you for or against just about everything your department of homeland security came up with since "9/11"?
+Dana Thornhill As if anyone in the world outside of North Korea knows what happens in North Korea.  Find a better analogy really.  Regimes of oppression is the opposite of security and you know this.  .  .  Syria anyone?
I don't think he was referring to automatic weapons..
 I command WAR TO RISE IN AMERICA. I do not have any power to do this but I have a power I petition and pray to and reason my petitions before and he, (GOD) is able if he desire so there is where I fight from in all my fight ever!
 I laugh at their effort to remove weapons from our arms. I will remove all the weapons of all man from all arms for I will ask God to remove the soul and spirit of every creature from all the flesh of all the dust that lives in the creation.
 It is I who argues for the release of demons from the chains of hell and the angels to be sent from heaven and am calling all things to earth in one place and one time!
 I ask my God to cause the children to slay the children and adults and the adults to slay the children and adults, war and war and I rejoice for I obtain my results from my power, my God, Jehovah!
Uh...sorry +Jonathan Moore That shit is also idiotic. Clearly you don't understand statistics and metrics. They switched the metrics and the case is silly. Simple minded people go for that nonsense. And it is funny to watch. 

Get some education so that you can become a competent consumer of news. 

OMG. This is so much fun. HEE HAWWWWWW!
this is just like one of those verse from the bible. people will interpreted like better serve them. 
+Paul Smith-Keitley lol.. you do have some bloody bad math ...far down ....16 out 293 on the list ... 

good ol' boys  ;-)
Yes, I' am for sensible, responsible gun control. Unfettered access to weapons with high capacity ammunition have no place in modern society. 
+Dana Thornhill trying skirt the real issue aren't you?  I simply said North Korea is an unknown so why discuss it?
maybe the US gun lobby wants to keep their weapons in case Sitting Bulls descendants decide to take back their country :-)
Chad Hernandez, can you please cite your source, cheers
Matt L
For all the anti gun people California has the strictest gun laws going did it prevent the shooting yesterday No
+Michel Chaney You need to re-evaluate what you consider a massive risk.  Gun violence only kills about 12k in America.  Assuming that each death is due to an individual gun, which we know isn't true, we come up with about a .0044% death rate per gun in America.
Sandy hook massacre was the result of an irresponsible gun owner not a responsible gun owner. And how did a nut job get into a school that had security doors. Probably a nonsense with no commonsence person who let the nut job in. So stop blaming responsible gun owners for these tragedies.
To all who say Adam Lanza's mom was a responsible gun owner, she was not. If you have someone in your home who has issues you lock your guns up. 
Uhm. Earth to +Dana Thornhill . I swore to uphold them also. Air Force. LOL. And am from a line of men who served. My Uncle was a general in the Air Force. My college roomate who has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and who was also Air Force...specializes (still) in electronic warfare. 

Yeah. I am not only a citizen. But I come from a military tradition. So don't try that bullshit with me. 

As I said before. In America, we are a nation of laws. And with the Constitution...we still place limits on our freedoms. 

There are limits to freedom of speech. There are limits to the right to bear arms. Right? So if you are sworn to uphold our rights and laws...act like it. Or get the fuck out of my Country. Yo? LOL. 

I'm not mad at ya. But I call bullshit. Your rhetoric is ridiculous up in here. And ahistorical. 
+Alain Van Hout Thank you. It is good and relevant information. An important part of the big picture.I actually already posted some of it.

The fact is if we want to address the problem, we first need to pinpoint it.

The more data a person studies the more clear the conclusion.

Responsible, legal gun ownership isn't the problem. And so banning that which falls under this category can't logically be the solution.
I was wondering when Benjamin Franklin would weigh in on this debate. Unfortunately, Americans were more rational back in Franklin's time. Today the loudest and dumbest voices are guaranteed to be heard.
+George Rapko  haha only 12k? that's an interesting way to put it seeing how it's umpteen times higher than in any other country of the world.
And you know... seeing how say a third or a quart of these 12k are those who shot someone else first, i'm almost tempted to say it's a good thing. As long as morons shoot other morons i really couldn't care less.
I just don't understand how you can want to have a gun at home. I can't wait to get rid of mine for a) it stinks b) it's a stupid burden to take care of c) piece of shit is just rusting away and in the end i'll have to pay for it d) it takes up space e) it wont help me at all if someone breaks into my house f) it serves no other or useful purpose at all. The most fun you can have with it is mounting the bayonet and use it as a spear, but that ends ans soon as you try to get it back out of the tree you threw it at...
If you're going to philosophize on a quote, at least get it right. It's disgusting. Really. Using inaccurate images of historical or influential figures for their own purposes because you would not be heard otherwise.

The actual quote is:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Also: "Although the actual authorship of this work was in question at the time, Jefferson attributed it to Benjamin Franklin and annotated the title page to indicate it. Franklin later denied authorship, but Jefferson’s high regard for Franklin likely allowed his attribution to persist."
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
If people are going to try and start memes based on a quote, that quote should at least be accurate.
The question then becomes what are the essential liberties regarding weapons.
+Michel Chaney I'll give you 25.00 for your guns.  As for 12k being umpteen times higher than any other country, it's not.  Fourteen other countries have higher rates.
but it does put you in the group of shall we say 'not quite safe or civilised yet'
to try and outlaw guns now is to late. private citizens in the States own as many guns as most well equipped armies. the only guns you can own in the republic of Ireland are a shotgun(pump actions are still banned), and a .22 rifle. Still the country is awash with hand guns that drug dealers use to kill each other, one guy even shot himself in the head while showing teenagers how to use a gun. guns! every lunatic in Ireland has one and they are illegal.
Mankind has and forever will have individuals bent on killing their fellow kind by whatever means available. The 9/11 atrocities were committed by murderous wackjobs using box cutters & airplanes. Tim McVeigh used fertilizer and other explosives in a truck. It's the people, not the tools that are to blame! 
+Paul Ferris I already posted some of that info Paul. Cross reference that info with gun ownership by country.

You'll see that there is very little correlation between gun ownership and gun related homicides.

Scroll up for more on that.
Why is it that gun control advocates always jump to the argument that those who oppose gun restrictions are paranoid militants? The issue is bigger than that and the quote from Ben Franklin captures it neatly: gun control is about restriction of a citizen to choose what is best for them. No one should have the right to tell us what we can think, do, say, use, or own if it is not directly harming another person by doing so. That is the true backbone to the argument.

The true paranoid people are those that think that their children are likely to be killed because someone else in the neighborhood owns a gun. If you really want to look at stats and numbers, maybe we should look at the fact that you are way way WAY more likely to not be shot than to be shot.
+Michel Chaney I just saw your question asking if I keep my gun loaded.  It seems that some anti-gun nut decided that they'd crack my Google account to silence me, so I was disabled for a bit.  Good job creating allowing discussion....whomever you are.

Anyway, yes, I keep my gun loaded for hollow-point rounds.
Guncontrol will not stop criminals from getting a gun. 
+Michael Doerner 30 round mags are unreliable as well, that's why we loaded them with 28 rounds.  The standard mag was 20 rounds, which was reliable.
Yep. Pretending it is that simple is idiotic and detrimental.
Every one should know how to shoot a gun
+Chad Hernandez I think I addressed this - The only people who can afford to bribe and rob their way into owning and using guns are organised criminals/drug dealers. And I fail to see how ~50% gun ownership is not affecting a 60% gun crime statistic.
+Dana Thornhill According to your argument, I am allowed be disgusted on a situation though you are not. And it certainly does not mean my skin is thin. Your conclusions have no basis.

Although, I do agree with you that these laws are old. Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1789 when he returned from France: "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

One of the founders of our country and arguably one of the most important forces in designing our system of laws is that he never intended for these laws to outlive him or his collegues.
That quote says it all. NO! I'm for people control. Regulate who can buy not what we can buy.
A group of people who have not traded a little liberty for a little security is not a society.
+Paul Smith-Keitley No, the 12k I posted the homicide rate that the FBI supplied.  I didn't look at the accidental rate, since gun control wouldn't address that. 
The only thing gun control laws do is keep good citizens from being armed. People that are criminals wont care about following these laws hence the term criminals . The sooner law makers figures this out the smarter they will be.  Make bullets 300 each and you wont get some douche bag shooting up places at random.
I didnt know i was going to be called names for given my opinion scott 
Work it out from the figures in the article - you need to use the column listing fatal shooting per 100000 population - I am guessing you don't read/comprehend too well

-----Original Message---
From: "TOR WALKER (Google+)" <****@**>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 05:46:55
To: <****@**>

Unfortunately until we are living in a world where no one would ever take a life, you will need the power to meet deadly force with deadly force. I think we need better systems to prevent people who are mentally disturbed from getting firearms.  But if some idiot parent thinks its a good idea to teach her emotionally disturbed teenage son how to kill people with a gun.... what can you do?
Len McNabb
When they've banned all the scary looking guns they will come after the rest. They will not be happy without total civilian disarmament. That is their goal nothing less. If this current bid fails they will manufacture another more horrific incident. Then they will make it a "national security" issue and the alphabet police will come in and the constitution and bill of rights will only be an unpleasant memory. You've been warned.
Hope C
I live in CANADA, we are allowed guns...but it's a more extensive process and we don't allow ammunition which can penetrate a bullet proof vest...we also do not allow just anybody to own an assault rifle in Canada, we have UNDER 600 gun related homicides per year...but the U.S has over 14'000 Gun related homicides...The way I see it, is a little gun control is don't need to BAN them, just be sure people are properly trained, and mentally stable....force parents to LOCK THEIR SHIT UP, so we don't see another massacre like the ones in recent years...when there are more guns, there is more death! PERIOD! In China, guns are completely ILLEGAL, and they maybe have 2 deaths a year related to guns...a little regulation wouldn't don't need an AK47 to protect yourself, seems if you DO, perhaps you're simply trying to "Over-compensate" for something....Stop being retarded and regulate your shit...20 dead children should be a wake up call for everyone!!!
Hope, good point however there are 10x as many people in the USA. Do the math.
Hope C
+Michael Doerner - for the record, that "Coward", had a form of does not excuse his terrible crime, but his parents should be to blame, and maybe the system for obviously allowing him to go without the help he needs...Ohhh and maybe if the law told his mother to LOCK HER SHIT UP... maybe THEN this could have been prevented!  and FYI: not all gun owners are good....when you own a gun with the intent to kill someone, then you are no better then the is not NECESSARY to own an assault rifle, no common person should be allowed ammunition that could take down a police officer wearing a bullet proof vest.....If you want to own a GUN, you should have to be trained on how to USE and PROPERLY store that shit....I wonder how many children have to die before you see your own arrogance... In Canada, we have stricter gun laws....we also have UNDER 600 homicides a year to Gun the U.S, you have OVER 14'000 HOMICIDES per year to Gun's not rocket science dude...
Hope C
+Matt Shanaman and why is it that idiot gun owners think they have the right to own assault rifles? What purpose does that serve?Or ammunition which can take down a police officer....I am so glad I live in Canada...I feel so safe knowing my neighbours don't own AK47's.....Look at American stats compared to Canadian have THOUSANDS more deaths per year then us...and where I come from, the only people who owned GUNS, were people who went hunting...and they keep their shit locked up...PERIOD!
It's always the 1% that give the 99% a bad name. There are tens of millions of gun owners in the USA. If not a hundred million.
+Michael Doerner
Brought them in AFTER leaving via a blocked-open door that he returned through.  He had not one slug-thrower on him until unlocking his vehicle after using the ticket to enter the screenroom.

@the comments on brits and gun laws
Really helped during the 'Troubles' of the 1980's, didn't it?
Add a comment...