Comments on: America in denial over gun control

By: john baker

john baker — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:15:10 +0000

Comments are now closed for this entry.

By: dwray

dwray — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 06:05:31 +0000

I find it simply hilarious that some snaggle-toothed Brit is whining about our gun laws. . .

jb says: There were another thousand words or so to this post, but I deleted them without reading further. Some people just need to work on their openings . . .

By: John

John — Thu, 07 May 2009 03:06:57 +0000

According to me, when it’s easy to obtain guns, gun related violence and crimes will be higher, the same as with alcohol. Take for example a country like Sweden, they can only sell alcohol over 3.5 percent in government shops, and only Monday to Friday and Saturday to 3 PM. Before they didn’t sell on Saturdays and when they did, domestic violence rose quite significant.

With guns however, it’s different since it’s a civilian right to purchase arms, and it’s linked to personal security. I think more restrictions would be a good idea.

By: Stonewall 79

Stonewall 79 — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:35:25 +0000

while the viginia tech incedent was very sad, and your argument moving, there was one fatal flaw; the guns used by th killer were puchased ILLEGALY by an ILLEGAL dealer. strict lawas do not affect those who operate outside them. rather than making more gun controll laws, the government should address the real problem and crack down on illegal gun trafficing instead of restricting law abiding citizens

jb says: Sorry, Stonewall, but if you’re going to use virginia tech as a yardstick, you must also include the other school killings as well. I wonder why you didn’t. No I don’t wonder, I know why you didn’t. Because it doesn’t suit your prejudice to do so.

By: Micromonkey

Micromonkey — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:01:36 +0000

I just have a few quick points I would like to raise on this subject. Firstly I find it incredible that in this day and age a so called ‘civilised’ nation can still use a piece of outdated legislation to propogate the manufacture and sale of items which have no purpose other than to take lives. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a piece of irrelevant nonsense, admittedly when it was drafted there was a need to maintain a standing armed force but in today’s world that is simply no longer the case. I know many of you Americans suffer a strange irrational fear of foreign invasion, or even differing modes of government (say communism) but you have a vast army for that purpose, so that can’t be the reason. Furthermore the oft-cited argument that guns are somehow vital for self defense is just as ludicrous. If you need a gun to shoot the ‘bad guys’ what exactly stops those same bad guys posessing a gun, however tight your gun control is inevitably in a country where vast amounts of arms are produced many of them will wind up on the black market. I just wonder how many more senseless bloody killings your nation needs before it finally sees sense.

By: Why

Why — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:52:09 +0000

I believe that guns should not be banned. If there is ever an issue when it is neccessary to defend ones self or the general public what would we do. Yeah, we would call the cops, but what if they were not stationed close by. Would we watch as innocent lives are taken by the rage of someone who does not heed to the laws. If you are able to keep a weapon conceled in your car you could prevent serveral casualties until the police arrived with armed forces.
Lets say there is an illegal immagrent or terrorist that just wants to have “fun”. They wouldn’t care what the law stated. They probably wouldn’t even know what the law stated. Then where would we be. We would be in a helpless situation without guns. Lives of those we love and know would be taken. Women, expectent mothers, mothers, wives, children, babys, husbands, fathers. People that we know their familys would morn for. Guns should NOT be banned.

jb says: Hi Meg. You obviously have a big heart and will never be short on compassion. You just need to work on your imagination a little.

By: Catalino

Catalino — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:31:10 +0000

I think it is somewhat amusing to find an English website debating American gun laws (more like slandering them). Its quite obvious by the clear one sidedness of this forum that most British people (at least most of you on this site) have a clue of American culture other than what is portrayed in movies and of course our commonalities provided by our intermingled past. America is a country whose freedom was purchased at the barrel of a gun, and has been maintained at the barrel of a gun. Guns are an inherent part of our culture and despite what other countries may see as an open shut case or a clear cut argument, Americans have a love affair with guns that outsiders or more docile and liberal cultures will never understand. Americans will never willingly give up their guns. ” From my cold dead hands” would be echoed from coast to coast if ever a disarmament was attempted.

jb says: What we gonna do about you, Catalino? If you weren’t obviously part of a dying breed it would be a vexing question for us more docile cultures.

By: Michael Kelley

Michael Kelley — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 03:42:00 +0000

For the past three decades the US national statistics have proven that less than 1% of the criminals intent upon committing a crime have been found to use a legally registered weapon, and that gun control laws to date have been unable to stop or aid in the apprehension and conviction of a single armed homicide or robbery.

These facts have been the cause of much consternation among gun control advocates, resulting in a need to shift their posture on gun control from that of “protection from criminals,” through the reduction of constitutional rights, to that of enforcing a more humane means of civil protection through the “elevation of human rights”. The result is a newly re-defined definition of gun control.

GUN CONTROL: The politically acceptable and government imposed posture which espouses “The Doctrine” that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is a morally superior constitutional right, qualified by it’s humane means of reducing the affliction of mental anguish upon the self-same woman who would otherwise be forced into explaining to the police her escape from death and how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

jb says: Dr Kelley, you know better than most that statistics prove nothing.