Why is there gun control?

Question

From what I understand from this question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkE8BFhCY8zisfRAe53GJojsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080723170929AAjRyGl

It seems to be that everyone knows that gun control seems to make things worse and one guy said how everyone in Switzerland has a gun and how there is a extremely low crime rate. So why is there a gun control law and is there any hope of destroying gun control (to a certain extent obvioulsly)?

Answer 1

as a strong believer in the 2nd admendment to me gun control is a good thing. gun control keeps guns from getting in the wrong hands, but allows a law abiding person own a gun and keeps gun owners losing there right because of thugs and morons who decide to go shooting people and robbing banks

Answer 2

My prime example...

I have a friend who lost her sister to a gun crime.

She was so upset she joined the bad wagon on anti-gun.

I was sitting with her one evening and we started to discuss it.

Her reasoning was that if no one had guns then her sister would be alive. I asked her if her sister had a handgun on her do you think she might be alive. She said she did not know but she may still be.

She is now a recovering anti and has been prescribed 5 trips to the range per month.

Most of the Anti's I know are either victims or family members of victims or just don't know. All they know about firearms are what they see in the movies and on the boob tube.

The best thing for dealing with the anti's is not to argue with them as they can be like wrestling with a pig in the mud, you will soon realize that the pig enjoys it.

Just educate the ones you can in a safe, secure, and professional manner and let them make the determination if they want to change.

Answer 3

I think that their is hope. At least in the U.S. their is. I dont live in the other countries so I dont know. When they take guns away from law abiding citizens they are taking away their protection. Criminals would still get thei hand on a gun regardless of law because I doubt that they would even registure their gun in the first place. In the end it DOES  result in more crime rate.

Answer 4

some people just have an irrational fear of weapons. also, contrary to popular belief, it isn't a "liberal" thing. many conservatives (soccer moms are the biggest) are against guns too.

Answer 5

gun control only limits the amount of guns that can be purchased legally by law abiding people.

criminals can still buy all the guns they want illegally.

so it is a method of making sure we are outgunned by criminals.  thank the liberals for that one.

Answer 6

Switzerland is the odd man out when it comes to gun control.  If you look at other developed countries like Canada, Great Britain, and Australia; you will find that they all have more gun control and less gun crime.  Among developed nations, the US has the highest homicide rate.  

With no gun control at all, criminals and mentally unstable people could legally buy and carry guns at will.  Some gun control does not make things worse, but too much sometimes does like in D.C. or in Chicago.

Answer 7

Question:  Why is there gun control?

Answer:  Well Dave, first understand this... Gun control as defined by the anti-gun community is NOT about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  It is about:

CRIMINALIZING GUN OWNERSHIP.  

So your question may very well be:  Since we have a 2nd. Amendment and we are fortunate and unique among Nations to have a 2nd. Amendment, why is there gun control???

The answer is:  Because an unarmed population is EASIER TO CONTROL.  Think about this when you hear anti-2nd. Amendment rhetoric from dictator wannabes and be careful how you vote.

H

Answer 8

Gun control is a tool used by governments to control people.  It has nothing to do with controlling crime.  170 million people have been killed by their own governments in the 20th century (http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc....  Unarmed people are unable to resist tyranny.

I am not suggesting that here in the U.S., for example, the government will turn tyrannical anytime soon.  However, our government is one that is by the people, for the people.  The power is retained by the people and delegated to our elected officials.  Once "the people" are unarmed, they no longer retain the power.

At face value, gun control sounds like a good idea.  And many people will buy off on its promise to cut/eliminate crime.  But any honest research into the subject shows that not to be the case.  In fact, the opposite generally happens.

Answer 9

Gun control is in place for citizens that use firearms for various reasons.  Its meant to inhibit the law biding citizen by making it harder to get firearms, and makes it so the only people that will be able to get firearms are the police and criminals.  Its a control tactic that only affects the people following the laws, as a criminal isnt going to sit and ask themselves "Should I buy this full auto Uzi, since there are gun control laws in place?"  The only people that stop themselves from purchasing and owning firearms because of gun control laws are the law biding citizens.

Answer 10

The very basis of gun control has it's roots in racist Jim Crow laws

The whites of the old south figured out what Stalin, Hitler and Chairman Mao also knew

You cannot control and oppress an armed society

Answer 11

You know, I am going to answer this question in the most reasonable manner that I can - and with much forethought.

Here's the deal.  I have been an active hunter since the age of 12.  I have had unlimited access to firearms since I was 12 years old.  I even went hunting by myself at that young age - with no issues.  I have been an avid gun collector of the years and became a Life Member of the NRA at the young age of 16.  I enjoyed firearms so much that I even worked in the firearms industry for many years.

Having said all of the above, you can imagine, that I am pretty much a pro-gun person.  And, you are right.  HOWEVER, there are some instances where I find the need to "control guns" and their use are also common sense.  And, here are some examples...

I live in a mostly suburban area.  A lot of folks, like myself, will sometimes go into their backyards and targert practice (or plink) with their .22 rimfire rifles and handguns.  Not a big deal - so long as they do so in a safe manner and make sure there is a proper backstop they are shooting into.  But, some goofs in that just moved to the area have taken things several steps further.  No longer are they content with shooting their little 22 rifles, but now wish to shoot their 357 magnum revolvers in the same suburban community.  All this, while there is a gun club with multiple shooting ranges just 2 miles away!

So, my point is here simple.  I believe that people should have the right to own firearms for a variety of puposes; hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.  But, at the same time, we also need laws in place that force people with a lack of common sense to think twice about shooting several magazines from their 45 ACP pistol at midnight on a Sunday evening (this actually happened in our community).  Some gun laws do make sense.

Answer 12

According to the 2nd Amendment > " The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed." That is the only Law that matters to me.* Our 2nd Amendment Rights have and are being Violated, Subverted, Compromised,and Denied by the Federal, State, County or Local Governments in the U. S. A. for YEARS.* All this nonsense about Permits, Fees, Special Training, Open Carry, Concealed Carry, Gun Free Zones, Government Buildings, Airports, Schools Etc. is B.S.*.......To OWN and to BEAR says it all, without all this other nonsense which is a Violation of your 2nd Amendment Rights.* The only Gun Control is No Gun Control whatsoever.* Guns have only Two (2*) Enemy's RUST and POLITICIANS.*

Answer 13

The reason there is this so called gun control is because people are stupid enough to elect liberal scumbags like obama and people like him gun control has never worked and never will I have never heard of someone being killed with a gun that any kind of gun control would have prevented the fact is that taking guns away from honest citizens just empowers the criminal element and gives them the advantage I believe that we need to soften our gun laws even more unless you are a violent felon you should be able to own as many of any kind of gun you want and carry them where you want within reason of course.

Answer 14

If we truly answered this the way we wanted to are answers would be reported and removed and thumbs downed to death.   Its to satisfy the stupidity of the Liberal none sense groups and to give rights to the criminals and to strip the rights away from good law abiding citizens....

Answer 15

this whole converation could be avoided if they just allow guns...but then they would come up with bukllet control and that just doesnt roll off the tongue as nicely as gun control

Answer 16

cause the government wants to infringe our second amendment rights illegally.

A well regulated miltia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed. As ratified by the people.

here are some reasons for eliminating gun control, including bans on assualt rifles.

I understand their desire to make the world safer for their children. But, unfortunately, their proposals would make their children -- and themselves -- less safe.

There already are 20,000 federal gun laws and regulations on the books. If those laws haven't made America safe by now, why should we think 20,001 laws will suffice?

We shouldn't. Instead, we need to recognize that those 20,000 laws are a principal cause of the current violence in society. They have made our children and all innocent adults much less safe -- by disarming innocent citizens and encouraging armed criminals to take advantage of us.

So it's time to face reality and repeal these laws -- all of them.

By definition, law-breakers don't obey laws. Hardened criminals do whatever is necessary to evade identification and arrest. So they don't buy guns that can be traced; they buy them in the underworld or simply steal them.

Thus the gun-control laws don't apply to criminals or stop gun violence. They simply make it much harder for innocent people to defend themselves -- encouraging criminals to take advantage of us.

In other words, gun-control laws make the world safer for criminals and less safe for you.

Stripping away your safety

Let's take a brief look at how the various kinds of gun-control laws make you more vulnerable.

Waiting periods: A waiting period means that a woman being stalked will have to remain defenseless for a few extra days. Will her stalker refrain from assaulting her until the waiting period is over?

Safety locks: Although safety locks might prevent a child from accidentally firing a gun, they also can slow you down when you need a gun in a hurry to defend yourself. Imagine a woman attacked by a rapist in a parking lot. Will she be grateful for the time it takes to unlock her gun? And, of course, if her adversary is carrying a gun, it won't have a safety lock.

Registration of handguns: What would this achieve? Nothing positive. Evildoers won't register their guns; only law-abiding citizens will. And once your gun is registered, you'll have to be afraid that some future president whose heart isn't pure will use that registration to confiscate your only means of defense against armed criminals.

Licensing of guns or gun-owners: Since criminals won't acquire them, gun licenses won't help find the perpetrator of a violent crime. They are simply a gratuitous invasion of your privacy and that of other innocent citizens.

Background checks for purchasers: No one wanted by law enforcement agencies is going to buy a gun in a way that requires a background check. He'll get his gun from another criminal or steal it. So the only achievement of a background check is your inconvenience.

But don't background checks catch people with criminal records?

If they're wanted by the police, they're certainly not going to undergo background checks. If they are ex-convicts who have paid their debt to society, they have the right to defend themselves from predators -- just as you or I do. Or should their criminal records also prohibit them from buying food or clothing?

Require guns to be locked up: If the law requires guns to be kept out of reach of children, how will the law be enforced? Will the police invade your house periodically to verify that your guns are in safe places? If not, what's the point of the law? If yes, this is another gratuitous invasion of your privacy.

Ban some types of guns: At first glance it might seem reasonable to ban such things as assault weapons or mortars. After all, you don't need such a weapon.

But some people do.

During most riots, the police have been outnumbered and have intentionally stayed clear of gangs that were looting and vandalizing. Suppose your life savings are invested in a store the gangs are about to loot. And suppose you have little or no insurance because your store is in a poor and dangerous section of town. How will you defend the store against the looters? With a knife? With a handgun against a dozen attackers? Or with an assault weapon?

If you prevent innocent citizens from acquiring assault weapons, criminal gangs will still have them -- even if they have to smuggle them into America from thousands of miles away. So why pass laws that disarm only the innocent?

You might be able to imagine the perfect law that allows just the right people to own just the right types of guns, while prohibiting other people from owning inappropriate firearms. But remember, you're only imagining such a law; it will never be a reality. Once the issue is turned over to the politicians, it will be decided by whoever has the most political influence -- and that will never be you or I.

A sane crime policy

The only effective crime policy is to have no laws regulating the ownership of guns, but to prosecute anyone who intrudes on the person or property of another -- with or without a gun.

You really have only two choices. Either:

Politicians will decide what you can own -- and they will never stop their prohibitions at the point you believe best.

Or people will decide for themselves what they can own.

Any apparent middle ground between the two actually grants the politicians the power to choose for you.

And all such choices will be made by whoever has the most political influence. So attempts to limit gun ownership will do more to promote the political interests of well-connected people than to reduce crime.

A safe society

Disarmed citizens encourage crime and violence.

Armed citizens encourage criminals to find a safer line of work.

The National Rifle Association and Republican politicians have recently urged that today's 20,000 gun-control laws be enforced -- no matter how bad those laws.

For safety's sake, we must repeal all the gun laws

Answer 17

Gun control is being able to load, aim, and shoot your weapon of choice safely. Not a decision to be made by elected idiots.

Answer 18

Honestly, I feel that the government likes to have as much control over us then they really should have.

Now-a-days though....there are just to many absoluty fricken stupid people out there hooked on something, pissed off about something.

Answer 19

Basically the Swiss understand trusting their citizens keeps them safe.

Liberals on the other hand are so hung up on the blame game and not hurting ones feelings that they cannot force themselves to admit that criminals are bad and are the blame for all of our countries crime. So they must select an object to 'blame' for all the woes of the world. (Also they ignore the Swiss 'experiment') The gun has become the bane of the liberals. Someone can be beaten to death and they will cry out for 'Stiffer gun control'.

They also ignore the city in Arizona that had their police force go on strike in the 1980's I believe. The populace armed themselves and patrolled their own neighborhoods. Crime went down and criminals fled to safer cities.

An armed citizen is more feared by career criminals than they are of the police.

At present the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the armed citizen and determined that the city of Washington D.C. is in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. However Washington D.C. would institute a statute that would prohibit a citizen from possession a loaded firearm EXCEPT when faced with IMMINENT Threat of bodily harm. (ALmost the same wording as in Soviet Russian) Again, the City is violating the 2nd Amendment and in so doing will prove that they are willing to sacrifice their citizens to 'prove' that guns won't stop crime.

In the D.C. Plan, the citizen will have no time to unlock and load their weapon to stop a crook from killing them. The criminal not only gets to murder a citizen but steal a firearm in the process. Bolstering the D.C. position that guns are bad.

Citizens of D.C. My best advice to you is.....MOVE.....

Answer 20

Stupid people, bigots (primary source), hoplophobes, and the worst of all power mongers. Your typical anti-gun politician either has a personal vendetta or they just wan't more power, or they suffer from being a bigot or hoplophobe.

Hoplophobia is actually a medical term and is treated like a mental disorder. So irrational fear of guns is a mental disorder.

Answer 21

Who do they call when they need help, police people with guns .

Answer 22

Because the only data ever collected has to do with the deaths that guns cause, and never about the lives that guns have, or could have saved.

Only one sided evidence will cause stupid people to believe only that side. So gun control, plus some places that normally have low crime rates, and enact gun control and they say that the low crime rate is due to guns.