<p>So black markets can be stopped? How's that drug black market going??? Man, I can't seem to find drugs anywhere!!!</p>
<p>Our prison system is already stretched to the limit. Let's not add a boatload of "gun possession" cases to worry about. At least the way guns are now we have some sort of control over them. When we make guns illegal, all hell breaks lose.</p>
<p>"How about banning handguns. NO ONE NEEDS A HANDGUN."</p>
<p>"The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the nation's first federal appeals court to overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms." - Washington Post</p>
<p>The DC ban on handguns was recently struck down by the courts. We need to look for solutions that are practical and possible, not illegal. </p>
<p>"Simple Solution: Stop the black marketers. That's much simpler than any other option." Our country's drug war has been massively ineffective and has some striking parallels to gun trafficking. Drugs and guns are oftentimes gang-related. If the government can't stop the gangs from moving drugs shipped in from foreign countries, how is it going to stop guns from being shipped in from other countries? Illegal firearms are a major issue and there is no simple, easy, inexpensive solution. Maybe background checks could be expanded to include references, so that there is some measure of control into the mentally disturbed gun owners.</p>
<p>If you banned handguns, then there would still be a black market for guns and bad guys would get them and us good, law abiding citizens would not. Crime would go through the roof.</p>
<p>
<p>-For hunting, you use a rifle or a shotgun. NOT A HANDGUN. -For home protection, a shotgun is your best bet. The pellets don't penetrate walls, you don't have to have great aim, and their's less danger of a child accidentally killing himself with it. -Outlawing handguns would get them out of the hands of average joe, but law enforcement officials would retain theirs for safety reasons. -And, obviously, the needs of criminals shouldn't be considered here, should they?
</p>
<p>Forgot one: Personal Protection (e.g. at the bank, grocery store, in your car, in a park with your family, etc) In these cases it wouldn't be feasible to have a long-gun. </p>
<p>Also - a child should not have access to either a handgun or a shotgun, period. That is 100% parental responsibility - they type of gun makes no difference. Should parents be allowed to drive their kids in anything but an SUV since their likelyhood of being killed is lower than in a compact car? Should we ban compact cars all together?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>in this country, there are no qualifications for vehicle ownership. If you're any age, you have the money, you can be a car owner. You cannot DRIVE without a license, just as you cannot CARRY a concealed weapon without a license. In Texas for example, you must complete a 10 hour course, a shooting/marksmanship range test, and pass a national/local/ex-residence background check. If you have so much as a disturbing the peace in the last 5 years, you don't qualify.</p>
<p>
I agree -- there should be certain training and qualifications for ownership alone, to avoid household accidents, children obtaining weapons, criminals obtaining weapons, etc. </p>
<p>
The moment he stepped onto campus concealing a weapon, he was committing a felony, which I'd say makes him a criminal. The incident took place because the guy was a lunatic. Should we get rid of planes after 9/11 since they're too easily available? Don't blame the instrument the lunatic used - blame the lunatic.</p>
<p>"in this country, there are no qualifications for vehicle ownership. If you're any age, you have the money, you can be a car owner. You cannot DRIVE without a license, just as you cannot CARRY a concealed weapon without a license. In Texas for example, you must complete a 10 hour course, a shooting/marksmanship range test, and pass a national/local/ex-residence background check. If you have so much as a disturbing the peace in the last 5 years, you don't qualify."</p>
<p>Actually, you have to be a licensed driver to purchase or rent a car.</p>
<p>if you go to the classified section of your newspaper and tell the guy selling his 94 grand am for $1000, and you show up with cash, he's not going to ask for your license. But back to the topic of gun control, did you agree?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you banned handguns, then there would still be a black market for guns and bad guys would get them and us good, law abiding citizens would not. Crime would go through the roof.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Explain to me then why crime (especially gun-related, violent crime - not property crime, etc.) is more prevalent in the US than it is in countries that do have gun controls. For instance, gun ownership in Canada is still strong (similar per capita rate to the US), but because of the restrictions, most gun owners live in rural areas and use guns for hunting purposes, and in general there is much less gun-related violence. Of course, there will always be criminals and people who will use violent means no matter what, but that does not mean that it is alright for people to carry concealed weapons. People have been saying that somebody could have shot the Virginia murderer, but what if he wasn't easy to identify? What if they hit somebody else by mistake? </p>
<p>Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is true, but having guns makes it a lot easier for people to kill people. Why make it easier to have guns?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, you have to be a licensed driver to purchase or rent a car.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, you don't.
edit: Hummer Guy beat me to it. But I'll add that you dont' have to have a license to buy even from a dealer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People have been saying that somebody could have shot the Virginia murderer, but what if he wasn't easy to identify? What if they hit somebody else by mistake?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, he'd probably be the one going around shooting everyone indiscriminantly. That would likely be the guy I'd focus on. ;)</p>
<p>Consider the case of the guy who went on a shooting spree in that mall in Utah recently. Guess how he was stopped? By an off-duty officer who was carrying a concealed handgun. Obviously, off-duty cops can't be everywhere, and we should allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns as well. Most states already allow this, but pointless restrictions such as college campuses make them perfect targets for people who want to kill a lot of people while being sure that no one has the means to fight back.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can you name one? If somewhere in an appropriate country (not like Vatican) there is no black market or way to get guns illegally I will cover my head with dust and admit loss in this intellectual duel
[/quote]
Come on. Never heard of high schoolers killing each other with a handgun in UK, Germany etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you banned handguns, then there would still be a black market for guns and bad guys would get them and us good, law abiding citizens would not. Crime would go through the roof.
[/quote]
Is it so easy to get arms from Black market for a High-Schooler/College Senior who isn't a professional criminal?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The moment he stepped onto campus concealing a weapon, he was committing a felony, which I'd say makes him a criminal. The incident took place because the guy was a lunatic. Should we get rid of planes after 9/11 since they're too easily available? Don't blame the instrument the lunatic used - blame the lunatic.
[/quote]
He was a college senior. I haven't head if he was a professional criminal or had links with them. You missed "Professional" in my post.</p>
<p>I second cowgirlatheart. </p>
<p>If the courts have struck down the ban on banning arms, little could be done except amending the constitution :)</p>
<p>Facts, facts, facts are precise as Swiss watches.</p>
<p>Mr Chipset: That's hardly I reliable source. I mean you can't expect Director of "Gun Owners of America" to advice a ban on arms :)</p>
<p>The mother of all gun control advocacy groups has made it's opinion known.</p>
<p>The Brady Campaign's press release re: the Va Tech shootings
"We believe that based on existing Federal law, Cho Seung-Hui should not have passed his Brady background checks and should not have been allowed to purchase firearms.
"This organization has a long history of expertise on the Brady Law and on the regulations administering the related Federal laws that determine which individuals are prohibited purchasers. We believe there is clear evidence that since a Virginia judicial officer found that Cho Seung-Hui presented 'an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness' that he fell within the category of 'adjudicated as a mental incompetent' used in the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, and therefore should have failed his background checks.<br>
"This event appears to have been preventable under the Brady law."</p>
<p>Even the Brady Campaign admits that the problem isn't with the legislation currently in place regarding gun control, it's with the enforcement of the law. It stands to reason that if the current laws should have prevented prevented the sale, we don't need additional laws.</p>
<p>The shooter shouldn't have been able to purchase a gun by law. People against gun control seem to only focus on how this could have been prevented if only the professors or students had guns, but the shooter wouldn't have even been buy a gun legally if the rules weren't so lax. I also doubt that he would have found the means to purchase a gun illegally.</p>
<p>Wait wait wait. You just said the shooter "wouldn't have even been [able to] buy a gun legally if the rules weren't so lax." You also said, "The shooter shouldn't have been able to purchase a gun by law." You say the law prohibited the sale but that the rules were lax? You can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>I believe that there isn't a one sided solution for gun control. Armed intervention is a last resort on the part of the victims but not an option that should be taken away. Armed interventions have succeeded in multiple instances (Utah mall shooting, Pearl High School shooting, a shooting at a school dance in Pennsylvania...). No civilians were injured by those who intervened. As much as we legislate firearms, it is irresponsible to remove an option for self-defense (or defense of others) from law-abiding citizens.</p>
<p>Yes let's all give up the right to bear arms and then be helpless should the government become tyrannical!</p>
<p>Imagine if in the future only the government/police have guns. Then imagine a gradual erosion of democracy and the beginning of a '1984' style government (Far-fetched? Not really... this is happening in other parts of the world as we speak...). As citizens, we would be utterly helpless, unable to defend ourselves as the government increasingly takes our rights away...</p>
<p>There's a reason our founding fathers made sure we had this right... If our founding fathers didn't have guns to begin with, America as we know it would not exist.</p>
<p>That's the silliest thing I have ever heard. If founding fathers had followed their own fathers and not fought against the english, America wouldn't exist.</p>
<p>The guns are also needed to protect democracy. I mean true democracy, not the police/nanny state that we are so bravely marching into.</p>
<p>I am curious how democracy could be protected by guns. Law prevent Democracy from turning into tyranny, not guns. </p>
<p>Can someone explain to me why kids in countries of eastern europe don't kill each other with guns?</p>