When nearly 50 percent of american households have a weapon and 25% of the worlds prisioners in the united states, what can be done? Other thoughts and ideas on control? Speak now!
It’s all about gun education. There are a lot of idiots who own guns, but don’t know a thing about gun safety, such as leaving guns where their kid can find it. That said, it’s our right to own a gun and the government, who is supposed to defend the Constitution by the way, should not be able to take that right away. It’s the ultimate in personal responsibility, being able to protect one’s self. The problem is that more and more people lack any sense of personal responsibility, relying instead on the government.
If you look at facts and not fiction such as Michael Moore, etc., you’ll see that violent crimes are lower in areas where ownership of guns is higher. Give the criminals some credit, they are smart enough to know to go after someone without a gun. I’m not saying the government has no place in this issue. The government has every right to know who owns a gun and to be sure they know their gun safety. I’m also for convicted felons not having access to guns, however I’m willing to bet a total ban of guns won’t keep criminals from finding them since most crimes are committed by unregistered guns.
You also have the issue of guns on airplanes. I don’t think passengers should be allowed to carry guns on board. However, I think pilots and/or stewards/stewardesses should be allowed to. I’d go as far as requiring gun training for pilots. How many lives could have been saved if pilots were armed on any of the 9/11 flights?
Some, but there would probably been a few more crashed planes due to accidents. Anyway, the criminals also work out that with a gun, they can shoot people. Criminals will tend to get guns anyway, which is an arguement in guns’ favour.
what’s the source for the 50% statistic? What I’ve seen puts it at less than a quarter
Honestly, I’m okay with the government preventing me from getting shot, and do not consider this a lapse of personal responsibility on my part.
Regarding the airline pilots with guns point, that’s a bad idea. The pilots and airlines don’t want them for a very good reason: a pressurized airliner at 30,000 feet is a bad place to shoot a gun!
Heck, most terrorists don’t use guns (and that has very little to do with getting one on board. It’d likely be easier to get a gun onboard then a bomb).
Now, if you’d like to advocate for allowing airline crew to carry Tazers, that’s probably a good idea. I could see the head steward/stewardess being trained and authorized to carry one (basic police tactics), at least.
I suspect a big part of the problem is education. Well educated people with good career prospects don’t generally take up gun crime.
The US should focus serious amounts of money on encouraging people in poor communities to get a decent education and job training.
I’ve never seen 50% either, though I’ve seen close to 40%. I wonder how the data was collected or if it was a poll. Some polls simply ask if you have a firearm in your home or possess one, while others ask if you “legally” own one.
I don’t think it’s the education you are thinking of, but the education taught by parents/family. Also, throwing money at the problem (of education, or anything) doesn’t fix it. If it did, then these cities who throw vast amounts of money at education would have low rates of crime involving guns or other violent crimes.
It’s a very long term issue though. If you spend money on educating 6 year old kids now, you will have to wait a good 10 years ( at least) to be able to accurately see if those kids ended up less likely to get involved with gangs and gun crime.
Education, pensions, social security, health care, crime, these are all nightmare issues because the proposed causes take effect over a longer timescale than the electoral cycle, so there is little incentive to implement a ‘pain now, gain later’ policy, even if it works.
The problem is, with the government, there seems to be a “pain now, pain later” policy, even if it’s not intended. All those programs are well-intentioned, but always end up taking more and more money over time, with little to show for it in return.
If you look at the current situation though, there seems to be a “gain now, pain later” policy, even if it’s not intended. This increase in spending and possibly even more in the future will put a lot of pressure on taxpayers later on.
But back on the issue of guns/crime, I just don’t see how public education will fix the problem. It’s not as simple as pumping money into it and expecting it to get better. The whole education system needs to be redone, but that’s a different topic. The bottom line is that schools should focus on career-building, teaching subjects that matter such as reading, writing, arithmetic, etc., while parents should teach morals and common sense.
Are schools not currently teaching those things?
Plus, it’s one thing to agree that more money is not necessarily a panacea, but it’s hard to deny that schools in the U.S. are seriously underfunded. And with child poverty at 20% (and much higher in inner cities), “teach them arithmetic and have their parents tell them to be moral” seems like a fairly superficial solution to the problems associated with guns and gang violence.
As a sidenote, I’m wondering how policymakers are supposed to encourage parents to teach morals to their children. Usually one hears one of two answers from the right: either one advocates “faith-based initiatives” or other efforts to institutionalize religion (as it goes without saying that by “morality” one means “Christianity”), or else one shrugs one’s shoulders and says that since inner city crime is clearly a result of nothing more than bad parenting, that it’s their own problem
Gun ownership in the United States is associated with individualism. It’s an image no doubt cultivated by the gun lobby, which is extremely well funded by small arms manufacturers. Maybe it’s time governments in the US provided anti-gun groups with generous funding so that they can compete with the national rifle association and other likeminded groups.
Interesting time for the government to fund something like that with support for gun control at a historic low. Then again, tyrants wouldn’t want an armed populace.
i would have to disagree, i doubt that gun control is at a historic low. Thats just hyperbole to me. Although, historically tyrants were actually put in power by the average people to lessen the aristocratic and monarchist powers (see ancient greek tyrants).
I said support for gun control is at a historic low according to several polls. We all know polls can be wrong, though. Historically speaking, mankind has always drifted towards government control.
I only find that an exageration because of all the recent school shootings, seem to increase the need for stricter gun control (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 … n-control/) and i did see a cnn page that agreed with you (cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/). However, the cnn link said the drop in support is because of the heated political season (elections).
Originally, Detroit, Michigan had the highest crime rate in America. But when Michigan passed right to carry laws, the crime rate got much lower, throughout the entire state. When Kansas and Missouri allowed to citizens to carry concealed weapons, the crime rate got lower. It has been argued by some professors that crooks are simply moving from areas where people have guns to areas where they don’t, and arming citizens is not cumulatively helping. However, when the Supreme Court overturned all handgun bans in America, including the state of Illinois’ handgun ban…the crime rate fell. Where did the criminals run to, Britain? Simply put, letting citizens arm themselves lowers the crime rate. And yes, that does make it easier for homicidal maniacs to get guns. But psychos are, by nature, rare. Thugs are not. And the end result is less crime.
That said, you say the governement should fund anti-gun groups to oppose the NRA. I don’t think you understand how things work in America. The NRA has no advertising on televison, period. By contrast, gun CONTROL advocates do. You see, the vast majority of all media in America- over 90%- is owned by 8 different “parent companies”- all of whom support gun control. The NRA’s “propaganda” is restricted purely to hunting stores, gun magazines, posters on the occasional wall, and gun shows.
abanet.org/irr/hr/fall99huma … eston.html
In terms of raw media support, the NRA is actually the underdog. You should be more open minded and try listending to what the NRA has to say, rather than making assumptions. You ASSUME that guns are evil, people are brainwashed by the NRA, and that banning guns is good. Britain’s crime rate skyrocketed after guns were banned. I have been openminded enough to listen to what pro-ban people have to say, but in the end, the math didn’t support it- the crimerate is lower with privately armed citizens. You should be open-minded enough to listen to what pro-gun people have to say, rather than assuming they are wrong, or brainwashed. Quite frankly, without any T.V. support at all, the N.R.A. would need to kidnap people to brainwash them.
After the Australian government passed strict gun control legisation several years ago, crime rates were guns have traditionally been used did not decrease, but male suicide rates did decrease notably. That is a win.
When was this? I’ve lived in the UK all my life. We have never had the right to carry handguns in my lifetime. You could own a shotgun for shooting but it had to be kept locked away in a metal gun cabinet in your home, and only ever carried to and from a firing range.
nice post.
Seriously, you don’t hear very much from the media about gun sales since BO got elected. Even the most left wing people I know went out and bought guns. It’s just mind-boggling though, how support for gun control is at a historic low, among other issues being at highs or lows, and BHO’s approval rating is still so high.