It is unfair and wrong to ban certain guns because someone has done something
stupid. They will never be able to change the constitution.
Our ratios are higher because we have more urban/inner cities than most places
cited. The vast majority of our gun violence comes from areas of low income,
unemployment, drug use, and gang activity. It's unfortunate that these
types of people mess up the ratios because they have a criminal disposition
almost from childhood because that's what they have grown up with.
Fatherless homes, welfare, drugs. It's probably the reason most resort to
joining a gang anyway, but that is where the most crime comes from. I would love
to see numbers outside of the inner city. I'll bet they are more in line
with those "low crime" countries cited. So, why use Chicago
Mark B? yes, why indeed. Let's use Cedar City, Nephi, Heber, Aspen, Beverly
Hills, Wallsburg. Let's run the numbers there and see what they come up to
@snowman: "Any gun control is infringment on the 2nd
amendment."Taking your statement at face value, banning machine
guns, banning fully automatic weapons, prohibiting felons and lunatics from
owning guns, all of those are infringing on the Second Amendment. Since I can
assume that you approve of those restrictions despite your statement to the
contrary, I'm going to take the statement to mean, "Any law keeping me
from owning the guns I want to own, in any quantities I want to own them, is an
infringement of the Second Amendment." The above-mentioned restrictions
make it abundantly clear that gun ownership is not an absolute right and that
some limitations are acceptable. The only question is, what other restrictions
are also reasonable and necessary for the good of society?
I would love to see a tag-team political debate with Bruce Willis and Clint
Eastwood in one corner and Stevie Wonder and George Clooney in the other corner.
EDMThere are no limits in the 2nd amendment. It says we have the
right to bear arms. It does not say what ones
@MountanmanThen why does the organization you champion(NRA) actively, with
lobbyists and campaign donations, try and suppress the gun laws that are already
on the book. The people (I would use something stronger, but the deseret news
only allows liberal bashing, don't speak ill of conservative causes) in
control at the NRA are incredibly two faced. Publicly the support the laws on
the books, but behind the scenes they are doing nothing but undermining them.
To "andyjaggy" actually we can't provide the mental health services
because current regulations prevent the police from taking people to get mental
evaluations. We used to get the mental evaluations done, but recently the
government for whatever reason has stopped doing them. People can still get
mental health evaluations, they either have their health insurance pay for them
or else they pay out of pocket. (Why should the government pay for all mental
health evaluations?)As you show, the US is lumped in with nations
that have high crime rates and large amounts of organized crime. Maybe that has
something to do with the US problems?
I hesitate to comment because this type of thread eventually becomes name
calling and insults, but I will. I'm liberal in many ways and have
generally supported Obama. But on gun control I think we achieve no benefit by
preventing only law abiding citizens from owning weapons. If we could somehow
remove all guns from society, except perhaps those used for hunting, I'd
support gun control. But to increase the laws on the books to effectively make
it more difficult for only those who abide by the laws to procure weapons is
ludicrous. As I've studied it, we have enough gun laws on the books and
only need to enforce them. Why add more when we are not able to enforce the
ones we already have? Unfortunately we live in a society that has a high crime
rate relative to most other OECD countries (like the oft cited Japan). We will
always have crime so why tilt the balance of power further to the criminally
snowmanProvo, UT,Craig Clark"Any gun control is
infringment on the 2nd amendment...."____________________Not according to no less a defender of the Second Amendment than Antonin
Scalia who in the 2008 ruling that protects a person’s right to bear arms
also wrote, "....the right secured by the Second Amendment is not
unlimited...." Scalia has often reaffirmed the right of the
Courts to decide where the line is to drawn.
Okay, let's see if I have this straight. We can't regulate
assault weapons because it infringes on our 2nd amendment rights. Hollywood and video games aren't too blame.We can't
provide mental health services to people who need them because that's
socialism and Obamacare is evil. We are quickly running out of
options here. Are mass shooting just one of the "freedoms" that we get
to experience by living in the Unites States? Last I checked we are grouped
right around Uruguay, Costa Rica, Zimbabwe, and Nicaragua in gun related
homicides (3.6 gun homicides/100,000 people). Meanwhile countries that have
stricter gun laws enjoy rates far below ours. UK 0.04, Japan 0.02, Norway 0.04,
Germany 0.06, etc.... If gun regulations don't work than why does every
other country with stricter regulations enjoy massively lower gun homicide
rates? Work that one out.
Snowman, you can't buy a fraction of the number and type of weapons that
exist because they are illegal to possess. Are totally unaware that the 2nd
Amendment is chock full of limits?
Kirk, I can argue the same point: What's to stop one from carrying
multiple 30-round clips? We can argue the semantics all day, but I stand by my
post that smaller clips would do less damage (and that's smaller clips used
by a person to appease Lost!) I would also argue against the regular Joe
changing out clips in a half a second. This is just my opinion. As
far as knee-jerk reactions, there has been plenty of that on both sides, and
both sides have strong arguments. But nothing will change until there is a
cultural change within the whole country as far as conflict resolution.
Movies no.Video games yes.
Bruce Willis says, Don't blame me!Ok, Bruce. I don't blame
you, personally, for all of it. But most people have a good hunch that violence
in films probably has a negative effect on us. Can you accept that? And regarding the untouchable 2nd Amendment.....it has already been touched,
and limited ages ago. You cannot buy every weapon you use and see in the movies.
Many of them, some of the real ones, are against the law to possess. Can you
accept that? Sorry, Bruce, you are just plain wrong on both
Craig ClarkAny gun control is infringment on the 2nd amendment. The
criminals will have guns so why can't we.
@xscribe"If I take a gun to a school with a 5-round clip, and someone
else takes a gun to a school with a 30-round clip, who is going to do the most
damage?"You miss the point entirely. What is to stop the guy
with the 5 round clip from carrying 20 of them? and how long does it take to
drop and reload a clip? About .5 seconds for someone who has practiced. So, what
exactly is the difference between a 50-round clip and a 5-round clip? 5 second.
And with only .5 second reload time, there is no difference at all as things are
happening.restricting gun ownership is not about safety. The
arguments used by those for restrictions don't hold any water (except
perhaps background checks). So, what is it really about? It's about our
politicians being seen to do something (think knee jerk reaction). doesn't
matter what, as long as we think they're doing it. And if they can turn it
into a us vs them thing, then they win even more at the polls.
Media should shoulder some of the blame for the rise in violent acts, we portray
so much violence in movies, tv, and video games. However, we will continue to
see problems as 1st and 2nd amendment rights clash in what is actually right and
moral to do, thus placing responsibility on those exercising both
amendments' rights to show some moral judgement in how they act. If we
continue to have those who stick to only one tenet then we'll continue to
Lost: Would you care to have an adult discussion, or the childish discussion
you resorted to? It's up to you!If I take a gun to a school
with a 5-round clip, and someone else takes a gun to a school with a 30-round
clip, who is going to do the most damage?
xscribe,you mean that gun carried itself into the school, pulled its own
trigger, reloaded all by itself? No human handled it? WOW!You said
the gun was the culprit.Pretty smart weapon, self-aware and
To "lket" why can't people own different rifles for the fun and
enjoyment of shooting?Are all automobiles limited to the speedlimit
for the maximum speed?If we applied your logic to cars, we would
never need passenger cars with more than about 180 hp. Why would anybody need a
car that can go faster than 75 mph? We should limit all car manufacturers to
preventing cars from going faster than 75 mph, and limit their hp to 180.To "Mark B" how about we look at Mexico for gun enforcement
laws. In Mexico they have 15 guns per 100 people, yet have a firearm related
death rate of 11.7/100000 (that is higher than the US). We could look at the #1
country for firearm related deaths, El Salvador (50.36/100000) and their gun
ownership rate of 5.8/100 people.Why is it that the countries with
much higher firearm related death rates have so few guns if it is the number of
guns that are the problem?The data indicates that firearm related
homicide rates have more to do with criminal activity and not the number of
bottom line you dont need 30 round magazine for any rifle. i was in the army for
6 years as armourer. ar15, and ak style rifles are made for killing people, as
fast and as many as possible so to say regulating them in any way is wrong, is
child like. 20 round magazine is plenty. my 870 remington shot gun can protect
my home and mine. i know how to use many weapons and know we sell too many, and
that we should not . you can but 50 cal. rifles and if you have right permit, a
m2 machine gun. about a 5 mile range . what do we need it for?
Bruce Willis doesn't think there is a connection between violence and
popular entertainment. Who would have thought? Why is this news?
@ CHS A few years ago the FBI conducted a study and found that about 70% of
crimes committed in our cities are perpetrated by young men with no father in
the home. Draw you own conclusions about why we have social problems in this
country and why we have so many murders! The culture of America has changed
being enabled by our welfare system that has made fathers in the home
irrelevant! Think its bad now, wait until the next fatherless generation hits
@CHS Its called enforcement of laws, not just having ever more unenforced laws
on the books. Gun laws are not being enforced as it is. Crooks can carry illegal
guns with impunity in most American cities, so having more unenforced laws is
beyond ridiculous. If cops were allowed to stop and search suspicious people on
the street we could actually do some good but the left would call it
"profiling" and the ACLU would have the cops in court. And there in a
nut shell is the real problem; a moral relativism and secular progressivism
culture. Add to that the entitlement culture of our inner cities and one can
understand the consequences of our culture! Blaming guns for our culture is like
blaming matches for arson or pencils for poor grammar!
@MountanmanSo we should have no laws then. Why bother trying to
regulate anything. If we only pass laws that we know everyone will obey, why do
we even need a legislature, judges, etc? Why not let our country devolve into a
Mountanman is correct, in that our society needs to change. Many countries
allow gun ownership, but do not have the problems we have. It's a whole
culturual issue. However, I'm sure we will disagree on banning the
assault-style, high-capacity clip weapons that tend to be the culprits in these
mass shootings. While I will agree it will not stop people from gaining access
to them, it would also make it more difficult and maybe, just maybe, a few lives
would be saved. One this is for sure, in my opinion: Arming every last man,
woman, and child is not and will not be the answer. Again, it starts with a
whole cultural change of thinking!
Bruce is correct on the 2nd amendment, but I would not say he is any way an
expert.I disagree with his assertion that violence in movies has no
effect on our society.
Different cultures Mark! Let me give you some examples of many that are
possible. During the tsunami in Japan, there was no looting. Compare that with
what happened in the aftermath of Sandy and Katrina, especially in New Orleans.
Besides, Brazil has their hands full with criminals with "illegal" guns.
Mexico is another example where its illegal for citizens to own guns but now the
crooks can operate with impunity and even the police can not stop them!
Instead of citing Chicago, which is one city in the middle of an area touching
several states, M-man should compare the whole country's gun violence rate
to, say, Japan or Brazil. We lead the world in gun ownership, but not in safety.
He knows that criminals will not obey more gun laws and all this debate about
how we need more gun laws is irrelevant because in the end, more laws will not
stop crime. Its already against the law to murder people but it happens everyday
especially in Chicago where we already have the strictest gun laws in the
nation! Translation: gun laws do not work, never have, never will!
Reasonable gun control is no infringement on the Second Amendment. I'm not
sure what Bruce Willis' angle is since he also took the time to dis the
notion of a link between Hollywood movies and real life violence.
''If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they
take all your rights away from you?" Using that logic, or lack of
logic, we would never have amended the Constitution or revised any existing laws
once enacted. Did abolishing slavery, giving the vote to women and passing the
pure food and drug act decades ago take away all our rights? Changes in laws
over the years tend to show the progress and reconsideration of errors of the
past that mark a maturing and developing society. Mr. Willis may be
an excellent actor, but he is no more an authority on constitutional law than
any other lay person, and fame should not give his personal opinions any
particular weight. Here, he shows a particular lack of knowledge and
understanding of both law and history.
Bruce knows what he is talking about. It is nice to read a Hollywood actor that
does not spout nonsense.