gun control does not make a differnce?
154665
Only in the minds of people who don't own guns.\nAs I stated in another question, criminals don't go to the store to buy their guns. Only law-abiding people do that. And they're not the ones you need to worry about.\nIf the laws were ever to become ridiculous enough to effectively ban all weapons, the criminals will still have theirs. They will simply get them from gun smugglers, as they've always done.
251762
Gun control is no more than a political issue in only about a dozen states that still have it.  That's right!  Nearly 38 states have some sort of right to carry law.  You're absolutely right, if the perp has an inkling that you are carrying a weapon' it's doubtful that he will approach.  In some municipal areas, the perps are most active on public transportation leaving an airport because they know that is the one time that it is unlikely that you are carrying a weapon.  That says a lot for right to carry.
151393
I also support mandatory gun ownership.  Everyone in the U.S. should be encouraged to own, master and care for their privately owned firearms.  Bad guys would think twice about victimizing law abiding folks.  People would learn to accept some responsibility for their own safety, and feel a sense of liberty from knowing that they are truly free.\n\nBenjamin Franklin said that any person who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security is entitled to neither.  Let's remember the lessons of our Founding Fathers.
246643
Bottom line....an armed public are citizens,an unarmed public are subjects.If that's too deep for you,check out a little history.In everycase,gun control,or outright confiscation preceeded a totalitarian government.
522875
God, Guns, and Guts made this Country great. Remember the West wasn't won with a registered gun. Also it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Gun control is being able to hit your target. Peace thru superior firepower.
16793
It has to do with the Second Amendment giving ONLY the states and NOT the Federal Government the right to regulate a militia and to the extension of gun ownership.  \n\nAmendment II \n\nA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
837832
no\nthey are not the same
209408
With a gun? No. With other things, yes.
1093467
Let me see, guns don't get up and decided to go rob or shoot someone. They are not possessed and can't think, walk, or see.  So I'm going to go with "b": The people using the guns kill people.\n\nAnd before anyone tries to argue that having a guns makes someone more prone to shoot, that's not so. There are far too man gun owners in the USA that do not misuse their guns. There would be a whole lot more dead people in the country if that were the case. Knives kill more people with more efficiency than guns. Watching TV would leave you to believe otherwise, but it's not the case.
1159593
Absolutely not.  My favorite, if not the best, example would be the thousands of gun control laws on the books.  These are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment which states quite clearly (in easy-to-understand, one- and two-syllable English words) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\n\nAnother example is the way the "necessary and proper" clause has come to mean "convenient."  When the Supreme Court can re-define words in the Constitution to mean whatever they want, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?\n\nThe interstate commerce clause has been stretched to absurd proportions so that Congress can now regulate anything that it wants based on the fact that somebody, somewhere might have once traded with someone in another state.\n\nDoes anyone remember the 9th and 10th Amendments, which tell us that the federal government is only allowed to do those few things which are specifically stated in the Constitution?  And yet there are volumes upon volumes of federal statutes that micromanage our lives.\n\nThe American people, through ignorance and apathy, have allowed their government to get by with this.  I know of no solution.  If the people have more faith in legal interpretations and judges' rulings than in their own ability to understand the simple words written down where all can see, then they deserve the tyrannical, authoritarian state that they are destined to get.\n\nFinally, I want to add that I once took a college course called "Constitutional Rights and Liberties."  But the curriculum was focused not around what those rights and liberties are, but on what judges have said about them.  It was a study in case law.  When people are taught that case law is more important than what the Constitution actually says, the outcome is predictable.  We come to depend on the government to interpret for us the document that is supposed to limit its scope of power.  Isn't this like signing a lease with a landlord that says the landlord gets to decide at any point on any question what the lease says?  Isn't re-defining "necessary" to mean "convenient" analogous to re-defining "$400 per month" to mean "$600 per month?"
286182
Too many people today feel they have had to resort to either keeping a firearm in their home, on them personally or in their cars for fear they cannot protect themselves any other way.  It is sad because all too often innocent people are fatally wounded, children included.  And even sadder is that children are now the ones shooting up the schools.\n\nUnless you were to take away all the weapons and make man stand up for himself on his own merit without the use of weapons gun violence will always be a factor in our society.  Were adults not warned to keep their firearms in a safe, locked manner not accessible to children?  It didn't help because people think it won't happen to them...and it does.\n\nGuns are as common in Tx here as are cattle and oil and believe me, unless society itself makes the changes as a whole and communities band together once again as they once did...we are fighting a losing battle and that is such a shame!
379024
Yes.  I don't want to hit something I'm not aiming at.  According to the constitution it's the only gun control that's allowed in the US.
1147099
Not a popular war???\n\nWhy every redneck in the state of Texas is just sitting by the phone with a beer in one hand --- a 12 GA shotgun in the other, singin' "God Bless America" and just waiting for that call from the Government  to go to Iraq, \n\nI keep telling them...this is a bit different ----deer don't shoot back!!!!!\n\noh well,
95505
I believe it does, because most criminals do not buy there guns legally. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, by gun control you just take them away from the people who are defending their homes. Look at Australia for example, gun related violence as went through the rood since they banned guns!
22621
Well this is a very debatable question. But I would argue that allowing humans to own handguns, even in order to protect themselves will lead to far more shooting and killing than without. The US are a good example of this. I quite believe Canada to be a country where it is pleasant to live, but to my mind such a ban would drastically increase the "level of civilization" there. Just my opinion though :)
385917
I own guns and have for about 50 years and none of them have ever harmed another human or myself. I use them for sport and exercize. I do not think that I or my guns need controled. However if I was to use them for ill will then I think that I could expect to receive maxamum puninishment for doing so. In other words guns do not harm humans, humans harm humans. I do think the laws ought to be geared toward that.
724672
Well, you're right about it being a sort of obsolete law. Historically they wanted to allow people to have guns in case we were attacked, as our militia was not as strong as it is today.\n\nBut now, in this "civilized" society, we have police forces in every town, the strongest military in the world, national guard, coast guard, etc. Who are we using guns to protect ourselves from? Each other? I know people like to say "people kill people," but really, the gun was designed for one function. To kill. \n\nHowever, to ban it now would be almost impossible. There are so many guns out there, and a lot of the criminals would be the only ones to have them. There should absolutely be a ban on the semi-automatics, and bullets designed to go through law enforcement vests.\n\nSteve: that's a good idea, we need some bullet control! LOL