Lady Gaga signs NYTimes Gun-Control Petition

[Shadow 6,039]

:clap: :sweep:

I'm so happy that someone with a realistic stance on this subject is on GGD.

There are too many guns in America for us to ban them and for us to expect them to disappear. It's just not going to happen guys. Guns would simply be bought and traded on the black market and the people who wanted to commit crimes like what happened at the elementary school would still be able to find weapons. And also, if an intruder breaks into your home with a gun, and all you have to defend yourself with is say, a knife, who do you think is going to be harmed first? The American constitution says gun ownership is an unalienable right because without gun ownership, the colonies would have never been able to overthrow the British, and the constitution states that it is the citizens DUTY to overthrown tryanical government whenever it arises. Without guns, we would most likely never be able to do that.

I understand that those of you who have grown up without being exposed to guns might feel uncomfortable by their presence, (I grew up in East Texas where if you don't go hunting every other day you're basically a freak, and I'm still a little gun shy so I know how you feel) but as soon as I legally can, I want to get my concealed handgun license and a pistol for self defence.

I HATE hunting as I feel that ALL life is valuable and is a miracle, and should be treated as such, but I am extremely greatful that I live in a country where I can own a gun for my own protection against people who would want to harm me, for whatever reason.

Also, the majority of these mass murder incidents are caused by mentally disturbed individuals. If a law was instated that schools and work places have screenings for mental illnesses, say twice a year, these kinds of events could be stopped MONTHS in advance.

And b4 you all say I'm a backwards redneck overly conservative Republican, I support gay rights, I myself am gay, I don't like abortion, but I belive that it is legal as a woman's right to privacy acording to the constitution, America DESPERATLY needs to reduce it's defict and spending, and that the Obamacare, after revision could be one of America's greatest assets. So please don't pigeonhole people whenever they express their policical views (Even if they word them in a really.... really strange way). Everyone has unique views on all subjects, even if they identify with a certain party.

And sorry about all my misspelled words, I'm on my way to Colorado and after 9 hours in the car you get kinda tired....

Well said and best of luck on your trip. I think there is a difference between people who have been trained and respect the power of guns and those who just see them on TV and hear pundits talk about them or have never been in a situation (God forbid) they would need to defend themselves.

Thank you for your candid input on this.

see point proven!

it is an argument for me. i'll be damned if I can't protect myself.

---

Banning guns completely won't stop evil people, and I don't like how people are saying the 2nd amendment isn't a necessary part of the constitution. If we can take this out because it "isn't necessary" then what will stop them from taking out free speech? or anything else?

perfect. thank you

People were killing people long before guns were invented. Let us not forget how much of a failure the war on d--gs was. Banning guns would give the mob and cartels yet another forbidden resource to smuggle and exploit those who demand it.

By that logic we should've never taken the right of men to treat women and children as property, and we never should've taken away the capacity to drive drunk.

The big difference in the examples you gave is that two policies took away a person's liberty and right to independence and the other makes an individual dependent on the state in times of calamity. We all remember how helpful the Feds were in the aftermath of Katrina and Sandy storms.

Depend on the government if you wish, but if you get left high and dry, who can you blame? Go in the streets and protest to a governing body that hardly gives a **** about the people, except when it makes them look good and gets them reelected?

People who do not actively take part in a gun-related sporting activity have NO need for guns. This mentality of 'fight fire with fire' does not work; it encourages a culture of fear, the same as having always-armed police force walking in your local town.

Tighter gun control - not a ban per se - is what is needed. It is about reducing the risk and accessibility; someone with relatively easy access to a parent's gun can go around and commit a mass murder. Gun crime in the UK has fallen over the last 10 years, since tighter gun control laws and legislation were enforced and the culture began to change - it's now lower, in 2012, than it has been since the mid-90s.

Someone armed with a knife is not powerful unless they hunt you and stab you at arm's reach; if they throw the knife, they are no longer armed. A gun has the ability to shoot from distance, and shoot multiple times. There is a massive, massive difference.

Did you hear about the knife attack in China? A man with a knife is very dangerous. There was a man who blew up a building in Oklahoma City back in 1995 using household chemicals to build a bomb. Should we monitor those as well?

With all that said, I am in favor of gun control in that we don't need assault rifles in the hands of civilians, better background checks on individuals and members of household, and a better system to care for those with mental conditions. This is a complex issue that needs a complex variety of solutions. There is no one fix. Reducing availability of guns may help reduce these events, but it still lacks in amending school security and care for those mentally sick in a preventive, active approach.

[Pookie 5]

Yeah guns are great for self defence, I heard that really worked out well for Adam Lanza's mother.

Don't even get me started on those who scapegoat mental illness just so they can keep their guns.

[Shadow 6,039]

^

Mental illness is a factor in these instances. Don't pigeonhole all the blame on guns and miss addressing mental illness. If Adam Lanza got the proper treatment prior to this incident it could have been avoided. The big difference between Adam and his mother is that she was the sane one who was able to pass the background checks for the guns. Adam had even tried buying a gun on his own before doing what he did as reported and was denied, so the gun laws were working in that situation in the state of Connecticut.

[Star 4,228]

It is about the time, gorrllll....

:clap:

[ALI small 0]

:clap:

[NewYorkCity 10,462]

I love how all the people who are defending guns have still no commented or answered to any comment with the "Europe" word on it. ANYONE.

[steveb 0]

Did you hear about the knife attack in China? A man with a knife is very dangerous. There was a man who blew up a building in Oklahoma City back in 1995 using household chemicals to build a bomb. Should we monitor those as well?

With all that said, I am in favor of gun control in that we don't need assault rifles in the hands of civilians, better background checks on individuals and members of household, and a better system to care for those with mental conditions. This is a complex issue that needs a complex variety of solutions. There is no one fix. Reducing availability of guns may help reduce these events, but it still lacks in amending school security and care for those mentally sick in a preventive, active approach.

Knife purchasing IS already heavily monitored in most countries. However, there is no comparison - the knife attack in China INJURED, it didn't MURDER. There is a vast difference in the effect of the weaponry - the ABC Report states: "The injuries were gruesome, and reportedly include cut-off fingers and ears, but this story had a different outcome from the massacre 8,000 miles away in Newtown, Conn. Everyone survived."

And that's the vast difference.

As I said, it's about REDUCING RISK. Creating a bomb from household chemicals requires a lot of effort, the attack has to be completely premeditated. With gun attacks, the weapon is there, it's instant, it's lethal.

I agree on the issue of mental health, particularly in the USA - between 10% and 20% of all Americans are currently taking mood-altering meds prescribed to them. They are prescribed as a quick fix for 'depressed teens' - yet can actually intensify suicidal thoughts, and can affect one's ability to reason properly.

[steveb 0]

Mental illness is a factor in these instances. Don't pigeonhole all the blame on guns and miss addressing mental illness. If Adam Lanza got the proper treatment prior to this incident it could have been avoided. The big difference between Adam and his mother is that she was the sane one who was able to pass the background checks for the guns. Adam had even tried buying a gun on his own before doing what he did as reported and was denied, so the gun laws were working in that situation in the state of Connecticut.

People have mental illnesses in other parts of the world; they don't have easy access to guns in their parents' house to go and commit a mass murder. Guns are not designed to injure, they are designed to kill.

The very fact that his mother had a gun in the house in the first place, for no other reason than supposed 'self defence', is a huge part of the problem.

[David Ward 7,408]

:golfclap:

[Batwings 12,694]

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://www.theatlant...f-guns/308608/#

It's an article from The Atlantic titled "The Secret History of Guns." It's incredibly informative regarding the history of guns and gun control in America and provides interesting insight on both sides of the gun debate.

[ch4rmed0ne 0]

Im kinda stuck because in some ways it's good to own a gun for self defense but no one should be allowed to own an assault rifle.