Is gun control effective?

The effectiveness of gun control as a measure to reduce gun violence is a highly debated topic, with different perspectives and evidence suggesting both positive and negative outcomes.

Proponents of gun control argue that stricter regulations on firearms can reduce access to firearms by dangerous individuals, leading to lower rates of gun violence. Studies have shown that countries with stricter gun control laws have lower rates of gun deaths compared to countries with more permissive gun laws.

On the other hand, opponents of gun control argue that it is not the presence of firearms that causes gun violence, but rather factors such as mental illness and a lack of enforcement of existing laws. They argue that stricter gun control measures do not effectively address these root causes of gun violence and can even make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to access firearms for self-defense.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of gun control as a measure to reduce gun violence is a complex issue that depends on many factors, including the specific regulations in place and their enforcement, the cultural and social factors contributing to gun violence, and the availability of alternative means of violence.

Gun Control Topic Overview

Gun control is a controversial issue in the United States, with many individuals and organizations advocating for stricter regulations on firearms ownership and use, while others argue that such regulations infringe on their Second Amendment rights. The debate surrounding gun control is complex and multifaceted, with many different factors contributing to the ongoing discussions and controversies.

Pros and Cons of Banning Assault Weapons:

Pros:

Reduced Gun Violence: Banning assault weapons can reduce gun-related violence and fatalities by making it more difficult for individuals to access these types of firearms.
Decreased Mass Shootings: Assault weapons have been used in many high-profile mass shootings, so a ban on these weapons could reduce the number of such incidents.
Improved Public Safety: Banning assault weapons could improve public safety by reducing the number of firearms in circulation and reducing the likelihood of mass shootings and other violent incidents.

Cons:

Infringement on Second Amendment Rights: Banning assault weapons could be seen as a violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms.
Ineffective in Reducing Crime: Banning assault weapons may not be effective in reducing crime, as individuals who want to cause harm can still access other types of firearms.
Difficulty in Defining Assault Weapons: There is a lack of agreement on what constitutes an “assault weapon,” making it difficult to enforce a ban on these types of firearms.

The Second Amendment:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to bear arms, stating that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment has been the basis for much of the opposition to gun control measures, as many individuals view any restrictions on gun ownership as an infringement on their constitutional rights.

Major Legislation and Court Cases in the Twentieth Century:

The National Firearms Act of 1934: This act imposed federal regulations on the sale and transfer of firearms, including machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers.

The Gun Control Act of 1968: This act established federal regulations on firearms dealers and manufacturers, required background checks for firearms purchases, and prohibited the sale of firearms to certain individuals, such as convicted felons.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993: This act established a national background check system for firearms purchases and required that licensed dealers perform background checks before selling firearms.

The Supreme Court Case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court upheld an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in their home.

Loopholes in Legislation:

Despite the various gun control measures that have been enacted, there are still significant loopholes in the system, such as:

Lack of Universal Background Checks: Background checks are only required for firearms purchased from licensed dealers, leaving a significant loophole for individuals to purchase firearms from private sellers without undergoing a background check.

No Federal Ban on Assault Weapons: There is no federal ban on assault weapons, leaving the regulation of these firearms to individual states.

Weaknesses in Background Check System: The background check system is only as effective as the information that is entered into it, and there are still weaknesses in the system, such as incomplete records and delays in processing background checks.

Twenty-First-Century Approaches to Gun Control:

In recent years, there have been renewed efforts to address the issue of gun control, with a focus on closing loopholes in existing legislation and improving background checks. Some of the proposed approaches include:

Universal Background Checks: Requiring background checks

Why the Gun Debate Never Ends

The gun debate never ends because it is a complex issue with deeply held beliefs and interests on both sides. Here are a few reasons why:

Constitutional Issues: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to bear arms, which is a deeply ingrained right in American culture. Any proposed changes to gun control laws are met with resistance from those who view it as an infringement on their constitutional rights.

Political Divide: The gun debate has become increasingly politicized, with Democrats and Republicans holding vastly different views on the issue. This political divide makes it difficult to reach a consensus on gun control measures and creates a situation where progress is slow or non-existent.

Influence of Special Interest Groups: There are powerful special interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), that have a significant influence on the gun debate. These groups have the resources and political influence to lobby against gun control measures and promote their views to a wide audience.

Emotional Factors: Gun ownership is an emotional issue for many people, as it is often tied to feelings of personal safety, freedom, and tradition. This makes it difficult to have a rational and objective discussion on the issue, as people are often driven by their emotions and beliefs.

Lack of Consensus on What Constitutes Effective Gun Control: There is a lack of agreement on what constitutes effective gun control measures, which makes it difficult to reach a consensus on the issue. Some believe that stricter background checks and mandatory waiting periods are necessary, while others believe that these measures are not enough and that more comprehensive reforms are needed.

Misinformation and Propaganda: Misinformation and propaganda surrounding the issue of gun control make it difficult to reach a consensus. Both sides of the debate use fear and sensationalism to promote their views, making it difficult for people to make informed decisions.

Complexity of the Issue: The issue of gun control is complex, as it involves a wide range of factors, including mental health, crime, and cultural beliefs. This makes it difficult to implement simple, straightforward solutions and creates a situation where the debate never ends.

In conclusion, the gun debate never ends because it is a complex issue with deeply held beliefs and interests on both sides, influenced by special interest groups, political polarization, and emotional factors, making it difficult to reach a consensus.

Pros And Cons – Read About Gun Control

Pros of Gun Control:

Reduced Gun Violence: The most significant advantage of gun control is that it can reduce gun-related violence and fatalities. This is because if only law-abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, the number of guns in circulation would decrease, reducing the number of crimes committed with firearms.

Decreased Accidents: Gun control can also reduce the number of accidental shootings, especially among children. This is because gun safety measures, such as background checks and mandatory storage, can prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

Improved Public Safety: Gun control can improve public safety by reducing the number of guns in circulation, thereby reducing the likelihood of mass shootings and other violent incidents.

Preventing the Unlawful Use of Guns: Gun control measures can help prevent guns from falling into the hands of individuals who are prohibited from owning firearms, such as felons and individuals with mental illness.

Cons of Gun Control:

Infringement on Second Amendment Rights: Gun control measures can be seen as a violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. This means that any restrictions on gun ownership could be seen as unconstitutional.

Ineffective in Reducing Crime: Gun control measures may not be effective in reducing crime because criminals will still find ways to obtain firearms, regardless of the laws in place.

Increased Black Market Activity: Gun control measures can increase the demand for firearms on the black market, which can create a dangerous and unregulated market for firearms.

Difficulty in Enforcing Gun Control Laws: Enforcing gun control laws can be challenging and expensive, as there are many guns in circulation and it can be difficult to track their ownership and use.

No Guarantee of Protection: Gun control measures cannot guarantee protection, as criminals will still find ways to obtain firearms even if it is illegal. Additionally, law-abiding citizens who own guns for self-defense may be at a disadvantage if they are unable to access firearms during a dangerous situation.

The right to arms

How important is the right to arms? The first thing the NP government
did was deny blacks the right to firearm ownership for good reason. The
NP did not want to face armed angry blacks. Governments throughout the
world have done the same for the same reason. They do not want to face
angry armed citizens.

The one thing 15 years of studying gun control has taught me is that
firearm owners are on the losing side, yet somehow have not woken up to
that fact and bothered to ask why. Nowhere in the world are there less
restrictive laws than there were 50 years ago. An undeniable fact. Not
one single firearm organisation in the world is in the least concerned
or interested in the safety, security and freedom of citizens including
its own members and potential members.

I have seen many say join us, do that but not one say lets examine why
we fail and fail we and they have many, many times. Others say well so
and so are the experts do what they say. How’s that plan working so far
assuming you know what this undisclosed plan is? History proves it is
not working and you cannot argue against verifiable history.

Can one sum up firearm organisations strategy or “plan” in a few words.
They fight by proxy sending in the lawyers to fight for them and give up
when the lawyers lose. Then they make excuses and lie indoctrinating
members, supporters and firearm owners with “we did the best we could
and failed, accept this law and be happy, we can still own guns”. They
go back to sleep and wait for gun controls next move. It’s a
generalisation but how close is it? What is the result of this giving up
on the right to arms?

We ignore or don’t comprehend a right is not divisible or negotiable.
You cannot give away parts, some, bits, this, that or anything and still
have or value that right. We see ourselves or others impacted by theses
laws, some denied by expense, difficulty or inconvenience but denied.
Others will suffer the crime increase criminals given defenceless
victims take advantage of.

What is the value of our right to freedom, safety and life when it has
no value to the organisations we trust and then give our rights away? It
makes no difference if we are lucky enough to become an elitist and
still own some kind of firearm. We see others sacrificed and suffer and
know we stand alone. There is little or no value to those rights, less
than the valve caps on our vehicle tyres. A thief stealing our tyre
valve caps would be immediately opposed and apprehended. Our rights are
stolen from under our noses and we are to busy, don’t have time, have to
go shopping, don’t know what to do and 10,000 other excuses.

A right no matter how small a part that is abandoned without a fight
impacts on citizens in one way or the other. Removing rights, adding
cost or adding difficulty making firearm ownership that of the elitist
all serve to remove or limit who has those rights.

What is a right worth that is given to only a few or even some? These
few are survivors in self preservation mode who will sacrifice others to
remain an elitist.

Those impacted suffer unjustifiably and without comment or help from the
organisations or the elitists not wanting to spoil their chances of
continuing to own a firearm. The same organisations were supposed to
protect our rights and support us in our hour of need. Nobody mistakes
such sacrifice of members, supporters and potential supporters for
anything other than cowardice and abandonment when opposition and
fighting for those rights is the best option. No right has ever been
saved, returned or asserted by surrender, collaboration or appeasement.

No firearm organisation has a mandate or permission to reduce membership
or the pool of potential members. No firearm organisation has a mandate
or permission to deliberately endanger the public and their own claims
make them both aware and complicit of doing that.

Anyone who observes this abdication and dereliction of duty who is not
blinded by faith and belief will be disappointed, disillusioned and have
no faith they will receive any different treatment when it is their
turn. That has been true of every loss or step of loss of rights.

It can be truly said the worst enemy of the right to life, safety,
security and freedom is not gun control or rust, it is firearm
organisations who refuse to protect those rights they claim are valuable
and dear to them. Firearm organisations who indoctrinate and mislead
firearm owners to believe there is nothing they can do but accept
injustice and oppression without their influence and cowardice things
may well be different.

Would the ANC ever have collaborated with the NP on apartheid laws, it
would have been suicide for the rights the ANC protected and blacks
would still be under the NP jackboot. Our rights to life, safety,
security and freedom are no different. They do and always have depended
on arms ownership.

In government we trust

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Do we understand what it means? .Can we think of an example to show the validity of that understanding?

The founding fathers have to be admired, as politicians they understood only to well what all governments are capable of. That any government given a free hand without control and monitoring at the lowest level would usurp control.

The constitution was written to affirm the rights citizens deserved and had fought for for so long. To safeguard as much as possible but realising that governments would still find ways of circumventing any law or restrictions to afford as a last resort the ability to reject governments anti-social objectives.

The Constitutions second amendment serves to legally restrict government and as a reminder to citizens of the duty they have. It affirms the right to arms suitable for their defence that is an expression of the natural right of self defence. It condones absolutely no infringement under any circumstances.

The founding fathers were under no illusion any Constitution or Constitutions clause served as protection or that a legal approach was the only approach. Clearly it was realised that citizens served as the protection who if need be must have the ability to resist any government attempts to remove their rights. The rights are what need citizens protection, not the Constitution or any other law.

Yet today we have the common misconceptions that governments are benign and there to serve us. That government will do this without oversight, control or any checks. Citizens must trust government who will do them no harm or wrong.

There are more than 20,000 firearm laws despite the Constitutions emphatic “shall not be infringed”. What were citizens thinking of when each of these were introduced? What persuade citizens that their duty to protect their rights was not required? What persuaded citizens that they were helpless and unable to object? What persuaded citizens that any infringement of their rights were reasonable and justified? Why did government feel confident that citizens would accept all these laws and obey them?

Is this an example of what Franklin said? When we no longer protect our rights and instead accept that our rights may be infringed if we receive safety which is temporary in return? We bluff ourselves we are protecting the Constitution and we can still own guns so have protected some guns and given little away. Our safety is still claimed intact, our rights all but forgotten because we think that being allowed to own a firearm by a benevolent government is all we need.

The founding fathers words of advice and warning all but forgotten. Protect the laws, protect the constitution and your rights are no more. Are we safe and there is nothing to fear from government? Can government be trusted?

Funny people with guns

Crazy people make our lives more interesting. there are many funny pictures of people with guns

A fine collection of every kind of gun

This is a fine collection of every kind of gun that you can imagine that is used in combat. There is every kind of hand gun, rifle, assault weapon, machine gun, and every type of ammunition that you can think of…! CZ model 1938,M74,M4,GLOCK 17,CZ 38