Quantcast

Should There Be Stricter Gun Control Laws?

ABC News U.S. 2012/12/14 22:00:00
Related Topics: Gun Control, Gun
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Friday's mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., is the second deadliest shooting in American history, but whether this mass tragedy will yield any legislative action on gun control laws remains to be seen. In his statement Friday, President Obama called for "meaningful action," but he did not specify a call for stricter gun control.

gun control

Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gun-control-laws-am...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Brother Bo 2012/12/14 23:10:56
    No
    Brother Bo
    +80
    Only a moron believes that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will stop a psycho who wants to kill.
    shooting

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • kobidobidog 2014/06/14 13:58:01
    No
    kobidobidog
    It should be soul control. People wanting gun control don't see this: the soul desiring to be like Jesus is will refrain from harming another. That is what needs to be emphasized. Thinking of a physical object as being the problem have one physical object after another taken away helping nothing. God's law in us keeps the body safe not an external piece of paper called the Constitution. First it will be gun control and then knife control and then pitch fork control and then axe control and then chain saw control. Then it will be everyone in straight jackets. People will be safe but they will not be able to feed themselves.
  • vicki Adams Sloane 2013/03/24 23:24:57
    No
    vicki Adams Sloane
    Not so sure what will stop the gun violence. I kinda think that crazy guy would have found one way to kill the poor babies.

    R.I P. Little ones.
  • uguess 2013/02/09 07:21:10
    No
    uguess
    OBAMA AND THE LIBERALS GUN CONTROL WOULD HAVE KILLED THIS FAMILY!
  • GrandmaLou 2013/02/06 05:03:59
    No
    GrandmaLou
    Better enforcement of existing laws is the route to go and folks, not to be busybodies, but we need to notice our fellow man/woman. We need to be more alert. If a family is in trouble and can be helped before a shooting, we all win. The only law I would want is to limit the number of weapons to be purchased by one individual.
  • 4570GOVT 2013/01/08 15:41:31
    No
    4570GOVT
    +4
    ABSOLUTELY NOT ! --------------- MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME ( in the hands of Law Abiding Citizens )
  • I Piss Off Liberals 2013/01/03 00:15:39
    No
    I Piss Off Liberals
    +2
    A criminal will get a gun no matter what the law is. THEY ARE CRIMINALS. If they banned guns, that's going to leave honest gun owners defenseless against criminals. Dianne Feinstein says that the government is for the people's defense. (Which they're not.) If they are, where were they during this shooting? People need to figure it out. What happened in Germany when Hitler took the guns? The Holocaust happened because they couldn't defend themselves. Look at history. It's not that hard to figure out.
  • GrandmaLou I Piss ... 2013/02/06 05:05:57
    GrandmaLou
    +1
    Very well put.
  • Stardust 2013/01/01 04:41:45
  • max reilly 2012/12/31 20:39:52
    No
    max reilly
    +4
    Time to set the record straight on multiple counts.
    First of all, I would like to address the misapplication of the term "assault rifle".
    An assault rifle is a military infantry armament. They usually fire ammunition which is incompatible with the civilian version. The 5.56x45mm NATO round is distinct from its dimensionally identical civilian counterpart (.223 Remington) in multiple ways. First off, the NATO round is significantly higher pressure. The chamber specifications are also different, but in a way that it too hard to explain here technically. Either way, firing military ammunition in a civilian rifle will cause forceful cycling of the action at best, and catastrophic failure at worst. Thus, the incompatibility of ammunition.
    Also, assault rifles are always fully automatic. Always. A civilian cannot purchase a fully automatic weapon, and has not been able to since Prohibition. So the weapons you are trying to ban are not assault rifles. They are semi automatic civilian rifles that happen to look scary to the gun grabbers.
    However, the gun grabbers seem to know most of this. They know that the guns they want to ban are not actually assault rifles, so they came up with a new moniker. Assault weapons, this time. They also define this term. How?

    An assault weapon is an...



    Time to set the record straight on multiple counts.
    First of all, I would like to address the misapplication of the term "assault rifle".
    An assault rifle is a military infantry armament. They usually fire ammunition which is incompatible with the civilian version. The 5.56x45mm NATO round is distinct from its dimensionally identical civilian counterpart (.223 Remington) in multiple ways. First off, the NATO round is significantly higher pressure. The chamber specifications are also different, but in a way that it too hard to explain here technically. Either way, firing military ammunition in a civilian rifle will cause forceful cycling of the action at best, and catastrophic failure at worst. Thus, the incompatibility of ammunition.
    Also, assault rifles are always fully automatic. Always. A civilian cannot purchase a fully automatic weapon, and has not been able to since Prohibition. So the weapons you are trying to ban are not assault rifles. They are semi automatic civilian rifles that happen to look scary to the gun grabbers.
    However, the gun grabbers seem to know most of this. They know that the guns they want to ban are not actually assault rifles, so they came up with a new moniker. Assault weapons, this time. They also define this term. How?

    An assault weapon is any semi automatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol, which has two or more features specified by the law makers. These features are things like, black synthetic stocks, flash hiders, pistol grips, bi-pods, and stuff like that. These bans that are proposed are not against assault rifles. Those have been banned since Prohibition. The bans are meant against weapons that the authors find scary looking.

    Now let us address the "legitimate sporting purpose" of the AR 15. I personally do not own an AR 15. I am faster with my bolt action 22-250 than most people who own ARs are with their rifle, and I do this while being significantly more accurate (which is, sadly to say, not saying much. For whatever reason, marksmanship in this country is horrible.). I do not feel the semi automatic capability is actually that useful to me as a hunter. However, having said that, I know a great many people who use AR rifles for all sorts of things. A guy by the name of Virgil hunts coyotes, varmints, deer, mountain lion, and black bear with his AR. (He has one of those Alexander Arms rifles, and 4 different uppers for it. One is in 458 Socom, one is in 6.8spc, one is in 223, one is in 22 rim-fire. In case anyone was interested.) I am also aware of numerous people who enter competitions with their rifles, and people who have used one of these rifles to defend their home. Contrary to what the liberals will have you believe, these weapons actually do have tasks other than the killing of babies.

    Now, having stated the above facts, I would like to state my opinion. Firearms are not the issue here. The issue is people, as it always is. Our society is based around capitalism, which means that we are motivated by money. This seems to work better than the alternative, but it is imperfect. Too many times have I seen first hand our government, our protectors, our leaders, release people who are simply not safe to society onto the streets because the institutions which could hold them are too expensive. We may debate for years about the necessity of a certain shaped hunk of metal, but the mental health crisis is beyond a doubt, and must be fixed.
    (more)
  • RastaFan 2012/12/31 17:51:40
    No
    RastaFan
    +2
    Nope. Unnecessary.
  • Ramón 2012/12/26 01:58:34
    No
    Ramón
    +4
    They are strict enough. They stopped Adam Lanza from buying a gun. What made him evil was he MURDERED and STOLE to get the weapons, then broke a window to sneak into a building in which he knew there were no armed responders to fight him off or scare him away! Gun free zones? Ha! May as well be "invite evil in" zones. Evil criminals that want to kill can always find a way, but they do so from hiding, or in places where no one can fight back. This is a fact. More people have used weapons to stop atrocities than there have been atrocities.
  • aussie1 Ramón 2012/12/31 05:46:25
    aussie1
    Your last statement is complete bs. Who did he steal weapons from? His own "freedom loving" mother that had a stockpile of deadly weapons. What the hell does an average person need assault rifles for ????? Totally crazy. Why don't you listen to the parents of the slain. Enough is enough
  • Ramón aussie1 2013/01/01 01:31:06
    Ramón
    +1
    Oops. Incomplete. Right. And weapons are by definition, deadly. Oh, and all weapons are assault weapons.
  • phil.ol... aussie1 2013/01/02 11:06:08
    phil.olding.3
    +1
    Any weapon capable of assaulting someone is an assault weapon. Coincidentally, this is the same definition as "arms", as protected by THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

    ARMS are for KILLING PEOPLE. All other uses are illegitimate (but still allowed).

    Hunting is a loophole in the 2nd amendment. A gun, for killing people, can be used to hunt - loophole.

    The "assault weapon ban" that's proposed won't remove any guns that are already out there. It won't work in registering all of them, it won't work in removing the guns, It won't ban guns that are capable of killing people. It won't even regulate all guns that are capable of killing people.

    it won't work in removing ANY guns, nevermind ALL of the guns, that are required to disappear to have a gun free utopia.

    Enough is enough - we can waste trillions of dollars and kill good Americans making you feel better, or we can station armed, good people, all over, to protect your dumb ass.

    Any armed, trained criminal will win 100% of the fights he picks with you. You're unarmed. You're a victim - that's it.
  • juneath... phil.ol... 2013/02/02 22:13:59
  • I Piss ... aussie1 2013/01/03 00:21:06
    I Piss Off Liberals
    +1
    They are for defense against a tyrannical government. When they say you can't have a certain weapon, that's when you need it. Back when the Constitution was written, they didn't take the Second Amendment so lightly. They owned CANNONS in case the government became a tyranny. So basically, your argument is invalid.
  • Mdougla... aussie1 2013/01/10 10:42:50
    Mdouglas231
    And why do YOU need to tell other folks what they should and should not want to own? Sorry, but this AIN'T Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Your post is complete b.s. Stop being a totalitarian!!!!
  • RH 2012/12/24 01:16:57
  • RH RH 2013/01/05 17:53:40 (edited)
    RH
    +2
    Wonder why this isn't all over the news? http://www.wsbtv.com/news/new... Bastard was arrested 6 times in 4 years and still out on the streets. Wake up people. It isn't the GUNS... it is the fact our system is jacked up when someone can be out after committing crime after crime.

    Or this one: http://www.twincities.com/loc...

    Again, repeat offender at it again.
  • Slick 2012/12/23 16:29:07
    No
    Slick
    +4
    I am AGAINST more gun laws period!!
  • GlennDiamant 2012/12/23 15:30:05
    Yes
    GlennDiamant
    +1
    Yes, we need stricter gun control laws. For example, even if you have a right to own a gun, if it's unlicensed, you're just as bad as the crooks.
  • Ryan GlennDi... 2012/12/23 18:45:48
    Ryan
    +4
    How does that even begin to make sense? First off, you couldn't license a gun. The gun owner would need a license. You wouldn't give your car a drivers license. And lets not put people that haven't broken any laws into the same category as a criminal.

    You really have no Idea what you're talking about. That is the problem with you people that are advocating gun control. You watch your biased media and think you know the problem in this country.

    You ignore that places with stricter gun control have more crime.
    You ignore that almost all of the mass shooters have mental sickness and are on medication.
    You ignore that "assault rifles" are estimated to be used in less than 1% of gun homicides.

    I could go on and on, but I’d recommend you look up statistics and different point of view to gain some perspective on this complex issue. Banning any type of gun will never reduce gun crime in the country.
  • Mike GlennDi... 2012/12/25 00:03:54
    Mike
    +2
    There's one thing that makes me feel better, and that's the fact that most anti-gun people sound moronic like you.
  • phil.ol... GlennDi... 2012/12/28 11:08:17
    phil.olding.3
    +2
    Most states don't require licenses for any type of gun.

    So... you're just as bad as the other uninformed idiots spewing their retarded opinion all over the internet and making it seem like fact.
  • Dr. John GlennDi... 2012/12/30 10:42:59
    Dr. John
    +1
    Wow! YOU ARE REALLY ONE BRAINWASHED DUDE!! Do you really believe that someone who has never and will never use their gun to commit a crime is as bad as someone that does use a gun to commit a crime? Are we to take it you are a fan of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the present Chinese govt., Pol Pot, Idi Amin? That you believe that our founding Fathers should not have had guns? Are you REALLY that brainwashed? Have you ever had a thought of your own? Are you even an American?
  • Mdougla... Dr. John 2013/01/10 10:52:07
    Mdouglas231
    +1
    Dr John -- it's folks like this Glenn that allow dictators of the sort you listed to flourish. Power-hungry despots like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, and the rest just "use" idiots like Glenn on their way to the top, then discard them along with the rest of us.
  • Dr. John Mdougla... 2013/01/16 08:31:41
    Dr. John
    So true, Md! So true!
  • Tennessean GlennDi... 2013/01/04 21:10:58
    Tennessean
    +2
    To begin with, there is no federal law that requires any firearm, except a fully automatic one requiring a class three license, be licensed, and in most states there are also no such laws, so I fail to understand what you are talking about.
  • phil.ol... Tennessean 2013/01/04 23:22:06 (edited)
    phil.olding.3
    I think that some other arms have to be licensed, too (notice: ARMS) - suppressors (considered firearms by the law), short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and "any other weapons" (things like pen guns) also need to be registered under the same National Firearms Act (NFA) that makes people register machine guns.

    In most states, after you fill out the form 4473 for your gun and take it home, the government cannot possibly find the serial number for your gun until it sends agents into the gun shop that you bought it from to find their paperwork.
  • jay phil.ol... 2013/04/07 03:29:22
    jay
    SBS, SBR, Suppressors are Title II weapons and you have to register them with the BATFE. Plus pay a $200 tax stamp. Know what your talking about before posting something.
  • phil.ol... jay 2013/04/07 06:29:23
    phil.olding.3
    That's what I said - registered under the NFA. The second paragraph I posted was about semi-auto (or any other) guns.
  • Dr. John Tennessean 2013/01/16 08:33:47
    Dr. John
    Tenn.. Don't feel bad, I am sure that he does not understand what he is talking about either!! ;-)
  • Mdougla... GlennDi... 2013/01/10 10:47:29
    Mdouglas231
    "Just as bad as the crooks"??? As people who use guns to murder? To commit armed robbery? OMG, but you Leftists are SOOO misguided. Your sense of perspective is a joke.
  • trigger GlennDi... 2013/02/02 01:47:42 (edited)
    trigger
    Well Glenn I guess your some sort of idiot. To own a firearm is a right correct so you beleave that you should have a lic for it. Then you should also have to have a lic to go to the church of your choice, to speak freely, to plead the 5th ammendment, to not have your house searched with out a warrent, to vote, ETC. If you don't need a lic to do all these things then you don't need a lic to own a gun. And we the people also have the right to dismantle the federal govenment should we see fit to and to do that we have the right to any arms we see fit not what the government decides we can have.
  • rootbeer 2012/12/23 14:19:51
    No
    rootbeer
    +3
    To reduce or destroy my Freedom because one nutcase committed a crime, is a crime in itself. Neither me nor my guns were there. Why indict me and millions more for the actions of one? But then, that's liberalism...
  • Mdougla... rootbeer 2013/01/10 10:54:06
    Mdouglas231
    Yep, it's "guilt by association" -- a typical liberal ploy. And their typical solution is more and more dictatorial government.
  • jonathan.d.shawver 2012/12/23 04:53:05
    No
    jonathan.d.shawver
    +1
    Most shooting sprees happen in gun free zones. These are areas where even the most law abiding citizens are discouraged from going armed. Some even prohibit law enforcement or trained personal from carrying firearms. If this dose not prove that stricter gun laws are not the answer I don't know what would. But of course so many have been brain washed by the media that they freak out at the idea of placing trained official in place to protect whom they can (NRA proposal).
  • Mike 2012/12/23 00:06:11
    No
    Mike
    +2
    If you will examine the demographics of the vote, you'll see that they are being utterly skewed by unregistered votes. Most of them are probably international. 97% of the votes are from unregistered sources, and it's EXACTLY 50% in each unanswered category. That screams to me that someone has artificially inflated the number of voters by voting equally for both opinions. If you examine the actual demographics, you'll see that people are voting NO on this poll by a very wide margin.
  • Mike Mike 2012/12/23 00:09:54
    Mike
    +2
    My calculations show that the actual results of this poll show that 65% of Americans do not think there should be stricter gun control laws.
  • jay 2012/12/22 11:01:21 (edited)
    No
    jay
    +3
    Thanks to Obama there are more Gun owners with Assualt Rifles today then there was a week ago. More people with high capacity magazines. Everything is sold out. I think his plan backfired. What a total douchebag. So your stupid ban won't do anything. Thousands of people are now armed that never would have bought a AR-15 or AK. Congratulations to Obama for Gun Salesman of the Century. I think he deserves another Nobel Peace Prize. Here is a little artical for you to read. http://www.informationliberat...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 102 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/27 07:09:46

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals