No good comes from gun bans

  • Follow Letters

Nobody is forced to own a gun. People are free to have a gun or not have a gun. If you don’t want the ability to protect yourself with a gun, that’s your decision.

But look what happens. Some bad person goes into an area where it was decided there would be no protection from guns and kills a bunch of people.

And who does everyone get mad at? Not the people who decided the area would have no protection from guns. Everyone gets mad at the people who have protection in the form of guns.

So what they are saying is, “This wouldn’t have happened if you were as helpless as those people were forced to be! We should all be equally helpless!” “Except for the police, of course.” “And the military.” “And government officials.” “Oh, and people rich and important enough to afford armed security.” “But everyone else should be helpless!”

John Chavous

Warrenville, S.C.

Comments (35) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
smartasugarsugar
139
Points
smartasugarsugar 12/21/12 - 03:41 am
4
2
guns dont kill people, people kill people

I'm sorry for the losses people endure because of a false sense of security. most people believe that they can send their kids to school or walk down the street and they will be safe. sorry this is not the case. police, ambulance and fire dept. only arrive after the deed is done. so its up to you to defend yourself. you also believe that these people should be locked up or "put away". they do for a while. our problem is not that were mean, it's that were too nice. tough love. why should we tolerate adults that commit crimes over and over again. obviously the the punishment is not a significant enough deterrent. put these Sons Of B%#$@'s on tv and blow their brains out. i think the message will be very clear. as for the school shooting, these are being done buy students partly. so maybe its not guns, why do students get so PO'd that they need to blow away their class mates. what social breakdown are we overlooking? IDK about you but if someone feel they need to come into my house and ruin what i have worked for, my ancestors have died for and cherish, well you got another thing coming, i have no piety for scumbags.

shrimp for breakfast
5422
Points
shrimp for breakfast 12/21/12 - 03:45 am
4
9
Slippery subject

I am against assault weapons pure and simple. There are no uses except to kill people quickly.

DanK
779
Points
DanK 12/21/12 - 05:18 am
2
10
Rock!

Every time a tragic event like this occurs, huge numbers of people go out and buy guns. For protection, they say.

The statistics are very clear and undeniable, irrefutable. As the number of guns in private hands increases, the number of deaths by shooting increase.

A child hits another child with a rock. The solution is NOT for every child to have a rock. Anyone who thinks they are solving a problem by buying a gun is misinformed. All they are doing is increasing the risk that they or someone they care about will be shot.

shrimp for breakfast
5422
Points
shrimp for breakfast 12/21/12 - 06:32 am
5
1
I'm not against the 2nd ammendment

Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that if a militia was needed quickly they could count on private citizens who owned their own firearms to be ready to fight for the country.
We seem to have the 2nd ammendment skewered to say that if you want a gun then just go buy one. The frontier is gone, the only protection we need now is from other private citizens. The problem is keeping guns out of the hands of people that have lost the "right" to own one.
Unfortunetly through bugalaries and from unlocked cars and other illegal means the guns are ending up in the wrong hands. It's a snowball effect to where the more criminals who obtain guns the more we need private citizens to step up and even out the ranks of the armed.
When I think of gun control I think of getting the guns out of the criminals hands. The problem is it's working about as well as Prohibition or the War on Drugs. Americans are always going to drink alcohol and they're always going to have their guns. You can pass all the laws you want but there will never be "gun control" in the US. To think differently is foolish.
Catching mental illness early is one of the only obtainable goals if we want to cut down or eliminate the senseless slaughter in violent acts committed by someone with mental illness.
You're not going to get the guns so it's time to focus our energies on keeping them out of the wrong hands.
Stiff mandatory penalties for people caught with firearms they shouldn't have. NO EARLY REALESE!

myfather15
50373
Points
myfather15 12/21/12 - 08:27 am
9
1
I am a law enforcement

I am a law enforcement officer and have been so for 15+ years. I do NOT own a semi-automatic "assault rifle" and have no desire to do so. It's just a personal decision because I'm just not an avid shooter. I don't just go out target shooting like many of my friends do, which they enjoy greatly.

Having said that, I agree with the latter portion of Shrimp's comment when he said: "When I think of gun control I think of getting the guns out of the criminals hands. The problem is it's working about as well as Prohibition or the War on Drugs."

This is the exact problem with the gun control. The criminals will not obey your gun laws, as they do NOT currently. It's estimated there is between 12 million to 20 million illgeal immigrants living in the United States. This year, during one of many political debates, I witnessed a democratic congressman saying it would be impossible to "Round up" all those illegal immigrants and send them back where they came from.

Now, there is estimatedd to be 200 million privately owned firearms in the United States, not including military and law enforcement. Is it practical to believe we can "Round up" all these firearms and get them all? No, it is not practical at all. If we can't "Round up" 20 million illegal immigrants, what makes any common sense using human being believe we can round up 200 Million firearms? It's impossible.

As proven by the "Firearm Turn in" programs by State and local agencies. They will tell you the vast majority of those turning in those firearms are older people, with older weapons, they no longer want. You don't see the Hell's Angels, Monguls, Outlaws, Bloods, Crips, Gangster disciples, Aryan Brotherhood or any other criminal gang, standing in line to turn in their AK-47, AR-15, Mac-10, MP-5 or any other gun for that matter.

If the federal government decides to make in mandatory to register ANY semi-automatic weapon, do you think these people will be marching to the local courthouse to register their firearms? No, only the law abiding citizens will be doing so. So, currently if I go buy an "Assault rifle" from weapons dealer, yes it is registered in a data base. But if I buy it from a private individual who purchased it 10 years ago, I don't have to register it to have it in my home or automobile.

The bottom line is, the gun control advocates have this vision of living in a world free of dangerous firearms. Well, you can wish all you want, but the reality is, that isn't just unrealistic, it's impossible. I agree with other people, the only way to defend against firearms, is for the peaceful people to possess firearms to protect themselves.

I have a good friend of mine who is a nurse. He is a "Gun nut". But his love of guns may have saved he and his families life a couple years ago. Five armed subjects broke into his home in Grovetown and planned to kill them. He used his AR-15 to defend his home and chased the subjects away. They were caught and prosecuted for their crimes. But there is always the question.......What if? This is a good man and I'm glad he is alive today to tell his story.

dichotomy
30808
Points
dichotomy 12/21/12 - 08:15 am
10
1
I don't know what "the

I don't know what "the answer" is but I do not think an "assault" weapon ban will do much. Functionally an AR-15 is no different than a Remington 750 Woodsmaster except for the magazine size. Both are semi-automatic high powered weapons. It's almost like saying we should outlaw red cars because people who drive red cars get more speeding tickets. The difference between "assault" style weapons and hunting weapons is mainly cosmetic...except for magazine size.

I know there is the argument about the magazine size but that simply makes those weapons the weapon of choice. If they were outlawed the nutcases intent on doing these kinds of things would simply choose a pump shotgun, or a hunting rifle with a smaller magazine size that was a still easily reloaded semi-automatic, or carry twosemi-automatic hunting rifles.

Gun control people might feel better with a ban but it won't stop anything. The problem is composed of many things like the violent culture of video games and some of the music our youth listens too and our insistence of mainstreaming mentally ill people.

One thing though. Everytime this discussion comes up we put more guns into homes than all of advertising the gun manufacturers and the NRA could ever possibly do.

So go ahead. Ban the red cars. But people will still speed.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 12/21/12 - 08:42 am
10
4
Shrimp....I have a few so
Unpublished

Shrimp....I have a few so called assault weapons and have used them several times....and have NEVER killed a person with them....so the statement that "There are no uses except to kill people quickly" is completely false.

myfather15
50373
Points
myfather15 12/21/12 - 08:58 am
8
1
Ben Franklin once wrote:

Ben Franklin once wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Now, I realize the gun control advocates will say "There's no way he could have envisioned the powerful firearms we have today." But that isn't exactly the point. The point was that if WE THE PEOPLE sit back and allow the government to interpret the constitution and our rights, then there is no limit to what they can take from us. It's been proven in history, time and time again.

So, if the next mass shooting, is preformed using a high powered rifle, do they then say those type firearms are banned? As I stated earlier, I don't own an "Assault rifle" but I'm a hunter and do own 2 high powered "deer rifles" and a couple shotguns, along with several pistols. My rifles are a .30-06 and a .243 which as anyone who knows about guns realizes, these are capable of shooting extreme distances, even up to 1000 yards. Yes, not having a semi-automatic "assautl rifle" might slow down the killer, but that's all it would do. They would still be able to kill, in mass.

So, if the next mass shooting involves one of these type weapons, what stops the government from saying "These weapons are simply to powerful. There is no reason for a private citizen to possess a weapon that can shoot 500-1000 yards." What if the next few shootings involved semi-automatic pistols only. Pistols are extremely easy to conceal from view and could pose very great risk. Couldn't the government say "Pistols are too small and too easily concealed, for a person to carry into any mall, theatre or school. Handguns must therefore be banned because they are very dangerous" This could go on and on. As a law enforcement officer, I can tell you with confidence, when on traffic stops and working domestics, ect; we are FAR more concerned with the weapon we CAN'T see. A person trying to stick a RIFLE out the window to shoot me, is less likely to be successful than someone waiting on me with a pistol in there hand. A pistol can be held in their lap until I'm at the window, then I'm dead. The rifle is not so easily maneuvered and is more easily seen when being moved.

Ben Franklin might not have envisioned the weapons we would have today, but he was brilliant in envisioning an out of control government and what that would mean for the people. If you give them an inch, they will take 200 miles. If you give them an inch, there is absolutely no limit to how far they can go.

Also, couldn't a mad man wait until children have gathered in the playground and drive a truck over them, causing mass casualties? Automoblies have been used in such manor before. Couldn't they easily develop a homemade bomb, made of nothing but metal pipe and black powder? What about 100 pounds of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel? It might not take the entire building out, but it would kill anyone near it and placed correctly, would cause mass casualties.

The point is, if you give up ANY rights for temporary safety, then you deserve neither. Because that's exactly what it is, temporary safety. I wouldn't even call it "temporary" because it actually isn't safety at all, its a false FEELING that we are making ourselves more safe. Crazed individuals will create ways of causing death and chaos. If we were to ban EVERYTHING they could possibly use, then we are in deep trouble.

RMSHEFF
14210
Points
RMSHEFF 12/21/12 - 09:42 am
8
2
Dink said

Dink said "The statistics are very clear and undeniable, irrefutable. As the number of guns in private hands increases, the number of deaths by shooting increase." Where did you get your statistics? The opposite is true. All one must do is look at states with the highest gun ownership verses the lowest gun ownership. Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia etc have the highest and California, Chicago, Washington DC, New York have the lowest. Which states do you think have the highest crime and assault rates in guns were used? You are more likely to be shot with a gun in Washington DC or New York than Texas or Georgia. I just love liberals that think if they repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth.

RMSHEFF
14210
Points
RMSHEFF 12/21/12 - 09:57 am
6
1
More Guns...More Gun deaths????

Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI.Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gun-crime-continues-to-decrease-despit...

faithson
4854
Points
faithson 12/21/12 - 09:59 am
3
8
gotta start somewhere...

come on now. speaking for the 'thinking' public that listens to the debate, those who espouse ownership of large capacity magazines and anti-personnel weapons are more into this 'liberty' thing than any real argument. The paranoia of a 'slippery slope' into a total ban is spurious at best and propaganda at least. There is not one, I repeat not ONE good argument based upon 'need' rather than liberty that justifies ownership of weapons and magazines that can be so lethal to so many at one time and place. How about some arguments out there on 'need', not paranoid statements on losing liberty.

shrimp for breakfast
5422
Points
shrimp for breakfast 12/21/12 - 10:06 am
4
3
Angela

What do you use your assault weapons for? Hunting?Targets? These are the only two reasons I can think of for owning one. (Except they're cool and it makes you feel safe or something.)
I personally have never owned a gun but 99% of my friends do. I don't hunt or target shoot. They do. They also enjoy it so I can understand why you would too.
The difference is you and my friends are law abiding citizens. I guess my question is how do we keep these kinds of weapons out of the WRONG hands? I am not anti-gun at all. Like myfather15 and I were saying there is no way to insure that the only people who get their hands on these types of guns are people who obey the law.
Geeeeze I need more coffee. I don't know if this makes sense.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 12/21/12 - 10:07 am
5
3
There is not ONE argument
Unpublished

There is not ONE argument based upon need rather than liberty to justify ownership of a car that can drive faster than the maximum speed limit.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 12/21/12 - 10:10 am
7
3
Good question Shrimp...how do
Unpublished

Good question Shrimp...how do you keep them out of the hands of criminals? Passing yet another law that they won't follow certainly isn't going to do it. Gun control is like solving drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to get cars.

shrimp for breakfast
5422
Points
shrimp for breakfast 12/21/12 - 10:38 am
7
1
You're right Angela

Passing laws will only affect the law abiding.

nofanofobama
6763
Points
nofanofobama 12/21/12 - 10:51 am
6
2
we really do need to address

we really do need to address the moral decay and the callous attitude we seem as a nation to have for life..more laws on guns will never address any part of the problem..we need to look at what our society has become..but until we do that obumlers or any other blue ribbion commission on gun violence is a waste of money...lawless criminals do not obey laws by definition why more laws??

LillyfromtheMills
12673
Points
LillyfromtheMills 12/21/12 - 10:54 am
2
2
Shrimp 5:32am

Looks like you had your coffee - good points!

dichotomy
30808
Points
dichotomy 12/21/12 - 10:55 am
8
1
faithson...."How about some

faithson...."How about some arguments out there on 'need', not paranoid statements on losing liberty."

I know you won't agree with this but here is my rationale.

I NEED my AR-15 to protect myself, my family, and my property in case of another incident as the riot that broke out in Los Angeles years ago where innocent people were robbed, beaten, and murdered and property looted and when the same things happened after hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. There is always the possibility of domestic distrubances and natural disasters where "combat" style self defense may be required to defend against roving bands of thugs and looters and it's too late to go to the bazooka store after it breaks out. I do not intend to be standing here with a single shot hunting rifle when the domestic historically proven gangs of looters, beaters, and murderers come down the street. That's MY reason and I do not intend to give up my weapons OR high capacity magazines.

I know that won't satisfy the "banners" but I absolutely view self defense against ALL possibilities as a Constitutional right. Situations like Los Angeles and New Orleans have PROVEN that the police are absolutely useless for several days after the beginning of riots and natural disasters. It's on ME and I intend to have the tools to do the job.

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 12/21/12 - 10:57 am
3
1
Shrimp @ 9:38am

You got it Brother!!

faithson
4854
Points
faithson 12/21/12 - 11:01 am
4
0
thanks dichotomy

good point. I am of a mind that you can do just that without assault rifles and large capacity clips. thanks for your comment

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 12/21/12 - 11:02 am
5
1
dichotomy @ 9:55am

You got it my friend!

itsanotherday1
40510
Points
itsanotherday1 12/21/12 - 11:02 am
3
1
1. Shrimp and Myfather both

1. Shrimp and Myfather both hit on where the focus should be; on the CRIMINAL, not the gun.

2. How do we reduce criminal access to weapons while not impeding the law abiding citizen is the $64,000 question.

The only way I see to address that is to put some heavy duty penalties on illegal transactions and possession. I would not mind extending the concealed carry permit concept to an ownership permit if it was enforced and effective.(I don't care if the gumment knows I own firearms) Then you make it very painful for anyone possessing without a permit, or selling to someone who doesn't have a permit. Now, for you second amendmenters, I don't see this as an abridgment, just a verification process that someone meets all of the legal requirements.

If you catch a dealer selling trunkloads of weapons to be hauled back north, confiscate everything they own and send them to prison. If you catch someone with illegal possession, no mercy. Start at 5 years incarceration and go up from there. Commit a crime with a gun, no mercy. 25 years added to whatever sentence you have for the original crime.

In other words, make guns radioactive for illegal possession and use. That won't stop Columbine and Sandy Hook, but neither will this stupid focus on "assault" weapons.

shrimp for breakfast
5422
Points
shrimp for breakfast 12/21/12 - 11:04 am
4
1
Reasons I do not own a gun

1. They scare me.
2. I'm not afraid of anyone.
3. If someone breaks into my house the dog would know first and would let me know that my baseball bat was needed.
4.They're loud.
5. You have to clean them and I have enough things to clean already.
6.I'm clumsy and would probably wind up shooting myself in the foot.
7.I don't like them. I mean I really,really don't like them.
8.I'm forgetful and would misplace or lose it and the wrong person might find it.
9.I don't hunt or target shoot.
10. I'm very, very adept with my bow and arrows if I don't mind saying so myself.
I hope everyone has a great day and Happy Winter Solstice!

rebellious
20226
Points
rebellious 12/21/12 - 11:18 am
6
1
Interesting Observation

I stopped by a local outdoor store yesterday, there were 5 lines 4 deep at the counter of people stocking up on ammo and firearms. I thought I was in Wacky Waynes on December 31st, for crying out loud.

I share Dichotomy's opinion. I own guns for their ability to help me defend life, liberty and property. I hope I never need them, but if I do, they are there. Just as I have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen and shop, although I hope to never have a fire, we must be prepared for the unthinkable.

Moreso in these times than ever in my history.

Serendipity 3
12
Points
Serendipity 3 12/21/12 - 12:04 pm
0
2
I'm all for the second
Unpublished

I'm all for the second amendment for the most part but if we're going to allow people to own weapons then we should also legislate that they be stored in a secure manner. If people were, by law, required to store them in this way and they were liable for any and all damage if their gun winds up in the hands of someone who does harm, it would go a long way towards mitigating the problem these weapons pose.

Serendipity 3
12
Points
Serendipity 3 12/21/12 - 12:05 pm
0
0
here are two inescapable
Unpublished

here are two inescapable truths:

(1) Anyone who wants to commit mass murder will succeed. There are too many ways to accomplish the deed WITHOUT GUNS. All of them unfortunately cannot be prevented

(2) Anyone who wants to kill a lot of people ... and really puts a lot of thought into it ... will probably not use a firearm. The weapon of choice will be either an explosive or some sort of poison, possibly in the water supply.

On September 11, 2001 a group of religious fanatics killed almost 3000 people ... with airplanes. This was the worst mass murder in US History.

On Apr 19, 1995 a military discharged psycho killed 168 (including 19 children under age six) and wounded hundreds more ... with a rental truck loaded with fertilizer. He was captured later the same day with a gun in his possession. Why didn't he use the gun to commit the crime? Because he knew he could kill a lot more people with the fertilizer, and in a fraction of the time. This was the 2nd worst case of mass murder in US History.

I'm not saying we should do everything we can possibly do to prevent them. We should. What I am saying is there is no such as 100% protection 100% of the time.

As is typically American we do not like having to take the responsibility for our own misconduct. The media sells a lot of papers inventing excuses for us to not do so. The three most common expressions in the English language are, (1) I didn't do it. (2) Don't blame me. (3) It ain't my fault.

We blame drug abuse on the drugs ... never on the Junkie. We blame DUI on the car or the booze ... never on the drunk driver. And now we're going to blame the tragedy in Newtown, CT on guns ... not on the people truly responsible.

So who is to blame for the Newtown disaster? Answer: The whole damn town!

Adam Lanza the shooter is to blame. His mother is to blame. And everybody who knew them is to blame. Every single article written thus far makes it clear ... it was PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE that the kid was mentally/behaviorally unstable. AND NOBODY DID ANYTHING!! At the least, the kids mother should have been confronted by the community and forced to either get the kid in treatment, or have him placed in a facility where he would not be a threat to himself or anyone else. It is now being reported that she had begun legal proceedings to have the kid institutionalized. If true, it can only be said that she waited too long to take action. Encouragement from the community might have prompted her to act in time to prevent the tragedy.

oneofthesane
2201
Points
oneofthesane 12/21/12 - 12:07 pm
3
1
There is not one, I repeat not ONE good argument....
Unpublished

...a zombie apocalypse perhaps? I'm sorry, but your paragraph sounded just as foolish.

CobaltGeorge
150918
Points
CobaltGeorge 12/21/12 - 12:12 pm
7
3
What More Can I Say.

If only I could give all the comments above 1 million points (Except Two) and myfather15 - 2 million for pretty well covered it all, I would.

Why do I own 2 AR-15s and one AK-47 with many, many 30 round magazines for each plus thousands of rounds of ammo? Dichotomy 09:55am answered that question. Also own about every cal rifle there is (except a .50 cal) and hope before I go, I own one.

The second reason is I really enjoy shooting them on my own range just like I use to love playing golf.

I'm going to paste a little interesting factual Fact:

Interesting slant on things AMERICA'S HUNTERS ---
Pretty Amazing!

The world's largest army... America 's hunters!
I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a
handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran .

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters,
all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the
hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that
kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting...
it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national
security.

That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic,
want to see us disarmed.

Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters
don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question
would still remain... What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???

I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control
or confiscation of guns.

oneofthesane
2201
Points
oneofthesane 12/21/12 - 12:18 pm
4
2
Oh no CG.....
Unpublished

I think you may have just given them a headache! Love it! Thank you.

RMSHEFF
14210
Points
RMSHEFF 12/21/12 - 12:28 pm
3
2
Liberals are All emotions, anti facts.

There is NO evidence that any gun restrictions have saved anyone. The evidence says the more legal ownership of guns, the lower the crime rate. It may make you "feel" better to restrict guns but it would come under the category "do something even if it has no effect". The liberals have a utopian mentality which says , if you let me make the rules everything will be better".

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs