26
26
0
This is purely for my curiosity. I know since this is a military site, most people on here are against strict gun control, but I am interested in hearing the thoughts of other service members on this subject.<div><br></div><div>So if you would please,</div><div>State if you are FOR or AGAINST gun control,</div><div>why you think we should or should not have stricter gun law,</div><div>and any other thoughts concerning the topic.</div><div><br></div><div>(this is not to start an argument or anything as it surely has the ability to. I just want to see an honest debate and/or collaboration of ideas on the matter)</div>
Gun Control
Weapons
Politics
Law
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 131
0
0
0
Both,
I am for background checks, I don't want some lunatic or convicted felon in possession of a firearm. I am also for training, if one wants to carry concealed or open (if in an open carry state) then I think a classroom training combined with a range qualification just is good common sense. I enjoy the knowledge that CHL holders in TX have had a block of instruction and an education on firearms, CHL laws and common sense. I have heard from my friends that are Police Officers in TX that they feel a sense of relief when dealing with a citizen after learning they are a CHL holder, because they are a safer group of people to deal with. I gained a lot from my CHL class, and look forward to each class at time of renewal to keep up on new laws and to have a block of professional training. In the mean time I train at least once a month with my carry pistol, to keep a good familiarity with it. With the possessive of a gun comes much responsibility. We as gun owners owe it to ourselves and others to maintain that level or responsibility, in a simple military term, lead by example.
I also believe we need to be extremely tough on gun related crimes, the gun didn't commit the crime the person did, for me gun control is as aforementioned, but criminal control is what we need most to prevent horrific gun crimes from continuing.
I am for background checks, I don't want some lunatic or convicted felon in possession of a firearm. I am also for training, if one wants to carry concealed or open (if in an open carry state) then I think a classroom training combined with a range qualification just is good common sense. I enjoy the knowledge that CHL holders in TX have had a block of instruction and an education on firearms, CHL laws and common sense. I have heard from my friends that are Police Officers in TX that they feel a sense of relief when dealing with a citizen after learning they are a CHL holder, because they are a safer group of people to deal with. I gained a lot from my CHL class, and look forward to each class at time of renewal to keep up on new laws and to have a block of professional training. In the mean time I train at least once a month with my carry pistol, to keep a good familiarity with it. With the possessive of a gun comes much responsibility. We as gun owners owe it to ourselves and others to maintain that level or responsibility, in a simple military term, lead by example.
I also believe we need to be extremely tough on gun related crimes, the gun didn't commit the crime the person did, for me gun control is as aforementioned, but criminal control is what we need most to prevent horrific gun crimes from continuing.
(0)
(0)
SFC Ernest Thurston
SrA Morgan Burch - If a felon wants to get a gun he will get one. Registration won't stop a criminal. Just like padlocks keep honest people honest criminals will just bust the lock.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I am against gun control. It is our right to own and defend our life and property with a firearm. I do support background checks though. Since the big news lately is the Sandy Hook parents suing Bushmaster, I feel that a background check that sees if you have any people in your household with mental issues and that can prove and verify that you have taken measure to secure your weapons from their use BEFORE allowing for the purchase of a firearm. I realize this will only help so much as there are always ways around this type of check, but I think it would be a good step to have. No one loses their right to own or purchase a firearm but to help prevent (not eliminate because that is impossible) another Sandy Hook.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I disagree with your assessment on background checks. Doing a background check on a person is NOT going to reveal WHO in the household is mentally unstable. The background check is designed to discern if the PERSON has any mentally issues which would, according to each state's laws, disqualify the person from acquiring or possessing a firearm. Background laws don't really do anything for the people.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Allow me to clarify, I think the current background checks should be changed to assess these things such as if there is a history of mental illness in a applicant's family. Probably should have included this in my initial statement. I agree though with your overall statement, background checks do little, but doing little is better than nothing at all.
(0)
(0)
SSG John Arp
my understanding from the news is that the parent of the sandy hook shooter did her best to secure her firearms but he got past her defenses. I have a friend with a son who has been into some trouble as a teen and he moved his firearms to a family members house to make sure his son couldn't get to them as he assumed he might try, but as he said, that is not going to prevent him from getting one outside the house, like from a classmate at school, or by buying one from one of the local gang kids. I have a 7 year old, she is already familiarized with guns and I took her with me to harvest a wild hog, she learned at 5 years old that guns are loud, scary, and whatever they are pointed at when they go boom is dead forever, even if its a person. She knows where we keep every gun we own, she has no curiosity of that, and thus no reason to explore, and if she sees a firearm unsecured anywhere, she immediately gets my attention to tell me. She has a soft bb pistol, it barely breaks paper, but she used it a couple times and lost interest, but when she is old enough she will be taught to shoot a BB gun, then a 22, then a 410, and so on as she grows up. I worked in law enforcement, fire, and rescue over the years, in almost every case of accidental shootings in the home where a child found a gun, it was because of curiosity and failure to properly introduce the child to guns.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I am and always will be firmly against any form of gun control other than steady position and proper trigger squeeze. I have always favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution: that it says EXACTLY what it means, and if you want it to say something different, then pass another amendment. The 2nd Amendment clearly states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't see how people misinterpret such transparent language. A militia is defined as all able bodied military aged people. That's it. The National Guard and Reserves are NOT a militia. A militia is not a formal military organization. It is nothing more or less than the people, who, when necessary, come together to defend home and country. It also states the the rights, yes rights plural, to KEEP and BEAR (again I have no idea how people construe this to mean only keep or only bear at home and/or with special restrictions) arms shall not be infringed. Now to infringe on something means to restrict or take away from it. In other words: any law that limits access to firearms is infringement. There are only two reasons I can agree to infringing on a persons INALIENABLE right to self defense and defense of life, liberty, and property: when they are either a danger to themself, or a danger to others. And that ONLY after having gone through due process. After all, the Constitution also protects us from having rights and possessions stripped away without a well defined legal standard process.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
AGAINST! Those who have criminal past should not be allowed, fine. Those who love peace and justice, carry on. I'd hate to end up on 6 o'clock news listed as casualty of mass shooting and not waiting if and/or when someone opens fire in my presence.
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
if you bother to take the time, effort, and go through the red tape involved with owning and transporting a weapon legally, chances are you are not the problem.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I think we need to better education the American people about proper gun control and that starts in our school system and households. When it comes to our government we need to tighten up on our current laws to the max before we look at changing the laws.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Iam for gun, but I do not want to see law abiding citizens loose there rights as gun owners, but we do need to control guns being used in crimes.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
FOR- Two scenarios from two separate perspectives. Which sounds like a more logical way of ensuring the safety of yourself and those around you?
Scenario 1. The gnawing fear that a lunatic with intent to do harm is hiding among the masses, waiting to enact violence and you will be at a SEVERE disadvantage because you didn't bring your fire arm to school/work/movies/etc?
Why should this fear even exist? Crazy people will kill regardless of the method implemented. If they tried to enact a much more stringent policy for firearms, and in this perfect world that actually functioned as described-criminals actually obeyed the law (which is a blatant oxymoron btw), the murder/crime rate would remain constant because the conduit in which one enacts violence has NOTHING to do with the reasoning for it. Adam Lanza never woke up and thought "Hmmm...I have access to firearms. I should go shoot up a school."
Scenario 2. The gnawing fear in the back of a lunatics mind with intent to do harm at the realization that EVERYONE around them is carrying a firearm as well and that their delusions of being glorified in infamy might be immediately shut down by a marksman with a quicker draw, and a much greater will to live and ensure the safety of those around them?
I've carried my pistol in a tool bag that I toss around with reckless abandon but believe it or not, the pistol has not once decided to flip it's own safety off, break free of it's holster, and go on a rampage.....yet.....I think it has a hidden agenda though..... Guess only time will tell though. I keep an AK-47 to protect myself should the pistol one day snap.
Scenario 1. The gnawing fear that a lunatic with intent to do harm is hiding among the masses, waiting to enact violence and you will be at a SEVERE disadvantage because you didn't bring your fire arm to school/work/movies/etc?
Why should this fear even exist? Crazy people will kill regardless of the method implemented. If they tried to enact a much more stringent policy for firearms, and in this perfect world that actually functioned as described-criminals actually obeyed the law (which is a blatant oxymoron btw), the murder/crime rate would remain constant because the conduit in which one enacts violence has NOTHING to do with the reasoning for it. Adam Lanza never woke up and thought "Hmmm...I have access to firearms. I should go shoot up a school."
Scenario 2. The gnawing fear in the back of a lunatics mind with intent to do harm at the realization that EVERYONE around them is carrying a firearm as well and that their delusions of being glorified in infamy might be immediately shut down by a marksman with a quicker draw, and a much greater will to live and ensure the safety of those around them?
I've carried my pistol in a tool bag that I toss around with reckless abandon but believe it or not, the pistol has not once decided to flip it's own safety off, break free of it's holster, and go on a rampage.....yet.....I think it has a hidden agenda though..... Guess only time will tell though. I keep an AK-47 to protect myself should the pistol one day snap.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SrA Michael Waldo , if you are for more gun control then why do you have a pistol? Also, your two scenarios are against gun control.
(0)
(0)
PFC Stephen Eric Serati
For: common sense gun laws, mental health checks, background checks, closing loopholes, mandatory registration at local levels, and mandatory FOID cards. if your going to own weapons than by Gosh You lock-m up, and be responsible while handling no excuses. This open carry isn't cool either. Think about it for minute your going to church or a wedding, or the big game, the bar school, store. Do you want some untrained or undisciplined Citizen caring a weapon next to you and your small child. Your Constitution talks about a well regulated militia, not untrained Citizens having access to weapons of war. I have rights to.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Ron Peery
Do a lot more research, PFC Serati. There are no "loopholes", mandatory registration of firearms (or owners) has never been shown to prevent a violent crime, and jurisdictions that have "shall issue" concealed carry or, horrors, open carry, have far lower rates of violent crime than jurisdictions with draconian gun laws. I understand you come from Illinois, and have been raised to believe that the laws in place keep you safe. But how do you explain the fact that you have higher violent crime rates than Texas, where concealed and open carry are a fact of life? I feel much more secure living and working in a place where I know my neighbors are armed.
(0)
(0)
3
-4
7
<p>I personally do not own a "Gun" however I've always wanted to have my own M4. As far as gun control? Wow, hell yeah we need gun control. Lets just look at this for example: <img width="358" height="202" title="Gun-related homicide" class=" " alt="homocides g8 countries 640x360 wmain US Gun Homicide Rate Higher Than Other Developed Countries" src="http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg"></p><p> </p><p> </p>
(3)
(7)
SrA Zachary Bolling
Is it possible that our high number in this graph has anything to do with poor border control? I'm not talking about immigration but if 1000s of people can cross the boarder each day how many weapons and drugs are coming into America. Even with extreme gun control there will always be an ability to arm the criminals with poor boarder control. From Mexico and Canda
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
I don't know where these charts come from. I've gone to the source data (FBI, Home Office in Great Britain, and others) and find vastly different information. For example, gun violence is universally higher in urban areas than in suburban areas in all parts of the world. Inasmuch as the US has many more urban areas with large populations, it is reasonable to expect higher death rates, not because of the guns and gun ownership, but because of the demographic distribution. Also, crimes of violence are escalating rapidly in those countries that have recently enacted draconian gun control laws (think Great Britain and Australia), especially home invasions since criminals know that victims are not likely to be armed.
One more point is even more significant than anything else. Gun violence declines significantly when jurisdictions relax gun control laws and allow easier access to concealed carry permits. Criminals seem more reluctant to commit crimes against persons when there is a chance that that person may be armed. Open carry does not have this effect. It only makes the person who is armed a victim. Criminals will take them out first (from ambush) to eliminate the threat that they represent. Also, gun nutters tend to target persons who carry openly.
One more point is even more significant than anything else. Gun violence declines significantly when jurisdictions relax gun control laws and allow easier access to concealed carry permits. Criminals seem more reluctant to commit crimes against persons when there is a chance that that person may be armed. Open carry does not have this effect. It only makes the person who is armed a victim. Criminals will take them out first (from ambush) to eliminate the threat that they represent. Also, gun nutters tend to target persons who carry openly.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SSG John Arp
I thought this chart looks suspicious, it is from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, I don't trust the UN on any national statistics. I have seen many statistics that show otherwise. Not to mention I see no stats on places like in Africa and the Middle East just to name a couple, where government, militant groups and nut jobs are running around killing people at will with guns, knives, machetes, drowning them, throwing them off buildings, burning alive, hanging, etc. I think America is one of the safest countries to live in, the problem is gang violence more than anything, just as it is with those militant groups in other countries. We are way to soft on criminals as related to gun crimes, unfortunately that is often due to the criminal being a minor. Unfortunate due to the age and because they do it again later as adults. If a person commits a cold blooded murder and it's proved well beyond the shadow of a doubt, then the punishment should fit the crime with a death penalty or at least life in prison, until we do that this the killings will continue.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google