Guns are cool as long as they are not turned Towards anything with Heartbeat.

Nobody should be able to have a gun enlese they are the best police in the city. Its wrong cause i no i dont want to be shot. it happens every day in our lives people should take change in this. We could get shot right this second!!!   :(

Isn't it ironic that the people who most ferventy support gun-rights are the least qualified to operate them? (i.e. Rednecks)

We keep our guns.We have that right.And they can't change that and be good for our people too.

America is kept safer than other countries by gun toting loonies like me. You're welcome. UPDATE: Does anybody know what the EXPIRED assault weapons ban accomplished? One thing only. The introduction of a line of concealable, HIGH CALIBER handguns to cope with the now defunct 10 round limit. Now when you get shot, you have a better chance of DYING. Comforting, isn't it? By the way, for those confusing what got banned with full auto stuff, full auto has been regulated since the 1930's. 

UPDATE: Holy backburner, Batman. As of late you hear very little about gun control and man does that make me feel good. Sure, their are still one or two crusaders out there, but they don't get any media coverage compaired to the ban talk of the '90s. Did we win?

Err. . .no one is trying to take firearms from rednecks- we have more pressing issues like making sure torturing brown-skinned non-Christians is okay, ignoring science concerning issues of global warming, and making sure no one ever mentions the 'r' word (recession) in Washington. . .don't worry, kids, your pop guns are safe for you and your kids to fondle at will. . .

when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns
think about it
only the law abiding citizens would follow a gun control law
we really need to grasp our constitutional rights and stand strong

Meant to protect the public by keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. News Flash die hard supporters, the criminals will get their hands on them anyways.

The last posit was specious.  The logic fails when you can supplant other words and come up with a ridiculous(ly obvious) statement:  That there are more guns doesn't spontaneously constitute an urge to kill and maim.  Does the same argument hold for knives?  If there weren't guns, the human being would find creative ways to kill each other, just as they did before the invention of gas-propelled projectiles. 

Rather, why not look into the contributing factors of homicide/assault by gun?  Who's doing it?  What are their motives?  To chalk it off to "guns" is a form of denying the root cause of this form of mayhem.

UPDATE: numbah gets a helpful vote from me (learn from that, you cowardly unhelpfuls!) for the information about laws regulating automatics. Yet we know that the Glock used by Cho to kill 32 people fired 5 rounds a second. At that rate, the difference between "automatic" and "semi" is semantic. The gun freaks still don't have anything to say beyond their pitifully circular assertions about the power of guns. Let's just get out a tape measure and get this shit over with.

I've taught writing for ten years, having seen many students turn in assignments as freaky as Cho's. The difference: they didn't have GUNS. QED.

***

After the horrors of yesterday's shootings, it is time for us to reconsider our stance on this subject.

The gun-rights lobby will tell you that they don't want to make a principle like the Second Amendment subject to the whims of any nutjob who decides to kill 32 people, but the fact is that this is the only time we as a nation get to put aside the insane insistence on absolute rights, and talk about this issue in a reasonable manner.

The gun-rights lobby will characterize this is a "tragedy," but the fact is that this is not a tragedy because there is nothing inevitable about giving the evil people of the world access to deadly weapons (as the pro-war Republicans, of all people, should know).

The gun-rights lobby will tell you that armed students would have prevented yesterday's horrors, but the fact is that we will never have a nation in which gun ownership is universal. I would agree with them that universal gun ownership might be a good thing in a republic, reducing the mystique of guns, but we will never get to create such a society because it requires the right of revolution to be exercised frequently against the government which should not have a monopoly on deadly force. In the meantime, allowing open access to arms can only produce a world where more and more evil people will lethalize their evil.

This is not the last time this will happen -- it can only get worse.

We need provisional solutions, not more garbage talk about absolute rights or hopes for a return to the supposedly utopian days of the early American republic. We need long waiting periods for weapons, more background checks, more restrictions on semiautomatics. My parents-in-law can't get through airport security without being stripped bare because some idiotic bureaucrat at Homeland Security flagged them for declaring bankruptcy, yet they can buy assault weapons to kill dozens of people if it takes their fancy.

I can only hope that Bush will back down and be willing to work out compromises with congressional action on the issue. From today's NYT: "President Bush's press secretary relayed his first comments on the subject, saying that he 'believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed.' That was after he expressed 'deep concern for the families of the victims, the victims themselves, the students, the professors and all the people of Virginia who have dealt with this shocking incident.'" He has thrown down the political gauntlet, and so maybe there will be a renewal of the assault-weapons ban that he allowed to expire.

(I know, I know, don't tell me that the shooter didn't have an assault weapon, just a semiautomatic weapon. My response to you is: Can you imagine the devastation if he had?)

I can only hope.

Every non felon adult american should have a personal defense weapon, there would be less gun crime. Thats a fact!

A person who owns a handgun for personal protection is 17 times as likely to lose his life by handgun as a person who does not own a handgun. That simple fact (and it IS a fact) alone underlies my opposition to the manufacture of handguns. Add to that the additional opinion that handguns have no redeeming value at all. They serve no beneficial purpose. They are also barbaric, and the handgun issue is one that I have absolutely no doubt as to how it will ultimately be concluded. Once the world becomes totally civilized, which it someday will, handguns will no longer exist.

Use your brains people, gun control would have zero effect. Does having marijuana illegal stop others from getting it? Does saying you have to be 21 to drink alcohol stop teenagers from doing it? I think not, its completely useless to attempt this. Many say guns kill people, well, if guns kill people, then: Cars make people drive drunk; Pencils misspell words, and spoons make people fat.

Gun control is an important issue, in the grand scheme of things it would seem that it would be a good thing. The argument against it basically is that only law abiding citizens was be restricted by gun control while the rest would still have little or no control. In other words we need guns to protect ourselves from criminals who don't care about gun control. There are gun control laws on the books but what needs to happen is that penalties need to be harsher. American society is tightly woven in with fire arms so I don't think they will ever disappear but they do present a problem that will cost may innocent lives.

A 'Good' as a debate issue. Perhaps the item should first determine what understanding there is among contributors regarding the form and purpose for the 'control' of firearms. Drivers licenses, passports, soicial security, car and home ownerships, etc., are forms of control that contribute to an orderly society. There might be a comparable understanding among factions to agree on why and how a form of gun control, without confiscation, is desirable.

This has always been one of my prime concerns. I believe in gun control--I always try to lean on something or lie down to steady my aim.

I live in Australia, and banning of fire arms is the only legislature I will admire John Howard for initiating. I hate guns. My next door neighbour (a teenager), used his father's gun to shoot himself years ago. I know the adage guns don't kill people..., but it's lethal ability makes it a death sentence for suicidal people. Even if the firearms means were eliminated, they'd still use other means, but the other means they choose might not be as potent. You don't ever want to be the one to find someone who has blown themselves away. This issue is passionate for me, and I firmly believe you have to have gun control or bans regardless of the country you reside in.

guns should be controlled JUST LIKE GETTING PREGNANT??? What kind of anti-freedom facist are you? Whats next only attractive whites like you get to breathe? The majority of gun owners are drunk poor and stupid? Even if it were true, now theres something wrong with being poor? Well excuse me for possessing ethics. Drunk, now your just showing your ignorant naivite. Actually Denver the majority of gun owners statistically have less children then non-gun owners. What the hell does having teeth have to do with possessing the basic freedom to bear arms as set forth by the Constitution of The United States of America? I feel very sorry for those poor bastards that don't know how to fire a gun and believe the police will keep you safe forever. Sh!t happens and when it does, you will die. We wont miss ya. Personally i belive an american has the contitutional right to procure any type of weapon imaginable and the soldiers and police of the u.s. gov't should not be allowed to carry any weapon on home soil that the citizenry aren't allowed to carry. I am all for background checks tho, unless they take more than 2 days.

I once read a shirt that read: Criminals For Gun Control! Why Should We Get Hurt While on the Job? Not all people should have guns but not all people should be denied their right to have them.

Gun control laws work only when you have people who will obey laws, and law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Certain procedures such as background checks are just good common sense but for the last 30 years or so the laws have been aimed at the wrong group of people. Depending on who you speak to, the shooters at Columbine broke anywhere from 28 to 31 gun control laws. Does anyone really think that an additional half dozen laws would have made any difference?

Very well-said, ClassicTVFan! You expressed my feelings on the matter exactly, so I don't need to add anything else.

To me, the 2nd amendment is an outmoded element of our constitution, meant for when America did not have its mighty armed forces. I truly see no reason for a private citizen to own such a deadly weapon. Hunting is no longer a requirement to give food and certaintly the need for a militia of common citizens has long passed. If the weapons were eliminated for private use, then criminals could not get their hands on them. Of course, law-enforcement officers proven not to be corrupt could carry them to defend against crime.

I generally am a supporter of the right to bear arms. Various studies in the past have indicated that if there is even the remote possibility that a population may be armed, the rate of violent crime goes down, thus being armed serves as a deterrent. However, the flip side is that it results in higher property crime rates--criminals substitute this in order to avoid contact with a gun owner. They use basic risk-benefit analysis: a potential criminal is going to prefer to break into an empty house as opposed to assaulting a person carrying a concealed weapon on the street. Current gun laws ought to be enforced more effectively--common sense gun control measures go a long way in keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Higher conviction and arrest rates also help lower the crime rate in the aggregate.

My plan for gun control, and it has to be done in this order: first disarm the secret service, then the military soldiers of the world, then the police, then the criminals. And once everyone of those groups have been disarmed, you ask the free individuals to please give up theirs.

If you're against private ownership of firearms, then at least have the balls to attempt to remove them from their owners yourself! Don't hide in your home and send jack-booted thugs armed with sub-machineguns to do it for you!

More people own guns,per capita, in Israel for example,than the US and with a lower murder rate.People have a right to protect themselves against murderers and without people taking the moral prohibition against murder seriously, nothing will help.

Alright, one cannot in good faith hold some constitutional rights sacred (eg speech and assembly), yet ignore others when they are inconvenient to your personal beliefs and desires. Though I personally own no firearms, this is what I see happening in regards to the right to keep and bear arms. In short, whether one likes the Second Amendment or not, it's there so live with or repeal the amendment. That's the nutshell analysis. In more detail, one must remember that the militia language in the Second Amendment appears to be merely equivalent to legislative intent, but that doesn't change the effective substantive language. Moreover, the public policy concerns supporting any particular law can change over time. Again, if there is no longer any strong public policy supporting the Second Amendment, repeal it but don't ignore it. Many like to compare crime rates between the U.S. and other nations. While such an analysis is useful, it simply is not determinative. Different cultures have different priorities, levels of homogeneity, and degrees of risk tolerance. Some comment even offered a counter argument that the Second Amendment means that felons must also have the right to keep arms. Of course this is refuted by the historical precedent that convicted felons lose many of their rights, including the right to vote and the right to bear arms. Lastly, many argue that without ignoring the Second Amendment, citizens would have legal access to military weaponry; however, any constitutional right can be limited by narrowly tailored laws furthering a compelling need. Prohibiting the proliferation of military weapons clearly falls into that category. The bottom line is that though I have no interest in owning firearms, I do have an interest in respecting the entire Constitution. Ignoring any part thereof, even one that may be of little interest to me personally, increases the risk that those Constitutional rights which I hold dear may be next. Repeal the Second or respect the provision; it is as simple as that.

I wasn't raised around guns so therefore I have no use or appreciation for them. However, I do understand that there are people out there who were taught to use them properly and shouldn't have their rights revoked. But should we let just anyone have a firearm? People who haven't been taught to use them respectfully? I don't think gun control will lower the crime rates at all though; in fact as with illegal drugs, the desire for them will only grow larger and more out of hand. This would truly cause more problems than solve them. My only reservation is the fact that so many children manage to get their hands on weapons-often with dire consequences. If some form of gun control could somehow lower this trend, then I would be all for it. But I fear it lies more with the parents than with the laws. I truly wish there could be some kind of compromise to this argument because there are so many bigger issues on the table.

Gun Control sucks. If anyone thinks gun control is going to prevent gun violence they are dead wrong. Criminals already have guns, if everyone else carried them, then the world would be a lot safer. As long as people are properly trained to handle and care for firearms, almost everyone should be able to carry one in order to protect themselves and the law abiding citizens around them.

Okay, it's not 1992 anymore, Democrats. I mean, really. Put your latte and New York Times down and embrace the world aorund you.

Here we have a window upon dysfunctional America. How many NON AMERICANS have actually commented against strong gun control. One of the reasons I decided to look on this website in the first place was to see whether the ill informed, right wing gun toting stereotype had any validity. You seem to think guns don't kill people, people kill people. OK, lets apply the same logic to nuclear weapons. After all, surely nuclear weapons don't kill people either it's the people that get hold of them. I wonder how long it would be before we had a nuclear war, or a terrorist got hold of a few pounds of Uranium? You thought 9/11 was bad? That would be worse! Firearms have NO PLACE in a supposed civilised society, you've killed all the Indians, what do you still need them for?!?! Apart from for shooting each other? Sorry for bleating, maybe it's my upper middle class, paternalistic tendancies coming out. Maybe it's my attempt at common sense. God bless America, coz you're gonna need all the blessing your misguided country can get!

We have had the right to own guns in this country for years, and up untill just recently we had no problem with it. So why the crime all of a sudden, it has to be something that popped up at the same time as the rise in crime. Population? Lack of morals? Fear of guns? Growing poverty? Goth punk and heavy metal music? Excessive welfare? Violence on TV? Who knows? All that I can say is that I don't think it is guns.

Guns sincerely do not help any matter. They ought to be banned but I know this would never happen.

Certain guns are made for the destruction of people, these guns should be subject to regulation. Thousands of people are killed by criminals, accidents and idiots every year is not what your fore fathers had in mind. The old slogan "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a great way to sell guns, but untrue. Canada has far less gun deaths per capita and as long as you are an adult without a criminal record it's a snap to get a gun.

They have strict gun control in Canada and in Britain, and the crime rates for ALL crimes are lower in those countries. There aren't more 'knife fights' or 'club fights', so anyone who claims there are is misinformed or just making things up. They have more fist fights, but those are almost never lethal. Besides, to kill someone with a knife or your bare hands requires a deadly determination. You have to actually make physical contact with the person and be angry enough or so berserk with fury that you are able to kill them. Most people cannot summon the kind of rage required to do so. With guns, however, a seven year old child can kill a fully grown adult or a sibling. It can be done with a cold detachment, or by accident, or in a rage, or any other mood. People are so terrified of an asswhipping that they'll draw their guns at the first sign of aggression, and it is blind fear that causes them to fire bullets into the other person, not necessarily murderous intent. But murder is often the result, and many lives completely ruined is the consequence. You can get your aggressions out with a good old knock-down boxing match, and nobody dies.

The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Several of the Founding Fathers have written that it was included it to protect the people from the tyranny of government. It is preposterous to suggest that the right to bear arms is granted to the militia--the militia is another arm of government. It says,“the right of THE PEOPLE,” not the right of the states or the militia. Review the content of the First Amendment--freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and right to petition the government for redress of grievances. You aren’t limited to petition the government for grievances related to the aforementioned rights. If the Founding Fathers could have foreseen the lunacy today, they would have elaborated that citizens have the right to protect themselves, their families, homes and property. Tyrants have always sought to outlaw and confiscate weapons to increase control over subject populations. A century ago, swords were frequently outlawed. The Founding Fathers recognized the historical significance of the right of the people to bear arms. Gun control will never eliminate guns, it just takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Even totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were unable to eliminate unauthorized guns. England has always had gun control, but since gun controls laws were made even more stringent, the crime rate has increased exponentially. An armed robber has little or no fear of armed resistance. While many naively hope that gun control will reduce the number of gun-related deaths and injuries, it could result in more robberies, rapes and even more gun-related deaths because criminals will still have guns. A year or so ago a crazed man in California slashed and killed several people with a large kitchen knife, where is the outcry for knife control? Gun control is a fool's paradise that is shattered by reality.

If I didn't already own a gun I'd go out and buy one. I am sick of liberals trying to take away my right to bear arms. Think about this, If we were attacked by another country and our millitary was defeated then they would have to compete against american civilians hellbent on blowing their heads off. Hey, if I'm going to go down I'll go down fighting. Remember what Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Take away our guns and our freedom goes next. Liberals are not liberal. If they were they would liberate us from gun control.

First, read the Constitution. Read the 2nd amendment- The Right to Bear Arms. Instead of punishing everyone for peoples crimes, punish who is responsible. Gun control will not make anyone safer. We need to defend ourselves from intruders. Guns causes the deaths of people? So do cars. So do planes. So does hundreds of things that we would never "control". GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE- PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

How anyone can argue against the right to bear arms when it is CLEARLY protected by the US Constitution is beyond me. I think anyone who hasn't used one or attempted to use one for anything illegal should be able to own any gun they choose. You don't end or even lessen violence by banning weapons. There must be a change in violent mindset and higher moral standards taught at a young age to prevent ignorant behavior. If you think taking a guy's gun away who just wants to hunt and/or protect his home and family will reduce crime, then you're terribly confused.

Many, if not most, violent crimes in the US are committed with guns that are illegally brought over to America or have been stolen and smuggled into other states. Out of all things, that's the most pressing type of "gun control" we need. Registration isn't going to solve these problems, but I think these problems are much worse. Other violent activities happen when there is a gun improperly stored in the household and some kid gets a hold of it. As long as you're responsible enough to store and secure a firearm as well as teach your children to stay clear of it, then it should be alright. If we really want to cut down on gun violence, then we should focus first on the illegal firearms in our streets foremost.

Before beginning, I would like to comment on several comments which state that we need guns in our homes, all of us, to protect from government oppression. People, this is not 1789. At that time, both citizens and the military had muskets. Now, we do, the government has cruise missiles and military tanks. If the government really wanted to take our rights away, they can do it whether or not we have guns or not. Let us take a look at the 2nd Amendment as it appears, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What exactly does that mean? This grants citizens who are affiliated with a state or national militia the right to bear arms. That is basically my interpretation of this second Amendment. It does not simply say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You must pay attention to the first part, as certainly there is a reason for those words to be there. I do believe gun control to be a highly important issue, however I do not agree that owning a gun is a RIGHT. If this is so, then the federal government would not even have the right to prevent convicted felons of getting guns, because they are citizens and it is their RIGHT. Rather, owning guns is a priviledge, as someone else has stated on this board. I do not advocate taking the handguns out of the hands of good Americans while corruptness will still allow criminals to get the guns. Of course there should be tighter registration laws, but lefty liberals (and hey, I am a Democrat) who cannot see that gun control laws, unless mandated at a state and local level, are completely ineffectual and entirely impossible to enforce. However, politicians should not stop pushing for stricter gun laws simply because they believe it to be impossible to rid the world of all the guns. Well, that is indeed impossible, but that should not be our goal. Our goal should be reducing the number of criminals who can get guns. In the final analysis, my position is clear: Owning a gun is a priiledge and hard working Americans deserve to exercise that priviledge. However, cold criminals do not, so let us address that problem.

Instead of spending all the money, time, arguements, and frustration on trying to pass gun control, why don't people concern themselves with educating themselves about gun safety. Kids who are injured always get their guns from unsecured locations. Parents, don't tell your kid where you keep your gun, and keep it in a safe place. Take some responsibility for irresponsibility instead of crying it's the guns fault. A gun is just as dangerous as a motor vehicle or a knife. People who yell guns are murder don't realize that majority of crimes pulled off with guns (whether it be murder or robbery), the guns where illegally obtained any way. So what good would it be to take away an innocent American's gun when criminals can get them anyway? Also, growing up on a ranch, we need something other than a bow and arrow to protect our animals. I really don't want to fight off a rabid coyote with a stick.

I don't think it's a good idea to take away guns from law-abiding citizens. We have the right to protect ourselves and our property from criminals. Yes, innocent people are injured by guns, but cars, trains, and airplanes also injure and kill many people and I don't see anyone trying to outlaw those. I think we need more education on gun safety and try to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but that's it. Let us law-abiding citizens protect ourselves.

Guns don't kill people, people do. What the heck did the person use, it is alot easier to kill a person with a gun than a knife. Also look at the children who accidently kill themselves, or the people who kill themselves because a gun dosen't give you the time to get to call an ambulance. I bet the people who own those knew how to handle their guns also. The whole point to our beloved 2nd amendment was to hunt, protect our country, or rebel. As far as hunting I think it's outdated but wouldn't illegalize it. As far as a revolution is concerned your gun isn't going to take out the Air Force, Abrams and most likely many soldiers, So if anyone beats are military you should know your weapons would only cause more of our own peoples' deaths. The spirit of the second amendment was for a earlier type of warfare the amendment is simply out dated.

Do they honestly think the people who use guns for criminal purposes will stop using them for criminal purposes if they pass just one more law?(The criminals will break ten laws but not eleven???)

{I barely got this comment on the site and 15 "people" quickly rated it "not helpful." A multiple personality man/woman is at it again. This has been happening to others on RateItAll and I have contacted them asking them to remove the "not helpful" button, since it is obviously abused, but they've said they intend to keep it. And this is their site, after all, and we get to use it free. So....even though I know this will bring in a lot more bogus negatives, I'll post it once more. In the meantime, I'm enjoying communicating with all you real people who use RateItAll honestly.) Nobody can seriously believe that a criminal will obey any gun control laws. But innocent people can use them to protect themselves from aggressors. Here's an experience we had shortly after our first baby was born. We were living in a large city and a group teenagers (probably 30 or more) gathered in the street in front of our house and started creating a disturbance. We were concerned not only about our own safety but especially thinking of our baby. Some of these people started heading toward the front of our house. To make a long story short, a few of us tried to persuade them to leave quietly, but that made them even more determined to cause mischief. Then one of our neighbors tried to talk peacefully to them. They only taunted him and swore at him. So he quietly walked over to his pickup and took out his shotgun. He didn't point it at them, or even look at them, just took it out of the truck. Right then, they all scattered away like roaches, and we never saw them on our street again. I was really thankful that night that my neighbor owned a gun.

Ok - people kill people. But its far easier for someone to kill another person when they have access to guns. How else are they going to do it? How many people die in the US every year due to gun violence? And how many incidents are happening involving children getting hold of a relatives gun and shooting another child? And yes, people die due to car accidents, but it usually isn't on purpose and the sole aim of a car is to get from one place to another. Sole use of a gun? To harm. People can really handle the responsibilty of having aweapon that can easily kill - can't they? I find it disturbing that so many people think its ok....

The existence of the armed citizen is the sole reason why America is still free after a century of bloody totalitarian leftist swept across the world and murdered 190 million people without dreams of the workers paradise. Freedom is why the bloody extremist and evil left so hates the 2nd Amendment. It makes the sheep so much less manageable for the shearing. Jefferson and the founders believed in the fundamental right to revolution, which is meaningless without arms. The left like to point to the supposedly high murder rate in the US as the justification for Gun Control but isn't the connection between welfare and being a criminal considerably stronger than the ownership of Guns when you consider that Welfare State Britain is now the most violent society in the world. If the left really wants to eliminate crime they should support the suspension of all civil rights to any person who receives any funding from the government whether through employment or subsidies. If you want the government to take care of you, you shouldn't have the right to vote to expropriate of another man's property for your support.

dont just take them away from the people take them away from cops too.

definitely more important than gay rights, for example......