Facebook Activity

Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > News & Issues > Gun Control vs. Gun Rights

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
Next thread » « Previous thread

Gun Control vs. Gun Rights

May 3, 2013 at 12:53 pm

What works in Australia won't necessarily work in America. Background checks mean nothing. You can know a person for their whole life and not really know them. People who commit crime are just like you and me. They're still people, why should we limit their freedoms for what they've done? People who end up mass murdering often don't even have a criminal background. Serial killers seem like normal people, they know how to hide themselves. Why shouldn't a child be allowed to own a gun? My first gun was a Short Action rifle. A winchester model 70, 22 caliber. I first fired it when I was six, and my father gave it to me when I turned ten. Why shouldn't kids be allowed to shoot? It's a legitimate sport and survival tool, just because a gun can kill doesn't mean it will be aimed at other humans. The problem here is our culture, we have grown too paranoid, and too selfish. Our society is a train wreck, because it developed too soon too fast, and got extremely arrogant about it. What should be done about it? How bout the government just backs off a bit, takes a more libertarian standpoint and stays out of our personal lives. At least then it would be out in the open they didn't care about us, and we can stop playing this ridiculous game.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Gryffindor replied...
May 3, 2013 at 4:46 pm

Sorla: Congrats, in America we can't pick and choose which laws apply to whom. We can't say those that use guns irresponsibly can't have guns because we have no idea who they are. It could be a regular person in full mental health, who has a family of 4 a nice paying job and a steady living. THIS IS AMERICA, you will have to deal with it. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. 
Also I see quite a bit of "wants" in your post. You can want all you like, nothing can stop you from wanting something. But do you actually need it?
Of course the government doesn't care about the individual, We are THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Untied by freedom, and liberty. You should respect the government's laws because they are the only thing protecting YOU and YOUR free will in this country. 
You miss interpreted me. Those that think they can go up against the goverment will lose because the government has power, they have tanks, they have WMDs, they have voice. We make the goverment, if the goverment is corrupt it is OUR fault. We elected them, it is our fault. As for the government not respecting you........Go re-read your Bill of Rights, that is respect. That is the governemnt saying you have rights in this country that no other country can fully guarantee. I am a die hard fan of the government, not Congress, but the principles of our government. 
I whole heartedly agree, Freedom doesn't mean back down and roll over. You do have the right to defend your freedom, but here is the catch, YOU ARE ALREADY FREE. Americans as a group, not as an individual are pompous and ignorant. We always want more. WE can never have enough. Other people in other countries look at us and think,"Why are they protesting? They are already free." The answer is always,"Because we always want more and we start crying when there is but a little bit of tightening put on our rights. We can never have enough, we will never be satisfied." 
We aren't letting a higher power fight for our freedom. My uncle flys F18-s every day. The government is NOT the acting force that is fighting and protecting our freedom. It is the soldiers on the front line risking their lives. The entire U.S. Military could up and quit, and there isn't anything that could stop them short of martial law. There is nothing right now in the U.S. Government that says every single person between 18 and 36 must serve x amount of years in the military. People out of their own decision are joining to fight and defend our freedom. It even says in the Constitution that all Congress can do is declare war. They can't command troops. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Gryffindor replied...
May 3, 2013 at 4:54 pm

Sorla: A child can own a gun, legally my dad could have bought me a Mossberg500Tactical when I was 4. 
A father/mother giving his child (whatever the age) a firearm as a gift, letting them use it supervised, and ensuring it's safely stored, I'm absolutely, 100% OK with that. You can still do that today, just as you could 50 years ago. What I'm not OK with is children, whose maturity level we are unaware of, in general, having the ability to purchase a deadly weapon. It's the same reason they don't let 10 year olds get drivers licenses, because we all know that the most dangerous drivers on the road are 16 year olds.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Imaginedangerous replied...
May 3, 2013 at 9:26 pm

Why 4-year-olds should not have guns-
w w w .cnn.c o m /2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jubilex replied...
May 4, 2013 at 3:34 am

Sorla: I'm bringing evidence to back up my claim, maybe you should bring some to yours.
"Background checks mean nothing." Prove it. Show me some stats. They work well here. They stop criminals and people with violent backgrounds from handling guns.
I'm sure there are people "like me" who commit crimes. By that I assume you mean your average run-of-the-mill person on the street. I'm sure average people spazz out and commit crimes out of passion. I have two rebuttals to this point.
1) Making it harder and longer to obtain a firearm means that people will not be able to spontaneously decide to go out and buy a gun so that they can kill their as.shole neighbour. That's not to say that they won't be able to do it, but it would require a lot more effort. It would deter people for that reason.
2) Just because gun control won't stop all crime doesn't mean that it's worthless. Isn't it better to stop some crime where possible, rather than none? No change means the same trend of crimes with guns will occur. Gun control has reduced this in other countries, so its reasonable to assume that it will in America as well.
Kids shouldn't be allowed to shoot because they don't understand the consequences. Young children might not have the strength or coordination to safely handle a gun either. Young children don't understand the permenance of death. They don't understand violence like an adult does. A child doesn't have the same emotional control that an adult does. Even adolescents have a warped sense of consequence. That's not to say that a sixteen year old can't be a responsible owner of a gun, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I think adult-hood is a reasonable place. But as Gryffindor said, if the kid is supervised, they can handle the gun safely, and it's stored under lock-and-key so that the kid can't use the gun without being supervised, then that's okay. In Australia you can shoot at a licenced firing range with adult permission from the age of 14. I'm not inheritantly against younger persons using a gun for firing practice, but it should be closely supervised.
I know that guns don't always kill, but they are used to kill. Gun control is a proven way to reduce deaths by firearms. It makes logical sense that it does too. If criminals, violent people, mentally unstable people can't own firearms, then they're not going to kill anyone with them, are they?
As I've said before: gun control doesn't mean no guns, it's just restricts who can own them and what type can be owned.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
capsgirl74 replied...
May 5, 2013 at 8:23 am

YOU GUYS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!! You have no idea how annoying it is to read your responses. You have no idea what you are talking about. You hear things from are extremely liberal media, and take that as whole-hearted truth. You don't want/have guns, so you, of course, don't care who else is affected by your gun control. God forbid anyone get rid of precious alcohol. I guess since the majority WANTS it, the govt somehow thinks the majority NEEDS it. Whatever. Oh, and I am sure lovely Obama will give up his tight security with the big bad guns he is trying to ban. Awesome, right?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Gryffindor replied...
May 5, 2013 at 8:59 pm

capsgirl: I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I do own several guns, I fire most of them out in the woods or on the range. I keep a Mossberg500 in my truck. I have a gun strapped under my seat in my truck. I have one sitting next to me by the computer. Don't believe me? Come on down to Little Rock, Arkansas. Call me, and you can come see for yourself. I am a gun owner. I will be affected by gun control and I feel better about it. Why? Because that means I will probably never actually have to use my guns. I can deal with background checks. I can deal with small magazines, I'm an expert shot, I don't need a 20 round clip. That is what Obama is doing for gun control. 
What does Obama's tight security have to do with anything? The secret service is a federal agency, they have the right to use any means necessary to eliminate a threat to the President and his family. I love the fact that they have bigger guns than the rest of us do, because you never know, I may go on a rampage and kill as many people as I can. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Imaginedangerous replied...
May 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm

You have no idea how annoying it is to be told that 'I have no idea what I am talking about' just because I disagree with you.  Hating liberals is not a good reason to support or oppose ANY policy. Give me some concrete facts or a rational argument and then we'll talk.
(For the record, I am a registered member of the Republican party.)
Gryffindor: I don't want to be the super-sensitive whiner here, (and I agree with you) but please don't joke about mass shootings.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
capsgirl74 replied...
May 6, 2013 at 10:07 am

Obamas security has a lot to do with it because why is he more important than anyone else? Why does he get to ensure that his family is safe, while limiting the safety of ours? It's not fair, it's hypocritical. And good for you that you have an accurate shot *snaps, whatever*. I don't understand why you, as a gun owner, would want limitations. To be honest, I think that there does need to be background checks. And there are already systems in place, so they need to be better at it (ie VT shooting may have been prevented if the govt did their job right and actually classified him an mentally unstable, but that's in the past). Also, just bc you have a good shot, doesn't mean that EVERYONE has a good shot. My nana could not defend herself properly with a little tiny handgun, and she should be allowed to. I'm just saying, no matter how many things the govt tries to control or get involved in or prevent, people will find a way to get past it.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
capsgirl74 replied...
May 6, 2013 at 10:15 am

It's not bc you disagree with me, it's bc you have no idea what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with democrats, heck! My family consists of many of those. And obviously some republicans, such as yourself, vote for gun control. And yes, I feel like, from reading your posts, that you basically regurgitate ideas that the media says. I think that you don't try to understand the other side. I think that you are naive to think laws on guns are going to make the world a better place. Hon, this isn't utopia. It's America and things don't work out like this. Guns are good to have. I guess at this point we must agree to disagree bc you will never change your mind or look at the other side. For the record, I have done research on both, and chose my side accordingly. I didn't chose based on what everyone else was saying

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
capsgirl74 replied...
May 6, 2013 at 10:19 am

Jubilex. Hmmm, that wasn't what I would call EVIDENCE per say, more like your reasoning. And just one thing. Um..gun control works and has been proven to work? Hitler implemented gun control...and then killed 6 million defenseless Jews. I guess what you meant was that there was no one left so crime rates went done immensely. Are you kidding me!?!?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Imaginedangerous replied...
May 6, 2013 at 8:39 pm

Newsflash, sunshine, I don't pick my political beliefs based on what the media says either. I happened to reach my position on gun control while researching the topic for a scholarship essay- sponsored by the NRA. Don't make arrogant assumptions.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Gryffindor replied...
May 6, 2013 at 9:56 pm

Imagine: Of course, I will watch out for that next time, thank you for telling me, my apologies.
capsgirl: Well why does the Pope have the Swiss guard. Why does the Queen of England have guards. What makes all these figures and their famalies more important than the rest of us. i don't think they are more important, I think they just have more at stake than the rest of us do. More people wish to hurt leaders and their famalies to get what they want and to cause chaos. The President and his family deserve the secret service. Doesn't matter what he has or hasn't done. He is the leader of our nation till 2016. 
I'm pretty sure if there was a group of mass killers or terrorists out for your blood, that have more training and experience with guns and tactics than you do 4x over, you'd probably want a heaping amount of protection. Well why do you get more than I do? Its not that hard to figure out. Use that big mushy pink thing in your head.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Gryffindor replied...
May 6, 2013 at 10:05 pm

No offense, but I don't think your nana should be weilding a gun expecting a home invasion. If she can use a little tiny handgun, then get her a real handgun. If she can't hold a real handgun and deal with the "massive" recoil, then like he.ll she needs a rifle to protect herself.
Duh, people always find ways to get around things. Dr.ug, alco.hol, se.x, Heck, I could buy a M249 LMG off the gangs down the street. But when caught the punishments are severe enough that it discourages others from doing it, or to be better at hiding it. 
O and Imagine was right in saying it is annoying when someone tells you that you don't know what you are talking about. We do in fact know. Probably more than you. And from reading your posts I do feel like you are regurgitating something from  the Redneck Bible(real Book). 
Of course this isn't Utopia, it is America, but I'd feel a whole lot better if there was less gun violence in America and we'd stop worrying about Same se.x marriage and get onto topics that need more attention. Like getting the freaking PATRIOT ACT toned down. 
Guns are great to have, when you use them properly. Agree to disagree, NEVER> I know both sides, its the only reason why I am still posting. I am in the middle here. I want to keep my rifles but I want it to be stricter ways to getting them. 
PLEASE bring this research that proves your side. I'd love to debate it. Our side has supplied more than enough information, its your side's turn. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Gryffindor replied...
May 6, 2013 at 10:15 pm

capsgirl: By all accounts I support Obama's stand on Gun control. Not saying I support him fully, but some of his reasons are good, some need some thoughts changed up. You have your opinion, I have mine and I respect that and your opinion. But when I am told that I don't know what I am saying and that I'm getting my information from the media, is pretty much out of line. I take time to look thi stuff up. yes I do go to the media, preferably CNN, but I also go to Whitehouse . com. I have occassionally called friends about it. I know some guys who will kill anyone who touches their guns, but are supporters of Gun control, because they know the risks. 
I wish everyone in America for one day could see the bad side of guns. Not from the media or from another person, but themselves. See what guns can actually do when not controlled properly. Then see what happens when that same gun is in the hands of someone who has the training and skill to use it as it was made. A tool. NOT a toy. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
capsgirl74 replied...
May 6, 2013 at 10:44 pm

Alright, my apologies for saying y'all don't know what you're talking about. But for one, I am not regurgitating ideas from the "redneck bible". Haha, but that was cute. Just personally, I'd like to be able to defend myself however necessary. No one is more important than another, so yeah. I don't care that he is the Pres. If he thinks that guns are so bad, then he can find another way to deal with people who want to hurt him. I have no problem with him having tight security, though I find him to be a major hypocrite bc he doesn't think that anyone else is entitled to the same safety measures that he is. Sorry, I hope that clarified it just a bit for you. If not, then we can't get anywhere.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
We-R-3 replied...
May 6, 2013 at 11:22 pm

Alright, new to the debate. I have read through a good majority of the thread and have seen some pretty heated discussion. I don't know if i can say anything that hasn't already been said, although I am hoping to provide a fresh outlook on some of those things. I will go on record as saying that I am a moderate on this issue, I support increased background checks, I also support the reduction of certain high ammunition mags. I know I'll take heat for the latter, however it is less extreme than other views.
A lot of times, I see that Pro-gun ownership advocates seem to want to outgun criminals, almost like a sort of miniature Cold War. What I am curious about is why that is so, If a man (or woman) breaks into your house does having fifty guns in the house protect you. Maybe. However, I honestly think the gun that you have in your hands at the moment you confront the tresspasser will really be the only gun that matters. I will also ask how many times you've dealt with a house robbery where the intruders were using AK-47's...Unless you are involved with some illegal activity, or you are a political figure, you shouldn't expect (definitely shouldn't ASSUME) that it is likely. As far as huntining is concerned, the assualt weapons are okay I guess (I don't hunt...not because I have anything against it, I've just never been). I am curious to why the high capacity mags would be neccessary to hunt with. 
Now, I have introduced my main points in the form of curiosities, I do expect that in doing so I will be recieved nicely...hopefully.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jubilex replied...
May 6, 2013 at 11:42 pm

capsgirl: I assume your initial rant was against all people who are for gun control.
The others have responded personally, so I will too.
1) I have researched everything that I've said about gun control laws and their effectiveness. So no, it's not coming from "liberal media" and I do understand what I'm talking about, My opinion differing from yours does not mean that I don't have the facts. I even quoted facts and figures and explained my position in a calm manner.
2) You got one thing right, I don't own a gun. I'm not even from America and I'll admit a lot of the American politics goes over my head. Suggesting that not owning a gun is the major reason I'm pro gun control is simply ridiculous. It's like me suggesting that the only reason anyone against gun control would have that position is because they do own a gun, when it's much more layered than that. I'm sure it's possible that there are people out there who don't care about gun control being implimented because they don't own a gun and it doesn't affect them. But I'm willing to bet it's more of a nonchalance on their part than an active stand for gun control, like the one I am taking.
Please read some of the figures I've quoted. Notice how gun control works in other countries. Notice how people can still aquire guns under gun control measures. Notice how it's not going to take guns away from you, but simply limit who can own them (disbarring those who don't know how to use a gun, or are more likely to use a gun violently) and how many/what type can be owned.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
May 7, 2013 at 8:58 am

No one is taking into consideration how Americans are a completely different breed from the rest of the English speaking world. Americans don't accept things. They want everything to turn out their way and will fight to the death to make it so. I don't think gun control is as serious of a problem as everyone makes it out to be. A criminal will get a gun no matter what. It isn't that hard if you ignore the laws, so why should we put more regulations in place just to inconvenience the average citizen? The only person I've ever met who registered their guns and went through all the necessary channels is my grandpa, everyone else doesn't really care. We figure as long as we're not going on rampages, does the government really need to know what guns we own? There was a time when I literally needed a gun before I learned to make snares, traps and bows. I was only nine, and I couldn't just go out and buy a gun. Who is the government to tell us we're not responsible or trust worthy enough to own a survival tool? They can't pick and choose who deserves certain rights. They don't even do their job entirely, they can stay out of everyone's business thank you very much.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
capsgirl74 replied...
May 7, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Here are some facts that you may be interested in, since ya'll are SO big on that...
1929: Soviet Union, gun control. from that time to 1953, about 20 million were killed by their govt. 
1911: Turkey. 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians died in the genocide, also implemented by the govt
1938: Germany. 1939-1945, 13 million people died. 
I have a lot more, so let me know if you want some more info. And btw, none of these people who were exterminated were able to defend themselves. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback