Home > Debate Club > Does the Colorado Shooting Prove the Need for More Gun Control Laws? > We Need Sensible Measures to Prevent Random Mass Shooting

We Need Sensible Measures to Prevent Random Mass Shooting

Even gun owners support background checks for gun sales

Reader Comments
Back to argument

How unfortunate it is that seemingly so intelligent a person can be so rabidly and patently wrong. Laws restricting ANYTHING that people fell should be kept out of the hands of criminals only serves to place it out of reach of law abiding people. By definition, criminals don't adhere to the same moral and ethical standards that other ppl do. Restricting the ownership of anything only ensures that the criminal is the o ly one that will have it. Peoples aversion to guns is normal, as is their knew jerk reaction to ban them. What causes this? A multitude of things. Their fears. They know someone who was hurt (normally while committing a crime)with a gun. They've seen all the gun violence and just assumed that its the gun or law abiding citizen that is the problem. Everyone tours Europe as being the ststandard that we need to reflect. Excuse me but we bbroke away from England in 1776 specifically because of their high handedness. Those countrys that don't allow citizens to have guns STILL have gun violence, plus they blow each other up with bombs. So apparently gun laws outlawing them don't work . Crawl back in your home and continue to hide your head

joseph montgomery of MO 10:29AM August 04, 2012

Reducing gun violence is an admirable goal, but hte Brady Center for Misinformation will never get my support a slong as you continue to fumble about so blindly. Laws should be written based on conrete facts and evidence. Making somehting illegal does not therefore stop that act from being committed. Killing has been illegal since man has had law, and was generally not an acceptable practice even before then. So using Brady logic, noone is ever murdered, right? Right.

Gun legislation does nothing to stop criminals from getting guns, it only disarms the average person. Try addressing the issue from the proper perspective. I have several guns, and not one of them has ever got up, went out and killed even one person. Now, people on the other hand, tend to kill people every day, but the outcry only happens when a gun is used. Why not ban knives, or cars, or bats? Any of them can be and have been used to kill people on a fairly regular basis.

AJ of CA 1:35PM July 30, 2012

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

The U.S. city with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, Washington, D.C., has the highest murder rate at 24 per 100,000. The state with the most unrestrictive gun regulations, Vermont, has the lowest murder rate at 0.48 per 100,000.

Bruce of CA 8:48PM July 29, 2012

With over 22,000 gun laws on the books, #22,001 wouldnt have made a damn bit of difference. You need to wake up to the fact that criminals do NOT obey the law, now matter how many are written. One issue that you and your liberal media friends have been dodging is the fact that in this instance the law abiding gun owners were forbidden BY LAW from carrying thier private weapons into the theater, and since the gunman failed to see the sign forbidding gun posession in the theatre he had an 'audience" that could do nothing to defend themselves,, So I guess thats another "Gun Free Zone" that didnt work out so well huh?? much like Virginia Tech. Mr. Gross,, you are clueless.

jeff Taylor of NH 7:36PM July 29, 2012

People can make a weapon out of just about anything...your car can be a weapon, my tire iron can be a weapon but the one common denominator in all the tragedies that have happened is one thing, an UNSTABLE mind. Maybe the real work isn't gun control but mental health control. Of course, maybe its just easy to blame it all on guns. Its just a cop out to the real problem, there are millions of law abiding gun owners who should not be penalized their right to own and carry guns because of the acts of a few. Naturally, you liberals take great joy in tragedies like this because it offers you yet another opportunity to preach at the pulpit. As an American I have a right to be able to defend myself, even when I'm not in the comforts of my own home and that is one right that shall be fought to keep to the bitter end

Richard of CA 3:56AM July 29, 2012

The Second Amendment wasn't written so people could own a hunting rifle. I was written so the People would have the means to fight against their own gov't or a power that would take over our gov't. as an organized militia.

This means the People should have access to arms that can be used for that purpose. This means military grade, even full automatic to me.

While this also means that from time to time tragedies will occur like what happened in Colo. (which arguably had nothing to do with the crazy getting guns, he would almost certainly have made a bomb if guns weren't available). Those victims of these criminals are no different than our soldiers or the victims of 9/11 who died to protect our freedoms and way of life.

Most gun deaths are attributable to criminals who often do not lawfully possess the firearms they employ in crime. Much of this crime is caused by the "War on Drugs". Gun laws have zero effect on this category of crime.

labillyboy of CA 3:30AM July 29, 2012

Dan, if you wanted to reduce gun violence, then why not focus on ending the drug war, that is responsible for half the gun violence. Perhaps focus on reforms of our criminal justice and prison systems so that we reduce repeat offenders, I mean come on. Lastly since we have so many children hurt with guns, it is obvious we need gun education just like we have driver education. We could reduce gun violence in our country by 50 to 70 percent without even touching anyone's legally owned guns, this seems like a winning approach to me.

nicki stallard of CA 1:51AM July 29, 2012

I, personally would like ro know which lawmaker has been scratching the back of this writer to spread this propaganda for big brother.

Tom of CA 1:00AM July 29, 2012

It's real easy for you to scream gun-control. You live in an ivory tower far removed from the common man, and when you do deign to mingle with the 'great unwashed' you have bodyguards.

You throw out reasons like 'crime,' 'suicide,' and accidents.

CRIME: How is a law-abider to defend himself from a criminal with a gun? If guns are outlawed, what makes you think law-breakers will disarm?

SUICIDE: You really think that if someone wants to shuffle off this mortal coil, that not having a gun will stop them?

ACCIDENTS: While they are regretable, and could point to negligence, you would have to admit that there are far fewer accidental shootings than motor vehicle accidents. Do you propose restrictive measures on automobiles?

Why do you think that responsible citizens would be safer when disarmed?

I think you are so out of touch with real people that you might want to think about decending from the tower every month or so.

Jacques Looch of TN 11:52PM July 28, 2012

This is senseless logic showing your inability to offer a solution other than restrict law abiding citizens from their second amendment rights. It is clear that this gun violence is mostly in ares that restrict the carry of firearms. Your 30,000 a year number is an outright lie, more than likely from a study done by the Brady Campaign or paid for by the Brady Campaign.

Jacques of CA 11:50PM July 28, 2012

1 2 >