Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Google

2010-03-08T14:34:31Z

VyacheslavMolotov: /* Google bombing */

[[File:Google.png|right|250px]]
'''Google''' is a company whose primary business is [[Internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]]. Google is associated with [[liberal]] causes and has been criticized for catering to communist [[China]] in censoring information from the people as requested by dictators:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm</ref>

: Reporters Without Borders joined others in asking how Google could stand up for US users' freedoms while controlling what Chinese users can search for. Its previous search engine for China's fast-growing market was subject to government blocks. The new site - Google.cn - censors itself to satisfy Beijing. While cooperating with China's govenment, Google refuses to fulfill requests by the U.S. Department of Justice. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4630694.stm , BBC Google defies US over search data, January 20, 2006</ref> Google counsel Nicole Wong said "..we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

Google has also been accused of delisting [[conservative]] news sites from its search engine. As one of many examples, "In February 2005, [[Michelle Malkin]] wrote of the difficulties she was having becoming part of Google News."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/5477</ref>

Much of Google's business depends on pornography. For example, 25% of search engine requests are for pornography.<ref>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html</ref>

In addition, although claiming to generally avoid getting involved in matters outside their field, Google officially supports the [[liberal]] and [[social libertarian]] cause of so-called "[[same sex marriage]]."<ref>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html , Our position on California's No on 8 campaign</ref> On June 21, 2009, Google displayed a special multicolored line for searches on the word "gay". Google is also big promoter of [[Charles Darwin]] and atheistic science, even to the point of giving special recognition to the anniversary of Darwin's birthday ("Darwin Day").

== Corporate Information ==

The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref>

Google also owns [[YouTube]], the homemade [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] is suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

After much debate about their corporate Code of Conduct, Google's founders settled on the all-encompassing "Don't be evil", saying,"It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards". <ref>[http://investor.google.com/conduct.html Google Code of Conduct]</ref> This Code of Conduct has generated much criticism, saying they have missed that mark badly.

==History==
[[Image:Google2.gif|thumb|right|300px| Google's logo on [[Earth day]], April 22, 2007.]]
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Growth===
The year Google was created 1998, it had amassed 26 million unique URLs in their database. By 2000, Google had indexed more than 1 billion pages. As of July 2008, Google has indexed over 1 [[trillion]] pages. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9999814-93.html Google reveals scope of Web-crawling task] CNET News, July 25, 2008</ref>

===Competition===

[[Microsoft]] has been aggressively competing with Google for a larger share of the search market. Their latest effort, [[Bing]].com, is a "next generation" search service which has generated positive reviews.

==Secular Progressive Culture==
Google's West Coast headquarters hires a majority of left-leaning personalities, explicitly in executive decision-making.<ref>See [http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html] for a list of board members and senior staff.</ref> Google supports causes that are a radical departure from traditional American views, such as their public support of a 'no' vote for [[California]]'s [[Proposition 8]], which defined marriage as being between a husband and wife. Also in a subtle way, they favor politically-correct global liberalism, championed by secular progressives. They select certain ''days of importance'' for tribute, some of which are controversial. As such, ''Merry Christmas'' is replaced by ''Happy Holidays''. Even though, poll <ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/11/prweb1670824.htm Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign Crusades to Change Retail Culture] PRWeb, November 26, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/68_prefer_merry_christmas_to_happy_holidays 68% Prefer “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays”] Rasmussen, November 27, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/20/poll.season/ Poll: More Americans prefer 'Merry Christmas' greeting] CNN, December 20, 2005</ref> shows the public prefers 'Merry Christmas'. The problem may be that Google doesn't respect traditional [[Christian]] holidays, in favor of a 'culturally-correct' approach. In addition, Google accepts the [[Theory of Evolution]] by [[Charles Darwin]] as fact, promotes Darwin on their homepage with a Google Doodle logo. <ref>[Scientists unveil fossil of Darwinius masillae]</ref>

Google often honors Russia with their logo of Sputnik and for composer Igor Stravinsky. However, they did not honor [[United States]] Flag Day, June 14. (Their competitor [[Bing]] prominently displayed [[Old Glory]].)

=== Google versus Conservatives ===
Many instances whereby [[information]] is comprised ideologically and displayed for the masses. Watchdog website NewsBusters.org published that Google had in fact labeled [[conservative]] [[American Spectator]] as "This site may harm your computer." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/28/google-claims-american-spectator-site-may-harm-your-computer Google Claims Conservative Website ‘May Harm Your Computer’] December 28,2007</ref>

Google continues to block pro-family website [http://www.massresistance.org/ MassResistance]. Some people complain his organization promotes hatred towards homosexuals. Google gives the standard legal trash as an excuse "'Users may not publish material that promotes hate towards groups based on race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.'" MassResistance replies "Of course we are not promoting hate against anybody." <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=603372 Accusation: Google targets, blocks pro-family website again OneNewsNow.com, July 15,2009]</ref>

[[YouTube]] owner, Google continues to protect [[Planned Parenthood]] by removing undercover videos exposing abortion clinic law-breaking. <ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7416111014.html YouTube Bans Student Group's Video Showing Abuse at Planned Parenthood Christian News Wire, July 21, 2009]</ref>

Without any prior explanation or notice, Google had been terminating its News relationships with conservative e-zines and web journals. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/5477 Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites? NewsBusters, May 22, 2006]</ref>

=== Google versus Anti- Obama Blogs ===
The question immediately raised, "Did Google Silence [[Barack Obama]] critics?" It turns out, no they did not. A group of separate blogs were targeted by their spam filter as a result of manipulating the 'flag' feature. This caused a temporary blockage for five days. Sites affected were Hillary supporters and all anti-Obama. They include http://bluelyon.blogspot.com, http://comealongway.blogspot.com, http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com and http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com and their main associate JustSayNoDeal.com <ref>[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/google-and-the-anti-obama-bloggers/ Google and the Anti-Obama Bloggers] NYTimes June 30, 2008</ref>

==Google bombing ==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is its '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to its constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page to form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, typing "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") and then clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democratic]] Party supporters in late 2003,<ref>[http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/26/BUG3M4GVDS1.DTL In October, Johnson, a Democrat, added the phrase "miserable failure" to his Web site, Old Fashioned Patriot. He then linked the site to the online White House biography of President Bush and asked others to follow his lead]</ref> as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*''''"Great President"''': returns the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidential election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Hitting "I'm Feeling Lucky" for this term directs you to a fake Google page (in reality, it is an [[AlbinoBlackSheep]].com page, styled to look exactly like a Google page, [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html here]) giving no matches, and asking if you meant "French military defeats?".
*'''"Weapons of Mass Destruction"''' would bring up a similar page with the error message 'not found.'

*'''Autocomplete''' - while typing "Conservapedia is" into Google search box, the autocomplete will offer very colorful suggestions.

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

==Controversy==
=== Privacy Concerns===

Google has been criticized by privacy activists and others. Recently, Google chief executive Eric Schmidt said, "We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don’t know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google’s expansion." <ref>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html</ref> Google has attempted to "remedy" this situation by storing search information, in effect, keeping tabs on people for two years after they search. This has led Google critic Daniel Brandt to create "Scroogle.org", which runs Google searches that users conduct through his organization's personal servers to prevent Google from being able to connect any personal information to the searchers. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55935</ref>

===Hypocrisy on Net neutrality===
Neil Stevens of Redstate.com notes that Google says one thing and does another, tarnishing their reputation in the process. He lists where Google emphasizes support then does what they want in regards to shutting down access. <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2009/08/23/google-undermines-the-internet/ Google undermines the Internet, RedState.com, August 23, 2009]</ref>

*Exhibit A: Google supports ‘[[net neutrality]]’
*Exhibit B: Google is set to argue against Apple’s blocking of Google Voice from iPhones
*Exhibit C: Google blocks Skype from Android-based phones

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Google]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Spore (video game)

2010-03-08T14:26:57Z

VyacheslavMolotov:

'''''Spore''''' is a [[computer]] [[video game|game]] designed by Will Wright, the creator of ''[[The Sims]]'' and the ''[[SimCity]]'' series. Wright has aspired to the creation of video games which mimic or replicate life, in an entertaining fashion, and the trend of the SimCity games was towards greater accuracy, realism, depth of control, and detail. The game supports evolution and science and should not be given to little children in order to save them from Liberal brainwashing.

In this sense, ''Spore'' is a departure from the trend. In the game, the player takes control of a single cell, and guides the [[evolution]] of its species through a vast time span, eventually becoming an [[animal]] and forming a [[civilization]], before exploring space through a UFO.

The game was released in September 2008, and is available for Windows and Macintosh.

The "Creepy and Cute Parts Pack," a set of 60 additional parts for the Creature Creator, was released on November 18, 2008. The first full expansion, ''Spore Galactic Adventures'', is scheduled for release in Spring 2009.

==References==
*Official ''Spore'' [http://www.spore.com/index.php website].
[[category:Entertainment]]

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2010-03-08T14:14:33Z

VyacheslavMolotov: /* Not at all */

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

Every single one of the users arguing against guns merely argues that the bad guys don't have guns if we ban them. However it is the opposite. If the United States utelizes gun control, ONLY the criminals will have guns and the law abiding citizens will not be able to stop them.

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

'''''I'd''' like to point out that the amount of gun related incidents per capita is still lower in the UK. OBVIOUSLY you have to take that into account. Besides... it's not like the UK has ever been a victim of terrorist attacks... right? - [[User:GShore|GShore]]''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

Hah, I Don't think that gun control is the answer to crime solving. Did you know that the cities with Gun shows and that have guns are safer then the ones who don't have guns. I mean come on people this is obvious, we need guns, war is what made this country what it is. So, live with it you're going to want to have guns one day. Just wait, just you wait.

Sargedave

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts the Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Sweden has no gun control, in fact everyone is in the military and has a gun, and their crime rates are through the floor. who wants to rob someone who has a desert eagle in their back pocket? Not me.

--I find it interesting how you say that if we banned guns before the 1920s then there would be less gun violence today. That is an ignorant statement and holds no ground in a gun control debate. Unless you have a time machine guns will not get banned in the past, so don't even talk about it.

Also, if guns were banned today you have no way of knowing that people would run out, remember guns will still be made in other countries smuggled in like drugs. There is also a number of craftsman who make and customize guns, if suddenly their career becomes illegal they will either find a new career or make guns illegally. In summation there's no way of proving people will run out of guns.

As for the gun control, you can't simply refer to criminals, millions of honest people who will never kill anyone use guns. I for example have been raised with guns, since I was able to shoot I have been. Not only is going out to the range and plinking a great way to spend an afternoon, its also a great way to bond with friends and family members. Some of my best memories are shooting in my backyard with my cousin and my father, not because of guns necessarily but because we were all doing something we love together. Hunting is also a tradition which has existed since the dawn of man, and has modernized to involve guns. I can truly say one of the best ways to enjoy nature is to wake up before dawn and go dear hunting with family and friends, even if nothing is shot, its still very enjoyable.

Many people view guns as weapons, or something to kill another human being with. I must say that yes guns are dangerous but when in the right hands they are quite safe. Simply because a select few individuals choose to commit crimes with guns, that is no grounds for an all out ban. Also, many underestimate how simple acquiring a gun, more specifically a hand gun is. For those of us who follow the laws, in New York State, for acquiring a handgun, the process is in fact rather lengthy. An application must be filled out and submitted to local police department, as well as a letter as to why one wants an pistol permit. Then the police review the information, send it to the FBI for a background check. After this the findings are sent back to the county judge for approval, and every hand gun bought must be place on a card carried by the owner. This process can take over a year and there is no guarantee you will be accepted.

I must say this seems quite adequate in deterring the wrong people from acquiring a pistol. Finally if we are so worried about objects that kill humans, why don't we talk about banning cars. Cars kill more people kill then guns do in the US, yet we aren't arguing about controlling cars. The fact of the matter is people die and people will kill other people, any object can be deadly, so the next time you argue for stricter gun control remember guns are merely a tool. In my personal opinion a two day waiting period for purchasing a gun is adequate gun control. I do feel that being able to waltz into a gun store and purchase 15 pistols is ridiculous. I hope I have given readers an insight into guns and their possibility for non-violent use.[[User:H20h0us391|H20h0us391]] 17:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The difference between cars and guns is that you don't go out with intent to kill with a car. A gun there aren't any other uses besides shooting things. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

'''what part of NO dont liberals understand?'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally my belief is since everyone carried guns in the west there was obviously no crime and history has it wrong. I mean history doesn't tell you anything. So I'm going to go buy a gun and a holster, a hat, maybe a pair of boots with spurs, and a horse. Then I'm going to challenge somebody to a duel at high noon. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

so your going to challenge someone to a duel with guns? um... forgive my ignorance but weren't the people with guns who went around shooting people usually outlaws/sherrifs? outlaws ignore gun-control and cops aren't restricted by them. so unless you were a outlaw then you probably wouldn't shoot anyone (and by the way wouldn't challenging someone to a gun duel (attempted murder i think)) unless it was in self defense-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

No. The populace should be armed, not just criminals and gangland types. [[User:Bojenmi|Bojenmi]] 14:38, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Start: You are cooking a delicious meal. you accidentally put your hand on the burner. Would you keep it there letting your hand turn into another course in your delicious meal? IS that common sense?
So you are a thief and are about to rob a house. The owner has his gun pointed at your face. Would you really continue to rob him? All he has to do is take the half-a-second to squeeze the trigger and they're picking you up with a stick and a spoon. IS that common sense?
Also, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT BY ME FOR BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE, THEN DON'T BREAK INTO MY HOUSE! It really is a simple solution to that problem. If you don't want to get burned, then take your hand off the burner!

Also, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!! How the hell hard is that!? Citizens who disagree with that do not understand the meaning of freedom. IT goes back to my point earlier. So now you are the government and you just banned guns. Are you going to really try to get the guns from the people who are aiming them at you? You are on the wrong side of the barrel, therefore, you are not calling the shots. I would also like to add that if that day ever comes (which is actually fairly unlikely) it is the responsibility of the American people to fight it until it is fixed as stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is the responsibility of the people to overthrow that government that threatens the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

YOu're in a hostage situation and the gunman tells you to get on the floor. SO what do you do!? you get on the floor. (And then while he's looking away, I pull my Tarus Judge from by holster and fill him full of AAA 410 buck shot and the hostage situation is over.)

Honestly, sometimes liberals need to get a lesson in common damn sense and stop trying to overthrow every bit of America and human nature with their goody-goody feel good mentality that "would be so nice and wonderful" and makes me want to throw up from how fake and disgusting it is.

The only reason I can think of that the government would want to ban guns is because they are afraid of the citizens who may revolt with their guns. IT would pave the way for the government to take away all of the rest of the bill of rights and we turn into a dictatorship. Although, if they were smart they would be afraid to take away the right to bear arms because they should know by no that Americans will not go quietly into the night. IF it means the beginning of the second civil war, then so be it. I know I, and every other gun owner I know will fight to the death to maintain the freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is what is boils down to. Also, you can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold hands comes to mind. And again, the key is I will be using the gun before my hands (or the rest of me) are cold, and dead to prevent me from becoming cold and dead. I could go on and on, but I think you all get the picture. End [mattfelton at 8:15pm 11/16/09]

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, but only part of the answer I think that there always will be some who have their own gun by illegal means but I think that if guns were illegal it would help-Mr.Random "flying butresses"

:Machine guns have been banned in the USA for over 80 years. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:26, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interestingly, Canada has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But a much lower gun homicide rate. Maybe it's the overt and strong rejection of European culture that has doomed the US to its globally-high firearm homicide rate? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This is a blatantly false fact. According to the CBC, gun ownership is more than 10x higher in the United States than Canada - a statistic that roughly mirrors the comparitive murder rate. Furthermore, handguns are banned in many municipalities including Toronto, the largest city in Canada. [[User:Alttansou|Alttansou]] 15:00, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "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." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Present-day Baghdad? ==
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].

I once thought that argument had some merit to it. But by all accounts [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.

The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''

Isn't Baghdad a fair example of one of the ways gun ownership can go wrong? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

not really. america was just a different animal when it came to this subject for MANY reasons
and really until JFK was killed everything was pertty cool here in the homeland. we just
never had the problems the rest of the world had of which there are too MANY to list.
maybe only isreal and switzerland can understand but the rest of the world is too screwed up.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:10, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

The situation that is apparent in Baghdad cannot be attributed to universal gun ownership by the population. It can be attributed however to the basic desire intrinsic in all humanity to rule over more than oneself. Throughout history, whenever a large power is toppled by external forces which then do not seek total takeover, there will be an ongoing power struggle to fill the void until one group gains ascendency (the case is usually, but not always, different in the case of an internally sparked overthrow). In the case of Iraq, the US coalition is the external force. To say that gun ownership is the cause of the troubles would be to ignore that men seek power and guns empower. Since a gun is currently one of the cheapest and most effective method for an individual to wield power, it only follows that those who do not possess power yet desire it or wish to resist those who do should seek guns. If no guns existed and the current method of empowerment were a sharpen popsicle stick, thousands of people would die from popsicle stick related injuries. If it became illegal to sharpen popsicle sticks, people who respect the law would generally cease sharpening sticks. But people who do not respect the law would still carry their tools of empowerment. This leads to a rather one sided contest when one of the latter individuals attempts to exercise his power over one of the former. The argument that nobody would possess popsicle sticks due to the law or that the average person would be unable to procure a popsicle stick for the same reason is falacious. Even if every single popsicle stick were gathered up and destroyed, the ruling power would still maintain a large collection of popsicle sticks on hand in the event that people became unsubmissive to the law. And eventually people would discover rocks. Imagine the logistical nightmare it would be to collect and destroy all the rocks!

(as an aside, the greatest threat to freedom is bankers, and after that a standing army. see T. Jefferson and N. Webster)
--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 15:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==No, it won't==
Criminals don't have legal weapons and they will continue do obtain them from black market anyway. Gun control will leave people defenseless. [[User:VyacheslavMolotov|VyacheslavMolotov]] 09:14, 8 March 2010 (EST)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2010-03-08T14:14:16Z

VyacheslavMolotov:

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

Every single one of the users arguing against guns merely argues that the bad guys don't have guns if we ban them. However it is the opposite. If the United States utelizes gun control, ONLY the criminals will have guns and the law abiding citizens will not be able to stop them.

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

'''''I'd''' like to point out that the amount of gun related incidents per capita is still lower in the UK. OBVIOUSLY you have to take that into account. Besides... it's not like the UK has ever been a victim of terrorist attacks... right? - [[User:GShore|GShore]]''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

Hah, I Don't think that gun control is the answer to crime solving. Did you know that the cities with Gun shows and that have guns are safer then the ones who don't have guns. I mean come on people this is obvious, we need guns, war is what made this country what it is. So, live with it you're going to want to have guns one day. Just wait, just you wait.

Sargedave

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts the Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Sweden has no gun control, in fact everyone is in the military and has a gun, and their crime rates are through the floor. who wants to rob someone who has a desert eagle in their back pocket? Not me.

--I find it interesting how you say that if we banned guns before the 1920s then there would be less gun violence today. That is an ignorant statement and holds no ground in a gun control debate. Unless you have a time machine guns will not get banned in the past, so don't even talk about it.

Also, if guns were banned today you have no way of knowing that people would run out, remember guns will still be made in other countries smuggled in like drugs. There is also a number of craftsman who make and customize guns, if suddenly their career becomes illegal they will either find a new career or make guns illegally. In summation there's no way of proving people will run out of guns.

As for the gun control, you can't simply refer to criminals, millions of honest people who will never kill anyone use guns. I for example have been raised with guns, since I was able to shoot I have been. Not only is going out to the range and plinking a great way to spend an afternoon, its also a great way to bond with friends and family members. Some of my best memories are shooting in my backyard with my cousin and my father, not because of guns necessarily but because we were all doing something we love together. Hunting is also a tradition which has existed since the dawn of man, and has modernized to involve guns. I can truly say one of the best ways to enjoy nature is to wake up before dawn and go dear hunting with family and friends, even if nothing is shot, its still very enjoyable.

Many people view guns as weapons, or something to kill another human being with. I must say that yes guns are dangerous but when in the right hands they are quite safe. Simply because a select few individuals choose to commit crimes with guns, that is no grounds for an all out ban. Also, many underestimate how simple acquiring a gun, more specifically a hand gun is. For those of us who follow the laws, in New York State, for acquiring a handgun, the process is in fact rather lengthy. An application must be filled out and submitted to local police department, as well as a letter as to why one wants an pistol permit. Then the police review the information, send it to the FBI for a background check. After this the findings are sent back to the county judge for approval, and every hand gun bought must be place on a card carried by the owner. This process can take over a year and there is no guarantee you will be accepted.

I must say this seems quite adequate in deterring the wrong people from acquiring a pistol. Finally if we are so worried about objects that kill humans, why don't we talk about banning cars. Cars kill more people kill then guns do in the US, yet we aren't arguing about controlling cars. The fact of the matter is people die and people will kill other people, any object can be deadly, so the next time you argue for stricter gun control remember guns are merely a tool. In my personal opinion a two day waiting period for purchasing a gun is adequate gun control. I do feel that being able to waltz into a gun store and purchase 15 pistols is ridiculous. I hope I have given readers an insight into guns and their possibility for non-violent use.[[User:H20h0us391|H20h0us391]] 17:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The difference between cars and guns is that you don't go out with intent to kill with a car. A gun there aren't any other uses besides shooting things. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

'''what part of NO dont liberals understand?'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally my belief is since everyone carried guns in the west there was obviously no crime and history has it wrong. I mean history doesn't tell you anything. So I'm going to go buy a gun and a holster, a hat, maybe a pair of boots with spurs, and a horse. Then I'm going to challenge somebody to a duel at high noon. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

so your going to challenge someone to a duel with guns? um... forgive my ignorance but weren't the people with guns who went around shooting people usually outlaws/sherrifs? outlaws ignore gun-control and cops aren't restricted by them. so unless you were a outlaw then you probably wouldn't shoot anyone (and by the way wouldn't challenging someone to a gun duel (attempted murder i think)) unless it was in self defense-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

No. The populace should be armed, not just criminals and gangland types. [[User:Bojenmi|Bojenmi]] 14:38, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Start: You are cooking a delicious meal. you accidentally put your hand on the burner. Would you keep it there letting your hand turn into another course in your delicious meal? IS that common sense?
So you are a thief and are about to rob a house. The owner has his gun pointed at your face. Would you really continue to rob him? All he has to do is take the half-a-second to squeeze the trigger and they're picking you up with a stick and a spoon. IS that common sense?
Also, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT BY ME FOR BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE, THEN DON'T BREAK INTO MY HOUSE! It really is a simple solution to that problem. If you don't want to get burned, then take your hand off the burner!

Also, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!! How the hell hard is that!? Citizens who disagree with that do not understand the meaning of freedom. IT goes back to my point earlier. So now you are the government and you just banned guns. Are you going to really try to get the guns from the people who are aiming them at you? You are on the wrong side of the barrel, therefore, you are not calling the shots. I would also like to add that if that day ever comes (which is actually fairly unlikely) it is the responsibility of the American people to fight it until it is fixed as stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is the responsibility of the people to overthrow that government that threatens the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

YOu're in a hostage situation and the gunman tells you to get on the floor. SO what do you do!? you get on the floor. (And then while he's looking away, I pull my Tarus Judge from by holster and fill him full of AAA 410 buck shot and the hostage situation is over.)

Honestly, sometimes liberals need to get a lesson in common damn sense and stop trying to overthrow every bit of America and human nature with their goody-goody feel good mentality that "would be so nice and wonderful" and makes me want to throw up from how fake and disgusting it is.

The only reason I can think of that the government would want to ban guns is because they are afraid of the citizens who may revolt with their guns. IT would pave the way for the government to take away all of the rest of the bill of rights and we turn into a dictatorship. Although, if they were smart they would be afraid to take away the right to bear arms because they should know by no that Americans will not go quietly into the night. IF it means the beginning of the second civil war, then so be it. I know I, and every other gun owner I know will fight to the death to maintain the freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is what is boils down to. Also, you can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold hands comes to mind. And again, the key is I will be using the gun before my hands (or the rest of me) are cold, and dead to prevent me from becoming cold and dead. I could go on and on, but I think you all get the picture. End [mattfelton at 8:15pm 11/16/09]

== Not at all==
No, because criminals don't have legal weapons. Gun control would just leave non-criminals defenseless.

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, but only part of the answer I think that there always will be some who have their own gun by illegal means but I think that if guns were illegal it would help-Mr.Random "flying butresses"

:Machine guns have been banned in the USA for over 80 years. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:26, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interestingly, Canada has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But a much lower gun homicide rate. Maybe it's the overt and strong rejection of European culture that has doomed the US to its globally-high firearm homicide rate? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This is a blatantly false fact. According to the CBC, gun ownership is more than 10x higher in the United States than Canada - a statistic that roughly mirrors the comparitive murder rate. Furthermore, handguns are banned in many municipalities including Toronto, the largest city in Canada. [[User:Alttansou|Alttansou]] 15:00, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "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." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Present-day Baghdad? ==
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].

I once thought that argument had some merit to it. But by all accounts [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.

The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''

Isn't Baghdad a fair example of one of the ways gun ownership can go wrong? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

not really. america was just a different animal when it came to this subject for MANY reasons
and really until JFK was killed everything was pertty cool here in the homeland. we just
never had the problems the rest of the world had of which there are too MANY to list.
maybe only isreal and switzerland can understand but the rest of the world is too screwed up.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:10, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

The situation that is apparent in Baghdad cannot be attributed to universal gun ownership by the population. It can be attributed however to the basic desire intrinsic in all humanity to rule over more than oneself. Throughout history, whenever a large power is toppled by external forces which then do not seek total takeover, there will be an ongoing power struggle to fill the void until one group gains ascendency (the case is usually, but not always, different in the case of an internally sparked overthrow). In the case of Iraq, the US coalition is the external force. To say that gun ownership is the cause of the troubles would be to ignore that men seek power and guns empower. Since a gun is currently one of the cheapest and most effective method for an individual to wield power, it only follows that those who do not possess power yet desire it or wish to resist those who do should seek guns. If no guns existed and the current method of empowerment were a sharpen popsicle stick, thousands of people would die from popsicle stick related injuries. If it became illegal to sharpen popsicle sticks, people who respect the law would generally cease sharpening sticks. But people who do not respect the law would still carry their tools of empowerment. This leads to a rather one sided contest when one of the latter individuals attempts to exercise his power over one of the former. The argument that nobody would possess popsicle sticks due to the law or that the average person would be unable to procure a popsicle stick for the same reason is falacious. Even if every single popsicle stick were gathered up and destroyed, the ruling power would still maintain a large collection of popsicle sticks on hand in the event that people became unsubmissive to the law. And eventually people would discover rocks. Imagine the logistical nightmare it would be to collect and destroy all the rocks!

(as an aside, the greatest threat to freedom is bankers, and after that a standing army. see T. Jefferson and N. Webster)
--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 15:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==No, it won't==
Criminals don't have legal weapons and they will continue do obtain them from black market anyway. Gun control will leave people defenseless. [[User:VyacheslavMolotov|VyacheslavMolotov]] 09:14, 8 March 2010 (EST)

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2010-03-08T14:12:38Z

VyacheslavMolotov: /* No */

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

Every single one of the users arguing against guns merely argues that the bad guys don't have guns if we ban them. However it is the opposite. If the United States utelizes gun control, ONLY the criminals will have guns and the law abiding citizens will not be able to stop them.

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

'''''I'd''' like to point out that the amount of gun related incidents per capita is still lower in the UK. OBVIOUSLY you have to take that into account. Besides... it's not like the UK has ever been a victim of terrorist attacks... right? - [[User:GShore|GShore]]''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

Hah, I Don't think that gun control is the answer to crime solving. Did you know that the cities with Gun shows and that have guns are safer then the ones who don't have guns. I mean come on people this is obvious, we need guns, war is what made this country what it is. So, live with it you're going to want to have guns one day. Just wait, just you wait.

Sargedave

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts the Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Sweden has no gun control, in fact everyone is in the military and has a gun, and their crime rates are through the floor. who wants to rob someone who has a desert eagle in their back pocket? Not me.

--I find it interesting how you say that if we banned guns before the 1920s then there would be less gun violence today. That is an ignorant statement and holds no ground in a gun control debate. Unless you have a time machine guns will not get banned in the past, so don't even talk about it.

Also, if guns were banned today you have no way of knowing that people would run out, remember guns will still be made in other countries smuggled in like drugs. There is also a number of craftsman who make and customize guns, if suddenly their career becomes illegal they will either find a new career or make guns illegally. In summation there's no way of proving people will run out of guns.

As for the gun control, you can't simply refer to criminals, millions of honest people who will never kill anyone use guns. I for example have been raised with guns, since I was able to shoot I have been. Not only is going out to the range and plinking a great way to spend an afternoon, its also a great way to bond with friends and family members. Some of my best memories are shooting in my backyard with my cousin and my father, not because of guns necessarily but because we were all doing something we love together. Hunting is also a tradition which has existed since the dawn of man, and has modernized to involve guns. I can truly say one of the best ways to enjoy nature is to wake up before dawn and go dear hunting with family and friends, even if nothing is shot, its still very enjoyable.

Many people view guns as weapons, or something to kill another human being with. I must say that yes guns are dangerous but when in the right hands they are quite safe. Simply because a select few individuals choose to commit crimes with guns, that is no grounds for an all out ban. Also, many underestimate how simple acquiring a gun, more specifically a hand gun is. For those of us who follow the laws, in New York State, for acquiring a handgun, the process is in fact rather lengthy. An application must be filled out and submitted to local police department, as well as a letter as to why one wants an pistol permit. Then the police review the information, send it to the FBI for a background check. After this the findings are sent back to the county judge for approval, and every hand gun bought must be place on a card carried by the owner. This process can take over a year and there is no guarantee you will be accepted.

I must say this seems quite adequate in deterring the wrong people from acquiring a pistol. Finally if we are so worried about objects that kill humans, why don't we talk about banning cars. Cars kill more people kill then guns do in the US, yet we aren't arguing about controlling cars. The fact of the matter is people die and people will kill other people, any object can be deadly, so the next time you argue for stricter gun control remember guns are merely a tool. In my personal opinion a two day waiting period for purchasing a gun is adequate gun control. I do feel that being able to waltz into a gun store and purchase 15 pistols is ridiculous. I hope I have given readers an insight into guns and their possibility for non-violent use.[[User:H20h0us391|H20h0us391]] 17:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:The difference between cars and guns is that you don't go out with intent to kill with a car. A gun there aren't any other uses besides shooting things. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

'''what part of NO dont liberals understand?'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally my belief is since everyone carried guns in the west there was obviously no crime and history has it wrong. I mean history doesn't tell you anything. So I'm going to go buy a gun and a holster, a hat, maybe a pair of boots with spurs, and a horse. Then I'm going to challenge somebody to a duel at high noon. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

so your going to challenge someone to a duel with guns? um... forgive my ignorance but weren't the people with guns who went around shooting people usually outlaws/sherrifs? outlaws ignore gun-control and cops aren't restricted by them. so unless you were a outlaw then you probably wouldn't shoot anyone (and by the way wouldn't challenging someone to a gun duel (attempted murder i think)) unless it was in self defense-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

No. The populace should be armed, not just criminals and gangland types. [[User:Bojenmi|Bojenmi]] 14:38, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Start: You are cooking a delicious meal. you accidentally put your hand on the burner. Would you keep it there letting your hand turn into another course in your delicious meal? IS that common sense?
So you are a thief and are about to rob a house. The owner has his gun pointed at your face. Would you really continue to rob him? All he has to do is take the half-a-second to squeeze the trigger and they're picking you up with a stick and a spoon. IS that common sense?
Also, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT BY ME FOR BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE, THEN DON'T BREAK INTO MY HOUSE! It really is a simple solution to that problem. If you don't want to get burned, then take your hand off the burner!

Also, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!! How the hell hard is that!? Citizens who disagree with that do not understand the meaning of freedom. IT goes back to my point earlier. So now you are the government and you just banned guns. Are you going to really try to get the guns from the people who are aiming them at you? You are on the wrong side of the barrel, therefore, you are not calling the shots. I would also like to add that if that day ever comes (which is actually fairly unlikely) it is the responsibility of the American people to fight it until it is fixed as stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is the responsibility of the people to overthrow that government that threatens the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

YOu're in a hostage situation and the gunman tells you to get on the floor. SO what do you do!? you get on the floor. (And then while he's looking away, I pull my Tarus Judge from by holster and fill him full of AAA 410 buck shot and the hostage situation is over.)

Honestly, sometimes liberals need to get a lesson in common damn sense and stop trying to overthrow every bit of America and human nature with their goody-goody feel good mentality that "would be so nice and wonderful" and makes me want to throw up from how fake and disgusting it is.

The only reason I can think of that the government would want to ban guns is because they are afraid of the citizens who may revolt with their guns. IT would pave the way for the government to take away all of the rest of the bill of rights and we turn into a dictatorship. Although, if they were smart they would be afraid to take away the right to bear arms because they should know by no that Americans will not go quietly into the night. IF it means the beginning of the second civil war, then so be it. I know I, and every other gun owner I know will fight to the death to maintain the freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is what is boils down to. Also, you can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold hands comes to mind. And again, the key is I will be using the gun before my hands (or the rest of me) are cold, and dead to prevent me from becoming cold and dead. I could go on and on, but I think you all get the picture. End [mattfelton at 8:15pm 11/16/09]

== Not at all==
No, because criminals don't have legal weapons. Gun control would just leave non-criminals defenseless.

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, but only part of the answer I think that there always will be some who have their own gun by illegal means but I think that if guns were illegal it would help-Mr.Random "flying butresses"

:Machine guns have been banned in the USA for over 80 years. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 14:26, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interestingly, Canada has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But a much lower gun homicide rate. Maybe it's the overt and strong rejection of European culture that has doomed the US to its globally-high firearm homicide rate? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This is a blatantly false fact. According to the CBC, gun ownership is more than 10x higher in the United States than Canada - a statistic that roughly mirrors the comparitive murder rate. Furthermore, handguns are banned in many municipalities including Toronto, the largest city in Canada. [[User:Alttansou|Alttansou]] 15:00, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "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." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Present-day Baghdad? ==
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].

I once thought that argument had some merit to it. But by all accounts [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.

The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''

Isn't Baghdad a fair example of one of the ways gun ownership can go wrong? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

not really. america was just a different animal when it came to this subject for MANY reasons
and really until JFK was killed everything was pertty cool here in the homeland. we just
never had the problems the rest of the world had of which there are too MANY to list.
maybe only isreal and switzerland can understand but the rest of the world is too screwed up.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:10, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

The situation that is apparent in Baghdad cannot be attributed to universal gun ownership by the population. It can be attributed however to the basic desire intrinsic in all humanity to rule over more than oneself. Throughout history, whenever a large power is toppled by external forces which then do not seek total takeover, there will be an ongoing power struggle to fill the void until one group gains ascendency (the case is usually, but not always, different in the case of an internally sparked overthrow). In the case of Iraq, the US coalition is the external force. To say that gun ownership is the cause of the troubles would be to ignore that men seek power and guns empower. Since a gun is currently one of the cheapest and most effective method for an individual to wield power, it only follows that those who do not possess power yet desire it or wish to resist those who do should seek guns. If no guns existed and the current method of empowerment were a sharpen popsicle stick, thousands of people would die from popsicle stick related injuries. If it became illegal to sharpen popsicle sticks, people who respect the law would generally cease sharpening sticks. But people who do not respect the law would still carry their tools of empowerment. This leads to a rather one sided contest when one of the latter individuals attempts to exercise his power over one of the former. The argument that nobody would possess popsicle sticks due to the law or that the average person would be unable to procure a popsicle stick for the same reason is falacious. Even if every single popsicle stick were gathered up and destroyed, the ruling power would still maintain a large collection of popsicle sticks on hand in the event that people became unsubmissive to the law. And eventually people would discover rocks. Imagine the logistical nightmare it would be to collect and destroy all the rocks!

(as an aside, the greatest threat to freedom is bankers, and after that a standing army. see T. Jefferson and N. Webster)
--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 15:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)