Table of Contents
- Students Speak Out
- Visitors Speak Out
- Cop Talk - The Street Cops Speak Up
- Different Voices
Message: First of all thank you very much for having this article, it among others has helped me so very much. We live in a country that allows us certain freedoms, you see my 11 yr old son was shot and killed by a 16 yr old still I feel we as Americans have the right to bear firearms if we wish, I do think the law about the registration is good and the mandatory waiting period is good as well. My problem now is I have an english professor who is extremely liberal, I need to be able to argue my point do that he has very little to come back on me with please tell me how would you argue this , in a situation like this Also, would you mind if I use the information on your page?Of course I replied and more than happily okay'd the use of the website information.
I just wanted to let you know how great I think your site is! I am a college student in Oregon and I found your page to be an incrediable resource for the topic of gun control! Thanks for the information on such a touchy subject!
Your site is the best one I have come across for my school debate team. I'm giving links to everybody. My only problem is that I don't see your name anywhere on the site. My teacher says that we have to quote people exactly, full name and everything, or else we're going to get crushed in cross-x. Can you help me? I'm not asking for your phone number or anything, and I'm not a stalker; I just want to be able to quote you. Thanks a lot!Note: I'll permit anyone to use the information in my website as long as they include the URL to the website's main page (http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/gunintro.html). If a name is required for a school paper, please e-mail me with the name of your school, city & state and the teacher's name. I'm more than happy to help educate students.
Thanks for the great page. I usually don't write this stuff but right now i'm doing a project on the second amendment and this helped a lot. Would you mind if i used you as a link?
I agree with you in that the media tends to overblow the issue on gun control. I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms, however I am only a 16 year old high school student. my dad owns several firearms and while I am not in the disagreement with background checks I am in the disagreement with the way this whole Brady bill is going. in my opinion, pretty soon it is going to turn into an issue of abolishing guns all together.
However, my views aside, I have to do a debate in favor of gun control. i was wondering what kind of facts you could send me. please respond quickly seeing as how I only have two weeks to complete the research. thank you.
I love your website. It contains lots of useful information. I especially like the quotes by those who are in favor of gun control; it shows their real intent.
I would like to add the following comment. In your section, under the heading of: The Second Admendment, you mention that the Constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms (I'm paraphrasing here), but my understanding is that the Bill of Rights were not rights that were granted to us. Instead of being legal rights which are granted by those on a position of authority, the Bill of Rights are natural rights which can be considered as being either given to us by God himself or as being a natural part of the human condition.
It may seem like a little thing, but I don't want anyone to think that rights are something that can be taken away as easily as they are given, especially since the Bill of Rights are not something that's given to us anyways.
Keep up the excellent website. :-)
A LETTER TO ALL GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES AND POLITICIANS:
Well it has happened again. Another senseless massacre. As I watch the news everybody says they cannot understand why it happened. I cannot believe that society can be so blind as to what has led up to the violence we have today.
Again we hear the cry from Gun Control Advocates and some politicians for more gun laws. I do not understand how supposedly intelligent people can be so ignorant as to think this will solve the problem. Their idea of Crime Control is Gun Control, instead of Criminal Control. It's like the little kid that steals gum from the store. The solution? Outlaw or take away the gum therefore he can't steal, problem solved. Wake up people it doesn't work like that. People that use guns to kill should loose their life in return.
I do not buy the notion that restricting guns is the answer. When I was a young teenager in the early 1960's my father had a couple of rifles and two or three handguns. He showed my younger brother and me how to shoot safely. Being typical kids we would sneak out the guns sometimes and go target shooting. In those days I could walk into any hardware store and buy ammunition but never in our wildest dreams did we ever think of taking one of those guns to school or use it to kill another human being.
My father tells about the time when as a teenager in the 1940's the county was doing some road work and they had dropped of boxes of dynamite along the road and left it there till they got to that area to work. Well again teenagers being teenagers, about 6 of the boys stole a whole box of powder and took it up onto the top of a mountain in their rural community and set it off at midnight. The only harm done was a loud explosion that woke up a few people, there again it never crossed their minds to go damage personnel property or kill people. Back in those days anybody could buy dynamite and hand guns too. So restricting guns does not solve the problem.
Now if you are really serious about stopping the problem of violence in this country then clean up the violence and filth on TV and in the MOVIES. The reason I never thought of using a gun for violence is the same reason my father and his friends did not use that box of dynamite in a violent way. When we grew up we did not have the video games that promoted violence. His generation did not have TV and in those days the movies did not glorify that criminal element like it does today. We did not have a TV until I was around ten and my parents controlled what we saw as kids. They also taught me the meaning of morality, as did his parents before him.
Today unfortunately, because of our fast paced society that has to many parents both working to make ends meet we have turned to baby sitters, daycare centers and TV to take care our kids. No wonder the morality of this country is a shambles. Like the old saying goes, "By beholding, we become changed". So for the past couple of generations the young people in this country have been bombarded from an early age with all kinds of violence until it becomes second nature to so many.
Still people say why the killing and violence? It as plain as the nose on your face.
SO WAKE UP AMERICA as long as the kids and people in this country are subjected to the daily barrage of violence from video games, videos, TV, suggestive lyrics in music and the movies, the violence will only continue.
So passing more gun legislation is a waste of time it hasn't worked yet, it never will.
Something that I didn't see mentioned on your site about gun control is the current legal view of law enforcement's responsibility to it's citizens. The Supreme Court in Warren vs. Washington D.C. App 1981 said "The police have a duty only to the 'public at large' and not to the individual members of the community.... A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."Actually, the Warren case is covered in the Your Rights to Police Protection page.
This means that I, as a police officer, DO NOT have to provide protection to you as an individual. Your ultimate safety is in your hands alone. If you are unable to protect yourself due to your size, sex, handicap, or any other reason, and a police officer is not available, you're out of luck.
I am a current federal police officer and graduate student. I have examined this subject both on the street and in the academic settings. I am convinced (as are most officers I know) that guns do more good in the United States in the hands of law abiding citizens than do illegally possessed firearms in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
The day this country bans private ownership of firearms is the day I turn in my badge. I will not be a roving target for the nut cases that see us as the first line of government tyranny. That's exactly what we will have in this country. Guns ensure the freedoms we have and our very safety as individuals. Don't let the bad people win, defend your "rights to keep and arm bears" ;-)
Just wanted to say good job on dispelling the myth that gun control works in our country. I'm a police officer in Texas who believes that all of this silly gun control non-sense like the Brady law only impacts law abiding citizens. It even impacts police officers. I'll explain:
I've been a cop for about 14 years. If I wanted to purchase a handgun, I must submit myself to a criminal background check, wait 5 days and then pick up my handgun. Now if I had just recently graduated from a police academy within the last five years and purchased a handgun, I could walk out the same day with the purchase; no background check, no wait. Better still, if I was a civilian with my Texas CCW permit, I could purchase my handgun today and walk out of the store with it. Does this make sense? Am I missing something here? I cannot find anyone, elected or otherwise who can explain this inconsistency in the Brady law.
Funny how it's okay for me to carry a handgun everyday in the course of my job but I cannot be trusted to purchase one without them checking to see if my background is clear!
Message: What I said 10 years ago still applies.Trooper Krulac is referring to his quote on the What the rank and file police officers think page. Mr. Krulac was quoted as saying "It's wrong for a few police chiefs to endorse the Brady Bill, or any legislation, and say they speak for everyone in law enforcement."
I am an officer from the Washington D.C. Police department. As you know D.C. has the toughest gun control laws in the U.S., it also has one of the highest murder rates per capita.
What does it tell us about gun control? It's the people not the guns, criminals will always have weapons. People like Schumer and Brady scare people into believing that guns are evil implements that craze ordinary people into killing machines. They collect money, lot's of money, to stop this evil. I was raised around guns my entire life, NEVER has one of my guns run down the street killing innocent drug dealers.
Police Officers would rather catch real criminals than arrest law abiding citizens excercizing THEIR rights as citizens.
Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer and Hillary get away from life and my guns and get into punishing real criminals.
You have an informative page. I would have liked to read it all, but sadly I don't have the time. I will be sure to bookmark it though and come back to read more.
I am a Police Corporal with the Ames, Iowa Police Department, with 21 years on the job. Every once in a while a young officer will start spouting gun control, especially in regards to concealed weapons. Before I go on, we should keep in mind that the officers that I am refering to have concealed weapons permits themselves and wouldn't go to the grocery store without a pistol shoved in their shorts. But when the subject is brought up, I like to tell them this story.
I have a good friend that has a concealed weapons permit. He does salvage work and deals mostly in cash. He also lives in a remote rural area of the county. He got his permit by showing that he had a need for the permit, going through classes that were required by law before he could receive the permit, then demonstrating his ability to use the firearm. Now this fellow carries a pistol in his right front pants pocket all the time. If you stop him for a traffic violation he will have that pistol with him. If you were to write him a ticket, he would not shoot you. If you had harsh words for him, he would not shoot you. He is a law abiding citizen and has his pistol for self defense, not defense against the police.
Now this fellow that I know has a neighbor who lives in the same remote area of the county. This other fellow is somewhat of an antisocial. He has spent some time in a mental institution and has also spent time in jail for assaulting a police officer. The other fellow carries a pistol in his right front pants pocket all the time. He has never applied for a permit, has never taken a class on firearms. He has demonstrated his abilities to use the firearm to quite a few of his neighbors, and most agree, that he isn't that good of a shot. If you stop this fellow for a traffic violation he just may shoot you. If you write him a ticket he might just shoot you if he hasn't already. If you have harsh words with him I have little doubt that he will shoot you.
So both of these fellows have a pistol in their pocket and it makes little difference that one is legal and the other is not. The lesson here is that you always need to be careful, because the person you stop may be the one without the permit.
Thanks for your time.
I am an ex-deputy, with 12 years on the force. Living in a small community, there isn't the crime here like in most major cities, but I do feel very strongly about citizens being able to carry a firearm. I have been for it since the issue came up years ago. I was involved with a cowboy action shooting club for several years, and you talk about some good decent people who had the utmost respect for gun safety that you could ever imagine. I always told them (People in the shooting club), that if I were ever in an encounter or a shoot-out with a criminal, I would want them backing me up. I really meant this. There were people from all walks of life, women included, that could probably out shoot most law enforcement officers. I'm not putting law enforcement down at all here, but I really think the public is so misinformed. It has been proven time and time again, that if a criminal even thinks that the person they are about to rob is possibly carrying a gun, they won't mess with them.
Don't you think that if handguns were banned, then criminals would not have access to handguns also. People can always use knifes or bats or etc. Personnally I think it is a good idea for them to get banned.
Down with Handguns!!!
For a supporter of the Gun Lobby in the states you make a convincing case for a reduction rather than an increase inn Gun Control Legislation in the US. Many of the anecdotes of the 'If I'd had a gun then tragedy would've been averted' variety were interesting, if only for the absence of 'If only s/he had had a knife instead of a gun, tragedy would've been averted' anecdotes.In spite of the writer's wishes for utopia, his logic fails to stand up to reality - the reality of my 77 year old mother facing an 20 year old intruder, or your daughter facing three thugs in a parking lot. Less guns might equal less gun crime, but not less crime in general, in my view.
Guns dont kill people, People Kill People. True. But it's harder to kill someone out of arms reach without a gun (or ranged weapon). And the gun represents the ultimate push-button death dealer. Guns exist for one purpose only - to kill things. Anything else is just practice for killing things. Don't you think, in an ideal world with no guns, there'd be a whole lot fewer deaths from gunshot wounds?
Would you dispute that a world without guns (yes I know, but hypothesise dammit!) would be a nicer place to live? The problem is to get from here (little or no gun control [compared to UK]) to there. In the US it seems you have a venerable Gun Culture, nurtured over many many years. And this is why it is going to be so hard for you to rid your society of gun mania.
Your first president was adamant that citizens should be duty bound to arm themselves. OK, but that was way back when you didn't have a standing army to speak of. Your defense is now secured with those really big guns (nukes). And lets face it the situation now is a little different to two centuries ago.
It used to be a legal requirement for all able bodied English men to gather for Longbow practice once a week - but you don't see that happening now.
In the UK we have very strict gun control, and have had for nearly a century. The result, fewer guns in circulation and fewer illegal guns falling into the hands of criminals. Our police are not routinely armed and so there are fewer instances of policemen shooting innocent people dead (Stephen Warldorf in 1985 was the last example I can think of).
Don't you think its time you took a view on gun control? Here's another hypothetical situation, You get to choose between no gun control at all (walk into Wal-Mart with a long criminal record and buy a nice Glock, or perhaps a 60mm cannon for home defence), and total Gun Control (no civilian gun ownership at all, holding an illegal firearm punishable by death). Which would you choose? I know which one I would.
I stumbled on your [expletive] whining propaganda page looking for references to something else in the states and I'm totally disgusted. You obviously don't know the first thing about being civilised or you'd know that guns are meant only to kill and those [expletive] beer swilling, redneck daughter-raping Neanderthal [expletive]-head gun loons who love them are just people who haven't [expletive] murdered someone yet.Well, at least he spelled Neanderthal right. Obviously Mr. Anonymous isn't the kind of person that I would want as my neighbor. Anyone who advocates dragging otherwise law-abiding people into the streets and summarily executing them along with their entire family is pretty unhinged. You'll note the total disregard for constitutional processes when he wonders why Congress doesn't pass a law and throw out judges who disagree. He also doesn't seem to know about the latest data from the U.K. that shows their street thugs are now arming with submachine-guns and shootings are on the rise. But I think this one also speaks well of how some anti-gun people think.
There is NO REASON for anyone to own a gun, EVER! Guns kill and that's all they are good for. The kind of person who would own a gun is not fit to live amongst civilised peoples. They are cowardly, murdering, lying, [expletive]s who have never contributed anything to society and every one of the [expletive] mother[expletive] [expletive]-heads should be dragged out into the streets and executed with their own [expletive] guns along with their families!
I have lived in the U.S.A. twice in my life, much to my regret. I don't know how things became so warped over there that your Congress can't just pass a law banning the [expletive] things and be done with it. [expletive] your [expletive] court system too, if it objects. Just toss the [expletive]s out and put in some judges that will do what's right. But that will never happen because you [expletive] Americans don't have a single drop of [expletive] courage. You all whine when one person gets shot but do nothing about it. And when 10 people are [expletive] chopped up by some mutated militia moron with a machine gun your let that [expletive] [expletive]-ant [expletive] NRA have their way. Pathetic bunch of loons!
And I'm not one of those whimpering little snots you see on your telly over there talking about how they tragically lost little Johnny to some [expletive] gang banger in a drive by shooting. I live in the U.K. where we don't worry about being gunned down in the streets and we are the better for it. Over here, if there was a drive by shooting the police would catch the [expletive]s and jail them for [expletive] life. Things have been much better here since we outlawed guns. Pity we didn't fumigate by hanging the [expletive]s. I just hope you all kill yourselves over there with your precious [expletive] guns so we can come over and make it into the paradise it was supposed to be when you [expletive]-[expletive] the Indians by committing genocide. [expletive] Americans, just a bunch of pathetic [expletive] losers.