Why is gun control such a controversial topic in the US?

[clickprincess]

Most of the world thinks Americans are gun-mad because any mention of gun regulation or control is met with such wild accusations. I know that at least part of the reason is because the NRA and other special interest groups go out of their way to stir the pot but there is also a fundamental fear in this country of someone trying to take away all firearms. President Obama issued an executive order that really didn't add much to the existing gun regulations but tries to beef up existing law. As a result, half the country is going mental on Facebook. 

 

As an American citizen who believes in the 2nd amendment - that we have the right to bear arms - I just don't understand why anyone would mind better background checks and ensuring that people have to at least show they know how to safely use a gun. A big thing that people sputter about is saying 'criminals do not obey laws so how do stricter gun laws help?' - those people are either missing the point or deliberately stirring the pot. The fact is that the vast majority of guns that end up in criminal hands are bought by people who legally purchased them and then sold them to a criminal. If gun regulation helps reduce the number of guns out on the streets, isn't that a start in slowing down the horrifying number of gun deaths in this country?

[Marisa]

 I kind of equate the gun issue to the drug issue. We throw bandages at the issues instead of actually trying to enact meaningful change. We have stricter and stricter drug laws, and yet that has done little to curtail the flood of drugs coming into our country. We have done more through education and outreach to bring down the rate of use and abuse. In my humble opinion, we will do more to curtail gun violence by enacting sweeping mental health reform and through education, then we will by creating a bunch of laws. 

[G R]

Or maybe we should quit focusing on making guns hard to come by and regulate bullets. After all, guns don't kill people unless you beat them with the gun.That, and there is nothing in the constitution about the "right to bear bullets". I'm not being snide, I just don't understand peoples' thought process when they focus on guns and not bullets. Firearms, which by themselves do not kill people, are heavily regulated while the bullets, those projectiles which actually do the killing, are not. It's backwards and, you're right Click, we can probably blame the NRA for that. They get people to focus on the guns which is in the constitution, bringing out the patriot in people, while the real problem isn't being looked at. You have a valid point as well marisa. More focus on mental health issues through education, and education in general, needs to be beefed up.

 

Here's a link to support my opinion:

 

http://smartgunlaws.org/ammunition-regulation-policy-summary/those

 

Good topic Click.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Gentle Rain

[kad613]

This is an interesting topic of conversation in Canada, where the process of owning a gun is long and tedious.  We need a license (permit) to possess a gun.  In order to get that license you have mandatory safety testing, personal references, mandatory waiting period and a thorough background and criminal check.  You also need to be authorized to carry the gun from place to place and the authorization has to be renewed every three years.  The process is for both hunting rifles and restricted firearms (hand gun, short barrel, etc.). 

[larkheye]

I would like to point out that there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the Second Amendment at the basis of all the arms-bearing gun-owning rights arguments. "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." That is all one sentence. The keeping and bearing of arms is our right only because a well-regulated militia is necessary, not because we need to collect guns, or shoot things or people with them. The courts may have had different interpretations over the years, but the original intent was clear.

 

[kad613]

That "keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is misunderstood doesn't surprise me.  People tend to read things and go away with their own interpretation of what is actually said. 

[G R]

2 hours ago, larkheye said:

"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." That is all one sentence. The keeping and bearing of arms is our right only because a well-regulated militia is necessary......

 

Thank you. There are militia's registered with, and regulated by, the federal government. These are the only people the constitution was referring to: http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/list-of-u-s-militia-groups/

You know me, I could go on and on about this, but the bottom line is what Kad said. People will take their own interpretation and make it a cause.