Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from xhrisl Friday, July 04, 2003 - 03:53 (Agree/Disagree?) It is upon the second amendment that all other amendmendments stand, take away the second amendment and the ability to protect all others fall. When you take away the gun as a means of perpetrating violence, you also take away the gun as a means of providing protection against violence, and as the British and Canadians have proven---people will simply find other means of inflicting harm upon each other, such as swords and baseball bats, and when you take those away, the will revert to sticks and stones. Apparently we are as a species violent, and opportunistic by nature. In a world without guns we would invariably find other ways of inflicting our views upon others---the advantage of the gun lies in the fact that it gives the physically weaker and those of us who are not warriors the ability to protect ourselves. Unfortunately it also gives the morally weaker the ability to perpetrate crime. However, to assume that through taking away every gun (even if it where possible) we would eliminate crime... is a misnomer, as many nations who have tried to have found out. Criminals will always find a way to get a hold of a weapon, when the populous lacks the same ability they become a society of victims. It has always surprised me that all over the world countries will allow their citizenry to take up arms in the defense of their nation or state yet more often than not, these same nations and states will not allow the individual to provide a means of defense for themselves. Gun control means hitting your target...bath me in the Red, White and Blue. (reply to this comment)

from 5-second amendment Friday, July 04, 2003 - 02:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I think people should only have the right to bare arms if they have toned triceps and deltoids. Otherwise, "You have the right to wear long sleeves, if you are sleeveless and cant afford them a sleeve will be appointed to you" etc. (reply to this comment)

from frmrjoyish Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 21:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that law abiding citizens with no prior history of violent crime have every right to own guns. At the same time, there is a reason that there are so many guns available to criminals on the black markets. Someone has to put them there and available for purchase, theft, whatever, in the first place. I'm sure that the gun companies are not just innocent bystanders in all of this as there's probably more money to be made in the black market than in the legally regulated gun industry. I also think that if a criminal gets ahold of a gun due to negligence by gun companies or gun shops, perhaps by not doing or ignoring the results of background checks, then the victims or their families have every right to sue. The gun industry should be held acountable for making sure they are not responsible for guns getting in the hands of criminals. Although I generally agree wtih peoples right to own guns, I don't think its necessarily guaranteed by the constitution. It simply says that "an organized militia" has the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of public saftey. If people owning guns becomes more of a risk to public safety than a help, maybe another alternative should be considered! (reply to this comment)

from Montrose77 Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 19:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that licensing guns is as stupid as regulating the right for people to own a knife or learn self defence! Like you've both said, it's the people, not the guns that kill people - if it wasn't a gun, they'd find some other way to do it! To the contrary, I believe that any law-abiding citizen should be required (or at least encouraged) to own, and know how to use, a gun! As long as criminals are able to get better weapons, easier and cheaper than the rest of us, they will always have an advantage - and they know it, too! (reply to this comment)

from katrim4 Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 18:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think people with children, or anyone for that matter, should keep guns anywhere where there is a remote possibility that a child could get his/her hands on one. (I know that is a no brainer for most people, and yet astonishingly, kids get their hands on them every day.) But I agree with you Nick when you say that tighter gun laws won't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. The right to bear arms is an important part of the US culture. And they are a helluva lot of fun on a shooting range!!!! (reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Friday, July 04, 2003, 10:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I spent my entire childhood with at least 1 loaded gun in the house, and managede not to shoot anyone. I was not a particularly well behaved child, either, and was also extremely accident prone, but was at least smart enough not to play with the gun. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, July 03, 2003, 18:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes Kat you are right. Like I said, Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And if you are dumb enough to leave a loaded gun around a child then yes that can be dangerous. However you can safely integrate guns and children into the same home if done with a little common sense. Like a gun safe (with easy access keypad so you still have access in emergency.) and also never keep the loaded clip in the gun. My son is very familiar with guns and is aloud to handle an unloaded gun with me right there. My reasoning behind this is that it takes all the curiosity away from it. It's not the forbidden fruit anymore. Face it, in America he is bound to come across a gun sooner or later so why not teach him about gun safety now? (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Thursday, July 03, 2003, 19:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Damn straight Nick! Have you seen 28 days later? I couldn't help but notice that guns were so scarce in that movie, even though the protagonists sure could have put them to good use. As a result of stupid Brits banning guns, only the army had them, and was able to start taking away the civil rights of people (esp. women) in exchange for protection. Not a completely unrealistic scenario, is it?(reply to this comment)