CNN HLN:"Do we need tougher gun laws?"

[THUNDERCHIEF]

I am at home for lunch watching CNN HeadLine News (HLN). I cant find a article on the website but they are asking for comments on the TV if we need tougher gun laws. The question is being posed because 53 people have been killed in the last month in mass murders by shooting. They are asking for comments via this form:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?33

They will start reading comments on the air "soon and throughout the day."

/John

PS. You can also text your comments to HLNTV (45688). Not a full tel. number but I guess it works.

 

[Bob P]

commented

re the request for comments on the need for tougher gun laws in light of the recent shootings. My response is no. More gun laws aren't going to stop this stuff. What we need is the media to stop sensationalizing their coverage of these tragedies. Giving publicity to these disturbed people simply encourages others like them to commit more of these horrific acts.

 

[Chrisg67]

done

 

[JRyan]

Done as well.

 

[Pilgrim]

my comments


Let's see......

Killing is illegal already and the bad guy doesn't care.

So more gun laws would do what?

Nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens to use their 2nd Amendment rights.

If the bad guy doesn't care about killing, you think he's going to care about more gun laws?

Gun laws = feel good legislation that does nothing but affect the good guys.

 

[JoeyB]

my comments


Let's see......

Killing is illegal already and the bad guy doesn't care.

So more gun laws would do what?

Nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens to use their 2nd Amendment rights.

If the bad guy doesn't care about killing, you think he's going to care about more gun laws?

Gun laws = feel good legislation that does nothing but affect the good guys.

+1

 

[rchap36]

DONE

 

[dwarven1]

Do we need tougher gun laws?

Why? The gun laws we have are pretty tough already, and they don't seem to be very effective in keeping criminals from committing crimes. They're great at disarming the law-abiding public, though.

You might as well ask if we need tougher laws against murder, robbery, and assault - those laws don't seem to be doing real well, either.

By definition, a criminal breaks laws - if a criminal is already planning to break ONE law (murder, robbery, etc), why would ANOTHER law keep him from breaking them both?

Many states have found an answer - LESS RESTRICTIVE gun laws. Interviews with convicted felons show that the thing that they fear the MOST is not more time in jail, but an armed victim.

No. We do NOT need tougher gun laws.

 

[cekim]

Done:
*****************************************
Regarding the recent violence and calls for more gun control:

First, as the past victim of a violent crime, I can tell you firsthand that police officers and laws do not stop the determined criminal from attacking and harming you.

Not for any failure to do their duty, but as the plain reality of not being able to be everywhere at all times and even then, not being able to predict future violence, or without violating our civil rights, identify "future criminals".

They may punish the attacker after the fact, and prevent them from committing the same crime again, but in that moment, there is nothing they can do for you. You are now a statistic...

Second, the right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution is there not for "hunting" but rather both self defense and defense against the state if it becomes oppressive. This right was enumerated because the founders had just lived through this situation and sought to protect future generations from it. They understood that the moment a government forcibly disarms its people, it is now by definition oppressive...

Lastly, The violent crime statistics in the UK since banning guns as well as those here in the US during our "Assault Weapons Ban" (along with the ongoing AWBs in MA, NY, and CA) show clearly that banning legal ownership of weapons does not decrease crime, in fact, it emboldens those who are already willing to break the law knowing there is less chance of their victims being armed.

Gun control does not stop violence - the data shows this clearly. At best, it only further infringes the rights and safety of law abiding citizens - at worst it makes paper criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens for unknowingly failing to comply with any one of a litany of obtuse regulations that require a law degree to even read, much less interpret... (speaking of MA laws in this case).

 

[Mike-Mike]

Done

Gun laws only create unarmed victims. Guns in civilians hands stop 600,000-700,000 crimes a year in the US!

 

[z0mbi]

Done.

 

[matt1956]

done as well

 

[doobie]

All the laws in the world won't stop someone who doesn't care about them. There's no way you are going to stop a suicidal person from creating havoc. If they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife or a car.

If we want to ban guns because of high number of deaths, why not ban cars for the number of deaths from accidents and drunk drivers?

The problem isn't the tool, it's the person. If there is a will there is a way, and a crazy nvt will find it.

 

[Ricochet]

Why give a criminal the satisfaction of being on national news? Gun laws will not prevent incidents such as this. More people should arm themselves, then a would be criminal might think twice before menacing society.

 

[tommymo]

Response to CNN

Done.

____________________________________________________________
"re: Tougher Gun Laws

Guns don't cause shooting deaths anymore than matches cause arson, automobiles cause DUI, spoons cause obesity or typewriters cause plaugerism.

At issue is the use of firearms, not ownership or possession.

Those that misuse firearms (criminals) should be dealt with according to the existing penal system...period."

 

[BaldAssCat]

Done.
I called them dishonest or ignorant, so my guess is we won't be hearing my email on the air.

 

[THUNDERCHIEF]

FWIW

I saw the first airing of public opinions on this matter. First they had some callers on the phone lines that stated their opinions on the air and then the anchor read some email responses. There were more people against tougher gun control than were for it (at least in this first airing of opinions on this matter; they were going to do it more throughout the day.) So, I don't 'feel' as if CNN was trying to shift public opinion toward gun control, I left feeling that they were actually unbiased in who's opinions they were airing.....But I had to go back to work, so who knows what opinions were aired later.

/John

 

[6hold]

my comments


Let's see......

> Killing is illegal already and the bad guy doesn't care.
> So more gun laws would do what?
> Nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens to use their 2nd Amendment rights.
> If the bad guy doesn't care about killing, you think he's going to care about more gun laws?
> Gun laws = feel good legislation that does nothing but affect the good guys.​

+1 . . . Nicely said Pilgrim.​

 

[gene]

No, We need better government and educational systems.

 

[ateamrob]

good job guys. I see some real nice responses there.

I guess it never stops amazing me how stupid some people in this country are and still continue to believe its the guns fault and totally disregard the fact that the criminal will find a way no matter what.

 

[Jose]

No, We need better government and educational systems.

Wrong. We need less government and NO government involvement in education.

 

[cekim]

Wrong. We need less government and NO government involvement in education.

But then you need the large predator breeding program to cull those that refuse to educate themselves lacking the government compelling them to do so