Streams

Comments Roundup: Gun Control

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

WNYC

Since the shootings in Tucson, we've been asking lots of questions about gun control and access to firearms. Here are some of your thoughts and reactions on this perennially divisive issue.

 

 

Carrying a gun to protect oneself from fellow citizens that also may be carrying a gun, is not a safety measure at all. I've heard military and law enforcement people well trained in the use of guns say: pulling a gun in reaction to a violent crime almost never works. It takes long, serious training in gun use, and mental training in focus and discernment, to be able to make a split second decision about whether to and how to use a gun in an emergency situation. It is rare when a responder is able use a firearm accurately enough to bring about a safe ending to a situation that involves a gunman and a number of people gathered in one place. How can we average citizens hope to bring about peace and security by adding even one more gun to the mix?

-Eileen Clark from Brooklyn

Amazing how when in the USA a half dozen people are shot (while tragic) is a big deal when in Iraq and Afghanistan dozens are being assassinated and blow to bits daily. How about going after Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney for the illegal invasion of Iraq ? Have a bit of Empathy for the rest of the world the USA is Ruining !

-Jeff Pappas from Connecticut

I just returned from a holiday trip home to the midwest. I was very surprised to learn how many of my friends are now carrying guns. As a lifelong supporter of gun control I initially found this circumstance very disturbing, though after listening to their reasoning (and seeing the neighborhoods in which they reside), I had to admit it was a more complicated issue than I realized. I still don't think it's the best answer, but I definitely appreciate how this kind of escalation happens so easily.

-Aaron from Manhattan

Why is the discussion not about regulating the amount of bullets a gun can fire at one time. Do hunters really need to fire 32 bullets in rapid succession to kill a deer. Where's the sport in that? Why is no one talking about the gun show loophole? Why does Remington continue to make a rifle that fires on its own? Rapid fire guns are meant for war, not for sport shooting and should be outlawed. The man who was carrying the gun at the Giffords slaying was afraid to use his gun for fear he would be considered the shooter by cops and eyewitnesses. If everyone carried, like in the old west, it would be a free-for-all. Ridiculous.

-Katie from Huntington, NY

What about police officers - should an officer who has ever taken prozac - even years before - have his or her gun taken away?

-Andrea from NYC

Forty-nine states can have strong gun laws, but if the fiftieth does not, the whole thing falls apart. Uniformity is the most urgent priority.

-Michael Meltzer

This tragic incident should start a discussion about the parity of health insurance between mental illness and physical illness.

-nyorker from NYC

When are we as a nation going to understand, that it's the availability of guns that is the problem here. If the federal government doesn't make a move on gun control, local governments, states, and cities need to take the lead. The idea of making guns illegal within a specified distance of a political event is a great start, a small one considering this recent event, but a great effort to begin more robust discourse on this issue.

-Jackson from Brooklyn

The usual standard is in these sorts of matters is to refer to mass murderers such as Jared Lee Loughner as a thug and describe him as a monster, animal, blood-lust terrorist hoodlum... but in this case, everyone is a psychiatrist with a diagnosis for this killer of a Federal Judge, and an innocent 9 year old girl and several others. The fascination with guns should stop and the violence to language when some describe political opponents must stop as well... why should we ask Alec Baldwin to mind his language and we are unwilling to say the same thing to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? It leaves me again, wondering aloud about these permanent double standards and hypocrisies in America. First of all, this terrorist, were he an Arab, or an African or an African American, he will be castigated as a monster, animal, bloodlust terrorist hoodlum. But for some inexplicable excuse, the public and press have been strenuously building this terrorist’s legal defense by continually insisting that he is deranged, insane and his terrorism is therefore understandably expected?

-Paul I. Adujie from New York City

We spend too much time and energy talking about our political differences, that there isn't enough time to talk about actual solutions.

-StopTheNonsense


Tags:

More in:

News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [6]

Adam Liberty from Michigan

Guns are not the problem. People are

Jan. 26 2011 11:21 PM

When a state has strong gun laws, and an adjacent state does not, the violent criminals prefer to attack the unarmed victims in the state with strong gun laws.
Armed victims make violent crime too dangerous.

Jan. 22 2011 02:48 PM

Before Right to Carry laws were implemented, each state's officials predicted mayhem by the armed. But when each of the Right-to-carry states' people became legally armed, violent crimes decreased in the armed state.
John Lott set out to prove statistically that more guns in a society caused more crime.
But after his study he wrote a book entitled: More Guns, Less Crime. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Jan. 20 2011 03:25 AM

The numbers show that:
The second safest way for a woman to deal with an assailant is to give him whatever he wants.
The safest way for a woman to deal with an assailant is to point a gun at him.
Attempting to resist with or without any other type of weapon is third.

Jan. 20 2011 03:18 AM
J Kurland from Pomona, NY

The comment from Trevor - above - is not applicable to this whole discussion. No one is stopping a legal hunter or person who likes target practice. The problem is with ordinary people who carry a gun, may lose his temper for some reason, and instead of yelling or throwing a punch (causing a black eye) may pull his gun in a fit of temper and cause terrible damage to others and also himself. That's the problem with gun-carrying folks. Also, their children are often more at risk because of seeing parents with guns and knowing they are in the house. They will begin experimenting with them and showing off to friends. Or also getting angry and using it!! I've seen folks get furious over a "stolen" parking spot - should he pull his gun to "show him who's boss?"

Jan. 19 2011 07:38 AM
Trevor

It's been said before, and I'll say it again. Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. I've shot off hundreds of rounds in my life, maybe thousands, and not one has hit anyone. It all depends on who is pulling the trigger.

Jan. 18 2011 06:02 PM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.

Sponsored

About It's A Free Country ®

Archive of It's A Free Country articles and posts. Visit the It's A Free Country Home Page for lots more.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at revsonfoundation.org.

Feeds

Supported by