Is banning and enacting more gun control laws a tool of the rich or powerful against poorer people, perhaps lower class?

I feel like I’m onto something here. If there was any subset of people who had a legitimate reason to obtain and possess firearms, it would be those in poorer environments or neighborhoods, who have on average, an exorbitant amount of violent crime and gang activity and the only way to defend against that sort of threat is to also be able to own a firearm. These people in these poorer settings usually cannot easily leave their home due to financial and personal reasons, which makes them essentially stagnant ducks in a lake, filled with alligators aka criminals. These criminals will not listen to police nor will they care about one more gun control law on the books. If these criminals want to carry, they’ll carry, and if they want to shoot and kill someone, they will. I think it’s selfish to these poorer people to create more uncommon sense gun laws and create more restriction on owning guns due to false beliefs of safety and emotional reaction.

0|1
1039

Most Helpful Girls

  • I am not sure if it is intentional, but it is a form of systematic oppression. If it is intentional, I’m betting it’s for population control. Banning guns is only going to have the opposite affect of its original purpose.
    How people don’t understand that? I have no idea.

    0|1
    0|1
    • Because guns=death=scary. Why think when you could just feel and react?

      Besides, if you don't blame guns for the problem, you have to start looking at people as the problem, and that's instantly more complicated and harder. The fact that it's the only actual real solution is irrelevant. People don't want to have to work hard to feel like they've done something or care.

    • Show All
    • @Wowgirl10q so very very true. And inner city single moms and seniors that are scared in their own homes. It's not right these people live in terror while ivy league graduates live behind gates a few miles away protected even at their work places by armed guards and tell us all that guns are the problems.

  • It's an issue as you've stated that can be seen as a class issue. After all- most people who support gun ownership are labeled as red necks, low education etc.

    I don't subscribe to that logic. I am in full support of owning firearms for whatever reason a person legally wants to.

    I do believe we need a method for weeding out folks who have a tendency to abuse any weapons.

    There are a lot of sitting duck folks all over the world- some have been disarmed by their govt, some have done so voluntarily.

    0|2
    0|1

Most Helpful Guys

  • So. Much. This.

    As much as I respect the police, the reality is that in the neighborhoods you're talking about (some of which I have family members living in), when seconds matter the police are minutes away. There's nothing they can do to prevent you from being stabbed and shot (with an illegally obtained firearm) before they get to your apartment or house in the bad neighborhood. Only you're going to be able to do that, and removing the most vulnerable people's tools to do that isn't caring or common sense, it's cruel and callous and based on living in ivory tower environments.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Rich and powerful people aren't the ones getting shot. Banning guns--like Australia did in the 90s--completely eliminates mass shootings. At least, in Australia's case, it completely eliminated their growing mass shooting issue. At minimum, banning guns would *profoundly* lower suicide rates and mass shootings, while significantly lowering homicide rates. 80% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained from legal sources. 80%. So is this an illegal weapon issue? No. *Obviously* not.

    Having a gun doesn't solve anything. It just escalates the violence and puts you in a position where you have to use it. Vengeance begets vengeance. In addition, Harvard found that guns are most often used for intimidation, rather than self-defense. You think people are clutching their guns responsibly and going, "I will protect my family." No. They're going, "You fucking cunt, talk shit to my glock"

    You know who criminals kill? Other criminals. It was the same with the mob. They racked up *insane* body counts. But they weren't killing civilians. They were killing other mobsters. Yeah, some civilians get killed. But you know what kills more civilians? Legal guns.

    Or do you think that if a family has some guns, that will stop the bullets flying through their windows in a drive by that kill their 4 year old daughter? It won't. All it will do is get more bullets flying and more 4 year olds dead, when some dumbass ghetto people jump out and start shooting back, trying to get revenge.

    Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    0|3
    0|1
    • Great quote from "The Expanse." "If you give a monkey a stick, he's going to use it to beat another monkey to death with it."

      There's a reason the safest places on Earth do not have civilian gun ownership [with the exception of Switzerland, who has high gun ownership, but also low homicides: exception]. As Harvard also found: where there are more guns, there is more violence. Quite obviously so. The same way the more countries have nukes, the higher the likelihood of them being used.

      If you give a monkey a stick, it's going to use it to beat another monkey to death with it.

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 8

  • Interesting thought, it could be but I'm not too informed about gun control. I usually stay out of that type of debate

    0|2
    0|0
  • I agree with you. It could definitely be a way for the rich to exert power. In an ideal world, poor people who are in danger every day should have the right to carry guns.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think if your raised with gun culture media doesn't matter

    0|1
    0|0
  • I agree

    0|1
    0|0
  • True

    0|1
    0|0
    • In correlation with that when people think of poor people they think of African Americans which they "associated with" crimes and use of guns and such violence.

  • Could be.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Kids,,, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE NOT GUNS

    0|0
    0|1
  • Guns kill, guns are bad.

    0|0
    2|5

What Guys Said 37

  • I did read a few times your thinking and I tried to see some sense in what you are saying but then Europe beats the whole US police and law system. Imagine that police officers carry only electro shockers instead of guns and noone in the state is allowed to have a gun except army and police officers. How would gangs get weapons if police and special forcec actually do their jobs as they are doing in Europe? I mean you get every 3-5 years case similar to those that happen in US every 2-3 months, but the criminal rate is pretty low when comparing EU to US.

    So basically what you are saying is this:
    Instead of refornating the police and law system and banning all the weapons from the market, country should give more weapons so those who do not have a weapon can defend themself? Thats false logic because your kind of solution will just generate more and more bloodshed. So I am asking you then, if you do that what you are saying then what is the point of having police, special forces and law/justice system if you would arm every street abd ket everyone act as they find fit. Looks to me that US are becoming more and more something we see in Mad Max movies. No offence.

    0|0
    0|0
    • @zaxxx Wait about twenty more years and reevaluate Europe when it's not so homogenous socio-economically. They're already showing signs that the the violent crime stats you're talking about are falling apart. They will look a little more like Russia or Mexico on the gun crime front if trends continue.

    • They will not. Europe has culture at the moment far advanced then any other continent that did a lot of mistakes in past from which it learns pretty well. can't say for other nations that are doing so. And at the moment is one of the most rational union in the world. US is heading toward ways how Hitler ruled. Clinton, bush, Obama and now Trump, are probably the worst presidents US ever had. EU has problem with Hungary and Poland, but generally law enforcement function differently within EU, because police force is trained in preventing the crime instead waiting for crime to happen. US police is not trained in that way. EU always picks the hardest path, but it always gains more from it then any other country in the world. And is really a shame that a lot of countries do not learn from that experience. Police in EU does not kill people based on their race or skin color.

    • @zaxxx... You're looking at the veneer of official statements and news reports and not listening enough to what's going on on the ground in Germany and France and Spain and the Netherlands... I'll say no more because neither of us can prove what's going to happen in 20 years. It is a matter of watching and waiting and seeing which of us turns out to be right.

  • Yes, absolutely. Nearly every gun control law always has some sort of tax or fee attached too it.
    The NFA put a $200 tax on various types of guns, which, back in 1934, made making a short barreled rifle, shotgun, supressor, other weapons cost nearly $3400 to register. Now it's actually affordable to submit these forms and buy one. People want to raise the price again and tie it with inflation.
    Guns and ammo already have excise taxes on them. People want to raise it again, too.
    All concealed carry permits and other weapons permits are a form of tax. They usually cost hundreds of dollars between courses, tests, and application fees.
    Gun manufacturers and gun dealers (FFL's) have to pay fees every year, and some of them are rather large and require the manufacturer to get so much revenue a year.
    Nearly every gun control law already enacted and proposed has always had the goal of making it expensive to own guns, so only the rich can have them and the average Joe's can't. That's why stout anti-gunners in the USA such as Diane Feinstein have concealed weapons permits and security armed with guns restricted in her state despite her state (Cali) making it very expensive and hard for people in her state to get them. It's a form of elites controlling the masses.

    0|1
    0|0
  • In the USA, more poor people have guns than rich people, because rich people hire body guards. Besides, there are more guns in civilian hands in America than there are people, and if anybody thinks they are ever going to take them away here, they're smoking some good weed.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I agree there is no gun law that will ever have a significant impact on violent crime rates because all they is restrict law abiding owners. Going to disagree with slightly on the poor people needing guns more. I would argue ALL law abiding citizens would be at a disadvantage safety wise.

    0|0
    0|0
  • In a way yes. At the very heart of gun is the elite. World Bankers and politicians. They want gun control because the people can not rise up against tierney and enslavement with kitchen knives and baseball bats. The answer to your question is yes. But in this case poor or lower class means everyone that is not a multimillionaire or billionaire. To them we are cattle. If you think i sound crazy just do a search for "Agenda 21"

    0|1
    0|0
  • The rich and the criminals will always have ways to get what they want. No matter what laws are in place. The only ones negatively affected are decent people in the working class because they'll no longer be able to openly protect and defend themselves from criminals and those seeking to oppress them.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Many gun control laws in the US today have roots in Jim Crow and were designed for the purpose of preventing blacks from defending themselves against KKK attacks.

    And more recently, putting handguns under federal control was a reaction to race riots in the 1960s and was sold as the only way to keep blacks from having guns.

    Chicago and DC had extremely strict laws for its black population.

    0|0
    0|0
    • DC and Chicago still do. Along with Maryland (I can't get a carry permit here despite having a clean mental and criminal record plus served honorably in the military), and other blue states.

  • Banning guns is not the solution look back at history anytime they've tried, it resulted in millions being killed (Russia, Turkey, Germany, and China) it will only leave them defenseless against the criminals

    0|1
    0|0
  • Firearms are useless everywhere, they are weapons of pure destruction, nobody likes them, they take very little skill to use and can easily kill. Let them be banned. It's much smarter for people to learn how to actually defend themselves, by regulating their mind, their body, and directing qi.

    0|0
    0|1
    • 1 My long barrel revolvers are great for target shooting

      2 Possibly, but destruction is not inherently bad or wrong

      3 I know many people who like firearms, so that's incorrect.

      4 they may not take much skill to operate, but they do require skill to operate accurately. Ask any competition shooter, drill Sergeant, or hunter.

      5 No, you're not taking away our right to keep and bear arms

      6 thats also a good idea but isn't a substitute for countering an armed threat who kabir what they're doing.

  • its just for future control over the people , for whennmartial law is enacted or the one world order, its not right or good and not what this country is founded on, time for the people to rise up and take control over the asswipes in office and vote them out and return this country to where it is a great place and ibey the constitution and not change what has worked for centuries , its our right to have and bear arms wirhout all the limitations and red tape bullshit!! "F" the politicians!!

    0|1
    0|0
  • Yeah see if you make more gun control laws and keep in mind the people who are breaking the laws and killing people are already breaking laws they're not going to care to break 15-20 more laws if they're already breaking laws

    0|1
    0|0
  • I think we should control who gets them (as in, we should train people first) and not much on wich gun.
    In my country all guns are forbidden expect 1) shotguns for hunting only 2) 38. Snubnosed revolvers. This does nothing to stop criminals from getting their hands on even ak 47's sometimes. They guys that should have them, always can get them

    0|0
    0|0
    • *the guys that shouldn't have them (damm this autocorrect)

  • Yes, they are disarming the population of western countries because of the coming ai driven economic disruption. An armed population will likely demand mincome and to maintain social benefits and thier standard of living. A disarmed population will have to accept whatever scraps the sham democracy police state oligarchs feel like giving them.

    Gonna get bad folks, buckle up, and bunker down.

    0|0
    0|0
  • As my sociology teacher once said people in power whatever kind of power position like to create a form of dependency and I think that's true to a point I definitely can argue with the scenario that you're providing in your additional information and I do believe it's true I tried to control or they're simply blind they are arrogant and believe in this system so heartily.

    0|0
    0|0
  • That is stating it a little simplistically, but I do think a lot of the celebs and politicians are hypocritical on the subject, as they can afford to hire licensed armed security, unlike the poor and middle class.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't know about much of any of this but I carry to protect the people I love no laws will change me carrying protection on a day to day no innocent lives will be harmed when I'm around that's for damn sure

    0|1
    0|0
  • More guns in civilian hands means more crime, it means an easier way for criminals to get armed. It's logical to think it should be the contrary, although it doesn't work that way.

    0|1
    0|0
  • The purpose of guns is to avoid government tyranny. If they're gone, we're opening the door to dictatorships

    0|2
    0|0
  • Gun control is silly, maniacs and criminals will still get their hands on them either way and it'll be much easier for them to kill more people since most won't be armed if they pass more of these "gun control" laws. We have to face it, cops take way too long to go to a scene and often times the crime is already done when they arrive so having a means to protect yourself is a must. not to mention that it's a constitutional right that SHALL NOT be infringed. I'll support these common sense laws if they actually used common sense rather than making it difficult for innocent people to defend themselves.

    1|2
    0|0
  • Yes. I also notice that most of the advocates parade around with armed bodyguards.

    0|2
    0|0
  • More from Guys
    17

Recommended myTakes

Loading...