Amazon.com Widgets

Does there need to be stricter laws for gun control?

  • What emergency is there really?

    So many people say guns are needed for emergency, but what emergency can't we protect ourselves from without a gun that doesn't of course involve a gun? We have locks, we have cell phones! All we need to do is hide. A knife can't open a door like a gun can. There are better hobbies than shooting things if you want to hunt.

  • Look at the statistics

    If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 30,000 gun deaths last year, they had 112. The difference between them and us is not that Americans are more violent by nature. It is because they have strict gun control laws.

  • Why would we need guns?

    Just think about it for a while and I promise you that having a gun will stop making sense.
    If no one had a gun, no one would need a gun for protection, and if no one needs a gun, no one will die.
    Just think about it. Why would we need guns?

  • GUNS KILL PEOPLE

    I think there should more gun laws in place because we have the police to protect us. I don't think they should be completely banned but no military grade or fully automatic weapons, just a hunting rifle or a 9mm pistol. There have been to many mass shootings and crazy people with guns we just can't keep taking chances.

  • They are NEEDED

    Does their 'NEED', not 'want' stricter laws, and yes, I think it is a necessity that there are stricter laws. After all these recent shootings, it seems needed. Any mentally handicapped person can just go and buy a gun, any violent criminal (gun or no gun crime.. Still violent) can go and buy a gun.
    If you are a responsible adult, then you should have no worries about stricter gun laws, because they shouldn't effect you.

  • We absolutely need strict gun control!

    I HATE GUNS! Yeah, yeah, we have the second amendment, but I personally am not a fan. You don’t not need an assault weapon and 30 bullet magazine clips to mow down an elk. We have to take a driving test to get a license so why shouldn’t we have background checks for guns? Thank goodness Democrats control Colorado state government, so we can actually get something done about the appalling loopholes in our gun laws! After the horrible Aurora tragedy, which occurred here, and the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut, it’s time we start cracking down! A lot of liberals are afraid to voice their opposition to guns, but I’m not! Guns DO KILL PEOPLE! You’re more likely to have a gun used against you or a loved one than to actually have it protect you from an intruder. Gun nuts don’t care about anyone but themselves and their rights. Your right to own a gun ends when it means another American will have to give up their right to life. The only purpose guns serve is to kill. If guns are not a problem then why is the United States the most violent nation in the industrialized world and we also have the most firearm proliferation and guns per capita? Enough is enough!

  • I am against gun violence.

    Guns are the reason why people are at war. They are the reason that people in gangs shoot each other. They should be outlawed so there will be less violence and fewer deaths. Yes, I understand that the police have to have them, but if guns were outlawed, they would have no reason to have them.

  • The Constitution of the United States Really Needs to be Edited.

    Okay, this is stupid how people just allow the gun law to slide by just because the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Has anyone ever considered revising this outdated list of rights given to the citizens of the United States? Guns were originally given to us for protection, not for killing other people, which is really beginning to seem like what we are trying to protect ourselves from. Seriously, there will eventually be massacres happening all over the streets if we don't restrain those who will abuse the right from getting them.

  • How any more have to die?

    If we could save just one person by having stricter gun laws wouldn't it be worth it? If there is one thing we could do to save a life do we not have a responsibility to do so? Something that people don't seem to understand is that stricter gun laws don't take away guns you already have; it takes away assault rifles from stores and also makes the process purchase a gun a little harder.

  • School shootings are deadly

    There should be stricter laws, because look at Columbine years back. There was nothing exactly wrong except he was being bullied, which you should tell an adult about, and it was a gun that was used. In Newtown, 20 children were killed because of guns and the user not getting a good background check. Finally, look at Aurora, I believe 29 people died because of a guy with a gun in a movie theater and it was semi-automatic which is a military grade weapon. Now I'm not anti gun, because I believe we should have pistols but no assault rifles, shotguns, or possibly even hunting rifles which I'm on the fence about.

  • NO ! !

    You cant blame guns for the people's stupidity. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
    I have two guns in my house and you don't see them go off by themselves and kill people now do you? No, you don't and do you know why that is? It's because they don't have a mind of their own the only way someone could get hurt by them is if I pulled the trigger myself.

  • Should we ban everything that poses a potential threat?

    They say that this massacre should be the ban trigger. Should we also ban alcohol? What good did the 18th amendments do? Crime rocketed in the US during that time. Should we ban airplanes because of 9/11? 3000 ppl died then. Should we ban cars because of all the DUIs there are? Should we ban kitchen knives because we can kill with them? Everything has the potential to kill even s credit card. We CANNOT ban guns just because of e potential to kill. We can have higher requirements for buying guns but we cannot BAN guns

  • I could kill you with a pencil, ooh crap ban WRITING IMPLIMENTS!

    I read an article about this teenage boy that got beaten up in Chicago, by a gang of other teenagers. He was beaten by a piece of timber. Soon after, the story died, and wasn't revisited. However if that had been a gun, it would have been on the headlines, "Illegal weapon kills innocent teenager". If it was a gun, they would have added it to the list of "reasons why they should be banned". We didn't see this added to the list of the reasons why timber should be banned? We didn't see loggers charged for handing out dangerous weapons? It's pathetic; and like many people have said before, it's not guns that kill, it's people that kill.

  • Actually learn some history.

    The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about sport, and it's not even about self defense from crime. It's a last stand against tyranny. James Madison, the guy who more or less wrote the Constitution, stated in Federalist 46 that the people need to be armed up to the same standards as the military, so in the event of a tyrannical uprising, the people would not be forced into oppression by the government. So don't give me that crap about the founders not knowing about AR15s. The founders didn't know about Scientology, so does that mean the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to that religion? And banning only "assault weapons" is the biggest joke in legislative history. REAL assault weapons are already banned, liberals want to ban things that LOOK like assault weapons, which are used in about 1%of crime in the US. The most violent mass shooting in the nations history, Virginia Tech, was done with handguns. Columbine took place during the assault weapons ban of 1994. The fact of the matter is that not only are gun control laws unconstitutional, they are totally worthless in that nobody who would commit a mass shooting or any type of gun related crime is going to obey them. The government doesn't care about gun deaths, they want more power over the everyday lives of the people.

  • More guns equals less crime

    Since 1988, gun ownership has increased over 1200% while at the same time gun deaths and gun crimes in general have decreased by almost 60%. Instead of making stupid statements based on the lies of the 5 o'clock news, try doing some research. You will realize you have been lied to. All tyrannical governments want unarmed citizens, or slaves.

  • Gun laws will not make you safer.

    Look at Washington DC and Chicago; both imposed strict gun laws and crime skyrocketed. Criminals will always get guns. If you make it harder for the law abiding citizens to get guns, you leave them defenseless. America was founded on freedom and liberty. I'm against any law that takes those away. I don't really live closed to a police station. Do I not have a right to protect my family? Does my wife not have the right to protect herself when I'm not home? The liberals have invented the term "assault weapons" to scared people. All semi-automatic firearms work the same: pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out. Some just look scarier then others. Sadly, we will never be able to stop mass killing. Guns are only one of the many different things criminals use. Drunk drivers kill far more people then firearms, but we don't try to ban cars or alcohol.

  • Gun bans already exist and don't work

    Guns are banned in movie theaters and schools, but because lunatics, criminals, and lunatic-criminals do not obey laws, they are simply ignored. Don't ban guns, ban mass murder. Guns themselves are not evil, the people who pull the trigger are evil. Guns will always exist and criminals will always find a way to get a hold of one, or something else to commit mass murder. For example, the deadliest school massacre was not done with a gun but by a bomb and the subsequent fire.

  • I am Pro Gun.

    The US was established on the backs of our colonists and their firearms. We hold the right to bear arms. It may be unnecessary to have clips of above 30 rounds, but to ban an entire weapons system is ridiculous. Guns aren't the killers, people are. Simply put; guns don't kill people, people kill people.

  • No, I disagree! NO gun control!!

    It is very stupid and leads to more violence. Just because of Newtown? We shouldn't randomly do it because of one thing. Guns protect people and are our defense against armed people, tyranny or when those North Koreans come to America. Switzerland had full auto guns for their citizens and the Nazis didn't even think about going over to Switzerland. Also, the Japanese didn't invade our coast because we were armed as well.

  • Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

    The unofficial slogan of the National Gun Association “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” (NGA) basically says it all. Shootings do not simply happen from the gun itself, but the person behind the gun. By creating stricter gun laws, it will restrict those who obey the law and could possibly increase crime. Criminals don’t follow the law either way, so what makes everyone think gun laws will change the way things are? They won’t. If anything, it will cause people to rebel. With or without the law, criminals will get their hands on guns. Therefore, there is no point. For instance, if guns were banned, places without guns would be more likely to be attacked. There are other ways of getting guns, illegally. For instance, they could be trafficking them from unlicensed sellers, or getting them at gun shows or flea markets. An example could be how the shooters of the Columbine High School Shooting “bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers” (Violence Policy Center). There was no law then but they did not purchase their guns legally, so either way people will get guns whether there is a law or not.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-02-27T01:57:54.473
Gun control is a must. I think our founding fathers only new of black powder flintlocks, so giving us the Americans even single action, maximum ten shot guns is very generous of our government. I think that our country can still have guns, just not semi-auto killing machines. People kill people, but guns make it a lot easier. Source 13 year old scared to get shot and wanting change.
Anonymous says2013-03-02T17:12:19.860
The beginning of the end of gun ownership came in 1968. Anyone who agrees that the government can take away your gun for any reason (bouncing a check, possession with intent to sell, ect...) Has already agreed that the government has the right to take your guns. They will make a law that says if you do not comply then you will be guilty of a felony and bingo, they have your gun. Our founding fathers worded it the way they did to prevent this from happening. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. Once they have your guns there is no telling what they will do.
Anonymous says2013-03-02T17:12:33.927
The beginning of the end of gun ownership came in 1968. Anyone who agrees that the government can take away your gun for any reason (bouncing a check, possession with intent to sell, ect...) Has already agreed that the government has the right to take your guns. They will make a law that says if you do not comply then you will be guilty of a felony and bingo, they have your gun. Our founding fathers worded it the way they did to prevent this from happening. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. Once they have your guns there is no telling what they will do.
Anonymous says2013-03-12T14:00:26.510
I say we shouldn't have gun control. What would happen to hunting. If we got rid of guns, the animal population would go up in size and we couldn't get rid of the animals, and what if people live off of hunting. If you take away there guns, they will starve.
Anonymous says2013-03-20T19:24:41.647
I could not decide yes or no, never really thought about it. We can't just control guns because it really would not help any at all. Millions of Americans have guns it will cost money to go around and take peoples guns. People can and will find a way to keep their gun. People can hurt anyone with anything, gun control wouldn't help. But also say yes because we need some type of gun control.
Anonymous says2013-04-08T14:58:34.407
Some people have no idea what their talking about. One person said why do people hunt anyways? Well we need meat don't we!?! They say they want to change the magazine capacity,but that wont change anything! There a thousands of car crashes every year, reducing the gas tank to 10 gallons wont change how many car crashes there are, it will just make people stop to fill their tank more. Changing the magazine capacity has nothing to do with less shootings
Anonymous says2013-04-13T18:28:33.857
There are adequate laws already in place! Our major push on Washington leadership should be directed at making these laws effective by ENFORCING WHAT WE ALREADY IN PLACE. Not spending more money and time making more laws that will not be effective because they to will not be enforced any differently than what we ALREADY HAVE. Force our leaders to do their job NOW!! Once we have done that, we will have established a non-existing, factual platform to build on for the future safety of all people. Then and only then will we understand where we fall short. Without a factual base of knowing how effective our existing rules are, it is senseless to add more un-enforced rules to avoid. That action comes very close to the definition of "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"!!!!! Place a loaded gun in the hands of a law abiding person and a convicted felon, place them both in-front of another person who is holding 1 mil in cash out in plain view in front of him in the middle of a desert with no witness's and see who will be the last standing person!!!! TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM THE BAD PEOPLE AND ENFOFCE THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE - DONT HAVE TO SPEND MORE MONEY.
Anonymous says2013-04-29T19:01:56.730
There has been a series of heated debates on gun control following the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting on December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut. The gun control debate has become one of the most intense arguments in the history of the Second Amendment and will continue to be a discussion amongst individuals. I do not know if there is a right or wrong answer to the questions but I do not believe that gun rights should not be hindered for law-abiding citizens.
Law-abiding citizens use guns for many reasons: hunting, target shooting, self-protection…. Most registered gun owners are responsible people who believe in gun safety and understand the consequences.
I believe the gun laws that are in place just need to be enforced not made stricter. Historically speaking, banning of weapons has never worked as only law-abiding individuals will obey these laws. Drugs are rampant, crime is everywhere, and criminals will find a way to purchase a weapon regardless of any law that Congress passes. It is the right of citizens to protect themselves, family, and property. Guns are only as evil as the individuals who use them.
BT
Anonymous says2013-05-27T07:01:06.227
I think it would be a cool idea to issue a standard type of handgun to those who would like to apply for it,although I also believe the government should issue an American flag,one made in America(sad that I should have to specify that),to all American households. American flags and American guns. Sounds good to me.
Anonymous says2013-06-18T19:13:57.373
Do you know what we die from everyday?
minnie1_mouse says2013-12-16T16:31:49.297
The gun laws need to add restrictions to what's in place and enforce. We should not be selling guns and ammunition online because no one knows what the state of mind the person is or not in or what the age of the buyer is. Limitations need to be placed on the amount of ammunition a buyer can purchase at one time, so that know one can buy ammunition in large quantities in one single purchase. All guns should be registered to the authorized user, show identifications at the POS, fingerprint at the POS. All three of these forms should be used for a gun owner to purchase ammunition. By doing this, for anyone who does not have a gun registered in his or her name or has stolen a gun then the unauthorized user cannot purchase any ammunition for the gun.

By registering, I mean registering just like a car. Tag each gun yearly, pay personal taxes, and carry liability insurance. These taxes are needed to go into the schools, colleges, and law enforcement who are having to partake in so many gun violence incidents to help with incurred costs and the insurance will provide assistance need to the innocent victim with medical needs and his or her family, if by chance a death were to occur. This is also makes the gun owner 100% responsible for his or her own actions.

Outpatient Mental recovery centers and more group homes need to be added more into each states. The outpatient recovery centers will be where people are moved to after being admitted as inpatients to mental facilities, when the treatment time is up. The mental hospital facilities only provide so many days, then the person is moved to family members, friends or those who have no support out on the streets living from shelter to shelter just to survive. This leaves the people in car of themselves, when they are not in the right state of mind.
As a country we are not providing enough care and attention to these people, and they don't need to be on the street to recover. Everyone needs to placed in recovery centers for additional treatment and those who have no family or friend support need to be placed permanently into group homes after going to the recovery centers, to where they are supervised at all times to get the care needed, to attend doctor appointments, to be socially engaged, and to make sure medications needed are taken, get adequate rest and nutrition needed.


Each year a state test needs to be given to every gun owner in order to get registered to make sure that everyone knows what the new laws are or not are.

There are good laws but changes are necessary for the security of our country and assistance is needed more to help those with mental disorders.
Rihanaharris123 says2014-05-29T13:18:15.530
Anonymous what if we get invaded from another country - should wait on our Cop or Military .. Just look a round at City's in the USA with the stricter gun laws --yeah they have the most killing ...
DaddyD says2015-12-20T10:14:05.567
The well regulated militia refers to a standing army which is necessary to the defense of the nation, but in light of the fact that a government controlled militia (well regulated) could be used against the people (ie the British militia disarmed the colonists) the right of the people to bear arms was not to be infringed. That has ALWAYS been the clear meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment, as any student of history and the Constitution knows.
DaddyD says2015-12-20T10:14:21.033
The well regulated militia refers to a standing army which is necessary to the defense of the nation, but in light of the fact that a government controlled militia (well regulated) could be used against the people (ie the British militia disarmed the colonists) the right of the people to bear arms was not to be infringed. That has ALWAYS been the clear meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment, as any student of history and the Constitution knows.
DaddyD says2015-12-20T10:19:15.997
"Guns don't kill people, people kills people".

Narrow-minded people attempt to do this quite a bit when having these discussion: Stating that since such and such entity like knife, alcohol, hammer, such and such dangerous then that functions as omission of statistics pointing to something less statistically dangerous. If you want to make it your life mission to outlaw swimming pools no one is stopping you. But that is going to do nothing to curb the need for an overhaul of the current gun laws. You can use other dangerous scenarios to try and disprove need as well such heart disease being the number killer in world, or that fact that automobiles are a very deadly commodity. But in fact those are very real examples of things that need to be remedied as well. The automobile being a very good example. Progressive legislation was responsible for putting seat-belts in cars as well as numerous other advancements that have made cars a lot safer for the driver and passengers. Google has even successfully tested several of it's fully-automated cars that drove themselves over 7000 miles with no accidents (except for one instance where another car being operated by a human driver rear ended the auto piloted car at a red light). These tests were even done on the less than smooth terrain of the San Francisco city streets. So you can argue all day long the fatalistic premise that since these deaths are going to occur at the hand of the unarmed anyway, that we should just give up trying to make any headway to curb unneeded gun deaths. But laws of logic charge us with proving positives. We are never called on by logic disprove a negative..
DaddyD says2015-12-20T10:19:30.163
"Guns don't kill people, people kills people".

Narrow-minded people attempt to do this quite a bit when having these discussion: Stating that since such and such entity like knife, alcohol, hammer, such and such dangerous then that functions as omission of statistics pointing to something less statistically dangerous. If you want to make it your life mission to outlaw swimming pools no one is stopping you. But that is going to do nothing to curb the need for an overhaul of the current gun laws. You can use other dangerous scenarios to try and disprove need as well such heart disease being the number killer in world, or that fact that automobiles are a very deadly commodity. But in fact those are very real examples of things that need to be remedied as well. The automobile being a very good example. Progressive legislation was responsible for putting seat-belts in cars as well as numerous other advancements that have made cars a lot safer for the driver and passengers. Google has even successfully tested several of it's fully-automated cars that drove themselves over 7000 miles with no accidents (except for one instance where another car being operated by a human driver rear ended the auto piloted car at a red light). These tests were even done on the less than smooth terrain of the San Francisco city streets. So you can argue all day long the fatalistic premise that since these deaths are going to occur at the hand of the unarmed anyway, that we should just give up trying to make any headway to curb unneeded gun deaths. But laws of logic charge us with proving positives. We are never called on by logic disprove a negative..
YaboiRoge says2016-04-05T17:02:47.327
Fuk tha police comin straight from tha underground