Amazon.com Widgets

Increased gun sales: Should more restrictive policies on gun ownership be put in place?

  • I believe more restrictive policies on gun ownership should be put in place.

    Guns are dangerous. They can kill people. I know its up to the person holding the gun to descide weather to pull the triger or not but that doesnt change the fact that guns are dangerous. When you were 5 years old, (or if you are 5 years old) your parents didnt (probably) let you shoot guns, why? Because their dangerous. There are alot of people who act like they're 5 year old but are still entitled to own guns.
    Owning a gun should be a priveleg, not a necesity.

  • The right to purchase guns should be respected, but background checks and requirements should be stiffened.

    The Second Amendment recognizes the right to own firearms, and this right should be respected. However, it is very easy to buy a gun in many areas. With increase in the demand to buy guns, we must evaluate our policies for gun sales and ensure that thorough background checks are being performed.

  • Yes, there should be more restrictive policies on gun ownership.

    With as much media as is produced here in the US these days, news coverage naturally begins to exhibit certain cyclical patterns, and the debate over gun ownership is no exception. Normally, organizations such as the NRA are always going on about those damn liberals trying to steal our guns, and then as soon as a tragedy happens, such as the child killing its mother in Wal-Mart, new voices emerge calling for greater restraint. How many more tragedies will it take for reasonable voices to prevail?

  • Gun ownership needs more restrictive policies

    Yes, I agree that more restrictive policies should be put in place for gun ownership. In the news, we have witnessed a concerning rise in stories regarding gun violence in schools, movie theaters, and other public places. This senseless violence could easily be stopped with more restrictive policies on gun ownership. This is about freedom, but not about the freedom to own dangerous weapons. It is about the freedom to live in a country where you can feel safe.

  • It`s the people not the guns.

    What do you think the guns do get up and walk around and kill people? Guns are NOT dangerous it is the people that use them. Do you realize that you are more likely to be shot in some cities than in the Iraq war? States that allow people to carry guns have a lower crime rate than states with stricter gun laws.

  • It's much less inviting to commit a crime against an armed victim.

    If you saw someone with a really nice watch, and you wanted to steal it, would you try to take it? What if you saw the holster of a gun on his belt? What if the person 10 feet away had one? The fact is, most people are to smart to attack an armed victim. An awesome example of this is in Switzerland. The Swiss require every man of age to enlist in the reserves. And every household is REQUIRED to own a fully automatic assault rifle, and encouraged to buy more for personal purposes. Their gun crime rate per 100,000 is 1/100 of the USA's gun crime rate. The Swiss love of guns has also kept them from being in a serious war since the mid 1800's. It's simply logical.

  • Gun Control is a massive failure.

    Nope, gun control, violates natural rights, and in addition does not accomplish what it says it would. There is a negative correlation with gun ownership and gun crime anyway.

    A far better way to lower gun violence is to lower crime in general. There is generally always a way to lower crime without interfering with someone's innate rights.

  • There should not be more restrictions on gun sales, just enforcement of the ones in place.

    It has been an on going debate, but the fact is: guns don't kill, the people behind them do. By putting more restrictions on gun sales, the ones who should have them won't and the people who shouldn't have guns will have them. The rules that are in place just need to be enforced better.

  • News vs Stats

    While news coverage of national tragedies implies violence is spiraling out of control, the facts show otherwise. Over the last 20 years homicides and violence with a firearm have decreased under more lax gun laws. Aff says we shouldn't have the freedom to own "dangerous weapons", because people want to feel safe, but the majority of Americans feel safer with a gun. Needless to say, putting restrictive policies on ownership either criminalizes a group of people whom the vast majority are not criminals, or makes it harder for people who follow the law to continue to follow the law by adding restrictive measures.

    Sources: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

  • Gun ownership laws are plenty restrictive.

    Stricter gun laws have not been shown to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. There are plenty of guns in circulation already and it will never decrease. It becomes easier to purchase one illegally which is a problem as an illegally bought gun is very difficult to trace. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or violent you first need a viable way to identify these individuals before they commit the crime then we can talk about gun owner restrictions to keep guns from them. Although if you have the money you can always find a gun just like you can find drugs and other illegal things. Where do you think gangs get there guns they don't go to a store and purchase them legally.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.