Reading all of these comments, and its all about people who hunt, or people who have guns for self defense..... This debate isnt saying that the united states should stop selling guns.. This debate is making it harder to obtain a gun... By means of mentally ill people being able to obtain guns, minors obtaining guns or terrorists obtaining guns... Chances of these people obtaining their guns at the local gun store, or anywhere that sells guns is highly unlikely being as there are soo many steps you have to follow... They are getting them through people who buy guns, only to turn around and sell them to someone else... Buying them online, ect.. That needs to stop.. Stop the school shootings, terrorist attacks or that person who is just down right depressed or angry that thinks everyone deserves to die right before they kill themselves.....
I am your dad so you need to agree on every thing i say or else you are going to be grounded and i will tell your mom to spank you with a belt and you will be sent to your room little boy or girl #DADSRAWSOME eat 420 blazin
Yes, guns should be harder to come by. Currently it is still very easy to buy a rifle from a sporting goods store, you only need an ID, no background checks are done. With handguns it's a little harder but the restrictions can still be gotten around by buying from gun shows and private sellers.
Yes,guns should be harder to come by.Guns can ultimately kill people and this type of grave responsibility should not just be put in the hands of anybody.The best way to control guns would be to only allow in the hands of law enforcement agents and others that need them for law enforcement purposes.
Guns should be harder to come by at least by making a more accurate screening test that keeps people who may be mentally ill or a little unstable from getting a gun. Also give a higher age to those who can purchase and run a very thorough background check on the person.
So many people who are against gun control completely misconstrue the original meaning of the second amendment. The Second Amendment was put in place so that Americans could have firearms to protect themselves from foreign invaders and to set up militias. Now that the United States has a strong centralized military, neither publicly available firearms nor civilian militias are necessary.
Firearms are very dangerous weapons and as such should be treated with the utmost respect, however some are obviously tempted by the power and people get hurt. Handguns and semi automatic weapons are people hunting tools and should only be operated by the armed services/police. People hunting guns have no place in the hands of citizens. Taking a firm stand over outdated scraps of paper is ridiculous, change needs to happen! However i do believe single/double action rifles/shotguns are hunting tools and should be used accordingly with the correct licensing by the citizens.
Guns are far too easy to get in the United States. I believe that guns for hunting should be allowed with the restrictions currently in force. However, there is little need for a civilian to ever own a semi-automatic weapon. If we look are the recent school shooting in CT, there were children shot 11 times. There is no need for someone to own a weapon of that caliber, and the government should make it harder for people to own these weapons.
Guns should be the hardest thing to get in this country. I believe you should be put through a psychological evaluation to insure you are mentally capable of owning a firearm. Then I think you should take courses on how to properly use a firearm, how to store your firearm, and show places where you should never bring a firearm.
I think that guns should most definitely be harder to come by. It is very easy for a person to get their hands on a gun these days. That includes legally and illegally. Gun laws need to be stricter because guns are causing thousands of deaths every year in the world.
It is our Second Amendment right to bear arms, and it has been that way since about 1789 when the Bill of Rights took effect. Making guns harder to come by would be incredibly unconstitutional by that virtue. Pistols should be easy to come by, as they're an easier means of self-defense that could easily take out a raving lunatic psycho murderer-zombie that decides to shoot some place up. Assault rifles should be harder to come by, yes, since those are meant for military use. The right to bear arms put no restriction on any types of guns since, back then, they were muskets that took twenty seconds to load. Now, weapons are easier to fire. Keep pistols accessible as the new standard, but make military-grade weapons out of reach. Hunting weapons need to exist, too. That was the intent of the Founding Fathers - weapons for hunting and self-defense. We shouldn't let them down because of some psychos who used weapons that others shouldn't have. It's a damn shame that ALL guns are being grouped into that category, because there's no reason to do that.
We have the right to bear arms and you aren't taking mine you can kiss my ass. This is America so fuck foriegners and let me keep my weapons crime can sob sob sob sob sob sob lol lol lol ol oloolo lo l ol ol ol lo l o
Guns are supposed to be used for defense, but since people these days are using them for offense against others, they are being banned. Ban idiots, not guns! People who are mentally ill and go off murdering people should be contained so they can't cause any problems in the first place.
I don't think it really matter how many more guns go into private hands. It's good that we screen for people that definitely shouldn't have them, but there are so many in the world already it really doesn't matter how many new weapons make their way into private individuals hands.
I do not believe guns should be harder to come by. Guns are legal to purchase and own, therefore I feel it is best for supply to meet demand. If supply shrinks I believe it will be seen as an attempt to keep firearms away from the people who want them and it is not fair to restrict access, by restricting supply.
Guns are already the most regulated item on the market. Name one other item you need to get permission from the government to buy? The right to own guns is spelled out in the constitution. They should be easier to come by. But what is more important is that they should be easier to carry. Owning a gun for protection does no good when the government says you can't have it with you.
There is already a national requirement to pass a background check in order to purchase a firearm. Most states also require a license to carry in some form or another. The shooter in Connecticut didn't comply with either requirement. Yet he still managed to gain possession of the firearms used. What else is there to do while still respecting the 2nd amendment?
The fact of the matter is that it is already too hard to legally carry a firearm on a school campus. That's what prompted this debate. The good guys were disarmed while the crazy man was armed to the teeth. He didn't shoot up a police station. He shot up a school where he knew NO ONE but him would be armed. Why was there no one armed to oppose him? Was it because teachers and administrators chose to be disarmed or was it because it was too hard/impossible for them to be armed at the school legally?
He could have been armed with a pump-action shotgun and he'd still have killed seven kids without reloading. He could have used a bomb and killed 38 (like what happened in Bath, Michigan in 1927). Banning or restricting weapons will not solve the problem.
The problem isn't that guns are too easy to gain access too. The problem is the disparity of force created (1 bad guy with a weapon, no one to challenge him) and the lack of mental health services.