How many more people have to die before we pass a law that makes it hard to buy a gun? Better background checks--if a person owns a gun they should be checked every month. REMEMBER IT ONLY TAKES ONE MISTAKE WITH A GUN TO KILL SOMEONE.
How many assault rifles, semi and fully automatic weapons etc. do you need to protect yourself. The NRA is getting way too powerful by installing fear as a lobbying tactic. Way too many death's by accidental shooting, which takes the rights of the dead person, away immediately. I think that there are some people that should never be allowed to own guns.
Aurora, Chicago, Compton, Newtown... The list goes on. The lives of innocent men, women, and children silenced because of gun use. Maybe we can stop being selfish and look beyond ourselves. Maybe we should look at the lives of these innocent civilians. One day, our brothers or sisters might be on the news. One day your son or daughter might never come home from school. Then we ask ourselves, why? Why did this happen to us? Because we were selfish. Because we were blinded by our materialistic wants, and did not learn from the mistakes society had already made. Because, in the end, we weren't man enough to put others before ourselves. One day.
We need to restrict guns in order to make it more difficult for criminals, or anyone for that matter, to obtain them. It is scary to think how easy it is for anyone to get a hold of any kind of gun. The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply like it used to, so anyone that tries to use that as an excuse to own guns is fighting for a lost cause in my opinion. This constant threat needs to be taken care of by making gun regulations much stricter.
While I believe in freedom of choice, I do feel that some choices people make, are for the worse. I believe that some laws need to be upheld and strengthened when it comes to abilities to possess weapons and/or firearms to be specific. With the recent events in the NBA and NFL, with Gilbert Arenas bringing a gone into a stadium, and Plaxico Burress shooting himself, I believe that the possession of firearms has become a more heavily focused upon topic. I think that if there was more education to be found on how to properly use a firearm, and some kind of permit given out FOLLOWING a successful completion of this education, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. The biggest problem is uneducated beings obtaining possession of a firearm...
Laws to protect innocent people from misuse of guns should be passed. There are so many irrational, irresponsible and unstable people who right now carry guns whenever and wherever they want. I have lost two people in my life to guns, one in an accident because the gun was improperly stored, the other because a psychopath was able to buy a gun. We are not doing nearly enough to protect people from gun violence.
I think that there are some people that should never be allowed to own guns. People that do drugs, drink too much, are known for causing trouble, or have been in trouble with the law numerous times, should not be allowed to own a gun, at any point. These people can be volatile, and it's not a good idea for them to have a gun to create an easier way to harm people.
People will find a way to kill others, no matter what weapon they choose, but by making guns harder to get a hold of may help. I don't want to ban guns altogether because it would be a violation of our rights but we should keep a tight restraint on who can and cannot purchase guns.
The times have changed. The right to bear arms is related to a well disciplined militia. A militia is a volunteer army. We have a volunteer army and they are very well armed. Civilians were the militia and they are us, the people. Now, to believe that this meant that the everyday civilian tending to his business was to be armed to the teeth at all times shows a lack of a basic comprehension of the second amendment in its historical context. That was not the intent nor should it be taken to mean that everyone should have every weapon a well armed and disciplined militia would have. That is just plain silly. Taken to its full implementation would imply anyone can have a nuke! After all, it is an arm, ie, weapon and I have the right to bear it, ie, have one.
Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.
It is too easy for an individual to gain access to a firearm, however not too many individuals are given lessons on how to use their guns.
While I believe in freedom of choice, I do feel that some choices people make, are for the worse. I believe that some laws need to be upheld and strengthened when it comes to abilities to possess weapons and/or firearms to be specific. With the recent events in the NBA and NFL, with Gilbert Arenas bringing a gone into a stadium, and Plaxico Burress shooting himself, I believe that the possession of firearms has become a more heavily focused upon topic. I think that if there was more education to be found on how to properly use a firearm, and some kind of permit given out FOLLOWING a successful completion of this education, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Did you know that the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence reports that an average of 268 people are shot every day in America? That’s 97,820 people that are shot a year. Gun control describes the law to limit people’s access to handguns, shotguns, rifles and other firearms. Some people want the government to control the way they sell guns. Others feel that people have the right to buy and own guns without any restrictions. The second amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment is saying that a well regulated militia, is allowed guns, and a household is a allowed a gun, but for security. This benefit is being abused; people do not use guns for protection, they use guns for destruction.
A number of shootings in school and workplaces, has led to an increase in the number of people calling for strict gun control legislation. Two teenage boys had opened fire in their Colorado school, killing 12 fellow students, and a teacher. Even people who have legally purchased their gun, use it to destroy. Statistics show that about 50 of mass shooting killers between 1982 and 2012, have legally purchased their weapon. For example, Buford O. Furrow, the man who opened fire at a Los Angeles Jewish community center in 1999, was armed with seven guns, including a Glock 9mm automatic handgun and a custom made assault rifle, and every one of guns were registered. That’s why there should be universal background checks.
Well, that's all I have. I am looking for another supporting detail for my project.
It isn't logical for a regular citizen to own a semi-automatic or a weapon of that sort, when some Doctors and psychologists find it hard to get the right permission from officials to carry around a gun? It isn't ethical for a mentally unstable person to successfully purchase a gun. Yes, they can better the protection of the citizens but that's what cops are for. Let alone the numerous times that guns are stolen and the owner doesn't report it. MAYBE the government shouldn't intervene MORE because they already have plenty of laws in effect that deals with gun control; BUT, what they SHOULD do is enforce those existing laws better. Make then more bold and appealing. One way or the other these mass shootings need to be better prevented because most of the people who commit these horrific acts are mentally/emotionally unstable.
So, if the government has a tank, then I should, also. If the government has weapons specifically designed to kill people, then I should, also. And, if my government has a globally threatenting weapon then Brazil should have one, too? Guns kill, governments have no problem with that. Do we as citizens think our 'military' government should be challenged by citizens having like destructive capability?
You always see many people on television getting arrested for having guns and weapons that seem to be too powerful. They don't need to have those kind of things in their possessions. That is why we have police officers protecting us and sometimes people break out and kill many people with these weapons.
I think that a through back ground check should be done on anyone who wishes to purchase a gun. It should take months before they are even approved. I don't think that if you have a document history of mental, domestic, or criminal problems you should be allowed to carry a gun. Some states make owing a gun as simple as having proper identification and being legal age. It should be a lot harder across all states. All states should incorporate the same practices
Relevance is about timing The times have changed. The right to bear arms is related to a well disciplined militia. A militia is a volunteer army. We have a volunteer army and they are very well armed. Civilians were the militia and they are us, the people. Now, to believe that this meant that the everyday civilian tending to his business was to be armed to the teeth at all times shows a lack of a basic comprehension of the second amendment in its historical context. That was not the intent nor should it be taken to mean that everyone should have every weapon a well armed and disciplined militia would have. That is just plain silly. Taken to its full implementation that would imply anyone can have a nuke! After all, it is an arm, ie, weapon and I have the right to bear it, ie, have one.
The law to limit the ownership of guns or having weapons is unethical and not fair. The world should be a peaceful place to live in. All the weapons have been created by humans, and must be destroyed. Owning them should not be allowed. People who carry guns may not be responsible enough in the way they use them. Some try to boast about it too.
I think that gun rights should be banned because people use guns for murder, not for protection. The use of guns has been used for violence on innocent people, such as the lockdown in Connecticut and when Oscar shot his girlfriend. The use of guns is too dangerous for young children and should be out of reach.
There are far too many guns and gun owners in this country. The Second Amendment was written at a time when guns were commonplace, and people actually used them to hunt and defend their land. Nowadays, they are used in mass shootings and to supply cartels in Mexico. There is absolutely no reason anyone should need to carry a gun in public, and handguns should be banned altogether.
Guns are easily given out to be people who are psychologically unwell. The Virginia Tech shootings are a classic example. An unsound person was not properly screened, given a gun, and senselessly murdered many people. We have a right to bear arms, but if you have nothing to hide, why do you fear testing and restrictions? There is no reason for any person in suburbia to have multiple guns in their home.
In some states, it is incredibly easy to obtain a gun. Guns are easily accessible for illegal purposes or can fall into the hands of people who are mentally unstable. There is no reason why we shouldn't have increased gun control in the United States. Guns are dangerous weapons and that outweighs an amendment made centuries ago.
How many assault rifles, semi and fully automatic weapons etc. do you need to protect yourself. The NRA is getting way too powerful by installing fear as a lobbying tactic. Way too many death's by accidental shooting, which takes the rights of the dead person, away immediately.
If someone broke into my home and we caught him then yes I would want to be able to defend myself, but does it give me the right to put a bullet in his head? No, it does not.
I do not see the need for killing somebody for revenge's sake
I also vehemently disagree with the American frontier mentality of people having guns in their homes to "defend themselves". The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is sky-high, and guns are far more likely to be abused than used for self defense. The idea that giving everyone a gun will "protect" the non-criminals from the criminals is ridiculous.
At what point does a non-criminal become a criminal? When the loving family man has a meltdown, grabs a gun and slaughters his family? When the neighborhood dispute gets out of hand? When the homeowner shoots an "intruder" who turns out to be his teenage son sneaking into the house after a party? When the bullied teenager gets hold of a gun and massacres his classmates? All have happened in America.
Too many people can access guns way too easily. The amount of school shootings and other disasters that have happened should already be enough to spark a movement in people. If more thorough background scans were made and if more limitations were put on gun owners, many lives could be saved. STOP GUN VIOLENCE.
Do criminals register THEIR guns? No. So, why should it be so hard to own one? Knives don't need to be registered, neither do crossbows or baseball bats or tire irons, yet those kill just as effectively. I carry a gun to protect myself INCASE I need to. So, hy do I need to let everyone know I have one, so I can be challenged? So I can be stereotyped into people thinking I'm a criminal? Killing someone or peeing on a bush, you can still be arrested for each, but what will come to mind when you tell someone you were arrested, that you were eeing, or that you did something very bad? A gun should be for protection against those who want to harm me, cut and dry, there should be no other reason. If you want to buy ammo, you should need to show a two forms of picture ID including your driver's license, that's it. People can torch or grind off a bike lock, but it deters most would-be criminals. Look at the bait car show, if the car wasn't running with the door open, a lot of people wouldn't steal it. Most crimes are by opportunity and ease of execution. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, I don't care what kind of gun you have, .22 rimfire or an M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
There was a woman in Georgia. She had two nine year old twins in her house and she was working from home upstairs when she noticed someone suspicious outside of her window. She grabs her .38 revolver and her twins and takes them to the attic. Then, the perpetrator opens the door to be greeted with the woman, two little kids, and a .38 revolver. The woman shoots the man five times. He is still alive. She has fired all six of her rounds, but to save herself and more importantly her children, she threatens to keep shooting. The family and the little kids are safe. That gun saved two nine year old kids. 80% of policeman say that background checks would have absolutely no effect on violent crime. Chicago, the murder and violent crime capital of the country, had the strictest gun laws in the nation. The only thing gun laws would do would make it even harder for the law-abiding citizens to get a firearm. Studies show as gun ownership goes up, suicide, murder, and other violent crime goes down. Plus, in most cases of the shootings you hear about, the criminals either broke a number of gun laws like in Columbine, or no amount of gun laws could have stopped it, like in Sandy Hook. Also, the intent of an “Assault Rifle” is not to kill someone, but to wound them. They are a long lasting, affordable gun that in some cases are less dangerous than even a handgun. The only thing that adding more gun laws would do is make it harder for the public to get a gun, which would not stop the criminals from getting them illegally. They would just leave more law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves and their family. A wise man once said “The only thing that can stop a guy with a gun, is another man with a gun.”
Do you really think that criminals are going to follow laws? Do you think they are simply going to turn in their guns just because a sign says no guns? The crime rate will go up just like it did in Australia. The only people who will turn in their guns are the law abiding citizens who would never consider shooting anyone in the first place. Criminals will have free reign in America because they will no that no one has any guns to defend themselves with!
Plenty of laws are already on the books concerning gun control. The problem seems to be that current laws are not being enforced. Too many people with mental illnesses and criminal backgrounds are able to procure semi-automatic and automatic handguns. People who get their firearms stolen often do not report the thefts to police. Background checks are not strict enough or are done haphazardly. More can be done to enforce the laws that have already been passed, rather than creating more laws that limit the rights of citizens to bear arms.
Out country was founded on guns. The fact that the government is wanting to take away an amendment that our country was founded on. The acts of a few people should not take away the rights of the people who use guns the right way, and the family's who they can protect.
American people cannot own military weapons, or "assault weapons" they are already illegal and rarely used in crimes. The military has control of tanks drones, poisonous radioactive ammunition etc... that's not what Americans are asking for when they say their 2nd Amendment rights are being stripped (In my opinion, the 2nd implies that we should be able to fight back against the military if needed). People don't have anyone to blame with this tragedy since the killer and the one who provided access to the guns are dead, so they are going for gun owners and thinking of them as reckless and juvenile. People often argue for more gun control by saying things like, "who needs to hunt with a machine gun?" NO ONE DOES THAT. They are just repeating catchy ideas they heard in the news and not actually thinking for themselves. A teacher in the Conn. shooting actually lunged at the shooter, of course she was killed but imagine if she had a firearm in her pocket... she could have saved every kid. THESE MASS SHOOTINGS ALL TAKE PLACE IN GUN-FREE ZONES. Washington DC banned firearms, crime rates went up. Obama and others come out the very next day with their political agenda taking advantage of heartbroken Americans.
Each step we take towards further legislating gun ownership is a step closer to removing the right of citizens to own guns. Our current legislation fulfills our need to be protected from citizens who are known to be violent, and it should remain as it is. Guns are necessary to protect us from those who possess them and wish to use them unjustly.
Private guns have stopped two and a half million crimes a year. That's a lot higher than the crimes committed with guns. How stupid can citizens get? We need guns! It is required for our protection! I heard a story once that a bank was being robbed in a small town, when the robber made it to the street, 6 people shot him. America needs more guns! Not less! If everyone had a gun we would all be safe!
More gun laws are not the answer to the gun problem. It is well known that criminal elements have illegal sources where they can buy guns. By passing more gun laws, all we are doing is depriving law-abiding citizens of the ability to own guns for self-defense if they are confronted by persons who have obtained guns illegally. There is no law that will eliminate all guns from the hands of human beings.
It is preposterous that Obama wants to enforce more gun control considering how many guns he is surrounded by everyday. He tells us they are dangerous, but they never leave his side. He and his family are protected, so why can't we and our families have protection? Gun control does not mean that crimes will be controlled. By incidents in our past, we know that it actually tends to increase crime rate.
If there were more laws that forbid people from having guns, then once again, the law abiding citizens will be the only people following the law to avoid being prosecuted. The criminals will always find a way to illegally get weapons. This will leave the law abiding citizen unarmed against the common criminal. With no way to defend themselves or their family and possessions. It has the same scenario as bringing a knife to a gun fight. The new law in Georgia, that requires every law abiding citizen, who is the head of the household to have a gun. This will surely deter a good number of criminals, who by the way, do not want to get hurt, they are just being bullies, because they think they can get away with it. It is up to us to change the rules; to finally intimidate the criminals for a change.
What if there is a ban on all firearms?? The people who did not turn them into the government and use this to their advantage and loot and all of that stuff and the victims cannot protect them self.The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang member, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
A criminal breaks the law. General fact. Gun laws are laws. Fact. Logic dictates that criminals will not obey gun laws. However, law abiding citizens will obey the laws. Thus, they are unprotected against the armed criminals.
Let us say that all guns were taken away, this is not possible, criminals will carry around knives and screwdrivers to mug and kill people, but the law abiding citizens will obviously not do this. Crime continues and the citizens get killed more often.
I think it is everyone's right as a US citizen to be able to bear arms. With that said, I think the laws are already strict enough on the topic. I do not think they need to be made any stricter.
I am safe with my gun. Not that I would try to kill someone. But if someone broke into my house I could shoot it in the air to scare them away. If attacked I'd shoot them in the leg. If someone had a gun at that movie theater or at another major shooting. The killer probably wouldn't have killed so many people. 2nd amendment! Cannot be taken away.
By taking our right to bear arms, you are taking away our rights as an American Citizen. Strengthening the law of gun control is outrageous to say the least. Guns will always be around no matter what, just like illegal drugs are always around even though they are prohibited nationwide. Guns allow us american citizens to stand up to intruders and criminals that strike at any given moment. By taking away firearms, the Government might as well take away our Freedom of Speech as well. Bottom line guns are here to stay.
There are sections in most cities where the police department personnel won't enter after dark without at least one more unit to back them up. Even then, the officers enter just long enough to answer a call, serve a warrant, and get the heck out of there ASAP. The good folks in these areas won't report crimes or call for help in fear of retaliation. Gangs and thugs rule the streets, especially at night. Juvenile kids who are barely teenagers are packing heat and dealing drugs and violence. If they're caught, they're headed to juvie hall. If their adult bosses are caught, they might go back to prison.
You can bet your bottom dollar any changes to the current gun laws and restrictions on firearms and magazines won't make one iota of difference to these guys because they're not headed down to the local gun shop to obtain their firearms.
The local police department can't do anything with these thugs and they won't call in state or federal assistance because the city council and the mayor needs the vote of these citizens in these abandoned, lawless sections to remain in office. If they do attempt to curb the violence to any degree, the special interest groups along with Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and the liberals will play the race card.
This scenario is playing out in every town and city across America to some degree or another. It's the oldest form of vote buying and block voting used by the politicians.
I've watched this scenario unfold over the years in Macon, Georgia and Atlanta, Georgia.
If you doubt my words, take a little stroll through Macon, Ga. after the sun goes down and leave a comment if you survive the night.
Legal gun owners and sellers don't violate the law as the aforementioned did resulting in the death of a Federal agent. I'm amazed that they haven't been indicted yet. Oh I forgot one is the Head of the Justice Department and the other is the President. They have not claimed culpability for this to this day.
Guns are not the problem - it's the human being holding the gun that is the problem. These people are mentally ill who commit murders - no matter the weapon of choice. A frying pan can kill a person if one is hit on the head just right -- ban all frying pans? The person committing the murder is the problem. Any and all "weapons" should be used for defense purposes against those in our society who are having severe mental problems.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
How can you even call yourself an american and not follow the bill of rights? I tell you what Ill agree to turn in all of my guns if you can get Cocaine, Meth, and weed out of america and stop criminals from getting a hold of unprescribed medicines.
People need to get out of this fairy tell world where they think that we can first off get rid of all guns in america and 2nd off that people wouldn't be murdered? Guns prevent murders. Think of it this way. If you was planning on robbing a McDonald's but seen that every employ and every customer had a gun do you think you would "A" rob it "B" get a team of people to rob the place for what ever is in the register or "C" decide your going to find a new career path? Unless you watch WAY to many movies obviously your not going to pick "A" or "B" right? Bottom Line is BUY A GUN and protect your self from people who wish you harm.
The only people who are going to abide by a law that limits gun ownership are the people who have no intentions of using their guns in an illegal manner. Criminals don't have the same moral code and will still have guns. Today, the honest man can fight back, but if his guns are taken away, it opens the door for criminals to have even more power against law abiding citizens.
People are going to find a way to get guns, and hurt people just to get them. Either way, gun control laws aren't going to save everyone. It can impact people greatly, for example, the people who use guns to hunt for themselves and for survival. Also for the people who use guns to hunt animals down to sell in their shops. As well, many people use guns to protect their families.
Rights are given by God, not government. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution limits governmental powers. The Constitution does not GIVE rights, the Constitution PROTECTS our rights. The sole purpose of the second amendment was to protect the citizens from the government if it ever became despotic. Liberty and freedom are two different things. Government can only restrict a benefit or a privilege, not a right. Just posing a question like this is a shock test to see how much government we can get away with by the voluntary acquiescence of an ignorant public.
There is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to keep a weapon for my own and my family's safety if I feel that it is a necessary precaution that I should take. My responsibility to protect my family remains the same whether or not I have access to a gun, but my ability to protect them is potentially greatly decreased if gun ownership is restricted.
Few experiences in life are more interesting than a young, woman and a garage gun, something she made herself out of what ever she had to work with. You don't know what to say. It's not like she knits, or make YouTube makeup tutorials. She's underage, and not able to buy one for herself, so she had improvised. She has learned that she can get what she wants outside and around the law. As an adult you can get what you want, why can't she? You worry for her, partly because she wanted something more than a paintball marker, she wanted to plink cans. You worry more for her because she has learned that she can contact people she isn't supposed to and get what she wants anyway.
Neither have my golf clubs, or my automobile, motorcycle, boat, or tennis racket!
When my guns open the safe, and start running wildly down the street committing mayhem, I will personally destroy every single one of them!
I think alcohol is more dangerous than citizens owning guns - If guns start drinking and driving, then we will definitely need some immediate restrictive legislation! Who wants to live in a society with drunk guns?
Gun ownership should not be limited for a number of reasons. One of them witch is that guns are a right Americans have and have had since the beginning of the Constitution. People need guns for self defense. We can not live in a world where criminals illegally have guns and the everyday citizen does not have a way to defend themselves against criminals.
The governments of the world have tried and failed to stop the populous from doing certain things that they find detrimental to society at large. Some examples:
The list goes on and on and on! The prohibition of things simply drives up the desire for these things and further misuse and abuse. The History channel acknowledged this in several documentaries related to the prohibition of alcohol in the US. This boils down to one thing! If people want something they are going to have it, even if they have to make it themselves or whatever. Right now the US have more people in prison and jail than any other country in the world and most of these individuals are drug offenders. We have so many that they are no releasing them early do to over crowding. Laws and jail time do not stop illegal drug users from getting drugs, guns, or anything else they want. They just create a black market industry for these items and make the most undesirable criminals more and more powerful! I will give up my guns when the government can reasonably assure that there will be NO drugs, NO illegal guns, NO human trafficking, and NO prostitution! I KNOW IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!
I am a Texan and just like my fore fathers at the Battle of Gonzales I say COME AND TAKE IT!
If people are willing to kill, and rob with guns then they are willing to lie and be able to get guns. This is pretty much only going to affect the people who are safe with the guns and all that. Thxs for listening to what I think about gun control.
What those in the government lobbying to ban guns don't see (or don't care about) is the fact that the honest good people who only use firearms for recreation and protection are the only people that will be affected. Criminals, and those who might become criminals through acts of violence with guns will NOT turn in their firearms. This will only make criminals jobs easier because they will have less to deter them from their activities.
While it is true at this time that the current gun legislation being debated does not technically take away peoples firearms, it is only a matter of time. Those with an agenda to take our guns will not stop, and this legislation will only help them along.
Gun owners are not bad people! We are Americans. The freedoms we all enjoy were won through the use of firearms. Let's look at helping people before they become suicidal.
There is a reason the Second Amendment reads "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". This is not "SHALL BE MODIFIED". It is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." There IS no room for interpretation. If the government thinks they can take the weapons of good people, while they can't even grow some balls in the legislature and judiciary? They will get a fiery awakening. Alex Jones was QUITE correct on what will happen if guns become banned.
I believe that you should be able to purchase weapons for your own defense but you should also have to register these weapons. You should also have to learn how to use these weapons correctly and store them properly when not in use. They should also be kept out of the hands of children at all times.
With extreme gun control many people would be angry, this would lead to mobs, riots, increase in crime rates, and so on... We as many Americans who have grown up around guns know the dangers of them. Gun safety is taught more often than not, especial for hunting or protection purposes. However, some limits should be put on guns, but not enough to be overly extensive. In a large number of these shooting are done by the mentally ill. Which were 'black sheep' or people which were abused or rejected by people. Similar to serial killers, people can change their behavior to look perfectly normal, rather than that to a mass murder. It is a felony for a convict to have a gun on his person or in his car, which is in federal law. The 2nd Amendment states that 'the right to have and bear arms.' I understand the risks with weapons I.e. guns, but in the end the 'bad guys' will most likely get them anyway.
Law abiding citizens should be allowed to have a gun in their home to protect their home in any city or state regardless of local statues and laws. Whether or not they should have them on their person is debatable, but the right to own a gun should not be limited any further because it an inalienable American right.
Passing a law that criminals and crazy people won't break great idea I feel safe just thinking about it. Ban any gun it will going from tracked and sold legally to untracked and sold illegally. It is common sense that is over looked every time. The laws are already there, stacks of them.
Passing laws to limit gun ownership is just a quick fix to a larger problem. The idea to limiting gun ownership is that it will help reduce catastrophes, like school shootings and innocent bystanders being injured or killed in drive-by shootings and such. Unfortunately, limiting gun ownership will not change or modify the mentality of the people that commit these crimes. Take the guns away, and they will just find a new weapon.
It does nothing for the criminals that are already breaking the law. Limiting gun ownership will only make it easier for a criminal to harm normal law abiding citizens. If you want to lower the crime rate, how about you actually find a way of dealing with a criminal (like making the death penalty a more viable option) instead of hurting the average American.
Tighter gun laws have not been shown to prevent violent crimes in other nations. In fact, some of the safest countries have some of the most lax gun laws. Most crimes committed involving guns are using unregistered guns, anyway. So, limiting legal gun ownership further would do nothing to prevent those crimes.
Criminals are not following laws in the first place, to get a fully automatic gun you need a government issue level 3 license. and I seriously doubt they have those. Most guns that criminals obtain are from the street and buy it off the record. The people that commit murders is the problem here. If you ban guns then what are we going to have to protect ourselves with.
It says it in the constitution, why would you change the constitution? Plus, the criminals will have guns anyway, I want to be able to fight back instead of being rendered helpless by the government.
Gun control has historically not worked in the United States. It is also a protected in the Bill of Rights. If we allow or basic rights granted by the Constitution for some extra perceived safety, what will come next? How many rights are we willing to lose for our safety. Personally I accept some risks in order to enjoy as many freedoms as possible.
So, when the citizens are disarmed in the future, who is going to take my gun away and how? I'm guessing it will be some sort of "police" force that will threaten me with a gun to take my gun. Look at prohibition on drugs. I bet you all could go out and find a bag of weed right now. Whoever wants to give up their rights, give them up. When the governing body turns on you and you try to run in my house for safety, I'm going to pop you in the head.
Gun control is bad, we should have what the military has. Assault rifles with no limits to mag size, fully auto, bombs, nukes and every thing in between. I do not favor gun control, it is just stupid. It will hopefully not happen more than what it is. That is my stance.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And if someone jumps out at you in an allyway with a knife saying "give me all your money", the person isn't gonna pull out an AK-47 and blast him to bits, is he? People are being to scared about these gun laws. It's time to man up.
No amount of laws will stop criminals from illegally possessing firearms. Gun laws will only hurt law abiding citizens. Further gun laws will take guns out of the hands law abiding citizens and put them in the hands of criminals and then no one will be safe. Would it really be better to live in a world where only criminals have guns?
Limiting gun ownership only takes the weapons away from law abiding citizens. It does nothing for the criminals that are already breaking the law. Limiting gun ownership will only make it easier for a criminal to harm normal law abiding citizens. If you want to lower the crime rate, how about you actually find a way of dealing with a criminal (like making the death penalty a more viable option) instead of hurting the average American.
All forms of gun control have been done to simply limit ownership and this is done by putting more red tape in the way of a citizen wishing to own and carry a firearm. Why do this when its the criminals that we don't want to own guns. Guns start out legal and end up on the black market which are then sold to criminals. Why stop there, why not go to the source and limit the amount of guns manufactured by companies? Less legal gun result in less guns on the black market which then result in less guns in the hands of criminals. Criminals don't care about registration laws, they are criminals after all.