I don't believe in limiting a law abiding persons ability to own a gun. However, along with strictly enforcing our current laws. We should also require strict public safety and background checks, psychological testing, as well as training for a person to be able to purchase and own a firearm.
People believe it is "their second amendment right!" In fact, the constitution only mentions guns being used in militias because at that time there were militias. At this point, there is no need for militias. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and we do not see people going into schools or movie theaters with guns. You can't fight fire with fire with Fire so how do why do people think more guns will cause less chaos?
Well can you guys think if we left random people with guns what could happen to our population. We need to make sure there is more gun control around the U.S. Remember the Columbine shooting and how much of a threat that was to us, think if it happened to you what if you got hurt or you died. Think how those parents felt when they heard that there kid was dead. Now think about it we need it we want it.
After some deep discussion, I decided that there are certain types of guns that the average civilian does not need. Because of the Sandy Hook shooting, the gun control debate is focused on assault rifles, and I believe that assault rifles should only be reserved for military and law enforcement use. The practical uses for guns can easily be done with rifles, shotguns and pistols.
It is mainly the reason why there are so many gang crime in America because of the use and easy access of guns. So many lives have been lost last year with the Trayvon/Mike Brown/Eric Garner situation which I am sure there have been plenty of other stories similar to this that have not been in the news, which is very sad.
Well, there are many, many reasons for why I stated my answer. First of all, law says we need background checks, to see whether or not this person should still have the right to own a gun. I do think psychology examinations wouldn't be a bad idea when it comes to more deadly weapons, but it's simple as this.
Mass shootings are pretty rare. They sadly aren't as rare as they should be, but they are rare. At this, many argue that it's bad because of gang violence or robberies or whatever. Now, if a person is willing to catch a murder charge, home invasion charge, and so on, do you really think they're afraid of catching a gun charge? Come on now, it's common sense. The right to bare arms is a right that helps the law abiding citizen, giving them the right to own a fire arm for protection, or other practical uses such as hunting for food. These criminals aren't just anyone baring arms. They're people, willing to catch any charge, so at that, why make it harder for the good guys to obtain weapons and protection, when the bad guys aren't going by the system anyway? It is very uncommon that a Crip gang member walks into the local cabelas and browses glocks with the salesman. It is more likely he meets up in a dark alley with some other sketchy dude, to buy a gun that likely has blood on it, with scratched off serial numbers. The criminals are already getting them illegally, if we make them more illegal than they already are, less good guys will have weapons to protect themselves, and as for the bad guys, gun control laws makes way to many more defenseless victims.
Nnooooononononon nninonooo nono no no noooooooo no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no non non o non no no non no nnon on non onn on non non non non on non non nonon nn o no no no on non non non no just no
The first thing needed to solve any issue is public debate. In the United States this means the liberal media brings in liberals who back up their views on national TV and then there is Fox that brings in conservatives to debate. Here is an example of the BS the liberal media uses -- "Tens of thousands of people die of gun violence in the U.S." That is a fact but their BS is in the analysis because then they say "we need more background checks" or "lets ban assault weapons". In truth 93% of these 10's of thousands of victims are killed by illegal weapons. The FBI does not keep track of the amount of people killed by assault rifles but we do know that each year hammers kill more people then rifles. To somebody reading this who doesn't know f*$@^n s!^t about guns this doesn't seem feasible because they figure oh assault weapons = so dangerous that number must be in the thousands. Well if you don't know anything about guns wait to join the debate until you know the difference between a bullet and a shell casing (and allot more than that). Assault weapons were used in only 1 of all the mass shootings (more than 5 dead) (that would be Newtown). The rest were all pistols and nobody is going to take those away. Why is nobody talking about making pistols illegal if they are responsible for 99% of mass shootings? Well studies show states and cities with pistol permits have less crime than cities where they are illegal. Take Chicago for example where Obama's buddy Rahm Emanuel took away pistol permits. Crime quickly shot up and so they now they're legal again (crime has now gone down).
So why do politicians target assault weapons if they kill very few people as a statistic. It's because to most people there doesn't seem to be much of a practical need for people to have assault weapons. Here is where people could need them "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." That is from our Declaration of Independence.
Who in this great democracy is Tyrannical? Take the politicians who on behalf of liberals mostly from our cities are trying to ban citizens from bearing the most modern weapons. Well what started caused the Colonists to open fire on their English brothers? The British wanted to disarm the rebels by taking their most modern weapons stored at Concord.
8,855 people died from gun homicide last year.
Only 620 with legal firearms.
Obama is trying to confuse Americans by saying 10's of thousands since 9/11. It's been 14 years since 9/11.
First off, people who want guns will get guns even if it is illegal (criminal). That only makes the citizens less protected. And we shouldn't rely on the gov to protect us. If they dont get there in time? They are the ones who put us in jeopardy. And the gov is corrupt. We have the right to be as powerful as the military and to be truthful i dont like the direction the gov is going, so we need to be prepared for something. We need to be safe from criminals and a corrupt gov. Im a very peaceful person generally, i just like to be prepared and safe and this is the only way how.
Well, that may not necessarily be true. Gun control advocates often cite Australia and England as examples of where gun control works, but you can't accurately compare European countries to America. America has an entirely different culture. For accurate examples you have to compare America to America, so take a look at the American cities where the gun control laws are strict, like Chicago and Detroit. That's what gun control does in America.
Everyone says that banning guns in the U.S will bring crime down (which is a questionable statement), but the truth is, it only will if you confiscate all firearms and all means of manufacturing them. And that won't happen ever. If word even get's out, people will go bury guns out in the desert and then effectively nothing has changed. What needs to change is cracking down on straw purchasing and having stronger storage laws and special circumstances for living with the mentally ill. Anyone who disagree can feel free to challenge me to a debate.
We don't need more gun control, we need more effective gun control. We need gun control that makes it harder to use guns illegally, and not harder to be a responsible gun user. The ATF openly admits that they cannot effectively enforce all of the gun laws already on the books. It wouldn't make any sense to give them more laws that they can't enforce. On top of that, strict gun control is proven not to prevent, but to encourage gun crime, so there is honestly no reason for me to support more gun control in the US.
It allows people toown guns and other weapons. For there to be more gun control would be unconstitutional. Would you want to not be allowed to go to a track meet because they could'nt use a starter pistol? I would certainly not! That is why the framers added that to the bill of rights.