It's because of guns we can't have peace in the world! If you wish for world peace how can you allow guns in the hands of anyone? Even worst if it's allowed in your home it's like allowing rape and incest into your home as well. If people did not have guns in the country we would be all happier and at peace.
For what reason do you need an automatic weapon unless you are a trained professional? Military and LE grade weapons are intended to be used for those reasons alone. They serve no purpose in the hands of a civilian and are not the weapons our founding fathers intended the public to have.
Let's be real -- accidents happen. The last thing we need if someone to accidentally drop an automatic and rounds go off kill innocents. With a regular it only shoots one bullet at a time. Automatics don't. So I believe that automatics should never in the vicinity of a home.
I can only state the obvious. The United States of America ...
The only reason to own a handgun, military or automatic weapon is to kill another human being. That's it. Most countries of the world know this and have taken steps to ensure they do not allow the general population to have access to these types of weaponry.
I feel so sad for the people of the U.S.A. Especially now with the current government in power.
In the wrong hands, these weapons can do so much damage. They can mow down groups of people in seconds without having to reload. America already has a huge, well armed police force and the biggest military in the world, so why do people need this weapons. I understand if someone wants a rifle to hunt deer, or a pistol to defend themselves from intruders, but a gun designed for war should not be in the hands of civilians, let alone people like terrorists and serial killers.
Because guns are bad and like if there were no guns world would be better place and there would be less crimes happening in the world its because they can be sold easily that people buy them and decide to shoot up a place. If guns werent sold to the public then criminals wouldnt have any and go and shoot up a place
As the other side said, gun's don't kill people, people kill people. We have so many bad people that it would take too long to just believe that making people "better" would stop gun violence. It would be easier to just ban military weapons from the public hands. It is sad that my children are scared to go to school in the morning, fearful, someone my shoot up there school.
We don't need gun to protect our self if no one have gun, if bad people can have gun easily then we will need gun to protect ourselves, but if government banned the usage of gun, then we won't need any firepower to protect ourself.
That why gun should be ban.
The clear purpose of this is not to compare America to the European world, where any guns are illegal in the hands of a civilian. This system seems to work quite well out here, as we generally have no guns to defend ourselves the robbers/etc. Will be less likely to shoot. They simply don't feel threatened. People who draw a gun on criminals, would probably engage in a deadly gunfight. It would not prevent the crime from happening, it would make it worse.
The debate here is that in a world where guns are allowed, to show the criminal world that we CAN defend ourselves, it is very important to know that having an automatic weapon will not increase your chances in any way. Guns are allowed as an element to scare, and to avoid any combat from occurring. Why bring the bigger gun? Alot of people, i believe, really would like to shoot rapists, murderers etc. to kill. But that is not how the juridical system works. We shoot to scare, not to kill.
The last aspect is ofcourse, those civilians who just want to have fun and do target practice on a shooting range for example. It should be regulated for these guns to remain at the range and it should be impossible to take any weaponry bigger than a pistol back home. After the Sandy Hook incident, alot of Americans got scared and bought a heavy machine gun (the AR-15, I believe). This gun is of no use against mentally insane people, especially because you can't carry this gun with you. I think it is simple truth that if you really want protection, you need a small and mobile piece that won't cause any excessive harm. You obviously don't want people firing a fully-automatic glock on the streets either.
Uijniniuni un innii nin ni ni niu nunin iu uu u u u u uu u u u u u uu u u u u uu uu u u u ui ui iu iu u8 y7y y yhy 8y yh 7h u 8y7 hy y by y8b 7yb7 b7 byb
Clearly 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."
1) a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2) : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Obviously, the wording states that people should be able to and train with military weapons seeing that they would be acting in the form of a military.
Remember, the reason why this country was able to gain independence was because we had and could use the same types of weapons that the British military did. They knew that even with the improvements they made that our government could still be ruled or controlled by tyrants so they put it in as an amendment to aid us if that should happen again.
I am not saying the condition exists now, nor would I recommend any action but we should have the right just in case we need to take back this county.
Well first of all, there is nothing special about "military" weapons in themselves. The military uses semi-automatic handguns, just as do civilians. The key issue is automatic weapons. I agree, they shouldn't just be sold to anyone who wants one. However, prior to 1986, civilians could apply for a permit from the ATF, get an extensive background check, pay $200 tax, and either build or buy a machine gun, which would be on a registry. Between 1934, when these measures took effect, and 1986, the ban, not a single civilian ever committed a single crime with a registered machine gun. Allowing people to go through this process doesn't harm anyone, and will not increase crime. Silencers, sawed-off shotguns, grenades, and rocket launchers are currently subject to those restrictions, and when was the last time you heard of ANY of those being used in the US to commit a crime?
It doesn't matter if a person has an assault weapon, a pistol, or even a Nerf gun. If a weapon is illegally purchased, outlawing the type of weapon will not stop terrorists from getting them. The type of weapon has nothing to do with violence. According to a Chicago Crime Lab study, the percent of gun violence caused by legal gun owners is a mere 2.9% meaning that if you outlaw guns from civilian hands, it will take away protection and do absolutely nothing else, other than possibly worsening the issue. No one needs an assault weapon. But outlawing them will do nothing.
If we can prevent bad people from getting guns, than we can prevent crimes from guns. After all, when was the last time a gun decided to fire? Never. Sure these guns are dangerous, but if people are safe with the guns and do not treat them as a weapon of destruction people will not die. If you want to take away guns, you might as well take away every toll or weapon. Powerful tools can be just as dangerous as weapons.
What exactly is a military weapon, weapons kill people, almost every weapon in existence was designed for the military. From Muskets to modern assault rifles at one point in history or another they were all standard military weapons, the only difference is how efficiently/quickly they can kill you.
Have a look at this web site as an example:
A weapon is a weapon, a knife can make you just as dead as a gun, banning certain guns will not stop gun crime, do you really think all those criminals out there go to their local gun store for their guns?