Should the government make it harder to get a gun?

Asked by: JaneDoe625
  • At some point , yes..

    At some point , yes.. When i got my gun licence back in PA, Philadelphia, there were some kids from school, getting their gun licence.. I thing they were around 17/19 years old.. That crazy.. A kid is not mature enough to have access to a gun fire.. !! Im completely against that.., and most likely, those kids will end up being used by "other" kids , mentally talking, to do all kinds evil things..

  • They really do.

    It should be so much harder to get a gun then it is now. It is way to easy to get a gun. I hate it that it is way to easy to get a gun, but yet mental health care is a lot harder and more expensive. It annoys me.

  • Weapons, not tools.

    Nothing but death comes from a gun. There is no reason that we need guns. They allow for us to defend ourselves, but against what? Other guns. Firearms are so impersonal and easy to use. To kill with a gun, you only have to point and pull the trigger. To kill someone any other way, thought has to be put in to it. Killing with a knife is incredibly difficult, and is a choice that has to be made, and be certain. It also has to be a little insane.

  • Yes, no doubt about it:

    Its easier to find a gun then a parking spot, in someplace this is true murders happen everyday because its to easy to get these murder weapons. These murders keep happening and nothings changing guns are still sold everyday. There are people who need help and giving them a gun wont help.

  • They definitely should:

    Guns are dangerous tools for murder. If you just let people get their hands on them easily, then it will only lead to death and the ability to control others. If there are less guns, then there will be less shooting. The unconstitutional argument seems silly, just because it is something banned or allowed by a law or rule, doesn't mean it is good.

  • Take a look at the numbers

    Some argue that we should restrict guns because "Look at the UK!!!" They have much stricter gun control, and even when adjusted for population their gun crime rate is lower.

    That's probably because instead of being able to shoot an intruder, you have to let them steal your 80" plasma 8K TV that cost you $110K instead. (Not kidding, they do exist and they cost about that much.) But that wouldn't cause any deaths, would it? It's not involving a gun, is it? But are we really safer if we have to let them steal stuff rather than stopping the crime before anything happens? All three questions are answered no.

    Anyway, off that topic, our gun crime rate isn't bad. Although the number is disputed, NationMaster places the US at 10th in the world by crime per 100K people (some sources say 18th, others 28th). With the US having between 35-50% of civilian owned guns, that rate is phenomenally good. If we remove the three most violent (and the most gun-controlled) cities -- NYC, Chicago, LA -- from the total, we plummet down to something around 60th.

    Unfortunately, a sorta high gun crime rate is bound to happen when the people are free to have guns for self-defense. Someone's gonna use it wrong, inevitably. You can kill someone with a baseball bat, a knife, a chair, and even your own two fists.

    Or a car. (More people have died in car crashes than have died in all the wars humans have ever fought.)

    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" - Thomas Jefferson

  • That would be unconstitutional.

    Of course everyone would agree that only good, responsible people should own guns; however, making them harder for the average law abiding citizen isn't going to solve any of the problems associated with them. There is an abundance of evidence that shows that placing stricter gun laws does not help the crime rate. Besides the government making it harder to get guns is the definition of government infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so it would be illegal to do so and is an impeachable offense.

  • Why would you make it harder to protect yourself?

    It's in the constitution, and it cannot be infringed so anything that even makes it difficult to get a gun should not be passed. Everyone has the same rights in the USA and the government can't take that away. Pro arguments include "not mature enough". Do you let your child go on facebook? How about drive a car? If they do either of those things and you let them, they can own a gun. A gun is not a tool for murder. It can be, but like any other tool it can be used in the right way. Criminals target unarmed people, not armed people.

  • It doesn't matter how easy to it is to get a gun, it's the people buying them.

    People will get guns if they want to, common citizens have the right to protect themselves. But criminals will get them illegally or do something else to get them as well. So shouldn't we have the right to protect ourselves from those people? Yes! There is the concealed carry for a reason. People get the opportunity to protect them and their families because sometimes the police aren't fast enough. Should we just sit there and let the criminal take our things in our homes or break into your local movie theater and shoot up the place? Or would you rather have the training and ability to protect you, your family, and/or your neighbors?

  • My Uncalled-For Perspective

    "Okay, wait a second...Explain to me how making guns more difficult to attain is the debate headline, in the first place? Does putting cameras in a jewelry store make it impossible to rob? Does being mute make it impossible to communicate? The question should be more broad, like, "Should the American People be Allowed to Own Guns", to which the answer would be yes, they should. First off, it's Constitutional, and if that's not evidence enough, then explain to me why America is inarguably the most successful nation on the face of the planet. It's because our Founding Fathers were frickin' genuises. They knew what
    they were talking about, and they understood the importance of the right of self-defense. Anyway, if a crazy guy can't use a gun to kill you, he's gonna use a knife. Or a stick. Because he's CRAZY. NOT because he has/does not have a more efficient way to kill you. An then there's the accident card, stating that morons are just as dangerous as crazy people when given guns. Simple answer: DON'T GIVE A GUN TO A MORON. And when he's a moron with the gun, you take
    it away. The next issue is the apparent needlessness of a gun in self-defense. Some people are weenies, America. They're gonna need a gun to get the job done. Next, there's the gun-free zone perspective. Putting up a sign that says "Gun Free Zone" is about as effective as me guarding my house with a Pet Rock and a sign that says "Beware of Rock." Obviously, no one's going to give a flying squirrel, because there is no backbone to the threat. And we can't have police guarding every coffee shop in America because A. Half of them would be in Portland alone, B. That's completely insane, C. Nazis, anyone?, and
    D. There aren't that many police. Have I covered all of the bases? I think I have. Let me summarize my rant with this: the human mind is a tool exponentially more dangerous than any gun. A man can kill people if he's crazy enough to do it, and when some people doesn't have the spine to defend themselves against a serial killer, they're gonna die. Unless they have A. A gun, and B. A functioning brain. Thank you for your time and attention (unless you voted yes, in which case, read this entire message again.)

  • No they should not

    They need to make people with mental issues get medical help not ban guns. They are going to make it that hardly anyone can get a gun. It doesn't matter if they make it harder to get a gun because people will be able to get them illegally just as easily as now.

  • "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."

    Justice Antonin Scalia in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, a case in which it was decided whether the second amendment protects the personal right to obtain guns for self-defense, the US Supreme Court majority opinion stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." This means that we need to allow the people to use guns because they have a right to own a gun and we shouldn’t make it harder for them to get it. It really does not matter how easy it is to get a gun but it is the people that choose to buy the gun. The citizens have the right to It is important to remember that most people do not use guns to harm people.

  • Because no matter what there are going to people that use guns for bad activity.

    Because no matter what if people really want to get their hands on guns it would be very easily, illegal or not. Also there will always be at least one bad person with a gun that will do bad things with it. So no matter how hard you try you will never be able to stop shootings.

  • No. It should not be harder.

    Anyone who has ever been around guns and has basic knowledge in firearms knows that in some cases it is already difficult for citizens to obtain guns. Yet, it's those who have no idea about guns want dictate whether or not they should be harder to obtain or banned indefinitely. Making it harder to obtain them won't solve any issues we have with murders in our society.

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