|
Allowing civilians to have guns allows civilians de facto acceptance to use guns. Allowing them to
use guns gives them de facto acceptance into administering the death penalty to stop crimes. I
believe only judges and juries should hold this power, not the common man. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree. The first step would be to harmonize guns laws all across the country. Right now, If I
cannot purchase a gun in my state, I can go to a neighbor state and buy it there. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Definitely, yes.
In the UK it is strict, andin most of Europe as well, so i agree, yes. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As an American who happens to not like corpses very much, but who does like the Constitution, here
is a suggestion:
1. Limit private gun ownership to those weapons which would be necessary to defend a home. Handguns
and shotguns, I suppose. No full-automatic weapons, no rifles unless homeowner lives in an area
where he might encounter a moose in his garage. No weapon sales without accompanying verified
property parcel number. It would be a felony to discharge the weapon anywhere other than the
registered property or a licensed practice facility. This law would be intended to satisfy the "home
defense" freedoms of the Constitution. The "village" itself is supposedly already defended.
2. Sporting weapons would be banished to hunting clubs, or for those who could not afford such
clubs, the police station. You could still buy them and use them in legal hunting areas, but you
could not keep them at home (unless home was in a legal hunting area). This is designed to limit the
damage from accidents and acts of rage; in the U.S., at least, most the weaponry used in mass
shootings originated in a private gun locker.
3. No private ownership of military-style weapons. No full-auto. No specialized ammunition.
This is just a general idea, not a comprehensive plan. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree since I personally the think generally the less guns available, the less gun related crime. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It ought to be made much stricter, all the idiots clutching at their guns need to get out of their
little bubble. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Americans are obsessed with guns and killing...even the law abiding ones. Its a mental disorder. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes because they can always end up in the wrong hands |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
It really is true that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The US and Canada both have
traditions of gun ownership, but very different crime rates.
In the US each year, there are over 30,000 fatal shootings (1 in 10,000 people).
In Canada, there are less than 1,000 fatal shootings (1 in 40,000).
There are only 10 million households in Canada, but 7 million guns! Americans are clearly 4 times
more violent than Canadians. Why? Whatever the reason, limiting access to guns probably won't deter
all the would-be killers out there. |
| |
 JRL  27 Jun 2008 14:56
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We have too many gun laws now as it is. Criminals do not walk into gun shops and purchase guns. Do
stricter laws stop dope from being used and sold? The solution to the gun problem is harher
penalties for illegal gun use. If a person commits a crime with a gun, they go to jail for life
without the possibility of parole. The more people carrying legal firearms, actually lowers crime
rates. The criminals do not know who is armed and who is not. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
What we need is criminal control. Disarming law abiding citizens was something that Hitler did.
States where concealed carry is the law of the land, criminals don't attack as much. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If someone wants to kill someone else obviously they are going to attempt to kill them in some way.
If its easier to kill someone with a knife then your fists they will use a knife if its convenient
to get. If a guns easier to kill someone then a knife and its convenient to get then they will use a
gun. You are right in the sense that if we make it more inconvenient to get guns they will be used
less but that does not mean there will be less killings. Also for gun control to work we would have
to take guns away from everyone which is against the constitution and i doubt the NGA-national gun
association is going to get them up without a fight-legally of course. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bad ppl are going to get guns regardless and stricter laws are not going to change that.
Let's think this through. By making gun control law tougher you are restricting hunters and good
people from getting them. Criminal will still get them by breaking into houses, stealing them or
other bad ways. You now have bad people with guns and good people with no way to defend themselves.
Do you know anyone who hunts? Think first. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Let the criminals get firearms. Let their victims get firearms too. Then see who wins. There are
more good people than there are criminals. The laws restricting firearm ownership or the right to
carry firearms around collectively constitute a criminals' charter. If everyone carried a gun around
with them at all times, there would be hardly any crime. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is ridiculous. No matter what the "bad guys" are going to get firearms. All gun control does
is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to get a gun. Less than 5% of violent crimes
committed with a firearm are with a legally purchased firearm. You're not going to do any good.
You want to see violent crimes go down? Make it easier for law abiding citizens to buy firearms and
train them to use it to defend themselves and others. |
| |
|
| |
| | |
