If someone is legally able to own a gun, should they be able to carry it if they want to?
2007-01-05 09:19:34 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Good idea....eventually the US will kill themselves with all their guns and the rest of the world will be safe from tyranny!
2007-01-05 09:22:08 · answer #1 · answered by Turtleshell 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As a non-american I believe it should not be legal for anyone to carry a Gun, unless for sporting purposes and then when only properly licensed after comprehensive investigations into a persons background. The gun lobby say the right to carry guns is enshrined in the constitution - true - but remember that it was written over 200 years ago when America was a lot less civilised.
One could argue that the Americans are still not civilised I suppose!!!
2007-01-05 09:30:35 · answer #2 · answered by bilbotheman 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If people can pass the background check to buy a gun, they should be allowed to carry it without a license..It's their right.. If I am getting robbed in my car or on the street, the criminal isn't going to wait until I go back to the house and get my gun but I can't carry it in my car so how can I protect myself away from home and NOT get in trouble.. The law here says I can put my gun in the trunk,, not under the seat.. I am sure that the rapist or murderer will let me get it out of the trunk before they do their "kind deeds". Criminals and illegals carry them so y should I have to take a test that says "I know how to shoot".. I may not know how to shoot it , per say but somebody tries to hurt me and I will shoot it..it won't be in the leg either..
2007-01-05 17:56:08 · answer #3 · answered by chilover 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With much stricter criteria for eligibility and more severe punishment to dissuade abuse of weapons (and people), yes, I think people should have the right to carry guns.
But there are only so many rules that one can write regarding eligiblity without crossing into lines of discrimination. For example, excluding those with history of mental illness in a family is a safer criteria for gun eligibility than waiting for someone who has such history but has YET to exhibit acts of insanity. But that is condemning.
Also, it would be most logically to restrict poor people (which then coincides with race in our socio-economically tied nation) from having guns because they are most likely to commit crimes because it is more necessary for some of them to steal more than any other group in the economy.
It's hard to say whether the right to give a gun should be given back because it is difficult for us to accurately invision life where everyone is able to carry one. And inevitably everyone will not chose to carry one, so that throws off the way to conceptualize the safety be able to carry a gun gives.
2007-01-05 09:33:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We do have that right in MO nut not to many people gpt the permits. I think if they are elgible they should ne allowed but this seems to be more of a state issue
2007-01-05 09:26:03 · answer #5 · answered by rallman@sbcglobal.net 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because most people in this country (especially in the middle of it) are irrational and stupid. If you allow them to carry concealed weapons, every bar fight ends up with someone shot.
2007-01-05 15:51:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh yeah, guns, swords, tazers, plastic explosives, hand-held missile launchers, nuclear warheads... you name it!
Rifles for hunting if they're licensed and regulated, OK. But beyond that, forget it. Get all handguns off the street.
2007-01-05 09:27:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely.
2007-01-05 09:21:52 · answer #8 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absofreakinlutely.
2007-01-05 09:25:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they are not a mental case or felon they should. Anyone trying to disarm them should be shot like a dog.
2007-01-05 09:22:20 · answer #10 · answered by nazilover1488 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋