Should America put tighter restrictions on the ownership of weapons. Perhaps a gun buy-back scheme, where people get money for the handing over of their weapons.
Of course, we can also be worried that the responsible gun owners will do the right thing, and the criminals will now have the upper edge.
Please, everyone discuss your thoughts on the issue..
2007-04-16 12:12:34 · 13 answers · asked by HJ_Galant_ Boy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think we as a society in large do not need to have guns in our homes. I do not believe in weapons nor of that of being armed.
I believe that there should be harder laws like they have in my native country Germany.
It takes there about 7 years for legal citizens to obtain a gun liscence. First, they need to fill out the application, telling the government why they need a gun. Than they need to take at least 5 major Pyschological tests . After the last test is taken, they have another final Pyschological testing. Than they get it or they don't get it. Until than they have spent thousands of dollars already. I think for the sake of human lifes, we shall condemm them.
2007-04-16 12:19:20 · answer #1 · answered by angelikabertrand64 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Oh great..feed into the bigger government is better agenda. Just what we need more government control. Good grief. By the way..the elitist agenda will use this to further their own ideologies. Watch out for martial law now in America. Do you think I'm kidding? Think about it and turn off your TV. Wake up America. Murder is never a viable option..but this is a crisis they will not waste. Today the Health Care debate was suspended why? After the Fort Hood shootings it was business as usual. Why are some lives far more important than others? Ask yourselves that. Wake up stop the partisan infighting, calm down and wake up.
2016-04-01 04:56:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We need to get rid of Victim Disarmament laws or we'll have more massacres like Columbine, 9-11, and today at Virginia Tech. In all 3 circumstances, the law prohibited the victims from having guns and the criminals, being criminals, had them anyways.
Were it not for VD, Osama's terrorists would have been shot by the pilot on the plane and only they would have died on 9-11 (if they would have even gone through with the hijacking at all, since they only did it because plane security was a joke). Were it not for VD, nobody would have died at Columbine. Were it not for VD, nobody would have died today at Virginia Tech.
We need to eliminate all restrictions on gun ownership. Criminals are far less likely to think about committing a crime if their prospective victim is armed. Think about it, if you put a "Gun-Free Zone" sign on your house, wouldn't you be making yourself a target for a criminal?
Gun control, even if well-intentioned, leads to disaster. You can't ban guns anymore than you could ban drugs or alcohol (government has tried to do that as well, to no avail). All you can do is make criminals out of law-abiding citizens. Murderers don't follow the law anyway, so they won't care if there is a ban on guns.
2007-04-16 12:21:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
There is a difference between "the right to bear arms" and owning semi- and automatic weapons. It's funny to me that the pro-gun folks immediately jump to the extreme of non-ownership. Very few epople would that to take away all guns form people. Yes, own a handgun, hunting rifles, sure... But, really, aside from poppin a cap in someone's ****, what possible reason do you need a 9mm?
Should we restrict access to semi- and fully- automatic waepons? I dunno... Should we ban people from buying motorcycles and/or huge SUV's because those are the folks that are most likely to recieve and/or cause the highest number of traffic accidents? Would that really make sense?
I don't have the answer, I just know it is not "abolishing all gun ownership" and I know it is not "everyone should be allowed to own 9 billion guns..." Why does this issue have to be so polarized?
2007-04-16 12:29:33 · answer #4 · answered by davidinark 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Criminals don't care about Gun Laws.
Terrorists don't care about Gun Laws.
They would be very happy with tighter gun laws.
Answer is NO to Democrats, Terrorists, & Criminal, Tighter Gun Laws.
They want them. WE Don't.
2007-04-16 12:18:55 · answer #5 · answered by wolf 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No! I believe the gun laws are already way to strict. Think about the constitution and the various laws and rights that are daily being chipped away from us. Whether it be gun laws or for that manner, any other constitutional laws that protect us, you will find over the last twenty years we all are slowly loosing our basic rights. Just check for yourself.
2007-04-16 12:18:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Of course we need tighter gun laws...Just think about some recent school shootings...
Columbine in Littleton, CO
Michigan Elementary School
And now VT
All took place in states with very lenient gun laws. There's a reason why these shootings aren't taking place in Massachusetts and New Jersey.
2007-04-16 12:18:33 · answer #7 · answered by BooferBri 1 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Except for felons all USA citizens have the right to have weapons - I believe that there should be a test before some people get them - but that's just my thought!@~
2007-04-16 12:21:13 · answer #8 · answered by nswblue 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No. There's my thought. You want gun control? Go pledge allegiance to the UN then.
2007-04-16 12:18:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO,when you take away the guns,only the criminals will have them and the gov.Very scary scenario!
2007-04-16 12:17:41 · answer #10 · answered by dumbuster 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋