Should there be greater restriction on firearms in the US and other countries?

Question

when will america and other countries wake up to the fact that hadguns cause more problems than they solve?

making them available to young kids and adults just because they are of age< without a criminal record is ludicrous
they should be banned>

of course you"ll have them on the street _ but if guns were banned or had tighter restrictions on them: then kids wouldnt have such easy access> there should be some sort of background check done or something

what do you think?
isn"t this crazy?

yes>>> because everyone knows what the gun laws are>

that"s not the issue here anyway>
they shouldn"t be available> period> (i can"t make a period because my keyboard sucks)

just because it"s in your constitution doesn"t mean you shouldn"t be able to question it>

but i"m starting to agree with you guys here> a ban probably wouldn"t solve very much
thanks for your responses

Answer 1

If you ban handguns, then we would all have to carry rifles and AK-47s. Come on man! Show some practicality! Discretion is a good thing.

In the end, your line of reasoning leads to a complete ban on all guns & the only people who will have them are criminals and the government - neither of which should have that much power over us.

People who go down the road you are talking about fail to consider that the person who is out to do damage would simply change weapons. It doesn't stop them. Poisonous gases, homemade bombs, swords, karate, whatever . . . if they want to do damage, they will.

For crying out loud! We just had a man in Scranton, PA rob a credit union with a rock in his hand as a weapon! It's the stinking 21st century and this guy robed a bank with a rock!

Handguns are a cheat for us to equal the score. If more students and faculty were carrying guns, the VA Tech guy would have barely gotten anywhere.

Answer 2

The truth is that guns actually solve more problems than they create. The problem with these massacres is not that too many people were armed. It's that not enough people were armed. In the old west, when EVERYONE was armed, massacres like this did NOT just happen. You couldn't just pull a gun on someone without risking being shot yourself. A single armed person could have taken out the VT shooter before things got nasty. If colleges weren't "gun free" zones, you can bet that most of the people at VT would still be alive.

And by the way, if guns were banned, a black market would only spring up, and they would be very easy to get. The US government has been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades. And look how easy it still is to get any kind of drug you want. A criminal could obtain a firearm just as easily, even if they were banned. The problem, then, is that the criminals would be armed, and the law-abiding citizens would not. They'd be shooting fish in a barrel. Sort of like what happened at VT!

Answer 3

No, I don't believe there should be further restrictions.

Remember the Constitution?
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

I know it's cliche, but guns don't kill, people do. Should we also ban fertilizer and fuel oil? The problem is the people involved, not the means that they used to carry out their psychotic desires.

Answer 4

It is crazy. But I don't think it's about gun control..
There is something happening in our culture.. kids are becoming desensitized to violence. There is this strange, angry, "us vs. them" mentality running rampant.
If it wasn't guns, it would be other weapons.
Not that I am a fan of guns. Killing machines shouldn't be handled by anyone as far as I'm concerned.

Answer 5

Freedom is sometimes messy.

The right to free speech also allows hateful speech, such as neo-Nazis, KKK, Black Panthers, etc. But if their speech is curtailed, then freedom is curtailed.

Same with the right to bear arms. The freedom of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, will also allow arms to get into the hands of people who will kill others. It is inevitable that this will happen, it is the price of that freedom. The individual freedom is based on the right to defend oneself, one's family and one's state.

Answer 6

toddler seals are no longer allowed to be killed they're being sought for his or her meat oil and pelt It on no account has been and on no account would be a game. it relatively is a hunt. the seek has long gone on for hundreds of years and the inhabitants of seals contained in the section continues to be preserving contained in the tens of millions. the final public of seals are shot no longer killed with the Hakipik and it relatively is against policies to pores and skin the animals alive. to no longer point out especially much impossible to do. I agree in case you're no longer against meat you may desire to no longer be against the seal hunt. in case you have no longer have been given an argument with a hamburger why have an argument with flipper pie.

Answer 7

It is my God given right as an American to own guns and I will, I would love to see the you/libs try to take them away from me. Guns reduce crime and spineless legislators are using this event to barf up gun control it is sick. If they really want to stop this crime, why not ban illegal immigration, he was an immigrant?

Answer 8

There IS a background check done.

Do your homework.

How could a background check have gotten this guy? He never did anything illegal before this, so it would have been useless.

Answer 9

You are sadly mistaken in your beliefs... You are uneducated on the subject of Firearms Laws and Regulations.....

Answer 10

There is a background check done.