do you think guns and gun stores should be outlawed except for the police , military and other special groups?

Answer 1

No Rick----guns can be a strong deterrent to crime------if you will notice home invasion and violent crime are far lower in states that make it easy for private citizens to carry concealed weapons (i'm one of them)------take away the guns from law abiding citizens now in this day and age and you would have hoodlums going door to door raping----pillaging and plundering-----------no-----having knowledge the next door they kick in might get them shot is a strong reason to not try.

Answer 2

HELL NO! the right to bare arms is what formed this country in the first place .Did you think the the King of England was going to let his tax dollars just walk away without a fight? And fight to the death? If the police only own guns then you'll have that King of England stuff all over again, ultimate power corrupts even the most chaste, and Noble, What special groups are you talking about guys tucked away in some obscure mountain community hell bent on changing the country by force of arms. Do you really want the US Army lose in an American city? I was in the army in Vietnam make no mistake about it we will hunt down the enemy and kill the enemy even if its you... Don't be fooled by the rhetoric, the minute you give up your guns is the minute that you'll set your selves up for a really hostile take over, and I don't mean just a corporate one...think about it...

Answer 3

No, I'm a law abiding citizen, and the constitution of my country states I have the right to bear arms. BTW, The VT shooter did NOT obatin his guns legally- he lied on his applications about his mental health records...had he been honest, he would never have been able to purchase those weapons legally. I think the laws should change (the HIPPA laws protecting med. records) so that anyone attempting to purchase firearms MUST release their mental health records. Remember- if we outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns- do you really think for a moment it's possible to ONLY have military and law enforcement have weapons? Nope- criminals will always find a way to get their hands on them-and citizens should continue to be allowed to have firearms for recreation or defensive purposes. PS- I HATE guns- I am very uncomfortable even handling them,myself, but my husband owns quite a few, and I will always defend people's rights to own them!

Answer 4

Guns are not the result of violence, though the mindset programmed through computer violence related games and other violence media may trigger the reptilian brain in an individual to shun input from the mammalian and neo-cortex brain and cause the individual to not be in control of his/her senses. "Thoughts" with "feeling" are the cause of whatever action we take or what we create as our world. Unfortunately, God gave us the right to use "free will" and "choice" and empowered us with His "power to create" whatever we desire. Guns, like cars, alcohol, drugs, motorcycles, etc. can be used to hurt or destroy life. No, guns should not be outlawed for people without a criminal record. Education on how "consciousness" affects our behavior and the consequences for poor decisions are a must.

Answer 5

I h8 to be devils advicote, but I don't think guns should be given away willy nilly. I mean up here in Canada, there are far fewer gun crimes and far fewer guns for criminals to get their hands on and most of the gun crimes up here are from illegal guns brought up from the states. I have to admit, this does sound a little extreme, but I think that the US should toughen up their gun laws just a little so what happened at VT (yes, we heared it up here as well) doesn't happen again or as often. However, it may be too little too late as just about everyone in the US has a gun, the good and he bad. The main arguement here is that guns are here to protect, there isn't much to argue about that, but it seems like guns are way too easy to acquire down in the states. Just toughen the laws a little and make sure that no loonitics get their hands on them. WHatever you are imposing may soind a little strong however, remember that these amendments were passed in the 1700s and that it was much harder to protect people as it is today. Guns don't kill, people do. So just get the guns out of the bad people's hands and that should be good enough. Seriously toughen up those gun laws before something even worse than the VT incident happens. Seriouisly the world is coming to an end. Fix it now before it is too late.

Answer 6

Absolutely not!!!
Cho was the problem not the gun, or gun store. Cho chose to do what he did. Now if the average person were armed, as it should be, good chance Cho would not have gotten off his 2nd shot. If any or all the staff and students were armed, Cho would have only fired once...into his own sick head, off campus...Unarmed people are always the victims, they offer no resistance.
Bad Guys will never go up against an armed person....Cowards all

Answer 7

while a infant hits somebody with some thing - you're taking that merchandise far off from that youngster, not all babies while the 1st amendments have been made loose speech - swearing could have have been given you locked-up, desirous to probability the amendments you're able to have been locked-up specific there have been purely muskets - however the human beings and the government the two had them and as time and new weapons have replaced particularly purely interior the 1900's have been there any form of distinction between the human beings and the gov you go with to punish questioning with regard to the strikes of one or a small few - in step with probability we could desire to continually have killed each and every of the Germans or the eastern that could desire to have been a similar element precise

Answer 8

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

(Story continues below)

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

Answer 9

No. The 2nd Amendment is one of the 10 granted to the "people" of this nation. Take it away and soon the others will fall right behind it.

Answer 10

Nope, they shouldn't. 2nd amendmant, 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.