should we allow people to purchase guns ? why or why not ?

Answer 1

Absolutely yes...
And if this is pertaining to that recent tragic shooting at virginia Tech. I offer this reason,
would he have killed as many students if all their parents had sent them to college with pistols and were allowed to carry them visibly on campus?
Heck no, he might have gotten 2 or 3 before they stopped him cold.
Could Cho have obtained a weapon illeagally, if no one was allowed to buy guns?
Heck yeah, it would have been less of a hassle for him to buy it on the street than get it at a pawn shop or firearms store...

Answer 2

It's the person behind the gun that's the main danger, not so much the gun itself.
There are certain people who should not be allowed to buy them, such as those who are schizophrenic or mentally ill.
Put another way, a dangerous weapon by itself is dangerous enough, but placing a dangerous weapon in the hands of someone who is not of sound mind or unstable makes the weapon more than ten times as dangerous.

Answer 3

Definitely no...i saw some statistics the other day...can't remember exactly but 30,000+gun related deaths in the States last year,and about 67 in the UK...ok UK is less populated than the USA but proportionately the difference is noticeable.It is hard to buy guns in the UK hence the low death rate,in the USA it is different and the figures reflect this.Violence should not be tolerated but unfortunately there will also be bad,mad or disillusioned people who will take desperate measures to make themselves known,the easy availibility of guns is just a tool for these people to show themselves.If they're not going to change these laws then they should step up security measures in public measures.Even better ban guns everywhere except for military of police forces....gun clubs etc fine but keep it under strict regulations,domestic gun ownership should be banned.In the UK they're banning smoking in public places.....Note the difference.

Answer 4

It’s the cat chasing it’s own tail .
The only viable defense against a gun is a gun.
Freedom and Liberty are not , were not, nor will ever be a safe place to loiter .
If you cut off the cats tail it’s still a cat with a book of matches and a can of gasoline but now you have nothing to chase him off with.

Answer 5

It would be nice to have a gun free society but that is not going to happen. Most people want to protect themselves and their families from the nuts out there who also have guns and use them to force themselves on the good. They take what the good people have and have worked hard for. I imagine our society may become more like the old west before it gets better.

Answer 6

YES!!!

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

The goverment he mentions could be our own, wink wink or others.

But our own, wink wink is trying to take this away from us as we speak.

wink wink winky ............... wink

here's some more quotes

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."




bad guys shmad guys. England doesnt allow the purchase of firearms and the bad guys there don't use them. and neither do the police. just a good ol fashion beating or shank works just fine there.

Answer 7

Yes we should allow people to buy guns but the requirements to buy a gun should be 100% tougher than what they are.

Answer 8

Personally, I think we should allow our citizenry to be armed, but that is just one man's opinion... the real problem lies here...

We need to get off the fence on this issue.. Either get out of the way of an armed citizenry, or remove guns completely (or to the best of our ability). This fence-sitting posture that we take leads to the unarmed becoming victims.... We cannot continue with our current stance on gun control.. it needs to be swayed dramatically one way or the other.

This in-between stance that we take leads to situations like the VT massacre.

Answer 9

The United States has more gun violence than other countries because we have more guns and are willing to sell them to madmen who want to kill people. Every nation has violent loners, and they tend to have remarkably similar profiles from one country and culture to the next. And every country has known the horror of having a lunatic get his hands on a gun and kill innocent people. But on a recent list of the fourteen worst mass shootings in Western democracies since the nineteen-sixties the United States claimed seven, and, just as important, no other country on the list has had a repeat performance as severe as the first. It doesn't seem to be a coincedence that the United States is the one with the least restrictive gun laws and the only one that did not increarse gun restriction acter the mass shooting.

Reducing the number of guns available to crazy people will neither relieve them of their insanity nor stop them from killing. Making it more difficult to buy guns that kill people is, however, a rational way to reduce the number of people killed by guns. Nations with tight gun laws have, on the whole, less gun violence; countries with somewhat restrictive gun laws have some gun violence; countries with essentially no gun laws have a lot of gun violence. (If you work hard, you can find a statistical exception hiding in a corner, but exceptions are just that. Some people who smoke their whole lives don’t get lung cancer, while some people who never smoke do; still, the best way not to get lung cancer is not to smoke.)

It’s true that in renewing the expired ban on assault weapons we can’t guarantee that someone won’t shoot people with a semi-automatic pistol, and that by controlling semi-automatic pistols we can’t reduce the chances of someone killing people with a rifle. But the point of lawmaking is not to act as precisely as possible, in order to punish the latest crime; it is to act as comprehensively as possible, in order to prevent the next one. Semi-automatic Glocks and Walthers, Cho’s weapons, are for killing people. They are not made for hunting, and it’s not easy to protect yourself with them. (If having a loaded semi-automatic on hand kept you safe, cops would not be shot as often as they are.)

Rural America is hunting country, and hunters need rifles and shotguns—with proper licensing, we’ll live with the risk. There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun.

Answer 10

MA has some of the strictest guns laws going, more then many other states but criminals seem to still get them. Bostons crime rate is pretty high right now. So what would you sugguest?