Why don't people understand why there needs to be restrictions on guns?

Question

They say "law abiding" citizens should be able to have guns. How do you know when some "law abiding" citizen will turn in their good life for a life of crime? How do you know that someone will just get so angry that they will not shoot someone? Don't you see...anyone can take someone else's life by simply pulling that trigger. Just because someone followed laws before they bought a gun does not mean you can trust them with a gun. Also why do people say they need guns? When the second amendment was written our country did not have an organized police force or army and we had just ended the Revolutionary war. People DID need to protect themselves back then. They also needed to hunt for food on occasion. They did not just kill animals for sport. We do not need guns but if we are going to have them then we NEED restrictions on them. It is not about restricting your rights...it is giving every American fear from being shot and or killed with a gun.

We must stop the illegal guns too

it is called the POLICE people...we need to have more of them on the streets

I don't think the police should have guns either!

No guns are ORIGINALLY purchased illegally....the only place to purchase a brand new gun is from a gun shop that does background checks. Then the person who originally purchases the gun will sell it or it gets stolen. Then the guns end up in the hands of criminals. If there were no gun shops this cycle would stop. There would be no way to purchase a gun and then it would not end up in any dangerous hands.

To protect ourselves from the government....but people have gone way too far and they are using guns to murder people!

I never have done drugs in my life thank you very much. I am against drug legalization....so that pretty much destroys your whole argument.
To all those who called me a hippie...your are wrong about that too.

Everyone who becomes a criminal has to start sometime so why would you say that a law abiding citizen would not start a life of crime?

Sure there are other weapons but guns are the most common choice for a murder weapon.

It is called a less than lethal weapon...than is how police will enforce the law.

Looks people...I am allowed to have my opinion and you can have yours. This is my opinion about guns...like it or not. I live near the city of Philadelphia and we have had 406 homicides this year...most are cause by gun violence. It is devastating that hundreds of people have been senselessly killed by people with guns here.

How does this mean I am a communist? I am not a communist.

I am not saying that everyone who owns a gun is a criminal or a bad person...but how do you know that someone will not abuse the privilege of having a gun and shoot somebody?

Countries with no guns have lower homicide rates.

I am not a prostitute...stop using false accusations to bash me and think of a real argument.

Hey aren't we allowed to make AMENDMENTS to the Constitution? Have you ever heard of that?

Answer 1

You're not selling guns; your friends aren't selling guns (or else they're not as much your friends); you're not teaching your children to sell guns; you're advising anyone who'll llisten against gun business. You're doing as much as you can.

Know I'm with you.

Answer 2

Are you trying to make it sound as if every citizen that owns a gun is or could be a criminal? Are you trying to say that there would be no killing if there were no guns? There are still many reasons to own guns. The Second Amendment is what protects all of the other amendments. More people die from the misuse of automobiles, alcohol and tobacco every year than from guns, even though there are restrictions on there use. In countries such as Great Britain and Australia the crime rate went up after guns were banned. Washington DC, a city that until recently had a very restricted gun policy, has experienced very high crime. In fact every American city with gun ownership restrictions has experienced higher crime rates than other cities with more relaxed restrictions. States with concealed carry experience lower crime rates than those without. Check out www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

Answer 3

No matter the size of the Police Department they cannot always be there in time. You propose a lot of "what ifs" In my 30 years in law enforcement I have maybe seen one or two at the most where a legally owned gun in the home was used in a domestic quarrel. The anger was so intense that any weapon would have been used. There are restrictions on certain types of guns. I have seen the results of those that did not have a weapon in the home and after the fact of a assault in their home wished that they had and did acquire one. One case of assault and rape I helped the victim in her selection of a hand gun and the safe and accurate use of it. Guns are to designed to kill and if someone breaks into one of my daughters homes they will fulfill their design specifications. States that have right to carry laws have lower crime rates than those that have restrictions on ownership. These states that have restrictions have a higher rate of gun crimes.


Additional: Medical malpractrice kills more people every year than all the gun deaths combined. Gang related deaths from guns contribute to the stats more than any other cause.

More additional. YOU DON'T THINK THE POLICE SHOULD HAVE GUNS? Lets say you are being assualted by an armed subject. You want an unarmed Officer to come and help you. I sure wouldn't. I would come after your dead and investigate. Now your just being silly. You can't possibly believe less leathal weapons are going to defend the life of an Officer or citizen against someone that is armed.

Answer 4

Yes let's walk all over the constitution. I assume you want to put restrictions on guns because they harm people. Well you can harm a person with a pencil, a knife, a chair, a brick etc, should we put restrictionsions on them too. The problem is when you start to restrict people's rights to own guns where does it stop. Yes you should not be allowed to own a AK47 or machine gun but should be allowed to own a pistol for self-defense without restrictions.

On your other points, do you think every American would turn in their guns. Do you think the thugs would. You can't take away a person's right based on the fact they might do something just like the cops can't arrest you just because they think you might drink. And their is the essence of your question. Do we infringe on the rights of some to protect others. I personally don't know but I do know that if we take away or put harsh restrictions on guns we will open a can of worms we don't want to.

Oh and on your point about the police not having guns, that's nuts. How ill they enforce the laws, with pleases and thank you's. Have a fmaily member be shot and then come back and tell me about how you feel.

Answer 5

I'm not afraid of being shot. Someone tries to shot me, I'll shot them first. Scenario: little Johnny douche bag comes breaking into my house, wants to kill me with a 8 inch knife, he is more than welcome to try. I've got a 48 inch rifle backing me up. Now, little Johnny douche bag, breaks into my house, by the time the police get to my house, I'm probably going to be dead. But thats fine right, I didn't shot little Johnny douche bag, did I?

Heres a question for you, you mentioned that guns can be used by someone, once honest but now angry, to kill. Thus they should be restricted. Fine, fair enough, ban knives while you're at it, they can be used to kill. Ban baseball bats too. Ban pipes, sticks, ect, ect. These can all be used by someone whose angry. Better duct tape that lamp to the desk!

A person who is seriously angry will find a means to carry out a crime, same for a criminal. The guy at VT had his mind set. If he didn't walk out with a gun that day, he probably would have gone somewhere else. The only thing that would be accomplished with gun restrictions is that people who do listen to the law would be force to give up their guns. Criminal or those who are angry would just find some other way of getting the gun or something else to use.

Answer 6

You are a fool for even asking this question. Law abiding citizens don't just turn to a life of crime. Second Criminals usually don't buy guns legally otherwise they could be traced. So saying I can't have a gun because I might go shoot someone is a ridiculous argument. Furthermore only idiots and morons think the government needs to protect us from ourselves, we don't need a nanny state. Not to mention when only the police have guns it starts to lead to oppression.

Answer 7

Because of the 2nd Amendment, Liberals just can't pick and chose what amendments apply. Look, Criminals are always gonna be able to get guns to do harm. If a criminal breaks in my house with a gun the police are not gonna make it in time, I got a wife, and 2 boys to protect so I will pull out my SIG, and deal with what's in front of me, no different than when I am at work

Answer 8

i think you are wrong i do have guns and i am law abiding for the most part and if i went crazy i could probably do some damage but i would get killed in the end and if more law abiding people carried guns the less damage a crazy person could do and i do use my guns to get food they don't sell deer meat at the store and we do need guns the police can not help you if you are being robed or killed be the time they get there it will be over and if you don't want a gun that's fine if you don't want to be safe but i do and cars kill thousands more then guns why don't you want to ban them i don't think you are living in reality

Answer 9

I totally disagree with you, as citizens we need to protect ourselves from an over zealous government, their are still those that hunt for food.

I have guns because I have the right to have guns and their should be no restrictions on what type I can own. A person that has been convicted of a felony have surrendered their rights and it is not fair to punish everyone because of the actions of a few.

I know that you don't agree but this is a right that is protected by the constitution of the United States.

Answer 10

The second amendment was made to assure that the government didn't oppress citizens by allowing them to be armed. You could make the argument that guns aren't really sufficient anymore to protect the citizens but ignoring laws and especially the constitution that is the foundation is the worst sort of lawlessness and tyranny. Change it legally if you can.

Answer 11

It just could be that people who know history realize that nation's that take away guns from their people eventually lose their freedoms to tyrants--see Russia, see Nazi Germany, see "People's" Republic of China, etc. Taking away "anything" is limiting a freedom. It don't like cigarettes, but I don't think they should be banned. I don't own any guns, but I don't think they should be banned. I don't drink, but I don't thing alcohol should be banned. I don't eat fried foods, but I don't think this heart attack creating food preparation method food should be banned. I wear seatbelts, but I don't think the government should "force" me to wear it; I chose to do so for good reasons. I don't like when people want the government to enforce their views on others. That is why I don't need to restrict guns in my world--because it is another example of my world being a little less free, every day, one day at a time. Thanks for asking.

Adding to your comment that nations without guns have lower homicide rates--is nonsense. Nations without guns run by tyrants who commit genocide against their own people IS not a good reason to ban guns. If we enslaved our entire population we would have no homicide then would you be happy? I know I would not be for anything that limits FREEDOM. You naively assume that legislating and regulating things away will make a better society. I say for better or for worse FREEDOM is preferred to tyranny. Sorry, we just disagree and life is not as simplistic as you seem to think. It is dangerous to ignore human nature and the lust for freedom.