Here's mine:
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.
2007-10-18 20:29:27 · 15 answers · asked by Spartacus 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Good Gun control is hitting your target.
There are several reasons I believe that laws restricting firearms are bad for any nation. Some have been discussed here, criminal violence for example.
The primary reason that gun control laws do not work is the economic law of supply and demand. Where there is a demand there will be a supply.
Need a cure for cancer? There is a supply because there is a demand. It probably will not work, but, there is a supply of cancer cures available.
The same is true for drugs, prostitution, gambling, anything that the law restricts. If there is a demand there will be a supply.
The United States is filled with independent thinking, initiative taking people. The fact that the US is filled with immigrants (and almost everyone but Native Americans are immigrants) who took initiative and risks guarantees that people in the US are more likely to take risks and the initiative to achieve what they want then people who are descended from generations of low-initiative, low risk taking, old-world grand parents.
Outlaw firearms in the US and the black market in firearms will explode like nothing else. When they outlawed "assault rifles" the numbers of "home made" firearms increased exponentially. One man was busted manufacturing stainless steel sub-machine guns in his garage. He had fifty already finished.
When the British occupied Israel the Jewish people built huge factories to make guns and ammunition under ground. Similar things on a smaller scale were occurring in the US during the "assault weapon" ban.
Outlaw guns and you guarantee the deadliest black market on the face of the earth and once you let that cat out of the bag there is no putting in back in the way they did prohibition. The profits on sub-machine guns are way too high, as the BATF found out because of the "assault weapon" ban.
2007-10-18 21:24:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Just look at the difference between New Hampshire and Vermont. Two states right next to eachother. Vermont has the most liberal laws when it comes to criminal sentences and are extremely anti-firearms. They have a newly blossoming crime rate.
New Hampshire, on the other hand, (whose State Motto is "Live Free or Die") has very harsh penalties for criminals and is very pro-gun ownership.
That says it all. Gun ownership in the hands of private citizens reduces crime.
2007-10-18 20:36:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
We need to have guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens. Studies show that places with lots of gun control have more crime, then those with right to carry
FWIW- I am a gun nut, I like my .45 and my 9mm, but I will not carry them, ever, even if told to, even if I was given a permit. Why-? That answer is for another thread.
2007-10-18 20:34:21 · answer #3 · answered by Harmon 4 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Did you see the movie "V for Vendetta"?
In England, owning a gun is illegal and only government officers, like the police and the military have them. What keeps the government from ruling the people with an Iron fist like in the movie. Civilians are protected from one another, but not from their own government.
The power should lie with the people, not with the government that should work for the people, not rule them.
2007-10-18 20:41:37 · answer #4 · answered by Sam T 3 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Gun control only takes guns away from law abiding citizens leaving them unprotected against criminals. Criminals already don't care about the law, so why would they follow gun control laws? If people can smuggle drugs into the U.S., then they can smuggle guns. If every person had a gun in their home, I bet there would be less burglaries.
2007-10-18 20:33:57 · answer #5 · answered by speaking_my_mind 3 · 10⤊ 0⤋
Life Member Of the NRA
The gun control debate should not exist anymore than a debate about human slavery; because that is what the debate is.
2007-10-18 20:42:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
A quick same day back round check, to stop past gun offenders, career criminals and nutjobs from getting guns. Nothing more!
2007-10-18 20:32:11 · answer #7 · answered by Adolf Schmichael 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I'm from NYC and i think people should be allowed to have guns for self protection.
Its not common practice in NY but i feel it can save you from a crime.
2007-10-18 20:32:54 · answer #8 · answered by Jetglam 1 · 10⤊ 0⤋
I guess, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, also applies to criminals and the insane, too... like those crazy Columbine gun-totting killers and that sicko Korean guy, Cho Seung-Hui, or anyone with a vengeance or on a vendetta! :-)
2007-10-18 20:51:24 · answer #9 · answered by United_Peace 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋
That the owner of fire arms are responsible for them, meaning who sees them, who knows where the guns are, how they operate and who shoots them, unlike school books guns are not for all ages and the owners need to insure they are restricted from the youth, elderly and mental incapable.
2007-10-18 20:56:14 · answer #10 · answered by man of ape 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋