I don't think that they should take guns from civilians because if they took the time to get a licenes or whatever, and only have it for protection, they're not going to hurt anybody.
The people we need to look out for are the people who got them illegally.
Taking them away is just going to make us worse off because we're going to have them to protect ourselves and the bad people are going to get them anyway.
2007-12-24 04:18:08 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Self defense is one of the most basic human rights and a gun in your hand is a very effective tool for accomplishing that end. Those who would disarm all law-abiding citizens worry me FAR more than the few random lunatics or criminals I might encounter.
2007-12-24 04:38:35 · answer #1 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Guns aren't the problem, people are. I believe they should keep pushing up the penalties for people who commit a crime with a fire arm. Like 15 or 20 on top of any other criminal penalties.
Of course I live where just about everyone has a house full of guns but would never in a million years use them to settle a civil matter. Wouldn't even cross their minds, only cowards do such things. So It is hard for me to fully understand what it is like to live in a place where there are regular shootings and people getting hit in their homes by stray bullets. Having a house full of guns won't save you from a drive by. And living on the edge all the time isn't the answer either. In Columbus it is becoming more and more common for people to get shot by stray bullets. So for sure there is a growing problem.
2007-12-24 12:40:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They need to close loopholes, and require more stringent testing or education for gun ownership, with required renewals.
We make sure that people have to learn the rules of the road, and pass tests to drive, and require liability insurance before they can own a car. It doesn't seem unreasonable to make sure people have at least been exposed to standard, safe gun practices before allowing them to own a gun.
They should also do away with legal protections that shield gun companies from taking responsibility for their irresponsible practices. If they want to flood certain areas with the laxest ownership policies with cheap guns, knowing full well they will get into the hands of people trying to circumvent their local laws, they should be willing to face the heat in civil court.
Having said that, I'm not for blanket bans or anything like that.
There is a middle ground between banning and a wild-west free-for-all, and it's a pretty big middle-ground.
2007-12-24 13:08:14 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Criminals aren't the only people who use guns inappropriately. Many times mentally unstable people go off and kill a bunch of people. These are getting to be almost a weekly event in the US now.
Also a very high percentage of domestic abuse killings happen by gun for people who otherwise are of sound mind. People who've had training and maybe plan to use a gun only for defensive purposes get distraught for whatever reason and use the most easily available method (gun) to kill or commit suicide.
Personally I think guns should only be used by law enforcement like in Japan and other countries. The murder rate is extremely low there.
2007-12-24 12:28:51 · answer #4 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Guns are some of the most refined pieces of mechanical engineering we have. They do not just "go off" and they do not go off "by accident." They go off either because someone deliberately pulled the trigger or because someone did something stupid.
They are a tool like any other tool but this particular tool is so important in maintaining a free society, we need to realize the USA is what it is today because of it.
Remember: citizens have arms, subjects do not.
2007-12-24 13:08:40 · answer #5 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is outrageous. They need to stop trying to put bandaids on this problem and go after the manufactuers, and gun dealers, because that is where the problem originates. Anyone can buy a shotgun and saw it off. They could however require proof of what the intention is with it-like hunting etc. Rather than go after the big guys, they go after people who only have guns for hunting or protection.
2007-12-24 12:26:06 · answer #6 · answered by canam 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
No I'm sorry the people we need to watch out for are the people who fail to understand the Constitution and seem to think that guns are for protecting you from your neighbors, it clearly states that the right to bare arms is for the protection against a CORRUPT GOVERNMENT not to be a group of vigilantes thinking they are solving crimes.
It's sad to think that people honestly feel it is ok to carry AK-47's to protect themselves from street crimes.. People have a distorted view of power when they feel they are protecting themselves more then they are endangering others.
2007-12-24 12:26:30 · answer #7 · answered by Ditka 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think we have a good level of gun control right now. I also think that if you want to own a gun, and pass the background checks, you should be allowed to. I choose not to own a gun, but that doesn't mean other people should be forced to share that choice.
2007-12-24 12:23:22 · answer #8 · answered by DOOM 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Hi
The REAL key to all this is to put criminals behind bars
no time off for good behavior, no probation etc.
We let these bozos out way too soon and are far too soft on them
I would say 2 strikes and you are in prison for life
2007-12-24 12:26:54 · answer #9 · answered by roadrunner426440 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think you're right. Look at Germany in the 30s and tell me how gun control/restriction worked out
2007-12-24 12:27:39 · answer #10 · answered by MAD MARDEN 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋