Gun Control.

[malakadang]

Who here thinks that the Government should have the right to control what firearms you can own, or cannot own?

Give reasons please as to your position.

 

[The Riddler_]

Yes, because without some gun control laws, the law itself is in danger of criminals having their hands on fully automatic weapons. I know criminals don't follow laws, but it would be far too easy is so.

 

[Herman Li]

Depends. Someone should have the right to defend themselves/go hunting/etc., but I don't think we need someone walking down main street with a rocket launcher.

 

[i noob killer i]

I believe myself that you should have the right to own firearms but that it should be monitored as to what you have and if its secured. But then you have to work out if the laws are too strict or not and would it restrict peoples freedom.

 

Just seeing this thread title made me think of GTA4 - Gun control means don't miss haha.

OT: I think guns shouldn't be limited but should be less available/easy to obtain.

 

[Meeder1]

You should have the ability to obtain weapons that you can protect yourself with, however going any further than A simple handgun is too much. Of course being able to hunt with rifles, and shotguns, would be ok in my books.

To be able to carry A firearm in public, you should have to pass A class, go through A background check, and be of age (lets say 18 for the sake of it). Carrying A firearm while under the influence, should carry just as heavy of an offence as driving while under the influence.

The right ideas can all be put out there, but its regulating it well that makes it impractical.

 

[thatguy1234]

Without some kind of boundary we will all kill eachother. There has to be some control, i think government should have control over what guns we can legally posess. Without a leader or rules everything will always be chaos.

 

[Varii]

I mean...this won't really stop criminals from being able to use guns for crimes in the sense that they won't be able to register the guns under their authority because criminals always buy stolen guns so if the gun is shot, the serial number of the bullet doesn't lead to the criminal but, to someone else. So...it won't really help solve crimes in any sense but, it couldn't restrict the circulation of how many guns are around...

 

[billybobdead]

i think 100% guns should be legal. i actually like the system we have in texas quite a bit. no conceled weapons unless you get certified, but you can have a gun as long as its registered. because tbh, the criminal(people likely to break the gun law anyways) are gonna keep guns no matter what the laws are. so normal people should be able to protect themselves. and i love hunting, and i know people around here would revolt if they outlawed guns completely..

 

[FailedPure]

Yes it should be legal. Criminals already are breaking the law so whats one more law? Plus you should have the right to defend yourself and provide for you and your family. However I do think people need to go through extensive background checks, training courses, and maybe a tax to be able to own and use a gun.

 

[Annex]

I figure that anyone should be able to own a gun, and have similar legislature to carry a concealed one in public as with driving.

I am against gun control because the intentions of gun control are to keep guns away from criminals, but since criminals break the law (WHAT A SHOCKER) they don't give a shit about not being allowed to own guns and get them anyways, but this also means someone attacked with a gun who follows the law can't defend themselves with one in public. There is also a deterrence factor where if you don't know who is carrying a concealed gun you are less likely to go mug someone as a bystander could pull out a piece and cap you.

 

[nobodyuknow]

It wouldn't matter if the government controlled the ownership of guns or not. If it were to suddenly change, it would be up to the people to decide whether they would give up their firearm in risk of someone else not giving up their firearm.

In my opinion, it's almost too late to change the legislation. If it changes, shit's going down.

 

If the person(s) is deemed responsible to own one and only use it for say, sport or self defense, then I'd say it was okay.

 

[Tyler]

Yes, because without some gun control laws, the law itself is in danger of criminals having their hands on fully automatic weapons. I know criminals don't follow laws, but it would be far too easy is so.

How is having a gun any more dangerous than the ability to drive a vehicle?
I could drive into a gas station with tons of kerosene in the back of my car. and the whole thing could be taken out.

 

[Shin]

There are laws in place to protect the public, and for good reason.

I don't particularly see a reason why we (the people) would really need a firearm. Thereon, if in possession of one, needing to have a certain type currently disallowed. In it's (law) current state, I feel as if I'm protected. If law were changed where anyone could own any firearm they wanted, I'd need to prepare myself for the next Civil War.

To answer your question: I feel Government should hold the right to which firearm(s) the public may or may not own. There seems to be war going on some place in the world at all times. It may be with other countries most times, but certainly not something I would like to see internal (country-wise).

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Yes, the laws serve a distinct purpose and they do it very well. It's fine if you want to own a handgun for protection purposes, or a rifle/shotgun for hunting, but who really needs to own a fully automatic, military-grade assault rifle? It's not something the average person needs or should have, because in the wrong hands it could very easily turn into a massacre.

I don't see a problem with having civilian versions of common military weapons. Even in sport, there is no need to have a fully automatic M16 or something. Hell, even in a real combat situation, going full automatic is a foolish thing to do in the first place. It just wastes ammo and makes you more inaccurate.. that's why a lot of the time they're using semi/burst fire modes. Self defense is self defense, you shouldn't have to unload 30 rounds into a dude to defend yourself.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Yes, the laws serve a distinct purpose and they do it very well. It's fine if you want to own a handgun for protection purposes, or a rifle/shotgun for hunting, but who really needs to own a fully automatic, military-grade assault rifle? It's not something the average person needs or should have, because in the wrong hands it could very easily turn into a massacre.

I don't see a problem with having civilian versions of common military weapons. Even in sport, there is no need to have a fully automatic M16 or something. Hell, even in a real combat situation, going full automatic is a foolish thing to do in the first place. It just wastes ammo and makes you more inaccurate.. that's why a lot of the time they're using semi/burst fire modes. Self defense is self defense, you shouldn't have to unload 30 rounds into a dude to defend yourself.

I have to agree with this point, though I would feel safer with a sem-automatic rifle in a zombie apocalypse.

I think that along with buying a gun one should have a mental stability test administered by a state approved Psychologist.