Should people be able to buy guns? What do YOU think?

Question

I'm from Europe, and I have to use your opinions on it for my exam.

I, personally, cannot decide whether I think you should be able to buy guns or not.

I think you should def. be able to buy guns, but maybe... maybe the Laws should be slightly stricter.
I think that whether those who kill have a gun or not, they're still going to find a way to kill. (Most of them) - but then there's examples like a very young school boy took one of his parents gun and shot a little girl.. which makes me wonder; would that've happened if the laws were stricter / you weren't allowed to buy guns.

Answer 1

I think the laws are strict enough. These are the only changes I can currently think of that I would support:



1. Remove full auto weapons restrictions.

2. Edit the rules of who cannot own weapons. I don't understand the logic of why white collar, non-violent felons can't own a firearm.

3. Some sort of proof of gun safe ownership before making a purchase

4. Offer a firearms course in public schools

Answer 2

I live in Alaska.



Over the weekend one man was eaten alive by a black bear just south of where I live - the bear consumed the poor guy in front of his wife..... who did not have a gun handy. On the same day in Denali National Park a man with a gun shot a moose that was trying to trample his wife and young children..... moose died, family survived. Two days ago a woman in Anchorage jogging was trampled by a moose...... she did not have a gun.



When I lived in New York City and later on Boston - you could not go a day without reading about some 18-25 year old man or young woman being killed in a liquor store or fast food robbery. When I moved to Maine, a state that is liberal and easy to get a concealed carry pistol permit - you didnt read about such things happening locally.



Every country has plenty of laws. People still break them. All the prisons are full. This tells me that more laws are not the answer to any of a society's problems. Laws do not stop illegal actions - they only allow society to punish the people who are responsible. If someone is willing to commit a capital crime - you cannot legislate to stop them. It has not worked in recorded history - what makes you think stricter laws will now?



Me - I carry a gun. You certainly do not have to - but - I have noticed that the people who carry a gun tend to live decades longer than the people who do not carry a gun and die young.

Answer 3

"I think you should def. be able to buy guns, but maybe... maybe the Laws should be slightly stricter."

How would this affect someone shooting at a school? Not trying to cause an argument, but only law-abiding people will go through the steps necessary to purchase a gun legally...criminals just steal them.



When a drunk driver runs into people at a crosswalk you don't blame the car; when someone drowns in a pool the pool isn't at fault.



Why then blame an inanimate object when a thug or nutcase shoots someone?

Answer 4

Yes and emphatically.



The problem is not the availability of guns, but the lack of education. There was a time in the US and even in Europe when ownership of a gun came after years of guidance and training from someone in the family such as a father and grandfather. A child growing up before the 20th century (and even up to the 1960's) who had access to a firearm had been mentored and understood the responsibility AND the property care and usage of the firearm.



But as political correctness set in and our nation started to vilify and demonize educating youths in firearms, what was once ubiquitous has became the uncommon. When I was a child and in the Boy Scouts, we were taught marksmanship and proper firearm handling. Years later, the BSA was threatened by the Federal government and crucified in the press for doing it.



Your example of the boy for took his parents' gun is symptomatic of what has happened. During the settling of the American West, children would ride to their one room school wearing pistols. Have you ever heard of a school massacre by a student from the 1800's? Or even the first half of the 1900's? Gun ownership were far more prevalent in that more people had them than not, but why has all these mass shooting occur only within the last few decades when there are far more restrictions to gun ownership? There are over 4,000 gun laws and yet far more mass shootings and this is not only in the U.S., but also in Europe such as the Nantarre shooting in France, Finland, UK, Norway, Germany, Austria, and more recently, Sweden..



You are probably going to cite that the number of shootings in Europe is far less than in the US and in absolute terms that is true. But in terms of per capita rate, the number of multiple victim shootings in Europe is actually the same. For example, the Norwegian 2011 mass shooting claimed 77 lives and injured at least 319. Compare this to the Aurora, Colorado shooting that made headline news all over the world where 12 people died and 58 injured.



So where the number of incidents in the US is higher, the total number killed and injured per incident in Europe is much higher. And European countries, except perhaps the Czech Republic and Switzerland, makes it very difficult to impossible for a civilian to legally own a gun. So how has the restrictive laws on firearm ownership helped in Europe?



Compare this to many many incidents that does not get reported by the bias news media where people prevented crimes or protected themselves from being a victim of crime by using a firearm such as the case of the 89 year old grandmother whose house was broken into by 2 burglars in the middle of the night. She confronted them with a pistol and they ran away - alive.

Answer 5

If you're coming up with a theoretical, academic argument, then no, private firearm ownership would not be necessary in a perfect world. However, this world is far from perfect, and the genie is long gone from the bottle. There is no shortage of bad people out there, and private individuals should have the right to be able to protect themselves, their families, and their property from them. Unfortunately, history has shown that the bad people with harmful intent are not always just the ones looking to break into your home and steal your stuff. In spite of how gun control advocates try to frame their arguments, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is not about the rights of people to hunt deer and turkey. It was developed in the knowledge that governments sometimes find ways to extend their reach beyond where they should, and the mere existence of an armed population acts as a check to government overreach. It's also a constant reminder that government must answer to its citizens, not vice versa.



Competent and responsible ownership should be encouraged and even required to some degree, but ownership should still be allowed (except for those for whom abilities, faculties, or actions have disallowed them).

Answer 6

I have several personal stories of a weaker person being in possession of a gun has saved lives and prevented rapes without a shot being fired.So yes I do believe that people should be able to buy guns.



As for the little kid being shot

That has everything to do with an irritating habits we Americans have of not taking personal responsibility.if it can be avoided



There are laws that allow for the prosecution of the actual owner of the gun, however if they are even enforced it will not be to the full extent.



If these type crimes were unmercifully prosecuted we would see a great reduction in these crimes.

Answer 7

Ok, you're from Europe and you have a much different culture and history than we do. I do appreciate that you're trying to get enough information to reach an informed opinion.



1. Consider our history, we didn't want to be oppressed by Europe (in general). We had/have an appreciation of the value of an independent and well armed population.



2. You are absolutely correct in saying that without guns those who want to kill will continue to find ways to kill. In fact here in the United States (before 9/11) the largest mass murder ever committed was NOT done with a firearm. It occurred on 03/25/1990 in New York and was done with a container of Gasoline and a lighter, 87 people were murdered when an arsonist burned down a Night Club.



3. Much of the American population still lives in rural areas where it will quite probably take the police

quite a bit of time to arrive after you call them. In FACT police response times Nationwide are increasing and have been for the last 10 years.



4. Many of us (Americans) use our guns for many things such as recreational shooting, competitive shooting, hunting and yes even for defense of life and property.



5. Consider the fact that there are well OVER 200 million firearms in this country and then consider the statistically LOW number of criminally related firearms deaths (when compared to the number of firearms here) you begin to see how the volume of criminally related gun deaths is highly exaggerated.



6. What happens if we're not allowed to own guns? Look at the last 100 years of Europe and Asia.

How many millions was Hitler able to murder because they were unarmed? How many millions was Stalin able to murder because they had no means to resist? How many millions were murdered by Mao and Pol Pot? Would Japan have been as successful in invading China and Korea if their civilian populations had been armed?

Answer 8

Being from America, we have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, which means we are protected in the ability to buy guns. European nations do not have this, so you're on a different perspective.



Unfortunately, you are right, there are accidents that happen. This is where pro-gun advocates like myself constantly push for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. One such instance like you suggested was a 4 year old shot and killed his 2 or 3 year old sister. He's going to have to live with that the rest of his life. But so are the parents, as they gave him the single shot gun, but didn't make sure it was unloaded. My guns are stored unloaded, in a place where my kids cannot get to them for that very reason. It's all about responsibility.

Answer 9

1 Gun safety is no accident. Safety starts where luck runs out. An Absolute ban on all firearms except for on duty police and military would certainly solve the handful of deaths legally owned guns cause, including suicide.



#2 Tolerance of firearms implies a tolerance of accidental gun deaths which can be reduced by safety and "gunproofing your children" 1) Never touch a gun , 2) if you see a gun leave it and find an adult immediately. gun ownership inmcludes a moral responsibility to train thosa in the household and to lock them up.



#3 Criminals will find ways of obtaining guns, strict laws just slow them down a little. Strict laws hurt responsible owners more than they hurt criminals,. Violence is a societal problem, firearm restriction does not address that basic human trait, so yes people find other, more personal, ways to express their violence.

Answer 10

Let me give you a very brief explanation of United States firearm laws (on a federal level, not by state):



1) If you are a felon, have been dishonorably discharged from the military, are currently under indictment for a serious crime, have been convicted of domestic violence, etc., you are not legally allowed to own or possess a firearm. Your rights may be restored in certain circumstances. A person who has been involuntarily committed or has been adjudicated as mentally unsound is typically also prohibited from owning a firearm.



2) You must be 18 to purchase a long gun (i.e. shotgun or rifle) from a licensed firearms dealer. You must be 21 to purchase a handgun from a licensed firearms dealer. Private party sales are regulated by the state, but generally, you must be 18 to purchase either a long gun or handgun in a private party sale. Some states do prohibit possession of handguns by anyone under 21 years of age, which would preclude private party sales of handguns to persons under 21.



3) Fully automatic firearms, guns that would typically be considered long guns but have short barrels, and "destructive devices" such as explosive devices and very large bore guns are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). To own one of these, a person must otherwise meet all requirements of purchasing a firearm, be 21 years of age, and pay a $200 tax stamp to the BATFE. Their application to purchase said firearm may take 9 months to process, but if they are approved, they can purchase these devices. Their tax stamp MUST be with the firearm or destructive device at all times. (Special note: that's the EXTREMELY condensed version of the 1934 National Firearms Act.)



Now, I tell you all this for a reason. Consider what the implications of these laws are. First off, criminals cannot legally own guns. Gang bangers, murderers, rapists... They can't own guns, by law. Does that stop them? Obviously not.



So the extant laws have done nothing to really stop gun crime. What they have done, however, is to limit LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS ability to access firearms. Should we make laws stricter? Well, ask yourself this: why? Why, when criminals will still have access to guns, should we make laws that really only affect law-abiding citizens more strict?



And to answer the question in your title:



Yes, people should be able to buy guns. We are endowed by our Creator with certain rights- life, liberty, property. We have a right to live, we have a right to be free from tyranny, and we have a right to own and protect our property. Without those three things, the rest of society is meaningless.



Guns, when originally introduced in Europe, challenged the status quo. Initially, a soldier had to train for most of their life to be anywhere near the level of a mounted knight, and to own a horse, sword, lance, and armor was expensive. A peasant archer could not go toe-to-toe with a knight and expect to win. However, with a gun, the peasant could defeat a knight's armor, meaning that a dishonest nobleman could not deprive the peasant of his life, liberty, or property. Guns did not require nearly the amount of training as a longbow or a sword. They put power into the hands of the general populace.



Which is why gun control was enacted in England from the 1600s on. James II made it illegal for Protestants to own guns, because he was a Catholic and did not want to lose the seat of power he possessed. Later Acts of Parliament reinstated those rights.



Note that every time in recorded history where government edict gave government a monopoly of force, there was tyranny.



Now you answer the question: should people be able to own firearms?



EDIT: @Space Cowboy, I think this is a different "A."

Answer 11

Sure.

My government once gave me a fully automatic rifle to play with. It's a bit silly to think I was reliable then with an assault rifle but unreliable with lesser arms after hanging up the uniform. And in my area, though the risks of violent crime are low, my tiny middle-aged better half is often home alone, with no hope that a law enforcement agent would appear in a timely fashion; moreover, there are four-legged predators to worry about. Others may have different circumstances, and many may feel they're better off without arms. But that choice should be up to the individual, who knows his circumstances.

Answer 12

In your example of the boy who took his parent's gun and accidentally shot a classmate at school there were several laws broken. Its silly to think that MORE laws would have prevented that tragedy.



There's another example in recent news of someone who stole a truck, drove it without a license and while drunk to more than double the legal limit. The driver ran a red light and hit & killed a pedestrian. Do you think MORE laws in addition to the dozen or so laws that were already broken would have stopped THAT tragedy? Do you think we should ban black Chevy Trucks like the one he stole?



History has shown over & over again that gun restrictions do NOT disarm criminals, they only disarm law abiding citizens and make them easy victims. History has also proven that gun registration leads to gun confiscation and gun confiscation leads to government abuses of human rights.

Answer 13

if the average americans are smart as europeans,

12 with parental consent

16 rifles/shotguns

18 handguns



germany allows alcohol at 14 with parent and 16 without parent.

alcohol is a big responsibility! they don't get drunk or stupid drunk like americans with our 21 years system nor do they have huge numbers of teens with illegal alcohol getting arrested or driving drunk.



There will always be a few rotten apples in any crowd that will ruin it for everyone else. for some reason the right ot keep & bear arms is being singled out from the privilege to drive, drink alcohol, and freedom to live an unhealthy life. car crashes, drunk driving and unhealthy lifestyle is responsible for thousands of deaths a day. yet people are so blinded they make a big deal out of the smallest thing- right to keep and bear arms. accidental slips & falls and children drowning in pools results in more deaths a year!



i just don't get why government and politicians are so obsessed with trying ot restrict people's right ot keep and bear arms. it makes no sense. there's bigger things to worry about.

Answer 14

Yes.



Because there are bad people in this world (on both sides of the law) who will find some way to get the upper hand on upstanding people. My guns take away a lot of that advantage.

Answer 15

I think that in the US it does not matter what anyone thinks on the subject. We live in a constitutional republic. That means that while many issues are decided by majority rule or representatives representing majority rule, constitutionally protected rights are not so easily rescinded.



The majority cannot determine the constitutional rights of others, they are guaranteed with or without majority approval. And our forefathers realized that people may try anyway, so they included the second amendment to make sure that the people had the power to protect their own rights.

Answer 16

I think it should be mandatory for every law abiding citizen of the USA to own a gun after they pass a training course. I think gun safety should be taught in schools, and taught at an early age. Gun negligence is a direct result of improper and unsafe gun handling. Too many people know nothing about firearms, including legislators who write our gun laws. People fear the unknown, especially in an environment bred by socialist media and anti gun education systems. People fear the unknown, they have no real experience with firearms, they have never been shown gun safety from a responsible party.



So yes people should be allowed to own and buy guns. You folks over there in Europe have a real problem on your hands now. You've been disarmed, socialized, and now you've got a criminal element and extremist religious groups causing you problems and there's nothing you can do to defend yourselves from it. That in itself is a reason why you should be allowed to buy and own guns.

Answer 17

In a free country people are able to buy guns. So if you can't buy a gun then you live in a country that is not worth living in. I don't get the (should people be able to buy guns) who the hell else could buy one a dog, a cat or what?

Answer 18

I think there should be no restrictions in buying any thing that can be used without arming other people. I think the restriction should be education, what do I mean by this? We shouldn't outlaw sex just because if you do it without education you might get into trouble, we should instead educate people. Can people by nuclear weapons? No, because you can't possibly use them without arming others. Guns are just like knifes, they can be pretty useful outside of killing people.

Answer 19

Free people own guns. Slaves don't. It IS that simple. Even ex-convicts, assuming a satisfactory completion of any probation or parole requirements, should be able to arm themselves. Of course, if someone has committed a sufficiently heinous crime that he or she should be permanently disarmed- that is, treason or child molestation- don't let the offender walk free.

Answer 20

The best answer to your question I believe is addressed by this man in front of our Senate and Congressmen. I like the looks on their faces.



Due to YA rules I will not post the link, but search ytube for :



GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)



VERY interesting.

Answer 21

...are you the same guy who wanted a red dot scope for his AR last week ? (or are there other "A's" on here ?) the same guy who didn't read or comprehend the answers he (repeatedly) got ?...the same guy who told me to go and do something physically impossible ? THAT guy ? Tell us all...what kind of "exam" are you taking ? As one of the more erudite commenters on here would say..." small bowl of Troll chow for you". Have a nice day...A.

Answer 22

No. The government should give you one when you are born, when you graduate from grammar school, when you graduate from high school, and two when you get married.

Answer 23

Cigarettes kill 50 to 1 over guns. So are you really concerned... or do you just want to whine?

Answer 24

Definitely,but someone with no weapons experience should be trained first.

Answer 25

Yes they should. Should everyone be able to buy guns? That answer to that is hell no. Guns are rights of Americans. Yes there should be more rules and regulations to gun ownership, but they shouldn't be banned completely because of a little boy who shot someone.

Answer 26

I think the laws should be much stricter, at least in the u.s. And you probably shouldn't be able to buy handguns and assault rifles.