2012 샌디 훅 초등학교 총기 난사 사건은 엄격한 총기 규제 조치를 전달하는 여러 국가와 도시를 일으켰습니다. 응답에서, 남쪽과 서쪽에있는 총 친화적 인 상태에서 주 의원은 대부분의 공공 장소에서 무기를 당신의 접지 법을 서서 수 있도록 강화 것이다 법안을 통과시켰다. 2014 년, 21 주 그들을 교회, 바, 학교와 대학 캠퍼스에서 총기를 소유 할 수 있도록 총 소유자의 권리를 확장 법을 통과시켰다. 1994 년 브래디 빌 (42)의 상태가 지금 소총의 소유를 허용하기 때문에 연방 정부는 총기 규제 조치를 통과하지 않았습니다. 모든 건 죽음의 미국 3 분의 2에서 자살이며, 2010 년에 19,000 총기 자살과 11,000 총기 살인 사건이 있었다.
대화 참여자를 다음으로 좁힙니다:
이러한 활동적인 사용자들은 총기 규제 주제에 대한 용어, 역사 및 법적 의미에 대한 고급 지식을 습득했습니다.
These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of 총기 규제
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of 총기 규제
@LYK4245세5Y
No, only for individuals with mental health issues and convicted violent felons. I think they should make more laws federally recognized & I think Obama needs to go back to Kenya,,let him reform & MUSLIM INFEST THAT COUNTRY & SEE HOW LONG THEY PUT UP WITH IT!
@N4FNLL5세5Y
No, only for individuals with mental health issues and convicted felons, and require mandatory training for all citizens. Every able bodied citizen should be required to be trained in handling arms and have a gun in their home in order to come to the defense of their country, like Switzerland requires.
@N4VX445세5Y
Yes, but require all gun owner to have insurance, training, back ground checks, re-instate ban on assault rifles, only federal authorized dealers allowed at gun shows, and regulate gun peripherals (i.e. no 600 drum magazines, 50 magazines, etc.)
@N3RCBX5세5Y
I do not support increased gun control. We have plenty of laws now that guide how our lives should be lead in our society. It is a problem that a very few individuals decided not to follow our existing laws and did bad things. It is not the gun that is the problem but the individual that caused the problem. Freedom has a very dear cost sometimes. So do we restrict the freedoms of the rest of America because of the acts of a few? Look at our war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism have any of those been effective and at what cost? These individuals disregard laws so why do you… 더 읽어보기
@N5M8395세5Y
No only for assault and combat weapons and prohibit for felons. I'm in favor of background checks for all sales. If history of prior gun violence other than self defense or weapons trafficking, ownership rights are forfeited. I do think that all guns sold should be registered in a federal database with access only by law enforcement.
@N2LQ975세5Y
No, only for mental health issues and convicted felones, increase penalties for all violent crimes (more people were killed in a years from either baseball bats or hammers than legal guns), require training, and implement "stand your ground" laws across the nation. Require training in the use of hand guns, rifles shotguns, and other select leatal weapons by all mentally competant and non-felon adults, male and female. Encourage gun ownership by all responsible and trained adults.
@N2Y28Y5세5Y
Nobody should be able to buy a gun without a criminal and psychological background check. The laws should be changed such that anyone convicted of committing a felony with a gun should receive the death penalty...on insanity waivers. Given the preceding, let anyone have as many and different types of weapons as they want. The 2nd amendment was enacted so that US citizens could protect themselves from a government gone bad. This was evident to the founders of the Constitution when the British wanted the rebels at Lexington and Concord to turn over their weapons. When they wouldn't; the shooting started. Citizenry without weapons are an easy prey for tyranny.
@LYWP5V5세5Y
Amendment X of the Bill or Rights is controlling: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Gun control is a states' rights issue, as per Amendment II: "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."
@LNC68W5세5Y
No, In fact I feel that many current gun control laws are unconstitutional and should be lifted. However, I also feel that penalties for gun related crimes should increase, and that individuals who have committed certain types of crimes, as well as people who are considered (by a professional) a danger to themselves and others should not be allowed to have a fire arm.
@LN3FR35세5Y
No gun control is necessary. If someone decides to legally carry a gun, then they can, however only if they are mentally sound and trained. Also, gun regulations from state to state should be dropped from the control of the federal government. A gun is a gun, no matter where it is, and the government is restricting the area of a gun, which is hard to control, and is not necessary. Drop gun control and regulation completely.
@LYSRBP5세5Y
Every citizen (man woman or other) with no mental health afflictions and able bodied for conscription or duty in a organized militia be issued a sidearm after an identification card. And student firearm safety class is taken and passed. Those who do not wish to own operate or carry with pay an annual tax.
@2HW7TN95세5Y
No, only for mental health patients who are considered dangerous and not your typical mother who happens to take Paxil! Convicted felons fall under a laws that were created a century ago when $500.00 was considered a lot of money. They have constitutional rights just like anyone else and should not be tried again daily once they have paid their debt to society!
@2HSC4B75세5Y
Abolish military grade weaponry outside of active U.S. combat personnel (including assault weapons). Don't ban guns period from public use (doing so I think is unconstitutional); local militias not on federal watch lists should be unhindered by federal and state law enforcement. Annual psychological testing and check-up training must be mandatory.
@N6WDS65세5Y
NO, increase prosecution and penalties for crimes committed by the bad guys and not the people who use guns to protect themselves and their families (or other innocent people) from the bad guys. All STATES should have stand your ground and castle doctrine laws and the federal government should stay out of it all together. According to the Constitution, the federal government is involved in the control of many things that are really state issues and come under states rights.
@LPPY585세5Y
The second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right of the militia. It does not say the right if the police. It does not say the right of government. It say the right of the people. It is a God given rights as are all of our rights. They were not given to us by government and government can't take them away. If you can bear it and keep it, then you can own it and operate it.
@2HTVWGG5세5Y
I'd like to shoot the person in the leg who included this question. I think the government should actually intervene on this one. Normally I don't want the government to assist but this time? Yes.
The government should GIVE every american a hand gun and a rifle upon their 21st birthday as long as the person is willing to take gun safety classes and demonstrates no past history of mental illness.
Free guns for all americans.
@2HWKZK35세5Y
what gives someone the right to control what another holds? who has a right to say do not touch that plant, rock, metal, chemical, on their own land. but in public areas this is reasonable. transportation between places should be as free as possible so long as no crimes using the guns are committed.
@LQX2G95세5Y
It depends on the definition. I support increasing mental health assistance for depressed and suicidal individuals who by committing suicide account for most gun deaths in the US.
I also support the restriction of early release of violent offenders who are the most likely to commit any -not just gun- murders.
Restricting high caliber guns that are statically rare in crime and tightening purchasing requirements (which are already ignored in the illegal market) is a masturbatory effort by lawmakers to feel a sense of moral superiority.
@H36WY45세5Y
@MWY54N5세5Y
What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed" do you not understand? And if you are in the commission of a crime neither you nor associates, next of kin ETC shall not be allowed to sue at all when ever an assaulted individual is in an area they have a right to be in .
@N9X7T35세5Y
Cars kill more people AND can kill more people maliciously than guns. We make you get a license to get a car. Put some educational requirements and educate EVERY american on guns to take the "video game" nature out of the deadly tool. Be a parent, don't make the government do your job, lazy ***
@2HWR3765세5Y
Gun control is simple: keep them out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill. Banning guns from public use entirely puts them in the hands of the government, which is a dangerous and frightening situation. The mentally ill should not be allowed to possess a gun, no matter how much progress they have made through therapy and/or medication, due to the potential of relapse. Convicted felons should not allowed guns for obvious reasons, as they could potentially commit more crimes. "Stand Your Ground" laws, in principle, are good, but can be used for the wrong purpose.
@L6LTDY5세5Y
Regardless, the problem with guns is not the guns itself, but the people who hold the guns. There is something inherently wrong with a culture if we are having these problems of violence, and thus it is essential we go back to the root cause of the culture to fix this problem and stop focusing on things that can't be changed. Instead focus on the instilling a greater sense of value in the younger generation, and offer psychological counseling to those who have committed gun related crimes.
@2HRLNY95세5Y
I think that there should be a constitutional amendment that gives Congress more flexibility when it comes to gun control legislation. The weapons during the time of the Founders and the weapons of today are very different. I suspect they would have chosen their wording differently had they envisioned the weaponry we have today.
Also, I think gun control laws should primarily be handled at the state or local level. Owning a powerful rifle may make sense on a ranch in a Western state, but probably not a good idea to be tagging one along in the middle of a heavily populated urban area.
@N3P37R5세5Y
I don't think hunting rifles should be banned for those who actually use them for food for their families but don't see the need for hand guns or heavy automatic weapons. Law Enforcement should have the best weapons, fastest cars and every means available to them to keep criminals at bay.
@2HT9HPW5세5Y
Yes, because as the 2nd amendment states, guns are for a well regulated militia ready to take up arms against a threat to the country. Most people do not meet this qualifications, and we already have this in the form of police and the army.
@N2VLKJ5세5Y
I feel sorry for innocent victims of violence in the use of firearms. The second amendment must be preserver and with over 22000 gun laws its obvious the abuse of firearms is due to factors other than the firearm. Societal frustrations in in varied forms has been at the root of these heinous acts of violence and its time to examine why these frustrations exist.
@LY8KHD5세5Y
Yes, if it means that hitting your target is gun control. Otherwise, people should not be prevented from owning common military weapons of the day, as the Supreme Court stated in U.S. v. Miller, an early 1900's case. The U.S. Constitution's intent was to have the militia, which means all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 40, to hold more military power than the federal government. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "When the government fears the people, there is liberty; but when people fear the government, there is tyranny." Today we live under tyranny that has gradually grown, just like boiling a frog, and accurate history is not taught in government indoctrination centers known as public schools.
@N47C4M5세5Y
No, the idea of "gun control" and producing a "gun ban" will only lead to more chaos. The government talks about how gun control will help america, but it won't. if you take a citizens gun, who has not done a single thing wrong in his life, what's to say that someone with a criminal record keeps their gun because you couldn't take it from him, and he goes out and robs the innocent man, if a weapon is displayed, anyone with a liscence to own a gun has the right to shoot and defend him/her self. This is something that should never go away, instead when someone gets a gun, they should have to do a finger print scan, and a FULL background check, to make sure they aren't a criminal.
@LR35B25세5Y
I honestly think that we have to find a compromise unlike the ones listed here. We need to be able to defend ourself against assaults from others, and guns are a way to do so. Naturally, guns are also used in assaults, but assaults would continue to happen with melee weapons were guns to be made inaccessible. I find none of the answers given to be acceptable. What we need to do is find the underlying issues to violent murders.
Yes, but banning individuals with "mental health issues" specifically from owning guns increases the stigma around these illnesses; we need to limit the sale and use of firearms for everyone and stop conflating mental issues with gun violence.
@N868CH5세5Y
Guns like cars and sex can be both fun and dangerous, so I'm in favor of shooting sports--like those in Olympics--in high schools. Also, 'sensible' legislation that doesn't unduly restirct ownership by people who are certifiably not crazy.
@2GMS4LF5세5Y
No, and repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and any other acts; the country did just fine following the Constitution prior to those Acts and they have caused more problems than they have solved.
@2GMSCWY5세5Y
How many more Sandy Hooks do we need before we ban all guns. No one needs to hunt--grocery stores have enough for everyone. People should be forced to cities form the rural areas where the animals should be allowed to live unmolested. Federal game officers can manage dangerous animals that wander into the city.
I don't support increased gun control, but developing a more intensive screening process to hopefully limit those who really shouldn't have their hands on a weapon could be helpful. Yes, it'd make things more tedious, but law abiding citizens who want to keep their rights will go through with the thorough screening and training. Even if guns become outlawed, there will still be those who do not follow the law and what are their would be victims supposed to do? The police and designated individuals who have permits can't be everywhere at once and innocent blood will be shed either way.
No, and eliminate all laws, federal, state and municipal restricting the ownership and carrying of weapons. Any convictions resulting from non-violent and non-negligent gun association should be vacated, and any public official advocating for gun control should be censured, and eligible for impeachment for infringing on the constitutional rights of their constituents.
There is absolutely no legitimate or honest interest in government regulation or restriction of the right for citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property by any means that they wish.
We have a tremendous gun control problem in this country but more than that we have a huge mental health problem in this country. The availability of guns to children and the mentally unstable is ludicrous. Though I would prefer an existence in which guns do not exist, PERIOD. I feel certain that if they were banned entirely only criminals would have guns. Take into consideration The attack on Charlie in Paris in January 2015, Mohammad Mehra in Toulousse and the attack on the Jewish school and Anders Breviak and the death of 79 people, mostly children, in Norway.
@2H9G9S95세5Y
Most people with guns will let their 3 year olds shoot them in Kentucky and that is not safe at all.
Plus people don't really need to hunt these days to survive. Animals are going endangered because of a sport. If someone needs to hunt in order to live they need to get someone to check their location and if they are isolated from any markets etc then they can hunt and use a gun. Other wise no.
@2HH8HKY5세5Y
I feel gun control is largely a measure by which to protect mostly white upper-middle class citizens from what they feel to be lower-class, minority-driven disorder. I do not underestimate the danger of gun violence at schools and other public places (such as theaters). But I feel these incidents reflect less a problem with guns and more a problem with mental health and the poor quality of mental healthcare in this country. Gun violence is incidental to that. Spending on healthcare should be the priority, not necessarily greater gun restrictions. I do support strict surveillance and controls… 더 읽어보기
@N9R4895세5Y
No, but existing controls need to be enforced and databases used for existing background checks need to be standardized and made universally available to those required to conduct background checks. Mental health issues need to be included but with a rigorous system to ensure people aren't permanently stuck on it, i.e. annual or bi-annual reviews of all data entries.
이 토론에 참여한 사용자의 정치적 주제 로드
데이터로드...
