Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 7 years ago

Gun Control Policy in the United States- Reasons to Carry a Weapon?

Ok, I want to preface this question by saying that I am looking for honest answers, and I will try my best not to insult anyone on either side of the coin.

Basically, this is what I want to say.

Obviously what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary school is an American tragedy, felt and mourned by all. Just like the shootings at Virginia Tech, and Columbine, the nation remembers the victims as a devastating loss of innocence and potential.

The thing I struggle with understanding is the crazy gun control debate that has been raging since last Friday.

Why would someone be opposed to strengthening the gun control policies in the United States? It seems the only choice is to crack down on the availability of assault weapons in our country. People say that a criminal background check is required to own a gun, but is that all? It only takes one time for someone to snap and charge into a school or business, guns blazing. You might be squeaky clean before that instance, and with the criteria of only a background check, you would be allowed to obtain a firearm. Why not a mental health assessment from a licensed psychiatrist as well? Having someone test you under stressful situations and see your anger reflex, or how you comport yourself. That seems fair. If you're not a psycho prone to flying off the handle, there shouldn't be a problem with taking that additional measure before we just let anyone own a weapon like that.

The second point. Why would anyone need an automatic weapon? Why are they even available to citizens? Handguns are scary enough, considering they are so small and portable. But an automatic weapon? Why on earth would anyone EVER need to fire off 20 rounds in 4 seconds? What could that possibly be used for, if not to massacre people? Hunting? No.

So what's the point? Why are people freaking out over personal liberties being stolen, when our ****** up laws allow lives to be stolen?

I'm not trying to take your guns away. I'm just trying to understand this.

7 Answers

  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Sorry, Kaitlyn, I sorta zoned out when you said "automatic weapon". Those have been effectively banned for private possession in the USA since 1935. However, I see your point, I think, regarding semi-automatic weapons with way more firepower than necessary for hunting.

    First, let me point out that the Second Amendment is certainly NOT about hunting. Hunting can be completely banned on any federal property and it would not violate the Second Amendment.

    Second,as a Constitutional right, we have to be more than a little careful about how we regulate who is entitled to actually exercise that right and how we decide. The general rule on such fundamental rights is called "strict scrutiny", i.e., "statutes that burden constitutionally protected rights survive only to the extent that they are no more restrictive than necessary to achieve compelling state interests." Lutz v. City of York, PA, 899 F.2d 255 (1990) at 269. Creating new statutes to survive strict scrutiny in the courts is not as simple as saying, "this is really, really bad so we shouldn't allow it any more". Would that it were. You cannot simply say, "this gun is bad" or "nobody needs this gun since only gangsters use them", since it begs the question, "why deprive any competent, law-abiding citizen of the right to self-defense?"

    Third, each State has its own constitution and laws. The Federal government cannot actually ORDER the States to follow federal laws, although federal courts can certainly overturn state laws that violate federal rights. Maybe you're not aware that there are actually states where there is no gun law at all. You need no license, permit, background check, waiting period or even ID to lawfully purchase a gun. Fact is, this used to be true in MOST states; you went into the hardware store, plunked down $100 and walked out with a new gun, like buying a hammer (which can also be used to kill).

    So, not only do you need some sort of federally sanctioned framework, each and every state would need to enact its own gun laws, drafted to survive strict scrutiny in federal courts, and then enforce them.

    That ain't gonna happen.

    Fourth, our "messed-up laws", as you put it, also allow over a 70 million people to have guns that can be used to STOP crimes, far exceeding any possible ability of all the police in the whole country to stop such crimes. You have to weigh the risk that passing some law (such as the total ban on concealed weapons in Aurora, Colorado and gun-free school zones) won't have the unintended consequence of increasing crime against those made more vulnerable. You could be turning "good citizens" into "bad gun owners" who won't risk using a gun if you're being raped or robbed in their back yard, since they could have it confiscated when the police show up.

    Finally, as suggested by others, if you have some psycho who is willing to murder his own mother and steal her firearms (or go into a gun shop and murder the clerk, or ambush a state trooper and take his guns), what POSSIBLE law would prevent that? Maybe Mr Lanza's mom was a nice, sane, conscientious person and would be perfectly acceptable under your new plan and could, in fact, legally own a semi-automatic rifle and pistols and store them inside an approved safe when not actually using them. Now your local gangster kicks down the door, threatens to kill her if she doesn't open the safe (similar in shops and police situation), steals the guns and murders anyone he wants. Show me the law that will prevent that. Laws are for punishment and deterrence, not for prevention. What law will prevent someone ignorant of the law from punching you in the nose? None.

    As they taught us in Executive Protection school, if someone is willing to die trying to kill you, there is very little you can to do stop them. They pick the means and the time and place; you have to be constantly vigilant and take reasonable steps to be prepared at all times.

    Having armed (and properly trained and supervised) guards at schools and other soft targets would seem a good place to start, along with requiring locked doors on classrooms. I wouldn't be surprised if we see schools being sued for "negligent security" if any more kids are killed, based upon the proof that such carnage is now "foreseeable" and that "reasonable steps" can and should have been taken to prevent or stop it.

    Source(s): Executive protection, police academy, attorney
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    Because if the psychiatrist does not like you they may fail you or if the government had a question required to be asked tomake you fail you may as well not have the second amendment. Then for the assault rifle argument. Look at the way our government has been runing in the last 20 years. Look at how divided this country is. Look at our economy and the way our government is trying to fix it. We are nearing the edge of a civil war unless the government straitens out. You can't fight the government with handguns and single shot rifles and shotguns. Its what's about to happen and if it does the economy resets itself. Besides an assault rifle today is no different from my 22 semi-automatic. Looks identical to a hunting 22. That's because it is a hunting 22. Both the assault rifle and the conventional. The only difence is the stock. An assault rifle just looks scary. A flash hider is nothing more than a cone shaped pice on the end of the barrel. It does nothing at all. A bayonet mount is only there for a bayonet but howmany murders have there been using a bayonet. Now slow me to adress handguns. They are the most reasonable gun for home defence because you can draw it so fast and veep hidden in the hall. A shotgun can't be hidden within your home because it is simply to large. Now I would like to go back on assault rifles. Some people say we have no need for semi automatic wepons for hunting. But I disagree. I have a friend who can use anything but a semi automatic because he can't properly work his arm. Working a bolt or a hammer is near imposible for him. He is missing 3 fingers including the thumb and his are is severly immobilized. A semi automatic actualy removes some of the kick and so he can more easily use it. With all his problems if it weren't for semi-automatics he would be unable to hunt. If a man stoll a mobile home and killed 75 childeren with it you want to ban mobile homes. Because really so few people have them and most also have a house. It's the same with assault rifles by some of your logic. I'm just saying everything has civilan uses.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    I possess guns and that i believe that gun manipulate is okay to a point, folks dont need automatics to defend their intrest. I dont think arming everyone is the anwser. I believe implementing the laws that are there is the reply. The legislation makers want to make extra laws however fail to implement what is already there. What wil forty new legal guidelines that they dont put in force wither support. The guy at VT would have not ever been albe to purchase a gun legally if the ball wasnt dropped somewhere. The intellectual health health center he sent to had an obligation to document him as unstable and when he crammed out the yellow federal kind when buying it he would have been denied. There may be proof that states with lift conceal legal guidelines exist the crime cost is scale back.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Athena
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Honest answer.

    First - Everyone at Sandy Hook Elementary obeyed every gun law on the books, not only Federal, but Connecticut also, which are stricter. Every one but one person. He broke the law and ignored the "gun free zone" sign at Sandy Hook. Do you honestly believer that five more gun laws would have stopped him? Would he have said, "damn, I disobeyed six gun laws but just bring myself to ignore that seventh one. Now what? " ????

    So, "strengthening gun control policy" will not stop those who are bent on breaking the law in the first place. What they will do is make sure that at the NEXT Sandy Hook Elementary, the shooter will know he will not be challenged. Just like every shooter we have seen in the last 20 years. And when challenged, like the shopping mall shooting earlier this month, the idiot turned the gun on himself. Theses guys are NOT Rambo. They go where people believe as you do. That "nobody" should have a gun. Then they know that nobody will stop them. That THEY are safe and YOUR children are not.

    2 - The laws do not allow lives to be stolen. Idiots and monsters do that. idiots who board subway trains, like the one in Boston in the 1990s and know that no one else on that train will have a gun bu them. No one will stop them, because law abiding citizens cannot carry a gun to protect themselves. He shot people at will, stopped to reload, and continued to shoot, knowing no one was going to shoot back.

    3. During the LA riots in the early 1990s (AKA the Rodney King Riots) the stores that were looted and burned were ones where the owners did not have legally registered guns on premises. The shop owners who had guns, and knew how to use them, were not looted and burned. The police? They pulled out when the riots started. They were no where to be sen, leaving the citizens at the hands of the looters and thugs.

    4. Some one is trying to break into your trailer where you and your 10 day infant are alone.

    Two men who will do you harm and may harm your newborn child. WHY, in your world, are theses monsters armed, but you cannot be?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Pat
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    First, a federal assault weapon ban was passed, it did nothing to curb violence.

    Connecticut has an assault weapons ban in effect now, it did nothing to curb violence.

    Chicago Illinois has the tightest gun control laws of any city in the US and also has the highest number of gun related crimes.

    California has the tightest statewide gun control laws of any state in the US and has the second highest number of gun related crime.

    Why not have psychiatrists test people applying for driver's license. Cars are used in homicide.

    My wife's aunt killed her second husband with a frying pan. Should we limit the sale of cast iron to those who have proven they can handle it.

    Automatic weapons are already illegal.

    Assault weapons are not all automatic weapons.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    I don't own any automatic weapon! Don't let simple appearance and the opinions of other make your mind up for you!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 years ago

    ARE YOU SERIOUS?!... of course yu need a gun. For one reason and one reason only; Bananas in Pajamas might attack yu O.O

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.