This course would give a regular person who wants to carry a concealed weapon the chance to learn about gun safety and how to properly use his gun. This course would be the last step before someone can get their gun, and failure to pass the course would result in not getting the permit or receiving of the person’s gun. Out of all the gun policies there has only been one that has shown to reduce deaths and injuries from public shootings which is to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. The opposition believes that this statistics is wrong that there are many other reasons that contribute to the fewer deaths and injuries from public shootings. One reason that might have to do with it is the thought that someone is carrying a gun
Gun control is the idea that the sale of guns should be regulated and controlled. Some people believe that no one should have a gun while others believe that everyone should own and know how to use a gun. Both sides have legitimate reasons for thinking the way they do. But which side of the argument is correct? Can we allow ourselves to become completely defenseless against someone trying to hurt or kill us?
Again fully-automatic weapons require the class 3 and SOT license as I mentioned above. In addition, the state determines what additional rules and regulations such as where you are permitted to carry and shoot any class or type of weapon or magazine capacities. What else is true is that gun crimes are not typically carried out by criminals purchasing guns using legal means. Murder weapons are commonly purchased on the black market for all types of reasons, but for the purpose of this discussion. It’s because most criminals cannot pass the background checks already required by law to purchase a firearm the legal way.
If you do the research, Adam Lanza, (the shooter) was not legally permitted to use the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, Glock 20SF and a Sig Sauer P226. Since the guns were stolen, Senator Joe Manchin's failed gun control bill would have done nothing to prevent the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary. That will fall under the category if guns being illegally obtained and used to conduct heinous crimes. The United States government should not just quickly pass absurd laws strictly out of fear. The same day as the Sandy Hook shooting, in Central China, a man wielding a knife stabbed 22 children and 1 adult, which shows guns are not needed to conduct a mass murder and banning guns will not solve anything.
Only the illegalisation of the guns will make people acknowledge that these objects are harmful. In America owning a gun is considered a human right but people without guns also have a right to feel safe. This right is taken away from them when they experience school shooting or other crimes involving arms. Tens of lives wasted, a striking experience for the children that witness the carnage. All this and yet there is no response to the illegalisation of guns.
All that an investigator would really need is a second piece of ammunition shot from the same gun that committed the crime in the first place. So how do they get another piece of the suspects ammunition and what if they don't have the correct gun? The answers are simple. If they have the ammunition that was used, they just need a duplicate piece of ammo which can be bought in any local store. If they have the wrong gun, then the “toolmarks” on the replicate bullet won't match those on the damaging ammunition.
I am sick and tired of hearing all the talk about guns and how their use should be controlled. Why do guns have to be registered? Why do people that desire to have a gun have to pass a background check in order to obtain one? So what if the person desiring a gun is an ex con convicted of armed robbery, out on parole. Is that really any one's business?
No, there are laws and restrictions such as background checks, not letting a convicted felon purchase a firearm, making it so that if someone want to care their gun they have to go through the proper training, these are all good laws and restrictions regarding the ownership of a firearm. Banning high powered rifles, making it illegal to purchase magazines with more than ten rounds, restricting the places a trained gun owner can carry, are all infringements on the constitutional right to bear arms. There are over two-hundred gun laws in the United States, some of them are justified, but a majority of them should have never been passed because they are unconstitutional. It all comes down to two facts; gun control is not constitutional, the second amendment was put in place to protect the citizens against the government. In history the first thing a tyrannical government will do is disarm its
The exact court case that brought this decision was, United States v. Emerson, it changed the scope so that the second amendment was not a collective protection for state run militias, but rather a safety net for all the gun lovers and proprietors. The new definition did not make reasonable gun control unconstitutional. This means that the second amendment’s gun rights are not all-powerful, in fact with enough support it could be changed to only support small handguns and not the more unnessarily dangerous weapons, e.g. ak-47 and several
I believe that gun control laws are unconstitutional. Gun Control laws are only taking away our rights given to us in the second Amendment of the Constitution which are protected by the fourteenth Amendment. Forcing people to have background checks before purchasing a gun or making assault weapons illegal will not lower the level of crime that is caused by guns. These laws will only affect law abiding citizens of the United States. Why would a criminal follow gun control laws if he or she is already going to break the law to commit a crime?