I'd like your opinion please but this is NOT a gun control question?
958622
to the best of my knowledge, no states require psych. testing to sell a gun.  That is why so many short tempered people  kill people for stupid reasons.  good for you on recognizing your problem.
707773
Bound's hubby here:\n\nFirst, thank you for identifying upfront that this is a homework assignment!\n\nI believe that any person who is not a convicted felon has the right to possess guns (and ammunition) in their home. I was brought up around guns, and taught a healthy respect for them. I realize many people have not been brought up around guns, and may have a healthy fear of guns ...I respect this. \n\nThe decision to possess firearms in the home is a personal decision, plain and simple! A firearm in the home may serve one or many of multiple purposes: recreation (sport shooting), occupation (a tool of one's job), collection (a person's hobby), hunting (putting food on one's table), or defense (protecting one's loved ones and home). \n\nYes, I know in today's modern society most people do not "need" to hunt. For some, this is not a choice ... it supplements their income or its their choice to have leaner meats that are free of steriods which are not available at your local grocery store!\n\nI know it is an old cliche, but it is coming more to life every day ... when honest people no longer have guns, only criminals will have guns. With the increasing number of home invasions, often being perpetrated by members of the drug culture, a "911" call will not hold them at bay until the police arrive. In today's society, as much as in the past, the individual has a right and obligation to protect themselves and their loved ones!\n\nGood luck!
718031
ok guess what?!\nits not a mental health question!
82397
No, this is not a rhetorical question. Since you are expecting an answer.
913780
Dont worry about being a snich, thats crazy. The sonner you say something the better. Sorry for being so blunt but what if that gun kills someone you know or someone you love. Guns are made for one thing and one thing only TO KILL so stop thinking about it and do something about it.
949936
I am surprised a worldly man such as yourself, working on the fringe of military markets, needs much in the way of an education on laws, weapons and street violence, and I really do not have the time to educate you.  Nevertheless, allow me a cursory response:\n\n1) The US Constitution does not allow people to "play" with guns.  2) The "'right'" conveyed is simply that, and does not require quotation marks to belittle it.  3) You have no way of knowing who considered what before answering your last petty jab at the US and its military delivered in the guise of a question – at the time you conveyed no interest in the relevance of the 2nd Amendment.  \n\nYou say you live a country where guns are not available to civilians and there is very little gun crime.  Have you read Joyce Malcolm, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience"?  An English author, she writes: \n\n"With passage of the Firearms Act of 1997, “it was confidently assumed that the new legislation effectively banning handguns would have the direct effect of reducing certain types of violent crime by reducing access to weapons.” The news media promised that the “world’s toughest laws will help to keep weapons off the streets.”  \n\nYet faster than British gun-owners could surrender their handguns for destruction, guns began flooding into Great Britain from the international black market (especially from eastern Europe and from China), driven by the demands of the country’s rapidly developing criminal gun-culture."  Even The London Times, bastion of the UK, headlined with:  "Killings Rise As 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain" on January 16th, 2000.  I doubt little has changed in the last few years.\n\nAs for your last comment, regarding an armed civilian militia being no match for a modern professional army – ask your “mates” in Basra how things are going – urban warfare fighting against militias with light/captured weaponry is one of the most difficult things imaginable.\n\nUltimately, everything about your comments suggests to me that you are the kind of man who would walk into a bar and start mouthing off, simply to get a good fight started.  I am sure there are many people who would probably oblige you, but for my part I will simply say, if you are a professional, act like one.
437838
okay, this question isn't for me ....
318055
.I do not think any one that threatens people should own a gun, specially if you have proof that he/she is threatening. but even if he/she doses not own a gun a neighbor can kill with many other instruments.
831188
Just who on earth do you think that you are? I have been following your idiotic abusive and threatening questions to this DAVID M. In your last question you posted some links but that is not even the same one who posted an answer to your shotgun question. You really should check people's profiles out before using inaccurate information to try and back your unreasonable claims up.\nPeople post questions on here to get varied answers and if you can't accept that people will disagree with you, this is the wrong site for you. Posting insulting questions about this DAVID M was bad enough but to resort to death threats now just shows your level of childish, immature grasp on reality.\nI have been checking out your Q's and A's where you say you are 16, although how you managed to be in the army for 11 years is beyond me. You have also been a user of this site longer than him so how can you say he is the computer freak who needs a life? \nYou are the one who needs to get a grasp on reality and find yourself a life because people who overreact and are not intelligent enough to use this site properly are not welcome here.\nPeople with an attitude like yours and wish to own guns are one of the reasons why gun crime is escalating in this country.\nYou my friend are the one that needs to grow up and get a life, and some serious anger management treatment.
804282
do you want for or against? \n\nFor gun control:\nIn countries with strict gun control there is much less gun related violence. E.g. clearly fewer school shootings. If the parents don't have a gun sitting in their cupboard ready to be used most kids won't figure out easily where do get one from. \nAlso less danger of accidental shootings if there are less guns around.\nI think the bobbies in England stopped carrying a gun and somebody figured out that the risk for a Bobby to get shot actually went down. If the criminal knows they are not going to get shot they actually seem to be less inclined to shoot first and rather run first. Though I've never seen the study, only hearsay, so I don't know how accurate the rumor is. But you probably can figure that out.\nAlso I think there are studies that guns in the home end up to be used much more rarely in defence against a burglar situation than are involved in accidents or murders by people living in the household. People with no or little control over their temper seem to use a gun if it happens to be around and shoot their spouses or friends and think about consequences later. \n\nagainst: owning a gun seems to give some people a sense of security (or of being macho)
144930
It's not a meth question
902908
Why do you want a gun? Don't you think it's about time that guns shouldn't be allowed. NRA are serial killers and their place is in jail!!!!!!!!
882664
I live in the United States and the 2nd Amendment grants each citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  In the recent past, there have been attempts by Democrats to misinterpret our constitution and claim that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the military.  Well, they are wrong and I'd be very surprised if they ever succeed in taking away our 2nd Amendment right (please research the Emerson case for more specifics on what I'm referring to).\n\nPrivate citizens need guns for many purposes.  Hunting for sport and meat has been and continues to be a right exercised by millions of law abiding Americans.  Some of us collect guns because we simply enjoy the fine craftsmanship of a well made firearm.  Some of us shoot for sport and target practice as a form of recreation and honing our skills.  As for using firearms as weapons against people, there is much evidence to indicate that a criminal will be quite reluctant to attack a person if there is a possibilty that that person is armed.  I feel quite confident that my  parents, wife, children, and numerous other friends and relatives are well equipped with the proper skills and weapons to defend themselves if they should ever be attacked by a life-threatening criminal.  If more people practiced their skills, and responsibly carried firearms, there would be a much reduced threat of criminal attack.  Once a person has been convicted of a violent crime, his 2nd Amendment right should be taken from him.  Those of us who enjoy guns in a responible manner, however, should be allowed to pursue our hobby in whatever way we wish, without the threat of uninformed people threatening to take away our rights.  Guns are dangerous weapons at times, but in the right hands they can be used responsibly and are an integral part of how this country came to be in the first place.  Before anyone spouts off about gun lovers who are hiding in bunkers, harboring irrational fears, and making ready to commit mass killings, you should consider the fact that most gun owners are not weirdos who want to kill you.  Our guns are much less dangerous to society that your teenage kids, riding around drunk in their new sports cars that you bought for them......\n\nFor Bob D.:  "A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  I expected someone to try to misinterpret this again.....it keeps happening and we keep proving you wrong.  As I said, please research the Emerson case to see what the Courts have to say about this.  And, Bob, please cover up your bare arms!  The correct word is BEAR.
831347
As a Brit  I apologise for stepping in here, but would just like to say that the only two members of my American family who possess guns are police officers.  The remainder refuse to own guns on the grounds that too many 'accidents' occur in households where weapons are kept. They have a point - I lived in New York for a while and the number of accidental (fatal) shootings by children of children, in the home, amazed me - as did the arbitrary and senseless shooting of people on the streets.  So I guess the family has a point. \n\nIncidentally, regarding the comment above that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives Americans the constitutional right to own guns, doesn't the relevant sentence say  "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."   Surely, all that means is that in the absence of a standing army (the newly formed United States not yet having a regular army when the Constitution was drafted), the people were allowed to bear arms, as members of a disciplined militia, in order to protect their new nation in case of an attack by outside forces?  Now that the USA has both a National Guard  _and_  an enormous Regular Army, isn't that Amendment now redundant and a couple of centuries out of date?     \n\nI'm only asking... but it's a question that's worth calm, reasoned discussion, surely?
516669
not a realistic question.
1139354
With a question like that you might want to give it up for a while. Orrrr, put a joint in the barrel of a gun and pull the trigger, it would save me from having to answer anymore questions from you.
883808
If he had said something like, "I want every person in town to get a gun and kill all the police officers", then perhaps he could be charged with inciting violence.  Most successful public speakers are schooled enough to know better than to do that sort of thing, though.  You can skirt the issue fairly closely if you wish such as by saying something like, "If the police break the law, we may be forced to break the law ourselves".  See, that gives some insulation to the speaker, because the police are not supposed to be breaking the law in the first place, right?  The story in the website just said the speaker stated they might resort to 'weapons of warfare' if a repeat occurred.  There are all kinds of weapons of warfare, including psycological and rhetorical.  One note I'll add though is that a just government has no need to fear an armed public.  One of the main reasons for including the second amendment to the constitution was to assure the people the means to resist an oppressive government.  I'm a cop, but if a whole section of my town wanted to party in the street (sans violence and looting, of course), I'd back off and let 'em.  No need to clear the street unless fire department or ambulance crews need to get through.