Site Feedback

about differents laws in other countries.

Hello everyone! I would like to ask something about laws in US.
what do you think about guns in US?
I ask this because today, my friends and I, we were talking about it, and we had differents perspectives about it, in my personal opinion I not agree with the liberty with guns in US, for me this is no the solution for the problems with insecurity, why you need an arm for be safe? if you need it, that is a really solution?.
I respect the laws in different countries, and I just want to know differents opinions of other people... by the way in Mexico there is a expresion about difficult topics like this: "topics as sports, politic and religion, never has an answer".

have a nice day (or night)





There are many different views on this subject.  Unfortunately, the issue was decided early in our country's history and was included in our Bill of Rights.  The 'right to bear arms' was passed as the second amendment (change) to our constitution.  It is very difficult to repeal (remove) an amendment, especially one that has a long tradition.


As far as opinions are concerned, I feel like the second amendment was reasonable at the time it was passed.  However, times have changed and the threat of another armed revolution is not very serious.  In more recent US history, big social movements have occured as a result of relatively peaceful demonstrations and appeals, rather than violent revolutions.  Guns are no longer necessary to ensure that people are being heard by the government.


Unfortunately, repealing this amendment would require overwhelming support across our country.  At this time, people are more divided on this issue rather than united.

I don't think permitting possessing own guns isn't proper. As you can see, enen if without guns, devils still can harm ordinary people in other ways. But without guns, the defend ability of good people will become weak. After all, not everyone has the kongfu equlity to Bruce Lee. Be faced with bad guy, they    don't have enough weapons to protect them and their families. This is my opinion. Use them properly, manage them strictly.


As someone who grew up in the Southern U.S.A., It's scary, in some ways, to see someone with a gun, but also quite normal. I think the question isn't if they are good or bad because it's in our constitution and I personally don't believe they'll go away, but rather why is it so easy to get them. I still don't have an answer for this and with big organizations such as the NRA, we're all in for a huge battle over gun ownership. I think most can agree, though, that some measures should be taken to stop crazy people from getting firearms. 

Guns in the US: It’s not likely that everyone owns them, with or without gun owning registries to the NRA. This is to my point of view a feel free of misery nature that isn’t solving anything, to some extent it’s reassuring. I think no citizen should depend on a government by reassuring statements, this can cause more and more dependence.

If shooting incidents occur: At least downsize security measures by a local committee which is elected by its locals, that should be more relative when issues will arrive, than applying them on a whole nation, which subsequently would lead to long debating for having legislative changes to rock solid laws, like the amendments that has been there for ages, this will reduce government taxes, because it saves work.

They’ve websites containing the information of reports of any incidents, where it will be marked a location on the map. That’s a good transition: people can be aware themselves now, and alerted of the dangers of certain neighborhoods, before thinking of passing through those streets that has a bad reputation.

Government with an open attitude towards his citizens is always better than a government hidden information from the public.

It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the security of the life and property of it's citizens. That's why we have the police and other law enforcing agencies. However, if the government fails to keep it's citizens safe, then the only other option left is to let responsible citizens of the country keep guns for the protection of themselves and their families. However, that is not the ideal situation as guns in the hands of the public is more likely to be misused. 


There have been several incidents of gun violence in the US in which a person with a licensed gun went on a rampage and killed many innocent people. Therefore, ideally, the government should ensure the security of it's citizens and people should not be allowed to keep guns, unless it's an exceptional case.

One fundamental problem with gun control laws is that such laws are obeyed only by people who are lawabiding.  A person who is intent on committing a crime such as murder, home invasion, robbery, or rape, will not hesitate to violate gun laws.  Society is then left with evil people who are armed, and lawabiding citizens who are left defenseless.  


Truly, if anyone can explain to me how gun control laws will deter hardened criminals from acquiring guns, I would like to hear what you have to say.  I will consider your argument carefully and in good faith.


One more thing.  Many, if not all, of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, Party leaders, and other high-level politicians who clamor for gun control are themselves well-protected by armed bodyguards.  So are their families.  It is you and your family whom they expect to be defenseless in the face of a deadly criminal attack.


In her original post Carmen explained, "I respect the laws in different countries, and I just want to know differents opinions of other people... "


Certainly the historical context of this 'right' in the US and its legal implications are important, but as far as opinions are concerned, I don't think that it is fair to discredit people's comments on gun ownership just because they may not understand the complexities that you [think] you understand.


As far as "protecting American citizens from their own government" is concerned, at the time the bill of rights were ratified the US First American Regiment had only around 5,000 soldiers.  While owning a gun and being able to organize local militias might have been a reasonable defense at that time, it is certainly not a feasable challenge to the current US military.

i do not believe that it is solution for the problem of criminal to give right to own guns, here in Russia.

it is not permited now, and let it be so on. Everybody here is nervouse , and to give the gun to those people it clear madness, what aim would be.

alright, I understand that I needed be more specific in my arguments, in my own opinion from my context and thoughts, I think that a person don't need guns for have freedom or security, why don't have a gun could limiting your freedom? could limit your attack to crimanals. from my prespective, we have right to be security, that is a right. not having a gun, not is a freedom would attack to someone.
also we couldn't forget all the problems that pass when a incorrect person have a gun, who could protect all rest of people? more guns? I think that the truly problem is that the citizens think that "need a gun for feel secure" if the government is the apparent problem, and one of the main problem is the impunity of government, it's necessary to focus in the truly problem.
I know that I would need to know more about context in other countries that permit guns to their citizens, but that is my personal opinion.
thank you very much to everyone that gave me answers.
I learned a lot with every answer.
PD: sorry for some mistakes in my English, I am learning every day something new.

"You have no objective data, in the context of Jurisprudence in the United States, supporting your conclusion." - Bruce

The government takes billions of dollars in tax money from it's citizens to run the police department and other law enforcing agencies. Hence it becomes the responsibility of the government to ensure that these departments work effectively enough to ensure the security of it's citizens. 

Add a comment