現在の銃購入のプロセスに対して更なる規制を設けるべき?

現在の銃に関する教育と訓練は適切だと思いますか?また、それらは銃関連の事件にどのような役割を果たす可能性がありますか?

銃規制の変更は、社会経済的または地理的特性に応じてコミュニティにどのような異なる影響を与える可能性がありますか?

アメリカ社会における銃の文化的重要性と銃法への影響についてどう思いますか?

憲法修正第 2 条の権利と、銃による死亡、特に自殺を減らすという目標とのバランスをとることをどのように提案しますか?

自衛のための銃器の使用と、銃器が地域社会にもたらす潜在的なリスクについてどう思いますか?

精神的健康と銃器へのアクセスとの関係は、銃規制においてどのように扱われるべきだと思いますか?

銃規制が厳しくなると安心感が増すか弱まるかについて、あなたの視点を捉えた物語や感情を共有していただけますか?

銃器の存在は、学校、教会、バーなどの一般的な環境における力関係にどのような変化をもたらすと思いますか?

安全性に関する個人的な経験、または安全性の欠如は、銃の所有に対する誰かのスタンスにどのような影響を与える可能性がありますか?

No, we need to have more "gun control" restrictions on the manufacturers of guns.

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.

Felons with a violent history should not be able to own guns, however, guns should be allowed in stores, schools, etc. for safety purposes

No, the right to bare arms is the second amendment

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.

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!

No guns! If other countries can do it so can we.

No, but strictly enforce the laws already on the books

More control but also harsher penalties for gun-related crimes as well as accidents that result because of negligence

2nd amendment should be repealed and states given the power to legislate gun ownership regulations according to their respective cultures.

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.

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.

No. Assault weapons is a meaningless phrase used to describe scary looking guns. There are plenty of regulations against automatic weapons.

No. Criminals ignore them. Kill the controls on the books and get back to Constitutional government.

The Right To Keep and Bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

Gun control might be a good idea but doing it by working around the 2nd amendment only weakens all liberties. If GC is good, first revoke 2nd amendment.

I dont mind it as long as they are using it for defensive purposes.

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.

Absolutely, the 1st Amendment is not specific and was never intended to include today's weapons; machine guns et al. The amendment must be interpreted to today's issues, just as others have been.

Require manufacturer to track weapons from cradle to grave. Increase penalties for gun related crimes. Increase personal accountability for gun possession.

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.

Yes, but in the form of higher taxes and regulations for corporations in the gun and ammunition industry.

No one should be able to own weapons.

people were killing each other with rocks and sticks long before there were guns

enforce laws on the books already, add them to all sale of guns, ban assault weapons and ban parading around looking like Rambo

No, but make the existing laws, count. Health issues should be enough to prevent any one from getting a permit to carry arms.

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.

No, there is zero evidence that increasing regulations on sales and ownership of firearms reduces the crime rates. Get tougher on violations of existing law.

Yes, but the problem needs to be attacked from multiple angles, including reducing poverty and increasing social programs to reduce and prevent gang violence

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…  続きを読む over people who use guns but people should not be barred from having access to them for reasons of self-defense. Maybe different types of guns can be issued in accordance with experience, criminal record (or lack thereof), risk factors, etc. Granted I'm not an expert but I feel this should be the responsible perspective.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is our God-given right to own a firearm. The federal government cannot and will not take my right to own a gun.

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.

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.

End poverty and american paranoia, racism and homophobia, guns would not be such a big deal.

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 ***

No, ball and powder muskets should be unregulated, but all other firearms should require well-regulated militia membership like the 2nd Amendment states.