Yes but they can make it significantly harder which would still reduce crime rate
It would be impossible to clean up the streets of guns.
Gun laws. Yea, the gun got up and decided to go shoot people.
Yea but the person picked up a gun and killed 20+
People who say "gun laws dont need to be more stricter" are retarded. Seriously.
If dude tried this with a knife there would be a lot less deaths and injuries.
Gun laws need to be tighter.
If someone wants a gun to commit a crime to this extent, they will find one, one way or the other.
The crime rate has nothing to do with guns being available or unavailable. The last time someone tried banning something with the intent of reducing crime it did the exact opposite and spawned one of the most violent eras of organized crime in American history.
This is a people problem not a gun problem. The reality is owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility and not everyone is fit to own one. There is a huge, huge market for illegal weapons so people looking for high-powered, high-fire rate weapons can get them if they want.
I agree with you about making it harder to buy a gun, but you're insinuating that reducing the amount of guns would reduce the amount of crime. It's tempting to make that correlation, but the issues that cause crime have nothing to do with the amount of people owning weapons. Look at a state like Wyoming. Over 67% of the state's population owns firearms and it happens to be one of the states with the least amount of violent crime.
That's a state where you see a lot of sportsman and hunters, sure, but if you can't see why the logic in your argument is flawed, I think the aforementioned example should clear things up.
I been saying this for so long, but we need to take guns away from civilians.
The 2nd amendment DOES NOT state that any civilian can carry fire arms
"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."
Notice how it says a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Not any fucking citizen.
You have to consider the time in which this was written. Back then firearms were slow-loaded, single shot weapons. The Founders didn't foresee there would be semi-automatic handguns with 15 round magazines, or high-powered assault rifles with a 30 round clip and high fire rate.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is so that citzens in this country can arm themselves in the event of a tyrannical takeover, and to ensure that the government is indeed fearful of its citzens. You also have to remember the context of their words. Back then, our Continental Army was made of plenty of civilians, so the idea is that in an emergency, the common man would have the ability to band together and protect the country if need be.
It also allowed for sportsman and regular citizens alike to arm their homesteads to defend against threats.
You're also over looking a key part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
WE the people are this proverbial militia. You, me, and everyone else are counted upon to safeguard the country in an emergency, and that's why it's important that upstanding, able-bodied and clear-thinking individuals should be allowed to legally own firearms.
Back when the Soviets invaded Finland, the first thing they tried to do was make every citizen in the country turn in their weapons as soon as they occupied the country. I am not some patriotic whackjob, but you have to understand the power that a weapon wields.
If you deny law-abiding citzens the right to defend themselves, you're instead arming a horde of criminals and violent sociopaths. These people WILL get guns no matter what, so making it harder on people like myself to defend ourselves is just illogical.
I own a firearm for the sole purpose of home defense, and regardless of how other's choose to misuse them, I do not think people like me should be subject to over-reactive punitive measures such as the ones you're suggesting.