Should Gun laws be changed to protect our society?

Do you believe that access to guns need to be much more restricted and controlled? Should the permit should be issued by the police only after an interview occurs and the individual passes the following tests:


A) The purpose of owning the gun is clearly established by interview by a police officer. They need to keep the gun in a safe at home,show a need for hunting, target shooting or self defense. The need to permit each gun. No need,no gun.


B) The individual must produce an affidavit stating he has no police record and is a member of society in good standing with good morals.


C) The individual must produce a letter from a physician stating that he examined the individual and found that person to be of sound mental health with annual re-certification to maintain ownership of the weapon.


D) The gun must be issued by the police department. The police should confiscate weapons from individuals who fail to produce annual certification reports on mental health and safety training.

Should Gun laws be changed to protect our society?
It is true what the first answerer said - that this violates the 2nd Amendment.





HOWEVER, the 2nd amendment has never been applied against the states, since the purpose of the 2nd amendment was the guarantee the right of states to maintain independent militias. Thus, this law would be completely legal for a state to pass.





However, I think the law is not advisable, because it is so restrictive that it probably wouldn't pass. If you want to eventually get to the law you proposed, you would need to get there gradually instead of all at once.
Reply:Those are some pretty awful idea's. I am sure you know the constitution enough that I don't need to list what it says. There are more responsible people out there then the jackass's that have to go killing people. No matter how strict the gun laws get, you'll have bad people find their way around it. Bad people are like rats, they can find away around the poison. Bad analogy, but you get the idea.
Reply:The purpose of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution is as valid as the 1st, 4th or any other. In fact with out the "freedom" to keep and bear arms the future of other rights in the constitution would also be limited by the same "police officer" you want to limit gun rights too.
Reply:Those are some truly horrible ideas that would destroy the last vestiges of our republic.
Reply:Gun laws should be enforced. Criminals are walking around with unregistered guns. We don't need more restraints on law abiding people.
Reply:There are too many gun laws already in place that no one follows, even the police or prosecutors.





More laws just mean only criminals will own the guns.





Actually, there should be a massive restructuring of the laws to make ownership more uniform across the country. Guns should be as easy to buy as alcohol or cigarettes. Show proof of age, run and ID in a national database, walk out the store with new gun in hand.





Do something stupid, it's not the fault of anyone else except the person doing the crime.





This will never happen because it makes too much sense and politicians treat average people as sheep.
Reply:Gun "RIGHTS" were not part of the original constitution-Less regulation is not the answer,We have record numbers of guns in the world ,the question I ask is do you feel safer?The NRA slogan ''Guns don't kill people people kill people"might protect manufacturers from liability and has bought time in a country with LIBERAL GUN LAWS.
Reply:Only if the laws are scraped and all Citizens are armed. That will certainly cut down or eliminate violent crimes. Bad guys are bullies ( Cowards in disguise) If they have to confront someon on equal ground, they will cower and run or think twice. Look at prohibition and drug laws...didn't work and neither do gun laws.


Only law Abiding citizens follow the laws..Bad guys don't..so why cause the good guys all the problems. I can buy a gun on the street, quicker and cheaper than in the store. Most bad guys dont get their weapons from gun shops.....


Its time we stop punishing the good guys and start imprisoning, at HARD LABOR, all the bad guys
Reply:The sole purpose of the right to bear arms is granted to us by the founding fathers. The only more important thing in the U.S is freedom of speach. The reason the 2nd amendment allows us to have guns is not for our amusemnet, rather to defend ourselvs against malicious people or a tyranical govnt. Those who comit gun offenses ( murder, robery, threats) should be locked away for a long duration of time for taking advantage of our 2nd most treasured right. A quote that has held true since the revolutionary war is this, " A man without a gun is a subject. A man with a gun is a citizen."
Reply:As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.





In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.





The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.





Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.





By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
Reply:Nope, we need gun in this world