Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
When a guy whose community college wouldn't let him back in because of his mental health issues can buy a semi-automatic 9mm Glock without any barrier and even an extended magazine (that has no viable purpose), then yes, there is a serious problem. I don't want to hear "criminals will find a way to get guns." Shouldn't we at least make them rather than basically handing them out?
|
That's probably the reason why many people outside of the United States are so baffled. As much as I could understand a person's interest in being able to protect themselves and their families--that right comes at a high price when it allows nutjobs like Loughner to easily buy a gun as well, without any background checks.
According to a Wikipedia article on the topic, "political scientist Earl R. Kruschke states, regarding the fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, that 'approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime.'"
Apparently, licensed guns in the hands of responsible citizens aren't much of a problem. However, unrestrictive gun laws make it easy for irresponsible and/or criminal citizens to possess guns as well and cause a considerable firearm-related death rate in the United States that is much higher than in any other comparable country.
In other words, the good feeling of potentially being able to shoot a burglar or even murderer in your house on your own instead of relying on the police to arrive and do it for you doesn't seem to outweigh the negative consequences of unrestrictive gun laws. Additionally, even with stricter gun laws, responsible citizens could still own a gun while criminal and/or unreliable persons would not be allowed to have one. Thus, as soon as they got one, they could be charged with illegal gun possession.