HELP ON MY ESSAY

1 yes because it evens the playing field.
2 no criminals will always have guns
3 defiantly
4 no thats just retarded there will always be crime you cant stop it but you can stop some of it

>>324032
definitely*

>>324032
Thx

>>324024

1) No, Only people who can pass a background check to see if that person has a criminal record or mental illness can own a firearm.

2) No, criminals don't obey laws, criminals don't register guns. A person can make a gun with a metal lathe and other tools.

3) Yes, In 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law that required heads of households to own a gun. From 1982 - 2012, there have only been 4 murders. 3 of those murders happened in a "Gun-Free" school zone where guns were not allowed.

4) NO! The brazilian government are fools for that, unless they want to keep the people down.

1)Absolutely not, if any lunatic can just pop in and buy a weapon it would be disastrous. A background check/ a psych evaluation should be mandatory, and maybe something that proves the buyer can safely handle and operate the gun

>>324048
2)By making a law to prohibit people willing to break law is pretty contradictory, no?
3)Sure, crime would probably decrease quite a lot, but a thing to keep in mind is that gun-related incidents would in turn increase with the whole populus armed
4)outlawing guns won't stop criminals still using them, it only strips law-abiding citizens their self-defense from said criminals. No sense ln that.

>>324024
>1)Would you be confortable with everyone being able to buy a gun? Why
Yes. It's a natural right in my country to keep and bear arms, but more than that I've always lived in areas where many people owned guns for hunting or recreational use so I'm pretty familiar with guns and don't see anything wrong with law-abiding people owning them.
>2)Do you think gun prohibition is a efficient method to stop gun related crime?
For some countries it seems to have worked, like Australia and the UK, because they have relatively few firearms and firearm-owners in the country. They are also island nations, making it easier to control what comes into the country. So these factors combined made it easy for them to enforce a ban and to have that ban successfully lower gun crime. But if you have a large nation with land borders it's harder to control contraband getting in, and harder to police your citizens. You would have to rely on people willingly handing over their firearms, which law-abiding citizens probably would do, but criminals certainly would not. And if you have a lot of guns circulating in the country then you will end up with a disarmed law-abiding populace and an armed criminal populace.
>3)Do you think an armed population helps on decreasing the overall crimanality?
Absolutely. More law-abiding gun owners means fewer robberies and burglaries and assaults, because criminals who commit such felonies invariably look for weak, safe targets. If they know every home has a gun in it and any woman walking alone at night could be carrying, they'd think twice.
>4)Do you concur with the decision made by the brazilian government that despite 64% brazilians being in favor of gun legalization and free comerce, the government ruled in favor of prohibition?
No. It's undemocratic. The government are just people too, no different from citizens, so why is it they can be trusted with guns while citizens can't? A gun ban just concentrates more power and privilege for the state.

>>324024
1
>evens the playing field like an anon said
2
>no, criminals dont obey the laws
3
>yes, police can't be everywhere at once
4
>no, also seems to be going against the populace's wishes

>>324048
Just stop being a pussy and draw faster faggot.

>>324024
1.
fuck no. would anyone ever be okay seeing a complete retard have a gun in their hand?
2.
if gun prohibition meant "an active attempt to remove guns from a country", then yes. if all it means is a statement of "guns are banned", then no. obviously if a country would actually remove guns and handle any illegal arms problems well, then gun-related crimes would be sink to near-0. you can look at Japan and Korea as examples of that.
3.
this is a lacking question. in the case that all persons obtaining said arms were to have an extremely thorough check, then possibly. however, if it's just handing them out to every idiot on the street, then no.
4.
you haven't given me enough information to say "yes" or "no". i don't understand the reasoning behind the people being in favor of gun legalization, nor do i understand the reasoning behind the government's decision. just because the majority says "Do this!" doesn't mean the government should listen. the public tends to be extremely unknowing regarding certain topics, so dumb decisions like Brexit can occur if the government just listens to them.

>>324024

-no, there are crazy people out there who only want them to do illegal things

-no, they'll get them somehow or use other weapons

-no, simple arguments turn deadly when everyone has a gun....too trigger happy

-maybe, sometimes you have to protect people from themselves

1) Anyone? No. Those who obey the law? Yes.

2) No, people who commit crime tend to live and associate with other criminals...which in turn always get there hands on guns..regardless of laws.

3)Yes, although the statistics show that the effects are small. In this respect it's more about removing the ability of individuals to defend themselves.

4) I do not agree. First democracy is based on the consent of the populace. Second, prohibion of firearms would work about as well as prohibion of alcohol did here in the USA.

1. No, people need to be mentally and sociologically capable to own one. Not to mention ex-cons owning guns would be a bad idea.
2. No, banning guns will just give more money to black market dealers.
3. No, people are stupid and would probably mess things up far more than police.
4. Yes solely because I can see the desperation to try and reduce the crime rates in Brazil. Had things been less hectic as they are now I would say no, but given the current circumstances I would say yes.

>>324024
1) Yes, provided they had no history of violent crime. I think this is because owning guns is good, but obviously not if someone has committed violent acts in the past
2) I don't know. Both sides of the argument bring up valid points.
3) Yes
4) No

>>324024
>1)Would you be confortable with everyone being able to buy a gun? Why

Yes this will be a very comfortable place where everyone is able to buy a gun. A criminal person will be scared that their intended victim might defend themselves with a gun.

2)Do you think gun prohibition is a efficient method to stop gun related crime?

It is not possible to stop gun crime with laws. The people who follow the laws will not own guns. The people who do not follow laws will continue to own guns. This makes a job very easy for criminals because they will be more sure that the victim does not own a gun.

3)Do you think an armed population helps on decreasing the overall crimanality?

Yes because this concept has been proven in USA community called Nelson, Georgia which has given a new law that requires men who own a house must also own a gun. This makes criminals know that the good people who follow the law will be owning a gun and they do not want to attempt crime in this area. It's been known that Nelson Georgia is safer community after the new law is enacted and less crime happened after civilians were asked to buy themselves guns.

4)Do you concur with the decision made by the brazilian government that despite 64% brazilians being in favor of gun legalization and free comerce, the government ruled in favor of prohibition?

It is a bad injustice for the people of Brazil. Brazil people need to give more stronger direction to the government for the law to change. Criminals will probably continue to get worse acts and more brave, until it is easy for civilians and good people to get guns legally. It's not about one person using the firearm against one criminal but the average of population as a whole being able to defend themselves that will deter criminals from their illegal acts.

1) no, not everyone is mentally fit to own a gun
2)yes, you can see in countries like Australia, japan and switzerland that it is effective
3)no
4)yes, most gun related incidents are done using guns that are legallt obtained

1) No, as that includes mentally unstable/dangerous people.

2) No, I think gun restriction for people with dangerous history is.

3) Most likely.

4) No, I feel that guns really do need to be dealt with in Brazil, but prohibition isn't the right way to do it.

1) No as that would allow mentally unstable/dangerous individuals to hold weapons.

2) No,

3)Yes

4) No. I think guns need to be dealt with in Brazil but I don't believe that prohibition is the right way to go about it

>>324024

1. Yes, criminals already have them. Crime drops significantly in areas with strong 2A protection

2. It's not even subjective, it's proven time and time again that gun control correlates directly with increase in crime. See every US city with strict gun control laws.

3. Yes, proven.

4. No, your govt is an embarrassment to humanity.

>>324024
>1)Would you be confortable with everyone being able to buy a gun? Why

Yes. Good and evil are now on even grounds. Makes the evil think twice. This is not a promise, nor a threat, but a fact.

>2)Do you think gun prohibition is a efficient method to stop gun related crime?

Absolutely not. Literally a ton of examples in the history. People of nations having no legal access to guns have been oppressed by all sorts of threats throughout history.

>3)Do you think an armed population helps on decreasing the overall crimanality?

Yes, see answer 2). Again a lot of examples in history.

>4)Do you concur with the decision made by the brazilian government that despite 64% brazilians being in favor of gun legalization and free comerce, the government ruled in favor of prohibition?

Brazilian Government obviously has an issue with Brazilian people. I wonder why. (I actually don't wonder why.)