The second amendment wasnt for people to start killing each other, it was for the creation of the militia. Guns in America, are supposed to keep this world a better place, however, it doesnt do that at all, it only allows criminals to commit crimes. It definetly doesnt protect anyone from anything, it only harms the people of this country. And yea, I get that many people save themselves from the criminals that break into their house or try to rape them, but half the time thats not the case.

guns aren't needed on the daily by people outside of the armed forces so i really don't see a need for us carrying guns. it only leads to violence and gangbanging anyways...

besides, i remember reading once that in the countries that had banned guns and an over 90% less deaths to weaponry than in the u.s. now THAT says something.

Absolutely they should be banned. There are almost no cases where an innocent person has defended themselves with a gun. And sure guns don't kill people, but the death rate would definately go down if people did not have easy access to weapons. I mean look at the VT incident. A college kid, with a clearly bad background record, managed to buy guns and ammo. We outlaw gun's and stuff like that does not happen

i do not think all guns should be banned, but certainly some. if your a hunter and you want to kill a deer, then go and by a rifle, but do you really need an AK-47 to kill a little deer? and if your buying a gun for protection, then that is just stupid. there are plenty of things you can do before resorting to a gun for protection. get a guard dog, buy an alarm, or move near a place with a lower crime rate. you could also buy a taser or pepper spray.

Guns should be banned because they are not needed in any domestic issue. The second ammendment was put in place because of fear that the british might invade america again or take control of the government. if this were the case the people would need weapons to defend themselves and regain america. The british aren't going to invade so we don't need to protect our selves. even in the this day and age america remains increadible safe compared to many other nations. we have no close enemies. if a major army were to attack us a few men with pistols or shotguns wouldn't do much against a soldier with an ak47 or tanks or bombers.

Guns in America just make it easier for crimes to be committed. Some guns should never be considered allowed and this includes all semi automatic weapons as well as shotguns.

Poverty, drugs, and lack of education are the reasons people turn to guns to kill. guns give you power to take life and should not be allowed to float around so that our students or citizens can use them against one another.

Guns may not kill people on their own but they greatly facilitate the killing of people and their sole purpose unlike most knives and axes is to kill. if we are allowed to carry a tool which sole purpose is to kill then purposely or accidentally we will harm or kill someone and that risk can't be allowed to exist.

I don't agree entirely with this, but automatic and semi automatic weapons should be banned. Gun don't kill people, people do is a valid statement, but a homicidal person with a semi automatic weapon can kill a whole lot more people before being controlled than if they had a knife. As for non-automatic weapons, they should require a license.

yea, but only if you'd kill someone with it.

it's a good decoration item!

yes because some people in America cannot be trusted with one i understand that if its for your protection then yeah go ahead and have one but I'm just saying most crimes happen with handguns.

any of u frix ever heard of the black market??? sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

this sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks balsthis sucks bals

i don't think we should ban all guns, but certainly some. if you want to hunt, then go ahead a buy a hunting rifle, but what if the purpose of a gun other then that. getting one for protection is stupid since there are many other options you have before resorting to a gun for protection. think about getting an alarm, moving to a low crime area, or buying a guard dog. i think guns such as AK-47's are overkill and should be banned. do you really need a machine gun to kill a little deer?

everybody is talking about how the government is going to take over, and guns will be the only way to protect ourselves. it sounds like some bad movie premise. how has the government taken over exactly, and what is so bad if it did? i mean isn't a nation supposed to be run by a government? if we were under the control of a tyrant, then i could understand, but we live in a democracy. we choose our leaders, and can impeach them if we do not like them. it is not a perfect system i know, but it ensures that no person can take control of our country. even if somebody did, then do you really think a gun is going to be you saving grace? if there was a so called tyrant, then he probably has taken over the militia, and do you think that you would win against a trained solider who probably has better weapons.

Guns should be far more restricted than they are now. We have far higher murder rates than almost any other first-world country. Yes, it's important to protect 2nd amendment rights. But they should not be unrestricted.

In Arizona, the Republican led state legislature has become enamored with a law allowing concealed weapons on every university campus in the state - the schools cannot ban them. What's worse, they originally wanted to extend that to the public school system!

I have a number of friends who are good, honorable gun owners. I know they are very responsible with their weapons.

I also have a friend who is border-line mentally disabled, and was given a concealed weapons permit. Once, I took him to the local convenience store to buy him a Coke. When we returned, there was a guy walking toward the house, with the intention of stealing his bike. "Oh no! I've got my .45 there!"

This nitwit left a loaded .45 in a bike bag, and parked the bike in the driveway unlocked - instead of leaving it inside the fenced yard, which was guarded by a Rottweiler and a German Shepard! Never mind the fact that had he said something, of course he could have put the freaking thing in the locked house!

He's a security guard, and a few months later he decided to take the gun to work. Never mind that he's only licensed as an unarmed guard. It's against the law for him to have a gun with him. Never mind that the company he worked for didn't have a license for him to have it, either. So what does he do? Of course! He left the same loaded .45 in his LUNCH BOX, unguarded on his desk at work, where it was stolen!

I have two huge problems with both these situations:

1. I completely object to being forcibly made part of a gun battle between someone like this and a shooter. I know this guy, and he's more likely to have the gun taken from him and used against him or someone like me, than he ever would be to defend anyone.

2. People like this unwittingly supply the black market to street thugs at discount prices no less.

His right to a gun has to be weighed against my right to be secured from his negligence.

Don't involve me in a fantasy some people seem to have that this is the wild west and every theater and fast food place is the OK Corral.

Responsible gun ownership, please?!

Most objects have the potential to be a threat. A knife sitting on a kitchen table may be harmless but in the hands of a thief it can be deadly. Guns have more potential to be dangerous than knives but simply being dangerous is not grounds for banning an object.

Well you guys have answered the question already danielcraig and ta9798. A totally sensible approach with the only, somewhat irrational argument for retaining your weapons to defend against the Government! Sorry THEDert, but hardly likely or relevant, at least we hope! Lets face it, history dictates we are hardly a nice race are we? We use any excuse to batter the living daylights out of each other; race, religion, fun, etc. To think how much more advanced we'd be if we didn't constantly flatten everything we've spent time and money building and spent those resources on developing our society. But hey, it'll never happen. It's a sad world we live in where certain life forms find it necessary to fly planes into buildings. Disarming the terminally insane would be a good start, but who's to judge who're the insane?!

Guns should be banned everywhere.

Guns should be banned and there will be extremely low cases of gun related murder.

If guns over the world is banned, we will get world peace for a while.

itz gud 4 everybody cuz it helps u alot on eveyry problem u gt no matter wat

Yes of course!!Guns might hurt people or even kill people!The point is:u cannot control the ones actually have guns!They will hurt people when they want!!They will use their guns!!If u don't ban it,what is the use of police??They trained to be strong and catch the thieves...Now,all Americans got guns..Even police cannot stop them from stealing..(because they got guns either)...So how can we let the Americans hurt people by using guns again and again?

u no if u like guns so much why dont you go home and commit suicide and see if you like guns then

Yes guns should be banned in America. In the UK, deaths by guns are a lot lower. The reason is that it's still harder for the average man in the street to obtain a gun. The American Constitution states "The right to bear arms" and the Americans seem to feel really strongly about protecting this right. Obviosly the constitution is held in high esteem to the Americans, based on their history and pride of independence. However you can't hold onto values and laws that have lost their importance or value. At the time of the American Declaration of Independance, which, I imagine would have led to the drawing up of the rules in the constitution, life and times were completely different. Shootings and murder were everywhere, and if I was George Washington writing a proclamation for a new world, then it makes perfect sense to give the citizens of this new world, the right to defend their land, property, and life. And for this reasons Americans have guns. But, if you can't get hold of one, you can't kill someone with it. It's a simple argument really, guns kill.

There are essentially two arguments for the ownership of/legality of guns in American (outside of the second amendment).

1) Protection - The argument suggests that guns protect us from dangerous individuals. The problem is that WE ARE the dangerous individuals. From accidents, to insanity, to alcohol or drug-fueled violence, we are the ones doing this damage. The best mode of protection is the removal of firearms from society.

2) Entertainment/sport - Shooting is fun. I love it. Skeet, target, and hunting are fun pastimes. I was trained as a boy to properly care for, handle, and shoot a fire arm. I was 10 years old when I shot my first .22 and I was hooked. I would love to pass these skills onto my son, but not at the cost of so much death and destruction caused by the improper use of guns. I would rather pass on a safer society.

I've heard all of the arguments and both sides are certainly passionate about their beliefs. Here are some of my rebuttals to common counter-arguments.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people: absolutely true, but guns allow people to kill people with greater efficiency, which is not necessarily a good thing outside of the battlefield.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns: Actually, not true. Outlaws and law enforcement would have guns.

Criminals will find ways to get guns: True, but the supply will be much lower the demand much higher, thus making it more expensive, thus more difficult, to get a gun.

good god bible bashes. READ THE DAM THING.if u use a gun u are a sinner according to that thing bound in black next to your computer.

look at Europe as u have always done and see the light. Gun crime although it dose exist, is Minuit in comparisons with the USA which is out of control on GUNS.

Guns don't kill people they just provide the means to do so. in a cowardly way. in Uk cities u at least have a chance against your opponent when they have a knife...

OK someone brakes into your house, they have a Gun

u have a gun.

u both shoot each other and die. take guns of the street and then there is no need in guns. :O shock. ect scenario flawed. i admit it but still GUNS ARE NOT GOOD THINGS DUMMIES

Yes, guns should be banned.

Guns provide a trigger for any violent activity in the society, like the Virginia University incident.

In our normal life, we have a bad notion for a particular person and wish to kill him if he comes forward some day. This happens with EVERYONE. He might be our naughty neighbour or prankster classmate. We often say " I will rip him into pieces if he argues again, some day". Presence of guns around us just provide an acceleration to this kind of a thinking and encourages us to act upon him and kill that person. So, guns should be banned forever.

Sorry Sorry Sorry Sorry SorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorrySorry. My opinion is ahead.

Of course guns kill people, but that doesn't mean that they should be banned. Knives kill people, cars kill people, Big Macs kill people, but should they be banned as well?

First of all, it would be impossible to ban guns and expect that they would all be taken off the street. They are too prolific in America now and there's no turning back.

Second, guns serve a great purpose in many cases, people just need to be educated on proper gun safety. Additionally, we should do more to ensure the people who are getting guns are capable of handling them and are not likely to go kill someone with it.

I thought that this was pertinent and rather interesting. I thought I'd submit it to see if it got any reaction.

“The Beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try and take it.” Thomas Jefferson

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

The right to keep and bear arms.

I, for one, am happy to know that I live in a democratic nation that has a fail safe built into it. If it were to fail, be over run by a tyrant or whatever the case, if it were to fail, I would have a fighting chance, and so would my peers.

I think disturbing the constitution is a bad idea, especially when we're talking about something like the 2nd amendment. If you touch the constitution, and at the same time, strip the people of it's property, and the property of which could help protect them in dire situations, you're going to have a reason to amend the constitution again because there will be a revolt. You know what I mean? You are changing the game, and then you are making it to where it's harder to keep fair if they wanted to change it again, and on top of all of that, it's not a belief that's being taken from them, like the belief of freedom, it's a material possession that has the power to defend itself, while in the right hands.

Tobacco, which I am all too familiar with, was responsible for 18.1% of deaths in the U.S. in year 2000. 435,000 deaths in 2000 compared to firearm related deaths at 29,573 in 2001.

Look at the difference there! 405,427 more people died by smoking than being shot...

What do cigarettes do to protect the citizens from each other or the government? I would have to say, only calm one down a little for a short amount of time and make their fight weaker and more difficult to endure.

If we're going to do anything concerning the second amendment, it should be to teach gun safety in classes as a sort of D.A.R.E. like program. Just because we teach people about drugs doesn't mean they'll seek them out, this should be the same with firearms.

I do think that we need to keep guns off of the streets, but this isn't a gun issue, it's a fairly complex societal issue.

If you look at history, the first thing empire's do to have total control is to disarm it's citizens.

Outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

Not too long ago I would have, without hesitation said yes. But given the drift in this country to more and more centralization of power in the presidency I am not so sure. I wonder about forces such as Blackwater; is this destined to be a private force of the executive?

What if McCain is elected? He believes in 'winning the war' on terrorism. I believe he will naturally seek to exert increased control over security to the detriment of constitutional safeguards of liberty.

It may take ordinary citizens, armed, to ultimately defend our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers fought against linger odds.

It reminds of something I once read --- what if every Jew in Hitler's Germany killed one SS troop as he came to arrest him? The number of Jews vastly outnumbered the German SS.

A militia of citizens with guns will be our last line of defense in the case of a government or military coup. Properly trained and licensed civilian gun owners can protect themselves and their neighbors in the case of enemy invasion, robberies, and other crimes. Banning guns in the U.S. would be a huge mistake, plus it would piss off all the gun owners who use their weapons for hunting and sport. Additionally, it would create a huge black market for illegal (all) guns.

Gun control laws simply don't work. Just look at the violent crime rates of areas with strict gun control laws, such as Washington D.C. and the U.K. (both of which have gun bans). Then compare it to areas with less gun control laws, such as Texas and Arizona (where concealed carry permits are fairly easy to obtain). The difference is huge because criminals are far less likely to commit a crime if they think that the victim could be armed.

Their was also a study (I don't have the link handy) that showed that the majority of violent crimes involving guns, the gun that was used by the criminal was obtained illegally. That's what criminals do, they break the law. If someone is really going to commit a crime with a gun, then why would they choose to obey any gun control laws?

I believe that Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Guns don't kill people, poeple kill people. The vast majority of people who commit gun crimes obtain their wepons illegally in the first place, so if guns are taken from the law abideing citizens, you'll have a situation where the outlaws will have guns and the sane people who should be allowed to have guns will be defenseless. also it shifts the balance of power in favor of the politicians instead of the citizenry. It's just one more step towards tyranny. This country started by shooting the poeple who tried to supress us. We can't allow our government to become the very thing we killed to escape from in the first place. Do you really want the politicians to have complete control of you lives?

Two Societies of 200 random individuals, one with guns and one with no guns. The answer is obvious, a society without guns has less opportunity, risk and danger than a society with guns.

In a worldwide population of billions, many would have lived if opportunities to kill with guns had never arisen.

Plain and Simple. Gun laws do not work places with strict guns laws are some of the most dangerous places in the nation and places like parts of Texas where guns are required are the safest. Yes I think parent should lock up there guns so children cannot get them. no one want to see a child killed but banning guns is really a bad Idea it's not good here and has been bad in the UK.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/301881_gunrebut01.html

Freedom was won with guns...

Greater control, yes. Banning, no.

Guns should be banned everywhere except America.

we need guns!! how else are we gonna shoot people that dont agree with us!!

For all of you who want guns to be illegal ask your self this what will our army do without guns. Oh I know they will spit at eachother. Its funny how quick people are to say lets make guns illegal because their bad are they really that bad last time i checked it takes two hands a finger and a willing PERSON to use it. Just like how ignorant people say pit bulls are a deadly dog and should all be extermanated well so are bear and lions and tigers. Its not the animal that was trained to kill people. People train dogs to kill People. Now if this were a math equation People added to Killing equalls People Killing People hence the saying guns dont kill people, people kill people. Tell me Im wrong and ill call you and idot there is no argument for that statement none. Ignorance is what makes stupid and somtimes i see too much of it. California is the best place for it.

Banning guns will not make gun-related deaths decline substantially. The majority of gun buyers are law-abiding people who keep the guns for self defense. Guns used in street crimes, especially from gangs, are typically illegal. If guns are banned, the illegal street guns will still be circulated, but the innocent people will not be able to obtain a gun for self-defense.

Guns save lives! If we were to ban guns the only people that will have guns are the people we were trying to take them away from. People already are able to get guns illegally and will continue to if they are banned. I will always feel safer with a gun knowing that criminals can get guns illegally.

Guns kill peope; just like spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.

One of the many reasons those men signed the Declaration of Independence.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns assist people.

guns dont kill people, people kill people, from a gunsdont kill people i do corperation

we would gain nothing from banning guns in america. guns are dangerous when people illegally use them why would we ban guns in america? to stop the violence and all the killings linked to them correct? and if killing people is already illegal what good is it going to do to make guns illegal. If you are willing to kill some one you probably don't care what you are killing then with is legal or not. The only people banning guns in america would hurt are the people that are defending there homes, business's, families. Since guns are already a lucrative black market making them illegal would make it worst. just like banning alcohol did to this nation. look how much money that made the mob it brought them into power. what do you guys think a black market surplus do?

I believe that a ban on firearms in America will result in widespread protests and riots, the gun market will continue, people will no longer feel secure, and an ineffective and possible corrupt system will be created that will only cause America even more suffering.

I also believe that anyone who says any type of regulation on firearms is against the 2nd Amendment is quite honestly ignorant of the world we live in now. Even greater regulation than is currently seen is needed on the buying and selling of firearms. I mean really let's be serious here, guns do kill people. But they also protect people. Regulation is needed to ensure that guns begin to do the latter in greater degrees.

All we need is good gun control. And by "good gun control" I mean two hands on the gun ;)

Even if guns are outlawed, they would be smuggled in like any other drug. so outlawing guns won't make much of difference except it will be harder to get guns, besides guns are also used for sports so why ban them?

Gun control is misguided. When guns become illegal for law-abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns. If they're already criminals, they aren't following certain laws, and will almost certainly ignore more if they desire to do so. Restrictions and bans on the availability of guns to the normal populace only encourages crime, because it allows criminals to operate with more impunity, knowing that they cannot be harmed significantly by the victim of their crime. And no matter how good the police are, they cannot cover all potential crime scenes. Law-abiding citizens carrying guns can defend themselves and others in their immediate area more completely than even the best police force. Prohibiting guns from the good guys just means that the bad guys are safer.

I do, however, believe that a mental health test should be required to receive a concealed-carry license, just to ensure that all legal gun owners have the mental faculty to ensure their own and others' safety.

Any one that says guns should be Banned in the USA of needs to move out of the USA. This is America, stop walking around with your tails between your legs and start acting like an american. Guns dont kill ppl , ppl kill ppl.

NEXT!

I think the whole debate revolves around whether or not you believe people are capable or incapable of behaving properly in the presence of a gun. If you are a conservative you believe people are capable. Progressives (liberals) believe people incapable. To take it further, if I believe you are capable then it's consistent that I demand accountability from you when you choose not the behave properly. There is a basic truth that applies here: Capable is to Accountable as Incapable is to Unaccountable.

Before you respond back, consider which Ideology seeks to hold others unaccountable and you have identified those who believe others incapable.

Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves. Is marijuana legal? No? Then why is it so easy to get a hold of? Banning guns will NOT keep them out of the hands of criminals. If someone wanted to get a gun, they'd find a way.

Remember how Hitler took over Germany single handedly? he registered everyones guns so that he knew where they were and who had them....then took the guns so that the citizens couldn't fight back. The crime rate in Washington D.C. has more than doubled since guns were banned- this is because the people who were committing the crimes didn't get rid of their guns because they dont follow the law!

what about the 'RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' ?

The 2nd Amendment was created to assure that Americans could protect themselves. Unless every gun is somehow destroyed, there will be no way to ban guns in America.

the Second Ammendment was created in order to assure that we have the same strength as the government. The ability to overthrow it if shit goes down.

The second amendment makes all the other amendments possible.

I've been on both sides of this argument and I can certainly sympathize with the respective positions.

I've always found it interesting that liberal argument on gun control is seen to be derived from a presupposition that individuals cannot act responsibly with the possession of firearms while at the same time assuming that collective bodies of individuals (such as our federal government) can be or is a organization that will responsibly conduct legislation and execute public policy and laws to the betterment of the public good.

On the other side, the conservative argument proceeds from both the standpoint that the individual can act responsibly with a firearm and/or (agreeing somewhat with the liberal basis) does not want to be found without a firearm in the company of irresponsible individuals who are carrying guns. It is also interesting that the former basis for the conservative argument assumes that the right to bare arms is the responsible individuals right to protect themselves against a hypothetical attack or control of an irresponsible collective body of individuals (a empire or dictatorship or oppressive government.)

To a certain extent, you have to identify the motive driving your position, whether it be fear of our government or trust in our government, and determine the extent to which that motive might be hindering your ability to critically evaluate the opposing argument fairly in light of your own.

Personally, I don't think banning the purchase and use of firearms in the United States will do anything to lessen the crime rates in our country. As has been stated already in this forum, the gun market will continue regardless of federal policy. Also, we've nurtured a culture of hopelessness and violence in our country that (while it may not be root cause of the problem) has certainly not helped the conditions that drive a person to resort to violent recourse to deal or cope with certain circumstances where better opportunities, financial security, or a better education might help them to make more responsible decisions.

I realize that I'm being horribly idealistic here (as I'm often accused of being) but I feel that a better public education system, a more dynamic economy, and a more promising future for the people of our country will do much more than taking the guns out of all the sock drawers in the U. S. of A.

And, the argument that it works in Britain fails to address the geographical size difference between North America and the British Isles, the demographic diversity, the population counts, and the cultural conflicts that distinguish the two nations.

Tighter restrictions on gun purchases and ownership are definitely necessary. A ban is not.

Not to change subject but to show a comparison

lets ban large Vehicle's Truck's Cars Pickups and anything that has a engine larger than a single cylinder and go's faster than 5 miles per hour because they kill people more so than guns. but that is a infringement on my liberty what liberty the pursuit of life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness. that don't matter people are to careless to drive such a large and fast vehicle. and criminals use them to get away and to kill people with it and kids can get in them and go joy riding and hurt a lot of people. under age kids don't have a license to drive them and some adults don't either and still they drive even if it is against the law and some parents let there kids drive anyway to go to the store or what ever the law has gotten more strict but it still go's on and so dose drunk driven and a lot of other thing like drugs,theft,prostitution,gambling and so on and i don't see stopping people having Weapons or anything Elise it will just make thing worse not better responsibility and accountability is the next best thing. anything that was tried to stop has just got Worse I'm not saying make it legal for like drugs or anything like that but something ain't working right. Even when the gun law was in affect the bad guys still get there Han's on them just a few years ago in California the cops had a shoot out and the bad guy's had Band full auto weapons and bullet proof vest the cop's were out Gunned and out matched so if you want to ban all weapons because of safety then you might as well ban all things that are not safe. we all take life in our on hands when we drive a car ride a four wheeler motorcycle flying in plane's water skying boating rock climbing hiking anything any where any time you just don't know your no safer with out them thats for sure and i believe that if I'm responsible enough to fight for our country then i have the right to have any firearm i want. just as you have the right to any Vehicle or anything like that as long as your responsible for your actions and safety of all around you. now if you want to go jump off a crane with a rubber band tied to your foot thats on you or skydive motor cross and so on. I try not to tell other people how to live and i expected the same. but to tell me i don't have the right to have a weapon that is controlling my life and other's that believe in the right to have them that are law abiding people. and as i said i served my country as a lot of others here did and continue to do for you and every one here in the U.S.A.

P.S this is not directed toured any one

Person or Person's here or anywhere on this forum its just my opinion about banning or gun control if a person wants to harm you and there is no weapons to steal or bye on the black market he will make it. and a good Example is a water pipe shot gun or other type's of ballistic weapon if you don't think so look it up and there's a whole lot more things that can be made to kill with if they want what you have. look on you tube for home made weapons and explosive and you will see how easy it is to do. so just banning weapons won't work if your a bad guy. Think about it and a lot of the thing are common things you can get every day at the hardware store and store's off the shelf. and a lot of the people on you tube that are doing it is kid's the one's that get hurt the most because lack of guidance from adults and no supervision. and its Because the ban of explosives and homemade firearms. to them its illegal and exciting and dangerous.well i said about all I'm going to say.

This is to all that believes in God i hope he will bless all of you and your's may he bring peace in your hart's and keep you well. And to those who don't i still wish you well be good and safe in what ever you do in life.

no if you have a guns license

as long as people who have guns use they responsibly they should never be banned

no guns should not be baned in america and no we should not be able 2 carry fully automatic, but if a person tries to hurt you or your family unless you are a sharpshooter then a single shot wepon will not be good enough to protect you or your family. so a semi-automatic wepon can be good to have around the house.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. People sometimes kill other people innocently a lower percentage of the time but yes it is there. It is called self defense. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot and kill that man is that a bad thing? Also if it is not guns then it will be homemade bombs or just kitchen knives. It would be almost impossible to ban just like the alchohol ban the US gov tried. It wont work in the southern states I gurantee it. Most of the 16 year olds and higher that I KNOW own a gun . at least 25% of them. Which means that they are already toting illegaly so if they are already how is the gov gonna enforce it if they are already having KIDS slip under the radar?

You can kill someone with a car, should cars be banned in america?

No they shouldn't. If you take away the civilian's only right to self defense, how are they suppose to defend themselves from the criminals who buy weapons and drugs from the black market illegally. If you think homicide rates are high now, if gun control becomes active, that will sky rocket.

No, firearms are simply made available for self-defense, the percentage of people that use them for other purposes is a very small one. Except in L.A. hehe

Just people kill people. Children would not wonder what a gun does if they are exposed to guns and people tell them the proper way to use them. Its the children who are shielded from guns that try to play with them and don't know what to do, that cause trouble.

Even if guns were banned poeple could still make there own guns.

I'm a damn hippie, I suppose, since I support extremely strict gun regulation. But the keyword there is regulation. Making guns illegal would just lead to more underground dealings, making it easy for any common criminal to obtain a gun without being registered as a gun owner and without having a gun license. While some cases of this still occur, it would be far more frequent without government regulation.

Should [citizen] guns be banned?

- hell no.

In an arguement made by T.S. Eggleston, if guns were banned, a black market would arise as well as gun smuggling. This in return would lead to an increase in crime and honestly, who wants more crime? He states that the citizens with no previous criminal records would surrender their guns to officials, leaving them helpless and at a higher risk for being injured.

Eggleston further explains that "Criminals will always continue to break the law and prey on the law-abiding but disarmed citizens."

For the previous arguements that claim "there are almost no cases where an innocent person has defended themselves with a gun."

Thats bull. According to Eggleston and other statistics, "every 13 seconds, an American uses a legal firearm in defense against a criminal."

So, for self-protection, guns should remain legal. It prevents overcrowding of prisons, riots, and decreases many injuries. In return health costs are not forced to sky-rocket.

To suit the people that believe guns should be completely illegal....I do feel that stricter laws need to be enforced to acquire such equipment.

According to the National Rifle Association (NRAILA), in the state of Texas, an individual does not need a permit to buy a hangun, and they are not required to carry registration or a license.

This lack of legislation is one of the main reasons for the decrease in gun safety, so if we fix this, Americans can be on their way to a happy, gun legal society.

=]

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/gun_ban.html

http://www.the-eggman.com/index.php

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_tx.htm

ok so i think thtas the guns dont kill people kill the guns well they just happen to be in between the people

Studies have shown (look at cities in Australia) that when you disarm a population crime rates go up because people no longer have the fear of people defending themselves.

Way more people are killed each year by car crashes than by gun violence. Should we ban cars too?

Way more people are killed each year by car crashes than by gun violence. Should we ban cars too?

I don't understand why people think that by guns being banned in America would reduce crime? Of course it won't stop crime because criminals are not going to go buy a gun legally anyway, but rather from the back of the van.

Large majority of gun owners do not like the idea of the background check, which in my opinion does is a very good. I had a background check when I purchased my gun and no problems at all. I have absolutely no problem with that. Of course, it won't stop criminals completely, but at least it will reduce the number of those who should not own guns. In addition, criminals will think twice about harming someone when you live in a state where the gun laws are not so strict........and no, I am not a NRA member nor do I ever wish to be one.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. So you guys think that since guns kill people, we should ban those, right? Knives kill people too, should they be banned? We cut our meat with knives so no. We kill animals and eat their meat with guns so no we shouldn't ban guns.

guns just help people kill each other but its not the guns fault it has no control of its self people choices to use the gun in crime

There was a reason we the people created the 2nd ammendment, the right to bear arms. We created it so if the government went tyranical on the people, the people will have a way to defend themsleves and try to overthrow the government. If guns were banned in America, it would leave the citizens helpless against the government.

What's the government made of? People. What's the military made of? People. What's all of America made of? People.

If we can trust our government and military with automatic weapons, tanks, and explosives to defend our country, why is it we can't rely on the people of America to defend themselves?

There is only ONE cop for every 2000 people in the U.S. I believe. Congress itself said that it is not their duty to defend us as individuals, only as a whole, which is unapplicable when it comes to a robbery, rape, or murder.

Every human has the right to live. However, a "human" with a sick intent of murdering, raping, and maiming with long list of such words, is hardly what I would call a human. I call them a monster. Think, do you believe Hitler had a right to live? What about the 911 terrorists? What about Seung-Hui Cho, who laughed as he shot his victims at Virginia Tech?

The average response time for cops is a minimum of 5 minutes, with no definite maximum quota. It only takes about 5 seconds for a crime to happen, and much less for someone to be stabbed or shot to death.

Wouldn't you think if criminals have guns, you should in fact have one to defend yourself should you ever become a victim? You anti-gun people bash on gun owners who prey on the defenseless people. You, as a person against guns, are in fact helpless too, but you do not have to be. It is not complicated, guns do not take superior skill to use if they make murder so easy. I'm part of a shooting program, and in only 3 hours they taught kids as young as 7 how to safely handle weapons, and never in the 50+ years it's been around has there been an accident.

Someone once told me, "If you give the criminal what he wants, he won't kill you." Yeah really, as if EVERY criminal was after your money. Criminals have different intents, anywhere from your money to your life. Your life is a potential target no matter what the intent is. Would you rather be mangled, mutilated, and murdered or have to explain why you shot that thug in the chest? Do not misinterpret this, but there are criminals that exist who do not wish to even harm someone. However, what right and reason would they have to steal from you, scare you, threaten your life, and maybe even kill you?

Another thing someone told me, "Dude you have no chance without a gun, even with one you only have about a 3% chance." Bullsh*t. Even if it really was a 3% chance, I think I'd rather have that 3% chance to live than nothing, even the smallest percent is MORE THAN ENOUGH.

If guns are banned, do any of you think criminals or "law abiding" citizens will abide by it?

Though they may be faulty, some criminals know how to manufacture their own guns. Despite being faulty, they are still guns, and they can still kill. Therefore, in a society with outlawed weapons, a massive black market will arise with criminally manufactured weapons and weapons that already exist. The same thing is going on for marijuana, cocaine, and meth, and the method of sale and purchase is no different for guns. How? Because drugs are illegal, and if guns are too, then they will just be circulated the exact same way.

Clearly we can't trust our the people and criminals with guns, but we can trust them to follow the laws? We would ultimately create more criminals because a majority of the 90 million gun owners like myself would not abide by it.

If guns are banned, it wouldn't prevent suicide. People will just start hanging themselves or drive off a cliff.

I don't believe everyone should have a gun. Law-abiding citizens who know how to use it should. By no means should anyone who is mentally insane, a felon, or simply ignorant be able to use one. Keep in mind anti-gun people complain about accidents or tragedies that happen because someone didn't know how to use a gun. You are, in fact, one of those people who does not know how to use a gun. Therefore, you are helpless, ignorant, and have no right to tell people who do know how to use guns what to do.

of course not it is our right as defined by the constitution to have the right bear arms and pluss do you really wan only people who got there guns illegaly to have them??

hell no! guns should definitely not be banned. some people in this country depend on guns to kill animals for food. guns don't kill people. people kill people.

No, but they should be registered, and concealed weapons and handguns should not be carried in public.

Not banned, but it would be reasonable to restrict and regulate access to guns like in Europe.

No because the second amendments says and i quote "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."

Absolutely not. In fact, if we force everyone to carry a .40 s&w;than crime rates will drop dramatically. My question is, as a criminal, will you attempt to kill someone if everyone else in sight is carrying a large handgun? a .40 S&W;is a large handgun, and will drop the toughest people in 3 shots. Something else you must keep in mind is that if we outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws, this leaves no defense for law abiding citizens. Now on to several specific types of guns these idiots wish to outlaw. Shotgun: A shotgun is not concealable, no one carrying a shotgun is going to get very far before being detained, or with the "shall carry" law, possibly shot. A shotgun does way too much damage for you to carry it into public with positive intents. Anyone who kills a shotgun wielder can get away with the third degree. Next semi auto: semi-auto is used by people wishing to reduce recoil, people hunting with poor aim, or someone who needs self defense. Finally the AK: Someone said you don't need an AK to take out a deer, first of all, the AK is a semi-auto weapon if it is legal. Second, the 7.62x39 shell is considered small for a deer, yes that is right, the AK-47 is a small gun. Third, it is very reliable. People want AK-47s so they can literally bury them in sand when things are peaceful, dig them out, and shoot them when things get bad. Fourth: it is a collectors item. Anyone who supports the banning of guns doesn't know enough about them to make an informed opinion, and isn't willing to learn more, and would rather live in ignorance than try to correct their views. As a side note, all of you tote your numbers. Whether the U.S.A. has the highest gun death rate of all countries, I don't know, many of these numbers are incorrect. Still, if we ban guns, and get every gun off the streets, people will find something else to kill each other with, I could kill someone with a rose if I wanted. Either way, if the U.S.A.'s numbers are as high as you claim it is because you can not kill someone with a gun with a dagger, so instead of going with the dagger, more people go with the gun.

A ban on guns would be about as effective as the illegalization of drugs.

Regardless of the law, a determined addict will always get his fix.

A determined criminal will always find a gun.

And the law to ban guns will only serve to disarm the law-abiding, leaving more people at the mercy of a criminal element.

The only TRUE solution to ending gun violence is to end ALL violence, but that is impossible by nature. A killer without a gun will use a blade or blunt object, as they do even today.

If you ban guns, violence and death will continue. Ban the guns, and the knives, and the ropes, and the rocks, and the fists.

The "gun" is just a tool. It can be used to help, as well as harm. It is the character of the man who holds responsibility for the gun that determines how it is used.

Ask yourself this: Would a gun in your hands bring only death and destruction? If you were educated about, and familiar with the weapon, would you be forced to shoot simply because it was there? Could you envision a scenario in which the gun you held might save your life?

Watch "America's Most Wanted" on Saturday nights. With every scenario you see, ask yourself if the victims of those crimes might be alive today if THEY carried a gun.

A simple internet search for instances where a firearm saved lives, and a few minutes of careful reading are all that you should need.

A ban on guns will do nothing for America except make it hard for farmers.

Most of you have probably heard about Australia banning guns after the Port Arthur massacre. We didn't ban all guns, just most of them, because our farmers need them and our police need them. We also made it near on impossible to get a license to carry them.

What I saw was friends burying their guns in the back yard, wrapped up in oiled cloths and stowed away in PVC pipe, rather than hand them in. I saw farmers, now unable to use their semi-automatics, who started to complain of repetitive-strain injuries because of the sheer number of times they had to work the bolt action on their rifles when culling cattle (we were smack-bang in the middle of a drought... it was kill or let starve).

Sure, gun-related violence went down. But violence in general didn't go down. It simply switched to different forms of violence. And if this country ever gets invaded, they've now got a population that can't fight back.

Never bring a knife to a gun fight !!!! I dont want to be the person with a bat or knife when a robber comes through my house with a shotgun.

Well yes guns kill people but not just people animals too. but honestly i don't think they should be banned look cars, and more stuff kill people but no one is banning that. I do think some guns should be for protection also knifes, spray but when it comes down to it where is it? your gun will be right next to you for emergency. But guns should be used for gangs or kill someone because something went wrong and you hate them, NO its for needs not bad!

I think if u have to ban a gun for ,excuse my language, retards kiling peouple.The goverment should step in and watch better ill postt more later.:)

...oops, this is an accidental post, my argument is up there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well I doubt guns shoot by themselves, nor have feelings to kill. All depends on the user/owner and how they use it.