Should guns be banned in America?
Yes
Side Score: 127
|
![]() |
No, guns don't kill people.
Side Score: 250
|
|
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 352 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right!I also used you. and You are most likely right! 209 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
i can prove that here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ Oh and i used you in my Bibliography for my essay! 209 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
Where'd you read that? The NRA Newsletter? Highest gun related death per capita: DC, where guns are legal link Lowest gun related death per capita: Hawaii, where guns are illegal link And see Xaeon's arguement below. Chicago is like 15 on the list. link And considering the poverty rate, and that it's the 3rd largest city (and probably the second most dense) that's actually not bad. 281 days ago | Tagged As: yes
In case you different do other research, Chicago has one of the highest crime rates in the entire country. Crime rates equals criminals which means if guns are illegal, they must be getting them from somewhere, hmmm, i wonder where, black market or illegal selling across borders anyone? 280 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Have you actually read the newspaper? There are several cases and some that a gun prevented them from being a dead victim. I speak from experience. As for the easy access of guns, criminals would have access to guns in the black market regardless if they banned guns. Cocaine is illegal but some how people still gain access to it...well, how does that happen? 243 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
Well look at prohibtion in 1919 and on, also known as the Volstead act. Alcohol was completely banned yet everybody still drank. They found ways to drink. People had to brew underground, and drink in underground bars, but it happened. Even major Authorities including police and judges were found down there. The same things would happen with guns, and who would be the people to illegally own guns? Not harmless hunters, but gangsters and other criminals who are dangerous with such weapons. It is still going to happen. Maybe we just need tighter gun laws when purchasing them. 219 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
ever since we put registration on guns and making guns harder to get school shooting started. we need to allow students to carry concealed guns on campus. with the VT shooting if one student had been allowed to carry a gun on them the shooter would have ended it early and many people would still be alive today. it needs to be a law that we enforce to make every home have at least on gun to protect your self 107 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
1,145 times a day handguns are used against robbers. 416 times each day women use their handguns to protect themselves from rapists. Overall, a gun in the home is 216 times more likely to be used in self defense than to cause the death of an innocent victim. And even if you don't own a gun, preserving the right of your neighbors to own them is one of the best ways to keep criminals out of your neighborhood. 37 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 459 days ago
Actually, no I wouldn't. If a robber came into my house in an area where gun ownership is legal, I'd have to seriously consider whether or not this person is also going to have a gun; why would they enter my house unarmed if they knew that chances were that I would have a gun? All this is going to do is cause a shootout, with most likely someone (50% chance it's me) getting shot. I'd rather hand over my stuff (it's just stuff), claim on the insurance afterwards and have a greatly reduced risk of ending up dead. 281 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Banning guns wouldn't bring down gun violence significantly because people who are committing gun crimes are getting their guns illegally in the first place. And other countries that have banned guns have alot more variables to consider besides just banning guns alone. most other countries have a much tighter justice system that doesn't give any wiggle room for crimes in general let alone gun crimes. 22 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 31 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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. 22 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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. 561 days ago
You are absolutely wrong about the second amendment being put in place to prevent a British invasion or coup. It was put in place partially to allow the creation of militias. You're also wrong about guns making crime rates go higher, take a look at Switzerland. Men there are required to own automatic weapons and yet they have next to no crime rate. Their lack of a standing army is what was originally for seen for the United States, or a system similar. A small standing army to form the core of a greater force in times of war. That is what the second amendment implies. Obviously you know little about guns, a shotgun is probably one of the least threatening weapons to people. Their limited range for their weight and length makes them impractical for crime, but perfect for the defense of ones home. The guns aren't the problem its people and don't start blaming poverty, or education. Just because you're poor doesn't mean that you have to kill someone to improve your life. There are many ways to do that. So long as guns exist people will always find a way to acquire them. By reducing the number of honest, law abiding citizens with the capability to protect themselves from these criminals you're asking for a breakdown of order. But I diverge from the topic at hand. Point is only an idiot points a gun anywhere near a person they don't want to kill. There's no such thing as a gun related accident, gun related deaths almost always are caused by carelessness or stupidity or both. You make a good point pvtNobody, but at the bottom of the article in your supporint evidence it reads: "It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation." Thus, I don't know if comparing the Swiss to the US with respect to guns is appropriate. 555 days ago
Switzerland has a gun death rate of 6 in 100,00. America has a gun death rate of just over 10 in 100,000. England outlawed all handguns and has a 0.6 per 100,000 gun death rate. [1] The facts are pretty clear that in countries where guns are allowed, more people are shot and killed. In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides. Of all suicides, 57% occurred by firearm. In 2000, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries. What, exactly, is the point of guns? The fact of the matter is that America has a culture where guns are OK, and the only thing that is ever going to do is mean a great increase in gun crime. Guns are pointless in this day and age. 518 days ago
Yes i could have phrased it better. You are right about the militias but what was the purpose of them? who were they supposed to defend against, not just the british but they were certainly a worry? We have a standing army so why do we need a militia as well? I'm not a gun expert i agree but i also know that shotguns arn't the most dangerous weapons. Yet what reason does anyone have to own a shotgun? I included shotguns because i feel that there is no justification for owning one not that i thought they were very dangerous. I'm not saying poor people resort to guns what i am saying is that poverty destroys people's lives and creates an atmosphere of fear. There are poor people who are living the best they can with what society has thrown at them. criminals or gangs might try to recruit the poor since they say they offer a better life. because of society the poor might feel that they don't have much hope and that being in a criminal organization might help to raise them. i understand that most of the poor don't do this but there are a few, especially in a city. a large reason for our higher violence rates is our society and maybe not the presence of guns alone but guns make it easier. just because a group in one area are able to control gun violence(like Switzerland) does not mean that a group somewhere else is. "There's no such thing as a gun related accident, gun related deaths almost always are caused by carelessness or stupidity or both." and thus wouldn't that be an accident? maybe only an idiot does point a gun near someone they don't want to kill there are still a few idiots in this world with access to guns. i understand your points about self defense and i think it is the only and strongest reason for not banning guns yet what guns are you talking about? do you think we should be allowed to own semi-automatics? a lot of the recent gun deaths in the news were when people were not at home. such as at Virgina Tech, do you think people should be able to carry guns to class or in public? what i'm trying to say is if you have a shotgun at home yet are confronted when you're away from home how much use is that shotgun? lastly i talked about education and poverty because most of the criminals are people who have been treated not well by society. there are those high level gangs that did well but where did they begin what reason did they have to go down such a path? there are too many gun deaths and while there will never be a ban in America i find it appalling that so many fight to prevent gun restrictions and background checks. 561 days ago
"The british aren't going to invade, so we don't need to protect ourselves". So when an american enters you're home with intent to kill, are you going to defend yourself with a fork? I do agree that most burglary's that occur do not involve a murder or serious injury, but not all home invasion's are with the intent to remove your property. If I we're in the position to put my life on the line, or lose a television, I would rather lose the television. The question is whether this person is here to steal my property or harm me or my family. I would rather have the means to protect myself and my family. If we lived in a perfect world where we didn't have Poverty, Drugs and Poor Education, then maybe I could see youre point. The fact of the matter is we don't. When America gets to the point where I can go to sleep at night, or even go about my daily business and not worry, then I'll consider getting rid of my gun. Until then, we live in a dangerous world where people live outside the law and I feel safe knowing theres an amendment granting me the right to defend myself. 5 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
Ever heard of target shooting or hunting? Also what if you have a varmint problem? And even if you ban guns criminals can still buy guns illegally and then the only people with guns would be criminals...and the police, but what if the police aren't around shouldn't you have the right to defend yourself? Also guns don't mean that people are more likely to commit crime or even kill people. Look at Switzerland, they have the second highest gun ownership rate in the world (second only to the USA), and a large percentage of those are government issued assault rifles, yet they have a much lower crime rate than the US. The problem isn't guns it's poverty and lack of education we should be working on those instead of blaming guns for all our problems. 554 days ago
Shot guns are used for many different application a few of which are bird hunting like pheasant or ducks, they can also be used for trap and skeet shooting. Another thing shotguns have a maximum shot distance of 30 yards so they aren't that good of a weapon. Also semi-automatic weapons have various uses and when you are hunting fast animals you want to be able to take as many shots as possible without having to cock the gun. Another point is that a gun is a tool and the person is the one who kills someone not the gun. And it is now required to take firearm safety to purchase or use a gun and also 80% of guns used in crimes are bought illegally according to the FBI. 337 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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 22 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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? 10 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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? 3 days ago | Tagged As: yes
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?! 556 days ago
No. There is a difference between 'dangerous' and a 'threat'. A car is dangerous because it can run you over but it is not a threat. It can be a threat if it's driven by a mad man. Drugs are not 'dangerous' just sitting on a table with no-one to consume them. They become a threat when they are handed out to kids on the street. 551 days ago
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?! 556 days ago
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. 552 days ago
That is completely ridiculous. If guns were banned, people would get the elsewhere (ever heard of the black market???) and the law abiding citizens would be defenseless. And world peace??? There is no way that's possible right now no matter what you ban. Guns are not the only way violence is carried out. Do your research. 22 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 266 days ago | Tagged As: yes
After sifting through the grammatical errors, I believe I have found the point you intended to make. The reality of statistics reveals that the UK's violent crime rate is far higher than that of the US. The UK has effectively disarmed its responsible citizens, but done nothing to limit the black market of arms that criminals are utilizing to perpetrate the crimes. The result is that the criminals have a much safer job than they would if responsible citizens were armed. 515 days ago
FINALLY. Someone who pointed out that violent crimes in Europe ARE HIGHER. Good lord. Stop listening to propaganda. In fact BBC recently did a report on how crime has gotten worse. Get y'alls head out of the sand. Europe's moving away from government intervention. Were moving toward it. Europe's starting to realize that gun control fails. Were moving towards it. Why do we not look across the pond and realize how much it sucks? High crime, and high unemployment. 441 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
You state that guns are a tool that increases the ease with which a crime may be committed. But do any responsible gun owners succumb to rage and utilize the tool that they carry for protection of themselves and others to kill someone? Aren't those feelings of rage and hate we feel internally slightly exaggerated? Would any sane, responsible person be able to act externally upon irritation, even with a tool readily available, to kill someone? I think not. Serial killers and criminals buy their tools to kill. Responsible gun owners, the ones that follow all laws regulating gun ownership, will not use the guns they acquired for a wholly distinct and opposite purpose to kill or hurt others. 561 days ago
The responsible gun owners that you are talking about, might not necessarily THEMSELVES using guns. Womens and even CHILDREN in those houses feel like using those deadly toys and even try shoot at someone. I am not saying all this in fluke. Just click on the evidence below. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/ After reading this, you might raise another point that the owners should be responsible and keep guns away and keep them safe.BLAH BLAH! But, then just answer this, ISN'T IT BETTER NOT TO BUY GUNS RATHER THAN BUYING AND HIDING IT FROM WRONG HANDS? 560 days ago
|
Yes that might be true but are you suggesting that we should be allowed to carry semi-automatics or greater weapons? If our government wants to control us with force they are not going to use pistols and hunting rifles, they will use the military and they use far more powerful weapons. the only way the people could successfully counter that is with weapons of near equal or greater power than what would be deployed by the military or non-violent movement such as the Indian Non-violence peace movement to overthrow the British Empire in India. 561 days ago
You argue that the caliber of the weapon is the only factor in a fight. While this is a significant factor it is not the only one. Tactics and training are in many ways more important. Finally the reason why the only reason why the Indian non-violence movement succeeded was because the British Empire chose not to use force. When you discuss a military actively engaging in suppression of resistance you've passed the point where non-violent resistance will work. 561 days ago
Ever heard of the Vietnam war, or the 1973 Afghanistan war? Both had poorly trained, poorly armed forces defeating the two most powerful militaries of their time. Also high tech weapons and training are only a small part in winning a war, if it wasn't don't you think the Iraqi insurgencies would have lost by now? My point is: in a war between the US Army and the American people the army would have a very hard time even if the people only had hunting rifles and pistols. 554 days ago
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. 561 days ago
That was almost a good point, I was totally against guns before and that nearly dented my opinion. But then I couldn't help but wonder whether his (Jefferson's) views on the matter would be the same if he could have foreseen the future of "arms". That is: mass commoditisation of personal weaponry. The lethality and diminutive nature of such weaponry. The rate of fire of these weapons and the speed of reloading. And whether he'd consider it still pertinent when the government owns and deploys tanks, HMGs and fighters on home soil. Which of course, in order to remove such a government, would require not just pistols and other personal weaponry but at least RPGs and SAMs. I wonder whether (wish) he would have restricted it (the 2nd amendment) to contemporary weaponry of his time, that is: "muskets (36+ inches long) and single shot pistols". But now I am not 100% for a total ban, as I'd love to see "Cops" the TV show with them running around with huge heavy muskets and taking 20+ seconds to reload their pistols. Also Columbine would have gone from un-fucking-believable horror to almost sublime comedy. 480 days ago
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. 518 days ago
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. 557 days ago
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. 556 days ago
Now I'm not saying that all the properly licensed and trained civilians in the U.S. would be able to stand up against the military if a coup occured. But if that did happen, many of the members of the military would get out and join the civilian population and defend the counry's interest. Not every member of the military is a brainwashed drone who will follow any order given to them without thought. But considering that there are many more civilians than there are members of the military would make things difficult for the military. Plus think about the police departments, they can provide a lot of help in a situation where civilians will need defense. It doesn't take long to train someone how to defend themselves with a gun. I think this situation would be extremely rare though. 556 days ago
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." 518 days ago
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. 556 days ago
[event] The society with no guns has five members that buy guns from the black market, they take over the society and create a dictatorship where the men are forced into slave labor camps and the women are sold as sex slaves. Meanwhile the other society is fine they have had a few disputes with a bad apple or two but they were both resolved without the collapse of the society. [/event] coming back to the planet earth you must first accept that guns exist. If you ban them there will still be a black market, no matter if they are smuggled or made domestically. So the best solution is to regulate and make sure law abiding citizens can buy guns. 212 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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/ 556 days ago
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. 238 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 209 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 175 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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? 22 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 561 days ago
"Only criminals have guns" thats untrue because the authorities will always also have guns and have better training, tactics as well. If criminals choose to guns then they will also deal with the consequence eventually. Gun control's main purpose is to reduce OPPORTUNITY. Guns make it quicker, easier and less painful to end life. Statistically it is proven that the availability of guns increases the chance of purposeful and accidental death. There is no reason law-abiding citizens need to defend themselves as they are untrained, do not have full knowledge of the law and eventually cause more harm than good by owning such weapons. The odds are against criminals and even tho gun control may never be complete, it significantly reduces the likelihood of death by firearm by lessening the chances and increasing the difficulty to acquire firearms. 554 days ago
The problem is that the police system is not efficient enough to put those superior tactics into play when they are needed most. There are too many cases in which the police never have a chance to respond to a threat before a criminal acts, but an armed citizen in the same situation could prevent the crime. Gun control does nothing to reduce the availability of illegal arms. There is no reason for a criminal to recognize and abide by gun control laws if he/she is going to commit a violent crime anyway. Gun control doesn't reduce the opportunities for violent crime, it reduces the opportunity for a timely response by a responsible citizen who could negate the threat responsibly and quickly. 515 days ago
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. 556 days ago
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. 555 days ago
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! 554 days ago
Please. Do you really think you're going to take on the American military, and all its subsidiary para-military organizations thanks to the "War on Drugs", with your handgun? Citizens have no chance against the government if 'shit goes down'. You're prol-meat if that happens and the second amendment won't do a thing, comma splice and all. The second amendment refers to a time when militia was pulled out of the common populace. If they all have guns, then you don't have to supply them. This is no longer the case. 552 days ago
You make a legitimate point: the right to bear arms may no longer afford much real protection against would-be despots, and judging from the arguments made in this debate, it may even have lost much of its symbolic value. However, changing our constitution is something we should never take lightly. The 2nd amendment is fundamentally about preventing the government from gaining coercive power. Taking that away in an attempt to make it harder for criminals to commit crimes would fundamentally change what it means to be a US citizen. 539 days ago
a majority of americans with automatic weapons who wish to rebel can take on the government. not to mention on how many members of these military and paramilitary organizations may actually join in the fight. but it's sad to see people just say (fuck it, if the government becomes totalitarian... w/e, better than the right to arm yourself). and, the handgun is good for when someone breaks into your house and tries to rape your kids. like what almost happened to my uncle (but he used a gun to shoot the fucker in the back of the head). 551 days ago
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. 462 days ago | Tagged As: Keep the Guns Change the System
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. 396 days ago
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. 338 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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? 281 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 280 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 236 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 190 days ago | Tagged As: Regulation purposes
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/ 186 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
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. 22 days ago | Tagged As: Keep the Guns Change the System
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. 14 days ago | Tagged As: No, guns don't kill people.
i do not think all guns should be banned, but certainly some. guns used for hunting are fine, but they do not serve any purpose other then that. guns such as AK-47's should be band because they are overkill. do you really need a machine gun to kill a little deer. kind of like how some knives such as switchblades are banned because they serve little purpose. 3 days ago | Tagged As: yes
|






