CreateDebate


Debate Info

506
1085
Yes No, guns don't kill people.
Debate Score:1591
Arguments:618
Total Votes:2027
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (223)
 
 No, guns don't kill people. (395)

Debate Creator

sugarjun(5) pic



Should guns be banned in America?

Yes

Side Score: 506
VS.

No, guns don't kill people.

Side Score: 1085
8 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
geneF(11) Disputed
3 points

The beliefm that automatic weapons should be banned holds no more water than any other arguement. A gun is a gun. the mmount of fire it produces makes no difference, and in the hands of an ordinary law abiding citizen a tank, granade launcher or nuclear missile does not pose a threat to anyone becuase he has no intention of using it. In the hands of a criminal, an ink pen can be rammed into an eye and used to kill someone.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
tokehs83(1) Disputed
2 points

i dont agree, it doesnt matter what kind of gun it was. IF Auto GUNS DIDNT EXIST... it STILL woulda heppened..... IF NO GUNS EXISTED AT ALL..... it still woulda happened...... same amount of people... same outcome... wich is people dead.. i DO think they would of still killed 20 kids and 6 teachers if that was his intention...... never said anything about slapping either... i said that he would train and train... idc if it took 10 years..... he wouldve made it a POINT... to make what he wanted to happen... happen.. he would plan it to the T... and make sure that they died.. if thats what he wanted... one way or another.. without a gun or knife... if thats what he wanted... thats how crazy people work. i dont agree..... if those people ( crazy people ) had a sledgehammer ( a gun) i DO NOT think that they would drive the coffin ( kill people) in the ground faster than if they had a regular hammer... ( their own fists and feet ) ...... Because..... Those people who are crazy enough to do that, are also crazy enough to make SURE it happens.. and put plan, and effort into it... they would learn martial arts, (the kind that can kill people in the blink of an eye ( the same speed as a bullet))... our human body is just as dangerous as a gun... and those crazy ass people would put so much training and planning into their actions that the same result would happen. ( my opinion ( as this is a debate)).

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
WhatISay(3) Disputed
1 point

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. No matter how hard a martial artist trained, I don't see how they could be able to kill people as fast as a semi-automatic weapon. Yes, people would have still been killed, but that many? I don't think so. When I say yes to the question "Should guns be banned in America?", I don't believe that hunting guns would need to be banned. Yes, they can kill people, but not as fast as a semi-automatic, giving more time for the criminal to be stopped. I do not see the need for semi-automatic weapons to be purchased by anyone. When you go hunting, I doubt you assault the deer. I do agree with you on what you said about how crazy people will go far to make their point, but I still believe that semi-automatics should be banned. That is just my opinion.

364 days ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, i believe this to be a valid argument. I personally support you argument completely; especially the license.

To those who say that guns should be banned completely,

There are those uses of guns which should be allowed, for example, hunting animals?

1 year ago | Side: Yes
wowbob396(9) Disputed
0 points

Semi-automatic guns shoot single rounds.... So we can't have pistols but are allowed to only used 12 gauge pump shotguns or hunting rifles?

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
3 points

The argument "no, guns don't kill people" is ridiculous. Everyone has seen a shooting movie where someone ends up dead via gun. The reason people go to war with guns is because they kill people.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
2 points

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

it's a good decoration item!

5 years ago | Side: Yes
2 points

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.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

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.

4 years ago | Side: yes
Houston(186) Disputed
2 points

First, AK-47s have to be semi automatic to be available for civilian use. Second, dogs are good for protection, but mainly intimidation. (I have a German Shepherd and a Great Pyrenees so I'm NOT saying dogs aren't good for keeping your house safe). A bullet in a dog will stop any breed of dog you have, even if it is a 100lb+ dog. Also, guns are great for protection. If you have a shotgun, a robber that just hears you when you cock it will think "#@$%!" And if it comes to it, a homeowner will normally pull the trigger in self defense (be sure to get him good in the first shot because only the first shot counts as self defense, all the other shots are assault =D). Pepper spray and tasers are do not have the stopping power to save you from a criminal. If s/he is flailing on the ground he can still pull the trigger, and might hit you. Lastly, what has America come to when you have to move your home because of crime rates? If you want to save money, buy a gun and any other form of defense you want.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
ungernick28(21) Disputed
1 point

but most burgerlery's happen when you arn't even home, in which case the gun is mostly likly to be stolen itself. now a criminal has a gun in his hands

4 years ago | Side: yes
smithlogan66(2) Disputed
1 point

Yes, that is certainly going to stop you from a gunman. "Dear God.... Please Save This Soul"

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Bornkountry(7) Disputed
1 point

People like you are blind when your waiting on your alarm company to alert the police and the three guys who just broke into your home are raping your wife and hurting you family and they just killed your "guard dog" what are you going to be doing? Because I tell you what your not doing "is protecting your family"

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

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.

4 years ago | Side: yes
khaOs(13) Disputed
5 points

"...it only allows criminals to commit crimes..."

REALLY?! That's interesting. Riddle me this: How would one STOP a criminal with a gun who is committing a crime?

"...It definetly doesnt protect anyone from anything, it only harms the people of this country."

You're joking, right? You don't think peoples lives have been saved because they carry a firearm? Why do you think people choose to carry guns in the first place? Because they want to shoot someone?

Let's look at BIG PICTURE, for a moment: GUNS protected the LIFE and LIBERTY and FREEDOM that you now take for granted in this country.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
uoknow(19) Disputed
0 points

Riddle me this: How would one STOP a criminal with a gun who is committing a crime?

this is why we ban guns isn't it?

4 years ago | Side: yes
dutchrock Disputed
0 points

even if guns were banned they would still be sold illegally but the hundreds of children dieing because they think its a toy wouldn't be here anymore if the police and the military kept their guns the criminals with the illegal guns would have a much lower gun supply. I am not American and in Europe you need a license to buy guns which already by far lowers the crime rate. America or the world with out guns would be a better place with less shootings, by far. Guns only protect from other guns and create firefights the military and police may need them but for what does anyone else need them? the police can protect you with no guns you aren't a threat to criminals and they wont have guns.

I rest my case

3 years ago | Side: yes
travisvadon(5) Disputed
4 points

"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."

I find is odd all the responses, so far in the debate, have not touched on the main reason, in my mind, why I would never let the law makers take the 2nd amendment away. It's not for the protection of home invaders, it's not for hunting and it's not even for attacks on the street, it's for protection from the powers to be. I believe the MAIN reason we should all support the 2nd amendment is to keep the power of gun ownership in our hands and not in the hands of the government. If all American citizens loose their right to gun ownership the only ones left with the guns are the police.... and this is a scary thought.

4 years ago | Side: law
3 points

I agree exactly what I would say

Some people can be idiots with guns

4 years ago | Side: yes
Bender226(6) Disputed
2 points

The second amendment was created for the following reasons: deterring undemocratic government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, facilitating the natural right of self defense, participating in law enforcement and slave control in slave states (no longer applicable). So the second amendment is in place so people can kill other people under certain circumstances, that is of course what guns are for in the first place. Theres good reason why 12 year olds can't vote, or for that matter own guns.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Bohemian(3464) Disputed
2 points

Regardless of whether or not you think guns cause more harm than good, this is not the issue. We have a constitutional guarantee, a right to bear arms. We cannot simply disregard the constitution when we don't like what it says.

The right to bear arms, is a check on the government. It was set in place to ensure that if the government oversteps it's boundaries that the collective will of the people, could if necessary revolt and start from scratch. It is meant as a last resort against tyranny.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
amber55044(1) Disputed
2 points

Do you really think that if the government were to try and take over, that your 22 in your gunsafe is going to hold off trained soldiers with automatic rifles? In today's society there is no reason for guns. The right to bear arms was fine when everyone had the same revolver or single-round chambered rifle, but things have changed a bit since then.

3 years ago | Side: Get rid of guns entirely
kmn1297(32) Disputed
2 points

ha ha ha ha ha Thanks for the great laugh. Our second amendment was given to us so we THE PEOPLE can uprise against the government if needed. the criminals will always be there to break the law and will find guns illegally. If you have your home broken into and you have no gun then you better hope you can run faster then the bullet they will have following you.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Urstupid1(1) Disputed
1 point

None of you understand, stopping the selling of guns won't stop criminals. It will allow them to get away with MORE. You people fail to realize if someone is intent on committing a crime they will most likely GET A GUN, stopping the selling of guns will just restrict civilians from protecting themselves. If someone wants a gun for a bad purpose... they MOST likely WILL get one Illegally and it probably wont be as hard as most of you seem to think.

Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do. You people are stupid

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

I agree with Urstupid , no matter what . . Stupid people will still buy guns illegally . They will find a way , and im not giving up my guns for nobody . i bought and payed for them the legal way . and if someone came in my home and tryed to rob or kill me I WILL have a gun to protect myself.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
way875(1) Disputed
1 point

Read the CONSTITUTION, or founders knew you long before you were born.

They protect you from yourself.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
geneF(11) Disputed
1 point

That is utterly false. Guns in people's homes have prevented them from being victims of violent attacks in countless thousands of cases, and your militia you refer to was composed of regular urban men, not military men and they were armed. Seriously, you want everyone to believe that the right to keep a gun by your bed does not help keep a person able to grab it in the face of a violent attack and fight back? Do you really believe that the "police" would ever be able to respond quick enough if they could even be called? Or do the lives of people who dont have homes with alarms and steel doors matter? Tell you what, the day you are faced with a violent attack and get to experience this first hand, we'll see what you have to say then!

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Bornkountry(7) Disputed
1 point

What about the other half? Would you want your family in that half? Think about that.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

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?

4 years ago | Side: yes
wowbob396(9) Disputed
1 point

This is a very flawed point of view. For one, guns are meant for self defense and to fight wars. Even if we did ban guns people will still get them, how do you think people get weed? Keeping guns legal would keep the black market activity down and with people without guns it would be so easy to rob someone's house. Besides you can't carry a cop around with you now can you?

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

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.

4 years ago | Side: yes
Houston(186) Disputed
1 point

We are not a democracy, we are a republic. In case of a military coup', or a bad president somehow holding on to power, we need guns.

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.

The US Armed Forces has 1.5 million personnel. The population is about 350 million. Currently 21.6% of Americans own a firearm. Thats 1.5 million v.s. 60 million. And we have all economic powers on our side. Its hands down, BP and other gas stations have the gas the military needs, and we also have the food they need. We might even be one of the few countries left who's citizens could defeat the military. Also, I just realized this, but in the event of WWIII, we could have 60+ million soldiers. Along with the 44% of the world's military budget, we could easily conquer the world.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_Americans_own_guns

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
geneF(11) Disputed
-1 points

First of all if you dont think we ae run by tyrants, you dont watch the news. Second off, when was the last time we had a leader who inflicted terrible damage on the country, as Obama has, and gotten them impeached? Your arguement is entirely false, and on top of it, I am not worried about using guns to stop some government filled with corrupt leaders. I enjoy target shooting, I enjoy owning antique guns, and I fel a hell of a lot safer knowing that if I am attacked, I will not be empty handed and helpless. End of story.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.

And Virginia Tech was not an "incident," it was a massacre. If all the students had also had guns then there is no way that asshole could have killed as many innocent people as he did. My condolensces to the families of the victims.

If all the students also had guns, there'd be massacres on a regular basis.

Guns don't kill people, people do, but people with plastic butter knives kill far fewer people than people with guns.

4 years ago | Side: yes
geneF(11) Disputed
1 point

If someone believes that students with guns would lead to regular massacres, then they obviously have one terrible school system or are afraid of some rotten kids. Aside from that lame arguement, no one is suggesting arming students, we have long suggested that instructors and officials in schools who want to be armed should be, unless of course you are going to argue that principals will go on shooting rampages. Ever hear of that?

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

gun's are baaaaaad crack. they should so be banned, too many young people can access them too easily! BAN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

both guns and knives kill people, but guns are way more effective at doing so, that's why we send soilders over seas with guns and not knives, and that is why guns should be banned because they are too effective as weapons

4 years ago | Side: yes
Houston(186) Disputed
2 points

Guns being effective is a good thing. If I was a 40 year old man with a wife and kid, and someone barged into my house trying to rob/harm us, I would shoot him. Also, guns being effective is great for hunting, I've seen people try to hunt with bows, it's insanely hard.

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
geneF(11) Disputed
0 points

You are right on the money. first we banned drugs, and that lead to a drug free country. Then we forbade drunk driving and that put an end to drunk driving accidents. If we just had the sense to ban murder and rape, robbery, carjacking, along with guns........hey wait a minute....

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons. that is why we should outlaw them, because all they are made to do is kill. sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.

4 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

guns are made to kill, if not then can you tell me how they can be used without shooting at somthing?

4 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Guns should be banned because although most of the time they don't do anybody real harm the police pose a threat and if they miss they could hit anyone.

Surely, even if somebody has robbed a sweet shop or something similar to that they should not be shot. That is a unnecessary.

3 years ago | Side: People don't deserve to be shot
vulcan9697(6) Disputed
2 points

lets say a cop pulls someone over with a trunk full of dope and they have an illegally bought gun. then what? ask him to stop? no police need guns to keep the piece.

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

What I do not understand is why the winning argument for this is 'no, guns don't kill people', when clearly they are a weapon used for harming or killing. There is no way a sane person can honestly say guns are good and the fact they exist is a great way to improve our planet!'

Guns are bad, they kill. However I realise that if there were a serious offence and someone attacked the police with a gun things could turn bad quickly. Which is why I have tagged this as 'Keep the Guns, Change the System'. Perhaps they should change the law and copy the English where the police have guns in serious conditions but usually they leave them alone.

Any arguments?

Any arguments?

3 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Every year 30,000 people die of gun shots in America, and still there are many states that don’t keep guns illegal. There are people who are afraid to get shot when they travel there; this is a sad fact. I argue that guns should be illegal for many reasons. First of all, guns give a better chance for criminals to commit crimes; knowing that with knives they don’t stand a chance. Second, there is a greater percentage, by data, that people are more harmed with guns rather than protected. Gunshot incidents in school make it all the more clearer that kids can unintentionally shoot. Finally, if guns are illegal than it will be harder to get buy a gun and therefore less people will be murdered.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
geneF(11) Disputed
2 points

Sure, if guns were banned it would be hard to get them, kind of like it is hard to get a joint, hard to get cocaine, hard to get crack......bull! There are two things that make a gun dangerous, a stupid person or an evil one. The rest of us own guns, work and live around people who dont know we have them and we do just fine. For all you know you've been around fifty people today who had a piece on them and you are alive right now because non of them were criminals. One criminal, and gun or not, you'd be in deep doo doo.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
demonkiba72(2) Disputed
1 point

You want to know why it's so easy to get drugs? Because people get addicted and need the high, and there is good business behind it, not to mention the ingredients for weed and cocaine grow in the ground, so there is an unlimited supply. I completely agree that guns are dangerous in the hands of an evil or stupid person, but there are also countless accounts of accidental shootings. Point being, guns are meant to hurt and harm, regardless of who owns them and for what reason. I understand that banning guns will not stop criminals from accessing them, but it will surely drop the crime rate and make it much harder to get a gun. Imagine trying to fend off someone who is pointing a gun at you rather than a knife, which situation do you think you'd have a better chance of surviving?

1 year ago | Side: Yes
nialllover77(1) Disputed
1 point

Yes but if the principles or any of the teachers of school shootings that have happened over the years the principles/teachers would have been able to shoot the man and might have even stopped the man from even shooting anyone.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

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.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
2 points

Yes we need to ban guns. And while we are at it we need to ban cars because in drunk driving accidents they kill people. While we are at it we need to ban murder, rape robbery incest child battery wife battery dead batteries school shooting, drugs family violence, ....oh wait, those things have been banned for centuries. Well then they must not exist......wait a minute, whats wrong with this picture??

2 years ago | Side: Yes
izazovnog(322) Disputed
1 point

Guns can have other uses, such as hunting.

Also banning guns won't stop criminals getting guns.

Guns can be smuggled to criminals illegally.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
genericguy(24) Disputed
1 point

"simply being dangerous is not grounds for banning an object."

What?! Of course it should! Under that logic, all drugs should be legal. Surely you can see a problem with that.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
wowbob396(9) Disputed
2 points

That is why we have a license for certain guns.... You drive a car knowing the risks and that you can die from driving them, people still drive them anyways.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
aceslick911(11) Disputed
1 point

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

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?!

6 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Guns should be banned everywhere.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
OTdarters(38) Disputed
4 points

That provides no logical defense for your side.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

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.

5 years ago | Side: Yes
Republican2(349) Disputed
3 points

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.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
igetsyolked(19) Disputed
1 point

Democrats all the way son!!! Obama Obama Obama... Republicans are bums

4 years ago | Side: yes
s0m3b0dy(41) Disputed
2 points

if a robber came in your house you would want a gun.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
xaeon(1069) Disputed
4 points

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.

5 years ago | Side: yes
igetsyolked(19) Disputed
2 points

yup yup your wrong there bum. People need weapons to protect their liquor stores from being robbed by your people bum. U.S. is supposed to be in caps you uneducated bum. I buy your people bum.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Houston(186) Disputed
2 points

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...

What about hunting? Anyway, guns are illegally imported everyday. If there was a gang that was coming into my house, trying to rob me, I would want my gun to kill them.

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.

That's not true. If it is, then show me a link. In a Australia they band guns, and guess what? Crime went up drastically. Bad guys are always going to have weapons, it's just a fact. So, shouldn't me or you have the right to protect ourselves?

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
ungernick28(21) Disputed
1 point

actually austrailia has one of the lowest gun mortality rates in the whole world

4 years ago | Side: yes
Bohemian(3464) Disputed
1 point

Yes, because 'gang-bangers' got their guns from legal sources to begin with?

Banning guns will stop gun violence, like the prohibition stopped people from drinking. All this would do is create a greater demand for an illegal gun trade.

And again, I must reiterate, that we still have a Constitutional Guarantee to own guns.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
CROSSBOW(10) Disputed
1 point

Guns are need by people outside of the armed forces. If the government told us to turn our guns in it would lead to more violence. Criminals who do not follow the laws will keep their guns or get them illegally. In Australia, the government banned weapons in 1996, after a publicized shooting. Immediately after the ban, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent, and manslaughter by 29 percent. The United Kingdom had similar results. We have the right to bear arms and to protect our life and freedom even if you think we don't.

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
truthteller(64) Disputed
1 point

Man were are u from I use a gun just to go buy my grocerys have u ever even been in a life or death situation if it happens then come tell me u don't want a gun if ur alive

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
geneF(11) Disputed
1 point

First of all, crime happens on a daily basis, and while auto insurance is not needed on a daily basis, we have it dont we? Second, having a gun does not lead to violence and gang banging, having a mentality that seeks to force your will on another DOES lead to gang banging and crime. I have had guns my entire life and never had one ounce of desire to harm another. And if you actually think countries that have banned guns have less crime, try living in one. New York and Washington DC are hotbeds of violence and murder and they dont like regular folks to own guns. I will also prove my point to you: Where have you heard of nationally famous shootings? Columbine and Virginny Tech as well as Ohio. Guess what, they were "gun free zones" and idiots demanded gun bans when bans had failed. Where have you never ever heard of a gun rampage? Gun shows. That says something.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

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

5 years ago | Side: yes
jeter42(10) Disputed
11 points

Wrong! Last year 2.5 million people were saved by using a gun for self defense. I don't consider that "almost no cases where an innocent person has defended themselves."

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
7 points

i can prove that here:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071444

Oh and i used you in my Bibliography for my essay!

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
shdjftgkorg(7) Disputed
9 points

probama it would still happen you F*ing moron if they arent afraid of going to prison for killing people they definately wouldnt be afraid to get a gun illegaly.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
4 points

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!

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
MBurke12(81) Disputed
5 points

Guns are illegal in Chicago.

How do you explain Chicago having the highest homicide rate?

Don't worry... I'll wait.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
iamdavidh(4848) Disputed
7 points

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.

5 years ago | Side: yes
4 points

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?

5 years ago | Side: yes
lundwall9(13) Disputed
5 points

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

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
trabb22(5) Disputed
3 points

Hey I'm all for gun rights but not on campus. Think of all the hormonal students waking up early every morning (god knows what they did last night) and going to class with a sidearm in their jacket. What happens when a fist fight between two boys turns into a shootout. Then the next thing you know someone sees their friend getting shot at and they pull a gun. Next thing you know theres about ten kids with guns drawn shooting at each other. I think that might create a few more deaths on a regulaur basis than once in a schools lifetime a single shooter. But I remeber hearing that in one school shooting students had shotguns in their car that they got to and they brought down the attacker. I think that is acceptable but not unregestered guns in students back pockets.

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
chrisvalve(2) Disputed
1 point

You live in Holliwood movie I see. But after the movie the actors are alive. In the real world if you have Rambo everywhere you will have killed people everywhere and guess who will be killed - good or bad. Wake up or drink your drugs on time.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
irrevocable(1) Disputed
4 points

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?

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
sicktoad Disputed
4 points

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.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

hey i agree but where did you get your facts from...............................................................

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Prometheus(23) Disputed
3 points

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.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
mekody(12) Disputed
2 points

If we outlaw guns that stuff will still happen because they are already illegally getting guns.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
igetsyolked(19) Disputed
2 points

yous a jock bum son stick to football girl. So what your favorite football team?

4 years ago | Side: yes
shaneyam99(112) Disputed
2 points

just because you make it illegal to buy a gun you will never and i mean never get all the guns off the street because the import guns illegally they buy guns without ffa regulation and peple are not stupid and they will find a way to make themselves weapons such as the book writtem by Bill Holmes published in 2002 titled .50-Caliber Rifle Construction Manual

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
mariohomeboy(7) Disputed
1 point

Look at China, UK, Australia...homicides in general and crime rates have RISEN since their gun bans...yeah sure they're less GUN deaths but they're more DEATHS in GENERAL. Search up "China Stabbings" on how 1 knife killed 11 people.

Guns take life, guns save lifes. Having no guns just will cause lives to be lost.

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

accoding to my statstics thats still a quater of the american homocide rate. also i dont tink that the knife crime is a valid arguement seing as im pretty sure you get more than 11 rounds in a gun.

im not trying to argue that stopping guns will prevent crime, but im pretty sure that if the person in china had had a gun, it would have been a hell of a lot worse

3 years ago | Side: yes
geneF(11) Disputed
1 point

No cases where an innocent peson has defended themselves with a guin??????? Either you are under twelve years old or you have done zero research. There are hundreds of thousands of cases of innocent people protecting themselves with guns. Woman agains gun control, the second amendment police department are only two places that will tell you how many times innocent people not only have protected themselves but even assisted the police.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
smithlogan66(2) Disputed
1 point

Okay ingenious, let's think about this. So your going to keep Law-biding citizens from accessing guns so all the law breakers can go out and shoot all the law-biding citizens just to simply protect the estimated 5,000 people from getting killed by Gun Shot Wounds, when really you just killed those 5,000 people along with the other 500,000 people that we're law-biding.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

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.

5 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

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.

5 years ago | Side: yes
Republican2(349) Disputed
4 points

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.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
shaneyam99(112) Disputed
1 point

people will still get guns and whats going to happen to all the guns all over the world. there will never be world peace. there will always be weapons. people will always kill other people. its as simple as that

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
geneF(11) Disputed
1 point

Peace for a while? Is that why we have had wars globally for thousands of years before guns were invented? Is that why schools and churches are shot to pieces and gun shows are not?

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

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

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

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?

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Guns are an awful thing. This world would be SO much better without them.

4 years ago | Side: yes
geneF(11) Disputed
1 point

Crime and stupid people are such a bad thing. The world would be so much better without either, and the rest of us could own entire armories and never have a problem.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

Yes because not only can people kill others they can kill themselves

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

People KILL each OTHER!! THEY COULD BE USED TO KILL OR ASSANATE THE PRES

4 years ago | Side: yes

However, Japan has an extremely peaceful society (except for the Yakuza), and they have a ban on most forms of weaponry.

4 years ago | Side: yes
geneF(11) Disputed
1 point

Japan is also a dictatorship where they work people to death and where if you "dishonor" someone your head comes off. Go live there, at least there are no guns!

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

Son of a BITCH you suv vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv efrhbrhejfbhfr dhbfrbdbfdmbddjnd dnjdbnedsjndbndf

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

lol . .

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Guns should be banned because all it would cause is more crime rates in America and yes i know even if guns get banned people would still find a way to get but at least there won't be so much crime going as it would be if it gets banned

4 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

they are killing people. BAN THEM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 years ago | Side: yes
geneF(11) Disputed
1 point

Criminals kill people. Let's ban them. Real affective huh? Guess what dude, I have many guns and I've never hurt a soul. Phooey with your little ban daydream.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
MKIced(2308) Disputed
-1 points

Guns don't kill people on their own. People kill people by using guns. And besides, do you think a lot of gang members buy their guns in a gun shop? Nope... Most gun crime comes from gangs and criminals who get their guns illegally. The legal guns are owned by the police, home owners (for protection), and hunters, etc.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

with regards to "guns dont kill people on there own" no the dont however their sole purpose is to kill and without a gun it is harder to kill someone (granted you canuse other weapons however they are generaly less effetive and arentgoing to harm as man people)

with regard to the fact that most gun crime is from illegl guns, in that case why not make all guns illegal. i maintain that making guns illegal would make it harder for people to get hold of them.

3 years ago | Side: yes

of course they kill people. bloody yanks. why is the combined iq of your population 4

3 years ago | Side: yes
vulcan9697(6) Disputed
1 point

so do cars, and stds,and fast food, and radiaton from the sun.

lets bann driving and sex and a quick meal and while were at it lets just cover the sun up to.

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
0 points

thats a niave and stupid comment, while driving etc is dangerous, the sole purpose of a gun is to kill people.

cars are useful and when used correctly arent dangerous, could be wrong but im pretty sure without sex we'd become extinct, and without the sun wed die

guns have the sole purpose to kill and theres no need to be allowed

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

Look at murder suicide rates other places. It is a no brainer...

3 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

In England, people have realized that guns just create more violence and therefore, they have banned them. And it did them good. The US's murder rate is 15 times higher of that in England. (That's a lot!!!) Most murders involve guns. The most common argument against banning guns is that people should be able to defend themselves. But most likely they would be defending themselves against guns. But if you got rid of guns, you wouldn't be needing to really defend yourself. Yes people can get get killed other ways too, but guns are the most common way, and guns only are really used for violence. It takes a lot of rage, strength and energy to stab someone, but it only takes a twitch of a finger to shoot someone. GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!

3 years ago | Side: yes
vulcan9697(6) Disputed
2 points

maybe we shouldnt be looking at how people are being killed but who is doing it. fact is go in any prison and what color do you see? black and brown. so if your going to get a handle on violence then get rid of the problem causers not one of our only ways of defending ourselves from them

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
geneF(11) Disputed
1 point

Guns dont create violence. they are made of metal and cannot kill anything. If your logic is true then carfs cause drunk driving. In england, they not only prosecute anyone for defending themselves, they also pay the criminals for their defense. You could not pay me to live in England. By the way, there were centureis where guns did not exist, yet people felt the need to defend themselves. Why do you think that is? Because the mind of the criminal is the problem, not the gun. No, guns should not be banned, and the day YOU face a violent attacker you will learn that the hard way.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

Although bearing arms is a right in America according to the constitution, it should still be illegal! the U.S. constitution is broken beyond repair! Guns are becoming more easier to purchase and people are becoming more insane.humans are killing more innocent people everyday! the only proper way to stop this epidemic would be to ban guns from all local citizens and only give guns to military or law enforcement!

3 years ago | Side: yes
vulcan9697(6) Disputed
1 point

great idea! go run for senate. so what do we do with att the guns people have now? o lets go to their house and get them. ya thatll work since some of the people that own guns illegally dont even have a ss# cuz they snuck over here. police are not your personal body gaurd, it is your responsability to protect yourself. lets say 6 gangbangers jump you? they have no guns. just bats. what do you do? band baseball. ignorance isnt bliss

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
USpatriot76 Disputed
1 point

Does that means the freedom of speech should be banned what about religion and right to an attorney i guess that means we shouldn't have any of these either. Actually violent crime rates are going down will more an more people are owning guns.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

have any of you actually SEEN Bowling for Columbine???????

2 years ago | Side: yes
Springfeildx(9) Disputed
1 point

ya look these kids were messed up.......and got there hands on guns anyway but look at it like this. had every teacher, janitor, principal,etc in that building had a gun how many peoples life's would have been saved??

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

accidents caused by contingent actions

people suffering from mental illness and minor may use a gun in wrong ways

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I say that guns should be banned because they are killing thousands of people each week

2 years ago | Side: Yes
geneF(11) Disputed
2 points

Then cars should be banned because they are using drunk drivers to kill people every weekend. And I betcha plenty of those drunk driving murderers would not own a gun because they think it is too dangerous.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Springfeildx(9) Disputed
2 points

Saying," I say that guns should be banned because they are killing thousands of people each week." is like saying,"I say that people should be banned because they are killing thousands of people each week

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

Okay i wish there was both sides because to be honest i am doing a project on this and i really wanna do both sides. we should banned guns because in the year of 2012 and of course 2011 there have been many killings, deaths, and shoot outs. shoot outs at SCHOOL! Come on and im pretty sure there will be many more that's sad and crazy. anyways, there's been kids dying from guns that either accidently went off or one is shooting one another. its not so much their fault for having the gun its for the people who sells CHILDREN Guns illegaly and i doubt they wont stop because to them that's like their salary, the money that pays bills. not to long ago a little girl in 3rd grade (i think, but she was young) got shoot by a little boy because he had a gun in his bag and it accidently went off when he set his bag down. kids my age dies like everyday that's scary. and there's people that will shoot someone for no reason.

this is the part that is confusing but makes sence why i agree to having guns but also shouldn't. people say we should have guns because i can keep my children safe. i can protect myself from people that is robbing me. like for real that's good reasons but you can also kill someone just trying to protect yourself. (i hate death if you cant tell) so when the police ask you what happen you'll just say i killed someone because they were robbing me. like they already got their consequence because you killed them, so what about your consequence you just killed someone! that's murder! either if it was an accident, trying to defend your self doesnt matter i think you should at least get consequences (they prob. do but i just dont know). like if someone was beating you up and you fight back you will get in trouble for fighting back. so why is it different from shooting someone and killing them. Hope you liked i kind of went off track(: but yeah.

By: Porshe' Sturgis 14years old. March.19.2012

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

guns should be banned everyone who is saying no is an idiot

2 years ago | Side: Yes
Bornkountry(7) Disputed
1 point

Your a real genius aren't you. It's people like you who will look to people like us when you need help.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

guns should be banned because kids can get killed and there is shootings in the sua almost every week get a life and stop guns

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

please stop guns in the usa help others and help the poor

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.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

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.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

YES! beacase in country there guns are ileagle the criminality is way lower than america

stastistic shows that

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

It is morally better to yell and scream at an armed attacker than to shoot them.

Guns in the hands of stupid people are dangerous.....we should also ban stupid people.

Everyone knows that a pregnant woman, an old person, or a person in a mobile home could excape trouble by hiding in their bedroom with a criminal in their home and calling the police who are miles away.

Private citizens, who are alone in their homes, dont need guns, they need to rely on the police, who travel in groups, have radios, and carry guns.

The second amendment says MILITIAS have the right to carry guns, not private citizens, and that is why the militias are there to protects us and are composed of....private citizens.

Guns are extremely dangerous, and thats why schools which are gun free zones as are churches are not targeted by violent criminals while guns shows and reenactments are replete with criminal violence.

Who needs a gun when you can dive under your bed and be safe from a criminal?

A criminal might take you gun and use it on you....especially if it is better than the one he is carrying and since he can get to you before you pull the trigger.

Columbine was safe because it was a gun free zone and the guys who did the shooting were simply

law abiding citizens who happened to have nasty guns. Besides, all was well once they called the cops.

Having a gun in the home of a private citizen who takes it out now and then for target shooting is more dangerous than a car in the hands of a citizen who drinks himself silly every weekend.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I have a framing hammer in my car. This girl next to me is alive not because I have no gun and cannot bring it in, and amidst screaming people, shoot her, but because I have a framing hammer in my car they would not notice...and I have no desire to harm her which I could do within seconds. It would take me less than a minute to kill her with my hammer. A split second to shoot her. Neither of my implements pose her a threat because I am not a murderer. If I desired to kill her, not one of these people or ten thousand cops could stop me within the next two minutes.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

The data is irrefutable. Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

The right to own a weapon is not, nor should it be, a fundamental right. If there were no consequences to gun ownership, I would certainly support allowing all guns everywhere. But there are consequences. Guns kill people just like fists kill people, except it is much easier to erroneously kill/injure with a gun.

I dispute the claim of self-defense rights. It is indisputably safer to not own a gun than to own a gun, save for the rare case when the area is so dangerous that using the gun to save oneself is statistically more likely than using it to kill oneself/others, on accident or otherwise. And all of these special cases exist only because guns exist in the first place. Remove them all and violence drops dramatically (after all, there is no such thing as a drive-by knife fight).

The mission to remove guns from the streets is akin to the drive to promote world peace. In fact, they are essentially the same thing. Although promoting peace can have consequences (often, it creates conflict) the less war there is the better. It is the same with guns. The unique factor that makes guns, like war, so worth fighting against is that they cause significant collateral damage. They fuel drug cartel violence, they contribute to accidental deaths and suicides, and they often kill innocent bystandards. Other weapons? Not so much.

The attempt to ban guns begins at the supreme court. The 2nd ammendment must be re-interpreted under its primary intention, "militia." Militia, in today's speak, means locally stationed military, or just military. If reinterpreted correctly, this law does not protect gun owners.

Next, the federal government would coordinate with states to completely eliminate all production of new guns in the country, and ban the importation. This would stifle the supply to almost zero.

Finally, gun buyback programs and phased-in laws against gun ownership would slowly remove the remaining guns.

This would require a lot of effort, and a lot of redneck outrage, but it would all be worth it in the long run. To the few people every year who get attacked by people and theroretically could have saved themselves if they had a gun (and also the assailant did not have a gun (and the victim could not have just defended with a knife)), sorry. You will die, but for the benefit of millions of victims and victims' families.

I conclude with this statement: the less opportunities we have to kill, the less we do.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
Bornkountry(7) Disputed
2 points

Why just for a simple "Redneck" as you have stereo typed me and my fellow gun owners, I have to say your an uneducated blind, ignorant person. People have been doing evil things since the beginning of time and guess what the criminals have always been armed with weapons that match that time period. And I WILL BE AS EQUALLY OR BETTER ARMED THAN THE PEOPLE WHO WISH TO DO MALICIOUS THINGS TO MY FAMILY. I will not fight bring a kitchen knife to a gun fight."unlike you". And the right to own my firearms and my right to my second AMENDMENT was fought for by my ancestors, which probably unlike you can be traced to the revolutionary war. And who are you to reinterpret the constitution? It says what it says for a reason. Not to be ever changed by any person or government for any reason! I CONCLUDE WITH THIS STATEMENT "THE STRONGEST REASON FOR THE PEOPLE TO RETAIN THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS AS A LAST RESORT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT" Thomas Jefferson. Sounds like to me he is on to something.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
1 point

simple facts u guys are killing your own people...

of course u have the problem of having a huge influence by money in all your politics...so getting it banned ...don't think its feasable...allas...

still in Europe where gun laws are very strict...the incidents....are not even near your safest city..and that our top estimate..

fact criminals with evil intent will always be able 2 fabricate purchase or acquire a weapon..

good thing here if some1 gets in a shooting incident its mostly liquidations IE criminal shooting criminal so good riddance

the not having the availability and ease of acquiring fire arms..does reflect in the figures ladies...but then we have a free health care 2 which saves lives..

think the mentality of the us is not at the moment saving lives or the care of it reflected..in gun laws health care..food industry..etc...u guys are fucked basically..until you yourself decide 2 make some fundamental chances....don't give me this crap about democracy and free Dom...as yar living in a 2 party system..and no i ain't a commy..:)

its egocentric group behavior whats killing..people...and sheep behavior...oh he has a gun beeeeeeeh beeeeeh i get 1 no better i get 2 beeeeeeeeh behh..and so ya all fall down the trap...gl on yas

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I can hardly understand how this is not obvious, you have lost an unknown number of normal people today at a cinema screening. That should not be allowed to happen so easily, how can America let it? I have seen comments in the NEWS FEED which suggest that this is not a suprise for the area! My mind boggles, if someone is shot it should be a suprise! If you did not do everything humanly possible to prevent the possiblility that someone with the capacity to kill could have hold of a weapon with that capability then that is ridiculous. If the sacrifice you have to make is to hand over a gun which you cant prove you need for any good reason enough to keep it then that is a small price if it might save one life.

The right to arms is out of date, just because people have them already is a weak excuse, maybe it will take 20 years to get it in order but every year will be a bit safer than the last. If you have a gun in your bag then that suggests you would consider using it, taking a life is a big deal, what if you missed, shot in a struggle through a window, or across the road.

Guns kill because if point your fingers and say bang nobody dies.

If you have a gun to protect yourself its a good bet that your attacker has one too, maybe if they were banned then they wouldnt have one... or so much confidence.

Hand in your weapons because every time someone is shot you know it might just have been prevented.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

The easier it is to get hold of guns, the greater the likelihood of people being fatally shot. I realise that criminals and mentally afflicted people are unable to own guns legally, but since you can't predict who is going to commit a crime or develop a mental illness in the future, that doesn't offer much protection if somebody suddenly has a psychotic episode and goes on a killing spree.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

In Singapore we don't have peoples going around on killing spree!!!

2 years ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I find America's obsession with guns fascinating. Because the founders of your country wrote a document hundreds of years ago stating that everybody has the right to bear arms means that this document cannot be challenged to suit a modern era many years later? What makes this Constitution infallible other than how much importance is placed on its merits by the people? No single document or set of laws is infallible. Basic logic. The fact is there is a strong correlation between legal guns and higher homicide rates. More Americans are killed by guns every year than all other developed countries combined. No problems with guns I hear you say? Also, inb4 "some countries where it is legal to obtain guns have low crime rates". Using a few examples to justify a larger picture painted by the correlation between gun ownership and higher homicide rates is intellectually dishonest debate fodder.

And quite frankly, I am sick of hearing the tired old phrase "guns don't kill people - people do". Yeah, people kill people. But what are my chances of going on a murder spree using a screwdriver vs a loaded gun? Idiots.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I my point of view guns shoul be benned not only in America but in other countries also. Guns should be used only in military. Let us think why nowadays there are a lot of terrorists, of course because of guns and other veapons. They became available to a society and imagine how many families have suffered from it, how many mothers have losen their child? but anyway they MUST be used in military only. despite the fact that they can damage someones life guns could be the only way to protect us,what the military is succesfuly doing.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

i think guns should be banned but only in public because if guns were banned even in homes then it could be like when they banned alcohol. people would find ways to get guns and hide them from police. not only would it begin another prohibition(except with guns) but the black market would have more things to sell. if we got rid of guns then the police could defend themselves easier

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Guns have the sole intention to kill people. Rather than this guns aren't used for anything else. While committing a murder with a knife or a bat is considered a misconduct, guns where only designed to kill. Knives and bats were developed for other causes rather than killing. But guns aren't used in any other way. In addition guns are even more lethal than knives because one can accidentally kill someone due to uncontrollable firing. This especially applies to assault rifles and submachine guns that fire multiple rounds per pulling the trigger. Where as with a knife only one person can be targeted. Another point for the gun ban is that people with criminal intentions can easily get access to guns and weapons. America has seen this during the past 20 years the gang violence the frequent gun-related homicides and the brutal massacres such as columbine, Virginia Tech and now New Town Connecticut. By giving these people (or any people at all) access to these weapons multiple people can be killed in just a matter of seconds and most importantly guns can be acquired legally. But for what cause? What could you possibly need a gun for? For hunting but only with a license and any deliberate murder would be considered a misconduct because hunting rifles where intended to kill animals and that is a legitimate cause for killing. But since cannibalism is extremely scarce people say they need guns for protection. But from what? There's the police there's the FBI that protect but just normal residents why do they need guns. Every single time people have a conflict they don't try to peacefully solve the problem. A lot of them would just go crazy, grab their gun and start shooting at the other person they were having their conflict with. If they wouldn't have guns they might think two more times before reverting to the gun. People always think violence is the answer I can assure you it isn't and those that think violence isn't caused by guns but by people they should know that guns foster this violence and even intensify it on a catastrophic scale. The worst part of all is that because of the gun sales and the simplicity of acquiring a weapon, criminal organizations are heavily benefiting from this as well. The Sinaloa cartel and various street gangs can simply order people to purchase weapons for them. If the opportunity weren't there it would be much more difficult for criminal organizations to acquire them. However criminal organizations can still smuggle weapons and get assault weapons but the ban on weapons could lower the murder rate and hinder organizations from bulking up with annihilating firepower. We should act fast and realize that we are protecting ourselves from the same thing that is supposed to protect us. Guns are wrong and we need to find an alternative method. The constant killing has got to stop!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

As a human I am disgusted as to the fact that people still want to buy guns despite the amount of death they cause. First let me say I am not against the sale of select weapons for hunting and farmers but no one else needs weapons and certainly no one needs fully automatic carbines or 12 gauge shotguns, why would anyone need weapons that are close to and are in some cases military grade?? The line "guns don't kill people, people do" is quite ridiculous as an argument for gun sales since it is "people" that the guns are being sold to!! It is just a case of prevention, remove guns being so easily accessible and you then decrease the gun crime and remove the need for guns to defend yourself. This is common sense, it's the reason why no countries are now allowed to make nuclear weapons, to say people deserve guns do defend themselves is to say places like Iran and North Korea should be able to make nuclear weapons to defend themselves and if you think that then clearly something is wrong

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I agree that gun should be banned. Guns are really dangerous, they can kill people imediately and people have sentisive emotions. No one can sure that when we are anger we can regulate ourselves with a gun belong. Without a gun, we can fight him, it does not a big matter, but when we use guns, we cannot regret.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

The Illegalization of fire weapons in the USA is a MUST! Too many innocent people have died already Please act now!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

The Illegalization of fire weapons in the USA is a MUST! Too many innocent people have died already Please act now!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I believe we should ban guns in America because it's time that we grow up and stop believing we're still living in the Wild West, that we're "Top Gun" fighters! It's time we snap out of our fantasies and paranoia fears that we need more guns to protect us from the other guy when it's pretty obvious that more people are killed within the safety of their own homes due to accidents or domestic altercations. I agree with Pres. Obama that the safety of our children must always comes first and has priority over our so-called constitutional rights to own a gun. We need to stop ENABLING serial killers who want to go down in a blaze of glory while taking innocent children, men, and women down with them. Let's banned all guns, or at least assault weapons (the "Barbie Doll Weapon with Accessories!"). Thank you. Jenny

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

The second amendment is made for a militia that would work to protect the communities. If the fathers of the nation would know what they have done they would decide do not create the "free" America. There is no freedom that have been made to kill people and destroy the life. The fathers of the American democracy developed the freedoms to make a country of individuals with high spirit and good will. Is it good will to keep tens of guns at home to protect from everybody - That thinking is much closer to a thinking of a psicho than to a thinking of a normal men. There are organizations that make a lot of money making American psichos. The true is that even if you had your two or three guns in a massacres you wouldnt be able to use any of those without to take a good part of the mass killing. When in such case the police arrive you will be more likely to be killed as offendor that to be greeted as a protector. And what is the result at the end - Just a scene of a stupid bloody Holliwood movie.

The true is that the only way to make America safer is to remove the guns completely from the American home and American streets. If owing a gun will be a criminal act all those gangs will be put in prisons for less than a week. The mad guys with mad plans will be put in the hospitals for a week. And the country will become safe and nice place where you can walk even after 9PM.

Look at the countires in the world. Is America the safest one or not and why.

Having Senators aand Rep.'s talking that the gun would protect a teacher in a school or a child - isn't it a sign of madness. Those guys for sure shouldnt be let having guns. If they are so mad how mad would be their kids.

If there is a fine if you let a kid to smoke or drink before the age of 18 or 21 isn't it stupid to allow the same kid to learn to shoot with guns on aim.

And of course the question comes - did God say - not kill (there was nothink like - not drink or not smoke). Or the gun lobists think that the God will work for their lobbies too. Is not a shame or fun for sure - it is a stupidity and fearlessness from the true but the punishment comes till the live time. The God is good but doesn't forget.

So weird was to hear religious people stating that the guns are not the issue. They for sure are the issue. The issue are the man and women that believe only in their guns and don't know how mental sick they are.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

There is no way to be sure that people will not use guns to harm or kill innocent people, like in the 2006 Pennsylvanian Amish school shooting. Guns offer too much power that some people will not use carefully and kill gratuitously.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

True, people kill people, no guns, but guns allow a person to kill many people in a short time. if that nut didn't have a gun, how kids do you think hw wouldv'e been able to kill with a knife or club before being subdued? A gun gives that person the feeling like he is invincible, which makes it easier for him to go on a killing spree. If he wasn't able to get a gun, all those kids would be alive today, except maybe one. If gun owners would think of that, instead of there own selfish desires to have a gun, alot of children would still be alive today. Reports show that a small percentage of gun owners actually use a gun to defend themselves, there are more killed with a gun, than those using a gun to protect themselves, they cain't say it's used for selfdefense. with all the guns in the hands of so called law abiding citizens, why are so many children massacred today? where are they using there guns to protect? Gun owners don't want to give up there guns because of there selfish desire to own one. They want to say "what about my rights", whats more important, there desire to own something they will rarely use, or those childrens rights that was killed to grow up? They don't need it for food, thats what stores are for. I guess they just like to shoot helpless beings to see blood, what a minute, that sounds like that nut who shot all those kids! Maybe we really do need to outlaw guns.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

who said shotguns isn't a deadly tool? you ever see what damage it does to a body? thats why the army uses them!!!!!!!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I think guns should be allowed in schools only if the teacher or principal has at least two years of experience on how a gun works and how to shoot a gun and also for protection of the students

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

I agree with you. The experience is very important!

I agree with you. The experience is very important!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

Gun is too dangerous!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

While I think it would be too soon to "ban guns in America" outright.. I firmly believe we need to ask ourselves is a gun in everyone's hand really the world we want to live in?

Guns need not be banned right away.. but I do believe our goal should be cultivating a world where we don't need guns. That's our goal. That is different from what is really taking place but that is our goal. Life and the preservation of Life is the most important thing. Our mission should be to preserve life.

There is an unrealistic feeling of "control" that a gun gives you. Basically blinding people to think that somehow they can be above the natural Godly chaos of the world. IF someone really wants to kill you, there's not much of a chance of you defending yourself. If you believe in a higher power there is no reason to be scared. If it the spirit within us all is collective than you really don't have anything to fear but fear itself.

As far as one post stating if we all had money and the basic essentials than there would be no reason for guns... I think this sentiment is spot on. NOBODY ever discusses the real reason criminals have guns. There are too many to name, but they all usually go back to an unhealthy relationship to money and greed in our society, the paper chase. I'm not saying we need to be communists. Even ancient Rome fed it's peasants in the street. There is a civic as well as a spiritual responsibility we have towards mankind. We are all on the same side here. Our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation. You can't keep killing the problem. You must educate and preserve life.

On a small scale guns could be replaced with Tasers and other close range defense mechanisms. Guns initial purpose was to defend against the tyranny of government by forming militia. Which I would argue a gun or semi automatic won't do much against our current military. The 2nd Amendment is dated to say the least. It was meant for defending against Indians and the British. I'm pretty sure the peaceful education of our enemies and ourselves has turned these foes into our brothers.

The world is more educated than ever... and there are social networking sites and the internet which can disseminate information faster than ever. We can either be part of a global arms race and kill ourselves or we can seek virtue, truth, and education in order to live in harmony.

I will add that GUNS aren't really the issue at hand. It's a disconnection to our spirituality. And not a religious spirituality, a mankind spirituality that connects us all. If we really loved all life (not liked) but loved life we would be in favor of preserving it and educating the world to preserve it. Guns are just a reminder of our mortal beings and immortal souls.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

i think that guns are not bad but if they are used in a bad way then they can do realharm. This is why people are dying because people are using the guns in wrong ways which will mean to veryy sad consiquences.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Guns should be not BANNED but I think they should be a bit more restricted with more secured information on buyer of the gun.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, there should be guns in america because americe right now is turning into comunism and we need to fight back! if the guns were banned we would be in comunism or scared because the president has all the guns and he could kill us! Obama is a comunist and we need to fight back!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

• It will reduce murders and shootings.

• People will not be able to feel safe if everyone can have a gun.

• Children will be given a bad example when they see parents that have guns.

• Statistics show that Canada, UK, and Australia have lower rates of gangs. This is because they ban guns.

• Mentally ill people might accidently use it if they get hallucinations or think they are in danger, even if they are perfectly safe.

• The government can’t have any gun control.

• Gun violence is making us lose billions of dollars.

• It causes obstacles to economic growth.

• We can’t let a shooting like the Connecticut shooting happen again.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
izazovnog(322) Disputed
1 point

I personally think guns should be allowed, but with a license.

There are other uses for guns, such as hunting animals.

Also banning guns won't stop gun crimes, as they can be simply gained illegally, such as smuggling.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
SAXON(16) Disputed
1 point

Here, in Canada, it has been discovered that by far the majority of guns used in the commission of a crime originated from the USA. Criminals smuggled them across the border into Canada. This PROVES gun control works. We need only tighten up our border, and the crime ends. Simple. We had only recently begun to arm our border guards, which is ridiculous. Our border should not only have armed guards, but our military should be stationed along the border with the USA to keep your violence out of my country. Those caught smuggling arms into Canada should be shot on the spot. No questions asked. No trial. Nothing. End of.

138 days ago | Side: Yes
1 point

im just here for a oral report due tomorrow....

this has nothing to do with the debate sorry guys!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Idiots who say guns don't kill people. It is 10x easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Idiots who say guns don't kill people. It is 10x easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Idiots who say guns don't kill people. It is 10x easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

1 year ago | Side: Yes

Guns are dangerous even though when they are banned people will still make them people think that they will still use them less people will use them less deaths will be by guns.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

It is only reasonable to ban specific guns like bazookas or really any thing found in the military.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

What do we do if we're mad in America then? This restricts our flow of emotions.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
1 point

Guns can kill so many people in just a short amount of time.

105 days ago | Side: Yes
0 points

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?!

6 years ago | Side: Yes
Bender226(6) Disputed
3 points

Well if you would like more gun restriction why not just move to Chicago where they are basically banned. First of all, you do not have a right to safety, if your friend was acting in a negligent manner with his firearm and breaking the law then he shall be prosecuted. To demand that other people forfeit their rights as guaranteed by the constitution so you can gain a false illusion of safety and security is absurd, although sadly this is the view of many today. Just about every downfall of a free nation to a totalitarian one begins with irrational fear, then the removal of human rights in the name of public safety. In regard to your "problems".

1. Whether or not you object to being in an unsafe situation is irrelevant, you are responsible for your own safety in the end. Don't like it? Too bad, as I said being safe is not a right, it's your responsibility. Easy solution, don't hang out with that guy.

2. People like this do not supply the black market in significant numbers, as most gun owners are not this irresponsible, although a lot of illegal guns are stolen and straw purchases. But nonetheless, it really makes no difference where they come from because as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply, if they can no longer steal guns, they will illegally import them, if they can no longer import them they will fabricate them themselves. Don't think that is possible, then you are very ignorant of reality because they can fabricate fully automatic assault rifles in third world countries with primitive tools and skills, and I have even seen cases of people making a .22 handgun in a state prison.

This argument is so exhausted there's no other word for it than stupid. And it's not just guns, it's the prohibition of anything. This country has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that banning any type of item does not work, and in fact only makes the problem significantly worse. It has not worked with alcohol, the war on drugs is an even more impressive failure and waste of money, it has not worked with the current restrictions on firearms, and will not work with any further ones. If gun restrictions worked in this country, Chicago and DC would be the safest places in America, in which they are not, and Vermont and New Hampshire would be the most dangerous.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
3 points

The police will do an excellent job at investigating the murder of you or your loved one but they will NOT protect you from it happening. Those that are so against gun ownership and concealed carry have never been the direct victim of a violent crime.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
way875(1) Disputed
1 point

There is some wackos out there, to me YOU are one of them as well, and YOU dont need a gun. But I would never stand in the way of every perfect mental sane person owning a bazoka, machine gun or any other type weapon.

I am a COP and 21 years Military, WHO ARE YOU JOKER>

Take my rights away because you hang around the mentals.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
0 points

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

4 years ago | Side: yes
shaneyam99(112) Disputed
0 points

what the hell is balsthis and are you a moron because i feel bad for you if you are but if your not then how the hell do you possibly think you are contributung to the debate?

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
0 points

Bad people use guns to kill good people! So yes, guns should be banned in america!

4 years ago | Side: yes
0 points

To argue one side or the other, in terms in single events, is silly. The argument is death, because of the nature of a gun. Rarely is it so one sided. Why do people fixate on one topic? To focus on one issue as the core is illogical.

1) First note, yes, guns can kill people, but ultimately people kill people. Basic logic. This is an argument of purpose and existence. Just because something exists doesn't mean it has purpose, and if an object has purpose it has existence. What is the purpose of the firearm? Many. Yes, killing is one of them, but there are so many others (for example, the enjoyment of shooting large pumpkins...and yes, I do). Equally so, I could argue that as a human, you were created to breed and kill on the whole in order to survive as the fittest, but modern theories and cognition seem to provide a greater degree of purpose to humanity. Of course, most of it is BS.

2) Equating lower crime rates due to the ban of guns is absurd. Japan has a peaceful society because after World War 2, and as terms of their surrender, many impositions were put on them. As such, the country turned inward and began the foundation of modern Japan. Make no mistake, guns or not, the Japanese were not exactly the epitome of peace up until recent times. The idea of self is not priority to the Japanese. Subsequently, this level of stress in Japan has given them the highest suicide rate in the world. Death by gun? probably not. Death by , sure! Key topic here, death.

The UK with it's gun ban has seen a healthy increase in knife violence. From what I also read, gun crimes actually went up as well (yes, the nasty black market). But if you look at most statistics, the majority of these crimes are concentrated in heavily populated areas (this seems to corroborate with worldwide trends.). See my argument #1...people kill people, especially when you cram them in a small, stinky space. Human nature. Take away one thing, we'll either find it another way or find a substitute.

3) The Constitution. The right to bear arms has been beaten to death. The 2nd amendment was created in order to have a readily available militia, amongst a other minor things. Home defense? sure, why not. The gun nuts (and I do own guns) tend to use this as a giant hammer, crying to the call of freedom. Ridiculous. Get over it. It's ok to say "I shoot guns because it's fun and makes me happy". No shame in that.

The ultimate issue is a Pandoras box, which actually applies to all kinds of ideas and objects. An idea or object is released to the world, and we want to tuck it away never to be seen again. This is setting everyone up for failure. Conceptually, it's like making a statement to a group of people, then retracting it...not exactly the solution.

Guns should be legal, but reform should take place. Emphasis higher education as a requirement (as in mandatory classes), mandatory firing instruction (as in, mandatory classes), and mandatory testing of such (book and field) before you can purchase a firearm. Education people, that is the key to anything.

Will this solve the occasional gun crazies out there? no. But if you are spending your time worrying about the typical Columbine or Virginia Tech stories, get over it. You're more likely to die from a car collision than getting shot.

Yes, I'll hear "You say that because it didn't happen to you", or "your wasn't shot at the grocery store". You are correct, and it's a luxury I have. It's called objectivity.

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
0 points

if nobody had guns, nobody could kill people. no guns should be able to be sold over the counter to anybody. if there are to be any guns, then only to police and the navy/force. even this, people should have approved licenses.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
0 points

Maybe the government of USA should not prohibit all weapons. First the government should get rid of nuclear weapons. United Nations just deal with this problem at the moment. Kazakhstan leads the program. More than 40 nations, including Kazakhstan, met in Washington in 2010 for the first summit and again in Seoul in March 2012. "When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union dissolved, Kazakhstan inherited a vast nuclear weapons infrastructure that included 1,410 nuclear warheads. President Nazarbayev made a “courageous and monumental decision” to remove all of the nuclear weapons from the country", Limage said. Limage is the deputy assistant secretary of state in the State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. Limage said the United States and Kazakhstan have been working together and with others to combat illicit trafficking in nuclear and radiological materials through the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.

I take the view that it is a global problem, not only in USA and also world over. I believe that people are able to protect the world against nuclear weapons. “The United States has taken bold steps toward nuclear disarmament,” Limage said. It is my view this is the most important

1 year ago | Side: Yes
samwincheste(3) Disputed
1 point

I would love to live in a world where we didnt need nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we do. Yes, most of Europe wants to give them up, but what aboout North Korea? What about Iran? If those 2 countries ever got one and one that worked. Iran is trying to make one, dont believe all that uranium is just for nuclear power. Ahmideinejhad himself said once he has nuclear capabilities, he would use them. N Korea tried launching some of their own. Thank god they didnt work. As long as there are people out there willing to use them, everyone who has them should keep them in standby. The only defense for a nuclear attack is to send up our own nukes to intercept them, and we can.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
-1 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
-1 points

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

4 years ago | Side: yes
geneF(11) Disputed
0 points

So truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
-2 points
pvtNobody(641) Disputed
19 points

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.

Supporting Evidence: Switzerland and the gun (news.bbc.co.uk)
6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
8 points

Great argument pvtNobody, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
volker48(6) Disputed
5 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
xaeon(1069) Disputed
4 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
ta9798(310) Disputed
0 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
dude2288(38) Disputed
1 point

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
smartman(1) Disputed
1 point

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.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
NeverShine(37) Disputed
1 point

"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.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
3 points

Strongly agree! "If guns were against the law only criminals would own one."

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
way875(1) Disputed
1 point

Man where are you coming from, what about CHINA, have you studied the size of their military force, it is not to defend themselves.

Are you are a control freak, I can read into your writings, into power, or YOU have access to any weapon you want and want to keep that control from everyone else.

I wish you lived in a location struck by the Huricane, you could defended all those folks which was raped and killed in the hospitals, in our own country. You can bet you would have disarmed them as well.

You cant stop guns, or crimes, or even drugs. I am also a cop but not a control freak.

You should be DEFENDING the Constitution not burning it down.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
-4 points
wowbob396(9) Disputed
2 points

Wow, if someone was robbing my house with a gun I wouldn't be playing High Noon with them....

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
keenkevin(1) Disputed
1 point

Better than playing dead... After all dead men have trouble forming coherent sentences

4 years ago | Side: yes
OTdarters(38) Disputed
1 point

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

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.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
-7 points
OTdarters(38) Disputed
3 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
genericguy(24) Disputed
3 points

Responsible gun owners simply don't come into it. Serial killers and criminals buy their tools to kill. True, but if they couldn't buy guns, then they would do alot less damage.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
Jits(13) Disputed
0 points

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/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DD1031F933A15754C0A965958260

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?

6 years ago | Side: Yes
domlpz1(15) Disputed
2 points

"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."

All that means is there is two less idiots in the world. Wait let me rephrase that, one less idiot and one less person that has the tendencies to commit murder.

win win in my opinion.

And Virginia Tech was not an "incident," it was a massacre. If all the students had also had guns then there is no way that asshole could have killed as many innocent people as he did. My condolensces to the families of the victims.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
KrittMasta(17) Disputed
1 point

I would agree with you if you can 100% control all the guns out of criminals hand, including US government. If you think the government is awesome and do everything right for you and to you, then you are blind 110% of the time, all the time, everytime. Says who? Says me, former information security engineer.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
19 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
kk0bbr(20) Disputed
9 points

Well a gun is different than big macs and knives, because a gun was solely designed to kill things. And when someone says guns don't kill people, people do, that's like saying pencils don't draw, people do. You draw with a pencil. You kill with a gun.

It would be impossible to get rid of guns. Of course it would be a bad thing because people love their guns for hunting, killing, etc. If your "great purpose" of guns is death, than yes, they do serve a purpose. It's my personal belief that violence and hate only results in more violence and hate. If America stopped killing people, no one would hate us.

The two reasons why people use guns in America:

1. Get things like money, power, respect (kill people, hold up stores, stuff like that)

2. Protect us from each other because we want money, power, etc. If we all had equal money, power, and respect, there wouldn't be any competition, therefore no hate, no greed, etc.

We can outlaw guns all we want, but we're always gonna find ways to kill people. You gotta attack the root of the emotion that makes people want to use guns to make people realize gun's won't get any real work done.

4 years ago | Side: It doesn't make a difference
igetsyolked(19) Disputed
6 points

Na uh bum it was actually started for sporting events and protection bum. The Winchester family was wht started the killing bum. First of all bum they are normally used in a cause of rape, not robbery, robberry is ranked low in the standing bum.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Houston(186) Disputed
6 points

Your speaking like a communist. "If we all had equal money, power, and respect, there wouldn't be any competition, therefore no hate, no greed, etc."

If guns were never invented people would use bows, knives and swords to kill people.

The two reasons why people use guns in America:

1. Get things like money, power, respect (kill people, hold up stores, stuff like that)

2. Protect us from each other because we want money, power, etc. If we all had equal money, power, and respect, there wouldn't be any competition, therefore no hate, no greed, etc.

Weird, last I heard, people hunt animals with guns.

"You draw with a pencil. You kill with a gun."

You can also draw with a pen, and kill with a knife. Guns and pencils are tools, they have similar tools that can do the same purpose, too. It's the people who pull the trigger, stab the blade, draw on the paper, etc.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
ceee(1) Disputed
5 points

happnen cheif xx so what do you think about guns x i think that they are great & i love shootin mine in all directions xx

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
trabb22(5) Disputed
4 points

Alright were talking about America we dont like socialism in America.

And for the record people use guns for sport and for hunting.

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
cpsemperfi(1) Disputed
4 points

Sorry but that is bull. Guns are already written into our history and there's no going back after over 200 years of supporting guns just because some people who weren't properly trained in the use and safety of properly handling a firearm. If guns are taken off the market it wont stop people who seek to cause trouble get their hands on a gun, yes it may make it a little more difficult but in the end you are just disarming good citizens who no longer have the ability to defend themselves. And people own guns for more than the two reasons you listed. I own a rifle for hunting, shotgun for bird season, sidearm for personal defense, another sidearm for just shooting and a 22. rifle for the same reason. people have been killing since the beginning of time, before it was guns it was swords, blunt weapons, bows, hell even rocks and bones. Eventually the primary source of inflicting harm could be another weapon or stay at the gun. my point is just outlawing one thing doesn't mean others wont find other ways of hurting one another.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
KrittMasta(17) Disputed
4 points

Removing guns from house hold is the worse thing you can do. Let me tell you exactly why as a Information Security Engineer (info sec / IT sec ).

1) Law abiding citizen will obey the law. Regardless if you want guns or not, criminals have ways to find one and kill you.

2) Guns equalize the situation where cops will take 5 minutes minimum to bring some body bags to your house. You either want to use that body bag or you don't.

3) Guns in America was not meant for hunting as a primary purpose. It is your second amendment right / duty to have one as our founding fathers have seen how government abuses its power to fellow citizens. Government should serve people, not the other way around.

4) People kill people , not tools kill people. You say all you want that these equipment make it easier for bad people to do harmful things. However, would you also want to get rid of chances for law abiding citizen to defense themselves. If you say the cops can do it then you are delusional. They don't have the jurisdiction to even search you or run to your house to do things on your property. Go find out about the law.

5) Countries that have extremely strict gun laws don't really work well either. Japan still has high crime rates, they just hide their news. People still kill each other in many different ways.

6) I do agree with fully automatic weapons can be ridiculous since you cannot hit anything accurately and should just spread the harm. However, having a regular semi-automatic firearms should not be excluded in any state or the country. I suggest you go learn about firearms really well before you say stuff.

7) Law enforcement do agree that black rifles do not create crimes. Crimes were made by people who can't afford to have anything. They purchased cheap crappy firearms in black market anyway.

All can all. I know that the bad guys will go to your house not mine for sure. Why? Because I am ready to defend myself and my family for the right of life and freedom of speech. Do you like Commie countries? You can go to China and see how that feels.

Educate your children about firearms and proper manner in society is the key. Firearms are not the problem. US government themselves deals more than any other agencies in the world. Go figure!

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
FckUAmerican(1) Disputed
3 points

Your point was valid till you thought we should all be commys. = things never work out geez ya scrub...........

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
jake117(5) Disputed
1 point

The reason some extreme Islamic people hate America is because they see us as the center of the Atheistic western world. They would hate us whether we kill them or not.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
khOOl(1) Disputed
6 points

Guns do not kill people . A gun doesn't have a mind of its own . A gun can not pull it's trigger by itself . There has to be a person on the other hand to pull that trigger . That person kills people not the gun . On the other hand every thing else you said I totally agree with you .

3 years ago | Side: yes
Jits(13) Disputed
4 points

Firstly, knives and cars are not commonly used to murder people. Cars just cause accidents, that is not the reason why cars should be banned. GUNS ARE A SURE WAY TO FINISH PEOPLE OFF! AND ANYONE CAN USE THEM TO KILL OTHERS, that is the reason why guns should be banned.

Secondly, how do guns serve a great purpose, as you said, in many cases? They help to kill somebody we hate? Well! that is badly justified!!

Moreover, there is no way of ensuring that the people who are getting guns are capable of handling them and are not likely to go kill someone with it.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
7 points

mmm, I agree with your first two points, however just because stupid people obtain guns is no reason to ban them. Stupid people are voted for all the time (you know who I mean) but does that justify preventing the election process?

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
rocknwow(75) Disputed
7 points

Jits

Firstly, knives and cars are not commonly used to murder people.

Both are used to 'murder' people all the time. It is true that guns are responsible for the majority of murders but knives are number two and cars are considered weapons by the police.

Your point is that Guns murder people so they should be banned. If that truly is your sole point then that's riduculous because banning guns wont stop murders. Murderers will just use something else; knives, poisons, explosives, their own hands.

Do you really think a criminal intent on killing will say to himself, "Darn, I can't kill now because guns are illegal?".

Jits. Do you collect anything, pez dispensers, baseball cards, broken hearts...anything? If you do maybe you'll be able to relate to the need for guns. Think about it.

Guns represent history. Guns represent the ingenuity of man. Guns are one of the simplest, most efficient machines ever created. Take some time to look beyond the obvious...gun kill...gun bad.

Supporting Evidence: Types of weapons used (www.infoplease.com)
6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Bornkountry(7) Disputed
3 points

You are completely ridiculous. When the world has no more evil people, violence, raping, murdering etc. I'll give up my defense firearms, until then I'll defend my right to have them and protect my family. Educate yourself.

1 year ago | Side: Yes
igetsyolked(19) Disputed
4 points

no guns dont kill people, people kill people. and same with the Knives, cars, and your lil Big Macs son you ah bum. Its the choice of the poeple.... Bum

4 years ago | Side: Yes
egga(108) Disputed
4 points

But guns make it easier to deliberately kill people. Much easier than with a knife.

P.S. I've never heard of anyone being bludgeoned with a big mac.

2 years ago | Side: Keep the Guns Change the System
deee(29) Disputed
4 points

.knives&cars;may kill people but it clearly isntt deliberate, yes there is sometimes hit&runs;but there are more gun deaths than anything. BAN GUNS NOW !!!!!

4 years ago | Side: yes
trabb22(5) Disputed
8 points

If today we were to ban guns all the law abiding citizens would give up their firearms and protection. Guess what? The criminals wouldn't give up their guns and they would have a field day breaking into stores,banks, and homes. And when you are the on laying on the floor and watching your possessions being stolen and your family raped and killed without anything to defend yourself then its on you. If you live in some fantasy that the world is perfect and the police can always protect on a moment notice you can pretend whatever you want. Us on the other hand want some protection.

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
josiejump1(18) Disputed
4 points

,disagree mate!xx people dae it delibrately ya stupid person. why else d'yi hink it's called murderrrrr!xxxx

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Derek(9) Disputed
3 points

There are most certainly NOT more gun deaths than anything. In fact, cars kill more people than guns do. Look up a fact or two before you hit submit.

2 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
poip2000(1) Disputed
3 points

r u hungry bro???????????????????????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

2 years ago | Side: Yes
FckUAmerican(1) Disputed
3 points

<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Just follow the name

2 years ago | Side: Yes
vandebater(441) Disputed
3 points

guns don't kill people; nu uh; I kill people "chk chk" with guns, POW

2 years ago | Side: Yes
vandebater(441) Disputed
3 points

the difference is that a guns purpose is to kill while a big macs is to eat, a knives is to cut and a cars is to drive. I don't believe guns should be banned but they should be MUCH harder to get

2 years ago | Side: Yes
14 points

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

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
phuqster(119) Disputed
6 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
KrittMasta(17) Disputed
3 points

phuqster, you have to understand that it was created to defend yourself for thugs, including the evil government. So you really think that what is available is evil vs what is available in military? Go figure.

Only stupid, ignorant, selfish, crazy people kill fellow citizens. With those, they would be put away anyways. I also support shoot on the spot if you see a killing spree or someone is robing a bank. I think that would work really well.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
13 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
9 points

I would like to add that we are a constitutional republic.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
10 points

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

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
ta9798(310) Disputed
8 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
pvtNobody(641) Disputed
13 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
dude2288(38) Disputed
11 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
way875(1) Clarified
2 points

If every household which meet criteria was mandated to be armed with high level weaponry, it would increase the security of the USA.

Watch sons of Guns, they have it right but that is rare in our society.

We would fight back any threat, and may lose but at least we would fight rather than hide because of being disarmed.

2 years ago | Side: Yes
KrittMasta(17) Disputed
1 point

Therefore we should have those rifles and ready for gorilla warfare. That's how Afghanis' win the war. But, I know for sure that US government won't let it get to that point. 1, military personal will side with constitution, at least 80% of them. 2, government won't do anything stupid that won't really get money from our tax dollar. Therefore, they won't wage war with citizens. However, you do need those rifles to keep the government in check for your own safety.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
5 points

Do you realize your talking about empires, which existed hundreds of years ago, when there weren't "hardcore" gangsters and a black market, people abided by the rules or wouldnt have life.

5 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

that argument makes sense only if u say that u believe America will have some civil war if it lost it's GUNS or that in some stupid way America can only prevent its self from turning into a totalitarian state if it has guns...

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
ckames(24) Disputed
7 points

That is exactly the argument and is the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
9 points

Outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
ananas(1) Disputed
1 point

Good poetry but outlaws are not the only problem.

You haven´t tought about massacres in schools, have you? These pupils shooting around would definitly thing about what they ´re actually doing if it would´t be this easy to get guns.This would prevent many children from dying!

1 year ago | Side: Yes
9 points

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?

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
8 points

Freedom was won with guns...

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
frenchieak(1127) Disputed
5 points

And freedom can be lost with guns in the wrong hands. It works both way.

5 years ago | Side: yes
JakeJ(3230) Disputed
7 points

Key word:

"in the wrong hands."

Yeah its possible for a maniac to get ahold of a gun, but its also possible for a maniac to get in the drivers seat of a car. (see my post)

Perhaps we should ban cars in America?

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
7 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
6 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Loudacris(913) Disputed
6 points

I think you hit the nail on the head with the black market argument but do you really think that there are enough properly trained and licensed civilian gun owners to challenge the US military? There is no way the civilians could win. That argument is just silly.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
Lexfor(139) Disputed
7 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
dcovan(171) Disputed
5 points

You look at Iraq and other urban wars and see our politically correct military doesnt really smash the revolts.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
trabb22(5) Disputed
2 points

Hey did someone say revouloutinairy war, did someone say vietnam?

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Biomarine Disputed
1 point

I absolutly think there is. How many prior service members are in the us right now. WAY more than active duty.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
6 points

Greater control, yes. Banning, no.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
6 points

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."

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
6 points

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.

5 years ago | Side: Keep the Guns Change the System
6 points

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

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
3 points

pure genius!!!!!!!!

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
5 points

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.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
5 points

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

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
pervezt(1) Disputed
2 points

Cars aren't WEAPONS. Anything can be used AS a weapon but that doesn't make it a weapon (meaning it's primary purpose is to kill someone).

1 year ago | Side: Yes
5 points

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

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.

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

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
4 points

on behalf of my hubby..............................................have an upvote!...he liked this one.;)

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Thanks. Here on CD I aim to please (just like in the bathroom). ;)

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
2 points

I saw that on an IMAO t-shirt a while ago. Along with, "If you are nervous around guns, down that bottle of whiskey before going to the range" and "No matter how excited you are about buying your first gun, do not run around yelling 'I have a gun! I have a gun!'"

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.

I never said I was original ;)

3 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
5 points

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.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
5 points

As my father always says, "Guns doesn't kill people, dad's with pretty daughters do" On a real note, I will always be packin and I don't care what no one thinks. But the gun doesn't kill anyone, its the person that decides to pull the trigger

4 years ago | Side: Dads
deee(29) Disputed
3 points

.daddyssssssssssssssssssssssssssss girllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll L-)

4 years ago | Side: yes
3 points

ahahaha agreeedddddd =))=)) !xxxxx mad tramp that she is :D !xxxxx

4 years ago | Side: yes
5 points

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Except, of course, when a snake squeezes the trigger.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
deee(29) Disputed
4 points

.are you for real ? snakes clearly cant squeeze the traigger&even;if they didi it clearly isnt all the time'xx

4 years ago | Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6718) Disputed
4 points

Read the news of the weird; it happens all the time.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
josiejump1(18) Disputed
1 point

ewwww? be real !! you must be trippin mate? get a lifeeeeeee.

4 years ago | Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6718) Disputed
3 points

Unlike you, I've both a life and a brain.

4 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
3 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
aceslick911(11) Disputed
3 points

"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.

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
OTdarters(38) Disputed
4 points

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.

6 years ago | Side: Yes
3 points

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

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
RedStorm(3) Disputed
1 point

woah! what did you say? been bad in britain? im british, and very anti guns, and i find this DOWN RIGHT INSULTING! just like the US smear campaign abour the british NHS.

Lets do the maths here

UK gun related homicide in 1998 - 2000 = 14

US gun related homicide in 1998 - 2000 = 9,369

"BUT WAIT!" i hear you say! "what about the population difference!"

so lets factor in the populations and do this per capita

uk = 0.00102579 gun murders per 1,000 people

US = 0.0279271 gun murders per 1,000 people

wow, sombody was wrooong, BUT WAIT IT GETS BETTER

the results were ranked!

Uk = 32nd highest gun murders per capita

US = 8th highest gun murders per capita!

and guess what! IT WAS A 32 NATION REPORT! MEANING THE UK HAD THE LOWEST GUN CRIME RATES OF THEM ALL!

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Another thought, did you ever think to REALIZE that the strong violence in strict gun law places came BEFORE the laws did? the laws are strick because the violence got bad, and the laws were made after to try to stop it.

4 years ago | Side: yes
KrittMasta(17) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, cause British people kill each other with something else. Look, guns or no guns, people will die just as much. Killed by guns or killed by knife, fork, poison, cars, rope, doesn't really matter. Culture is also very important. I was living in Asia for 12 years, still as much killing as over here with some other type of murder weapons. I don't see the point.

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
Tames1(1) Disputed
-2 points
KrittMasta(17) Disputed
1 point

Would you post a sign in front of your house saying "I don't believe in guns. I don't have a gun, neither should you."

1 year ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
0 points

true, if you want to hunt, get a bow, its more sporting anyway. whats the sport in shooting a deer 300 yards away?

1 year ago | Side: Yes
3 points

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!

6 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
shogun64(4) Disputed
1 point

if being american is going aroubd schools and shooting little kids because its american, maybe i need to leave.

1 year ago | Side: Yes

Guns should be banned everywhere except America.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
3 points

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?

5 years ago | Side: 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.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.

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

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
3 points

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.

5 years ago | Side: No, guns don't kill people.
trabb22(5) Disputed