Guns have helped shaped America as a whole and are deep in are history. They are not tools of destruction or death, they are actually very useful, whether they are being used as protection, for competition, for hunting or at a firing range as a way to relieve stress. Ask yourself what you would do if an armed criminal broke into your house to assualt you and you had no protection because there is a gun ban, what would you do then? Creating stricter gun laws not only gives criminals more of a reason to break the law to possess them but also hurts are own economy as well because american companies who manufacture guns and gun products (ammo, holsters, etc.) will lose alot of money. Our society is raised with guns everywhere we look in games, movies, toys you will see them and going against them does not make anything better because guns dont kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!

While it is tragic that people do use guns to hurt each other, keeping people from defending themselves will not help. According to one study, two out of three instances of gun use were defensive. If criminals knew that they were putting themselves at a higher risk by attacking people with guns (because the victims might be armed), they probably be less likely to commit the crime.

The British have recently banned knives with sharp points, which could possibly be used as weapons. If we start with gun bans, where does it end? Who will decide what is a dangerous weapon or not? This is not to say that there should not be federal or state restrictions on weapons, only that it should not be carried out to an extreme. People should be trusted enough to responsibly bear arms.

The laws that the advocates of gun control want to place are understandable. Who wants a raging serial killer with guns or any kind of psychopath for that matter? Of course no one does but, the laws that they want to pass such as changing the age a person can own a gun, do rigorous background checks, lengthening the time to which you can buy a gun or get your license, and limiting to buying only one gun a month, is against our Constitutional rights. Plus, if we were confronted with those certain criminals and/or psychopaths, how would we defend ourselves if there were restrictions on gun control? It is our right to “bear arms” and the belief that the crime rates will go down because of more restrictions on gun control is not necessarily true. Look back on the Prohibition age, where alcohol was illegal. There was a significant rise in the crime rate in America during this time. Gangs and other underground groups popped up because of the ban on alcohol because since it was illegal, they could make quite a profit selling alcohol. Now days, there are restrictions on the age to which you can buy and drink alcohol. But, there are more alcohol related deaths than there are gun related, disease or cancer, and drug related deaths.

I believe that there should be gun rights because people deserve to protect themselves. Although people, such as the individuals from the Columbine Massacre or David Berkowitz from New York, have abused their right to bear arms, their mistakes should not affect the entire population of the United States. If restrictions are placed upon individuals for weapons, such as guns, the ability to protect themselves with those weapons are limited. Eric Harris, one of the two who fired upon students at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, was violating his Second Amendment right. People who follow the guidelines of the law would not be protected in court if they were to open fire upon radical individuals who misuse their weapons of destruction against humanity. The innocent individuals who protected society by open firing on the radicals would be sent to prison and incarcerated for doing the world a civil service. Although the misuse of guns and weapons is condoned, responsibility of the individual who purchases firearms and ammunition should be regulated by the local police for preventative measures.

Also, I believe that the restriction of firearms can be a bad thing. In the world America is today, mobsters, gangsters, and psychopaths are prevalent throughout the United States. There are around 126 documented American serial killers, not many are "gang bangers" or any of that sort. America is prevalent for producing psychopaths (according to other countries). These people do not care about the law, so restricting everybody's right to bear arms would be harmful to the innocent who want to protect themselves. Not everybody in America knows how to defend themselves while being mugged. A 75 year old lady cannot protect herself against a strongly build man in his mid-thirties while he is trying to snatch her purse. Guns should be regulated in America, but they should not be restricted because in the end, more people would be hurt than helped.

Criminals who want a gun will get them, even if there are strict gun control laws. Only the law abiding, future crime victims, will obey the ban. Even in countries that have a near total ban on ownership of guns, criminals will smuggle in guns, just like drugs are smuggled in. More sophisticated criminal gangs will even manufacture their own guns, or “reactivate” guns that were “deactivated”, such as in the UK. In short, no matter what laws are passed, criminals will have guns just as they have drugs. Banning a constitutionally protected thing because some people will misuse it is wrong, ineffective, and unconstitutional.

We don’t ban free speech because some people will say untrue and harmful things. We don’t ban religious freedom because some people will have suicide cults. We don’t ban the right to be represented by a lawyer because some criminals will use a good lawyer to get away with murder. Furthermore, having gun rights helps protect our other civil rights. Most guns are never used in a crime and most gun owners are law abiding citizens; we should not ban guns just because some people choose to misuse them

(in fact, ALL legal owners of guns are not felons since convicted felons are not allowed to own guns). The majority of gun-related crime is committed by people who are either already prohibited from having a gun by law (due to a felony or domestic violence conviction), or who would not be deterred by laws. The criminal who is about to commit murder, rape, robbery, or sell drugs, is not going to be deterred by a misdemeanor gun possession charge. On the other hand, the law abiding citizens whom we would want to have guns so that they can defend their homes, hunt, or enjoy the hobby of target practice, are the only people who would be deterred by gun control laws. I discuss this in further detail here, here and here. Guns are the great equalizer

Firearms allow the physically weaker members of our society (such as the elderly, women who are less physically strong then the men who might attack them, etc.) to defend themselves from physically stronger attackers. Taking away guns from the physically weaker members of society puts them at a disadvantage, relative to their physically stronger attackers. Furthermore, a person who is willing to commit rape or attack the elderly will also be willing to violate gun control laws, which puts the victim at an even greater disadvantage.

Although I live in a good area,which has an effective and professional police department, I feel better at night knowing that if I were left with no other choice, I could use a firearm to defend my family’s lives.

The fact is that even with an excellent police department and a home security system, it will still take several minutes for the police to come to your aid. Several minutes is an eternity when it comes to having a criminal in your home, and more than enough time for horrible things to happen. With a firearm (stored in a good safe when we are not home to prevent theft) I would likely be able to stop a home invader before they could commit commit crimes against my family. I sincerely hope I will never need to use a firearm against another human being, but my shotgun just might save our lives if a criminal breaks in to harm us. If someone broke into your home at night, could you protect your family without a firearm? I discuss this in greater detail here.

I'm not saying that it's right but the reality of any controversial situation like this is that people are going to do what they want to do. Though yes it is said that some people use the rights given to them for wrong doing but why punish all for the mistakes of few. "Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year." (Gun Owners of America- Control Fact Sheet) This shows that like so many of our other privileges, the majority of the people use this in a very productive manner. Why take whats good away from these people when those set on causing harm we do so regardless, even if it mean finding another media.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT BOUND TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS AND THEREFORE WE ALL HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.

If private individuals have to rely on self-protection, is the purposeful action of the government to deprive citizens of the means to defend themselves actionable under the rationale of DeShaney and its progeny? Arguably, restrictive gun control laws that disable people in the face of potentially fatal violent encounters, which are abundant in modern urban life, exceed the governmental inaction that was held to be permissible in DeShaney. Such state monopolization of means of protection available to individuals transgresses the scope of permissible regulation in other areas, such as abortion. In self-defense situations, lives of individuals may be at stake because of the immediacy of potential harm and the inadequacy of response by an unarmed citizen facing a criminal attack.

Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not granted any powers to deny us those rights. Now yes the constitution preserves citizens the right to own a gun, but this right can't contradict a person's right to feel safe in their own country. If a person feels that they need a gun to protect themselves and/or family, then as long as they use wisdom when it comes to the weapon then there will be no issue. It's when people choose to use guns as a solution to problems, that we start having trouble. Terrorist, gangs, idiotic shooters, and others are all examples of individuals who use weapons for harm; and when people fear these individuals they start to feel they need weapons for protection. We won't be able to solve a thing if everyone is so terrified of being killed that they're running around with guns! As a society we must use intelligence when it comes to guns; for example if you have kids don't leave your guns lying around, or somewhere easy for them to get to. Keep them under lock and key, and keep the key in a place where you only have access to.

I believe also that if you have a gun, you should know how to use it and respect it properly. If more people knew how to use a gun (or any kind of weapon and/or fighting techniques) defensively, then there would be fewer injuries or deaths cause by accidental gun fire. Also, if more people knew how to defend themselves properly, then the less likely criminals would commit crime because they would not know who can defend themselves and who cannot. Therefore making them hesitant for fear of their lives.

I lost my uncle due to gun violence, therefore gun control is a subject that I adress with the utmost importance. It is established that many use guns in self-defense, and the image of the weak, physically disabled citizen being tormented by the violent, unforgiving criminal comes to mind. But what has yet to be mentioned is the look on a mother's face when she has to bury her child, the feeling in the hearts of the brothers and sisters that realize that their lifelong companions will no longer be there to experience life with. We have the right to bear arms, this right was given to us with the manufacturing of the Constitution, but on must take into consideration all of these things before choosing a gun to kill another.

A young boy is picked on all year by a bully (a boy who has failed the third grade twice and lashes out on the other boy to feel superior). At the end of the year the boy finally decides it is time to give the bully what he's had coming all year. He goes into the storage cabinet where he knows his father puts his hunting pistol and places it in his backpack like freshly printed homework assignment. "Never touch my gun!" Memories of the conversation he and his father had about the weapon pop into his mind, but he discards them as he remembers all of the torture the bully has put him through. The next day at recess the boy comes up to the bully with the look of revenge on his face. As he pulls the gun out of his backpack, the bully notices the gun and begins toward the entrance of the school. The boy fires the weapon wildly, three shots were fired; one hit the bully in the neck, seriously wounds him, another hits the trunk of a tree, and the last hits an unsuspecting girl in the face and kills her. The boy was only trying to defend himself.

I feel as if things should stay the same because even if you do put limits on the gun rights people will still be able to get the guns they want and do the same things. Im sure most criminals dont go buying guns and having a gun license. Making this law will do nothing at all to affect whats going on in the world today and if it does it will be very minor.

While it is completely understandable why many Americans feel as if having possession of guns is irrational,perhaps those people need to consider the fact that in the United States Constitution(which I remind you is the document that our country was built upon),it states that Americans have the right to bear a firearm(2nd Amendment). This right already restricts inappropriate behavior with guns and states they are to be used in self-defense. Taking this right away from us is the first step in disobeying the constitution,which is also the first step to becoming a socialist society. Not to offend those who are supporters of Obama or anything but these are things that he actually wanted to and attempted to do. About last year,Obama considered writing a Bill that would prohibit the use of guns due to the fact that they play a role in gang violence in America. However,Obama should be informed that the leading cause of death in America is not murder by a lethal weapon,it is cardiovascular disease. In fact,death by a firearm is amongst the lowest leading causes of death. So,in order to keep our country at the somewhat stable democracy that it is now,I suggest we do not attempt to question the United States Constitution.