Even if guns are not allowed, people will still be able to access guns through import from other countries and there already are many people who own guns out there, and we can't just take guns away from them. When they die, they could pass guns down to others. Finally, people would suspect that nobody has a gun because they are banned, and if they do have a gun, it would be very hard to get away from when the shooting begins, because they would not see it coming. And if guns were just harder to get, then people who have not committed a crime, but are willing to commit their first, can easily get a gun because we can not read peoples minds and know their intentions with their gun, so there is no point in banning them, all it would do is give people less self-defense.
Although gun sports alone do not solely support the possession and use of firearms, it is one of many reasons for people to possess firearms. The most important reason that I believe supports the right to own a firearm is self protection against violent or threatening criminals. I rest my case.
I see your point. This guy hit me last tuesday with his car because he accidently pushed down the gas pedal thinking it was the brake. Maybe he should not be allowed to have a car now, he may accidently make it go off and hit someone else in the future.
Uh okay, if someone breaks in my house at night then I will call the gun range and ask to borrow one of there guns to protect my daughter and myself from them! I am a single mother, would you want to be unable to do something/anything to defend your child if you were faced with this situation? I am not strong enough to be a match for a man, muchless multiple of them (since this is the way crime seems to be going now days--not one attacker but multiple). Would you want to die helplessly, defenslessly, looking into the teffirifed eyes of your precious little child? You know the bad guys will take out the greatest threat first and I know my little girl poses none. My daughter feels safe with me because she believes I will protect her. I would like to have the oppotunity to try at least, and without a gun what else do I have? Anything else would allow my attacker to get to close to me and then, I would likely be on the recieving end of whatever had chosen as my choice of defense bat or knife. Also, since we should not be allowed to personally own guns for recreation, we should take all the bats and bow n arrows and cars and...Where will it end? Use your head! Freedom allows the right for people to choose and make choices, even bad ones unfortunately, but take away that right and it is not freesom anymore. The governemnt is not a parent and the people are not its children. The right to choose and make choices = freedom!! There is a reason to personally own guns for recreational use, the same reason you own your bats instead of having to rent one at the batting cage when you go to hit balls (by the way, the batting cage bats are terrible), glad I have my own. Also in regards to the militia, if the governement ever decided to send its military out against its people, what good would forming militias do if you have no means to arm them? Hitler disarmed the people first too, I am not saying that is what this is about, I am just saying you have to look at everything, "the big picture" not just the things you want too see. The second amendment secures the "peoples" right to be able to defend against the governement if ever needed!
Do we take away cars because some are faster or more dangerous? Do we take away bats from baseball players? Do we stop martial artists from learning their sports and competing in them? There are always going to be ones who play by the rules and ones who don't. Guns are fun when used for recreation or sporting, by the ones who use them legally. Guns are dangerous when used for crimes or murder, by the ones who use them illegally. Cars are fun when used for nascar competition, by the ones who use them legally. Cars are dangerous when used to drive drunk, by the ones who use them illegally. If we take away everything that people can use dangerously what are we left with? You pass laws based on this, you directly effect and open the door to losing freedom as a whole. Think about it, they really are connected! By th way, I own no guns at all!!
Gun sports, from hunting to skeet shooting, are hobbies participated in by many Americans. In order to effectively participate in these hobbies, it is important to own your own gun, in order to develop skills on how to use it. If you constantly utilize a different gun, because you don't own one of your own, it is impossible to become very skilled in gun sports.
Locally, gun sports are a popular form of recreation, and provide an influx of money into the local economy. Recreational shooting is no different or no less safe than recreational archery, and creates jobs in rural areas for those selling ammunition and supplies, those running the shooting courses, and those teaching classes on gun sports. This should be justification enough for possession of low-level firearms, as long as the designated firearms are used as licensed.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. It should be promoted for people to use guns in good ways. There are people who kill others with cars, but we do not consider outlawing cars. Weapons should be in the hands of those who use them appropriately and this can only be done in a country with that freedom. Otherwise, weapons will only be in the hands of the enemies, leaving us defenseless.
Firearms being used for recreation is just one other reason on top of a pile of reasons that justify the ownership and use of a firearm. The biggest reason that a person has the right to own a firearm is, by and large, because of self-defense. Statistics have shown that places with more gun control have higher crime rates. Gun sports allow people to use their favored firearm in a legitimate and safe environment.
Gun sports justify the free possession and use of firearms, which is guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Gun sports, such as target shooting or hunting, teach the use of firearms. A well-armed community has lower crime rates than an unarmed community.
There is no one reason outside of the law itself that justifies the free possession and use of firearms no more than owning a car for any one reason. If that is all anyone had guns for and we wanted to forsake our constitution and the second amendment then there may be an argument for gun control. However I think you will find it hard to take away guns from people owning them to do harm to others unlawfully. These people would only have more control over the law abiding citizens. When anyone can take all the firearms away from the people possessing them for the reason of doing illegal harm to others, then you may have an argument for gun control. Good luck on that. Even at that point, I will have to question your allegiance to America and the constitution for which it was founded on. I do think everyone possessing a weapon should have to take a firearms training course as safety comes from training. If you restrict gun ownership, we should limit driving since deaths due to automobiles far exceed ones by firearms. Especially since auto deaths are primarily from unintentional accidents and deaths due to firearms are mostly due to intentional acts by criminals which no matter the law, you will not get criminals to give up there weapons since it is unlawful for them to possess them as it is. Statics prove that the right to carry laws decrease the amount of violent crime. Common sense is a wonderful thing. Please use it.
Guns function as more than recreation for many families in rural communities throughout the world and even the US. The right to posses weapons is guaranteed under the Second Amendment in the US. It is also an ancient human right to protect oneself and have the ability to provide food using such weapons. The use of firearms is a question of personal responsibility and not a political scapegoat for failing infrastructure in urban areas.
Most firearms have ultimately been designed to kill or seriously wound hostile humans in a situation where it's necessary for standing up for one's rights or interests.
Firearms should only be available to the common person in cases where possession of one is greatly motivated by surrounding circumstances, such as a prevalence of criminals who possess and use life-compromising weapons to conduct crime. In addition, they should fill extensive mental health and other necessary criteria, and be strictly required by law to keep their weapons unavailable for anyone who does not meet these criteria.
Sports weapons should be kept at the shooting range, behind closed doors and ample security. Human-killing tools should not be freely available on people or at their homes, where any deranged family member or friend can access them and kill innocent humans.
While I see that gun sports such as target shooting and hunting have a place in society I can see no reason for the free possession of weapons or keeping them in a family home. Can the guns not be stored for maximum security at a gun club or even Police station to be withdrawn by permit holder when required and returned for safe keeping after use. The military keep their hardware in the armory until it's needed then make sure all weapons are returned when training or active service is over and they know a thing or two about handling lethal equipment. I am happy to live in a country where there are strict gun controls and we don't even arm the majority of our police and hope it stays that way.
Gun sports can be one of the reasons, why young people enjoy the use of firearms. Gun sports play the gravity of the situation. Especially teenagers conjoin the possession of firearms with fun. Moreover, if young peolpe or other people are in the possession of fierearms, they feel godlike because they can decide on other human's lifes. The consequences are often shooting sprees in schools and other kinds of massacres.
I do not believe that gun sports justify the free possession and use of firearms. While I do not believe that the ownership and usage of firearms is unlawful or morally wrong, I think there should be hoops to jump through in order to possess and use a gun. In the wrong hands, a gun can be deadly and can transfer into the hands of immoral, less-competent people with ill intentions towards others. I believe that regardless of reasoning behind the purchase and possession of a firearm, there should be enough background and health checks to ensure that the firearm will not be used unlawfully. I do not have a position against the use of a firearm for gun sports because I believe it is a right that citizens should be given. However, not every citizen should have the privilege to own a firearm - regardless of reason - if they are not properly suited for the responsibility.
Sports do not always relate to events that occurs on the field of play. An example I would use would be NASCAR racing. Should we allow cars to go 200 miles per hour on our highways? I don't think so. Athletes who partake in gun sports are trained properly, and use the guns in a safe and proper manner. In no way should gun sports justify the free possession of firearms.
Gun sports do not justify the free possession and use of firearms, because that right needs no justification. More students are injured or killed in sports-related school-sponsored activities, than in gun-related school-sponsored activities. The free possession and use of firearms does not need justification, because it is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
How guns are used is not justification for possession and use of firearms. The Constitution grants us this right. Our behavior and misuse of guns take these rights away. The majority of gun owners in this country are law-abiding citizens. Like any other aspect of our freedoms and rights, it is individual behavior that determines if we're able to keep our rights.
Arguments for the right to bear arms based on sports offer a weak justification. After all, sports are a matter of entertainment, while public safety is a matter of, well, public safety. But there is a case for firearms possession based on sports in limited circumstances (in certain areas, perhaps with a license, and so forth). And there's a better case for access based on the right of self-defense. This justification, too, should be balanced against public safety considerations in the formulation of public policy. While there are moral and practical arguments for either extreme, the prudent course seems to be finding a middle ground. One in which hunters and target shooters have the freedom to engage in their favored activities, and people in general are able to protect their homes and themselves. And one in which guns are not a constant feature of public space, which could promote paranoia.
It's easy to gain possession to any type of firearm. Gun sports could still be active and take place, with proper gun regulation. Owning a gun and being able to use and possess it freely is dangerous. It could easily accidentally fire, be stolen and used for criminal activity, or be used against another person. There's no good that comes from the free use of guns. In gun sports, guns could be provided by officials at the start of the activity and then turned in at the end.
Even though the guns are being used for sports, they are dangerous. They should still be regulated and everyone should be careful about using guns. Without rules, guns may become available to those that may do harm.
The right to have a gun, and use it, is not justifiable because some individuals like to use it in sport. Firearms are to be taken much more seriously than this. We wouldn't legalized liquor, for college students, just because frats like to play games that involve alcohol. This is because the issue of alcohol, like that of firearms, is about safety and responsibility. Gun sports has nothing to do with whether, or not, people should have the right to possess/use firearms. Should firearms be banned, those who like gun sports can find something similar to a firearm to play games with.
I believe, gun sports are meant for purely recreational purpose only, the design and type of guns or parts used need not be deadly as in case of firearms. There is no need for having any connection between gun sports and firearms, it should be highly controlled. Possessing firearms can be dangerous exposing general public to a greater risk.
Guns sports are a sufficient justification for owning a gun because it is like any sport where you need the right equipment to function. If someone is using a gun for sport, that is their choice. They are an adult and should be able to make that decision. Owning a gun gets a bad reputation from the fact that there are certain individuals in society who can't exercise proper judgment and who are a danger to themselves and society. But just because those individuals exist, it does not mean that other's rights to own a gun should be infringed upon.
It is not the sport that allows free possession and use of a firearm. It is our right to bear arms! The right to defend ourselves and our property. The sport is definitely not the justification. A gun can be a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. Unfortunately I have many issues with a possible ban. The reason being is that only the law abiding citizens would listen to the law. The criminals, the ones who kill and maim with weapons, would not listen to the law anyway. They are criminals...that is what they do...break the law. If the government was to take away the right to bear arms as stated in the constitution, the only ones that would suffer would be the proper citizens who would then have no defense against the criminals.
The ownership of guns has been justified as sport weapons and weapons of protection. In dealing with the former, there is not now, nor has there ever been a need to own and have in your own possession, a sport gun. Unless you have the permits, training and an on site firing range, you can use the guns at the range. You can even buy the gun you want and have it held at the range. There is simply no reason to have to use or to be able to have a personal weapon. The right to bear arms has never been settled as to whether it means for individuals or militia. My interpretation would not be in keeping with NRA philosophy, but I am correct.
While use of guns to hunt or take part in shooting sports is certainly legitimate, I believe personal protection is a more compelling reason to justify possession of firearms. There is an old saying about the Colt 45: "Be not afraid of any man no matter what his size; when danger threatens, call on me, and I will equalize." The police can't be everywhere and typically aren't there at the moment a crime is being committed. I can say this from experience: show a potential assailant a firearm and he will leave you alone. Much has been said about the Second Amendment and the politics of permitting citizens to own guns but, for me, the bottom line is that private gun ownership helps to prevent the strong from preying on the weak.