Do gun sports justify the free possession and use of firearms?

  • Guns are only as safe as the person using them

    A gun may be able to be used for many different reasons including sports and crimes but these all depend on the person using them. If a person has a motive that would make them use a gun in a crime only then does the gun become unsafe. Saying that guns kill people is like saying that a pensile misspelled a word or a fork makes you fat. The actual problem is the person not the guns.

  • People Will Not Stop Being Killed

    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.

  • People should be able to own their own firearms

    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.

  • "possess it freely is dangerous"

    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.

  • No reason for personal possesion of guns?

    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!

  • Like any other sport

    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!!

  • Citizens of the United States should be able to own guns, regardless of whether the reason is to participate in gun sports.

    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.

    Posted by: OverwroughtEzekiel25
  • Gun sports are a form of recreation, just like fishing and archery, and should serve as a justification, at the very least, for possession of low-level firearms.

    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.

    Posted by: InvincibleBradley
  • Using guns for sporting is innocent and recreational and should be enough to justify free possession of fire arms.

    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.

    Posted by: DizzyCasey
  • Yes, because individuals have a right to bear arms, whether it be for self-defense, food, or recreation.

    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.

    Posted by: R4yAnych
  • Gun sports do not justify free possession and use of firearms, because they are still dangerous, whatever the use.

    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.

    Posted by: EImerN4th
  • No, the free possession and use of firearms is not justified by gun sports.

    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.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • I oppose gun sports justifying the free possession and use of firearms risking general public

    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.

    Posted by: SaroM0vi3
  • Guns sports are a sufficient justification for owning a gun because it is like any sport where you need the right equipment to function.

    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.

    Posted by: SandDari
  • Gun sports do not justify the free possession and use of firearms.

    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.

    Posted by: w00tboycomic
  • Gun sports have never been a justification for personal gun ownership.

    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.

    Posted by: labeljunkie
  • Use of firearms for sporting purposes does not, by itself, justify gun ownership, as there is a better reason to allow citizens to own guns.

    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.

    Posted by: JereChunky
  • Only Gun Sports?

    Should you conduct gun sports as a hobby, and rest your ownership of guns on the sport, you may need to change your cause for ownership. Ownership of a gun should only be for protection, at most. Gun sports are fine, but the ownership of guns for the sole purpose of sport is ludicrous.

  • Tools designed for killing humans should not be freely available

    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.

  • Keep Them Safe

    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.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.