• Every home needs a gun- More guns means less violent crime

    It has been proven that more guns leads to leads to less crime. Just look at the town of Kennesaw , Georgia. Kennesaw has a law requiring every head of household to own a gun. And because of this law, Kennesaw has a violent crime rate 85% lower than the national and state averages. Then look at DC where there used to be a strict handgun ban, in DC gun crime is far above the national average.

  • Every Home Does Not Need A Gun

    Every home in the world does not need a gun. The only reasons I think that people should have a gun in the home is if someone hunts, is a cop, or part of the military. Other than those reasons, there is no point of having a gun in your house. It is unsafe.

  • No every home should not own a gun.

    I think more guns leads to more unnecessary violence. Guns should not be giving to anyone unless they go through an psychological evaluation and some classes to teach you how to properly use a gun, and where you can carry your gun also places where you should never bring your gun. We need to be more cautious on who give gun permits.

  • More Guns Equals More Deaths

    Every home in America should not have a gun. We need to stop and rethink the whole idea of the right to bear arms concept in the United States. People should start putting money spent on guns, and put that towards their educations.

    First of all, more is not better in this case. Most people who buy firearms aren't properly trained to use them. They don't know how to properly secure their weapons. This causes unneeded tragedies, because children have access to them. And, gun owners don't gain more security with a gun, they gain more paranoia. It creates more and inevitable danger in the household.

    I think that gun sales in the U.S. need to be highly justified. Not only the cool off, or wait time (Brady Law), but there needs to be proof of gun safety and proficiency course that are taken, in order to purchase the weapon. We can't just sell guns to every day people without cause.

    Lastly, I don't think Congress used their brains with some of these gun laws. You don't need hollow point bullets (exploding) to kill deer, you don't need them to kill anything, a regular bullet will do the job by itself. Those should be banned totally. They didn't think logically when making the laws. Plain and simple.

    All of this extra money that we spend on guns and bullets should go into educating our children. Educate them to use common sense, like locking doors, so that thefts don't happen. We could pay our teachers more then.

    A gun in every home is just going to create an unwanted militia, and headaches for everyone all around.

  • Guns should never be in a house, unless it's in a safe and with a lock.

    I dont agree with guns, it leads to violence, killing innocent people. This is the only country that has the most school shootings and more violence with guns. People that need medical help and that are unstable should not have a gun, people should not sell guns to every single person that walks in. Also they should have more control on who buys guns permit, they should not be allowed to give gun permits to mentally -handicapped people. Even children can play with guns, when the guns are not safely stored and locked. The children can shoot themselves or other people by accident because the parents were not being safe and did not think of what could happen, when they didn't secure the guns. People simply should not own guns, it just leads to violence, killing, and suffering of losses.

  • Guns are dangerous

    If every home had a gun robbers would carry theirs around with them and if the home owner had his gun out and met the robber one of the two would die so the death rates would rise conciabrlly
    and if you leave a gun out a kid could grab it and acdently shoot his friend in a game.

  • There are some homes that should not be allowed any type of weapons.

    Lets be honest we all know people who we could not trust alone with a stove or oven, it should be obvious that giving them a gun they will shoot their eye out. With domestic violence, people with more and more anger issues, and self-medicated mentally unstable people we need to keep guns out of most houses. There will always be people who act responsible and have common sense, but given a dangerous weapon will find a way to hurt themselves in the process.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-03-06T15:45:14.727
Part of the last comment I read above is indicative of the general ignorance about firearms.
The author states "you don't need hollow point bullets (exploding) to kill deer" etc.
The matter of what exactly "hollow point, soft point, ballistic tip etc. means, is not something I'm going to get into a long monlogue about, but I must correct the genaral assumption. Bullets designed to expand on contact and entry into the body cavity of their relevant quarry species do not "explode". They are designed to expand, more or less rapidly, so as to deliver their stored energy to the animal being hunted, so that it can be brought quickly to bag and not run off to be lost and possibly suffer a lingering and painfull death. They are in fact required by law to be used for stalking deer in the UK, for this very reason and are therefore necessary.
Very light and very high velocity bullets designed to be used for small, so called "varmint" or pest species, if used inappropriately on larger quarry can shatter on the larger animals thicker skin and therefore appear to explode. An extreme example might be the use of a high velocity, light round on an elephant, whose thick hide would not allow the projectile to penetrate before expansion took place.
No-one but an incompetent idiot would use the latter round on an elephant as quite apart from any issue of infringement of the law and possible unnecessary inflicted injury, the perpetrator would probably be trampled by a rather angry elephant.
The benefit of the lighter rounds is the delivery of a quick and humane kill when used on appropriate quarry species.
Anonymous says2013-09-20T16:38:04.153
What most of the commentators seem to be unaware of or are ignoring are some of the very pertinent statistics which demonstrate that more guns often mean less violent crime.
Criminals are likely to think twice if they have reason to believe that their intended victims might shoot, or shoot back. American states where the carrying of sidearms was permitted after previously not being allowed have shown significant decreases in violent crimes, including attacks on women, with for example recorded cases of rape being prevented, because the intended victim was armed. Most frequently no-one was injured, because no firearm was discharged; the mere threat of pistol aided defence being enough to deter the perpetrator. (This is the effect demonstrated comically in the Crocodile Dundee film where he says something like "you call that a knife" etc.) It's an amusing scene in the movie, but is not unrealistic. I knew someone years ago, who habitually carried a sword stick (illegally I'm afraid), who had only to partly unsheath it to deter would be attackers from their intended armed (with a knife not a gun) assault.
Guns used to perpetrate crimes are generally used by law breakers, who don't give a damn about any law introduced to limit firearms ownership and are able to aquire weapons, regardless of any restrictions placed in the way of legal aquisition.

The worst cases of the abuse of firearms are perhaps those which involve some deranged person going on the rampage and attacking innocent persons, either in public as has recently been reported or in schools as we've seen in recent years.
While I don't necessarily advocate more general firearms possesion, there is a case to be made that had a competent armed person been available when some of the reported attacks in schools took place, the toll of dead and injured might have been, at the very least, reduced.
This view is supported by the fact that large numbers of teachers aquired sidearms and attended firearms training in the aftermath of one or more of the highly publicised shool shootings in America.

It would certainly be a better world if firearms were not used to commit crimes and inflict death and misery on people. The fact though is that we have no hope of removing them entirely from circulation. Pandoras Box so to speak has been opened and it's context cannot be locked away again.

Some firearms are usefull and necessary tools, while others provide genuine recreation and competition, whether this is in the context of Olympic competition, competitive or recreational clayshooting, target shooting of innumerable sorts or even hunting, about which there could be another debate.

The question which has started this string of responses is clearly loaded. Even a person of pretty slow wit would have to consider that some homes are inhabited by dingbats who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a firearm, so the response has to be No. But if one were to ask should every person who is not a dingbat (chose whatever adjective you think fits) have the right to aquire a firearm, the response might be a bit different.