Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes Guns Should Be Banned From People

    Should Guns Be Illegal To Be Sold And To Be Used By Citizens


    Here’s My Opinion;
    Yes. Guns are way too dangerous for Citizens to be using. To many people are dieing form these guns. Only police, Army Soldiers and other Police Force should only be using guns because they are using it for are safety. What should we do next for hunting or for safety. Use bow and arrows, knifes, or pepper spray. They kill people slower so they can get to the hospital and for safety. Guns are not the reason people are dieing it's the people who are using it. People who sells Guns can’t sell guns to Republicans. Actually they shouldn’t be selling them at all. If guns are illegal to be used or to be sold/selling people will be less killed and can be more safer. In Cleveland there are lots of shootings there. If we change ohio’s laws Cleveland can be a much safer place at nighttime and daytime. Kids and people can walk a lot more freely.

  • A Travesty Against Life

    Guns are a very easy way to kill other people. Think of all of the massacres of modern war. The culprit (other than war): guns. We should restrict guns like we restrict methamphetamine, if not more. Guns are a lot better at killing others than drugs, so we should be just as tough on them.

  • Guns provide protection.

    Guns are very useful for protection and for those who say they should be illegal ill be laughing when you die from a home invasion and a guy shoots you with a gun before you can stab him with your screw driver lololololo lololo lo lo lo l ol o lo l o

  • http://gunssavelives.net/browse-stories/ guns save lives

    http://gunssavelives.net/browse-stories/ If you are for banning guns than please read some of these stories. Guns are used for self defense all the time and banning them would take away protection for millions of people. Criminals will get them anyways like they do drugs and other illegal things so banning guns would only stop law abiding citizens from owning them and well have unarmed defenseless good guys and armed criminals. Eve without a gun a criminal can overpower a week victim.

  • Is this even a poll?

    If citizens do not have the right to protect themselves, then why do the police have the right to protect us. Police are citizens, so what distinguishes us from them? It is a human made hierarchy, people have the right to bear arms and to protect ourselves, other people don't have the right to protect us without our consent. And police recently have shown that they can't be trusted with it, they are killing people at rates that are unacceptable, and you want to give them guns? Screw that.

    Another thing, increased gun ownership has shown an obvious correlation with crime rate. As increased gun ownership goes up, crime rates go down. Look at Switzerland or Iceland. Increased gun ownership per 100,000 persons, and their crime rates are extremely low. Then on the contrast, look at Mexico and Ireland, even the Brits, they have seen increasing crime rates as stricter regulations and stricter laws are enforced. Mexico has very low gun ownership but has 9.97 per 100,000 people while america has only 2.97 per 100,000 per year. That's on average 7 less people per year per 100,000 people. Crime rates have also decreased since the 80's but we don't focus on that do we?

    Guns are not the problem. Media is the problem, but I don't see you trying to ban media.

  • Is this even a poll?

    If citizens do not have the right to protect themselves, then why do the police have the right to protect us. Police are citizens, so what distinguishes us from them? It is a human made hierarchy, people have the right to bear arms and to protect ourselves, other people don't have the right to protect us without our consent. And police recently have shown that they can't be trusted with it, they are killing people at rates that are unacceptable, and you want to give them guns? Screw that.

    Another thing, increased gun ownership has shown an obvious correlation with crime rate. As increased gun ownership goes up, crime rates go down. Look at Switzerland or Iceland. Increased gun ownership per 100,000 persons, and their crime rates are extremely low. Then on the contrast, look at Mexico and Ireland, even the Brits, they have seen increasing crime rates as stricter regulations and stricter laws are enforced. Mexico has very low gun ownership but has 9.97 per 100,000 people while america has only 2.97 per 100,000 per year. That's on average 7 less people per year per 100,000 people. Crime rates have also decreased since the 80's but we don't focus on that do we?

    Guns are not the problem. Media is the problem, but I don't see you trying to ban media.

  • Not really, IMO

    If you outlawed them, they could be bought in a black market or bought online. Plus, what about those who live off hunting? Should they be forced to live in jail? Also, there are irresponsible cops. Also, they are very good for defense. To borrow a quote, a call to 911 is 17 minutes, but a .22 is 375 feet per second. Which would save you first?

  • Who obeys the law?

    You know what else they should make illegal? Things like theft and murder. Surely if they made them illegal, bad people would stop doing them, right? Oh wait, they are illegal and people still do them.
    There are two basic types that have guns. Those who would use them to break the law and those that wouldn't. If they made owning guns illegal, who do you think would obey that law? Do you think that someone who plans on using his/her gun to commit a crime would turn it in? Look at it from another perspective. If you were about to commit murder, what are you more worried about, getting arrested for murder or getting caught with an illegal weapon?
    If they did make guns illegal, obviously the only people who would turn them in would be those who have no plans of a crime. Not only do those who plan on committing a crime still have guns, but now it is less likely that their intended victim has one. In other words, a law like that would just make things worse.
    Let me guess, we should stop the importation of them so the bad guys can't get any more, right? Kind of how they make it illegal for drugs to get into the country. How well is that going?

  • No, Absolutely Not

    Guns should be available to the public for the purpose of provision, self defense, and recreation. The police are a response team, rather than a protective force, and response times can range from 2 to 20 minutes. Personal protection from imminent danger falls to the individual, and firearms are the most effective tool for such measure. If any type of civilian restrictions are to be passed I would support closing the background checks loopholes and requiring shooter certifications, but banning guns from citizen use would only leave a great number of people defenseless.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Vox_Veritas says2015-10-11T17:41:04.710
People but police force?