I see everybody keeps saying "2nd Amendment" this, "2nd Amendment" that. You're looking at something that was adopted in 1791. Ladies and Gentlemen... we live in the 21st century, it should be about time that we do something about old rules. The 2nd Amendment and the "Right to bear arms" was only approved to prevent others from entering property and committing treason. A time when the "police" were not so wide spread as it is today.
Some of you say, "oh! Well if a criminal was hard enough they will find a weapon anyway!". Consider this, if a psychotic shooter saw an XM-15 Bushmaster sitting on his table, the intimidation and motivation would continue unabated. However, if such weapons were banned, motivation will dwindle as the perpetrator would need to go through many blackmarket and illegal places, which are maybe unreachable due to their lack of knowledge.
Really, if you allowed guns to be bought, you're just doing half of the criminal's job for them. All there is to do? Go and shoot somebody. Don't you see the problem there? Regulation doesn't work.
Are all of you really defending not-banning weapons, because you can spend the next few years wasting yourself over tracer and Armour-piercing bullets?
Why do you need a fully automated weapon to kill a so-called "intruder"? Isn't a pistol enough? Last I remember, there never were a company of people who broke into a single home to find some cash.
"If guns are banned, then so should abortions, smoking cigarettes, drinking soda, and frankly, the freedom of speech." The Freedom of Speech isn't something you can regulate and control. It's a definite state of mind. Yeah, I know, they stick a law up in the Constitution and say that everybody can say what they want. None of that matters if the people don't believe. Also, don't go off topic, we're talking about guns and how they affect America, not narcotics, drinking soda and smoking.
You protect yourselves with a gun at home? Are you really going to shoot a living being that walks through your door? Have you heard of ANYBODY actually needing to use a weapon as such to kill?
In summary, the idea of needing to carry a gun or bring it with you, is an old perspective. We no longer live in the 18th century, so maybe we should stop living by the rules of the 18th century. However, our opinions don't matter much to this point. Something will be done.
I think that banning guns would make my community safer because then the criminals would have to turn them in and the gangsters would have nothing to shoot each other with. I also think that there should be security cameras and full body scanners everywhere in public places to prevent mass shootings. I think that only the police should be allowed to have guns because they work for the government and the government would never abuse it's power.
Guns are a plague in the USA, i believe that they are completely wrong. The fact that i can walk into a gun shop and buy a weapon that really belongs in the army for under $1000 is complete nonsense. One of the arguments I'm hearing is this "guns don't kill people, people kill people" this is true, HOWEVER, having a gun makes it very, very easy to do so, if your assailant has a knife or club, you can at least run or reach for something to hit back with, also any injuries sustained will be relatively minor compared with a gunshot wound, it is easier and CHEAPER, to simply get some basic self defense classes, which educate you on how to defend yourself and those around you, and it is NEVER out of your reach.
Think of it this way:
WITHOUT GUN CONTROL
an assailant enters my house with a gun, i reach for my gun and shoot him, i am left with the emotional and psychological trauma that will potentially scar me for LIFE
WITH GUN CONTROL
if an assailant enters my house with a knife/bludgeoning weapon, i can (with some very BASIC training) incapacitate him/her, call the police and ask them to make an arrest, i have not wasted a life, i don't have to live with severe mental trauma.
Ban the guns, stop the crimes
As my Social Studies teacher said, "You can't fight fire with fire." What the NRA is trying to do is to deploy more firearms into this country. Most of them are obtained legally, and it has been proven that more guns in circulation will cause more homicides. When the NRA realizes that their tactic to export more guns to Americans has failed, it will be too late to stop the circulation, trade, and production of these mass-murder weapons.
Let me start out with the fact that you don't try to add to a problem to solve it. For instance, you don't try to throw more water into a flooded basement in hope that the added water will defend the furniture. Guns are responsible for over 31,000 deaths in America. In Britain, thanks to the gun ban, there are 35 people killed each year. Also, the 2nd Amendment applies to MILITIAS, not civilians. Studies show, according to the Week Magazine, that there are more cases in which people are killed by guns than saved by civilians with guns. More studies prove that when you have more gun laws that there will be less crime. For instance, in Hawaii, there are 16 laws against guns. There, there are less than 3 per 100,000 gun death a year. It is easy access to guns that cause the shootings. For instance, if you allow a mentally disturbed person to have a gun (like in Columbine) they can go out and shoot people with it. If that mentally ill person didn't have a gun, then that mass shooting wouldn't have occurred. More studies, according to Time Magazine, say that it would take more intense training than a cop to take down a killer with a gun in a public place (with many people). Besides, your not just dealing with one way firing, but CROSSFIRE, which is TWICE AS DEADLY!!! Yes, guns should be banned from civilians.
I have read with interest those of you who state that guns should not be banned because hardened criminals will still have access to them and you feel that you need to protect yourselves.
So I thought that I would do a little research on gun related violence and compare the US (where almost anyone can get a gun) with Great Britain where gun ownership is highly restricted.
In 2012 the number of gun related violent crimes per 100,000 was 10.2 or one per every 10,000 people, which based on the current population means that almost 32,000 Americans were gun crime victims.
Whereas in the UK that figure was 0.25 per 100,000 people, which works out to 147 people.
With these statistics how can you possibly use this argument? It quite simple really no guns, no gun violence.
Guns will always kill people in the streets of the US. That is why I don't chose to visit there ever again. Here, our police officers don't even have guns and we have had a mass shooting in years. Common occurrence in America though, because someone doesn't even need a machine gun. Some people just walk in with a 9mm and start shooting you. I don't feel safe in America knowing a shootout could breakout any minute and you can always hear gunshots. Have fun America
Guns don't kill people, people kill people....but guns sure make it really easy to do. The point that I think most liberals are trying to get across is that banning guns won't get rid of gun violence completely but it WILL help lower it significantly. And maybe small steps are what's really necessary such as stricter regulations and a complete ban on assault rifles. But we HAVE to move in that direction for the sake of all these horrible massacres and other gun crimes that you don't even hear about on the news.
Obviously no one who owns a gun would be happy about having their toys taken away, but we need to use common sense here. Yes, there are others ways you can kill people such as a knife so 'why would we have to take away guns?' because you can't stab people 30 people in 10 seconds or less. Mother of Pearl
I myself am not American, but In my opinion guns should be banned, or have very strict laws placed on them. I know the other side goes on about having "a right to bare arms", which is all well and good, but having studied american history, it is easy to see that the main reason guns and possibly the creed "a right to bare arms" itself existed as America was an incredibly lawless place at one time, and so people needed to have their own means of protection. But we're in the 21st century now, leave protection to those who's jobs it is to protect people, people who are well-trained like police officers etc.
Simply, America's obsession with guns is little more than paranoia and a fear of change, and while some individuals may offer compelling arguments of why the law should stay, it's undeniable that a majority are simply afraid of change.
A robber walks into a bank with a machine gun, he shouts, "Everyone get down, NOW!" But in this society, people are allowed to carry guns in their own defense. So everyone else pulls out their guns, and they reply, "How about you get on the ground?"
If guns were to be banned, criminals would just switch to knives, baseball bats, deadly drugs, hit and runs with cars, gasoline and matches, and even their own hands. More people die from being strangled and stabbed than from gun shot wounds in America. Should we ban knives too?
The most common argument: guns don't kill people, people with guns do. Oh, and they're usually bad people. Background checks should be run on anyone who wants to buy one to make sure they aren't criminal, mentally ill or have a family with criminal history.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Somebody has to physically pick up a gun for the gun to go off and shoot somebody. Humans have been using guns for over 400 years there has never been a problem that they had to ban guns. Guns are a mean of survival and protection and always will be. They should run background checks on everyone who tries to purchase a gun. They should not sell guns to people that are mentally ill or have other types mental disorders. Guns should only be sold to people that has not committed any violent crimes. This will stop a lot of gun crimes that happen in America today. Gun should be sold to people for protection and hunting.
In the second amendment it states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We have a right to bear arms and defend ourselves. People who are law abiding citizens will be left defensless, while criminals would still be armed. There are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K. Britian has tight control of guns and it hasn't done them any good. On the other hand, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000. Our rights shouldn't be abused any further.
Taking guns off the street isn't going to do a damn thing. Drugs are illegal, yet they're all over our streets. My point has been made. Obama is ruining our country and whether or not guns are controlled is not going to change the fact that there are and will continue to be shootings.
GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. They are many hit and runs in America, why shouldn't cars be banned? Guns are a part of every American's right. If you want a gun, go get one LEGALLY. It's the people who illegally get guns and fire them off in the air. I have to admit that Sandy Hook was a tragedy, but better protection against idiots like that can prevent that. If you ban guns, that will never stop people from using them. FYI: We are AMERICA not Great Britain or Canada.
People don't realize that guns will exist NO MATTER WHAT. Whether it's legal for civilians to buy them or not, they will ALWAYS exist, and criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get them. Crimes and murders will ALWAYS happen. By banning guns, you would be taking away a means of protection from legal and responsible gun owners. One thing liberals DON'T and will NEVER understand is that you CANNOT get rid of all guns. Anyone could go to the hardware store and make a makeshift gun out of pipe and go kill people with it. The problem isnt guns, its the people behind them. A gun is a few pieces of metal, it is inanimate. Plus you cant take them away because of the second amendment, so good luck!
It's funny how liberals say that banning gun reduces crime. Chicago and Washington D.C. banned guns, still they'er among the most dangerous cities in America. Guess who else banned guns? Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Mao Zedong. So if you think banning guns would help the country, then go look back on history and see how banning guns helped these people.
The data shows that the cities where guns aren't banned there is a lower number of injuries and deaths caused by guns, but in return in cities where guns are banned the number of injuries and deaths caused by it is a lot higher. In conclusion guns should be LEGAL in America. They make the citizens that have them feel safe at night when the sleep and not frightened so be killed in the middle of the night with a knife or a gun pressed against their necks!
Do people who are looking to hurt someone with guns go to police stations? Gun shows? Gun shops? Places with armed guards? No, simply because they know that GOOD people with guns are going to stop them from hurting anyone. I am not saying give everyone guns. I am saying train people to handle guns safely. Guns are a tool. If used in an improper manner, they can hurt people. Example - a hammer is a tool, as well, and it has one purpose, to drive a nail into wood. When someone uses a hammer improperly, it can hurt someone. Guns are the same way. Without proper training, I or someone else could hurt many people, including myself. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.
Fire arms should not be banned . I know that some people use them to kill others, but I use fire arms to hunt wildlife for food. I was told " guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people". They should not ban guns for everyone, just for those who use them wrongly.