Amazon.com Widgets
  • Americans would never suffer 33000 deaths a year

    From a preventable illness, yet they will when it comes to those shiny guns.
    I ask the same question of each and every firearm advocate out there. What is the number of gun deaths are you comfortable with and how many before you start to think something should be done?
    Obviously its more than 33000 otherwise you would not continue with the same lame ass reasons to keep the status quo as it is.

  • Yes, mass shootings in America have gotten out of control; we need regulations on firearms.

    Without stricter gun control legislation, mass shootings in America are only going to get more numerous. It has been allowed to reach the appalling point of becoming America's new normal; instead of feeling shocked when we hear about a mass shooting, we feel only resigned and sad. A lack of gun control has made it far too easy for guns to fall into the hands of terrorists, criminals, and other dangerous people, leading to massacres like the ones in Newtown, Orlando, and Virginia Tech, among many many many others. We need to follow Australia's lead and ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines or risk watching America's melting pot transform into a river of blood.

  • Yes, lawmakers should pass legislation that makes it harder to get firearms

    Yes, lawmakers should pass legislation that makes it harder to get firearms. There is something wrong with the fact that guns are so easy to get in this country. In order to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands, lawmakers should pass legislation which makes these firearms much harder to get. This will help to keep people safe.

  • Lawmakers should pass gun control legislation

    Lawmakers should pass gun control legislation making it more difficult to obtain firearms. The Second Amendment includes a part about a well regulated militia. These does not apply to individuals. People do not have a need for semi-automatic weapons. Arming people does not make society safer, but will increase deaths, including those from accidents.

  • Yes, it is essential that gun control legislation be enacted

    The argument for 2nd Amendment rights to bar any legislation regarding gun control is, to put it mildly, nonsensical. With more gun crimes than any other developed nation, the United States is clearly in dire need of regulation on the use and purchase of firearms. Legislation would protect innocent citizens while still enabling law abiding citizens to own the weapons they desire--just with some oversight and a longer time frame.

  • Americans can't be trusted with guns

    Americans are like rabbits as soon as something or someone spooks them they reach for a firearm. American would rather give up there house and children just to keep there firearm.Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.

  • Guns are not protecting as many people as they are killing

    To say that the UK is stricter on gun control than the US would be a massive understatement. The US roughly six times the size of the UK but had a firearms homicide rate 160 times higher. Why because the people in the UK did not need to defend themselves from criminals with guns by also having guns because guns were no where near as prevalent, why, because they have stricter gun control

  • If you want firearms to protect yourself, think about why you need to.

    Shootings in America are getting more common. A lot of people respond to this by saying that gun control ought not to be increased in order for them to carry around safety. That's a flawed argument. Their response shouldn't be to shoot someone else; it should be to take that person's gun away. Remove the threat completely instead of risking it just to feel better.

    And to those that protest by saying that current laws aren't working (so there's no point enforcing them!), you're half arguing against yourself. If the current laws aren't working, you don't drop them or ignore them, you improve them.

  • Yes to more Gun Control

    The American government should make it much harder to get a gun, it’s just too easy to get one. Take Japan for example, guns their can only be used for research and competition and nothing else. With the heavy regulations, gun related crime is at an all-time low there.

    Having this or regulations like Japan or similar to those of the U.K. and Norway (which are strict but not as strict) would make the U.S. better, for everyone.

  • No. Not at all.

    If you've ever bought a gun than you would know that it isn't exactly easy. I urge you rather than just listening to the media who is constantly trying to shove their "gun control" narrative down your throat, to go and actually try to buy a gun. I think that you will find it is slightly more difficult than you would think.

    The Second Amendment doesn't just give us the right to bear arms, it says that right "Shall not be infringed". Letting the government create "gun control" laws is doing just that, infringing on our rights. And once we open the door to letting the government do that, theres no saying where they'll stop. Freedom comes at a cost, you may not like that cost, but I guarantee it's far better than the cost of any unfree country.

  • Laws don't help.

    Maybe they should make it illegal to murder others. Oh wait, it already is. You see, if you are planning on killing someone, you have no regard for the law in the first place. The only people who be effected by gun laws would be those not planning on murder.

  • NO to infringement of our rights

    The question should really be stated more clearly.

    Should legislation be passed to make it harder for non criminal, law abiding citizens to get a firearm? No, absolutely not. What would that solve? Nothing. Why would anyone willingly give up a right provided to us in the constitution? I should not have to pose an argument for why I want a firearm when we the people already have the right to purchase one.

    On the other hand, NON citizens or convicted felons with (violent) priors should not be able to legally purchase a firearm. Vendors also have the right to refuse sale to suspicious persons.

  • No he shouldn't

    Fire arms should be easier to get, people need to defend themselves and the government has no right to infringe our civil liberties. In Switzerland guns are really easy to get, yet they have 42 homicides a ear out of the whole nation, while Brittan made them illegal and they have 658 homicides a year, so which one reduces crime? Disarming your population or respecting peoples civil liberties.

  • Nope nope nope

    No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

  • History says no...

    History has shown us that sovereign institutions created by men (monarchs, republics, churches) inevitably oppress their constituents. The only way to reliably reap the advantages of these institutions is to ensure the constituents *always* have a way to dismantle and rebuild them. The more power you give to the institution the more painful the rebuilding will be. Individual arms have thus far been the most reliable way to handle such a dismantling. Is it a pretty thing to watch? No. Is it a comfortable topic to discuss? Not for most people. But could it be necessary again? Absolutely. And the alternative is far worse.

  • No to disenfranchising those who need protection most.

    Just like poll taxes and literacy tests disproportionately impacted minorities, individuals with less education, and individuals with lower incomes, so do the requirements placed on owning and purchasing a firearm. The individuals who need firearms the most are those that need the ability to defend themselves and their property in high crime, low income neighborhoods, and individuals who are part of minorities likely to be the target of a hate crime. Requiring more time, money, and effort from all Americans to obtain a firearm disproportionately impacts the individuals who are at the highest risk of being targeted for a violent, property, or hate crime.

  • Do the current laws in place actually work that well.

    Besides the very obvious "do criminals actually follow laws?" and "the law abiding will be hurt the most." we have come to see that these laws tend to not effect the current efficiency of what the laws hope to enact upon their area. What is happening upon this place is politicians wanting their name upon something, to embody themselves into history.

  • Do the current laws in place actually work that well.

    Besides the very obvious "do criminals actually follow laws?" and "the law abiding will be hurt the most." we have come to see that these laws tend to not effect the current efficiency of what the laws hope to enact upon their area. What is happening upon this place is politicians wanting their name upon something, to embody themselves into history.

  • It will only hurt law abiding.

    With 300,000,000 guns in this country you really think some "feel good" laws are going to stop criminals? Face it, we're a country built around firearms. It's how we took this country, and how we kept it. I'm not going to debate the past or morals and ethics. The laws that liberals propose just aren't logical. Law abiding citizens should be allowed to take on the responsibility that a firearms offers to protect themselves.


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