Let's get the facts down.
#1 less than .01% of gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners (about half of those crimes don't even involve a gun being used to threaten someone)
#2 about 75% of murder victims are CRIMINALS in the first place because of their high risk lifestyles. Why should guns be banned from good citizens because people live crime filled lives and ultimately die because of their involvement in crime? Criminologists say living a crime filled lifestyle drastically increases the chance of death.
#3 the constitution guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bare arms.
#4 Guns are the best tool for self defense and good citizens should be allowed to use them for defense.
#5 Neither the government, nor other people have the right to tell responsible and law abiding citizens they can't own guns or certain kinds of guns.
If I want a gun, ill have a gun. I'm a good, trustworthy citizen who minds his own business and doesn't go around telling other people what they can own. Besides, you anti gunners are hypocritical. You want to ban guns to save lives but wouldn't dare consider banning alcohol to prevent drunk driving deaths. Basically, to the anti gunner, ban everything they don't like, but don't take away things they like.
Americans have owned guns since before this country was founded. In colonial times, almost everyone owned one. Did we see people running around shooting up schools and committing other atrocities? No. We did not. This should tell you something. The problem isn't with guns. It's a people problem. It's a reflection of our societal values. Even if you COULD take away everyone's gun, there are still knives and blunt objects. You would not see a significant decrease in homicides. If someone really wants you dead, they'll find a way. It isn't that difficult to push someone in front of a speeding truck. You can also claim it was an accident. So, quit blaming inanimate objects and deal with the real problem.
There is a legitimate crime problem here in America. Hence why 100s of millions of Americans choose to own firearms. Not to mention all the sporting activities that involve firearms. As far as stats go, guns are used in self defence more often than crime. 500,000 to 9,000. It's pretty clear
WHat if the zombies invaded? What would we do then? Punch them? This idea of taking away guns is silly, All we need is responsible people, Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill ZPeople. We need to just let those who are responsible have guns and ban criminals from having guns.
How will you protect yourself? By voting? Most likely that will guarantee nothing that truly keeps you safe, but we all will never be safe as long as voting the correct party is our safety net. Is your safety determined by your vote? Can you keep yourself safe? NO. None of us are safe.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow the American people to be able to defend themselves from a corrupt government. If they take away our guns what are we suppose to do to defend ourselves? Go at them with knives like maniacs? What if a foreign government invaded and our military somehow couldn't resist? We the people will resist if we have guns.
All the argument you need really. Plus if stupid people or criminals get hold of guns they just kill themselves quicker, and so everyone wins. Lets not forget that there are already laws against the mentally ill or criminals owning guns. It all comes down to whether or not those laws are well enforced.
The concept of the "responsible gunman" is as silly as the concept of the "responsible drinker". The more weapons you put out there the more people who are plotting horrific things can buy them even with no previous signs of instability or criminal activity.
Removal of resources prevents spread of and abuse of resources. While I am not against gun ownership itself the idea that it's somehow a good thing is completely false; the fewer weapons you have in circulation whether "legal or illegal" the fewer problems you have; weapons are stolen, bought legally and sold illegally, or even just outright sold/given off the grid through transitions like inheritance and while we talk about that crazy guy a lot of weapons are just handed to people without any stringent laws or restrictions; cutting corners is as easy as getting someone in power to vouch for you or to sign a few dotted lines in a dishonest manner and just never have a strong enough background check.
Human systems are simply not efficient at safeguarding weapons management. The way I see it is simple: "If terrorists can get their hands on WMDs with the world watching what exactly stops you from just sneaking your way into getting a local firearm?"
I mean I can buy one. I should not be able to buy one but I can. I'm friggin' crazy.
Let's set the base. In a world where firearms are currently not allowed to be owned by private citizens, this is what I think:
Private citizens who want to own them can come up with all sorts of reasons ranging from 'it's just for self-defence' to 'I'm a collector'. Those who believe otherwise would say 'it's dangerous for everyone else who don't'.
This said, people will doubt each other's intentions. So are you really owning firearms to attack or defend? If you own it to attack, I should own it to defend, and someone else will own it to defend from my non-existent attack. Its a chicken and egg sort of thing. Will possessing firearms lead to chaos or will not possessing firearms lead to chaos? Peoples' intentions are subjective so I don't have the answer, but I can bet that if such a law is passed, pretty soon you'll have people competing to own firearms.
The only real solution is to trust in others because this whole issue is due to lack of trust. The chicken-egg cycle can work the other way too. Trust that people keep firearms for self defence, then people wouldn't need to keep firearms at all. Can you bring yourself to trust others?
Well, trust is hard to come by, and therefore this is a rather difficult 'yes' or 'no' opinion. But I'll swim on the side of hope —though goodness knows I've been proven otherwise— and trust in humanity.
Besides, if I'm voting this point, I can't possibly say otherwise, can I?