Amazon.com Widgets

Should states give residents free guns to reduce crime?

  • that's the best idea so far

    Statistic show that crime is higher in places with gun control laws, and low where they are not. Don't take my word for it look it up. If more people would stick up for them selves and stop crying in a corner about how they are the victim it would really help this world out.

  • The most gun violence is in heavy gun control states

    Murders may have a slight spike (predominantly self defense), but crime would go down across the board. Knowing the potential victim has a gun and may well defend themselves with lethal force is a heavy deterrent. Think: A lack of low-hanging fruit.

    That said, residents should already be able to own a gun legally.

  • Giving people guns won't reduce the crime rate.

    To reduce crime, you must eliminate the cause of it. Giving people free guns isn't going to help lower crime rates at all, and even if you do a background check, guns still may fall into criminals' hands. The devil was once an angel. Anyone can turn into a criminal, and it just takes a change in mind.

    Posted by: sigh
  • No, states should not give residents free guns.

    No, I do not believe that residents receiving free guns from the state would reduce crime. I believe that residents should want to buy guns, and not be forced to have one from a state entity. Guns will get in the hands of criminals no matter what, and citizens owning guns will not put a dent in the reduction of gun violence.

  • No unless the state also provides classes for it

    Now to start I am very pro second amendment and also naturalized US sitizen who got his sitizenship by serving US military in OIF. I believe in fundomental right of able to have weapons for personal protection and protection against both government, criminals, and wild life. BUT... There is huge responsiblity when it comes to owning firearms. Met so many people in my life who buy firearms just to be either "gangsta wonnabes" just to take pictures with it and pretend to be Billy Badasses to someone who pretty much wants to "Play with Fire" and doing things that very very reckless with them... Like shooting beer cans off their house porch in the backyard or shooting weapons in the air while being drunk.
    With such great power of firearms comes great responsiblity and everyone I believe who wishes or have to own firearm have to have mandatory safety knowledge about them. The reason for that is because accidental shooting fatalities seem to be the second high on the list of gun fatalities after suicides when it comes to firearms. This shows that some people are too reckless with firearms.

    Thus I have to say no unless with those weapons issued by the state there will also be mandatory safety class.

  • Not at all.

    While I think that this is a very interesting idea, there is far too much at stake and way too much liability for the state to hand out guns to people left and right. If such a gun were used in a crime, the state itself could be sued for their actions.

  • States “Should Not” Give Citizens Guns

    This thought is almost too ridiculous to even offer credence to as a platform for argument. Issuing the citizens “free” guns is going to somehow deter crime? Again, the profound ignorance in which the words echo should be adequate to cause the rational individual to cringe. This is not a question of whether the 2nd amendment should remain intact as it is written; that we should by law, have the “right” to bear arms, but an assertion that we would somehow be better protected against criminals if the state issued everyone free guns. Want to start a revolution? Maybe arm each citizen if that’s your objective, but otherwise? I cannot even believe the insanity of the proposal.


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