Amazon.com Widgets

Should the U.S. pass laws expanding gun rights in the wake of recent tragedies?

  • Citizens have the right to respond to a threat on their lives and the lives of others with force.

    The argument that more guns would not have helped in any of these situations doesn't make sense. A gun in the hand of a teacher at Sandy Hook or a movie goer in Aurora shooting would have only given the people there a better chance to defend themselves. Now I'm not saying that it would've for sure stopped these things from happening but instead of being victims they would have at least had a chance to protect and save themselves and others instead of being murdered by a maniac. Without an equalizer (the gun) these people can only cower, try to rush the shooter in vain, or try and run for it without getting shot in the back. The gun lets them respond to the threat with force. It's a person's only real chance to help save others. The cops don't try to rush shooters unarmed, they draw their service weapon and respond with equal or greater force to resolve the conflict. Citizens should have this right too.

  • Gun free zones and disarmed citizens are sitting ducks.

    Look, even the head of Interpol is pondering the effects an armed citizenry would have had on a situation like the mall massacre in Nairobi, Kenya.

    "Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?" Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed."

    http://abcnews.Go.Com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?Id=20637341

    In the last 10 years, the American people have voted, fought their legislators and in the case of CO, expelled 2 of them to demand their rights to keep and bear arms and to carry concealed. CCW is now the law of the land in all 50 states and people are demanding the right to exercise the RKBA in droves.

    Will a gun always save someone? Of course not, but I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.

  • Gun Control= Bullsh*t

    First off, I'd like to say that I've been around guns all my life, so I know how to use them to a great degree. So, I must say that in the past 50 years, all but one mass shooting (2011 Tucson, which could technically be considered an assassination attempt.) has occurred in a "Gun-Free Zone". These mass shooters, the moment you decide to go through with the shooting, you have decided you will commit a horrible crime. Odds are, the law is the last thing you will be worrying about. These shooters are corner campers, they're looking for an easy body count, not a shootout. So if a good guy (armed guard, bystander, etc.) launches some hot lead their way, the fantasy of an easy body count vanishes. So, would LAWS restricting LAW ABIDING citizens stop CRIMINALS? No. Would laws that gave more to the law abiding citizens help? Yes.
    Lastly, as Wayne LaPierre once said, "The ONLY thing that stops a BAD GUY with a gun is a GOOD GUY with a gun."

  • No, that's the last thing we need.

    Allowing more killing weapons to be in the hands of more people as a result of tragedies doesn't make any sense at all. We would just have every renegade out on the street ready to shoot at any leaf that blows in the wind. Only decreasing gun rights will help reduce tragedies.

  • That's absolutely the last thing we need.

    How would guns have helped in any of these situations? What would they have done to make people safer? They would have just escalated the situations and put people in more danger. More guns is not the solution to people with guns. It is just going to make all of us less safe.

  • That's absolutely the last thing we need.

    How would guns have helped in any of these situations? What would they have done to make people safer? They would have just escalated the situations and put people in more danger. More guns is not the solution to people with guns. It is just going to make all of us less safe.

  • No, that's idiotic

    But not something that hasn't been thrown around. We have had a long history of "add more guns" being the solution to making us safer despite the fact that there are so many damn guns out there is why we aren't safe. Gun companies make money whether the gun protects a home or slaughters a school, they're in the pocket of two thirds of Washington, we will never right this blatant wrong.

  • No, expanding gun rights is gun enthusiasts way of pushing back.

    The idea that gun rights should be expanded is completely ludicrous. The U.S already has some of the least stringent gun laws of all developed nations. The push for gun laws to be expanded is simply that, a push. Gun enthusiasts and supporters of the 2nd amendment came under fire in the wake of the Sandy Hook and other tragedies. It is a push pull dynamic. They were being pressured and fought against. Now, they are banded together and revitalized which make them want to continue fighting for their cause. However, this is all simply bluster and no new laws would be passed an intelligent sitting congress.

  • No, gun right should not be expanded.

    Gun rights in the United States are already quite broad, to the point where the average person pretty much has the right to own a gun. Equipping more people with guns, and various kinds of guns, would not guarantee safety. In fact, if gun laws were more lenient, it's possible that more guns would end up in the wrong hands. Thinking that self-policing, vigilante-like justice would make the world a safer place isn't very realistic. The Trayvon Martin case is a good example of why this isn't wise.

  • Unbelievably bad decision

    Yes, let's inject the problem with even more of the disease and expect that to be the cure. Gun violence occurs because it's so easy for people to get guns. Why is this point still disputed? Why do gun advocates act like laws won't matter because every single person that wants to obtain a gun illegally will know how to do so? How far have we fallen off the path of sanity that not only do we want to keep things how they are, we want even MORE guns?

    Just seeing this question raised as a possibility is unbelievable.

  • No,the U.S. does not need to expand gun rights.

    Just because there have been many recent gun tragedies,that does not mean that the U.S. government should think about expanding gun rights.There is little if any evidence to suggest that anyone with a gun could have done anything to prevent any of these tragedies.Somebody that is untrained would probably do more harm than good.

  • No, gun ownership would not have changed these occurrences.

    What the recent shooting tragedies show is how someone who is not well can easily get hold of a gun or guns, some of them meant only for military use, and wreak havoc on innocent people, including children. Saying that more people should have guns is only going to make the situation worse.

  • The U.S. should not pass laws expanding gun rights in the wake of recent tragedies.

    Clearly, the solution to the gun problem in America is not to make guns more available, but to restrict their use and sale. The solution is not to give people more guns. More availability to guns will just lead to more violence, accidents, and unplanned crimes of passion and anger.


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