• As a New Zealander, I find America's usage of guns disgusting. Remove guns from both sides. Police misuse it too.

    Nothing good comes from the barrel of a gun. To restrict further the use of guns in USA will bring a lot of good to it, I'd be glad to hear of more gun restriction. Or at the very least, better background checks before you can get one. This is a no-brainer for me.

  • Yes for gun control

    It is time for America to opt for reasonable gun control and ban all military kind of weapons from society. We already have 300 million guns, so we don't need more guns. And a gun more likely to harm one than defend one, so all the talk about guns making us safer is just nonsense.

    Japan and Canada are much safer compared to the United States, after banning guns.

  • No to Full gun control

    I do not agree with full gun control. But people who have a gun should go through phycological background checks to insure that the individuals that have legal access of a gun are not a dangerous individual and i would also agree to making stricter penalties of selling guns illegally.

  • At least have more restriction to as who can buy one.

    Any lunatic could drive up to their local gun store, buy an AK-47, and decide to go shoot up a school for fun. It would just be better if there were more restrictions to who can own a gun and who can not. Have the customers go through a background check, make sure they are mentally stable enough to know right from wrong. And people shouldn't be able to carry firearms into stores. No one would feel safe and/or comfortable if a person just walked into a Walmart with a visible handgun out and ready to be shot.

  • Taser, or a Stun Gun is Just Effective As A Bullet

    The instant you purchase a gun, you are now 30 times more likely to accidently injure, or kill yourself than defend yourself. I believe America should limit the usage of guns to military personel, and police officers. In our current day and age, you can walk down to your big-box retailer, and purchase a gun capeable of ending the lives of hundreds. If you are concerned for your (or your family's) safety, purchase a non-lethal weapon (a.K.A: stun guns, tazers, knockout rounds, or even a baton). These weapons will incapacitate an intruder just as well as shooting him, but you are out of harm's way if you accidently hurt yourself or others.

  • I don't know

    Everyone wants to feel safe, so they get a gun to protect themselves and their mentally unstable son takes it and shoots up the school. This is the case with most school shootings. But if you take away the guns, then people can't defend themselves. This argument is a dead end. My conclusion is, I don't own a gun so I don't care.

  • More gun control is needed.

    I understand the argument that one needs the ability to protect themselves. But in a society where there is no war, the only ones you are trying to protect yourselves from is your own society. If you don't trust your society that much you should leave it.
    I understand the argument that it is the people that kill people and not the guns. And you're right, just like how it is not the knives that kill people, it is the people. But the big problem with guns is that it kills people too easily. It makes taking a life as simple as pulling a trigger - without thought. If you remove as much guns from your community as possible it is going to stop countless deaths because although it is not going to stop those who want to harm people, it is going to make it a lot harder for them to do so.
    Also, assuming that this is referring to American society, the countless school shootings in the past should have been enough to convince everyone that gun control was needed - especially when the elementary school was targeted. A perfect representation of what should of happened in America is what happened in Australia.
    After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 they said enough was enough and they brought in gun control. As a result, not a single massacre has occurred since and the amount of deaths that have occurred from guns each year has lowered dramatically.

  • Guns are Given Out Like Party Favors (Quiteong Problematic)

    The possession of a gun is one of the most serious offices man has created for itself. One may believe in an afterlife, however, once life is taken there is no restoration, or return to our corporeal existence. Guns themselves pose a small threat, like any other inanimate object, but as we know: man is the dangerous animal. In The United States of America, one has the ability to purchase a gun with ease. Simply lie on few documents, put down a signature, and voila, you are the proud owner of a new firearm. Guns belong to ought to be

  • America showing that they're gone in the head

    The UK police and citizens have no guns and we're all happy. America just go power mad yet they're irrelevant in the world of sport and anything competitive. If you ask me, I am glad most of the world isn't like America or it would be a racist, uneducated world that is a laughing stock.

  • We need it!!!

    Without gun control, people will go shooting others, because there is no control and no limits to who can have a gun. Better background checks are needed to those who buy a gun. This is why I think we as us citezins need to have a lot more gun control

  • We should have less gun control.

    I don't feel safe unless I know the people around me are packing. That way, if some chucklehead shows up to commit a crime, *BLAM!* Ka-dead. Or they will be discouraged from shooting at people, me included. Also, nothing stops contraband guns already. Taking more guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is an outright disaster.

  • Why Do You?

    OK, let's be honest, guns don't kill people, people kill people; gun, knife, bat, fire, car...They are all innocent, the person is the culprit.

    Understanding this, for those wanting more gun control, why? What will it solve? If we place more controls on firearms, do you really think these criminals who break the law are going to respect this new law? Do you think the Mexican cartels will just stop trafficking firearms over the border?

  • We probably shouldn't

    Guns in america save 400,000 lives a year (cdc) so banning guns would result in us loosing an extra half a million lives. We would also see a rise in rape, robbery ect as guns are used almost 1million times a year to prevent crime.
    as for banning certain types of guns but not all i still say no as criminals wont obey the law and will be the only ones to obtain those types of guns.

  • Police have guns

    The only way to make the streets safer would be to make guns illegal entirely and in that senirio the police wouldn't have guns there would be no need for the common criminal to posses a gun.But since that would never happen as the bill of rights is the basis to our country, gun control is completely pointless all it will do is give the criminals guns and the law abiding citizens will have no way of protecting them self.

  • Crime would raise

    Gun controll takes away the rights of americans. Not to menchin terrorists can still get guns from other people who dont have a criminal record. Plus guns dont kill people. People kill people. Taking away guns from people will eliminate self defense and i think crime and death in america would rise substantially.

  • No, It hasn't been working

    The gun control laws haven't been working, so why bother with congress to barely pass a law that isn't going to work anyways? Many of the mass shootings in America have happened in "gun-free zones." They shouldn't even be called that considering how many people have guns in the zones, especially the ones who cause the mass shootings. Criminals aren't going to follow the gun control laws anyways, hence them being criminals. Plus, the Right to Bear Arms should be more active, so people can defend themselves and stop more mass shooting. People saying that gun control will help are idiots because they aren't thinking logically. Even if laws were passed, people would still get guns. With these laws, come more chances for shooting to go mass, due to the fact that no one can defend Themselves and stop the attacker from killing more lives, or killing altogether for the matter. It disgust me how many people are so blank in the mind to see that IT ISN'T WORKING!

  • The Right for an Individual to Arm Themselves in a Republic Is Essential to the Perseverance of that Institution

    The protection of a nation has historically been a job prescribed to the military of that nation, with good reason. The general idea is to arm people on a lower level to protect internal affairs. This is the concept of the police officer. But, it must be asked: what is to happen when the police either cannot protect you or are the active party pursuing the intent to harm you? Article XVI of the Declaration of the Rights of Man states that any nation that does not divide powers up equally is not permissible. What people seem to miss from this (and from Thomas Paine's Rights of Man) is that the division of power relies on the individual citizen to do the right thing, and in this we need to entrust the citizens of a Republic to own and use a most basic and fundamental assurance of POWER- the power of might. By no means is this a "might makes right" argument, but the individual citizen must have at least some avenue of might in their possession, and the most modern of those avenues are firearms. Yes, even "assault" weapons, or weapons not necessarily meant for home defense. Manufacturing intent has absolutely nothing to do with the intent of the user.

    The vast minority of individuals who use guns to harm others in a manner unrelated to the defense of self often overshadows those citizens in a Republic which do not use their firearms for such purposes at all. Those people are rightfully abhorred. Dylann Roof, Eric Harris, etc. But their actions do not overshadow mine. Firearm proliferation is the issue, poor education is the issue, and improper mental health is the issue. I am a vegetarian; I do not cry for the banning of hunting rifles. Because I use them. I own them in case of my endangerment.

    Also, guns are VERY fun.

  • Even if guns are illegal people will find a way to get them anyway.

    It has happened over and over in our history. No many how many restraints we put someone will get a hold of it. It might decrease the amount of crimes but it will also take away the protection of others. Just like the ban on acholol in the 1920s (which falled miserably) and illegalization of drugs. There will always be poeple who find a way to cheat the government one way or another.

  • Sure let's take away their guns

    While we're at it let's take away anything else that could be used as a weapon. No more using a knife to eat or playing baseball with a bat because those are dangerous weapons that will hurt others. Let's also take away the equipment used by color guard in high school and college because those look like guns, and [insert deity here] forbid our children ever hear the word gun.

  • If you were to take

    Chicago, LA, Detriot; cleveland, ect... Out of America - we'd have a murder rate more inline with European countries. The ironic thing is, those are places in america with the most gun control. So no, i don't think it helps. If anything it makes it more difficult for the law abiding to protect themselves. The media really loves to harp on mass shootings, which cause copy cats to do the same atrocious acts. If you look at how many people die from mass shootings(150 people on average a year) it's statistically insignificant, but the media goes into full 24/7 swing on the issue. I think it's more sad that the media glorifies these incidences than the actually incidences themselves, because it causes others to want to do the same, thus causing more mass shootings.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-12-13T14:13:13.140
@Everyone on the "Yes" side (voting for more gun control) -- Did you know that recent statistical analyses show that crime, including violent crime, gun crime and even gun related homicides have been on a steady decline since the expiration of the national "Assault Weapons Ban" in 2004...Well that is, of course, unless you reside in (or pull your data from) "Gun Free Zones". || Point #1: That's right, we already applied a ban on so-called "Assault Weapons", using mass, sweeping definitions for bans during the Clinton Era presidency; from 1994 - 2004, crime rose, including violent crime. Conversely, starting at the conclusion of the national "Assault Weapons Ban" in 2004, crime rates have steadily dropped, including violent crimes and gun related homicides; even those stubborn gun control advocates, including politicians, acknowledge these statistics are true and valid. || Point #2: Point of clarification and more precise decimation of facts, data and statistics; Gun "Approved" zones as well as states allowing the purchase and use of so-called "Assault Weapons" have steadily declining crime rates including decreasing gun related homicide numbers...While...You guessed it...Gun free zones as well as more heavily regulated (including gun bans) have increasing crime rates including rising gun related homicide numbers and mass shooting events. || What do you think about that bit of fact?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-12-13T14:17:12.387
The word ** "decimation" ** on my previous comment should be ** "dissemination" ** || My apologies there, I forgot to turn off auto correct there.