States that have restricted freedoms provided by the 2nd amendment have greater violent crime. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a a good guy with a gun. Gun free zones announce to the criminal element that law abiding citizens in that area are defenseless.
*The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.*
*There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. *
*People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.*
*Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.*
*People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.*
*The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.*
*When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.*
Criminals will always have illegal guns. Making all guns illegal and limiting their capacity strictly effects law abiding citizen, who are the only ones that actually need the protection of having a firearm in the first place. This insane communist liberal agenda is brainwashing it's followers with incredibly skewed statistics, if anyone does any real research into impartial parties data it's almost always in favor of the pro gun lobby.
Patriots are truly free, because the rights affirmed in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are non-negotiable. These are natural rights endowed by the almighty. There is no individual freedom whatsoever without the recognition and respect of these foundational documents! Our wonderful country was founded on these basic human principles.
In the history of civilization the greatest mass murders were committed by kings, rulers, dictators and almost every other form of government. Don't forget our own government killed a lot of Native Americans, imprisoned our own Japanese American citizens in internment camps and currently have access to all our phone records. Guns keep the government from overstepping their bounds.
Some people have said that because "guns are meant to kill people they can't save a life" that is completely untrue. Guns have been in use since the medieval period from Feudal France to Feudal Japan. It is no secret what a gun can do. That said, because their power is generally known, just the act of brandishing a gun is enough to prevent a violent altercation or stop a crime in progress. The trigger doesn't even need to be pulled to diffuse a situation.
As a force multiplier guns can multiply say, a small 5'2 Asian woman's "force" to levels surpassing that of a 6'1 200 lbs man. Her force would be multiplied to such overwhelming levels that she can deliver a killing blow from 100 yards away, in contrast to that 6'1 tall man with a kitchen knife needing her to be within arms reach. Even violent criminals have a self preservation instinct, when faced with such overwhelming power, they will retreat.
Some people have said that a gun can't save a life because it can take a life. You have someone with the intent to commit murder, someone is going to potentially die, in fact someone will most likely die. That said if it came down to one or the other, the innocent person just minding their own business, or the person who wants to murder them, what these people are saying is that they would rather have innocent person die than defend themselves with a gun. In fact with this hypothetical, if the innocent person had a gun potentially no one would die. The potential murder may think twice and abort his crime. Or the the innocent person may inflict a non lethal wound such as a shot to the knee and stop the attacker in his tracks without killing him.
Now of course such power requires responsibility. It is every owners responsibility to know how to safely operate their weapon. It is every owner's responsibility to check your target before pulling that trigger. You use a handgun for home defense, keep a flashlight with it. You use a shotgun get a tactical light attachment for it. It is also every owner's responsibility to store it in a manner which children will not have access to it.
Now if you think getting rid of guns will get rid of rampage killings, you're living in a fantasy world. Even in place with strict gun control like Japan, rampages happen. One occurred in Akihabara, and another occurred in a school in Osaka that left 8 kids dead. Both were carried out with a knife.
And of course, where there is "gun control", the only lives saved are criminals', 100% of whom support "gun control", because it only renders their innocent victims legally disarmed and defenseless, while criminals get any weapon, anytime, anywhere, 100% undeterred by words on paper, ONLY ducks who can shoot back.
I have worked in both Military (USMC), and Law Enforcement(Explorers/S & R), and was raised in the country. My father worked Law Enforcement. Not only do firearms save lives they put food on the table! They have worked to protect my family from some less-than "Law Abiding" types in the absence of Law Enforcement personnel as well. It is fine to rely on the Law Enforcement Community to protect you, but it is realistic to be able to protect yourself until their arrival! (This is from a Rural standpoint)
Guns are simply a tool. They can be used for good or for bad. The only fact in this good/bad scenario is that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. All mass shootings happen at "Gun Free Zones" for a reason.
Proven fact: Firearms are used thousands - THOUSANDS - of times EVERY DAY to stop or prevent a crime. To ignore that fact is to deny that you have the capability to reason. If you can't reason your way through that, why do you open your mouth at all? Take for example the anti-gun poster who states: "Guns are weapons developed in medieval times"...Um...No, genius, they weren't. That's the kind of ignorance law abiding gun owners are up against. People who do not think - CANNOT think - for themselves, so they believe all the lies of the cowards in the democratic party. People who want to ban guns are flat out the most cowardly people in the country.
Are you joking? You have to be joking? That or the people who said yes are NRA plants on this site. Guns are weapons developed in medieval times in order to act as a more destructive implement of death than swords, longbows, axes etc. A gun can not and will not ever save a life. It can be argued that a person can use a gun in certain circumstances to save a life, but this is not the gun saving the persons life - it is a persons utilization of the gun that saves the life. In the same way a gun cannot will itself to take a life, but as it has no other function than to discharge a high speed projectile with the capability to kill being part of the design of the object, a guns only reason to exist is to kill. Americans have it ingrained into their psyche that all problems involving any kind of danger can be resolved with a gun. Examples: 1) My house gets broken into, I will pull out my gun and shoot the first thing that moves as I am protecting my family (shoot first and ask questions later) only to find out it is my 15 year old son returning after breaking curfew - whoops, but hey guns save lives. 2) Everyone else has a gun, I can't feel safe without one - though an easier solution would be "how about no one carries guns and everyone can be content knowing not everyone next to them is toting an implement of death". 3) Our government is corrupt, the constitution compels us to band into a militia and over throw them... good luck fighting tanks and a professional army with long range capabilities. Honestly, if someone said Nuclear weapons save lives because they stop other countries using their nuclear weapons against us, what would you say? It's circular reasoning to argue that guns keep you safe from other people with guns that keep them safe from other people with guns that keep them safe from other people with guns, etc.
While in a technical sense guns could save lives in that a person committing a massacre could be thwarted by an individual, guns are a purely destructive object whose sole purpose is to destroy, rather than to save. Since the main objective of a gun is to kill, it is paradoxical to believe that they in a philosophical sense "save lives."
Sadly we see the news and look at the sadness on the faces of the people left after the mass shootings and offer these comments for discussion, we have many hunters across north america that have guns for their enjoyment ie a 22 small bore rifle for target practice and small game birds, a shot gun for larger game birds Ducks and geese, and a larger rifle 303 or equal size all of the rifles have a commonality 5-6 rounds of bullets in the spare chamber which have perform really well over the years, historically Gun builders have designed for use in Armies and police forces a semi automatic rifle in many brand and design names, that have bullet storage chambers of upwards to 50 bullets, But somehow because there were no controls by the legal system these severe mass death consequence rifles ,have been made available without question to anyone who walks in off the street with a chip on their shoulder, be it someone for suicide terriorist, or depressed person activities, and after every mass killing the Gun sales skyrocket people panic and want the same fire power as the Mass shooter (s) and the killing continues and the gun builders get richer beyond our wildest dreams, and the killing goes on ??
Can we find some elected people who are interested in our public safety and stop the sales of the mass people killers that were built originally for the armed forces and police folks but due to a lack of People at the top who have our best interests at hand and will stop the supplying of these mass people killers to anyone who has an agenda to wipe out Mothers, Fathers, families, and innocent children, Guns do kill people and we need to achieve some common sense laws that will protect us from the no brainers that have mental problems and have no balls to realize we don,t need an arsenal with fire power near 50 bullets , if we treat people with respect and proper laws for the good and safety of all humans
Guns don't save lives at all.Look at school shooting and other horrorific acts.Come on seriously don't be silly.50 % of all murder related to gun violence.Now the violent crime is decreasing because we have more gun control.Why should we have guns at first place ?If we already have police officers and FBI.America have the most school shooting due to lack of gun control.No i don't see any benefit from guns.
Killing someone to stop them killing someone else? In the end, one person will die, so theyre not saving peoples lives, theyre keeping it the same. Yes, killing one serial killer will stop them from killing the amount of people theyll kill in the future, but will they really learn from it? This will only make other serial killers wound up
Guns should be for police use only and all other civilians debarred of their guns. America is no place for guns we can do better than this and lead the world. We do not be reading the headlines every day that describe yet another shooting in America. We will do better than this.
Guns do indeed save lives but the problem is that most of the time it is the gun that put someone's life in danger in the first place. It's like dangling someone by a rope over a pit of lava and then saving them. Yeah you saved them, but it's your fault there in danger in the first place, if you get what I mean.
Guns, on their own, have not the ability to save or take a life. I refuse to accept or give the gun a will of its own. A person that is good or evil will decide what they do with a gun, not the gun itself. Even when a person uses a gun to save one persons life, it ultimately took another's life. However, I am 100% for all citizens the right to defend themselves, but in the end, the gun saves equality, not lives.
Guns do not save life they just hurt life if we never did have guns the world would be a better place that it is. People are getting killed by guns and nobody is stopping it the world is just cruel place we need laws that should stop guns to be around.
First off...I'm not a gun, NRA, semi-automatic, or automatic gun hater. They each have their place, much like semi-automatic (SA) firearms. SA firearms do not belong in the hands of general public...PERIOD. As a force multiplier, they should only be in the hands of military and law enforcement. I've heard the argument about how only criminals will have the guns. Briefly compare the numbers...How many SA weapons are stolen from the military/law or enforcement compared to those stolen from home break-ins? Yes...The guns that are there to protect the home are the same ones stolen by the criminals. The difference is staggering! Does this not beg the question of WHO is complicit in arming the criminals. Background checks would be a big help if conducted properly and conviction of illegal firearm transfer resulting in incarceration would put teeth in the existing laws. The most responsible action would be to remove SA weapons from the mass public and keep the force multiplication with the 'good guys'.