Do you think it's necessary to allow citizen to own guns ?

Asked by: stephannoi
  • It's a right to own one.

    I don't believe anybody should be forced to own one. But my general political philosophy is that I don't believe anybody should have the right to control someone else's rights, even if it is a majority. Now is it "necessary" to own a gun? The answer to that is different for different people. Some people do go there whole lives without ever needing it. Some people needed it for self-defense. I conceal carry, and so far, I never needed a gun on the basis that I never had to use it. But that doesn't mean I never will have to use it. I can't see into the future if I'll need a gun in much the same way you can't see into the future of you needing a fire extinguisher. But you do know that it is a possibility that you might need it. So overall, the choice to own and/or carry a gun in public is a choice best left to the individual making it. Not to a democracy. It's a personal choice and a right.

  • Law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns .

    According to the cdc guns in America are used 400,000 times a year to save lives. That 370,000 more times than they are used to kill. Guns are used around 600,000 times a year to prevent other crimes. If guns were taken away those 400,000 lives would be lost and those 600,000 other crimes would happen. Since criminals will get guns anyways, banning guns will only take them away from law abiding citizens. So we will have armed criminals and unarmed good guys. That sounds like a recipie for disaster, as the criminals will use their illegal guns to commit crimes against helpless unarmed law abiding citizens. Even if a criminals doesn't have a gun he can commit a crime against a smaller, older, weaker or younger person. That smaller or weaker person should be able to have a gun to defend them selves.

  • It's my right...Why shouldn't I own 1

    So here we go with another attempt at convicing people they don't need guns. This is ridiculous and I find it hard to beleive that the law abiding citizen has to justify the possesion of the means to defend one's self. I have the right to life., liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....And as long as I'm not denying anyone their rights, why do I have to justify my rights?

    I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and never have it.

  • As a citizen, I have the right.

    As a United States citizen, I have the right to defend myself against criminal offenders. It's actually in the Constitution, The Second Amendment, (Google it).

    Like some above me said, "I'd rather have it and never use it than need it and not have it."

    If we take away guns than I guess we have to take away knives, forks, bats, and other objects that could be used to cause bodily harm or even death in other individual. (See the flawed logic?)

    At the end of the day, it is a God given right to live. No one should have the authority to take away that right, the right to be able to defend yourself against a predator. It is absolutely necessary to allow citizens to own guns, so long as they use them responsibly and if they don't, then take it away from them and hold them accountable for their actions.

  • You need to defend yourself

    If the country bands all weapons, then no one will defend themselves against robbers or attackers. Even if there was a guns banned, thefts, robbers, and criminals in general will stay find ways to get guns, whether it's illegal or homemade weapons. Then what are you going to do? You wont have anything to defend yourself. It's even in the constitution, 2nd amendment.

  • The statistics are horribly skewed to the left

    Do the statistics show that America has one of the higher homicide rates among developed countries? Yes. But we're also one of the most populated countries in the world with a 15% poverty rate. The higher the poverty rate, the higher the crime rate. You can't take guns away from people or else the crime rate will go even higher. History repeats itself, and last time the government tried taking something away, it was called Prohibition. Crime rate went up, illegal selling of alcohol went up, and organized crimes went up. Finally, the main places that mass shootings occur. Has anyone realized that Connecticut, Oregon, and Colorado have some of the strictest gun laws and those are the places where the most recent mass shootings occurred? Texas has a very loose gun law policy and we don't hear of mass shootings there. We protect our president with guns. We protect sporting events with guns. We protect government buildings with guns. We protect our schools with a lock down and rely on people WITH GUNS to come rescue us. If you were looking to create a mass shooting, where would you go? The place where you know is protected by guns? Or the place that you know the police won't be there for at least 5 minutes. We need to put more guns into the hands of able bodied teachers and administrators so that way in the even that a criminal with a gun walks into the building, they can get stopped right away rather than the shooter be able to pick students off one by one.

  • The against arguments are invalid

    Those who argue that the countries that have strict gun control are the ones with the lowest murder rate are supplying information that bears no relevance to the topic. United States has a completely different culture than any other country. It contains different people with different thinking and actions. So it is impossible to compare any two countries wen it comes to this topic

    Say for instance that an intruder comes into the home of a family without any firearm protection. They have no way to defend themselves against an intruder with a gun.

    Owning a firearm is our right as American citizens. During a time that the US government is already taking away our rights, allowing the US government to take away any more of our rights is just supporting them in their quest to have complete control over the US public. By no means am I anti-government guy- I actually believe in the American government, and believe that the corruption in the government will someday end. But for now, there is no reason to take away one of our rights.

    Basically, what I'm saying is that if you took all the guns away from the good guys (ordinary law-abiding citizens) they're going to have no way to protect themselves from the bad guys (criminals). The criminals will always be able to obtain guns illegally on the black market (drugs are illegal, but people are still able to get them easily). In the United States, what you'll find is that if we took all of the guns from all of the people in the US is a bunch of innocent people being murdered.

  • I live in the UK - how can you trust the police?

    The police force in the UK are pathetic to say the least. Not long ago, one of the S019 armed police shot himself in the foot whilst cleaning his sub-machine gun because he didn't reload it... A school boy error. Citizens need a means of defending themselves, otherwise criminals and the like will keep targeting vulnerable people, knowing that they can't defend themselves.

  • How you deny a person the right to defend themselves?

    A firearm is the greatest equalizer. A 110 pound woman can defend herself from a 220 pound man.

    For those of you who argue that guns kill people read this.
    What gives you the right to control what I can have and what I can't? If you want guns gone I want to see you try to take guns away without any guns. Five years being a military police officer, what I have learn is a person determines if an item is good or bad. Guess what protects you? People with guns. Ya I get it you're scared that someone has something that you can't control guess what it's called life. Violent crime has been in decline for years! UK has strict gun laws and yet they have a higher violent crime rate. You know what country has the best gun control? North Korea. If you live in the US and you don't like guns you're more than welcome to leave. Ever thought of why so many people want to come here? It's because of our freedom. You trying to limit our freedom? You sir/ma'am are unamerican.

  • Its their choice!!

    Say your taking a hike in the mountain and your getting attacked? What would you do without a gun? Or say there is an intruder in your house... Your going to want to be able to protect your family, say the intruder has a gun..... And people like to say " well if guns weren't allowed then intruders wont have them." but they can find away trust me. Anything is possible

  • Guns are dangerous

    Some people argue guns don't kill people, people kill people.I think that it's the most stupid argument that i ever have heard.Guns are a weapon for killing people and hunting animal you dump ass.Yes guns should be banned because it cause gun violence.And 50 % of all murder related to gun violence.Look at news:school shooting and other horrofic acts .

  • No, of course not, and the statistics prove it.

    The world's safest countries are the ones with it's gun control in check.

    The murder rate in the US is the third highest out of the 36 first-world countries, behind Estonia and Latvia. It's also got a murder rate 3x higher than that of most other first-world countries.

    Compare this to Australia, who 15 years ago had a severe gun problem, banned them, and has had only 1 massacre since.

    You've got to be kidding me America. You're holding onto your guns so hard they're killing you.

  • Not in all

    Honestly I was very against the gun rights issue, but i think i've come to realise that specifically in areas where everyone has a gun, such as america...Maybe banning possession would not be the smartest move. It's just a shame america has got itself in that ridiculous situation.

    Other countries however, let's say the UK, there is no plausible reason for it. You'd just end up with a situation like america where everyone has one. I'd rather be mugged then shot, and i think most others would too. People resort to desperate measures sometimes, and if a gun is freely available..,then all sorts of bad consequences issue from that. I' also like to add that the gun suicide rate in america is appalling. Depression can hit anyone, and it is so much easier to pull a trigger than say jump off a bridge or OD.

  • People can be stupid

    I don't think it is necessary to allow citizens to own guns. Most shootings in robberies-gone-bad (I forget the exact number) are from the victim's own gun. If people are still worried that the villain is carrying a gun, we could always do what Australia did. They outlined a major gun law change which they then put into affect after a mass shooting in 1996. Since then, shootings in total have been down by about 60%

  • No, not really:

    I am not one to worry about the gun debate but it isn't necessary citizenry be armed with firearms and other such weapons. Do not mistake this as me saying that it's wrong per se, it isn't, but at the same time arguing it's defensible and required is just as nonsensical.

    It's just a "social preference" in all honesty and serves little to no point in deterring crime or actually protecting the self.

  • It is a tool of evil; why would we have police otherwise?

    It is a powerful weapon that decides life or death in an instant. Why is the public allowed to such a right? We are not at war, and the police are very capable of their job. If people arm themselves, then any disagreement can cause a fatality. People forget the havoc they wreak on lives when everybody has a gun. People use the second amendment to say that guns can become household items. They are not. Unless you live somewhere where the police are not effective, and your life is constantly threatened, then a firearm is completely illogical.

  • Guns wreak havoc enabling you to buy a gun. Take the gun out of the equation and havoc goes too.

    Y'all keep yapping on about how guns are a trusty pal to keep by your side when the reason you buy them is because you're are cautious of others with guns.
    If guns were illegal in the first place they're would be not need for you you to defend yourself with a gun. They wouldn't have a gun, and neither would you eliminating the possibilities of a gun attack.

    Take Australia for example, they're guns laws tightened up and so did the fatalities caused from the man who had the "right" to own a gun.

    Gun laws should never have allowed an average fellow, with their "constitutional right" to own a gun in the first place.

  • Guns are dangerous

    Plenty of countries around the world dont allow citizens to carry guns and these countries are far less violent than the US. Its the notion that you are safer if you have a gun thats plaguing the US - and the fact that the manufacturers would go bust - what else can it be?

  • Guns are not used rationally.

    Giving these rights to citizens results in the misuse of thesr weapons. Although it is said that guns rights allow citizens to defend themselves, these rights often result in gun abuse in which leads to unnecessary deathes and tragedies. Also, these guns can easily go into the wrong hands since there are minor limitations and restrictions associated with these rights.

  • Weapon? No way.

    I think it should be forbidden to own a gun. Yes, it is good for protection. But wait, what are the possibilities that you really have to use it? Weapon is weapon. Is this person who has a gun stable? Maybe that person can hurt someone? I am not surprised that there is so much crime. I don't know why is this discutable in US. Here in Croatia, this isn't even a question. You CANNOT own a weapon.

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