Should civilian possession of handguns and other non-hunting guns be banned or severely restricted?

  • Yes they should

    The who point of guns is to kill or threat people. There is litterly no point of having a gun in the states.
    Every year lots of people die cause citizens shoot or threat. If guns dont get banned soon with the new tech. People will kill more and more people. So in my oppinion guns should be banned

  • Yes, guns DO kill people.

    I'm tired of hearing that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, let's restrict the amount of firearms available in the United States and how they're procured to give those people less of a chance of murdering others with a hand cannon. We need common sense gun reform in this nation.

  • Thomas Jefferson says it all

    The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

  • Banning guns won't stop criminals from acquiring them. Only about 15% of guns used for crimes were stolen from legal gun owners. Most of them

    Are acquired via straw purchases, which a ban certainly will fix. However, the next most common way that criminals acquire guns is by purchasing them from traffickers with Federal Firearms Licenses who ultimately end up selling their guns on the streets. Gun bans will only fuel the illegal gun market.

  • Guns save lives

    According to the cdc guns save 400,000 lives a year and prevent 500,000 other crimes--they only kill 30,000 people a year. So if you ban them you would save 30,000 people and kill 400,000 People--but keep in mind not all lives lost to gun violence could be saved by banning guns. 20,000 of the 30,000 gun deaths are suicides and 7000 are gang related murderers--gangsters traffic all types of stuff illegally and banning guns wouldn't affect them. So you'd save 3000 people and kill 400,000 people by banning guns. If you want to ban guns look at guns save lives.Com. Read the list if stories they've gathered on times guns have saved lives and prevented crime. Remember the us has strict gun laws in many cities--and those cities have high crime rates. In the cities where gun laws are loose crime is down.

  • People could still transport them from different countries and through the black market.

    People could still transport them from different countries and through the black market. The only people that would take their time and energy to have access to them would use them for criminal usage. Yes, killing might go down, but weapons would only be in the hands of the criminal either way.

  • No they should not on the basis of the 2nd Amendment

    If the government was to ban guns they how do we fulfill our civil rights and duties concerning the government becoming an anarchy? If there are no guns to be had then what are we going to use to defend our way of life and our Constitution? Pitchforks and knives won't do a bit of good should the government have all of the guns.

  • No they shouldn't

    People use guns for sport and hunting to. Guns are incapable of killing people, people kill people. Even if guns are banned people can still kill each other. Guns do more good than bad. If people didn't have guns then ho would you defend yourself and your family if a person who illegally bought a gun came into your home to kill you?

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