• Some Guns are Just Unreasonable

    Ask yourself logically, why would you ever need an AR-15 or an AK47? Military-grade or LE-grade weapons are absolutely useless to a civilian population. I do no think all guns should be banned because our right to bear arms and the hunting industry, but many assault weapons are just pointless to have unless you are military or law enforcement or some sort of trained professional like a security or private military contractor.

    Home defense is a poor argument for needing guns. There is no reasonably tactical way to defend your home from a sudden break-in. Say, like most break-ins, it is late at night and you are sleeping and suddenly you are awoken from a crash in your living room or kitchen. You have no idea who it is, what they're armed with, how skilled they may be, or even how many people there are. Not knowing ANYTHING you expect, by yourself, to take them on and, whether you have a gun or not, you are most likely unsuccessful because you don't know what you are getting yourself into. Home defense is, literally, idiotic because you literally don't know anything other than that something has broken into your home. What I would do is grab anyone in my home (such as family, relatives, roommates, etc.), jump out a window, run, and call the police while you're at it. Not even armed professionals go into a situation without intelligence and only professionals should be armed with tactical military-grade and LE-grade weapons (that is why they call it "military" and "law enforcement" grade).

    I would ban any automatic weapons because what do you need them for. I do small-game hunting and have done fowl hunting so I know in what is needed for a hunter. You can sufficiently hunt with a manually operated firearm such as a bolt-action with a five-round magazine. For a shotgun, a single-shot is sufficient. Personally, I would endorse bow and arrow for non-fowl hunting. Handguns would be completely banned because you don't use handguns for any useful reason. Only trained professionals would be allowed handguns. If you want to have tactical weapons or handguns you can join the military in a combat role or become law enforcement.

  • It is a right... However...

    It is an american right to own shoot and enjoy fire arms and are relatively a large part of the culture and economy, and i feel that they are more tools for sport that can be weapons than vice versa and even ar-15's and ak-47's should be accessible for sport, however that said guns should be regulated and we should not forget they can be weapons and very dangerous.

  • They dont kil

    Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.
    While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.
    After 10 hours, I checked on the shotgun. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented. It had not even loaded itself.
    Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing guns or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world. So now I’m off to check on my spoons, because I hear they make people fat.

  • Criminals are always going to get guns.

    Prohibition didn't work for guns, and people still do drugs and smoke despite laws. Bad people will always get illegal weapons, so why take them away from hunters, firearm enthusiasts, and people who want to defend themselves? Most gun crimes are committed with illegal weapons anyway. I personally use my Winchesters for hunting and shooting, and no one can take them from me.

  • No No No

    If the government insists that private owners must turn in their handguns, I have no doubt that law abiding citizens would do that, but would the people using guns to commit crimes would be willing to hand their weapons over? How long should the American public go unarmed while the criminal population remained armed? In the meantime, who or how does the now unarmed public, protect itself?

  • And outright ban, no

    America already has too many guns, if you banned them all it would just be like prohibition it wouldn't work. I am by no means a gun lover and think harsh checks should be checked on people owning them but an outright ban would just be stupid. Also before anyone else says it's your "constitutional right" go read the second amendment and it's original purpose.

  • No there should not

    First off its a constitutional right to own a gun. Second, banning guns would result in more crime because criminals dont follow laws in the first place so why would this help anything. If they have an intent to commit a crime with a gun they will purchase the gun illegally so it cannot be traced.

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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.