• It's a no-brainer

    We can all acknowledge that there is a problem in the United States with regard to mass-shootings and/or violent gun crime.

    If you argue that gun control is not the issue, then the problem must be due to mental illness and/or poverty and deprivation in urban communities. If this is the case, then one must support Obamacare or other like policies because it helps people to access more affordable healthcare, and hence have access to mental health treatment. If the issue is poverty, then one should support a greater welfare state, and an increase in the minimum wage.

    One cannot have their cake and eat it too. Conservatives are opposed to both gun control and Obamacare. Either the issue is gun control and poverty/mental illness together; or it's either one of these; but it cannot be due to neither of those. In other words, there must be a cause, and it cannot be due to something else other than the foregoing. So, which is it?

  • Oh come on

    We shouldn't let terrorists buy guns. We shouldn't let people buy assault weapons that could only be used for mass shootings. We shouldn't let crazy people buy guns. Only then should we start talking about "education" or whatever the gun people want. NRA OUT OF CONGRESS! It's better for everyone that way.

  • More gun control = more unlikely for those who threaten society to get them

    Its very easy - better controls, less accessible, more difficult for those who could potentially threaten society to get hold of guns. Guns DO NOT increase safety. They endanger you. I may be able to have a gun, but so can the mentally unstable disgruntled work college or extremist. And they can get them with ease. My child can reach into my handbag, or my sidedraw and accidentally shoot me or himself, it is insane. America may call itself advanced, yet everyday its citizens are in danger because of its gun control.

    Its such a simple solution - increase gun control, and the people who endanger you pose less of a threat. Europe's seized this initiative, Its time for America to follow.

    Thank you

  • Well duh. Look at other countries

    The 2nd amendment needs to be updated because under its current translation i as well as any citizen of the us should be able to own any weapon the military can use eg nukes, drones, machine guns etc. the amendment was made at a time when the most advanced weapon was a musket as in three shots per minute. Look at other civilized countries almost all of which have laws preventing a non-military citizen from purchasing fully and semi automatic weapons. These countries have significantly lower gun crime rates. Reducing the people's ability to purchase firearms that's only use is killing people (as oppose to hunting) the gun crime rates will go down as they have in other countries

  • Gun CONTROL, not ban.

    It makes sense to monitor weapon usage. I'd have a few laws to implement;

    1. No open carry.
    Openly carrying a weapon around the streets scares people and drags cops away from tending to actual crime. It hasn't been proven if it actually deters crime or not, so being on the safe side makes sense. "But muh freedums" don't matter in my opinion when we're dealing with public safety, and dragging cops to you because you want to "exercise your rights" even though you have no logical reason to takes away from that public safety.

    2. Extensive government background check to receive a permit to own/operate.
    Gun stores should only be allowed to sell guns to people who have an ID card and/or documentation directly from the government or government-approved officials. To obtain these cards, you would need to have no previous "dangerous" felonies for at least the last 10 years. What I mean by this is no form of assault charges, no battery, no weapon charges, no intent to harm, etc. A psychiatric evaluation or proof of near-perfect psychological health would also be required.

    3. No guns sold to anyone under 16.
    This is pretty self-explanatory, but usually people under the age of 16 have a harder time being responsible/handling deadly weapons with caution. There are too many accidental gun related deaths and injuries, and they can be avoided if the gun owners are responsible.

    4. Anyone abusing any rules or showing an irresponsibility regarding guns is to have all their firearms confiscated.

    I feel this is fair, as any sane, rational, law-abiding citizen will be able to conceal carry and own/operate guns just fine.

  • The actual law.

    My problem with the whole argument for guns is the fact that legally, under the Second Amendment, only the National Guard should be able to carry them, as they are the only well-regulated militia in this country. I realize the Supreme Court stated it constitutional, but I disagree with them on this one thing. It's hazardous and should definitely be put under stricter regulation, especially for the amount of gun crimes that occur in this country. If shooting up a school isn't enough to make us reconsider our control on guns, then I don't know what is. Obviously, people continue to get guns and use them, most of the time, for the wrong reason.

  • We need changes in gun law

    Countries like the United Kingdom and Australia haven't had a mass shooting in years because they enforce their gun laws, and that's what the U.S. must do. There was an interesting letter in the opinion page of the Centre Daily Times written by a woman whose grandson died in the Sandy Hook massacre; she said that society cannot completely protect itself from evil, but we can alleviate it if we make a few changes. We can start by prohibiting the distribution of powerful, military-style weapons and ammunition that were used in bloodbaths like Sandy Hook. In addition to that, I also think the gun show loophole should be abolished.

  • It's the proven best option

    Guns are simply too easy to get in this country. There needs to be more oversight as to how guns are purchased and registered. The second amendment should always be protected, but that doesn't mean every American should have access to a lethal weapon regardless of how they acquired it or whether or not they are mentally stable enough or trained enough to wield and use it in an orderly fashion.

  • Gun control IS NEEDED 100% in America.

    Mass shootings. That right, because we have NO gun control Whatsoever, people have died from house robberies turning lethal to
    mass school shootings and more. Someone over in the No section said that we should have firearm safety classes at an early age. Not only will the 4-6 year old's (like they said) brain not be able to comprehend the true intensity of firearms and how it can ruin lives in an instant: But WE WONT HAVE TO HAVE CLASSES IF We have restrictions and only NON psychopaths have guns. The reason mass shootings are called "mass shootings" Is because of the guns involved and the mass amount of people that died. America NEEDS MORE CONTROL OVER ITS GUNS. We try to monitor other countries with military power but we cant even monitor our OWN CIVILIAN POPULATION. Feel free to comment your opinion down bellow (Except if you like Donald Trump, he's crazy.) And if you disagree i'm fine with that just NO DONALD TRUMP. (Also I'm only 14 so please be kind.)

  • Just ideas about Gun Control.

    Our current gun laws,Stricter gun laws , or even banning guns altogether will not stop hardened criminals and adept terrorist groups from getting guns. Stricter gun control laws will however keep guns out of the hands of nut-jobs he decide on a wim to kill for no reason.Most people who carry out these attacks are not hardened criminals who have the ability to work the system and get illegal guns,these people waltz into there local Walmart or a father and son gun shop to get there guns and ammo. While guns are needed for protection and i personally own and enjoy shooting guns and hunting, people do not need full-auto machine guns for home defense or hunting all you need is a shotgun or a handgun to defend you and your family and on the plus side if you did ever have to use your gun to defend yourself there would be less holes to patch in your walls a ceiling. Now to address the point about open carry...Well I do not really know all the open carry laws since I have no intention of carrying a gun around.(though I do plan on getting a C.W.P so I can carry it in the car in case it is needed).

  • The Gun Is A Right

    Hullo I have a debate later (just a school one) and this is the side I am to argue on. This is probably the hardest side to argue, and I don't even live in the states so I would really love lotssss of opinions on the opposing side, but also the proposition would be fantastic too thanks!
    Sooo the points I have so far -
    # It is a right in America
    # The real criminals would find a gun no matter if they were really monitored. This just makes it easier to attack people, because the innocent ones can't defend themselves with guns
    # Guns are targeted unfairly - more people are killed in road accidents
    Thanks and please I would love it if you took the time to post an opinion!!

  • How many criminals follow the law?

    The weapons used to commit crimes are illegally obtained in the first place.
    Those who follow the law do not due such things because they are monitored much more than people seem to think. Just live in a hunting state such as Michigan and you will know what all is involved in getting a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. And they're one of the lighter states for gun control.

    In regards to weapons that are not practical for hunting, assault rifles and such, they are illegal in most states; but should be in all.

  • Convicts being free

    There shouldn't be more control on gun but the way you get them. There should be a very in depth background check on every one who is going to get a gun and for the gun permits needed to handle a gun and everyone should have to take the proper training.

  • Only criminals will have access to them.

    Do you really think if there was more gun control that the criminals would abide to these rules? No. This means that only the people that would use the firearms for nefarious needs would have access to them. If this happens and only criminals have firearms and civilians can't get them as easily, then crime could sky rocket, and people wouldn't be able to protect themselves.

  • Arm safe citizens to increase safety

    Several points are able to be voiced here, but they may or may not get acknowledged. Something that I believe would be the most effective approach to minimizing the current reputation of the U.S. would be not to control the manufacturing or sale of firearms, but to engage the majority of our population in the battle against gun violence. Yes, there are some maniacs that get out of hand, but that simply means that firearms around them need to be controlled by who surrounds them most: the general population. Take it like this, 99% of the population can read and write. We start teaching stuff like that at really early ages like 4-6 years of age. My idea is that if we can embed knowledge at early ages, let's engage in important skills that need intensified at this day in age. In the U.S., the minimum age that a child can be convicted of a felony is age 11. It's plausible that about 70% of felonies involve the use of a firearm. So, in beginning firearm safety education in the same way schools teach the alphabet, I believe that the nation could be able to arm safer citizens to protect each other against the violence of gun crime. Yes, law enforcement carries guns as well, however they aren't always the first ones on the scene. By putting more guns in more places more securely by arming safer citizens to protect against the minuscule population that is classified as unsafe, we should be able to watch a decline in firearm involved crime. Although I'm only a southern freshman in college that has grown up around firearms and taught about their danger and protection, I firmly hold myself to this concept and plan to teach my children the same way my father taught me. Thank you.

  • Gun owners aren't the criminals

    Making it harder to own a gun will not only make it harder for gun manufacturers and sellers to stay in business, but it will also make it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. When we hear about the mass shootings and other tragic events involving guns, rarely is it done by the person who actually owns a gun legally. Those who use guns to inflict damage upon people with no proper reason are criminals; hands down. And if there is one thing about criminals that everyone can agree upon, it's that the law is optional in their minds, and usually something in which they can carelessly bypass. With that being said, most criminals were not sold guns by gun stores, but obtained them via the black market or by stealing them from someone who owns one legally. The criminals will not lay down if we make it harder to purchase guns, so why in the world would we make it harder to protect ourselves from them?

  • Of course not.

    First, why should I lose my right to bear arms when another person goes on a shooting rampage. Also, if a person has the intent to kill, they will either just not use a firearm or get one illegally, seeing how they would be a criminal and already not care about the law.

  • Just think about it

    There are more guns in America than there are people, which means that in the case of an invasion by another country (which is looking more likely as tensions rise between us and the other two superpowers) any sort of land based assault would be stopped before the opposing army could get more than 100 miles inland. This concept is obvious to every nation that has ever considered war with America, right up there with not attacking Russia in the winter.
    Additionally, stronger gun control laws would be almost entirely ineffectual. All you need to do to see that is to look at Chicago. The state of Illinois has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in America (to be fair though it's still not crazy restrictive) yet their crime rate is higher than just about anywhere. The death toll is higher than some active war zones! Yet, in places like Texas, many shootings are stopped before they start. For example, there was a "draw Muhammad contest" in Texas (obviously, no other state has the balls to pull that) and naturally a Muslim guy came to shoot up the place... He was gunned down almost instantly. If I remember correctly, nobody else got hurt. Guns should be legal for the masses in order to defend themselves from crazies like that.
    Having a gun levels the playing field when it comes to rape as well. A 5'5 115 lb woman stands about a 0.0027% chance against a 6'3 235 lb man, but if that woman has a gun then she has a good chance to get out of the situation unharmed. Tazers don't always work very well against massive angry men, but a shot through the leg will immediately stop a person or at least slow them down enough to get away.
    Sure there are downsides to loose gun control, but the benefits of upholding the second amendment outweigh the risks.

  • More guns are safer

    Look at Kennesaw Georgia, once a town now a city, Kennesaw passed a law that said each household needs to own athe least one gun. Crime is way way down, and the city has only had 4 murders since the law.
    Has the most gun control laws yet has the highest crime rate.

    Now compare these two.
    Kennesaw has lots of guns and very low crime rate
    Chicago has very little guns and very high crime rate


    GUN CONTROL LAWS TAKE GUNS OUT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS not criminals, and criminals are scared of guns that's why they choose gun free zones. More guns equal safer America

  • The government has no right to further restrict access to firearms.

    In this age of corruption and disorder, I cannot place the burdon of my protection and my families protection solely in the hands of the government. I take first responsibility in defending my family from harm. If that means that I must bear arms, then I will do so, but only if absolutely necessary. I believe that the current restrictions and level of background investigation is sufficient. Those who are determined and intend to harm others will do so, with or without the use of a projectile weapon.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
yadayada says2015-12-19T01:00:19.513
Guns are not killing people,people are killing people the gun is just the preffered method.You figure out why people have that desire you wont need gun control.

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