Are you for or against gun control?

Posted by: JDerry

Poll closed on 10/15/2017 at 12:00AM.
  • FOR

  • AGAINST

26% 9 votes
74% 26 votes
  • If you're against gun control, think about why: It's because you know you're the type of person we should be afraid of.

  • I'm for gun control because there should be some control on a weapon that has the ability to cause instant death. I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to have guns. I'm saying there should be limits as with most things in life.

  • After Vegas, Im convinced nobody needs a 45 bullet clip or an assault rifle. Pistols and hunting rifles, fine, defend yourself, but nobody needs military weapons.

  • Guns are made for one reason: to cause harm to someone or something. Currently in society we argue that we need guns to protect ourselves. However, there have been absolutely no instances of someone stopping a shooting with a gun they own. Guns are made to help kill people. Stop these mass killings

    Posted by: LDBen
  • Logically speaking, making something illegal is not going to stop the problem. Just look at drug use in America for proof. Gun control won't stop mass shootings, it will only make the innocent more vulnerable.

  • even if the government makes a gun control law, the criminals won't care, if the law is placed this could make them more prone to shooting others

  • No gun control. "Gun Control" was an idea invented by liberals in the attempt to suppress gun rights, what good does gun control do anyways? We cannot ever be so sure of who is buying assault rifles, what they intend to use them for, but being careful is good. I am against gun control.

  • Taking away all of Americans guns doesn't solve anything. The only thing it solves is shootings. People can still murder so crime is not reduced if guns are completely removed from the US. Like seriously I don't mind gun control as long as it doesn't go as far as banning all guns. Just give people background checks and ID checks before letting someone buy a gun! SIMPLE AS THAT! No need to ban them!

  • Guns don't kill people. Mentally ill people (unless you are in the military or law enforcement) with guns kill people. If you would like to argue with me you have to first get a gun load it, put it on the table then tell me when it gets up and shoots someone.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Renegade184 says2017-10-05T11:30:58.2573251Z
The 2nd amendment was created not to protect ourselves from criminals, or to be able to hunt, no it was created as protection from government tyranny. You might say, oh but it's the 21st century, that could never happen! Europeans thought the same, then Hitler left 60 million Germans dead with 6 million of them being Jews. What would happen if all those Germans, Austrians, Polish, Danes, Norwegians, Belgians, French, Russians, and Czechs all had guns to defend themselves?
QueenDaisy says2017-10-05T19:31:43.2589401Z
The second amendment was written in a different era. It basically served as self-protection against wild animals, hostile native tribes, and a tyrannical government. However, all three of those causes are redundant, now- thanks to urbanisation, wild animals avoid us- native tribes are no longer hostile- and the government has drones, tanks, nukes etc. and so your guns are irrelevant. Guns should be banned entirely. However, the second amendment also doesn't guarantee everyone access to whatever weapons they like- prisoners, for example, are not allowed guns. Gun control is not in violation of the second amendment, and is exactly what the USA needs at the moment.
Renegade184 says2017-10-05T21:32:34.9359282Z
@QueenDaisy Did Europe need protection from wild animals or hostile native tribes? No they did not, and Hitler came in and took over most of Europe instating his Fascist ideas (Tyrannical Government) . Hitler had planes, tanks, and bombs, did he always use them? Or did Nazis go door to door looking for Jews, other prisoners, and resistances, in that situation guns would have most likely stopped the Nazis from ever taking over nearly all of Europe. In the case of Native Americans, the biggest conflicts with Native Americans around 1791 was fought by State Employed Armies and Militia's. To your point, " thanks to urbanisation, wild animals avoid us- native tribes are no longer hostile- and the government has drones, tanks, nukes etc. and so your guns are irrelevant", according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census' data: about 8% of Americans were living in the top 24 most populated urban areas in the year 1790, also about 12.4% of Americans were living in the top 24 most populated urban areas in 1990, according to this, urbanization in the U.S. has grown only 4.4% in 200 years. To your last points Gun control is explicitly in violation of the second amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -The Constitution of the U.S. Amendment II). On the point that gun control is "exactly what the USA needs at the moment.", according to the VPC organizations like the National Rifle Association state that there are up to 2.5 million instances that guns are used in self defense, according to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US.
sadolite says2017-10-06T23:46:24.7556027Z
"If you're against gun control, think about why: It's because you know you're the type of person we should be afraid of." Is the govt allowed to have guns? And if so, why are you not afraid of that? History shows that a govt with guns and a citizenry that is unarmed gets tyranny in every case. History has never shown that to happen with an armed citizenry.
Barcafan99 says2017-10-08T21:18:09.8212710Z
@Renegade184, if your really concerned about government tyranny, stockpiling weapons wont solve it. What can a few firearms do against the most powerful military in the world? Think about reality. Just like anything else in life, guns need commonsense restriction.
XxShiro123xX says2017-10-09T10:40:25.8007792Z
Gun control will not stop any kind of crime, and it's not like thieves and criminals would give up their weapons. Wouldn't the law apply to the law abiding citizens, they wouldn't have anything to defend themselves with.
Barcafan99 says2017-10-09T14:59:02.7562354Z
You dont need an AK-47 to defend yourself.
Renegade184 says2017-10-09T15:46:33.3027804Z
@Barcafan99 First of all 300 MILLION guns is not a few of guns. Now second of all, we could stop the government, because they wouldn't just use all of their force against us,because then they would have no one to govern. History repeats itself because of people who fail to see and learn from the past, our founding fathers created this country to get away from the British tyranny.
Barcafan99 says2017-10-09T17:17:35.6972102Z
British tyranny is vastly different from the modern one. We live in an area of mass surveillance and commercialism. Everything you do can be monitored. Plus, the US military is the most powerful in the world. Do you really think an AK-47 is going to help against F-22's and amphibious battleships? Ha. Having an AK-47 is totally pointless unless you are trying to orchestrate a mass shooting. Its bulky - bad for self defense - a pistol would be better - and its useless against the might of the US if the government every became tyrannical.
Renegade184 says2017-10-10T01:29:40.2885107Z
"Having an AK-47 is totally pointless", "its useless against the might of the US if the government every became tyrannical." According to your logic, a musket was totally pointless against the might of the might of the British Empire back in the 1700's, well history proved you wrong. To your point "We live in an area of mass surveillance and commercialism. Everything you do can be monitored." That's just not true, look at criminals, the FBI has a very hard time catching even one of their top most wanted, just think, it's nearly impossible for them to track and hunt down every one of the 320,000,000 people that live in the U.S. Now addressing your point; "Do you really think an AK-47 is going to help against F-22's and amphibious battleships?" Simple answer, no war has ever been won by Air or Sea, always by land.
karambit says2017-10-19T15:31:54.1476310Z
Guns should be banned entirely? Do you even hear yourself? "Oh shit this criminal has obtained a gun illegally and is breaking and entering into my house? What should I do since guns have been outlawed? Oh, maybe this kitchen knife will stop a bullet!" Idiot.
mpaige says2017-11-15T23:48:47.8851447Z
I want people to be able to have guns. It's a basic American right and I don't want our rights being taken away from us. If a criminal wants to kill somebody, they'll get guns no matter what. If people had guns, and one of them tries to hurt us at least we will have protection. It's like if there is a mass murderer and a guy is trying to shoot everyone, just imagine if only one person had a guns; lots of lives could be saved.
Jayuhn says2017-11-16T00:00:59.1107704Z
Guns are made to protect not harm.
Capitalman says2017-11-25T03:59:08.1188863Z
I believe we can own any gun except military grade
Fastkoolkirby says2017-11-28T00:55:00.0911470Z
LDBen do u know about the shooting in a rural texas church? The churdh shooter was killed by a guy who had his gun on standby
Senor_Impero says2017-12-02T04:44:08.5626318Z
I have a question for those against gun control. Do you seriously believe a "tyrannical government" is realistically possible? Even if so do you also believe a bunch of militias can go against a Predator drone? Let alone the superior U.S Military? Oh and also Hitler didn't ban guns he actually lightened laws on them. (http://www.Politifact.Com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/)
22ManarD12 says2017-12-21T19:54:48.3889847Z
IF WE HAD GUNS HITLER CAN CONTROL US ALL HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AND WE CAN EAT CAKE WITH HITLER HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AND THEN WE Can SHOOT THE CAKE HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AND THEN WE CAN EAT COOKIES HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AND THEN WE CAN SHOOT THE COOKIE HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA PEOPLE CALL ME CRAZY BUT YOU ARE CRAZ YHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Ozarkheart says2018-01-06T12:11:48.0336129Z
Several people have commented about the futility of fighting against a tyrannical government which has drones, etc., or that we live in a different era than when the Second Amendment was written. First, one cannot assume that the military would back the government. Second, guerrilla warfare can be very effective; check the history books. Can an AK47 be effective against an Abrams tank? Absolutely - if used at the right time (think: stop the crew).
smilinbobs64 says2018-01-13T23:38:42.6320711Z
The only people who should be in favor of strict gun control are those people who wish to oppress or harm the gun owners. These are the people pushing the issue.
smilinbobs64 says2018-01-13T23:38:56.7971435Z
The only people who should be in favor of strict gun control are those people who wish to oppress or harm the gun owners. These are the people pushing the issue.
SkoolWifi says2018-01-27T11:30:40.5280795Z
The argument that "uh we should ban military grade weapons" is stupid because they are banned to the public. Only people who have taken several courses and official permits may own a legal, military grade weapon. Statistics show that over 90% of gun related acts of crime are caused by illegal firearms, so why the fuck do you think banning legal firearms will solve that? I believe that there should be some gun control so that the mentally ill may not get their hands on any. After all, they are the vast majority of perpetrators that commit acts of crime with legal guns. As for the 2nd Amendment, it was never intended for animals or native americans, it was for fighting a corrupt government. Taking away guns from legal owning citizens would only leave them defenseless against someone with an illegal firearm. There's a common saying amongst people with common sense: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you tell a gun to kill somebody, nothing will happen. However, if you tell somebody to kill someone else, there's a chance it may happen. This isn't a gun issue, it's a mental and border issue. I hope anybody who opposes guns reads this and gives it some thought because most of you don't know the first thing about them and so you're driven by a sense of fear. It's human nature, but you have to recognize the opposition if you want to be taken seriously in an argument. Cheers.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

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