• I tis I believe all to be about the individual's freedom to own a gun, but it so often takes a persons freedom to live away! Time to re-assess before the UK follows suit!
  • I agree and dont even think hunting should be allowed, we all know what happened with dick chaney
  • because all the government thinks about is the money
  • Because it's in the Constitution. Moving beyond that, the REASON it's in the Constitution is because depriving everyone of gun ownership absolutely is considered crossing the line into totalitarianism. It's easy to fall into a certain mindset, like: "Hey, we're doing it for the safety of the U.S., since the citizens don't know any better, let's take away their guns so they can't kill each other." Then, "Lots of medicine overdoses. Let's make it so ALL drugs, even over the counter ones, have to be administered by a U.S. certified doctor." "Lot's of stabbings, let's take away all sharp objects." "Well, so long as it's for their safety, let's monitor their every movement and action, so we can keep them from hurting each other." I do believe in better gun control laws, but eliminating weapons all together isn't the answer, at least not yet. It simply wouldn't be possible to pass as a law (remember, we ARE a democracy here), and many U.S. citizens would get mighty angry.
  • The NRA lobbyist are a motivating factor.
  • Illegalizing gun ownership will decrease gunshot deaths and stabbings will go up. If murderers can't get guns, that won't stop them from killing, they will just find another way.
  • To let people shoot back haha =(
  • I don't think it a gun problem, but a cultural one. Just to the north of us, Canada has less gun violence with more relaxed ownership laws. I wont deny, that guns may have increased our murder rate given that its easier to shoot somebody than to stab them. I think that drive by stabbings wouldn't sound as appeling to would be murders, But Guns themselves are too easy to blame. Lets ban cars, people die every 12 seconds in one in this country, not to mention the environment backlash. This question is just the surface of a much deeper issue.
  • Because we have a constitutional right to bear arms, and even if we did place a ban on Guns, the underground Gun trade and Illegal weapons that go in and out of this country would not stop, so criminals would still have guns. A ban would simply take away Law-abiding, good citizens ability to defend themselves.
  • We have this thing we like to call the constitution, in it the second amendment allows us the right to bear arms. Thats why.
  • If we lose the guns, people will find other ways to kill eachother. Besides, anyone who really wants the guns will find a way to get them illegally. I'm sure if outlawing firearms was an even close to viable option, we may have done it already, but it'll never work, and it has been proven to be a failure in practice.
  • Canada has even less gun laws than America and they have more guns per capita and less gunshot deaths. So much less that, gunshot deaths are nearly unheard of. Therefore, allowing guns doesn't mean that is the reason there are more gunshot deaths. ~~~~~~ EDIT: Canada has more strict laws than the USA. Per-territory there is a 96% correlation of gun ownerships to gun deaths. (Per state as well in America). ~~~~In short, I messed up and based by information on a documentary that was obviously wrong and ill-researched. I shall remember to do my own research before posting on something in which I am not well-versed. Instead of erasing the flawed information I have decided to leave it. I am sorry for the misinformation. Dum spero diciplus... as long as I live, I am a student. (I learn) Thanks to Shelby for helping me realize my mistake. Still, in America: Outlawing them just means more people would do more illegal things to obtain a gun illegally. Including killing others. SO outlawing guns is an illogical approach to lessening crime. It may decrease gunshot specific deaths, but not gun-related ones. Outlawing something that is beneficial for those who are responsible enough to use; causes more problems than it fixes.
  • I really don't think outlawing guns is going to make any difference. Those who are going to use a gun in a crime aren't going to be worried about whether or not the gun is legal. Assault weapons are illegal in the US, but that doesn't mean that gangs and other criminals do not have them. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. Therefore, law-abiding citizens will not have guns, and criminals will. I'd like to see the statistics that place deaths by accidental gunshot in the tens of thousands. According to my research, the number one cause of accidental death in the US is vehicles. By your logic, I suppose we should outlaw them, too. Outside of the issue of whether or not it will make any difference to crime, the right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. It is the culture surrounding the guns and their usage that contains the key to stemming gun violence.
  • guns do not kill people people kill people if your going to kill someone your going to do it one way or the other
  • Yes the U.S. leads the pack in gun deaths, closely followed by Brazil and Mexico when compared to other major industrialized nations. Some other nations surpass the US death toll, such as those with internal strife Iraq, Darfur, etc. but the fact remains emma that you are correct. Too many people are killed every year by firearms, however gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Perhaps to keep the population down.
  • How many gun deaths a year in the UK, where they are banned? 200 maximum.
    • Creamcrackered
      Loads of stabbings though
  • Yet the USA is virtually mum on "allowing" the over 40,000 road deaths that occur each year so is it that you are concerned about deaths or only how people die? The US Consumer Product Safety Commission's list of the 20 most dangerous legal items available to the US Public puts all firearms and explosives at 19th place!!! So for those who say they're concerned about decreasing deaths in the USA, via products available to the public, you have 18 others to go after before you get to firearms. The US Constitution's Bill of Rights is what gives Citizens of the USA the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's not a hunting license handed out by the state to those it favors but a Right guaranteed under law.
  • It is because the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is viewed as if it were one of the Ten Commandments here in the United States. I am not a gun owner, put I live in a community where the vast majority of my neighbors are. A lot of guys here “worship” their guns. They would never use their guns on another person, unless if they were physically attacked. Sadly, America has a very high pain threshold in the number of people that can be slaughtered before anything significant will change here.
  • This amendment that allows us to bear arms is based on the fear of physical governmental control. Nobody will ever be able to physically force us (as a whole) to do something we don't agree with. To be honest, I don't see how anybody could ever invade and take us over either...we all got guns! Citizens would be ready to fight in about 5 minutes!
  • Because it is our constitutional right, the right to 'bear arms.' Do do away with this right would take a constitutional amendment, which quite frankly, has no chance at all of passing.
  • Due to my old neighborhood, I have been reminded more than once that, people kill. Our housing projects back there is the largest in america (not something to be proud of) and I've known a lot of folks who have suffered violent deaths at the hands of a gun.I had minimal contact with most of them but like today, I just heard that an old classmates son's funeral was today. Violence or even a quiet death hurts us all. It takes our humanity sometimes but, with all that said, I have to point out that if death isn't caused by gunshot there is always disease, poison, accidents, lethal injections, etc out there waiting for us. I may not know much about guns, but I think that we are all going to die.
  • For the same reason that we allow cars, swimming pools, and Christianity. All things are (or at least can be) dangerous. Try putting things in perspective.
  • Well you know what, They should also ban nuclear weapons (no more hiroshimas) and ban religion in schools (no more religious fanatics) They are both as destructive as guns. Guns have NO good use. Where I live now, only the police have guns. There were zero gun deaths here last year-zero. In Japan where there are no guns, there was 1.4 murders per 100,000 people. In the US it was 9.4 per 100,000. Like you say, do the math.
  • If they stopped guns people would use knives and then knives would be banned, then comes knight sticks ,and so on.
  • The "tens of thousands of gunshot deaths every year" argument ignores the 2 million or so times each year that guns are used by law abiding citizens to protect innocent lives and private property from criminal attack. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are the biggest reason we have enjoyed our freedoms for so long. It's also why so many other countries around the world owe their freedom to the U.S.
  • Why does a country with tens of thousands of highway fatalities allow vehicle ownership? How can a country that treats it's own citizens inhumanely complain when someone tries to stop them? How can an intelligent person be so opposed to information that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions and allow their heart to totally overrule logic? Once again, you are showing only one side of the issue without even think about attempting to contemplate the glimmer of a possibility of trying to see anything other than your happy, gun-free, Socialist Utopia. If you want to prove me wrong, try playing Devil's Advocate. Try understanding our point of view without assuming we Americans are gun-toting, blood drinking baby rapists. Try viewing facts objectively and not just picking the ones that fit your pre-formed opinions and exaggerating things to make your case sound more impressive. As I've said before, you and I are not as far apart as you think yet we seem to be completely opposite. maybe it's because I don't let my heart turn my brain off, I don't know.
  • Because without citizens owning guns to stop the criminals the gun deaths by criminals would be higher than that.
  • I'd rather be shot than clubbed to death with the jawbone of an ass. People are going to kill people no matter what the weapon of choice is.
  • It's this silly little document called the CONSTITUTION....We Americans are guaranteed certain rights.........and the right to bear arms is one of them.
  • I think 'goon' control would effectively eliminate the misuse of firearms. Put the hammer down on the goons that shoot people.
  • Maybe for the same reason we allow people to drive cars, eat junk food, use knives, join gangs and churches, buy tylenol over the counter, give birth, etc... All of these things cause people to die, but we have the right to die, and to live, as we see fit. Guns account for a small percentage of premature deaths a each year. Find a new demon to battle. You keep losing this one.
  • i don't think that gun ownership is the problem nearly as much as~ criminals carrying guns; in the hands of the majority, which are law abiding citizens, i don't think there would be a problem :)
  • I guess we could all give U Millions of Good Reasons which U would "Reject". So I think the wise thing to do is just have U pick a "Better Country" for U to go live in. Perhaps Iraq,Iran,Several of the African States, Russia, China. I think their "Rates" are low cause they call it "Birth Control" for the "Records". John
  • Because we were never ruled by a king or dictator and as long as there are guns in our hands we are citizens not subjects! Unfortunately there are assholes in this country who abuse our rights.
  • the same reason driving is legal despite the fact that millions of americans die on the highway..
  • I doubt seriously that you would agree to a similar limitation for your Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech, n'est-ce pas? It is inconcievable that those who propose such draconian limitations for the 2nd Amendment would EVER consider the same kinds of limitations on the 1st. Tsk, tsk, such hypocrisy. And notice how the author of this question ignored the provided evidence of 2 million gun defenses every year, instead choosing to glom onto the burning issue of America's historical defenses of the freedom of others? Nice try, but ring up a "no sale" on yer Malibu Barbie Bikini Boutique cash register, princess, 'cause this pilgrim ain't buyin' nuthin' from your flea market. Through some serendipitous happenstance I happen to have recently written an essay on the topic of gun control, the title alone of which might earn me some howls of outrageous indignation from well meaning albeit mostly ignorant advocates of gun control. To whit: Why You Should Take Your Gun to School The question of how best to secure students and faculty from the predations of those inclined toward violence as a means to their own end is a sore puzzle, indeed--and one that places one of the tenets of our nation's very foundation at risk. It puts the very basic principle of our forefathers--that individual freedoms should take precedence over the common good--at odds with the seemingly intuitive truth that less availability of guns will mean less bloodshed. When one hears of the kind of tragedies perpetrated by gun-toting mass murderers at Columbine, Virginia Tech, or at a school full of Quaker children, the first thought is quite naturally, "How could this have been prevented?" Certainly, one could make the case that if the killers had been unarmed their plans would have been much more difficult to realize, and so one tends to focus intuitively on the gun as both the problem (facilitator) and the means (banishment) to the solution. Were our forefathers wrong? Were they shortsighted when they constitutionally guaranteed the ability of the citizen to arm himself and thereby provide for his own defense ? Were they merely the appeasing pawns of their less civilized society, pandering to the fears of those who might live on the wilderness fringe? Should Americans instead have been treated like they had been all along under King George III (as mere subjects who must be cared for) rather than as citizens with the rights and responsibilities of those who embrace self-determination? I think not. No adult class of Americans, such as most of the students or teachers at our school, should ever be stripped of those rights and responsibilities simply because they happen to occupy the same buildings as our most precious resource: our children. In fact, as each new atrocity seems to prove, to do so may actually increase the danger to the children by creating an environment where the madman may wield his weapon with impunity, without fear of immediate opposition to his dastardly plans. It is logical to assume that if they were intending to cause the most damage possible, that such miscreants would target a place where they were least likely to encounter armed resistance, a place where being armed was not allowed to their victim, the law-abiding citizen. They have found such a place in our schools, thanks to our own misguided intuitions. I say misguided because it is the very intention of protection that has engendered our risk. When Seung-Hui Cho undertook his grisly task of indiscriminate murder, he was able to walk calmly among his screaming victims, executing each in turn without fear of intervention, their spurting blood marking his slow, methodical passage. I sometimes wonder if any of the more than thirty victims that day in Blacksburg were one of the thousands of Virginians licensed to carry a concealed gun. Certainly, those people might have been able to intervene, had they not been in just such a gun free zone. I recently discovered one famous case of such intervention from my youth, in which legally armed citizens returned fire from a crazed gunman with a brain tumor. They succeeded in pinning him down with rifle fire until the police could arrive and subdue him with several well placed shots, thereby limiting his massacre to fourteen dead and thirty-one wounded at the University of Texas. These same citizens were later credited by one of the two officers who shot the gunman, for having prevented Charles Whitman from taking careful aim at his intended victims. Of course, while there is no way to count how many were saved from his bullets by the armed citizenry (since only victims may be counted), there can also be no denying that some were in fact saved, since the killer's actions were obviously thwarted. According to several studies, the most notable of which might be that of pioneering researchers Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, guns are used by Americans to defend themselves against criminal attack more than two million times each year. Their study was so thorough in its approach that Marvin E. Wolfgang, noted gun-control advocate of the Northwestern University School of Law, wrote his endorsement of their work, entitled "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed." In the article, Wolfgang summarizes his opinion: "…the Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well." Those who insist that the security of ourselves and our children is best left to the authorities should remember that the police rarely perform actual last second rescues. Said another way, seldom is the cavalry on the way, and Officer Do-Right is stuck in traffic. Perhaps if there were security officers stationed at every door of every classroom such confidence in authoriy might be justified. But since economy prevents such a condition, it seems naught but foolhardy to be comforted by the illusion of inviolability provided by the faux fiat that is the law. One is forced by the reality of such events as Virginia Tech to acknowledge that such law is secured only by the consensual agreement to comply and that for some, such agreement is apparently viewed as non-binding. When one begins to appreciate the true genius of the US Constitution and its Amendments, it becomes quite clear that our founding fathers wished fervently to ensure that their descendents would never again be the powerless subjects of their governors, but would instead remain citizens in a free republic into perpetuity. I fully understand the attraction of self as subject, of wanting all things (especially security) to be provided by the state. But the subject is only slightly more free than the plantation slave, who must also be provided his security, and so must also settle for what seems reasonable to his betters. He cannot be allowed to arrange for it himself like the citizen because his elitist masters view him as part of an unruly mob, in dire need of being controlled. As for myself and a good many other Americans, we prefer to carry firearms in order to have within our own grasp the means to secure our persons and property and are quite willing to vociferously oppose those who would deny that constitutionally guaranteed preference through foul legislation or judicial decree. As President Ford once noted, " ...a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Perhaps it is instinctual for people to try to ban those items which appear to facilitate crime, since prohibition has historically been the knee-jerk reflex of those with the authoriy to make law. Prohibition has only proven effective as a means of controlling such items in a police state, where the people have few rights and may be subjected to search and seizure at the whim of any government agent. In countries such as ours it has failed miserably, as the bans against guns, alcohol and drugs have markedly proven. These failures seem to suggest that prohibition and freedom are incongruous, if not entirely imiscible. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized that citizens should never be disarmed, having copied by hand into his "Commonplace Book", this quote from the 18th century criminologist, Cesare Beccaria: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. 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." Was Jefferson bitterly clinging to his guns and religion? I think not. --------------------------------------------------- Works Cited Kleck, Gary , and Marc Gertz. Second Amendment Foundation. 1995. Google. 10 June 2008 <>. Wolfgang, Marvin E. "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed."Second Amendment Foundation.1995. Google.10 June 2008. <>. President GERALD R. FORD, remarks to a joint session of Congress, August 12, 1974.―The Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Gerald R. Ford, 1974, p.6.Google. 10June2008<> Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764
  • I'm trying to figure that out, myself.
  • Americans have a high tolerance level for the deaths of their fellow citizens. They value their constitution more than the lives of their neighbours and believe, without a shred of proof, that without so many guns, there would be more gun deaths. Illogical, yes, but national myths are darn hard to dispel.
    • kwhit190211
      Ok, with that in mind, when the police, crazed person out for blood, or criminal push their way into your house, shot your son/daughter/wife who is by your side then walks out of your house. Think what you could have done to protect the family member that he/she just killed in your house if you had a gun in your hand. Someone forces their self into my house to harm me, my wife or my kids is going to go back out of the door in a bag.
  • So people can shoot back.
  • Why does any country, with tens of thousands of car injuries and deaths per year, allow car ownership? It's the same answer -- because we plebians want to own these things, because we think it makes our life better.
  • If people in the US didn't own guns, we would've never been a free country.
  • not to mention that we all should carry guns so that when the government in forms of the irs cia and fbi take all your belongings cuase they think your a terrorrist, then maybe you would have wished to own a gun and stand up for yoru rights...
  • Because a country like the U S A is run by the people who want guns to defend their freedoms and defend themselves from criminals who get their guns illegally.
  • because they don't want to have stabbing deaths? I think your pathetic little bullies sign says it all.
  • Emma, I have a partial list of countries that owe their freedom to the US: Panama Austria Belgium Belarus Ukraine Armenia Georgia Azerbaijan Estonia Lithuania Latvia Norway Denmark Turkey France Great Britain The Philippines Cuba Iran Slovakia The Czech Republic Italy Liberia Hungary Greece Just to mention a few.
  • There is no way you can get "tens of thousands" of annual gunshot deaths out of the raw statistics unless you include people shot by criminals (40%), suicides (55%), who would have killed themselves by other means anyway, and criminals killed by police (2%). That's 97% of all gunshot deaths in America. . So your argument applies to 3% of the numbers you are waving in our faces. That's less than a thousand deaths per year. More people die of the common cold than that. . I haven't even mentioned the number of rapes, robberies, muggings, carjackings, and murders that have been prevented by armed citizens who were able to defend themselves. There can be no satistic for violence that has been prevented, so I have to GIVE you the 3%. . But this logic is inescapable: violent criminals are not and will not be deterred from violence by gun laws. The only possible result of stricter gun laws would be that the criminals would be armed and the law-abiding citizens would be totally defenceless. . Now, for my next argument, logic is no longer viable. I fall back on raw emotion. I live in the deep woods, 1/4 mile from the highway and seven miles from the nearest town. If I were attacked, self-defence or death would be my only choice. Will you sentence me to death at the hands of a homicidal maniac, because you and your warm-fuzzy feel-good allies have robbed me of my ability to defend myself? . Not this side of Hell. If you want to take away my guns, you'll have to come and get them; and you'd better come shooting. BTW, as a retired college professor, I've met Noam Chomsky more than once. I found him pompous, self-absorbed, self-serving, and one-sided in his thinking. I don't trust his opinion, his logic, or even his statistics.
  • If there was a total ban on personal ownership of firearms (which could NEVER happen), you should expect crime to rise drastically. Criminals don't care about laws pertaining to firearms, and if they knew 100% that citizens had no way to protect themselves, it would make for easy targets among the sheeple. The criminals not-knowing if one of their potential victims is armed, is what keeps them from going on an all-out crime spree. Citizens are not exposed to firearms and proper firearm safety enough, and thus feel intimidated by them. They have this fear that a gun is dangerous and can just go off at any moment. I have shot many hundreds of thousands of rounds through various firearms, and haven't once had an unintentional discharge. The majority of gun related deaths are caused from criminals. Citizens must be allowed to protect themselves. You cannot rely on the government to protect you. The police can arrest someone after a crime is commited, but cannot foresee the crime and be there to prevent it. Crimes will happen, and you have to protect yourself and your loved ones. As always, you reserve your right to be a victim.
  • The right to bear arms is in our constitution or bill of rights. Otherwise the government would have them all and so might seek to enforce its will by that means and the people would not be able to defend themselves.
  • it is our right to own guns
  • I agree with everything said here about our Constitutional rights and add to it by saying that we should never forget history or we will be doomed to repeat it. Look what happened in Nazi Germany when the people gave up their guns. We have the right to not only protect ourselves, family , and property from those who wish to harm us, but also to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
  • 1-10-2017 Your premise is goofy. Tens of thousands of people are killed in cars every year. Does that mean we should ban cars? Tens of thousands of people are killed by medical staff mistakes every year. Does that mean we should ban medical staff? Tens of thousands of people are killed every year by diseases that only exist in hospitals. Does that mean we should ban hospitals? Ignorant do-gooders are just as bad as ignorant bullies.
  • You need to look at the details of such figures. Many deaths are from self-defense and stopping crimes. Guns are used much more often for self-defense than for committing crimes. They're the best means of self-defense. The US Constitution gives citizens the right to own guns. Dictators often disarm the people they plan to take over.
  • not sure why but thats a good question
  • The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution gives us the right to own guns. Guns are the best means of self-defense ever devised. People commit murders whether they have guns or not. Guns are used more for self-defense and generally stopping crimes than to commit crimes. You need to look at your figures in detail. The liberal media is anti-gun, so it ignores incidents in which guns are used for self-defense. Don't let the liberal anti-gun media brainwash you! More people are killed in car wrecks than by guns, so by your reasoning, we should ban cars. Lots of people cause accidents when they text while driving, so you want to ban phones. Some nuts have been inspired to commit murders by the Bible, so let's ban the Bible. You can't ban everything that's misused by some people. Hundreds of millions of people own guns and never commit crimes with him, and you want to penalize these people because of what a small minority does.
  • Most Americans view gun ownership as essential to their freedom and homestead. You wouldn't want a psychopath walking into your home to rob you. I am sure you would like the opportunity to defend yourself before you become another victim of these "tens of thousands of gunshot deaths every year" as you said in your question.
  • When the American peasants rose up against the King's tyranny, we didn't use words to stop them. We shot them.
  • Because there are tens of thousands of divorces each year should we disallow marriage? Because there are tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year should we disallow driving vehicles? Because there are tens of thousands of deaths from high blood pressure each year should we disallow salt? Basically, the logic in this case is flawed.
  • Because gun control has no correlation to crime. Apparently Emma is more ignorant than the bullies! Educate yourself. I'm only going to copy in one of over 50 facts with which you need to familiarize yourself before you post more ignorance. "Fact: The top 100 countries for homicide do not include the U.S. 44 The top ten countries all have near or total firearm bans."
    • Sandra Ursula
      Good answer!
  • Unfortunately, gun control is not the equivalent of self-control, which many people lack nowadays (2 Tim 3:1-5). The Bible describes the type of people that would exist on earth during this time as “ fierce, lacking self-control and having no natural affection”. These are all qualities similar to that of carnivorous animals who stalk and kill their prey (mainly focusing on weaker animals). We as humans are capable of learning compassion, kindness, love etc., however these are not qualities that many choose to cultivate. How many guns were used in the attacks on 9/11? Now, people are driving cars into large crowds and throwing acid into women’s faces. These are all animalistic & ferocious acts that are caused by people who are being influenced by satan the devil (John 8:44).
  • My question is not gun ownership but why isn't there more gun control. Yes I read gun control won't stop criminals from obtaining a gun. Okay this may be true. However gun control could help hinder some such people from getting a gun. I include mentally ill people with a proven history of violence. A mental illness doesn't necessarily mean being dangerous. Especially when stabilized with treatment. A background check would be a good start.
    • Linda Joy
      Because then they'd used bombs, biological weapons, knives, cars, poison, hanging, drowning. All have been used in the past to commit mass murder! Heck, more kids are killed by using their cell phones than by guns!! Wanna ban those, too?
  • Because liberals are always trying to take the guns away.
  • Its back to our country.
  • wish i knew
  • It's not a matter of gun ownership, it's a matter of a great lack of self-mastery. Lets look at the Samurai code of ethics, the seven virtues of Bushido: Justice, Bravery, Benevolence, Politeness, Veracity, Honor and Loyalty. One who takes a life and doesn't know the value of life is a flawed character who is a danger to life. We have to look deeper to the root of our damaged social fabric.
    • Archie Bunker
      As you say, it's a breakdown of the social fabric, not the availability of guns.
    • Linda Joy
      If everyone took that advice we'd all be going to the Queen's church.
  • I don't own any guns and I've managed to stay alive for almost 49 years. More importantly, I haven't taken anyone's life. BUT, even more important than that, American's haven't been taken by force by our own government.
  • You need to inspect your figures more closely. The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to own guns. Guns are the best self-defense weapons ever made. Guns are used more often to stop crimes and for self-defense than for crimes. There are more deaths in automobile accidents than from guns, so do you want to ban cars? Murders are still committed in nations that ban guns.
  • The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution refers to a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms no one can change the Constitution
  • Its part of the contract we all agreed to in order to form this nation. Your opinion that gun laws translate to violence is untrue. Do your research.
  • Why do those from countries with out-of-control knife deaths insist on touting gun deaths in America? Why do politicians of these countries not grow a pair, find their backbones, and enact equally repressive anti-knife laws to curtail the "tens of thousands" of knife deaths "every year" of their own populace? Hypocrisy much?
  • Because right winged, conservative gun-rights advocacy groups such as the NRA, GOA, etc. have to much influence on the government and lobby to prevent even common sense gun control laws.
  • The USA population could stand to go to some shooting classes to hit a target better so you only need one shot.
  • You start with a false statement. There are not "tens of thousands of gunshot deaths every year" in the US. Read the bill of rights.
  • Because it is a democracy, and democratically overturning the Constitutional law allowing the private ownership of firearms is not feasible at this time.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy