ANSWERS: 100
  • restrictions, ie gun size... surely you wont be needing massive rifles just for protection, maybe rifles for hunting, thats different. applications for getting guns, person's past (criminal record, etc)
  • yes,yes, and yes! zero guns anywhere-how perfect would that be?
  • The Constitution forbids it in the United States. There is correlation between these mass shootings and gun control. All of these shootings are in gun-free zones, where law-abiding citizens cannot carry a weapon (schools, post offices, etc.). If you had law-abiding armed citizens at VT, or Ohio, the shooters would have been incapacitated by armed citizens and ended the massacre sooner. Anyway, a total ban on guns only removes guns from those who legally own them, anyone who wishes to use a gun for a crime will have no problem committing the additional crime of obtaining a gun illegally. Drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and lsd are completely prohibited, and we still find those on the streets.
  • We have a total ban in the UK, even the Police do not carry guns. Since the ban even on gun Clubs we seem to have more shootings . Not on a US scale but many more than previously. The reason being that the people that did not hand in their weapons were people that were liable to use them for criminal purposes and had them illegally in the first place.
  • No, not at all. and here's why. Will America be next ???? A LITTLE GUN HISTORY I Thought you might appreciate this . . . In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. ------------------------------ It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends. If we lose our guns, we lose our freedom. And that's a fact.
  • There should have been a total ban on guns 40 years ago but with the NRA lobby we can expect more death from guns.Every times something like shootings it is never mentioned that gun laws must change.Instead because of the NRA is it swept under the carpet.Take the damn guns away.
  • No: Because if Guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns. Its not the gun that kills. Its the person behind it, or the misuse of it. Put a heavier law behind the misuse of guns. And there may be less problems. But there is no need to try an ban guns from everyone. Because even if it could be done, there would still be something else out there, that would take its place. It is we the people who need teach respect to our children. And if we want a gun in our home, we need to first learn how to us it. Then teach our children that it is not a toy. And what will happen if it is misused. Another part of todays problem I think comes from having very little time to spend with our kids, do to so much time spent at work. We need to find ways to have time with our children. Even if its only a few hours a day. This fast stile of life we live in today, is pulling us away from our children. And things like video's, video games of violence & crime seem to fill in their time. Only in the long run, for many it becomes a way of life. The child & even the adult may show a sign of change after spending to much time around evil games of violence. Most all have some kind of hate in them, along with bad language. And after playing these games day in & day out. It becomes a part of their own actions. Their language even changes to where about every other word is a bad one. Its a very sad thing to see now days. And its only going to get worse if we don't find ways to spend time together. My hat goes out to all parents who fine ways to spend more time with their children. And teach them right from wrong. And built a bond between them to where the child has respect for his/her parents. As far as that law on guns in America being changed. I think the law's that keep a parent from teaching their child right from wrong are the ones that need changed first. And anyone who commits a crime, should do their time. .........M.C.S.
  • I don't think that a total ban of firearms is viable for many reasons. I would like to see mandatory safety training and licenses for the ownership of firearms in the US. As it is, there are too many and there will be no way to track them all down, so a total ban would be impossible.
  • No. I think the problem in the US is the ease with which guns are available, however so many people have guns now that they act as a kind of deterrent! Its kind of like a cold war there, "we need guns so we dont get shot" compared with "we need nuclear weapons so we dont get bombed by nuclear weapons". Unfortunatly for the American citizens such an easy solution is past its useful period.
  • Lets see, you want to ban guns entirely. Make them ILLEGAL like cocain and marijuana. Those drugs have been illegal in the U.S. for years yet they are everywhere. How do you propose to get the criminals to turn in their guns? Why would someone who intends to commit murder be afraid of ANY gun law? Murder carries severe penalties even the death penalty in some states yet it happens everyday. What penalty would you impose for possesing an illegal gun? Guns ARE illegal in Wash. D.C. Last I checked it was the murder capital of the world. I don't keep a gun because I am scared. I keep it so I don't have to be scared!
  • bans DO NOT work ....look around the world(Australia is a perfect example) and see where guns are banned and the results are knife deaths are through the roof(gunna ban knives to are we)and so are gun deaths of innocent people...why? because they don't have weapons to defend them selves .... no maybe better checks on who gets one and maybe better training is the way to go
  • Oh yeah, that'd be brilliant. Then the only people with guns would be those who bought them through black market a.k.a. the CRIMINALS.
  • Not at all. Gun ownership should be mandatory for law abiding citizens.
  • Absolutely not!!! I think the media needs to stop filling the airways with the stories. The more you hear about it, the more it happens. These people are looking for attention and they are getting it.
  • i dont believe there should be a ban on guns.. but i would like to see more training, maybe like Gun training in school... imagine how few accidents would happen if all students were trained to use the guns correctly... (they would have to be watched to make sure they dont go shooting the place up, but still.
  • No I don't.
  • Not at all, actually allowing people to carry concealed reduces the numbers of innocent victims and while the scare tatics say there will be more "random" shootings if private citizens carry a gun, the opposite has been proven with relatively no "random" shootings and only potential victims shooting the ones trying to prey on them, stopping criminals from victimizing the population. The gun control freaks will pull out the "man bites dog" scenario and wave it like the norm, but they are full of crap as the wacko left usually is. People from other nations should not comment on what takes place outside their own country as well, since they have no clue and no credibility to comment on such issues.
  • I don't have a problem with pistols for personal protection, but automatic, assault weapons and high powered rifles are crossing the line. Those should be kept out of the hands of citizens.
  • I don't believe a total ban will ever be accepted by the majority of the American People. However, SOMETHING needs to be done about guns bought outside the normal channels. Assault weapons need to be regulated more like hand guns, too (Waiting period, etc.) Actually, I can think of very few good reasons for ANYONE owning an assault rifle.
  • No. Here is an interesting fact. Japan isn't keen on private ownership - http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Japanese_Gun_Control.htm - whereas my home state is pretty damn lenient. Guess who has the lower murder rate? Oh, and in addition to our murder rate being lower, not as many of those murders are shootings as you might think. Do you propose banning steak knives, blunt objects, automobiles, flammables, toxic (or potentially toxic) chemicals, and all? I don't know if you've noticed but us humans are pretty damn ingenious when it comes to finding ways to kill each other and if you're motivated enough to shoot someone, you'll find another way if your guns is gone.
  • The short answer is no -- the right to possess firearms in order to protect ourselves, both from criminals and from a tyrannical government, is too ingrained into the American psyche.
  • Absolutely not. A crminal in a society without guns has no deterrent. However just the knowledge that there are guns in people's homes makes a criminal think twice about committing the crime. Education is important. Adults who own guns should be held responsible for making sure they do not get into the hands of children.
  • The recent wave of shootings have only been happening where guns are already totally banned. They call these places "gun free zones" There are always more shootings where guns are banned and the victims disarmed because law-breakers will continue to carry firearms. There are no mass shootings where law-abiding civilians carry firearms for self-defense. It is estimated that Americans use guns defensively 2.5 million times a year. There would be far more victims of crime and shooting sprees if guns were banned. Utah now allows conceal carry on campus and have never had a shooting since the enactment of this law.
  • Nope, it would never work. Gun owners won't give up their guns without a fight. If we lose our guns, then we will lose everything else. If it wasn't for guns, we wouldn't be the United States, but we would be British subjects. I know I won't give up my guns, nope, not at all.
  • A total ban like Australia is the best way to go.
  • No.. A gun ban wouldn't change anything..
  • Whatever it is that possesses people to want to do these things, taking away guns isn't going to solve the problem.
  • no, because the ones shooting up the places dont legally have them, I def support the gun controls, but no bans, sans the use of lead.
  • No, no, no ... a thousand times no! Private ownership of firearms are guaranteed by the US Constitution, and the only way to affect that ownership is by changing the Constitution. On one hand here at AB, we have a great number of people very mistrustful of government ( and, in my humble opinion, wisely so ), yet on the other hand we have numbers of people advocating tighter gun controls or even outright bans! What's wrong with this picture? THINK, people, THINK! What is the ONE freedom that is the final defense of all other feedoms???
  • no. A ban on guns only takes guns away from the law abiding citizens who legally and lawfully get guns as the constitution of the united states allows them to. By banning guns these people lose a basic liberty and criminals still go out and get guns illegally. Banning guns will never stop gun killings or criminals from obtaining firearms
  • Does anyone REALLY think the criminals will obey the laws and be nice and not import illegal guns? Sound bites after total gun banning: "Hey guys, now we don't have to worry about being shot if we break in! Happy days are here again! Let's start with the old people" ~Your Friendly Neighborhood Thug "Heh, heh, heh, now we can make them do what we want!" ~Your Government
  • Not at all, leaving only criminals armed is the worst thing we coild do to make things even worse. If concealed guns were legal in more place, not only would criminals think twice before opening fire on anyone for fear of getting dropped unexpectedly in return, but law abiding citizens coild go from being additional victims of criminals to being able to defend themselve from them. I believe in the right to bear arms, just not for criminals, banning leaves only criminals armed.
  • What "wave". right now we have fewer NUMBERS of shootings than 15 years ago and about the same NUMBER of shootings we had in the late 60's! Homicide/gun crimes are down. way down. Just because the news reports every single shooting in the whole united states over and over again doesn't mean it is more prevalent. It just means that there isn't anything interesting to report and/or that they are just furthering their political agenda.
  • There should be a total ban. When will we realize that owning a gun is not a freedom.The constitution says we can ,but what if the constitution said we could behead only 10 people a day with an axe,would that make it right.We hold onto old ideals with such strength that we do not get the big picture.We say it is right,but who's right will it be with everyone dead.If passion affects our answers,then logic is left out.
  • And then we can ban knives.And then,we can ban baseball bats.wait, what about cars ,,yeah yeah cars kill people ,lets ban cars.And books,yeah books put crazy thoughts into peoples heads, lets ban books also.
  • There are already OVER 14000 laws pertaining to guns in the United States. Guns have NEVER broken any laws. We do not NEED more laws. What we need is real consquences. When people were hung in the town square it sent a pretty clear message. If you do this, THIS, is what you get. Criminals do not fear laws anymore because jail is like a retreat.Its like a vacation.Where they have more civil rights than we do out in the streets, and in our homes.
  • You ever heard the saying "Out law guns and only the out laws will carry them.If you take away the chance of a home owner having a gun then the B&E's will go way up. Think of this way. Take away guns and murders will use knives, so what then? Take away all the knives, then sticks, forks. Oh don't forget cars. NO guns do not need to banned inthe us.
  • Banning something that is embedded in ones own cultural identity seems ridiculous. Perhaps this is a better method: First change the cultural attitude , by whichever appropriate means, to remove the desire for guns. Once the groups desiring gun ownership rights becomes a vocal minority, then banning is an option.
  • Hey MrSublime do this... Make you a big sign that says "I own no firearms what so ever and I wont defend myself or my home" in big letters and put in your front yard so everyone can see it.. See what heppens.
  • I do not think a total ban is necessary. If we are to ban weapons Completely from our Nation but for military use, farmers and ranchers like myself would have to find other means of hunting. Firearms are more efficient for bird control than a bow. Seriously, hunting, if the people dont poach and they pay attention to the law, is a good thing. I believe it helps with population control. Just like Cattle and Goats are important for keeping dry brush tamed. City folk dont know that...they think cattle are a burden...and then when SO CAL has fires, they wonder WHY. DEET DEE DEE. Common sense, I guess some city folk don't have any.
  • Criminals don't buy guns legally which means they will continue to be armed while the rest of us are at their mercy or become illegal gun owners. No, don't ban legal ownership of firearms.
  • <exasperated sigh> Absolutely not. 'nuff said.
  • I think they should be changed to you can carry a gun any ware if you have a concealed weapons permit.This would make these young punks think twice about shooting up a school,the reason why they pick a school is that they know no one else will have a gun and it will be a all out massacer until the police arrive.If some of the teachers had a gun they would have been able to stop these shooting a lot quicker.A total ban is the most stupid thing america could possibly do.If you took away every ones guns,who would have them?The Police and Criminals and people would not be able to defend them selves aginst the criminals and the USA would truly be a Gangsters paridise.
  • no. because if you want something bad enough you can get it, and the only ones who would want a gun bad enough would most likely want them for bad things and any upstanding citizen would not want to break the law by carrying one. therefore only the criminals would have them and we would all be fucked
  • psh NO NO NO NO NO like some else said its not the gun that kills its the person behind it
  • The only problem with THAT is, criminals ignore laws...ESPECIALLY gun laws. It's why they're called criminals.
  • Respectfully, I do indeed think that the laws be chainged, but in the opposite direction than a ban. It has shown statisticly (Chicago, DC) more crimes (Gun or not) happen in areas where the governing body chooses to infrenge on the peoples right to keep and bear arms. the opposite however happens when you enforce a law that requires that every head of household must own and learn to saffely use a firearm(not sure of the name of the town, but it was in Georgia) Now, I know that some people are not going to like the idea of having to have a gun by law, but im sure that if we were to raise all of those who have been needlessly murdured from the dead, they would appreciate more people out on the streets with arms of they're own under the creed of an armed citizen "In the defence of myself and those around me"
  • No, I think we need to do a better job in managing mental illnesses. Sane, healthy people don't use guns for shooting people. A lot of people survived the Great Depression on squirrels and rabbits they shot.
  • total ban=only criminals having guns
  • The Brady bill has helped somewhat, but we need additional laws to help prevent guns falling into the hands of dangerous people. I don't know what those laws would be. But a total ban?! Heck no! Don't take my only defense away! Criminy!
  • Absolutely not. Every law-abiding citizen (with certain exceptions, such as those who have been hospitalized for mental illness) should have the right to own a gun if he or she chooses to do so. Personally, I would choose not to, since I fall into one of the exceptions (hospitalized for depression).
  • anyone who believes that criminals will give up their guns just because of a ban should be classified as handicapped.
  • no way. you take my gun away, i leave the country.
  • I don't know, but I feel like something has to happen. I'm not sure if a total ban is the answer or better enforcement of the current laws. Either way, something needs to change.
  • No that would not work,if they banned guns who would have them?Criminals and the police and criminals would know that most people won't have guns so crime will go up and crimes will get out of control.I know this will not work.
  • I don't think that more gun laws will not solve the problem. there are evil people in this world. and they will do evil things. If anything, we should get rid of the laws since they aparently don't work.
  • Yes, do it and do it yesterday
  • Absolutely not. A well-armed society is a polite society. If you doubt it, check the violent crime statistics in places where the gun laws are stricter. Personally, I've lost count of the number of schools that have had shootings or near shootings, but I can tell you the number of shootings that have occurred at schools were guns were permitted: 0.
  • <sigh> Once again: NO.
  • Here are some facts.. Current crime rates are around the same as the end of the 60's. The current NUMBER of homicides is less than 1970 and the 1920's. Not rates but actual numbers of homicides. Check it out yourself at the department/bureau of justice statistics! http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm As for rates (or as a proportion of the population) Rates are lower than anytime since 1964, except in 2002 and 2004, when the rates were .1 lower.. Check it out at the above link. In the past record keeping was not as strict as it is now so the historic numbers are lower than actual. When the Assault weapons ban was in effect, the rates and the number of homicides were higher than current. Of course those "extra deadly" weapons are used in <1% of all gun realted crimes. People have a hard time beliveing the real numbers! Check it out here too http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm these are the official numbers that exist on homicides in the US as recorded by law enforment and judicial departments Handguns were only responsible for about half of all homicides. check it out here http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm 8,478 of the 16,692 homicides. Gun crime is near record lows. About 7,000 of the offenders are under 21. 6,000 of which used a handgun. That's at least 6,000 people killed by someone BANNED from purchasing a firearm! http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weapagetab.htm http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm Persons under 21 cannot even legally purchase a handgun. This is an illustration of how well a gun ban works. ~90% of the offenders, under 21, that used a firearm in commiting the homicide, obtained the firearm used in the crime on the black market or by theft. The remainder by taking them from their home or legal methods. If the laws banning guns from people under 21 worked we would eliminate about 7,000/<17,000 murders a year. See the previous link for break out by weapon. These bans obviously do not work. Considering this data, a total ban wouldn't, even remotely, be statisticaly effective. It is easier, however, to purchase drugs, which are totally illegal, than to obtain a handgun illegally. If we cannot even stop drugs from coming into the country after a ban for decades (for some over a hundred years, depending on state) how can one argue, logically, that a ban would stop illegal guns? In the past eight years alone in only the thirteen states reported, 22+ million firearms were purchased! http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/bcft/2007/table/bcft07st02.htm That's only eight years and thirteen states!! There is an estimated 250+ million firearms in the united states, owned by non-law enforcement persons. There are well over that when considering military and LEO ownership. How would it even be fesible to get a hold of all of those! Logistically it would be a nightmare, let alone the "from my cold dead hands" factor. How many LE personel would be killed trying to execute such an idea? In PA alone an estimated 66% of all home owners have a firearm of some sort. This is possibly inflated. As a matter of record for the data within the commonwealth of pennsylviana it sits around 45% (not including firearms that are inherated, prior to the background chech, illegal or moved to PA from other states). 66%/45%!!Were taking about homes not numbers of guns per person!!! That means for each home there are possibly multiples! Since records of permits issued have been kept, 1/21 persons have obtained a Licence to carry firearms in the state of PA. This does not take into account renewals of those licences obtained prior to record keeping. It is clearly embeded in the culture. Think about this one.. In alaska there is an average 4 guns per PERSON! It is my opinon that maybe 20-50% of firearm owners would volenter to surrender their firearms but the rest? It would lead to blood shed and before long, diminished numbers of Law Enforcement Officers (LEO). People would ban together to defend this culture which is rooted in the new (old idea) of liberty. With the rulling of the SCOTUS it would require revoking the second amendment. That requires 66% of our legislative bodies agreeing to do so AND 66% of the states ratifying it! With such deep roots in the culture of the united states it seems doubtful this would be allowed Despite the fact that we are constantly being pounded as to how bad the whole firearms "problem" is, the facts stand. Murder rates are lower, crime rates with a firearm are lower! Misconceptions on the matter of School shootings... School shootings are so rare that even during the columbine years they were only 25% of what they were prior to 1995!!! There were more kids killed in school every year, (on average) in the early 1900's than any year in 2000's! (Note: This is not a rate but NUMBERS of homicides) Check it out! (these are national statistics complied by the state of virginia) http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statistics.html Just think about that! The population is much much larger now and schools are, without a doubt, safe! Sure we have a higher rate of homicides than most countries, that is clear. The only fact that even remotly makes talk of a ban a subject of discussion is that we have a higher murder rate than many countries. ~79.3% of all murders place in poor areas in and around major cities (population >1 million). or a rate of 6.7 per 100,000 http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/urbantab.htm In rural areas... or rather areas that are typically regarded as RED counties, only had 1,299 murders - 8% of all murders. This is a rate of .9 per 100,000! (Note that these areas make up about 45% of the total US population.) These rates are really really low!! check it out here (NOTE: for purposes of comparing the number would be .009464 per 1,000) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita These numbers are lower than the UK, Italy, Germany, Spain, Canada, Australia... and nearly ties Ireland Note: it's is in line and lower/comparable than countries that have banned guns!! This is why the conflicting opinions on firearm ownership is still around!!! If you live in or around the major cities (typically blue counties)the murder rate near you is comparable to Zambia! While other areas (Typically red counties) reflect murder rates comparable to Switzerland. These areas have a gun ownership ratio greater than the country that hands them out to their citizens, about 5 times that of the "blue counties"! There in lies the conflict. Gun controls/bans come off as an attack on 45% of the population that occupies about 80% of the landmass. This portion of US society lives in relative peace, nearly murder free. To those in these very low homicide rate areas, there is little, if any, problem with daily shootings. However, this portion of the population is bombarded with news of these shootings. Concerned for their own safety, they want to keep themselves safe from those people in the high homicide rate areas that commit these crimes. The other side is dealing with small areas that resemble combat zones. Murder rates higher currently than in the Iraq War, PARTS, note emphasis, of Washington D.C. for example. They want to live in an area that is just as safe. The reality is that even in DC, if you're not in the "bad sections" you are relatively safe. Homicide rates near gov sections are very low. However, the bombarding of news stories makes it too close for comfort. No one in these bad areas typically uses or has a voice These areas are left to the very poor, very uneducated, and criminals. The silver lining, most of these shootings involve criminals* attacking and killing criminals*. *both persons engaged in serious felonious acts. The facts are not being fully scrutinised. About 70% of the <17,000 homicides are in-fact criminals killing criminals. ~500 are inmates! http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/shspljpr.htm ~500 of homicides are justifiable homicides. Police killing criminals/innocent victom/ bystandard killing criminal http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.htm 55 were police officers Murdered/killed in the line of duty. http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/leokweaptab.htm Lets not forget that vehicular homicide is also included in these numbers! We have about 40,000+ vehicle related deaths per year. some are ruled homicides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year The media talks about it often and the public hears the same story repedily. This can create a perception of a situation that is worse than reality. Most people think that tens if not hundreads of thousands of people a year are killed in the street. You probably are staring at these numbers in disbelief! Questioning rather they are really that low! People rarely research, in depth, their political views. They hear an opinon and a vague stat and turn it into their opinon before getting the facts. Stats and ratios inflate perceptions/misconseptions. e.g. murder is up 20% this year for city x. This makes people gasp... What was left out was that last year city X had 10 murders that's 2 more this year not the percieved 200 more. Even worse suicides are often included within statistics to make people think the number of homicides is twice to three times that of reality. I hope this makes you look further into political issues to find out the facts and form your own educated opinion.
  • a total ban on your brain
  • sure ban them. then the only ones that will have them are the criminals, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and other law breakers. which I figure will outnumber law enforcment about 500% so sure, US citizens don't need to protect ourselves. After the ban, I give it 5 years and we will all be dead from the criminals
  • I've submited my proper answer to this question already, but seeing as this question is one that is'nt going to go away, because there are too many people out there who don't appreciate our free country, then maybe I should put it another way. Maybe, we do need to compleatly ban law abiding citizens the god given right to protect themselves and those around them, and while we are at it, lets ban the peoples right to religeon; free speach; life; liberty; the pursute of happiness; the right to petition for redress of our grievances; the right to be secure in our persons, homes, papers, and effects; the right to a fair, free, and speedy tril by a jury; and all of the other rights that our fore fathers gave there blood and lives to secure, for the generations to come. Hey, it worked for the Nazi third riche of Germany, and the socialist republics of Russia, and China, why wouldnt it work for us? Personaly I think that it goes back to the saying "Ignorance and stupidity should be painfull", and by all right, those people who do decide to try this avenue, in ignorance and stupidity, shall feel the wrath of all those who will not go quietly into that good night, and they shall recive the due punishment of those therein, fore "Those who would forfit there liberty, in exchange for security, deserve nither"
  • definitely no. that would be stupid. criminals misuse guns, against the law, THEY ARE ALREADY GOING AGAINST THE LAW. if we ban guns who do you think will have guns? the criminals, i mean they obviously have no respect for the law, so making a law, knowing that it would do more harm than good, would be pointless
  • Guns should not be banned while they are a dangerous weapon they could also be used as a self defense weapon. If you dissagree with me, than if someone pulled a knive on you or tried to rob you with any weapon at that would you want to have a pistol at hand to defend yourself, I would.
  • I don't believe guns should be banned.
  • yes and no..maybe modified slightly
  • No, I do not think a total gun ban would do one bit of good. First of all making it illegal to own guns would only kep guns out of law biding citizens hands. I think it makes about as much sense to outlaw pencils from people that can't spell.
  • Well I live in England and we have a significant gun crime rate even though guns are completely illegal to have unless for the purpose of bird shooting and professional marksmen/women. Therefore regardless of whether it is legal or illegal to own a gun gun crime will happen. Although not being allowed to own a gun would make it slightly harder for very young kids to have access to them.
  • No! I need to defend myself against the criminals and my government.
  • Yes, take them out of the street!
  • Let's get this straight ONE MORE TIME ... Gun ownership is protected under the Constitution of the United States! This means you cannot ban guns unless you CHANGE the Constitution!
  • Criminals are going to have guns, banned or not. If we ban guns, that will not effect them one bit, except to know that chances are, they will be the only one with a gun in a fight. That would give them the upper hand. Do not take away my American right to defend myself and my family.
  • It was said as a joke, but I think that it's true. Don't take away guns, charge out the ass for bullets. Everyone would think twice about firing a bullet if they were $100 each.
  • Never, absolutely never. The opposite, every law abiding citizen should be responsible enough and able enough to protect their own family and property. The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that it is NOT the responsibility of the police to protect the individual, but the community. So, it is the individual's responsibility to protects one's own person and property!
  • Absolutely not!!! It would be a law that would be broken by most people in this country, thus clogging up our judicial systems with an overabundance of court cases.. Besides, I feel very safe with my .380 when I go out alone at night. I don't use it to shoot innocent people, so why should I have my protection taken away because some people use guns for the wrong reasons? Nu-uh.. I am not giving up my gun. I don't care what law they make.
  • If a total ban takes place it will be harder for the average non-felon homeowner to get a gun, I say that because they will be more likely to steer clear of illegally obtaining a gun. With that in place a would be robber will have no problem getting one illegally, which leave the homeowner he is about to rob without protection. Totally banning guns is a stupid idea, my guns and ammo will have to took from my cold dead hands!
  • Changing the laws just makes it more difficult for law abiding folks. Or have you forgotten about Prohibition?
  • No, Society's behaviors need changed. Society itself is the problem, not the tools society has within their grasps. Since criminals would reluctantly follow most gun laws and bans, because they are so honest and display such integrity and values in their "job description", i think they would continue to use an illegally obtained firearm in the performance of their job duties. I also believe that these smart law obiding criminals would welcome the fact for any legislature outlawing The hardworking average citizen from owning a means to defending what he has worked for over their lifetime. Since the police usually arrive after the fact to situations where criminals and citizens "meet", chances of them "saving" you are slim and none. To cut to the chase of this, if you didn't have a firearm to defend yourself in just such an incident, you probably wouldn't be at the trial of the criminal who will be freed in a couple of years after he whacked you!
  • Yes.. the gun laws in America SHOULD be changed... to make it easier for citizens to own and use them. If armed, law-abiding citizens had been present at any of these shootings, the outcomes may have been much more positive, as in the shooter being taken out before doing additional damage. Who protects the citizen? The police don't protect you from an intruder already in your home. Over 200,000 crimes are prevented every year by citizens who are armed.
  • No we needs our weapons incase a bear or other animal decised to invade our homes and have us or our kids as a snack.
  • I think the question is based on a false premise. 'due to the recent wave of shootings'. More accurately it is a recent wave of increase reporting and front page stories. Gun deaths have been decreasing in the united States. Gun accidents have also been decreasing. all the while, gun ownership has been increasing.
  • a total baN??? its obvious you voted for obama. what your simple mind doesnt understand is if you ban guns.... criminals will still get them... meanwhile honest citizens will have no self defense.. grow up get a a life.... guns dont kill people.. people kill people.
  • NO ... Even IF we were to "Ban" guns ..the criminal element would still be able to acquire them ... OR ..perhaps everyone would prefer a rash of stabbings since guns wouldn't be around .... Hey ..no guns ..How about we increase the Hit and runs ... ? MY point is no matter what we do ... IF someone wants YOU D E A D ... they will find a way to kill you .
  • those who trade their guns for plows will plow for those who dont !!!! nuff said !!
  • No as then only the government and criminals would have guns
  • No. Guns are not the problem. It is people who use the guns for the wrong reasons that are the problem. I don't know how many of you have every been really hungry and used a gun as a tool to provide food for your family. I don't hunt for sport. I do it because it allows my family to have a little meat. Lock up the wacko's that everyone knows eventually is going to kill someone instead of taking away guns from law abiding citizens.
  • No, think about the shootings in college classes. If just one person in the room was a law abiding citizen with a gun permit only 2 people would have been shot. The shooter would have gotten off one round, then the guy (or girl) with the gun permit would have shot the bad guy. End of shooting! Also, if a criminal new that the guy he was about to mug owned a gun permit would he commit the crime? The same goes for a mom & pop store, no one is going to robe a store if the owner has a gun under the register. The police can’t be everywhere! If more law-abiding citizens had gun permits, there would be less crime because the bad guy would never know if the person he or she is about to rob has a gun.
  • Only if the entire world gives up all weapons at the same time. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.
  • I think for normal civilians, they should not be permitted to have a gun. Its because that in America that there are so many guns to be had, that there are so many murders. That is to say, Police and Army should have guns, to protect their country.
  • When you "outlaw" guns, only the "outlaws" will HAVE them!
  • Only if the root cause of the shootings ended up being the gun. If we were in the 1500's someone experiencing our same political and economic climate would have come into class and pitchforked someone to death instead. Why don't we look a little deeper? Could finances, lack of discipline, exercise and the lack of self esteem that follows be contributing to people turning postal? There are bizillions and gozillions of lawful gun owners that never shoot anybody. Taking away the guns isn't going to eliminate the nut cases.
  • 1) Not having guns doesn't stop people from killing. Look at the IEDs and other improvised bombs that have used with such cruel efficiency by everyone from Al Qaeda and Hamas to Tim McViegh. If that doesn't work, you can always use a plane or a car. 2) If the citizenry is not armed, they have no defense against a host of villains from terrorists to thieves to the government if necessary. 3) Having guns doesn't make people killers, a lack of morals makes people killers. The vast majority of people who have guns do not use them against other people. 4) There are a very large number of people in this country who still hunt for some of their food. This is especially common in really rural areas. Some of the biggest contributors to conservation in this country are hunters and fishermen, despite what organizations like the Sierra Club and PETA would have you believe. Most of the really big habitat programs have been paid for with duck stamps and hunting and fishing licenses. So no, I don't think we should ban guns. I think we should start raising our kids to abhor murder.
  • NO!!!!! If they were to band guns there would be a civil war again. People would not be able to defend them selves , not including their family or possessions. The crimes would increase because of the rage of the citizens. It would be a very bad thing in a terrorist attack. If they are going to take away guns their going to have to pry my cold dead hands of of them.
  • No. The right to bear arms is one of the foundations of the nation. If you start to take those rights away, that sets a bad precedent. Where will it end?
  • Yes, I think the laws should be changed. They should repeal the ban on steel cored ammunition. We should have access to the best ammunition made. They should not require a huge expensive license to own a fully automatic weapon. If regulat citizens had access to M-16's street gangs would not be able to intimidate people. They should drop the policy on not allowing guns in public parks. Sometimes people are assaulted in parks and they need to be able to defend themselves. On the gun control side; they should label street gangs like the bloods, crips, gangster disciples, outlaws, hell's angels, ms-13. ect, as terrorist groups. They should then pass legislation forbiding anyone belonging to a terrorist group from owning a firearm.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy