should normal citizens be carrying guns or not?(give at least 3 good reasons)?

Question

I want to know about the advantages and disadvanteges of carrying guns-I need different accidents about the wrong usage of a gun-I want to know why should or shouldn't a normal citizen carry a gun and I need at least 3 great reasons

Answer 1

1. Constitutional right to bear arms.
2. Self-defense.
3. Crime deterent ( Bad guys will not know if you're armed ).

Answer 2

Citizens SHOULD be able to carry guns because:
1. if the people were unarmed the govt would have full control of everything - and the people would have no defense (which is why it is in the constitution )

2. Simply for self defense - if you are being chased down an alley by a rapist/robber and you are packing you can simply turn around and blow his a** away

3. Peace of mind - if I know I have a way to protect myself I will simply feel less vulnerable -

4.If guns were illegal the only people who would have them would be the cops (whom I don't always trust) - the govt (wouldn't think about trusting) and the criminals (hello) and you would simply be helpless against the three evils (and the cops and the govt would be too busy to control the criminals

5. If someone were breaking down your front door right now - do you want to call the cops and hope that they get there before the 10 seconds it will take for robber/rapist/serial killer to get to you - or would you rather pull out your gun and have it aimed before Mr. bad guy even gets in the door good?



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 were rounded up and exterminated

In 1938 Germany established gun control..... from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews (and others) were rounded up and exterminated
*Hitler imposed the 1st gun control on citizens in 1935 in the form of full registration....which then lead to confiscation in 1938.

It has been over 12 months since Australians were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personnal fire arms to be destroyed by the govt (costing the taxpayers over $500 million)
First year results are in:...........
Australia wide:
homicides up 3.2%
assaults up 8.6%
ARMED ROBBERIES up 44%!!!!!
(note: while law abiding citizens turned their guns in - the criminals did not)

Answer 3

Normal Citizen? A normal citizen wouldn't carry a gun like if we were in a western.

1 reason not to carry a gun is what if it fell into a not so normal citizen by theft or if you lost it somewhere.

2 the chance of a child getting a hold of it if you left on a bus and then shoots his brains out how would that make you feel and would you be able to come up with 3 good reasons as to why you had the gun with you:

3 what if for some reason you are carrying your weapon somebody bumps into you gun goes off for some freaky reason and you end up shoot yourself.

I know my reasons are dumb but in reality there should be no legitimate reasons for people carrying guns Jesus people get killed for not know ing how to drive imagine that somebody decides he is going to lose it because he was cut off on the road doesn't think twice about killing that person since the gun is on him. People can not be trusted with such a responsibility to think that everyone would carry their guns responsibly is living in a fantasy world.

Answer 4

YES, if they feel so inclined.

1. Thomas Jefferson "the strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

2. Protection against those that would care to rape, murder, rob, etc.

3. Protection from wild animals. I have property out in the country where there is wild hogs, alligators and snakes which I have come across.

Answer 5

It should be illegal for citizens to have guns at all unless they live on a farm and have proper licenses.

reason 1: they might shoot someone! if they didn't have a gun that wouldn't be possible.
reason 2: the gun could get into the hands of a child and they might shoot someone or themselves
reason 3:they might shoot themselves

Guns are dangerous and they kill. Look at the rate of deaths caused by gus in the united states compared with every other country in the world, then look at the comparisons in gun laws. No surprises on what the results are.

Answer 6

1) No disadvantage to widespread availability:

"It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal." - Marvin E. Wolfgang, Patterns in Criminal Homicide, (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958) p. 82; Dr. Wolfang was one of the seminal thinkers in Modern Criminology. He was personally against private firearm ownership.

"It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and thus that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." - James Wright and Peter Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, (Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1986) popular press version of DOJ study.

Furthermore, handguns, rifles, and pistols were available by mail order - no age or background check - prior to 1968. If availability is a problem, why do we think of the 50s and 60s as being relatively crime free compared to today? This is even true in Britain:

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before." - Inspector Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control, (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972) p. 243

2) Firearms are very useful for personal defense:

"[W]hen used for protection, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression." - Toch, H. and Lizotte, A., "Research and policy: The case of gun control." In Suedfeld, P. and Tetlock, P. (eds.) Psychology and Social Policy. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1991

"Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. . . . Consequently, it is doubtful whether, for the average gun owner, the risk of a gun accident could counterbalance the benefits of keeping a gun in the home for protection--the risk of an accident is quite low overall, and is virtually nonexistent for most gun owners." - Gary Kleck, Point Blank p 304-305

"The available information does not indicate that gun control will reduce violent crime against women. Much of the information actually points in the opposite direction ... gun control measures ... actually hurt women by restricting or removing the most effective method of self-defense available ...." - Larish, Inge Anna, "Why Annie Can't Get Her Gun: A Feminist Perspective on the Second Amendment," Univ. of Illinois Law Review, 1996, Issue 2 http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Larish1.html

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator." - Marvin E. Wolfgang, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995

"The Remington rifle should have a place of honor in every black home." - Ida B. Wells, co-founder of the NAACP http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14329

3) Firearms are what make us citizens and keep us that way.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (1911-1978, D-MN), in "Know Your Lawmakers," Guns magazine, February 1960, p.6

"If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself. Why should a man who can't be trusted to refrain from murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task of choosing his leaders responsibly?" - Alan Keyes, "The Armed Defense of Liberty," July 30, 1999

"If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory." - Mickey Kaus, Washington Post, Jan 8 1980, in op-ed by Michael Kinsley

"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the Los Angeles Times, October 15, 1992 [Ishikawa was commenting on the lack of protest with which Japanese tolerated governmental corruption.]

Answer 7

An angry person could buy a gun. Bad
A crazy person could buy a gun. Bad
And what about those insane people who crave media coverage at any price and so go on killing sprees.
Ordinary people should not have guns.

Answer 8

NO,NO,NO. The only people that should carry guns are the cops, and the military.