Shouldnt guns be outlawed?

Question

In general, as things are today, would you say that having guns available to and in the hands of so many citizens makes us:
safer
or
puts us in more jeopardy than if they were illegal
(and citizens had to live their lives unarmed)?

And according to the US Constitution shouldnt ONLY the militia (police/military) bear arms?

Answer 1

Ask criminal experts that and they will tell you everytime no.

Take a look at crime stats for SF and Washington D.C. If you wish to be held up at gun point or killed go to one of these two cities and it will happen...oh yeah they also have guns outlawed. AS Washington D.C. has the highest murder rate in the U.S. and SF has one of the highest armed robbery rates.

Outlawing weapons and violating the 2nd Amendment is the best way to give the criminals the best upper hand they can get. HOWEVER, if you let everyone have weapons a person might be more skeptical to try and use force because they will know that other people are carrying as well.

EDIT: to PROVE my point I was recently a victim of road rage where a guy followed me and when I exited my vehicle he got out of his with a bat and came straight at me going for my head with every swing. I worked my way around my vehicle and got to my trunk and pulled out my handgun (was in my trunk because I was heading to a softball game) I happened to be carrying since I was leaving work. HE IMMEDIATELY BACKED OFF and took the swings at my vehicle. Since I know the law I knew I couldn't shoot him he eventually left, now he has felony criminal charges against him and I am safe to continue working. What would have happened if I didn't have my gun? I would be lying dead because he had a bat and would have eventually got a good hit on my head.

One last edit. As Washington D.C. finally just found out from the Supreme Court gun laws allowing citizens to not be able to own guns are ILLEGAL.

Answer 2

I think that owning guns prevents crimes such as: rape, muggings, you getting injured or killed, protects your family in the home in case of a home invasion. Taking guns away from citizens only makes the government have more of your rights taken away than they already do. And according to the US Constitution, citizens were the first militia/military, without them and owning guns, we would be owned by the UK (thank God NO). It is told in the US Constitution also that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What if the military failed, because of low recruitment or a different reason and our country had to defend ourselves. That is just like in WWII when Poland and France were invaded by the Nazi's. It would be then that people that don't like guns would feel pretty stupid. And don't think that if something like that happened that the UK would actually help us. They are a smaller nation with less of a military. Plus with our leadership, we have less allies than we have had before the war. Not many countries beside England, Australia, and some Canadians would even help in Iraq. Getting invaded could happen one day. It has always happened in past civilizations. Thats why citizens need guns. Thats all!!!

Answer 3

1. An armed citizenry is the primary source of liberty.

2. Millions of deadly incidents have been ended, and even averted, by the good guy with a gun (whether police or soldier or private citizen).

3. One student with a gun in the dorm this morning could have ended the event with much less bloodshed. Unfortunately, the law-abiding were forbidden to have weapons, a prime case of a place where guns had been banned and are illegal.

4. Washington DC, the gun control capital of the world, is also the murder capital of the world, with a per capita murder rate greater than the rate of battle deaths in Iraq. This will change soon, however, because

5. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled just last month that the "right to keep and bear arms" in the Constitution is an individual right (like that of free speech), not a collective right reserved to employees of the Government (law enforcement, military).

Answer 4

Shouldn't alcohol be outlawed as well? It causes far more problems than either drugs or guns, but its legal.

The failure of Alcohol Prohibition and Drug Prohibition and the continued shootings thanks to Victim Disarmament should make it obvious that outlawing something out of existence doesn't work. They once outlawed war and the worst war in history broke out within 15 years. Then they created an organization to "keep the peace" that has been making wars for 60 years.

Adolph Hitler outlawed guns to protect himself from a revolt. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to form a militia (independent of government) and to revolt against the government if necessary, as the Patriots did during the American Revolution.

Gun control was one of the things that really screwed up the situation in Iraq. Even Saddam never tried to take away the Iraqis' guns, but the "liberator" George W. Bush did. That was one of the things that has helped to make Iraq more brutal.

Let's not repeat Bush's mistakes in Iraq here in America. We don't need another Civil War or worse, the Patriot Act actually being used.

Answer 5

First, you would not want to live in a society where guns are outlawed for two reasons:

1) Criminals don't follow the laws (including gun control laws), and citizens need to be protected against crime. Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will actually increase crime, and will make sure that there is no deterrent to criminals breaking in and committing crimes against citizens.

2) The founders understood that it is important for citizens to own weapons because if citizens are prevented from owning weapons, that makes it much easier for the government to control them. All dictators had gun control laws.

Keep in mind that our rights do not come from the Constitution. They are inherent. The Constitution merely guarantees that the federal government cannot infringe on specific rights. Included in that is the right of the citizenry to own and bear arms.

Answer 6

No, not at all. The second amendment isn't to protect us from eachother, it's to protect us from the Government. The idea being, that the government will be more apt to remember it's duty to the people, if the people can organize themselves and overthrow it in armed revolt. Nobody wants to- and I'm glad, but the second amendment is to ensure that should we ever need to, we can form a citizens militia with the weapons we own, and restore our country to a government for the people. Remember, the founders had just fought the Revolutionary war, and arming the populace was one of the hurdles they had to jump to throw off the ruling government of the time. They sought to make sure that if it became necessary again, it could be done.

Answer 7

No the 2nd amendment to the Constitution clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia referred to means average everyday citizens. That is what made up the militia in colonial times. Furthermore the US Constitution and the amendments acted as limitations on the powers of the government not the citizens.

Answer 8

a typical fake impact of the form. The protection stress as usually defined interior the 1700's and past, replaced right into a team of armed electorate that had protection stress responsibilities in wartime yet have been electorate in peacetime. The founders a great deal rejected the belief of a police stress and status armies, fearing tyranny could ensue. Even respected police departments have been frowned upon, fearing they could abuse means. that's why maximum states keep the appropriate to convey jointly their very own militias. extra, that's been declared two times by skill of the ideally suited courtroom interior the previous few years that weapons serve a valid and licit purpose of self protection and the appropriate to possess them is expressely written interior the form. Secondly the 2d substitute is interior the bill of rights, that's a factor that ingredients individual rights, no longer team or government rights. It additionally ends with "the appropriate of the individuals to maintain and undergo palms shall no longer be infringed", no longer the protection stress's suitable, the appropriate of the individuals. the subsequent ingredient to evaluate is what no antigunner ever considers, that's, putting forward some thing unlawful does not get it off the line. If a individual is keen to rob, rape or kill, they damn particular are not going to think of two times approximately breaking a misdemeanor gun regulation. So if all electorate have been mandated to teach of their weapons because of the fact that's the regulation, what share regulation breakers do you know who could persist with that regulation? There are possibly hundreds of hundreds of thousands of weapons interior the U. S., if in ordinary terms the regulation abiding turn theirs in, how are cops going to get the others? and how can we shield ourselves from criminals who know we don't have weapons?

Answer 9

This question seems kind of biased. Let's just say that someone on the police force was currupt (which never happens, of course.) and they were the only one with a gun, how would the regular american citizen protect themselves? And guns aren't always used for violence. What about people who like to target practice? (and shooting is an olympic sport) Why should the American government deny people their right to a sport? I should be allowed to buy a gun and shoot it in a safe manner, and I dont think anyone should take that right away.

Answer 10

If more people carried weapons legally, sure criminals would still have guns, but do you think they would be as willing to do violence to others if they knew they had a good chance of getting cut down by the bullets of honest people?

If you outlawed guns, who would have them??? The people who don't obey the laws. And honest people would be left defenseless against them. When they invent a police service that can be at my house in 10 seconds, I'll give up my guns. Even though it only takes 5 seconds for a criminal to kill you so he can rape your wife and kids.