Question for anti-gun people?

Question

As a responsible, law abiding citizen why do you feel that I should not be allowed to own a gun? Before you go off the deep end, I do believe in some gun control.

Before you answer with "why do I feel a need to own a gun"- I enjoy target and skeet shooting.

Hemingway- your right but remember Oklahoma City -you dont need a gun to kill a lot of people!

Answer 1

Because everyone knows that a gun shoots itself. It doesn't take a human to kill with a gun. A gun has a brain of its own. DIDN'T YOU GET THE MEMO?

Answer 2

I am undecided.

Guns seem to be the root of the problem in most murder cases and many problems stem off from guns (like holding someone at gun point, not having any intention to kill, but accidentally pulling the trigger; little kids getting a hold of their parents' guns and shooting it around; etc...)

But I also believe that if the government takes guns away, it won't make a difference.

Almost everything that a person owns has the ability to kill someone.

Knives, pens, heavy objects, etc...

So if they take guns away, they might as well take everything we own.

People themselves are also weapons.

Knowing all the right pressure points or knowing how to fight can lead to someone killing another.

I really am torn in between.

But I believe that guns cause most deaths (knives coming in at a very close second).

As a law-abiding citizen, my wish is for all illegal & harmful weapons to be confiscated... but that is never going to happen.

Answer 3

I hope you don't mind if I answer, even though I am pro-Second Amendment (and, therefore, not anti-gun). The responses posted here are really good, especially the one about Constitutional rights.

I would just like to add the thought that if even ONE person in that classroom had been carrying a gun of her/her own and was trained to use it, there would have been only one dead person -- the nutjob ex-boyfriend shooter.

Criminals will always have access to guns because they obtain them illegally (I heard the gun this kid used had the serial numbers filed off -- i.e., it wasn't purchased legally), so they don't have to worry about the Brady Bill like law-abiding folks.

The only thing gun restrictions do is to keep guns out of the hands of folks like that ONE person who could have ended the massacre before it even began.

Answer 4

The mistake people make is believing that if there is gun control that these incidents will go away. They wont.
And in 'some' of the incidences more people will actually be killed because there wasnt someone there who could be a deterrent because they legally had a gun.

Its a PROVEN fact that in places where people are allowed to have guns more freely that there is less violent crime.
This isnt conjecture people , its a fact. And ive posted the study several times.

Answer 5

As a single issue, we would likely to be safer taking away guns. The problem is, gun control isn't a single issue. It's about taking away basic constitution rights, which would be a very slippery slope.

For every action there are consequences, and sometimes people forget that taking away the right guns would have it's own set of negative consequences.

Answer 6

i believe in "no gun" law, many country has this policy and people are more safe that those country who has right to own a gun.
Gun should resisted to certain people and not to ordinary people.
for a start, not every people have to strong mind to handle a gun. the who have weak mind will lost control over a gun and those who have strong mind will rather keep it for defense. if either one people opens fire, i m sure some one will get killed either the innocent or guilty or both.

Answer 7

You sound like a rational man, how about you own a gun but not a gun that is capable of extraordinary harm ie should have guns lesser capable then the military or police.
I guess what I mean to say is we need to find a balance where gun control yields safety and guidelines yield freedom.

Answer 8

The liberals in the general population don't think this thru, they just repeat back what they're told by the Dems in congress. The Dems in congress have a much deeper agenda. Disarming the populace is the first plank in Karl Marx's book.
I find it quite ironic that the libs want to relinquish their constitutional rights, and allow the Government to have total control. The libs would quickly rely on the government to provide for everything including their personal safety, and we have example after example of how the government can't do it. Where was the government at Katrina? Virginia Tech? Waco? Ruby Ridge? The twin towers? On flight 93?
You libs ought to really try and think this one thru and quit just repeating the talking points of the idiot Democrats you elected!

Answer 9

Because it is much easier to control guns than the people obtaining them.

Things happen, people snap, and everyone has the potential to turn a gun on other people (some more than others, but everyone has that potential).

Therefore, you can't possibly know who all should be restricted from having guns.

By restricting the guns themselves, you're reducing that risk by restricting the weapon, since it is not possible to restrict the people using it.

Answer 10

my issues with guns are the same as hummers.

those who drive hummers, are driving tanks. those tanks share the road with much smaller cars and bikes. when there is an accident, the hummer driver is always in a safer position, and the driver is much less likely to be injured. sure the hummer owners paid seroius cash to ensure their safety, but their safety comes at the expense of others.......why should i have to choose between being part of the problem or being another victim?