The right to own a gun and the right not to be shot - which takes precedence?

Answer 1

Guns have their place and a lot of people get a great deal of enjoyment out of competitive shooting. They are responsible. You can't legislate for nutters.

Answer 2

This is a lame question. No one has a right to shoot anyone unless it's a policeman using justifiable force to stop a felony in progress or during an arrest when the suspect attempts to use a weapon to prevent apprehension. The only time a private citizen can legally shoot someone is if they fear that their life is in imminent danger. Now, which do you think takes precedence? Hint - If you said the right to own a gun then you are as foolish as your question.

Answer 3

You bring up two seperate issues. But to get the right answer you have to ask the right question. The right question is, 'do people have a right to self-defense'? Of course they do. In light of that it follows that using the most efficent means of ultimate self-defense may be used, not as a privledge, but as a human right. After all, if you were attacked by a tiger nobody would suggest that your place in the world is to be lunch. As far as having a 'right' to 'not being shot' if you attack another person you lose that 'right'. Like the tiger, you're the bad actor in the play. So, what we have is a situational venue....if you're the attackee, you have a right to defend yourself. If you're the attacker you have no 'rights'. Nobody has the 'right' to harm you, but there are those who given the opportunity will harm you...so, until the police arrive you're on your own, and if that's the case you're going to wish you were armed when the tiger comes calling.

Answer 4

Well that is like asking "which came first the chicken or the egg". Our Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms however we are limited on how we can and when we can use such weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that "life is more important than property" so in that instance we cannot exercise our right in order to soley protect our possessions. Life is more precious, but we would be violating our rights as citizens to make sure life is always protected every time.

Answer 5

Guns put meat on my table. If the side benefit is that a bad actor will be concerned about the possibility of being shot and go elsewhere, all to the good.

Answer 6

Not that it is going to make any difference, but stun guns to stop someone is a better way of handling bad guys. But I guess the most popular way is killing. I am sorry to be a human being. Killing for no reason seems to be what people do. I will take my chances with animals, at least when they kill, it is for a reason. There must be more inbred people out there than I thought!

Answer 7

Definitly the right not to be shot.I cant imagine being in that much fear for my life that id only feel safe by owning and carrying a gun. The stats speak for themselves. Look at all the gun killings in America towards Europe. That has to say something. When people have guns and they get pissed off they can act with there guns in a moment of madness. Take the gun away that person just has to cool off and see sense. Im sure the magority of people would just let it go rather than take someones life over something Trivial.

Answer 8

Weak argument.

Rephrase your question so it makes sense, then I will give you an argument.

You are looking for an argument.

Do you have the right to own a car, you might get into a car wreck and be killed or kill someone?

Cars kill more people than guns do.

What does take precedence?

Maybe we should all walk and not ride in a motorized vehicle.

We definitly need to learn to cut tomatoes and meat with a spoon, because people use knives to kill people.

Hammers, baseball bats, ropes, duck tape, pillows, chainsaws, etc. etc. etc.???

I will give up my guns when you give up driving a car.

PEOPLE, are the problem!!!!!

So be it.

Thanks for the question.

Answer 9

'When all the guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have all the guns.' It's a no-brainer really. If you are psycologically stable, have no criminal record or tendancies, and can pass the requirements for gun ownership, is it not practically your civic responsibility to carry a gun? If one or two citizens had done so, either students or faculty, the activities of the deranged Virginia University killer could have been curtailed.

Answer 10

The right to own a gun---it's in the constitution.

Answer 11

Did the gun shoot you on it own? Why do people like you, always blame the gun and not the criminal who shot you?