gun control?

Question

what is your view

Answer 1

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun

Answer 2

My view on gun control:

a good fire safe for those I'm not carrying
a good retention holster
hitting what I'm aiming at
and using both hands.

Otherwise gun control is unconstitutional. Even Benjamin Wittes, who doesn't want anyone to own firearms agrees that the 2nd Amendment says what it means.

Answer 3

I don't believe the police are able to protect everybody everyday. So I think we need to take some measure of protection ourself, for some that includes having one or more guns. I know that if someone breaks into my house while we are here I have the means to protect my family. Here's a statistic you probably won't hear very many places, since Arizona passed there law on carrying guns, more people are doing it and crime is down. Hmmmmm could there be a correlation there?

Answer 4

Same as Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys
with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a
defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed
either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

Answer 5

The 2nd Amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"the people" means US citizens!
All of my guns are under "control" my control, they (mostly stay in a locked vault, and are kept clean, and as the 1st guy said I hit what I aim at!!!!

Jimposter: then who will protect you for HER?!?!?!
And the FACT that criminals don' obey the law just totally escapes you doesn't it!!

When the gov. guts the 2nd there will be a revolution!!!!

Answer 6

It has never prevented anyone, anywhere at any time to use a firearm in a destructive or criminal offense against anyone, anywhere at anytime... It is utter nonsense to think otherwise... The only one who can control the proper use of a firearm is the individual himself... Gun Control is a mute issue.......

Answer 7

The laws on the books are more than sufficient now. We do not need anymore restrictions on guns. The police do not have to protect, the US Supreme Court has said so. So that leaves me to protect myself and my family. All of you people who want to let the government protect you, move your butt to Europe or Cuba or wherever you want to go and see how well they take care of your needs.

Answer 8

"criminals would have to turn them in because its the law"? Surely you jest. I will assume that you were being sarcastic. That is like saying that criminals will turn in their drugs because they are illegal.

Look at the history of gun control. Groups of people have been slaughtered beneath the banner of gun control. You would have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands before I would give them up.

Answer 9

I believe that it is good to have the current gun control we have to keep the baddies from legally obtaing weapons.

But I will never give up my right to bear arms!!!

NEVER, will anyone take my guns away :)

Answer 10

Well, according to the Second Amendment the people's right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Pretty clear cut to me. The founders new an armed citizenry was the best check on tyranny.