GUNS??? Should they be banned?

.45 Peacemaker	Because it takes thirty minutes in my state for a deputy to respond. It takes thirty seconds for someone to bleed out. Because people are murdered by everything from rocks to cars to knives shoe laces to guns. I want a chance to defend myself against a bad guy. Because I depend on meat I get from hunting for food. I don't trust my aim with a rock or my pick-up. Because I had a couple of guys intentionally hit my vehicle I was glad I had my sidearm. The founders didn't trust the national government, that's why we are a Republic. The Federalist Papers back up the idea that the government should be afraid of the citizenry. The Second Amendment is for the safety of the states and the individual. The first recorded murder was with a rock. So are you God that you can take away rocks? How can you ban them? While you have the right not to own firearms and to be a victim. The sheer fact that I'm armed means the bad guy would attack you.

fr_chuck	This worked well for Hitler, the first thing he did was to take all the guns to provide safety for the people. It worked very well for him. And the criminal will always have weapons. No ownership of guns was so important it was a part of our constitutional rights.

The Boot	Duh! Horse is out of the barn...bans mean nothing.

roadhazzards	Sure lets just toss out the ONLY protection we Americans have against our government. Look at Australia and the UK. Both have instituted strict gun control laws and disarmede much of their populations recently. Both are now seeing dramatic increases in violent crimes.

cyborg939	i dont think they should be banned, but assault weapons should be completely banned. only handguns and shotguns.

Mr.Wise	There's one catch, criminals don't obey the laws! England gave up their guns and now only the criminals have them, crime has shot up. It's a fact that in the U.S., the states with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime!

glen t	no! the best data pretty much proves that armed citizens either defend themselves successfully or deter the crime altogether at a rate about double that of reported gun crimes. what the means is that without guns there would be a lot more crimes and crime victims. even in the best case it takes the police at least 5 minutes to respond and that's after they get the call from dispatch. in practice its common for response times to run up to 30 minutes. that's a long time when you're being beaten or raped. in areas that have expanded the right of concealed weapons carry the crime rates for violent crime have universally fallen in a direct correlation to the number of armed citizens. as a side issue are you aware that there is an old supreme court ruling that holds that the police have no duty to protect you from anything or anyone. their duty is to arrest and enforce laws not to prevent crimes. what this means is that if somebody is kicking down your door and threatening to rape of kill you the cops do not have to respond in time to save you. they do have to try to arrest your killer and i'm sure that this will be great comfort to you and yours. a gun in your hand would be a lot more useful that a cop 20 minutes away.

medolfan1313	I'm torn on this issue...while I respect the individual's right to protect themselves and their property, I would never have a gun in my home. Guns are tools and, like most other tools, can be used as weapons when placed in the wrong hands. The problem is, as long as there are criminals, they will always find a way to get guns. If you make it illegal to own a gun, then only outlaws will have them...and where would we be then? I personally feel that I am capable enough to protect my home and family with the plethora of non-lethal tools I have at my disposal (as well as a few that could be lethal as well...knives, baseball bats, tire-irons, etc... I guess I just worry that a gun in my house could find it's way into the wrong hands and be used against me or my family. If someone is going to break into my home, they are going to have to bring their own weapons...I'm not providing them any!

Babi	I donâ€™t think it would mean a big change. Perhaps less confused kids could kill their classmates or make accidents, but anything can be used as a weapon. If guns would be banned, people would walk with knives.

cliffpotts2005	As me after about 2027, until then, I'll keep mine, thank you.

rhymingron	No

cdf-rom	How would you get the average criminal to give up their guns? And how would the law-abiding citizens who gave their guns up be able to protect themselves from the criminals who didn't give up their guns? The police already can't be there on time every time someone tries a crime with a gun. England has already seen a huge increase in gun related crime since banning private gun ownership. That's because ONLY the law abiding people gave up their guns. And what would you do if the government started turning Nazi or something? How would you take the guns away from the government? If having guns is what makes someone a criminal, you would only be turning the government into a criminal. That's how all the dictators began, from Nero to Saddam Hussein. We don't want to wind up that way. What makes us think we would wind up any other way, if we tried it?

?	yeah i think the law and the army. people should not have fire arms , maybe the ones who live out in the wilderness for sure, but it is getting shocking around the world people shooting each other.

chrissy29040	i think the only people to have guns should be the law and army not any one else hope that helps

Kate	First of all, in what country? That would make a huge difference in answering this question