== No ==
Every single one of the users arguing against guns merely argues that the bad guys don't have guns if we ban them. However it is the opposite. If the United States utilizes gun control, ONLY the criminals will have guns and the law abiding citizens will not be able to stop them.
The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.
OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe Europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer year is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.
There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.
How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord Lord that I wasn't born a US Citizencitizen. ''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''
'''''I'd ''' like to point out the fact that the population amount of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents per capita is still lower in the UK. OBVIOUSLY you have to take that into account. Besides...who would want to terrorize it's not like the UKhas ever been a victim of terrorist attacks... right? - Comatoseraccoon[[User:GShore|GShore]]''
(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).
[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]
Hah, I Don't think that gun control is the answer to crime solving. Did you know that the cities with Gun shows and that have guns are safer then the ones who don't have guns. I mean come on people this is obvious, we need guns, war is what made this country what it is. So, live with it you're going to want to have guns one day. Just wait, just you wait.
Sargedave
If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh the Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)
Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I must say this seems quite adequate in deterring the wrong people from acquiring a pistol. Finally if we are so worried about objects that kill humans, why don't we talk about banning cars. Cars kill more people kill then guns do in the US, yet we aren't arguing about controlling cars. The fact of the matter is people die and people will kill other people, any object can be deadly, so the next time you argue for stricter gun control remember guns are merely a tool. In my personal opinion a two day waiting period for purchasing a gun is adequate gun control. I do feel that being able to waltz into a gun store and purchase 15 pistols is ridiculous. I hope I have given readers an insight into guns and their possibility for non-violent use.[[User:H20h0us391|H20h0us391]] 17:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:The difference between cars and guns is that you don't go out with intent to kill with a car. A gun there aren't any other uses besides shooting things. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
'''what part of NO dont liberals understand?'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Personally my belief is since everyone carried guns in the west there was obviously no crime and history has it wrong. I mean history doesn't tell you anything. So I'm going to go buy a gun and a holster, a hat, maybe a pair of boots with spurs, and a horse. Then I'm going to challenge somebody to a duel at high noon. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 23:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
so your going to challenge someone to a duel with guns? um... forgive my ignorance but weren't the people with guns who went around shooting people usually outlaws/sherrifs? outlaws ignore gun-control and cops aren't restricted by them. so unless you were a outlaw then you probably wouldn't shoot anyone (and by the way wouldn't challenging someone to a gun duel (attempted murder i think)) unless it was in self defense-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
No. The populace should be armed, not just criminals and gangland types. [[User:Bojenmi|Bojenmi]] 14:38, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Start: You are cooking a delicious meal. you accidentally put your hand on the burner. Would you keep it there letting your hand turn into another course in your delicious meal? IS that common sense?
So you are a thief and are about to rob a house. The owner has his gun pointed at your face. Would you really continue to rob him? All he has to do is take the half-a-second to squeeze the trigger and they're picking you up with a stick and a spoon. IS that common sense?
Also, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET SHOT BY ME FOR BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE, THEN DON'T BREAK INTO MY HOUSE! It really is a simple solution to that problem. If you don't want to get burned, then take your hand off the burner!
Also, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!! How the hell hard is that!? Citizens who disagree with that do not understand the meaning of freedom. IT goes back to my point earlier. So now you are the government and you just banned guns. Are you going to really try to get the guns from the people who are aiming them at you? You are on the wrong side of the barrel, therefore, you are not calling the shots. I would also like to add that if that day ever comes (which is actually fairly unlikely) it is the responsibility of the American people to fight it until it is fixed as stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is the responsibility of the people to overthrow that government that threatens the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
YOu're in a hostage situation and the gunman tells you to get on the floor. SO what do you do!? you get on the floor. (And then while he's looking away, I pull my Tarus Judge from by holster and fill him full of AAA 410 buck shot and the hostage situation is over.)
Honestly, sometimes liberals need to get a lesson in common damn sense and stop trying to overthrow every bit of America and human nature with their goody-goody feel good mentality that "would be so nice and wonderful" and makes me want to throw up from how fake and disgusting it is.
The only reason I can think of that the government would want to ban guns is because they are afraid of the citizens who may revolt with their guns. IT would pave the way for the government to take away all of the rest of the bill of rights and we turn into a dictatorship. Although, if they were smart they would be afraid to take away the right to bear arms because they should know by no that Americans will not go quietly into the night. IF it means the beginning of the second civil war, then so be it. I know I, and every other gun owner I know will fight to the death to maintain the freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" is what is boils down to. Also, you can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold hands comes to mind. And again, the key is I will be using the gun before my hands (or the rest of me) are cold, and dead to prevent me from becoming cold and dead. I could go on and on, but I think you all get the picture. End [mattfelton at 8:15pm 11/16/09]
The only real argument that I can see against gun CONTROL is freedom. I am not in favor of burning the constitution and instituting a dictatorship. I hope no one here is but. But I just see guns as just a mode that the government is giving to people to shoot each other. According to PBS, 85-90% of guns used in crime are bought from legal sellers. I am not for doing away with guns in the U.S. completely, I just think we need to reform gun control laws. We can't sell firearms to crazy people, such as Jared Lee Loughner, the crazy guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona (which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation). More background checks should be required before purchasing a gun. Just look at the facts: less guns=less gun violence. Its as simple as that. -Utnery
<br />
Gun control is the last thing that would prevent crimes involving guns. I'm sorry but guns are a pretty American thing whether you realize it or not. The Bill of Rights gives us the right to bear arms; the argument that the modern world isn't like Revolutionary American and its need for guns is silly. If the citizens of this country could own their own guns without all the ridiculous hassle and restrictions liberals place on it then we would be a lot safer. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Liberals are always making guns look like they're some ultra-dangerous device that could easily harm someone. Americans aren't stupid enough for that. How do these liberals think more people could get shot if we put more guns into peoples hands to protect them? I don't know about you, but I think that the average citizen will often use their gun to protect himself from armed attack and is often ready to. Even if gun control makes it a little bit harder for criminals to get their guns, taking guns away from the people would easily and noticeably increase gun-related crime. It only makes sense. Basically, the good among us need guns to protect themselves from the bad among us. If the bad acquire more weapons to harm the good, then the good would have to respond. It's just life. The liberal argument that this back and forth acquiring of arms for harm and then protection could escalate into something totally unsafe for society is inconceivable. [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:53, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
==Yes==
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
==Yes==
Yes, but it depends what you mean by gun control. I don't think there will ever be a way to keep guns out of criminal's hands, there will always be a market. So no, there should not be a law banning all guns. What we should have is a registration process that makes gun owners accountable for their weapons. This will keep unscrupulous gun owners from selling to people that should not own guns.
[[User:BazMan |Baz man]]
== Yes ==
:Interestingly, Canada has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But a much lower gun homicide rate. Maybe it's the overt and strong rejection of European culture that has doomed the US to its globally-high firearm homicide rate? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::This is a blatantly false fact. According to the CBC, gun ownership is more than 10x higher in the United States than Canada - a statistic that roughly mirrors the comparitive murder rate. Furthermore, handguns are banned in many municipalities including Toronto, the largest city in Canada. [[User:Alttansou|Alttansou]] 15:00, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. <small>-- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)</small>
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].
I once thought that argument had some merit to it. But by all accounts [httphttps://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.
The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''