Are there any good arguments to be pro gun?

Most people say it's their right to protect themselves. Well, then why do we have innocent murders like Oregon, and Cleveland?

Updates:
If it shoots bullets, it IS a gun

0|0
2|21

Most Helpful Girl

  • There will always be crazy people wanting to murder others. Whether the use a gun, a knife, poisoned Kool-Aid or an airplane to do it is irrelevant. Guns protect us from the crazies--they don't make us want to go crazy.

    2|2
    1|0
    • Anf yet school shootings are surprisingly rare in other countries where people can't own guns as easily...

    • Show All
    • @DarkHumoRUs, if obtaining a gun would be much more difficult than it is right now, things would change. It doesn't matter if the cause is being eliminated or not. Crazy American people can be like crazy people from other nations and have a mental break down at work without running amok.

    • Guns should definitely be harder to obtain. There should be a one year waiting period, and you should have to attend safety classes and pass a mental health screening while you wait.

Most Helpful Guy

  • I'm not really a fan of guns, but I think the issue is that guns were invented in the first place. Why we encourage people to own literal murder machines is beyond me. Like in my mind, a guy like George Zimmerman is wrong, in many ways, but relevant to this topic, he upped the ante on use of force. If you're going to have a gun, you shouldn't be able to shoot someone just trying to fistfight with you, that's insane and incredibly pussy. You should only shoot someone trying to shoot you. The "get the hell of my property" nut jobs are batshit too. I'm a firm believer in fighting with your own two hands. If you produce a weapon of any kind, you're soft, period. Guns are a thing though, and that bell can't be un-rung. I honestly have no answer. I mean, obviously not every gun owner is a bad person, and I think a good amount, if not the majority, have no bad intentions. But I just can't get over that you ultimately own this gun because you're scared. Maybe scared to get your ass kicked, OR maybe you're scared of... wait for it... other people with guns. So you need a gun to protect yourself from other people with guns. What a cycle... But the real issue as far as these horrible shootings is mental health. Smarter people than me will have to come up with the solution, but I'd just say that if you're a pussy and can't deal with life, just shoot yourself, don't take out normal people who CAN deal with life.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 1

  • Because those people are crazy.

    2|1
    0|0

What Guys Said 20

  • My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones to violence involving a gun, it truly does. To families of the victims it seems a simple answer to ban guns. I warn you though, most of what we hear is propoganda. The govt controls the media. Journalists try to act all hard nosed, but they are ALL lead by their noses. This means they plaster gun tragedies all over to promote fear and gain votes against gun ownership. What they don't show is how guns also save lives. There was a story a few years back about a 12 year old girl home alone when two escaped convicts, armed with a gun they stole from a family they just murdered, forced their way into her home. She used the shotgun, she was trained to use for sport, to defend her own life. She gut shot the first assailant, killing him where he fell, and shot the other one where he fell running from the house. Now ask yourself, how would that innocent little girl defended herself without that invaluable tool? Do most of Americans even know why the right to bear arms was included in our constitution? It was to defend ourselves from a tyranical government as a people. We are supposed to be running the show here, not them! So why are there health benefits paid for by us while we are forced to buy health insurance many of us can't afford because of unreasonable premiums or even use because of high deductibles? This is just one of many injustices we suffer under them right now. Don't get me wrong, I bleed red, white and blue. But that is for this country's people, not it's failing leadership which was designed originally to be a structure of servitude. We broke away from England for less. Also, our weapons are supposed to be equal to our governments, so we can defend ourselves if they get out of hand. We all know this is impossible to begin with, but what most swallow as acceptible is how our ammunition is scaled down and how we are not allowed to even own many firearms that should be available to us due to their effectiveness. What is the point if we have pee shooters while they have rifles? Another thing to think about... Ban guns and the only ones who will have them are the criminals. Where will we be then? Does anyone honestly see criminals turning in their guns just because the govt deemed it so? Again, I am terribly sorry to those who lost loved ones to violence involving guns, but don't call it "gun violence." A person can be killed with a pensil or a shoe string. Gun violence is a propaganda term in itself.

    0|2
    0|0
  • I consider myself pretty anti gun. But I have no problem with people having hunting rifles or shotguns. I follow Bernie Sanders in that rural and urban areas need separate gun legislation. The problem is not the 95% of gun owners out in the woods, it is the people in cities and suburbs who don't need them. the police are 10 min away in those areas, out in the country you really are on your own.

    I do not believe in owning automatic rifles either. I would prefer no pistols, but I doubt I'd won't that...

    0|1
    1|2
    • Guns are needed by people who live in the city more than those in the country since crime is ridiculously high in the city by comparison to the country. In the 10 minutes it takes police to arrive at a call (you assume a VERY fast response) the bad guy can kill you, steal your TV and computer as well as small valuables and be well away from the scene.

    • What about what happened to that lion, that was considered hunting and he admitted he made a mistake. An innocent animal, died because of guns

    • Also, I'm a suburb person and it's not safe but it's not necessarily dangerous either, why do I need a gun?

  • Well there are people (known to me personally) who have experienced situations of civil unrest overseas in which gun ownership conveyed some much needed security. I think a lot of the doomsayers in the US who horde guns have in mind some eventuality of civil unrest. Those concerns are perhaps excessive in an American context but are not wholly without merit.

    0|0
    0|0
  • “The Gun Is Civilization” by 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 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

    0|0
    0|0
    • 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.

      By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

      So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never force

    • That trash on Martin kid wasn't doing anything illegal AND was unarmed

  • When you live in a Police State, you are going to need a gun not to protect you from your neighbors but fromt the police. More importantly, police can't react fast enough. Besides, you're not allowed to sue the police for failing to protect you.

    0|0
    0|0
  • How about the fact that every single anti-gun argument is flawed?

    2|1
    1|0
  • I do not see fault with guns, do not put the blame on guns. Guns are merely inanimate objects, tools that people use for whatever their intent and reason is. If a person wishes to use a gun to plink tin cans in his backyard or hunt game in the wilderness, it's their right. It's just that some people are too deranged and mentally unsound to be trusted with guns; they will find ways and means to go about killing others by illegally obtaining guns or other type of tool. Such people do not even need a gun to do their thing, an individual hell-bent on doing evil could very easily stab, maim and kill 30 or more innocent people in a gun free zone. Simply because there isn't anybody prepared or equipped to take that deranged individual down in that gun free zone.

    0|0
    0|0
    • They ARE objects that are used to kill. It's reality dude

    • I know that, but ultimately it comes down to the person using it. Why do we trust policemen any more than civic-minded sheep dogs with guns when they can commit the same kind of atrocities as these mentally unstable people? I find it more ridiculous that numerous cases of innocent people getting shot and killed by police, mostly in gun-free states like California and New York.

  • in Oregon that was a gun free zone, so he had no fear of being shot until the police got there. if you make it harder for the average citizen to get guns than it will only make it easier for them to become victims of the criminals who will get them anyway

    1|1
    1|0
  • Because Washington D. C. for several decades had a complete ban on handguns and crime rates stayed the same but the homicide rates of each of those crimes skyrocketed. They lifted the ban and homicide rates went down.(and yes they lifted the ban specifically to combat the homicide rates) If a crook knows you have a gun they may run away so any physical altercation can be avoided altogether. Besides they will get their hands on a gun whether they are legal or not.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Well, all those shootings happen in places where good guys don't carry guns, schools, college campuses etc. If you let good guys carry guns, there won't be mass shootings. You can tell it by looking at the statistics, showing that mass shootings do not usually happen in Southern States where it's a cultural thing to carry a gun.
    there is one argument.

    0|0
    0|0
  • They're afraid that these school shootings are going to get the government to take away their guns. Which is utterly ridiculous.

    What is needed is a background check and then you can have whatever gun you want.

    1|0
    0|0
    • Would you like the very long list of high-profile killers who passed a background check before committing their murders?

    • Show All
    • The NRA and NSSF have suggested creating a system where people can restore their firearms rights upon rehabilitation, democrats don't like that.

      They like to say the ATF is underfunded and blame the NRA for the underfunding, which is why the laws aren't being enforced. They seem to forget all the rogue tactics the ATF has used over the years and still continues to use to this day have turned the agency into a laughing stock and a national embarrassment. They don't like to point out the ATF is using its "limited resources" to raid gun shops for selling perfectly legal items instead of going after straw purchasers.

      It is a frustrating system no doubt, one people like me are trying to fix.

    • @gotc147 Well how would you suggest fixing it?

  • What does "pro-gun" mean? Do you mean being in favor of people having few restrictions on gun ownership or in favor of being able to get guns at all?

    0|0
    0|0
    • I'm talking about if the second amendment needs to be changed

    • Changed to say what?

      I'm in favor of reasonable changes to gun laws (excepting things like concealed and open carry, which are logical and backed by statistics), but you can't think gun violence would decrease by making it not possible for regular people to get guns. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens serve as valuable deterrents and minor risks. On the other hand, banning guns would not stop desperate, mentally unstable people from getting them.

  • It's not really about pro vs anti gun. As a responsible gun owner I'd like the NRA to stop stopping bills which disallow mentally unstable people from easily purchasing fire arms. But also it would mean some soldiers with ptsd would get their fire arms taken away which pisses my brother off since he's a marine. Banning hubs out right is not a solution since we are the #1 manufacturers and owners of fire arms.

    0|0
    1|0
    • Which then kill innocent people

    • Show All
    • smartgunlaws.org/.../

      More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country
      More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day
      1/2 of them are between the ages of 18 and 35
      1/3 of them are under the age of 20
      Homicide is the second leading cause of death among 15-24 year-olds
      And the primary cause of death among African Americans of that age group
      Gun Homicides (average annually):

      Less than 50: Japan
      Less than 150: Germany, Italy, France, etc.
      Less than 200: Canada
      More than 10,000: USA
      Source: IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms of the United Nations)

      Everytime a gun injures or kills in self-defense, one is used:
      11 times for a completed or attempted suicide
      7 times in a criminal assault or homicide
      4 times in an unintentional shooting death or injury
      2,677 kids die from gun violence:
      1,671 children and teens are murdered
      827 children and teens kill themselves
      124 children and teens killed unitentionally

    • Facts speak for themselves. Not going to argue.

  • Yeah, fuckin Google it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • When you are proposing a ban on cars to save all those lives, since more people die in car wrecks than gun deaths, let me know. I'll take you seriously then.

    0|1
    1|0
    • But screw all the children that died in school shootings, 74 school shooting since Sandy Hook. Sociopath. "I need my cold hard piece of metal and value it more than the lives of children" I really hope you do not reproduce.

    • Show All
    • More people die in shootings than car accidents

    • Almost. Such as, in 2010, there were 31,672 firearm deaths. 32,999 car accident deaths in the same year.

      That, and you have to take into account how many of those firearm deaths were drug dealers and gang members killing each other.

  • Maybe it's because I'm not from the US, but I fail to see the logic in the philosophy that more guns equal less shootings. The fear of "mutually assured destruction" has only worked for nuclear weapons so far.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Hunting and recreation. I think self defense is debatable.

    0|0
    0|0
  • because the bad people will still have or find a way to have the guns if gun laws are changed and law biding citizens will be defenseless other than having a personal weapon to defend themselves.

    0|0
    0|0
  • there's not really a "pro" or "anti gun", but if you mean if guns should be banned, here are some reasons against it. guns don't kill people. people kill people. if i go on a mass car rampage gta style, does that mean we should ban cars? also, banning guns will just create cartels and a bigger gun industry. same thing that happens with drugs. and the amount of effort to get guns off the streets would be hard as hell. and the wrong people get these guns illegally anyways. assault weapons are illegal, yet people still have them. you don't think the same will happen with guns? and we've seen what happens when cities have stricter gun laws, crime does go up. also that there are other means of people killing each other. i can stab you with a knife.

    0|1
    0|0
  • If everyone had a gun that shit wouldn't of happened, theyd be like "no" like he wouldve got shot like 50 times End of story.

    But as long as its not an assualt rifle there's nothing wrong with wanting a gun. People who shoot up schools and stuff wouldve done the same thing with a knife or something if they couldnt get a gun. What would you guys say then... " there's no reason to own a knife, a kid who clearly has pyschological issues stabbed somebody, so its not safe for anybody to have a knife","knives kill people and are the only reason that person murdered them","we should get rid of all knives (including silverwear & eating utensals because they were and can be used for the same purpose)" when in reality it wasn't the knive's fault, that kid wouldve done it anyway regardless of whether he had a gun or knife. He wouldve found another way or used his bare hands to try to kill someone.

    Do you see my point?

    0|0
    0|0
    • An assault rifle IS a gun

    • Show All
    • *for something the person did and would without even with out the gun

    • *would do even without the guns.

Loading...