Should we have gun control in all western countries?

What would be safer for our society. Strict Gun Control or being able to arm yourself with whatever. A scoeity with most people being armed and ready to defend aganist an school shooter or a shooter in General. Or, a scoiety where there's next to none firearm shops and no ASSUALT firearms. What is the safest way to live society. Should we have gun control in all western countries?
  • STRICT GUN CONTROL 🚫🔫
    Vote A
  • MORE GUNS FOR SAFTY 👍🔫
    Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

1|0
32101

Most Helpful Guys

  • While I don't like to comment without voting, in this case the poll was too awkwardly structured to allow me to vote. "Strict" as in
    Strict gun control" is in the eye of the beholder. What might be reasonable to one person will be too strict for someone else.

    Similarly, "more guns for safety" is problematic. If I live in Silicon Valley, it is arguable how much safer a gun will make me. Indeed, the data show that the more guns in the home, the more likely there will be an accidental shooting. By the same token, if I live in Yemen, having a gun will likely make me a wee bit safer than I otherwise might be.

    Bottom line, the poll is weighing two subjective and non-equivalent metrics. Hence, I did not vote.

    That said, I tend to favor gun control as the issue we have - speaking in terms of the United States - is that we have a country, and a Constitution, that speaks to the rights of the people to bear arms. This right is asserted under the "natural rights" tradition and is assumed to be inherent in the rights of man.

    This strikes me as implausible on two counts. On the more abstract level, the right to "keep and bear arms" is implied as a right of self-defense against both criminal elements and against an overbearing government. The problem is that there is nothing inherent in self-defense that necessarily implies guns. That right can just as easily be carried out with a baseball bat as with a gun.

    Suggesting a right by reference to technology strikes me as ephemeral. Such a right must then be transitory - rooted in the technology available - and cannot be absolute. Yet the right of self-defense must be absolute.

    On a more practical level, I come not from the "natural rights" tradition, but "natural law." That is that I believe that such rights as we have are those that are tested by time and experience and the inherent ability of the people to exercise those rights consistent with the common good and social order.

    Based on what we see in violent crime statistics and the disproportionate damage done by gun violence, it is a reasonable inference that the society has demonstrated that it is not capable of handling guns in a way that is consistent with good order. Such a right cannot by definition exist - you cannot have a right to do that which is inconsistent with the broader good.

    Therefore it is reasonable to argue that the Constitutional right is, in fact, in some sense a mistake. That the right to keep and bear arms is contingent rather than inherent. Throw in that Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights on the basis that if you articulate the rights of the people, you give the government standing to regulate those rights.

    Burke said that man has no right to that which is not reasonable. Thus reasonableness being at some level contextual. In the United States, there is a level of gun violence that would be unimaginable in most Western countries and that is, indeed, more characteristic of the developing world than the West. In that context, restrictions on the right to own a gun are not an unreasonable response judged within the broader cultural milieu.

    Based on all of that, I favor gun control. Albeit recognizing that it is apt to have less of an impact on societal well being than its advocates imagine. Society is what it is - and in this case we have a violent one and the Second Amendment, for good or ill, is an accomplished fact.

    It must be addressed on that basis. A higher level of gun control would be sensible, albeit confined within the parameters set under constitutional law. We are, in that sense, not totally free to set the gun laws, but insofar as there is legal and constitutional standing to do so, greater restrictions would be both advisable and wise.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Law abiding people should have access to firearms. I live in the UK, it's very hard to get a gun legally here. Illegally? Not so much. You can get a glock here for around £100. Once I was almost shot by a nutcase with a sawn-off and I was completely defenceless, as was everyone else. It took the cops an hour to get to us. The guy who tried to shoot us got caught a few weeks later after shooting two people. Some people instead just use knives or acid however. Criminals will always find ways to kill. They can even find ways to arm themselves in prison:

    Should we have gun control in all western countries?

    Disarming good people only makes them less able to defend themselves.

    0|6
    0|0
    • At the age of 16 or 18 ... everyone is a 'good' person... for the most part
      you turn bad AFTER your goodness has allowed you to purchase guns...

      make sense?

    • Show All
    • It's a myth that it's hard to get a gun in the UK. As long as you have a clean criminal record you can easily buy one legally.

    • @purplepoppy

      You can get hold of certain guns, however it is much harder than the US and you have to justify your reasons for doing so. You can get a rifle if you get a license, but those can only be used at shooting clubs. At all other times they have to be kept locked up in a safe, unloaded, which the police check. Farmers can have shotguns to shoot pests, to protect their livestock. We can't get handguns legally.

      None of them can be used for self-defence. In fact our laws around self-defence are ridiculous. If for example somebody tries to burgle your house at night, you don't know whether or not they have a weapon of course and it's likely they have a knife or a bat, if you hit the burglar with any object, anything at all, you can be done for assault. We don't have laws that allow us to protect ourselves in that way like you Americans - not that I'd give a shit about the law if it came to that.

Most Helpful Girls

  • You are NEVER SAFE whether with guns or not. Our human history should prove that. You can control guns all you want, but that will not stop violence or crimes in schools. Disciplining our children, being involved with their lives and reprimanding bad behavior in our society by living godly is the only way to live in peace. Nobody wants peace, otherwise, we wouldn't be having these problems. I always said people are the problem. Not guns. I almost could have got killed in kindergarten by a 3rd grader who had a record and was arrested 3 times because he brought a knife to school. He was my bully and offender. Too many people are mentally ill and people are bullies. Stop the bullying behavior and chaste the bullies and we wouldn't be having so much gun violence. People turn to guns and violence because of hate and they think it's the answer. And police can't save you either. Somebody kidnapped right nor or is missing, what do they often say: Well you have to wait for 24 hrs to... 24hrs for WHAT!! The person could be dead and is in danger NOW! And if you take action then YOUR in trouble or getting arrested just for self-defense or trying to save the life of another.

    1|11
    4|0
    • You are correct

    • Show All
    • Sometimes I really wonder what's going on in people's brains when they say they're Believers and they don't act like it.

    • Because I'm not the one for you to answer to except for the Lord*

  • How delusional someone has to be to think having more guns around will make anyone safer? If everyone was armed the odds of someone shooting another person even by accident are much higher than someone being attacked by a man who is carrying a gun illegally. how about the odds of shooting NOT by accident? Imagine how worse the drunk fights would get? Instead of fists in a bar some idiot would start shooting. How about someone is trying to 'defend' themselves, but end up shooting a person who meant no harm, someone who was agressive, but not violent. usa is a land of fools. Trump is a president. allowing guns. good luck to them

    3|2
    1|9
    • If someone has a gun people are unlikely to mess with them. If everyone has a gun criminals are less likely to draw theirs.

    • Show All
    • 4d

      Delusion is speaking with confidence about something you know nothing about. Should we have gun control in all western countries?

    • 4d

      I can't imagine a world where emotional ass women run the show Jesus. Then again history tells us women have NO issue with using violence, often times much sooner than a man would resort to violence. there's videos on Youtube of liberal women going shooting for the first time, from deathly afraid of guns to dumping mags and breaking all kinds of safety rules in a matter of seconds.

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

3099
  • I fall closer to the side of B, but I'm ok with some controls. Ie a background check.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Stricter gun laws so bad people don't get their hands on guns.

    1|1
    1|0
  • Does the Constitution matter?

    2|5
    1|0
  • Is America really such a hellhole that you people need to be armed to the teeth just to sleep at night. Perhaps if you stopped blowing each others heads off over minor trifling matters it would help. And don't give me that right to defend yourself crap. Few are ever in imminent danger where killing is the only option. But hey no just open fire the second someone gives you a dirty look cos thats the American way.

    7|4
    2|7
    • Our homicide rates are now higher than any other country, and it's not really fair comparing other countries because their statics are based off of different definitions.

    • Show All
    • I did say civilised countries.

    • What? Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves in their own home.

  • No. Gun control takes the weapons away from the innocent, law-abiding citizens, while the criminals just get them illegally. It's a flawed concept that I hope is never put into action. Our constitutional rights are important.

    1|17
    3|5
    • Yeah, everyone know that the 2nd Amendment is the reason why the US isn't ridden with gun violence like other advanced countries. Oh, wait a sec...

    • Show All
    • @Clo917 on Youtube search the channels Russianvids and a call for an uprising they explain mostly everything

    • They would never steer you wrong and the proof they show will blow your mind

  • The countries with the greatest resistance to gun control, are the ones with the most rampant gun problems. It's pretty obvious that the more-guns=safer-society approach has proven itself false.

    5|7
    0|10
    • No, USA has the biggest gun problem... considering all first world countries

    • Show All
    • @massb " so you want your children and innocent people to keep dying so you can keep your guns lol great no wonder America is a shithole"

      Solid emotional argument with next to no rational basis. Goodjob sir.
      Being against the political handling of firearms = not caring about the lives of your own children and innocent people. Obviously one follows the other.

      If you couldn't read the sarcasm. This is me reinforcing the point. You're an idiot.

    • @Brutus- well said, I agree totally. And thank you for your service.

  • There have been 32 mass shootings since 2000.
    19 years... 1.68 shootings per year.

    Let's pretend that all 19 shootings were done using semi-auto rifles, even though that is absolutely not true (many were committed with pistols and shotguns, etc.).

    19 rifles, okay? Now let's further pretend they are all AR15's, since that's the "poster boy" of the anti-gun crowd.

    Out of the approximately 5.7 million AR15's sold in the USA since Y2k, only 19 were used for a mass shooting. 19 out of 5,700,000. Look at it.

    19 out of 5.7 million is something like 0.003 percent. Total all of these terrible moments in history together and we come to a death toll of 466 - let's round up to 500, for simplicity's sake.

    ... And that's ONLY the AR15's (again, fudging numbers!). Not the AK's. Not the semi-auto hunting rifles (which are actually more powerful, btw). Not the pistols, not the shotguns, not the hunting rifles. Not the countless legal "assault-style" weapons sold here.

    Now for interest, here are real numbers:
    In 2017 alone:
    467 people were murdered in the USA by blunt objects.
    696 were beaten to death by someone's bare hands.

    That's over 1000 murders in 2017 alone, compared to less than 500 in mass shootings for almost 20 years.

    Note, this doesn't reflect non-mass shooting murders, but the Gun control hype is centered mainly around mass shooters, so...

    It's not the gun, people. It's the people.

    Do not punish me for the failings of less than one tenth of one percent of gun owners. Do not ban a weapon simply because it looks scary.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I disagree with both positions. This is a false dichotomy that many people hold, strict gun control or free guns. There is a middle ground and I think my country shows that. I am from Canada, we can get guns, but we need to get a government issued license to show that we are capable and responsible enough. Further, we don't allow the average person to have a gun for self protection, part of getting a license is proving adequate need, typically by joining a registered gun club/firing range or getting their license to hunt before hand.

    To make the laws clear, I have my hunters number card, which lets me purchase and renew my hunters license, but doesn't do much else (the hunters license lets me legally hunt can use a firearm even without PAL, using someone else's, the hunters license also has an exam with basic firearm training), next I would get my PAL (possession and aquisition license, which lets you own guns and store them in your house), though I could have bypassed the need for the hunter number card by joining a gun club or proving a need for concealed carry/personal protection use, which is usually only in serious cases and you must prove the need.

    To make my stance clear: guns are needed, but not for protection, and not by idiots who have no training. You don't need strict regulations and bans, you just need laws that make sense and force the populous to show the need to own a gun (and providing a reason for desiring one, that way we dont have psychos buying a gun to kill people with, they have to show a desire in hunting or firing at the range), as well as the intelligence, training, and responsibility required to own one, which drastically reduces accidental shootings.

    Further, I think a mental health exam would be good, but I can't remember if Canada implements one right now.

    I dont think bans are the way to go though, banning a type of gun is only a band aid, it doesn't fix anything to ban AR-15s, it just makes people buy different guns.

    0|0
    0|1
  • Until every single criminal and corrupt politician is disarmed, and the people calling for gun control give up THEIR security, I'm never giving up my right to defend myself and those I care about. America was founded on the right to bear arms by citizens who fought against a tyrannical government who sought to disarm them. Where I live, a great many of the citizens own and carry firearms everywhere we go. And guess what? Crime, specifically violent crime, is pretty low around here. Because the criminals know people are packing, and that is a strong deterrent. Meanwhile, in a large city not too far away, they have strict gun control and crime there is out of control, with criminals brazenly attacking whoever they want with impunity. Over there, a much smaller percentage of citizens are armed, and as such, the criminals do as they please. I don't care what cherry-picked data or astroturfed, scripted protest with teenage puppets who know nothing you show me, I understand why the Second Amendment is so important and will never yield one inch. Shall not be infringed means exactly that, it is non-negotiable. If some wacko tries to shoot up any place around here, there are plenty of armed citizens who will immediately shoot back. We do it for our safety, and it works pretty damned well if you ask me (or anyone here). Somebody living in a gated community with private security doesn't get to tell me how I choose to defend myself. Gun grabbers, mind your own business and keep your ideas in the ivory-towered gated communities where they belong.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I notice the counties with the citizens with the most guns have to the lowest crime rates, less gun deaths, and have the most freedoms. And USA is not one of them because gun control has cause the crimes.

    Just look at what happen in WW2 when counties took guys away from citizens.

    Just look at Nazi Germany.

    Based on newly-discovered, secret documents from German archives, diaries and newspapers of the time, Gun Control in the Third Reich presents the definitive, yet hidden history of how the Nazi regime made use of gun control to disarm and repress its enemies and consolidate power. The countless books on the Third Reich and the Holocaust fail even to mention the laws restricting firearms ownership, which rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless. A skeptic could surmise that a better-armed populace might have made no difference, but the National Socialist regime certainly did not think so—it ruthlessly suppressed firearm ownership by disfavored groups.

    Gun Control in the Third Reich spans the two decades from the birth of the Weimar Republic in 1918 through Kristallnacht in 1938. The book then presents a panorama of pertinent events during World War II regarding the effects of the disarming policies. And even though in the occupied countries the Nazis decreed the death penalty for possession of a firearm, there developed instances of heroic armed resistance by Jews, particularly the Warsaw ghetto uprising.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Actually the Nazi's encouraged gun possession, for the "right" people.

  • You know what, we have some countries here in Europe that have lenient gun laws, some maybe even more lenient than certain US States.

    And guess, you know how many school-synagogue-mosque-ex-employer shootings we have?

    Once every 10 years, if.

    Trust me, it's not _only_ the easy access to guns.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Strict gun control: strictly choosing who to have guns?
    Arm yourself with whatever you want is definitely not the opposite of that... So what gives? What is this really about?
    We already have strict gun control. Obviously, in murders most of the guns used are not from those controlled by the authorities. I don't quite see your point there. Letting people defend themselves is better than not. What they can use to do that, as long as it's not very damaging on the surroundings it should be allowed.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'd not be a proponent for making guns more widely available than they already are here in the Netherlands, and they are currently only allowed in very specific circumstances.

    As for 'all Western countries', I think that's not possible. The differences between countries in terms of views on role of government, individuality, constitutional rights and such differ way too much. With self-determination, a one fits all option is impossible.

    For example, things like even questioning the possibility of abortion, gay marriage or being a proponent for more guns would get you hailstorm of criticism here in the Netherlands. Pretty much no political party would be on your side, whereas that is totally different in the US.

    Same with guns. Generally, people here afaik find it retarded that guns are so widely available in the USA. Also, safety and the nature of crime differs between nations.

    The point is, you can't make a 'one fits all' measure with this. Western countries differ way too much between them.

    0|0
    0|0
    • As for why I'm not a proponent.

      We have very little crime and it is constantly decreasing. The gun crime tends to be severely limited to the criminal circuit with pretty much nobody outside it dying. I see no safety reason to introduce guns in larger numbers, when we're doing very well now

  • No! Armed citizens scare the government, and rightfully so.
    Even in Russia of 1920 (including Russ territories: Ukraine, Belarus, etc) militias were created to hold territories against both the Whites — monarchists, and the Reds — Bolsheviks.

    People, in unarmed states, that can impose their will unopposed, are able to create totalitarian regimes. We must remember that the citizens of Germany saw themselves at being modern, and yet Hitler's Germany. People from all types of cultures, living on all continents, spent the entire cold war — already part of the modern era, created authoritarian and totalitarian regimes which ruined the lives of millions, or simply destroyed those lives.

    It is during the modern era that one communist state was so brutal to its own people (among other political factors) that another communist state invaded it. I'm talking about the Khmer Rough who either outright killed or implemented policies which lead to the deaths of many: (during 3 years and 8 months) roughly 1,300,000 Cambodians were outright executed and buried in mass graves and 870,000 died from hunger and disease. Because of the policies of the Khmer Rouge during the time period of 1979-1980 (Already after their removal of power!) roughly 300,000 Cambodians starved to death because of economic policies instated previously. For Vietnam to remove the Khmer Rouge from power, after they, among other things, such as massacring their own people —Cambodians, were also massacring Vietnamese civilians on border towns: thousands of peoples, invaded with 150,000 troops and spent one month battling through the country, losing a dozen thousand troops killed, and two dozen thousand troops wounded. At the same time Vietnam defended against a Chinese invasion in support of the Khmer Rouge and lost 30,000 Killed in Action and 32,000 Wounded in a time span of 4 weeks.

    And so, the fight to end a genocidal regime that killed something like 2,200,000 people (estimates up to 3.5 million,) and killed 10,000 Vietnamese civilians, costed Vietnam: 40,000KIA and 60,000WIA in one month. And still 300,000 died because of the policies afterwards. This is the cost of political fuck-ups and having only one group in power and armed.

    The Rwandan genocide of 500,000 to 1,000,000 people in a span of 100 days (fucking 100!) was done using guns —soldiers doing killing. but also largely using machetes — civilians killing their neighbours.

    You think the good guys will save the day if anything?

    "Intelligence reports indicate that United States president Bill Clinton and his cabinet were aware before the height of the massacre that a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" was planned."

    It took the western allies 6 years to free western Europe, and to liberate people held in camps in Western Germany. It took the Red Army (Soldiers of a Totalitarian Murderous System! — My family members fought as well, but fuck, the system killed family members as well.) 4 years to liberate concentration camps filled with Jews, Poles, Soviet Prisoners of War, Gays, Communists, Anti-Nazies (Germans), Eastern European Slave Labourers, and others.

    THE GOOD GUYS TEND TO COME TOO LATE, OR NOT COME AT ALL.
    So you know what, if you're ready to take even the slightest risk of history repeated itself, for the sake of being progressive and cool, by banning "military style weapon" — aka: guns which look scary, then do it, but do not include me in the process. As written in my reply to the tread after @Porcelaine 's comment, that German policemen (the twelve most effective battalions — 10,000-15,000 people), using bolt action rifles and pistols, managed to execute 603,600 civilians, deport directly to death camps: 300,000 civilians, and deport to work or death camps: 238,200 civilians.
    The Warsaw Uprising (—little access to firearms, time to train and organize proper militias) left 40,860 fighting Poles casualties And 25,000 German military (!) casualties. A Ratio of 1.63 to 1. Not at all bad.

    0|0
    1|0
  • The problem goes deeper than simply allowing or banning guns.

    2|6
    0|0
  • No, gun control won’t solve anything. A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. The gun control debate is so stupid.

    1|5
    1|0
  • Looks like I'm part of just a few folks who believe I should be able to take care of myself and family rather than waiting for the authorities

    0|6
    1|0
  • If you think about it logically, if you have a gun in your handbag, which is what everyone seems to want in case they need to defend themselves, do you really, honestly think that if you see someone come around the corner with a gun (looking to shoot you) you're gonna have time to fodle about it your bag for your gun before they shoot you in the head and kill you? Obviously not. So my answer is get stronger gun control and ENFORCE IT.

    1|1
    0|5
    • There are many ways to conceal carry pistols on your body.

    • Show All
    • Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. 200,000 of those are women defending themselves against rape. There are roughly 11,000 lives lost to non-suicide gun violence. most of those are gang/drug related. Do the math nitwit. You can look those stats up on the CDC if you want.

    • Nitwit 😂 I'm gonna start using that! It's not just about those numbers though, you have to take homicides/massacres and all that, not just rape and suicide, NITWIT 😆

  • There is really no answer to the fact that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. There are really to many guns in the USA right now for you to just gather them all and remove them legislation against it or not. Maybe less children will get ahold of them but less people will be able to defend themselves against those that don't "decide" to turn them in either. How do you stop that?

    0|0
    0|0
  • See if you can guess my opinion...

    2|3
    1|0
  • Usually when people try to solve a problem they start with the wrong questions or they don’t define their goals very well. In the case of politicians it’s because they probably don’t care about the problem but just want to use it to gain power. In your question you write, “safety” but you don’t define it. Depending on one’s idea of safety & who is responsible to create it the answer is very different.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It's not the guns that are the problem it's the idiots who use them inappropriately.

    1|8
    0|0
    • yeah but that's also the argument whereby that if you take the guns away they'll use knives instead. It's a lot easier to run away from someone with a knife than someone with a gun.

    • Show All
    • True but that’s why laws need to be changed. Yeah you can get em illegally. Doesn’t mean we need to make it easy for em.

  • Neither, the gun laws are fine as they are, what needs to change is the background checks. On top of that, I think schools need to do a better job locking up and use their government fundings to buy BP glass. People who are going on these mass murders hardly ever actually own the gun they used in the killings. Rather they stole it. Because of this, the person at fault is the actual owner of the gun. They didn’t lock it up well enough.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Well USA has relaxed gun laws and they experience the most gun violence accounting for population

    The rest of the first world countries experience far less gun violence

    isn't it Obvious?

    1|3
    0|1
    • The gun violence isn't because of the laws though...

    • Show All
    • Not when they don't have guns...

      The police tend to not intervene when gangs attack...

    • @Tyffen why are we comparing third world countries to the richest most powerful country In the world

      that makes no sense
      the fact is from all the first world rich countries, USA is the example why other countries don't allow guns to be a right

      you can get guns anywhere you do realize that
      Canada, New Zealand, Sweden,... most places you are allowed to have a gun

      HOWEVER and there is a big HOWEVer --> there isn't a gun culture in those place, it isn't a constitution right - when its a right people feel the need to exercise that right and they will, they are also a lot more strict on how you use it

      isn't there a state that is advocating for everyone in that state to own an AR-15... I mean lol, is that a joke or for real cause the person must be smoking crack

      so those countries don't idolize guns like Americans do, only Americans you will catch learning their guns like its their baby

  • We already have strict gun control. Making it harder for honest people to get guns does nothing for keeping them away from bad people. The anti's really just can't understand this.
    And it's not about the guns, it's about the people that get them. The average person doesn't even understand what an 'assault weapon' is. And it' ain't a AR15.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Where is it safer, in western Europe or in the us?
    The answer is obvious. Guns don't make anything safe, if someone wants to kill you he will be able to shoot you before you can do shit with your gun. If teachers are armed school shooters will take out the unprepared teacher first and proceed like usual. Guns for safety is so ridiculously stupid I can't believe anyone actualls thinks guns make shit better. Europe is proof that gun control works.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Disarm the trigger happy criminals. Leave us good folks alone.

    0|6
    0|1
  • Technically..
    Many states have gun control laws such as
    1. You need a licence
    2. Certain felons cannot buy guns.
    3. Areas such as schools and stores where guns are prohibited.
    4. Minimum age to buy a gun.

    Most people are moderates I think. We should keep the 2nd amendment at the same time it should not be a free for all.

    0|0
    0|0
  • There's already gun control in every Western country, save one. If you want the least amount of violence in a society, you have strong social safety nets.

    But that's not as sexy as pretending to be Jack Bauer and having your safety depend on the assumption that criminals are really, really fucking stupid (most of them are not)

    0|0
    0|0
  • A complete ban on them is what we need. Which to all the ones claiming it doesn't work yes it does. It works way better then what we have here

    2|1
    2|9
    • Right. It will work. Just like when Hitler signed the weapons law act in 1938, or when Mao prohibited firearm ownership in communist China. Just because Australia did it doesn't mean the US has to either. Even if the US did this I guarantee a lot of people would still find a way to buy guns.

    • Show All
    • You are saying it does work tell that to all the jews who died in the holocaust when a government strips guns away they can do anything they want without any sort of revolt and you will see just how quick a superpower like the US treats us if they did it

    • @ItalianGuy2020 sure if would dude sure it would

  • Ban guns and there will just be more stabbing and other methods of killing. You're more likely to get stabbed to death than to be shot so why not ban all knives. Don't blame the equipment, blame the idiot. People are run over by cars. Let's ban all cars.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I feel like the majority of Americans don't care and will insist for more guns all I have to say, you reap what you sow. America has always predicated on violence, killing, murder, and oppression what do people think the outcome will be? That God will bless America with an abundance of gold and diamonds? Come on now.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Gun control should be balanced with gun rights. In my opinion, what we need to do is get some control on the many fascist and far-right militias and paramilitaries that exist in the united states with and untold many of members.

    Fascists will always have guns, they stockpile them. Every communist, socialist, social democrat, antifascist, leftist and so on should own a gun and train with it.

    Remember, a fascist trained today. Did you?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Law abiding citizens aren't causing the crime. If you take the guns from the law abiding citizens the criminals will still have guns. The laws haven't stopped any crime. Take the guns and then you will have to ban knifes, then baseball bats. When will it end. Criminals are always going to be criminals. Pour gasoline and light a match. Outlaw gas and matches?

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm fully in support of gun rights. . . The countries with the most gun laws also have the most problems. Look at the UK and England specifically.

    The gun control debate should be boiled down to nature vs nurter.

    People deserve to have guns. Taking then away does not solve the problen

    0|0
    0|0
    • Actually south Korea and Japan have fun laws banning guns completly and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the world

    • @kittycat119 I'll have to look more into that. Thanks! I wonder if there's a third factor they're using that we should consider

  • Ok, why several think an armed society is a safe society? Is a very simplistic view. An armed society is a paranoid society, a violent society, a society that doesn't have enough trust in its government capacity to diminish and regulate crime rates.

    1|0
    0|0
  • If everyone has a gun criminals are less likely to draw their weapons in public and on civilians. Who in their sane mind would choose to rob a bank full of armed civilians?

    0|1
    0|0
  • I wanted regulations and background checks, I really don’t want to ban anything outright, we could require a license to own some guns and ban people who have been convicted of certain crimes or an a watch list from having them and definitely universal background checks but that’s as far as I’ll go

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't know, I'm Canadian so I would have to do research about the US laws, which I bet most americans haven't done and just think less guns = less deaths, which can't be true because people can make bombs anyway, or use cars, or gas or anything. And people want self defence, not just from people with guns. I think people neglect the old saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Though gun control couldn't hurt.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Stricter controls so law abiding maniacs don’t get ahold of the weapons they will use to murder people en masse.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Gun control, because it's the only sensible thing to do. And there is a middle ground, despite what gun nuts think.

    2|1
    0|7
    • We have strict gun control already

    • Show All
    • @thomual I agree that a national standard should be implemented for higher effectiveness but I can't think of s state that's TOO strict...

    • I don't think the kind of gun control liberals want makes any kind of sense assault weapons should not be banned just because bad people used them in shootings there was also a situation where three guys went into someone's home to rob them and they were armed and the guy who lived there had an AR-15 and blasted all 3 of them in self defense saving his life killing them this guy could have died if he didn't have that gun

  • Look at Chicago it has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. Yet the gangs get their hands on guns purchased from other states that are legally purchased and brought back into the city.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Homicide rates are higher than ever because more guns are being used, the correlation is clear and the required measures are pretty obvious, they'll just be extremely hard and time-consuming to execute

    0|0
    0|0
  • We should only have guns for countries that started guns. Because it already started by show offs and it's too late to disarm them now thanks a lot. Leave countries that never started their pro guns bs out of this western or not.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Gun control is way safer lmao it’s really a no brainer.

    2|1
    0|11
  • All the first world countries had strong gun control. Too bad the US isn't a first world country.

    1|1
    0|9
    • Mexico has strong gun control. Look at how that works for them.

  • Criminals dont follow gun laws, so stricter laws won't help.

    Have proper mental and psychological evaluations, and allow citizens to arm themselves.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Well considering the fact that we know that gun restrictions don't work (both in that bans have only resulted in other weapons being used and no change to death and violence rates and in that restrictions have not stopped mass shootings (as the nations with the most are Norway and Finland both with restriced access to guns)) and we know for a fact that when you are unable to defend yourself your more likely to be a target (as increase in crime rates that occurred when Australia and the UK banned guns have shown), and we know that oppressive governments first act that inevitably leads to more oppression is to remove the peoples ability to defend themselves, we can safely say that more guns would be preferable to less guns.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I was able to buy a gun before I became a US citizen, I could have been anyone. I don't know if that loophole has been changed but I was stunned by how easy it was.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I believe in gun regulation. I have no problem with someone owning a firearm as long as they know completely how to use it properly and are of sane mind.

    0|0
    0|0
Show More
79

Recommended myTakes

Loading...