Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?

No, there are no guarantees that the bad guys will stop using them. every citizen should have at their disposal the means to protect themselves, their loved ones and even yes, their property. Disarming the public encourages a govt gone nuts to further trample on your rights. what we really need is more gun owner education. Especially in the initial stages and early years.

No I do not think so. Criminals will always be able to by guns illegally. So banning the non criminals from having them simply puts us at a disadvantage. Military, police and security guards can not be everywhere, all of the time. I for example, live in an area out in the country and the closest police station is 30 miles a way. If someone comes to my home with a gun, any weapon, and threatens my family, I need to have the right to defend myself and my family. I can not wait for the police to get here, it will be too late. Good people don't commit crimes with guns. You can't stop bad people from getting them, so what would the benefit of the law be? As long as people follow basic safety rules and keep them locked away from children, I see no harm in having them.

As a combat veteran who has no appreciation for violence or war, with a firm belief that there is always a better answer. I would still reply, NO. Guns should not be restricted to these 3 categories. Why should they have guns? Why should anyone have guns?

As a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, this answer may sound conflicted. Guns have other purposes besides shooting people (who ever thought of them for that purpose anyway?) I live deep in the woods in AL., when I take a walk I would rather have a pistol to keep snakes and the like away from me than a big stick. I also deer hunt and a gun is easier for me to use than a bow and arrow.

Either we have guns or we don't, maybe the problem isn't guns or who has them, it is what they are used for and what they represent to each indivual.

Absolutely not. Our forefather's fought and died for us to have the right to bear arms and the reasons they did that is as clear and valid today as it was back then. As my father says, "You'll pry my gun out of my cold dead fingers." And I agree.

No, for several reasons:

1. The Second Amendment. Sorry folks, theres a Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Period.

2. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." If you lived in a utopia where everyone would hand in their guns like good little kids, maybe it would work. As it is, only the good people will hand in their guns. A criminal is a criminal, get it?

3. The deterrent factor. If you were a thief, would you be more or less likely to mug somebody if you thought they could be carrying a gun?

Think of weapons as a leverage and a neutral factor. The wielding of a weapon changes its potential for action depending on who holds it. Many people feel that it would be safe to have weapons off of the streets of the United States, but there are implications. Putting the trust of weapons into only military, police, and security officers is saying that these three somehow hold a greater power of responsibility over you, and that they can do no wrong. But the people that protect this country are not without faults, and not everyone in the service to their country walks around in shining armor.

Safety is everyone's responsibility, like it or not. Just as there are safety officers on rifle ranges to ensure that you hold your weapon properly, it's your priority to ensure that you know the powers and limitations of such a destructive power and that others who misuse this power are shown the error of their ways.

It is unfortunate that we cannot stop needless killing or the accidents that occur because of poor or non existent gun safety from adults, but life is without absolutes as far as human emotions and logic. People have good intentions, and some have bad intentions and both can and will find a way to go around obstacles that they find a problem.

So please, buy a gun and teach others the responsibilities of wielding it. It's up to you to make a difference in the world, not in the hands of a few people.

No. A right to basic defense of one's person and one's family from immenent, mortal threat is everyone's basic, HUMAN right, whether it be better locks on doors and windows, self-defense classes, or firearms training. Besides which, it has been proven that a largely unarmed populace does not reduce violent crime or other types of crime.

That said, I also believe in gun control (NOT gun bans). My only critique in gun control legislation is that it has to be logical, reasonable and feasible in order to enable the very defensive purpose of gun ownership.

What good is the constitution if we do not enforce it ? Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right... keep reading →

I do not think that gun possesion should be restricted to the police, military and security guards, because that would remove one of the check and balances from our system of government. A great many people... keep reading →

It is rare for either police or criminals to use guns in the UK. It is a sort of 'social contract' and the result is a lot fewer people die as a result of crime. Interactions between ordinary citizens and the police are also a lot more relaxed.

Of course criminals in the UK would be obliged to use guns if ordinary citizens were armed. Hence no guns for them either.

I don't know how the US gets out of the mess it is in with guns- criminals and citizens are both scared of each other and armed to the teeth, police are fearful and abrasive. What can you do?

Crime and criminals won't disappear, that's for sure.

I would like to say yes but that's not realistic. In the US the 2nd amendment gives the right to citizens to bear arms. Unfortunately it's not as regulated as maybe it should be.In fact there will be a new law in Virginia beginning July 1,2009 making it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit. It is also written that the requirements include online courses and/or video The governor of this state is opposed to this because there is no guarantee that the person watching the video or online is the one applying for the permit. As a society , if we pick and choose which rights should be taken away we endanger all of them being taken.

Absolutely not. The 2nd Amendment gives us the reason to keep and bear arms for a reason.

But then again it also gave us checks and balances, protections against illegal search and seizure, and the much forgotten ninth and tenth amendments which reserves all other powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the people and the states, and we've all seen how those have all fallen by the wayside. What's one more freedom down the drain, right fellas?

Not sure, the bad guys have guns too. But really a car his also a deadly weapon. For that matter a lighter and a can of Aquanet will do.

Gun control is much like locks on doors. It's ment to keep the honest people honest, and unlike laws requiring to lock up guns to keep children safe.....I don't know anyone who locks up their car keys.

In response to Will Apse, while it is true they have fewer gun deaths... As is normally the case for gun control advocates, that is only half of the story. Do a search on stabbing deaths in the UK. It is incredibly high. At any rate, no the guns should not be restricted to military, police, and security guards. Criminals dont follow the law anyway so who are you really hurting when you pass legislation like that.

I love living in a country (UK) where routine use of Guns by our police is not accepted as appropriate. If the police carry guns, then criminals know that they have to too. Any stand off between the two parties will result in someone being shot.

A society can operate just perfectly without guns, and I think it is sad that there are places where people don't wish to strive towards this goal. No guns, means far less dead people.

So to answer the question, I believe guns should be restricted to the military and specialised rapid response police units.

No. Everyone has the right to protect themselves, and guns are a legitimate means of protection-IF those with guns have been trained in handling/safety techniques. With the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to handle those weapons responsibly.

If you enjoy tyrrany and hate liberty and freedom than yeah strip the law-abiding citizen their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. If you take a look at some of the bills going through Congress lately, this administration with the help of unamerican politicans want just that. Also look at the crime rates of cities like Chicago, LA, New York, and Detoit where it is illegal to have a gun; they are cesspools for crime.

Guns are often deemed neccessary by the Second Amendment for people who camp near grizzly bear, bicycle near cougar stomping grounds and practice white tail deer conservation (without which deer starve to death).

-Abe Normal

Bang bang, shoot shoot.

Toronto disagrees that a handgun will ever protect your family from "bad guys". I can personally debunk that! When I detect an indication that I am being told what type of weapon I can or can't have, the first point I try to make is, "you weren't there".

The saying,"the proper tool for the proper job" is never truer than when your life is at stake. When the "bad guys" are close enough to divert your aim, or worse yet, to take your weapon away from you, it might be too late to wish you had rethought your position on handguns.

I asked my friend in town why she took the jack out of her trunk. She said she didn't need it unless she was going on a trip. For me, going to town's a trip. I'd rather not change my own tire, but like the unpleasant business of self protection, it's better to be prepared than to die in the desert waiting for someone with the right tools to come along.

Although I am an advicate for gun control, I don't believe guns should be restricted to military, police and security guards. Hunting is an activity dating back to the beginning of our species. Hunters have a right to practice the sport.

As far as protecting your loved ones, I disagree that a hand gun will ever protect your family from "bad guys". You are more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Lastly, and this may sound like something out of 1984, civilians should have the right to bear arms. Governments throughout history have often become too powerful and excersied their will against the people (not for them). Having the right to bear arms, is a neccesity in order to prevent this from happening again.

No mainly because it wouldn't resolve anything. Something that usually annoys me in the whole debate on gun control is that hardly anyone ever focus on the real problem which is why are the criminals going around committing the crimes in the first place. If one eliminated the necessity for people to commit the crimes, one would really eliminate the necessity for gun control. Besides like some of us have noted, controlling guns isn't the same as controlling criminals or preventing criminals from developing. If someone has crossed that line to committing crimes, rarely are they going to be stopped by mere weapon control and history has shown that it has failed time and time again and only handicaps the law abiding citizens. Many people don't know this, but at one point martial arts was illegal in China because the robbers were very proficient in marital arts. It didn't work though because now the robbers knew the maritial arts and had no problems learning or teaching it, and worse the civilians couldn't learn it because it was against the law. needless to say that didn't last long. A better question to ask would be how do you prevent criminals from believing they have to commit crimes in the first place.

oh my god. screw the second amendment. it was written in a time when ak47s didnt exist and the crime rate was a lot lower!!! there were more gun deaths in america last year than australia, and many european countries put together. the difference? gun laws. Hell yes they should be restricted to police, army and security. guns kill, its bullshit that people do.

The answer is real simple: Would you rather guns be in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use them, or does know how to use them?

The problem with those of us who do know how is we no longer think you're worth protecting.

I can assure you they won't ever be abolished. Only the prices will rise.

We proved that with prohibitions of alcohol. Remember that lovely time period in our history?