Does Owning A Gun Make You Safer?

Does Owning A Gun Make You Safer?

The second amendment of the constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. As the specter of gun violence continues in our workplaces, roads and schools, the question keeps arising: do guns keep you safe, or just increase the level of violence?

Next question in Society

Dietwatch_med_rectangle_orange

Find more on: firearms, gun rights, guns, gun violence, gun control, handguns

This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


Regarding Question
Does Owning A Gun Make You Safer?

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Ironman
    Safer, let us see.

    Some night about 03:00 you awaken. Your lovely wife, and infant daughter didn't hear the sound that got your attention, they sleep peacefully. You get up, and walk down the hall. You have your hands. Do you feel safe? You have a S&W 45cal, do you feel safer?

    - IronmanUS September 3, 2008 2:52PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • shanghai
      an eastern perspective

      It's 3am. You're done going out for the night, and say goodbye to your friends. You start walking home from the bar/restaurant with your wife. A group of men is approaching you on the dark street. You have your hands. Do you feel safe?

      Then you remember, you moved to China, you live in Shanghai, a cosmopolitan city with millions of people and no guns. Not even the police have guns. You are safe, you're perfectly safe. You smile at the men, who are friendly and also walking home. You're glad you're no longer paranoid about personal safety as you were when you lived in the US.

      In a violent society like the US, whose violence is in part perpetrated by a prevalent gun culture, perhaps it is safer to own a gun. But we should work towards living in a society where the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits. It's nice to wander down a dark city street in the middle of the night and not think twice about getting shot.

      - shanghaiCN October 1, 2008 8:28AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Ironman
        Oh Yes, China

        One of the BIGGEST violators of civil rights. Why? No guns. They don't have too much to worry about their people fighting back. Do you really want that here?

        - IronmanUS October 1, 2008 9:29AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • arrw
        lol

        this is the most ridiculous argument i have ever heard. drugs are illegal in the US. I can find someone selling drugs in maybe 10 minutes. those men in Shanghai? they can kill you in plenty of ways without a gun. unless knives are also banned in China, they can probably kill you with one of those.

        Also I'm curious, are you posting from China?

        - arrwUS October 24, 2008 5:29AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Douglas
        A Western Rebuttal

        I am sorry but the 30 million plus victims of Mao Zedong's regime disagree with you. I am sure if it was possible to ask them they would wish that they had been armed.

        - DouglasUS November 13, 2008 8:06PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • joelinda
    Substitute "knife" or "brick" for "gun"

    Honest people will need the right to own guns as long as criminals have them. A truely free society with privacy rights will find it very difficult to take them away from criminals. When the police in Dallas Texas take 20 minutes to respond to a home invasion, the homeowner needs to be armed. BTW: the criminals have to guess which 1 of 10 isn't.

    - joelinda September 3, 2008 2:57PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • scooteraz
    equalizer

    Guns in the hands of everyone creates the great equalization of those who would seek to harm others.

    Consider for yourself if you were on a New York subway and knew that most likely 50% of the people on the subway were carrying a gun, would you not be safer should some idiot think he or she was going to rob you or someone else?

    Criminals will always be able to get a gun if they are h*ll bent on doing so; equalizing the playing field is what will make them think twice before attempting to use it.

    - scooterazUS September 3, 2008 5:45PM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • rudbeckia
    How does it work in other countries?

    Look at a country such as South Africa. The law there requires that gun owners either store their weapons in government approved safes or that they carry their weapons on their bodies. Based on the opinions expressed here, that should mean that they are much safer than other countries particularly since a large proportion of the population owns some sort of weapon (and most choose to carry since the safes are expensive).

    The reality is that they are not. Instead criminals assume that anyone they attack is carrying and don't bother using the guns as threats. Instead criminals shoot first out of fear that their victims will be able to shoot back otherwise. The number of robberies that would result in wounded pride and a small financial loss in the U.S. instead result in murder. While I am an American, the only people I know who have been held up in this country have escaped unharmed, while I have known two S. Africans who were killed during petty theft and I have S. African friends who have safe room built into their homes as insurance against home invasions by armed robbers. These are not elitist rich isolated folks who have been impacted by the criminal response to gun laws, but everyday middle class citizens.

    The idea that many of my fellow citizens are walking around armed scares me more than the idea that some criminals might have weapons. I have no issues with sport rifles used for hunting and I don't have an issue with individuals living in rural areas where wildlife poses enough of a threat that carrying a gun could be considered a safety measure as long as the owners are trained in their use. However, I have an issue with the blanket argument that everyone, everywhere is better off if they own weapons or that all Americans are better off because our neighbors own weapons. The data don't really seem to support this.

    - rudbeckia September 3, 2008 9:31PM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag Side: No

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • comensense25
      The real Africa

      South Africa is run by a bunch of buffoons who started out as would be Leninist types. They decided that clipmainia was more profitible than Markism so thanks to the great god of chance and world opionion managed to grab the levers of power and the wealth that flowed from power. The president of the country claims whites gave africans AIDS to keep the black man down. To be fair to South Africa all the other countries of Africa are in worse shape because the tribal groups fighting for power regulary kill off the other tribal groups to get or keep power and the money. From this background the writer expects America to get inspiration and guidence on guns?

      South Africa has a high crime rate because a lot of the people, ie young men under 35 are unemployed or marginally employed. The police outside of the tourist areas are on the take and wouldn't know how to investigate a crime if the criminal fell on them, the whites have little interest in changing anything as they are still on top economically, the rich are interested only in their swiss bank accounts, and the poor soldier on as always. I wish South Africa good luck but I would not bett the farm on anything changing soon.

      - comensense25 September 3, 2008 11:03PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Uncommitted

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • rudbeckia
        and this is different from the U.S. how?

        "South Africa has a high crime rate because a lot of the people, ie young men under 35 are unemployed or marginally employed. The police outside of the tourist areas are on the take and wouldn't know how to investigate a crime if the criminal fell on them, the whites have little interest in changing anything as they are still on top economically, the rich are interested only in their swiss bank accounts, and the poor soldier on as always."

        Other than the fact that I have had rural police in S. Africa be of great assistance to me and I have experienced the frustration of urban cops in the U.S. who were more interested in their own power than helping someone in trouble, I'm not entirely sure how your explanation for the crime rate in S. Africa suggests that the U.S. should be any different.

        I too am increasingly worried about the direction S. Africa is taking when the current political hero of the day very likely raped at least one woman and got away with it by saying it would have been an insult to her if he hadn't because of the way she dressed (there are at least some cultural differences between our countries). However, I don't think that means that criminals will behave any differently in the U.S. when our population is armed to its teeth. Fear is fear. It can be yours or the criminals' but, oddly enough, the result is the same: heavily armed folks who think it's a good idea to shoot first and worry about the consequences later.

        (oh, and my earlier comment should read "safe rooms")

        - rudbeckia September 4, 2008 7:16AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • arrw
          Irrelevant

          All of this is irrelevant because South Africa is completely different from the US. You can't can't take concept that apply to it and try to apply them to the US, it just doesn't work. The criminals there are thugs who have no respect for human life and have no issue with putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger. In the U.S., if you shoot someone in self-defense, it damn well better have been justified or you're going to jail. Criminals aren't willing to make the jump from mugger to murderer so easily.

          South Africa is the way it is because of a sudden influx of incompetence, corruption and nepotism after leadership changed. This lead, indirectly, to the creation of all these criminals who don't really have any other place to turn. To get to the point where you're forced to mug people to eat is something you have to try to do in America. In S.A., not so much.

          - arrwUS October 24, 2008 6:03AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • selfish
          Eh..Africa

          South Africa isn't much of a country or a nation ("run by a bunch of buffoons") - when it can't even protect the rights of the individual (life, property, liberty) it cannot begin to say it has its own right as a nation. There fore, it would be wise for a nation that respects individual rights (at least in theory, maybe not in implementation...ie. USA) to go in and take out those buffoons...and rebuild that country beginning with Individual Rights (this would include the right to have guns to protect life)! Man...what a mess some of those African countries are in...evil prevails when the good do nothing..... such a shame.

          - selfish November 18, 2008 7:37PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • SidAirfoil
    Statistics don't make arguments

    I'm a gun owner, and a big fan of the Second Amendment. But as important as this issue it, a battle of statisticians does not constitute an interesting debate.

    What has been ignored by both sides in this debate is the history and purpose of the Second Amendment as understood by the founders. Succinctly: the right to keep to bear arms is NOT meant to protect us from criminals breaking into our houses at night. Nor is it meant to permit us to hunt white-tailed deer. It is meant to protect us FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

    We have complex set of checks and balances in this country that prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of one person (or small group of people). These checks have worked very well so far. But in the event they fail, the Second Amendment acts as the last check on a tyranny by allowing the citizens to overthrow the government should it ever AGAIN become necessary. Remember, this country only exists because well-armed citizens overthrew their government, which had become illegitimate by violating the rights of individuals.

    This is an ethical argument, not a practical argument like the one's made by statisticians. Guns may save lives or cost lives on a day-to-day basis, but disarming the citizenry gives the government FAR more power over us than was ever intended. And if you think that fear of one's own government is no longer a concern in the 21st century, think again. Even today at least 40% of the world's population (mostly in China and the Middle East) lives under brutal tyranny. And even in this country we now have warrantless wiretapping and other abuses of the Constitution.

    And although private guns owners wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. army in a straight up fight, this is no reason to concede the philosophical point that power in this country is supposed to rest with the people, and not with the government. Private gun ownership is based on a bedrock principle of this republic, and should not be dismissed for emotional reasons, even if it does save lives. ("Give me liberty or give me death").




    - SidAirfoilUS September 4, 2008 9:37AM

    Reply to this Recommend (8) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • hecate
      Not Necessarily

      "And although private guns owners wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. army in a straight up fight..."

      I think the Russians who invaded Afghanistan and finally had to give it up after nine years might disagree. And the US effort to control the insurgency in that country and Iraq hasn't been easy by any means. Even under impossible conditions, during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising the Nazis were held at bay for almost a month.

      - hecateUS September 5, 2008 7:02PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • arrw
      Not so

      First of all, I can't think of many troops who enlisted to defend this country and it's people suddenly turning around and start killing said people. I'm sure a few would stay behind, but surely not enough to fight the US populace.

      - arrwUS October 24, 2008 6:06AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • SidAirfoil
        Would the US army attack US citizens?

        arrw said "I can't think of many troops who enlisted to defend this country and it's people suddenly turning around and start killing said people."

        That may be true...I hope so.

        But troops have often turned against citizens (not on a large scale in this country yet) when they have been convinced that a certain internal group is a threat to the nation they are sworn to protect.

        Not to belittle the issue, but have you seen "Revenge of the Sith"? Its a wonderful parable about the suicide of liberty in response to an exaggerated internal threat. I hope everyone was paying attention to the not-too-subliminal messages that were deliberately put into that movie.

        No one in the Old Republic (U.S.?) realized they were slitting their own throats until it was too late. That's how it could happen here. Its already happening here with the "War on Terror". Warrantless wire tapping, secret courts, prisoners without due process, etc. But most of us think this is all fine. After all, our government is protecting us from bad guys, right? Well, I'm more afraid of my own government than of Bin Laden (as much of a threat as he really is). And it doesn't matter if its the Democrats or Republican in power. Its power AS SUCH that scares me. I'm still trying to fix this through the ballot box, and availing myself of the First Amendment (as I am here).

        But at least I still have my guns...just in case!


        Sid




        - SidAirfoilUS October 28, 2008 5:04PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • MilitiaJim
          Oaths of Enlistment

          It may just be a pedantic point, but the US armed forces do not swear to defend the government. The swear (and I swore) to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign AND domestic.

          -James

          - MilitiaJim November 11, 2008 7:11PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • SidAirfoil
            Protecting the Constitution

            MilitiaJim makes an interesting point when he points out that soldiers are sworn to protect the Constitution, not the members of our government. The President also swears an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

            But what happens when the government, or the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces specifically, begin to violate the Constitution? What do the armed forces do when they have to choose between protecting the Constitution and obeying the Commander-in-Chief, who is presumably sworn to protect it?

            I don't fault our soldiers in either case. It would be a difficult choice. But in the meantime, citizens could find themselves at the wrong end the U.S armed forces.

            Sid


            - SidAirfoilUS November 12, 2008 6:38AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • shadow
              I Will Defend

              Military Soldiers are sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. If the Commander-In-Cheif or any other disobeys or goes against the U.S. Constitution or the law that are established under the Constitution, that makes him or them an enemy to the U.S. Constitution, therefore an enemy to all U.S. Military
              Troops Officers and Enlisted. This would place him or her on the wrong side of the U.S. Armed Forces. You ask if the military would turn their weapons on American People exercising their Constitutional Rights, "No" they would not but, they would certainly turn their weapons on those trying to take away the American Peoples Rights.

              - shadowUS November 23, 2008 3:20AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • SidAirfoil
                Choosing sides

                Shadow,

                I take some comfort in your reassuring words about the US military and their primary loyalty to the Constitution rather than to the C-in-C.

                But I still worry that the line between "Constitutional" and Unconstitutional" may be vague or difficult to define in a particular circumstance. It's not a question of loyalty. Its a question of knowing when a line has been crossed. But lines are never that clear. Look at the war on terror. Warrantless wiretapping? Secret courts? Military tribunals? "Detainees" who are nether prisoners of war nor criminals? War with no declaration from Congress? It seems to me that we have crossed a line (or are at least pretty close), but there is hardly any outcry from the public, and certainly no evidence that the military is thinking coup.

                If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump right out again. But if you put it in a pot of cool water and slowly turn up the heat until boiling, it will stay put until it's dead. I think the water is warmer now than it ever has been...and no one has noticed.

                Sid




                - SidAirfoilUS November 24, 2008 9:22AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

                More comments in this thread
        • Nightowl22
          Army turning on civilians

          Consider: The Army was used to kill and break up striking coal miners in the early part of last century in Kentucky.!!!
          These men surely realized it was countrymen they were shooting at, no??
          The fact that only a couple were killed may be due to poor shooting? or just shooting near the target to satisfy the Lt they were shooting??
          At any rate, it would be hard to assume the Army would NOT attack civilians. It is the Officers that must decide it is wrong to kill fellow countrymen.
          Any resistence to the government army must be the guerilla type, just like Iraq.

          - Nightowl22US December 12, 2008 7:04PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • dcunited08
        They have and may again

        Lest we forget, Federal troops were used just over 150 years ago to put down a 'rebellion' that ended in over 600,000 killed. During World War II, Americans of Japanese decent were rounded up out of fear and put in concentration camps. These are just some examples but, as Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

        I hope and pray that it does not happen again but the founding fathers were correct in insuring citizens have the option of force should the government attempt to steal life and liberty from them. Think of it like this, in the military, I am told, you are taught to always follow command. If you do not obey, immediately, you may get someone killed. So, if you are ordered to do an act against a citizen, especially a citizen that does seem a little out there are dangerous, are you not pre-conditioned rather strongly to do it? Look at Germany, it was not that most in their army were necessary evil, just they were ordered to do things and then did them. No one successfully stood up to the dictator in the higher-ranks, where the orders come from, so every solder who stood up, and there were some, did so alone. It is the psychology of groups.

        - dcunited08US November 12, 2008 8:48AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Uncommitted

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • UltraConservative
    Consider This

    Consider this:
    It is Midnight. Your wife and children are at home alone because you are working late. There is no phone in the bedroom where your wife is sleeping. Suddenly, she is awakened by the noise of something smashing. She sneaks quietly to the door of the bedroom which is open. She looks out and in dim light she can see at least two persons moving through the living room wearing masks. What should she do? Try to sneek to a phone? Remain quiet and hide and hope they do not come for her or the children? Personal experience says that she is likely in danger. The answer? I say the answer is buy her a gun that fits her hand, teach her to use it should she need to. You will never know what it is actually like to have this happen to you until it does.

    - UltraConservative September 4, 2008 8:32PM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • SocialistBetty
      Consider This

      Same scenario. Your boys snuck out and then snuck back in... and did a piss-poor job doing it, breaking a lamp. Your wife is scared. She gets the gun out, and sneaks to the top of the stairs and shoots.



      You will never know what this is actually like, hopefully... but this is what happens more often than not.

      If you're so scared of someone breaking in, you should buy an alarm and a get a dog.

      - SocialistBettyUS January 8, 2009 11:07PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Blue Linchpin
        Couldn't agree more

        Shooting first and asking questions later is the worst solution. While having a gun safely away from where the kids can get it can be good, it shouldn't be your first defense.

        - Blue LinchpinUS January 8, 2009 11:54PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Uncommitted

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • kim42
    One home envasion can easily answer this question.

    I love my family. I protect my family. An intruder would not hesitate to use his/her weapon of choice. I would not hesitate to protect my family. I would choose this decision as opposed to living with what I chose "not" to do when someone I loved was harmed in a home invasion.

    - kim42US September 4, 2008 11:31PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • DustinsGunBlog
    Definitely More Safe!

    Over 2 Million cases of defensive uses of guns every year in the US alone. Accidental deaths of children by so-called "accidental" shootings are consistently in the double digits typically between 50 & 80. In fact accidental is the wrong word. Negligent is the word to use. In every case of so-called "accidental shootings" multiple standard gun safety rules are violated, and in most cases the negligent discharge is performed by adults mishandling their guns while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Children are more likely to die by drowning in toilets, bathtubs, or buckets of water than they are to die by negligent discharge, especially if you follow standard safety practices & don't handle your guns while under the influence of drugs. Better yet, just stay sober all the time. You can have just as much fun & best of all, you actually remember the fun you had the next morning!

    - DustinsGunBlog September 5, 2008 1:18PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Naumadd
    Yes and No ...

    It's impossible to come to a rational "yes" or "no" in this question outside of specific context. There are far too many other related questions requiring an answer before one can even attempt to answer this one. What's the condition of the gun and its ammunition? Does the owner know how to safely use the weapon? Is the owner of the weapon proficient in its use? Can they hit where they aim? What's the context in which one is considering use of the weapon? Is one's argument, determined by the specific context, a rational or irrational argument? Has one checked one's facts for accuracy?

    To the stated question, you are looking for a universal answer when none can be or will be found.

    The real question here is this - is there rational argument for the right to possess weapons? My answer to that one is an emphatic yes. The right to private property is well established. The right to one's own life is well established. The right to defend oneself against unjust force or coercion is also an easy argument.

    Perhaps what one wants to know is: ought we be at liberty to possess weapons? My counter question is this: according to which facts and by what logical argument do you claim to extend your personal right to your own life to the "right" to prevent others from possessing weapons?

    In my own personal life, it is not the weapon alone that makes me safer, it is the rational state of mind behind the gun upon which all depends. Assuming a rational mind, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it or something equivalent to it and not have it.

    - NaumaddUS September 7, 2008 2:28AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Uncommitted

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • The Duck
    Yes They Do

    In 1991, I had 3 guys come at me in a parking lot, the only thing said was one of them muttered "just kill him", I quickley showed them a 9mm semi auto, didn't even point it at them, & they just turned around & went back into the darkness.
    There was not enough time or distance to unlock & get back into the car, & going around ether end of the car to escape would have only put me closer to them.
    I became a believer that evening, & a certified trainer the following year

    - The Duck September 19, 2008 8:09AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • deepikaur
    Safer?

    All of those school shootings... I highly doubt that the kids went out and bought them themselves. More than likely, they were retrieved from home.
    When you're out in public, anyone could have a gun.
    Only government officials, such as the police, should carry guns.

    - deepikaurUS October 1, 2008 2:05PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: No

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Timber
    2nd amendment

    Reading these comments makes me happy that there is an 2nd amendment right in the USA to keep and bear arms. Robberies in my neighborhood almost never happen at night. Only in the day when people are not home, because most people here have guns and a robbers biggest fear isn't the police , their biggest fear is an armed citizen.

    - TimberUS October 8, 2008 8:16AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • CharlieBravo
    Does Owning A Gun Make You Safer?

    I don't want to live in a land where only criminals and political folks decide who can have a gun, too many politically inclined people turn out to be criminals also.

    Speaking of guns and bigger bangs... If McCain had associated with unrepentant abortion clinic bombers would anyone at all vote for him? If not, why is anyone at all voting for Obama?

    - CharlieBravoUS October 14, 2008 12:05AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • zekiel4
    Law abiding citizens should have guns

    Every criminal on the street has a gun.Whether its pointed at you or one of your neighbors or friends it makes sense for you to have the right to protect yourself from these dregs of society.

    - zekiel4US October 19, 2008 7:19AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • jfm
    Think big picture

    It is true that accidents happen and innocent people die when an irresonsible person leaves a gun in the wrong place around the house. Still, guns do not kill people, people kill people - sometimes by just leaving the gun accesible to an inocent child. But we must keep our eyes on the big picture. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing. They had not only vission but also experience - gun control that removes all guns only makes it easier for the bad guys. The bad guys are not going to give up their guns, and they will be more willing to take a life to obtain anything they want knowing they are less at risk from retaliation from a would be victim. To see what would happen at athe national level if you take away our right to bare arms just spend a couple of days in Mexico. Just spend a few days in Monterrey driving a nice vehicle. Crooks do not hacitate to jump you because they know that, unless you are one of the bad guys, you are not going to have a gun. So they will even jump you with only a screw driver in their hands! It is an unfortunate truth, but as long as there are human beings willing to take what is not theirs, people have to be able to defend themselves.

    - jfmUS October 20, 2008 11:07AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • walt1999
    I think the answer is simple

    It depends where you live, work and play.

    As for China,,I work with Chinese people and I was in China. One of them asked me "are you allowed to own a gun?" I said yes. Then he asked me "Do you own one?" I said no. He asked me why, and I had no good answer for him.

    - walt1999US November 4, 2008 11:05AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Carl in Chicago
    Of course

    Why does every political figure in the world surround themselves with firearms, and with armed guards?

    Answer - because guns make them safer. They don't just make them feel safer, they make them safer in an undeniable, concrete way. You can even ask Barack Obama this question. The only HONEST answer he could give to explain his belief - that he should have guns but everyone else should not - is that his life is more important than are the lives of the rest of us.

    About the only people who feel less safe around guns are those who are afraid of guns. Fear hyperbole rules their views on this issue.

    - Carl in ChicagoUS November 11, 2008 10:18AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • dcunited08
    Bad Question

    Owning a gun simply means you have a rather useful tool to insure safety to you and those around you. If you keep it in a shed, like a hammer, where you can not find it when you need it, it is no use to you. If you keep it in a conspicuous place or in the reach of children or the irresponsible, it actually makes you less safe. But if you keep it well-maintained and loaded, on your hip or in a safe, you have one of the most successful means of protection against a bodily attack from one to a small group of attackers (two legged or four legged).

    This does not mean that you will be safe, or that you will even be able to use it in time, for this you must remain alert and vigilant (not vigilante) to insure you are not where an attack may happen. If, because you carry a gun, you choose to walk down dark alleys and go further in high-crime areas then you would normally go, it makes you less safe. With a gun you also have legal safety to worry about, if you use it you may go to jail. You will be investigated. I do believe the the collective ownership of the citizens does make our other liberties more sure but, don't forget, Patrick Henry's words, "Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel." It is the Second Amendment because it helps guarantee the First. The fact it helps with both putting food on the table and protecting your personal liberty from harm is just a bonus.

    - dcunited08US November 12, 2008 9:02AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Uncommitted

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.