Try the political quiz

807 Replies

 @9GQLLLC  from New Jersey disagreed…5mos5MO

Top Disagreement

There will still be guns being purchased illegally so by banning guns from public, this takes away a persons right to defend themselves, their families and their homes.

 @9GR3JW6Republican from Texas agreed…5mos5MO

completely agree. taking away the right of law abiding citizens will only empower the criminals and allow the government to take away more rights.

 @9GRSP8W from Texas agreed…5mos5MO

you shouldn't ban guns from the public how are people going to defend themselves and their families if they cant get help in time

 @9GR45RHagreed…5mos5MO

This is almost exactly what I have thought of. If people are willing to commit crimes with weapons then they will most definitely obtain them illegally. More restrictions on the people who will do nothing bad with weapons wont affect the issue.

 @9GR5M5S from Maryland agreed…5mos5MO

i agree with this comment. the second amendment was instituted so the people could protect themselves from other citizens and they can also protect themselves against the government if it ever becomes tyrannical and tries to take out rights.

 @9G93H4Y from California disagreed…5mos5MO

Firstly, the right to bear arms is a right stated in the constitution. As well as the safety aspect, those who are going to do bad things with guns are not going to stop having guns. If guns are banned they will not go away, they will only be acquired on the "black market".

 @Jordan-Souza  from North Carolina disagreed…5mos5MO

Criminals will still get their hands on firearms, and then law abiding citizens will not have weapons to defend themselves.

 @9GL7VNSfrom Pennsylvania agreed…5mos5MO

Police are unreliable in some area. There are significantly more instances of a potential criminal act being stopped by the potential victim being able to defend themselves than not. People who are looking to harm another will find a way to, regardless if a gun or another object is used as a weapon.

 @Jordan-Souza from North Carolina agreed…5mos5MO

People who are looking to harm another will find a way to, regardless if a gun or another object is used as a weapon.

I concur.

 @9GL6LGW from Florida agreed…5mos5MO

I agree, but restricting everyday citizens' access to firearms you only make our population more vulnerable to criminal acts.

 @9GFYD2Y  from Rhode Island agreed…5mos5MO

Top Agreement

Guns are not needed in any circumstance. Guns bring violence into the world. "its the people that use them, not the weapon itself " is and under statement because if guns werent there to begin with it wouldnt even had been an option .

 @9GGMS5GProgressive  from Mississippi disagreed…5mos5MO

People who want to use guns to cause harm will get them one way or another. Citizens should be allowed to own firearms within reason to protect themselves, however, we should expand background checks, require training, keep better track of those in possession, and eliminate access for those with criminal records.

 @SuperiorPartis4nWomen’s Equality from Kentucky disagreed…5mos5MO

we should expand background checks, require training, keep better track of those in possession,

A person living in a high-crime neighborhood might not have the time or money to go through extensive training or wait for extensive background checks. They need immediate protection.

 @9GG5PHYLibertariandisagreed…5mos5MO

Guns bring protection and are needed for defense. Guns don't kill people, it's the person wielding the gun.

 @9GG9TT4Republican from California disagreed…5mos5MO

Guns are needed in this country since they provide protection for the common man. To protect yourself and your property. They are vital and are part of the foundation this country was founded on. The Founding Fathers were very interested in and supported the evolution of firearms. The liberals rarely know what they're talking about regarding guns.

 @9GHZR94  from Colorado disagreed…5mos5MO

Guns are not an issue, it is the people who take part in violent actions that are an issue. If guns were not accessible, some other form of weapon would take their place.

 @9GBFGMD  from Colorado agreed…5mos5MO

Guns have no use aside from intense violence. They should not be used on the daily for fun. Acts they are used in are highly inhumane.

 @9GCHZ9D from Maryland disagreed…5mos5MO

Guns are a tool, with their primary use being self-defense. They also have possibility to be used recreationally. Criminals will find ways to harm and/or kill others, even without guns. Look at Europe, as almost all countries have bans on guns, yet they have astonishingly high crime rates. Stabbings and beatings are daily occurrences, which is a much more inhumane way to die than instantaneous death from a bullet.

 @BallotBoxIcecreamRepublican from Michigan disagreed…5mos5MO

Look at Europe, as almost all countries have bans on guns, yet they have astonishingly high crime rates.

The overall homicide rate is significantly lower than in Europe than the United States. The homicide rate in the U.S. is more than five times higher than in the U.K. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths among developed countries, while many European countries with stricter gun laws have comparatively lower rates.

It's also worth noting that the gun ban in Europe isn't absolute. For example, in Switzerland, a country with relatively high gun ownership, the process of obtaining a firearm is rigorous, including a thorough background check, mandatory training, and regular re-qualification.

 @9GC599Y from Ohio disagreed…5mos5MO

Guns are used for hunting and self defense. Most guns are not used daily but there is a fun aspect to some types of firearms when done safely, like trap shooting and range competitions. Some acts that they are used for are inhumane but most of these acts are completed with unregistered or illlegal purchased firearms.

 @YearlyTerryRepublicanfrom Montana agreed…5mos5MO

The tradition of hunting and sport shooting has a long history and is deeply rooted in many cultures. The Olympic Games have included shooting events since 1896. As for self-defense, consider Switzerland, where a significant portion of the population is armed, but gun-related crime is relatively low.

 @9GBSWZX from Indiana disagreed…5mos5MO

Taking guns away from the law abiding citizens isn't gonna solve this issues. Criminals will still get them illegally. Instead you're leaving me defenseless when somebody decides to go on a crime spree and break into my house.

 @9GBSWKG from Ohio disagreed…5mos5MO

Sometimes guns are extremely useful in many ways, for protection, for in use of hunting, and many other things and how would they be inhumane if somebody had a genuine interest in them its just like any other hobby if they aren’t hurting anybody they don’t have to I don’t see the problem.

 @9GCPJQH  from Virginia disagreed…5mos5MO

People kill people guns dont kill people. It has been proven over and over that the majority of shootings are carried out with guns and attachments that are illegal yet the criminals still find ways to easily obtain them. the only solution is to arm the good guys too.

 @9GCQY2NRepublican from Michigan agreed…5mos5MO

Yes, I agree 100%, I feel more people need to realize this, and how, a gun is an inanimate object, it needs a person to operate and fire, let alone have ammo loaded.

 @9G2BGZ4 disagreed…6mos6MO

Criminals are going to get guns regardless if they're illegal or not. You're only hurting the people that are going to use them for self defense.

 @9G2HBVRIndependent from Missouri agreed…6mos6MO

I think we should keep the laws the same but if someone was convicted of a crime and is released from jail they should not own a gun regardless of how long they have been clean of the crime.

 @9G2D6HS from Nevada agreed…6mos6MO

I agree with this statement. I also support adding funding to the police force who deal with fire-arm involved violent crimes.

 @9G2DB7K from Missouri agreed…6mos6MO

Yes, I agree there's no possible way of keeping guns off the street. Don't take them away from the people who need them to protect themselves and there families.

 @9G2DZ3K from Arizona agreed…6mos6MO

Yes, the black market for firearms is already with hundreds of millions of ($). Banning sales won't do much.

 @9GFNXBP  from Pennsylvania disagreed…5mos5MO

If you ban legal guns for public use people who illegally use guns will be able to attack people who cant legally have guns and those people wont be able to defend themselves because guns are banned.

 @HonorableGarlicRepublicanfrom New York agreed…5mos5MO

Lets look at the example of Australia, where a national firearms agreement was passed in 1996 following a mass shooting. The law banned semi-automatic and other military-style weapons, leading to a significant decrease in gun-related homicides. But it's also worth noting that armed robberies increased in the following years.

 @9GFQPTZ from Illinois agreed…5mos5MO

this is true but it could be better explained and the answer to protection doesn't always have to be guns .

 @9GFNXBP  from Pennsylvania commented…5mos5MO

i don’t think your gonna try to fist fight someone with a gun that’s just me though

 @9GFQ8CL from Texas agreed…5mos5MO

I agree with this comment because if they were to ban guns only criminals would be able to obtain them and the lawful citizens would be defenseless.

 @9F7GDZD from Idaho disagreed…7mos7MO

Why should I be forced to give up my most effective personal defense weapon when bad people still find ways to get illegal firearms. Look at Chicago for example. It has some of the strictest gun control in the country. yet gangsters are still running around with Glock switches which are highly illegal in all 50 states. Besides in my state where guns easily attainable, there is very little gun violence.

 @9GL8B6N  from Alaska disagreed…5mos5MO

Since when has banning something ever actually gotten rid of something? You are taregting law abiding citizens by banning all guns from public use. Criminals will not suddently stop using guns when commiting crimes if the government bans guns.

 @9GL8B6N from Alaska commented…5mos5MO

 @9GL8YMD from West Virginia agreed…5mos5MO

I agree with this comment. Banning guns does not take what has already been purchased away. Bad people will do bad things whether they have guns or not.

 @9GZZNQP  from Michigan disagreed…4mos4MO

No, With how the world is moving and the increase of shootings in cities, citizens should have the right to legally carry for their own safety

 @9H28SZH from North Dakota agreed…4mos4MO

The second amendment id there for a reason and should be there to stay no matter what, it meant to protect us from not only other people but from a government that could try to become too powerful.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas disagreed…4mos4MO

We already have the most powerful government in the world, and needing guns to protect yourself from other people with guns is a dumb circular argument. We need to get with the rest of the developed world and replace our outdated laws.

 @9H2FKTQRepublican from Minnesota agreed…4mos4MO

Yes they should be able to carry their own fire arm as long as their is a back ground check on them before getting a gun.

 @9H26MCRRepublican  from Illinois agreed…4mos4MO

No, the problem is not guns but a lack of moral accountability. We need to enforce laws and make criminals take responsibility for their actions, including the death penalty for murder.

 @9H3M2G7Progressive from Maryland disagreed…4mos4MO

By making it easier to get a gun to defend yourself in a situation where someone else has a gun, it makes it easier for someone who want to use a gun for those reasons to get their hands on one.

 @9GGVKCL  from Arkansas disagreed…5mos5MO

The right to bear arms is in the constitution. Banning guns will not stop guns from being used. Citizens should be able

 @9GGWS3P from Oregon agreed…5mos5MO

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right found in the second amendment. As such, denying people from using firearms should only apply to those who have been found breaking the law, and even then, depending on the law and severity of that law. The idea of banning guns is to get rid of criminals who use those firearms. Banning such firearms only makes the legal citizen defenseless, as the criminals wouldn't get rid of their firearms.

 @OpulentP0pulistGreen from New York disagreed…5mos5MO

While the right to bear arms is indeed a constitutional right, it's important to note that all rights have limitations for the greater good of public safety. For example, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, yet there are restrictions on hate speech, defamation, and incitement to violence. Similarly, the Second Amendment can have restrictions that aim to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

For instance, Australia enacted strict gun laws in 1996 after a mass shooting. These laws included a gun buyback program, stricter licensing, and a prohibition on certain types of firearms. Since then, they have seen a significant decrease in firearm-related crimes and suicides, and have avoided mass shootings altogether.

 @9HQ343W  from Colorado disagreed…3mos3MO

Criminals will still have illegal weapons, and if civilians don't have firearms, self-defense is almost impossible against an armed criminal. Along with this, the vast majority of gun owners have never committed a crime with their weapons, and taking a constitutional right away from people because of others' faults is completely unjust.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...