Should everyone be allowed to carry a weapon withe them?

We have gun laws that restrict this but the constitution says we have the right to bear arms. Is carrying weapons or firearms really bad? If someone wanted to murder me I have a gun here to stop them. we wouldn’t have many killing sprees either. The killings in Columbia wouldn’t be as bad because everyone else has guns to stop the killers.

There are downsides to having guns on us though…

Everyone else’s opinions?

No, everyone should be considerable for a gun like any other purchase, but whether they are apt enough to own one should be determined through testing. It bothers me that people think this is an issue (I’m not attacking you, I’m speaking generally)

Hopefully, cops have to bring their own handguns during patrols…

For me, no. Some guns have safety mechanism that makes the gun not shootable unless needed so you can bring it everywhere you want. I’d rather restrict the type of guns though for going outdoors. It will be terribly suspicious to bring a rifle gun to a shopping mall.

There’s also the need to defend. Robbers have guns since they don’t follow the law and if you’re following the law, you don’t. Basically, you are pretty screwed if you don’t have a gun. Maybe the ol’ trick of pepper spray will work but it will be unlikely.

No, “everyone” should definitely not be allowed to carry weapons. “Everyone” includes a whole lot of people I’m sure should by no means be trusted with weapons.

Of course!

But, you need to be tested to make sure you are not insane or clumbsy, besides there is a safety.

Also, someone may argue that with more guns more crimes will happen, but it doesn’t matter because places without guns crimes still occur, with guns, and the citizens cannot stop them, if the criminal wants to have a gun, he will get it legal or not.

I think NO ONE should be able to carry guns on the streets or anywhere and in response to duck about being tested for insanity etc you can still take drugs and alcohol while holding a weapon and it can be very dangerous….

No, sounds like a bad idea. You know when people get really mad at someone for whatever reason? Instead of throwing a book at their back, they’ll get a face load of lead. Civilians should never be able to just walk around with guns in public places. It’s just a stupid idea, I can’t even think of a civilization that ever attempted this.

I love how everyone goes on the assumption that “weapon” == “gun”.

While certainly guns may be a little too violent, I think this topic needs to make clear what exactly a “weapon” is in this context.

As it stands, I don’t see any problem with carrying around a shinai (kendo katana made of bamboo), a tennis racket, a hockey stick, a skateboard, a thick book, a pen(cil), among others, or for the record your own fists. They can all be used as blunt weapons in some form (and the shinai is a weapon, too).

Yes we should be able to bring concealed pistols with us, but not rifles ect.

I also think we should execute all retards.

Tennis racket: imprint thin lines on their face?
Hockey stick: Aim for the nuts?
skateboard: Head trauma?
Pencil = Knife???
Fists: Vote for Proposition Fists.
Shinai: wtf?

So your telling me guns shouldn’t be allowed to be handled by people because it’s too violent. So instead of that you’re allowing people to walk around with baseball bats? If people walk around with baseball bats we’d get into more bloodier, deadlier fights than now. Instead of beating a guy up with your fists at a bar, you’d bring out your baseball bat and he’d bring out his tire iron and ultimately end up with one of you probably dieing of head trauma. Fists? No worries! Just a broken jaw, woohoo.

So your telling me guns shouldn’t be allowed to be handled by people because it’s too violent. So instead of that you’re allowing people to walk around with baseball bats? If people walk around with baseball bats we’d get into more bloodier, deadlier fights than now.

I also love how you didn’t catch my irony here. I don’t see our society outright declaring their hate for commoners having easy access to the stuff I listed (besides the shinai maybe, not really sure where you’d get one outside of kendo).

It doesn’t even have to be a baseball bat; I can easily gain access to a pen(cil) at any local office store, I can easily gain access to a thick book at any bookstore or library. A fist will probably hurt just as much as any other blunt weapon when used right as well.

Do guns need to be restricted as far as concealed carriage on the person is concerned? Sure. However, we’re talking weapons in general and this can include anything from blunt to sharp to projectile weapons. Our society today has a tendency to shun sharp and projectile weapons as they have a higher killing chance, but I don’t see the same happening as much for blunt weapons.

P.S. While we’re talking about baseball, how about baseballs (and similar projectiles thereof)? I can easily gain access to them, they are small and light to carry, and will probably deal out a bucketload of pain when thrown properly.

the only people that should own guns are the ones who are responsible enough to not have any.

wut? are you one of the kids who think guns only kill and are only used for that?

What other legitimate uses are there for weapons?

Guns are used to:
A. Harm (or threaten to harm) other people.
B. Dissuade other people from harming you.

If no-one had guns, we would all be safer than if everyone had them.

If no-one had guns, we would all be safer than if everyone had them.

Not really, there’s a variety of weapons and objects other than guns that can be used to kill.

Guessing your not from USA because a baseball bat is a club that’s used to hit a baseball. :p. Either that or you just read wrong xD.

Also, civilians carrying guns is just outright stupid so lets not even add this to the conversation. Society today, tomorrow, and yesterday wouldn’t allow this.

Also, if you want to walk around with a text book all over town in case someone wants to jump you, that’s your thing and it’s alright.

The thing is using your fists is the most convenient and obvious thing to use. Guns and knives are dangerous objects that could severely hurt someone when used. Instead of getting in a bloody knife fight you could just handle it with a simple brawl.

I just realized also. If your happening to carry a gun and suddenly someone pulls a gun on you. You are probably more likely to shoot that person that talk with that person to “Put the gun down, think about what you’re doing, what do you want?” Which could sometimes result in no one dieing.

guns don’t kill people
crazy people kill people

seriously you think restricted the general public from carrying guns
is gonna stop the guy whose going on a killing spree?
no!

it doesn’t work that way
if you give a granny a gun she not gonna all the sudden go insane and start popping caps

and if you take a gun away from a crazy person does that make him not crazy anymore?
NO!
if anything he’ll find another gun or start swinging a bat at people heads!

so no i don’t think guns should be restricted
and as you said
if i’m allowed to carry a gun then i can pull it out and shoot the crazy person whose trying to shoot everyone else

Not really, there’s a variety of weapons and objects other than guns that can be used to kill.

He said “safer”. It’s easier to kill someone with a gun that many other accessible weapons.

Guessing your not from USA because a baseball bat is a club that’s used to hit a baseball.

Which is what a baseball bat is, I’m not really getting what you’re trying to convey. =x

Also, I’m from the US.

Also, civilians carrying guns is just outright stupid so lets not even add this to the conversation. Society today, tomorrow, and yesterday wouldn’t allow this. Also, if you want to walk around with a text book all over town in case someone wants to jump you, that’s your thing and it’s alright.

Therein lies the irony of all this. Guns or textbooks, it makes no difference to the fact that both can be used to inflict harm upon another person. If prohibition of guns is to hold any salt, any object that can be potentially used as a weapon needs to be restricted as well.

The thing is using your fists is the most convenient and obvious thing to use. Guns and knives are dangerous objects that could severely hurt someone when used. Instead of getting in a bloody knife fight you could just handle it with a simple brawl.

Since when were knives and guns less convenient than fists? =x

I just realized also. If your happening to carry a gun and suddenly someone pulls a gun on you. You are probably more likely to shoot that person that talk with that person to “Put the gun down, think about what you’re doing, what do you want?” Which could sometimes result in no one dieing.

No offense, but I’m not going to worry about diplomacy when I’m staring down the wrong end of a gun barrel.

He said “safer”. It’s easier to kill someone with a gun that many other accessible weapons.

“Safer” is a relative idea. As far as inflicting harm goes guns aren’t the only method available.

Ok lets just settle this.

We have no reason to be carrying weapons. Our society is fine, it’s not anarchy. Unless your living in Detroit, Atlanta, LA or whatever, carrying an object that you’ll use to defend yourself is just stupid. You already have a weapons. IT’S YOURSELF. Fists, legs, karate, self-defense! You don’t need to carry baseball bats and knives and guns and extra sharp pencils if you know how to whack those weapons straight out of their hand.

The only civilians who carry weapons are people who live in fear. In fear that they’re too weak to help themselves. If your so incredibly worried that when you walk outside tomorrow and get jumped by some people, maybe you should rethink that and learn how to AVOID that instead of getting yourself confronted with all that.

You work at a burger place and a robber comes in an demands cash? Give it to them! Throwing a fish fillet at them won’t help.

Sometimes getting confronted with deadly situations happen, but it’s rare man. Yes, fights might be common but you can avoid those. A guy going to murder you? Self defense . A woman secretly an assassin working for a secret organization? rare and probably hot. Being robbed by a bunch of petty thieves? no one cares.

Conclusion: Learn self-defense, and don’t worry. There is no need to carry dangerous weapons to defend yourself. If you feel the need to, you worry too much unless your living in an anarchic like place and even then should probably still not be used because the consequences could be large.

Allowing such travesties in allowing people to wield dangerous weapons could spell chaos of the country.
THERE IS NO NEED TO CARRY A DANGEROUS WEAPON, IF YOU FEEL THE NEED YOU WORRY TOO MUCH. JUST LEARN SELF DEFENSE AND DON’T WORRY

Also forgot to mention that’s my final post. Don’t want to waste so much time on a topic when I already know the true answer and what’s really right.

If prohibition of guns is to hold any salt, any object that can be potentially used as a weapon needs to be restricted as well.

No.

Guns are different to baseball bats, textbooks, and other potential weapons in that their intended purpose is to cause harm. Baseball bats are used for playing baseball. Textbooks are used for study. Guns are used for shooting people.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Not having a gun won’t stop someone who wants to kill someone from killing that person. Everyone should be allowed to be considered for getting a gun, but the qualification standards should be way higher. Every state should mandate safety training and extensive background checks for weapon owning. There should also be a much higher crackdown on illegal firearms.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Not having a gun won’t stop someone who wants to kill someone from killing that person.

Can I generalize that statement to rocket launchers, plastic explosives, atomic devices, and so on? And argue that everyone has the right to own an H-bomb?

If not, what makes guns different?

Guns are different to baseball bats, textbooks, and other potential weapons in that their intended purpose is to cause harm. Baseball bats are used for playing baseball. Textbooks are used for study. Guns are used for shooting people.

Allow me to add kitchen knives, silverware (forks and knives specifically), pocket/utility knives, toothpicks, and other such objects not intended for harming humans but, are nonetheless, potentially harmful. Whether the item was meant to kill or not isn’t the point, it’s the potential harmfulness that should be questioned. I can probably kill someone outright with a baseball bat, just like with a gun, if I wanted to.

I just do not see the logic in taking out guns from the equation but leaving other weapons available. It doesn’t solve anything and it infringes upon a person’s right to bear arms. If anything, guns are being treated as the scapegoat here.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Not having a gun won’t stop someone who wants to kill someone from killing that person.

Thank you, someone who actually understands the irony of this all.