In recent memory, gun violence is off the charts. People could die everyday because of those things, and there is nothing to do about it when it happens. While most can admit that the idea of living in a heavily armed society would be detrimental to our well-being (Crime rate),  what hasn't been discussed too often is the right to personally carry a weapon. 

Is it right to carry an armed weapon, in case of emergency? Who's or what's in the wrong, the gun, or the person using it? Thanks for the feedback. 

Well is your choice if you want to defend yourselves. But people I think people will become more afraid of someone carrying a loaded gun if there are not a police.

It is your God-given right to defend yourself. The is a town in Georgia,I believe,that every man must be armed and they can carry their weapon but in plain sight.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-towns-law-gun/story?id=18863226

I support this. In Switzerland,every man is required to serve and they keep their weapons and ammo even when they retire.

https://mic.com/articles/22835/gun-control-facts-detroit-crime-rate-is-the-result-of-gun-control#.Lc6ZJE4LC

An armed citizen is a empowered citizen.

It depends.
I have like Multiple takes on the situation.

If you are forced to be self defense, then yeah I'd say you should have a loaded gun.

If action isn't needed then No, you shouldn't have one.


If your using a gun for pure violence.. I just don't wanna know you. 


For the most part.    Everything that's man made can be abused in some way shape or form,  including guns.   So unfortunately, I'd think it's still best if you had one laying around for self defense.

Of COURSE it's a right. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy having one. Why do you think that shootings (almost) exclusively happen in gun-free zones like schools or where gun laws are super restrictive like Chicago or California?

I do not have a gun myself... yet, but I would strongly consider it. Considering that police intervention to "save" you is usually too long, you NEED the means to defend yourself.

Yeah, but you better be careful not to mortally wound them. If doing so, in an act of self-defense, you would become a murderer, even with the best intentions. I personally prefer good security or a taser. 

No I wouldn't consider it a right when it gives you the ability to so easily take another human's life. Other than that statistics will typically tell you western countries with liberal gun laws have higher crime rates and more people die from the gun violence this brings than are saved. I think it comes down to a lot of people not being responsible enough to where they should be allowed to carry guns. In a country like Switzerland it at least makes more sense because everyone has been trained in how to properly handle guns there. They still have the highest rate of gun violence in Europe though. 

The other thing is making guns so easily accessible is what allows a lot of will be criminals more easily get a hold of them. Most guns used in crimes in the US orginally came from stores which legally sold them.  Despite that I can see the need for it in the US because of the rampant gun culture and how many guns are already in circulation, a complete ban wouldn't be very effective. On the contrary it would allow criminals who have guns to take advantage. Restricting which guns can be bought though seems like a good alternative.

In other western countries where it's more or entirely restricted though I'm completely against introducing it. The police force should be adressed first and firemost. Like I've said in another post a solution that creates more problems than it solves isn't a viable solution. In particular when there are more non lethal ways of defending oneself should there really be a need for it.

Further restriction of firearms sales would do more harm than good. Take this into consideration: when you make it harder to get a gun, people who try their absolute best to follow the law are hindered from acquiring a means of personal defense. Not worried about the law? Armed robbers and premeditated murderers aren't. Some would even go as far as to call it an "occupational hazard." They'll just find an alley, drop $400 in cash in the back of a van and they have themselves a new toy. Laws don't effect criminals. Criminals are criminals before they commit crimes. You don't have your average soccer mom or neighborhood wino going and shooting up mall food courts, movie theaters and elementary schools. When it really comes down to it, laws only have an effect on those who intend to follow them and that's why the only thing that can be done is make an effort as a community to show mass murderers and gangs that it's our "hood" and our "turf". There's no way to do that without putting guns into the right hands. If the government was going to intervene in any way, it should be to teach our citizenry how to correctly handle a weapon, not to tell them that they can't defend themselves. I appreciate what most law enforcement does, but they're really only there to clean up the mess and file the paperwork.

Insane repeated felon with a fenced gun VS naive home owner with a whiffle bat: place your bets.

I'd carry around a loaded gun so I can shot myself in the head and there fore not have to enter any social situation.

Here's my stance on this, and I know posting this is going to get lots of people angry at me, probably. I think USA should not permit guns to anyone except cops or somebody around that. I mean, look at Japan. They have as few as 2 deaths related to guns a year because they banned gun usage. I think this is a good idea. There are plenty more ways to protect yourself. Really, anything around you can be used as a weapon.

Well I'm all for firearms, no doubt. I believe everyone has right to keep and carry. but i agree with those who have said limiting concealed carry would be a good idea. I see no reason why an honest man should have to hide his personal choice . i also believe that you should be well practiced in the use of your weapon, as accidents happen all too often. But all in all if war does ever come to the U.S. people will all appreciate the accessibility of quality weapons compared to other nations in time of war. although I fear I've strayed from topic. All in all there is going to be violence regardless to access.

Oldschool777 :

I'm making this post in this thread to prevent it from getting off track. I am replying to your most recent post in my
thread about the Orlando Shooting.

First, you said this...

"I agree something must be done,but not at the cost of our freedoms"

After this, you put...

"Am I denying his freedoms? Maybe. But if it saves lives,I am willing to rescind his rights to save others"

So...I'm
confused. It seems like you are contradicting yourself here, in my
opinion. Gun control/banning guns saves lives. You see it as part of
your freedom, and it's sounding like that you'd keep guns rather than
save a bunch of people from dying.

There could be other
situations where somebody is not an ISIS sympathizer, or known to be a
suspect to the government at all. They own a gun because of how easy to
access they are, and they kill a bunch of people. If only guns weren't
so easy to obtain.

An example of such a situation is the Columbine Shooting in 1999. Tragic.

EDIT: Dumb formatting errors....

You have to remember,banning guns means a weak populace. Maybe that is want Obama really wants.

He was questioned in 2013 and 2014 for having possible ISIS sympathies. In case it was not clear,we are at war with ISIS. He has been described as a complete psycho and a abusive jerk. I am sorry,he has no rights. He is a worthless piece of trash. Guns are not the problem,the problem is he was an ISIS sympathizer and he was looking to cause carnage.

Oldschool777 :

Weak populace? How so? And why do the citizens need to have guns all? Also, if he didn't have a gun, there wouldn't have been as much carnage. Guns are the problem.

And you're ignoring the part where I was talking about the example. You say guns are not the problem, the problem was that he was an ISIS sympathizer. (Before I go more into this, I do agree with you on the part that they needed to keep him in check before they let him out).

But if a situation such as the Columbine incident were to happen, it would be because they had access to guns.

Do criminals fight fair? No. They bring weapons to a fist fight. Guns are not the problem,idiots are the problem. Is a criminal going to wait to give you enough time to call the police? Are the police going to save you? No and most likely no. That is why you should be armed,so you can defend yourself. I would rather take my chances in a shootout with an armed attacker or intruder than hiding and calling 911 and praying they get there before the intruder finds me.

While many people think the European way or the Australian way or the Japanese way is the answer and I say to you,no. Total disarming is not the answer. Education and training are the answer. Most people have respect for firearms. Most never use them unless they are doing target practice or heaven forbid,having to use them to defend themselves. I prefer the Switzerland way myself. Every male is required to serve in the military. That teaches respect and restraint. They keep their weapons when they retire. And Switzerland is one of the safest countries around. Everyone has a gun and yet you do not hear about gun violence there.

As for Columbine,if their idiot parents had actually spent time with their knuckle-headed kids and secured the weapons properly,(only the authorized users had access to them),Columbine would not be part of our history and lexicon. 

Oldschool777 : Your argument seems flawed to me.

Switzerland is not one of the safest countries around. In fact, like Zlinqx previously mentioned (seriously I'm bring up his points a lot but he makes good ones.) Switzerland has the highest rate of gun violence in Europe. I'm also pretty sure that one of the reasons they have guns there because their police force is weak. I will say that there way of doing things is much better than the US.

Now, like I said just restricting guns now in the US isn't really going to help much but at least doing something is a good idea. And I saw you were for the Switzerland way, which at least is better than the horrid US way. But still not ideal in my opinion.

No,Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the world. Criminals actually support gun control. Why? It makes their job easier.

Read this and understand.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

I have grown up in Norway where we don't carry a gun. The police just recently started to carry gun all the time. Before it was lock inside of the police car and they needed a permission from the boss to take it out. Don't see why you need to carry a gun. More likely to kill a man in my eyes. You need special permits to even own a gun here in Norway and pass a test also to own a hunting rifle. Or be a member of a gun club where you shoot for a hobby. Its more safe that  way in my eyes

This is a very good question. With me I am not really sure, some people on this thread have said yes some have said no, and stated why. I mean if its a national security to protect yourself then that I can understand. But if its for pure abuse then its a no. For me its between yes and no. Considering I don't want to take ones side and assume one wrong thing. People have reasons to carry a gun with them while some others don't and use it to take a life of a person. '-'