Is gun really the answer?

[1ditzyrn]

The issue of guns is always a tricky one. I do, personally, own a hunting rifle. It was not bought for self defense, but if someone were to break into my home it could be used as such. I agree that violence should never be the answer but unfortunately, in today's world, violent crime seems to be on the rise. Because of this, I understand why people feel the need to have protection in their home.

[readandsmile]

I think a gun is not the only answer to violence. There are people who are in authority who knows well how to handle it.

[kfwilson6]

I personally have no love for guns. But as much as I want to believe guns are never the answer, just to play devil's advocate, if you are in a situation (like a break-in, or an attack) where you are faced with a gun-toting maniac threatening to kill you and your loved ones, you would have little chance of survival even if you were trained in self-defense or have less lethal forms of weaponry at your disposal. In a society where guns are everywhere, this is the disheartening reality and it's why I believe many feel they need to arm themselves even if they have never considered it before, because it's the only chance at self defense when the bad guys will always have the guns.

I feel the same. I personally do not want to have a gun, don't want guns in my house, am scared that if there are guns in my house my kids would somehow get to them. You can take every precaution to teach your kids not to touch the guns in your home but if you have your guns locked up, what good are they for self-defense? You need a gun readily accessible if you need to defend your home, but if it is accessible to you quickly enough to be useful, someone else could probably get their hands on it quite easily.

Any type of self defense that requires physical contact is no good when your assailant is standing ten feet away pointing a gun at you. It's a hard line to tow. Do the benefits outweigh the potential costs? I live in a very good neighborhood and feel completely safe. I know something could happen but the odds just don't justify the risks and discomforts I would be facing having one.

[pool]

I personally hate guns because the 1986 NRA war in Uganda took my grand mother....and probably I would have enjoyed her love has a grandson

[Catia]

For me guns are not the answer.
If nobody would have access to guns so easily, this wouldn't even be a question.
Someone want to harm my family? Lets fists fly, is more fair and less lethal. You have a chance to defend yourself.
What can you do against a gun? Even if you have your own gun, you would probably end dead all the same.
It takes more courage to face another person with your bare hands that shoot from a safe distance.
I am happy to live in a country where you can't just stroll into a shop and buy a gun.
Call me naive, but if I could make all firearms disappear, this would be a far better world.

[ccrews0408]

Sometimes guns seem to be the only answer. In the violent world we live in today, it's hard to think of any other options to protect you and your family. I am, however, always open to other suggestions.

[n-dai che]

I personally think that I could never use a gun even in self-defense. I have similar thoughts to Vince in the book, I think about could I pull the trigger if I needed to. My response is always no though. So much misuse of guns happens in this country. I could never forgive myself if my gun would cause harm to anyone, so why would I have one?

I can relate to your comment on this topic. My uncle always wave his hands to threaten my aunt.
So do I, I don't like to have gun.

[ValentineT]

In a scenerio where the other person has a gun and is planning to use it on you, then having knowledge on how to use one is necessary. However I do not feel the need to have a gun inside your house majorly cause it will pose more danger from the attackers.

[Lincolnshirelass]

I cannot imagine I would ever want to own or use a gun, not even for sporting purposes. This is by no means to say that I think anyone who does so legally is a bad person. As you may know I live in the UK. Guns aren't quite such an issue as in the USA but there have certainly been horrific instances, like when little kids in the primary school in Dunblane were shot and killed (incidentally the same school tennis star Andy Murray attended, though he wasn't in the relevant class). Going back even further there was a controversial incident where a farmer shot and killed an intruder. Initially there was some support for him, and some folk still do, but it transpired that he actually shot the guy concerned (only a teenager) when he had already turned and was running away. Maybe if I lived in an isolated cabin I might see the point, but even then I doubt I would ever own a gun.

[Julehart1]

Guns shouldn't ever be an answer but unfortunately they are. A person has a right to protect themselves and if a gun helps them feel safe, then that's their choice. I'm all for gun control though as these school shootings especially are getting ridiculously out of hand. But as long as people are allowed to bear arms, people will want guns for protection from others.

[atonykamau]

I personally believes it depends on a person's circumstances. If someone feels threatened or perhaps lives in an environment where his or her safety isn't guaranteed has a right to acquire a gun that would aid in his safety. However if there is no real danger then a gun wouldn't be the answer.

[Sindhu Srinath]

No. It's always a problem, NEVER the answer. Lesser guns would mean more smiles.

[onixpam]

I think that a gun will be my last option. I do not be able to hurt anyone!. But under some conditions, I will defend my family with all that I have.

[Helen_Combe]

Coming from a country where people don’t carry guns, I can’t imagine how carrying death in my handbag would make me feel safer. I don’t think I could kill, so the likelihood is that I’d be disarmed and shot with my own weapon.

[420waystoreachthesun]

I disagree. I don't think a gun is the answer. I feel that the 2nd amendment has been projected as being infallible, which it isn't.