Oh, you must be talking about the right for everyone to operate a motor vehicle. Yes, causes a hideous amount of fatalities every year but I can't see how you can simply make all the cars disappear by making them against the law. I mean drugs are illegal but people still seem to be able to do those pretty much whenever they want if they're willing to do them.
Assuming we're referring to the the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, it is not "made legal." It is intrinsically a right. Second, the constitution is not outdated. This presumption reflects a hubris displayed throughout history. Third, I disagree both that it is an aspect of our culture and that it has lead to the injury and death of citizens in the way that you imply. Guns are no more responsible for murder than cars are for drunk driving, and they kill far fewer people. We ban neither cars, nor alcohol as a result.
In short, your poll is a straw man argument in which both answers support a biased position. The answer isn't just "no", it's "screw this".
If you're referring to the 2nd Amendment, then no; stop right there, and do some real research. First of all, it does NOT lead to the injury/death of fellow citizens. The most violent crime in the nation occurs in the areas of the country where strict gun laws or gun bans are already in place. Nearly every major shooting occurs in "gun-free zones", where the only people who obey the law are those with no ill intent. If a criminal or psychopath wants to kill people, you think the law is going to stop them? If you look at other parts of the country where more citizens own guns, there is vastly less violent crime. In fact, if you compare the United States' average violent crime rate with that of the UK's, the numbers will show you - plain as day - that the UK has a much, MUCH higher violent crime rate. Yes, the murder rate is lower in the UK, but armed robberies, assaults, home invasions, rapes, etc. are ALL a lot greater than those in the U.S. Same goes for Australia, too. And hell, look at what gun bans did for Mexico. Drug cartels and gangs run rampant down there.
As for the myth about "assault weapons" being so deadly, how about you do a little fact-checking? There are more people beaten to death with absolutely no weapons (bare-handed) every year than there are who are shot and killed with ALL rifles (the actual figure for "assault rifles" is even lower). There are also more people killed with blunt objects and knives (or other bladed objects) every year than with rifles. This information is all straight from the FBI, so you can look it up for yourself. Just look up the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). They arrange the data in neat, easy-to-understand tables. When you do look this up, you'll see that most homicides are committed with handguns. Might I also add that the founding fathers of the United States actually WANTED the people to have the same weapons as the military so that we could defend ourselves in the event that our government became tyrannical (which it rapidly is becoming). Thomas Jefferson once defined tyranny as that which is legal for the government, but not for the people. So, why is it ok for the police to use AR-15s, but not citizens? What makes them any different from us? Does handing them a badge and a uniform make them more qualified? Do you even realize that the average American gun owner is better trained with their firearms than your average American police officer? Do you even know that the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle?
The real definition of an assault rifle is a rifle which fires an intermediate rifle cartridge, features a detachable magazine, and is select-fire. Select-fire means that it can fire both in semi automatic and fully automatic (or burst-fire) firing modes. An AR-15 is ONLY semi-automatic, so it is not an assault rifle. Not only that, but most hunting rifles are actually MORE powerful than the AR-15 and the 5.56x45mm cartridge. In fact, there are many handguns that are more powerful.
When you actually sit down and look at the facts, it's clear that there is absolutely NO justification for gun control, gun bans, etc. If you truly want to reduce crime, you need to improve education, get more people out of poverty, improve the economy, and have MORE honest citizens with guns.
I can not really answer because I believe both yes and no can apply. Yes; because some laws need to change with the flow of society and how culture functions. Having something out dated, lets say with a type of old farming equipment and how it's used, no one presently is taught everything about it, so there is so much room for error that injury can occur. No; because ultimately if the action that conforms to the law is harmless, unless someone does something reckless or foolhardy, then the real fault lies in the person who did the action and they need to take responsibility for their actions. But everything is subjective to circumstance.
I feel the need to touch base on the issue of guns just for the sake that I have spent a lot of time with a friend who is pro guns on the subject. Please do not take this as an attack on any of your opinions, I just want to present a counter argument as a point of thought. You are well within your right to feel the way you do. The real problem I have with anti-gun laws, lobbyists, and groups is that they focus on the gun being a problem, and not the user. Anything can be used as a tool to kill a person, a knife, hammer, bat, or my lamp sitting next to me. It all depends on how desperate a person gets, and if pushed hard enough will find a way around not having a gun. The next thing is, yes a gun is a tool made for no other reason than to destroy something else. But a tool does not act by its self and depends on its user. A gun picked up and used by someone to kill someone for cheating on them can be used by the police to stop that same person before they hurt someone else. Much like a hammer can be used to build a house or smash someones brain in. The last point I'll make is that gun laws do not work. People who want a gun in a place that has laws against it, will find a way to get them regardless, it's happened. Those people already want to break the law, while the law abiding citizens are unarmed and defenseless against them. You may think the overly spread police will help protect you, but how comforting is that when someone has already broken into your home and is pointing something at your head? Gun laws take power away from the people and put it in criminal hands who will take by force with no resistance. If a criminal knows every house has a gun and a knowledgeable owner, they won't try it. It's proven.
Seems everyone here is arguing the merits but not the substance, so I will say this...
And yes, I know commenters will say "apples to oranges" but hear me out...
I like most of your artwork. Most. But some (maybe 5-10%) offends me. In fact if statistics are to be believed, a fair number of people would be offended by some or even all of your work. So we will make a compromise: I will give up my Second Amendment Rights and turn in my guns, as soon as you give up your First Amendment Rights and stop posting artwork that offends me. In fact, stop posting artwork period. After all, my guns "could" kill someone, and all of your artwork "could" offend someone. Fair?
No it's not, is it? Now I know what you're thinking. "You can't compare the two! Art can't kill people!" True, but it can save people.
For that, I need to ask you a question: why was the Constitution written as it was? Why does "The right to keep and bear arms" immediately follow prohibition on the "abridging the freedom of speech?" Simple, read the writings of the founders, they were very distrustful of government in general, even the one they built! The Constitution should read "When your government displeases you, speak up. When your government ignores you, group together and make more noise. When your government oppresses you, and all else fails, rouse the militia and remove it."
So you say, "You don't 'need' your guns, why not turn them in?"
I say, I don't ever want to "need" my guns. But I want them there if I need them.