In the wake of the latest U.S. gun massacres, American citizens in Tokyo were asked whether they support the part of their nation’s supreme law that guarantees their right to bear arms — even in the event that a relative was killed by a firearm.
English teacher, 34
I do not. I think the 2nd Amendment was made a long time ago and needs to be updated because the technology of guns has advanced since then.
Executive, 47 Chattanooga, Tennesee
The 2nd Amendment is important, but I think Americans take it too far. When they talk about assault weapons, people don’t go hunting with them. Looking at the rest of the world, they are not having the problems we are having. We are using guns to kill a lot of people, but the people who are dead had a right to live, too.
Retired builder, 65
Well, I am opposed to having any guns in the U.S. — now, anyway. But it is a law of the land, so I would have to follow it. But I wish we could change that law, because I think it’s too dangerous for everybody to have a gun.
Public relations student, 21 Birmingham, Alabama
There are cases where people who carried guns legally saved people from bad situations, but I’m also very concerned about how bad people can get their hands on guns. Honestly, I don’t know. Guns are dangerous, but I think the primary danger is the people, and sometimes there’s just nothing you can do about that.
Regardless of whether this was about my relatives, my view of the 2nd Amendment is that the Founding Fathers never intended it to be about open ownership of guns, so I believe that regulation of the amendment is necessary, no matter the circumstances.
Citizens should not have weapons in the U.S. Regardless of whether any family member was killed with a gun, I still don’t adhere to it — I don’t believe that Americans should have the right to bear arms. It’s been proven not to work.
Interested in gathering views
in your neighborhood? E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org