What is your stance on firearms?
For them
40.6% (39)
40.6% (39)
Against them
39.6% (38)
39.6% (38)
Indifferent
18.8% (18)
18.8% (18)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: What do you think of firearms/gun control?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

What do you think about guns? Or do you really care one way or the other?

Personally, I don't care for guns. Though, I don't have a problem with other people owning them. I guess that would make me indifferent?

It's an incredibly nuanced issue. Pro firearm could mean...
-I support the right to keep a Colt 1911 in your house, but if you buy it it will be taxed and you need to get safety training.
Or...
-Everyone can buy AA12's with grenade-ammo and carry them around in the city.

If When I am supreme dictator of the world universe, I would have different laws in different countries. Due to America's gun culture, they would have more relaxed laws than European countries that already have banned guns. Immediately banning all firearms in America would make sure that harmless, peaceful, law abiding citizens would be robbed of their weapons while dangerous criminals could still get access to firearms with ease.

I support the right to be able to own relatively 'harmless' firearms, when you are properly trained. Firearms should be heavily taxed.
I oppose the free distribution of heavy firearms.

Arcobalen:
What do you think about guns? Or do you really care one way or the other?

Personally, I don't care for guns. Though, I don't have a problem with other people owning them. I guess that would make me indifferent?

I'm a NRA member. You can guess from there.

So yeah. Pro-gun. These threads never turn out well, though. How soon are we going to have hyperbole and appeals to emotion? Very soon, I bet.

I think that anyone who owns a modern weapon should be instructed in its use. Older weapons that you don't need a permit or a registration for are unnecessary since they aren't likely to be fired or even necessarily around ammo at all.

There should be waiting lists, a psychological test wouldn't be out of place, and some regulation on private sellers since, outside of arms dealers and unscrupulous pawn shops, this is where criminals get their guns.

Well it depends on where in the world and if guns are legal or not.

In America, owning guns I can definitely agree with. Why? Well since guns are legal, getting them on the black market is so easy due to houses being robbed, and the guns being robbed. It makes sense then to have a gun if the criminals can get them so easily.

Now in Ireland where it is very VERY difficult to get a gun legally or illegally, then no. Keep guns illegal. There is no need for them as most crime is not committed with guns. Sure we hear about crimes in which guns are used, and someone shot to death, but these are fairly rare ocurrances due to how hard it is to get a gun in the first place.

Arcobalen:
What do you think about guns? Or do you really care one way or the other?

Personally, I don't care for guns. Though, I don't have a problem with other people owning them. I guess that would make me indifferent?

My stance is that I like how Switzerland handles the issue.

Here in Canada, there is a big deal over "Long Gun Registration", which is essentially strict licensing legislation for hunting weapons. There are enough people who hunt, or who live in areas where there are regularly wild and dangerous animals, that the legislation is too restrictive. Otherwise:

Danyal:
It's an incredibly nuanced issue. Pro firearm could mean...
-I support the right to keep a Colt 1911 in your house, but if you buy it it will be taxed and you need to get safety training.
Or...
-Everyone can buy AA12's with grenade-ammo and carry them around in the city.

There is this. If you want a hunting weapon, fine. If you want an automatic, a pistol or another weapon that is usually only used against other people, tough luck.

Partly because a gun does not necessarily have to be fired to be useful in defensive situations, I have no problem whatsoever with basic firearms (standard rifles, long barreled shotguns, and pistols) in the hands of civilians, so long as their owners pass a few requirements.

A gun is a tool, differing only in intended function from the ones I use to construct and repair items nearly every day. Incidently, the rules below are no different from the ones I would require anyone to pass before using any dangerous tool:

-they have the training/wisdom to recognize when and where their use is appropriate.
-they have the knowledge to use them safely
-they intend to use the tools to a constructive purpose.

I'm an unarmed security guard who's saving up to attend the proper classes to get an armed security license and handgun carry permit, so pro-firearms here.

Against, at least for my own nation. News reports from certain other nations make me glad I live here, but then, if you firmly believe that people have a right to own weapons, such things shouldn't bother you.

Woo! After my trip to New Zealand I'm moving to Alabama, doesn't get more red state than that. I'm getting a Saiga 12K :)

Humans are not responsible enough to have easy acces to instant-death flingers, simple as that. Only select groups of people (like the army, security guards and police officers) should be allowed to carry these things and even then it should be extremely well regulated. I'm sure you can think of some exceptional situations where it would be justified (expeditions into the wild, living in a very remote forest region, zombie apocalypse...), but 99% of the time it is completely unnecessary to have a gun in your house. Using it as a deterrent is about the stupidest thing you can do when there is a burglar in your house. It is a device designed for only one thing, i.e. killing living things. It is not a 'tool'. And unless you plan on visiting a battlefield, 'light weapons' like pistols are just as deadly as army grade machine guns. Of course, the average house contains many other potentially harmful objects, but say a chainsaw is not engineered specifically to maim and kill.

I have gotten a little passionate about this, but I simply cannot understand why one would want to have such a thing in their house. It is completely irrational.

Against. I'm from the UK, we don't have a need for guns and we don't want them. They are very difficult to acquire here and subsequently we have low gun crime. Simple as that. Obviously it's an entirely different kettle of fish on the other side of the atlantic where guns are already in mass circulation, so I don't know what the optimal solution in US/Canada would be. And frankly I don't care either.

For elimination of nearly all of them. Libertarian, it comes with the territory.

As for the fate of all these threads...

Gun debate starting in 3... 2... 1...

Jedoro:
I'm an unarmed security guard who's saving up to attend the proper classes to get an armed security license and handgun carry permit, so pro-firearms here.

That shirt and your mouth are a bigger weapon than any firearm mate. The moment you take out a gun, whomever you're turning it on has a motive to kill you, and everything escalates out of control. Any situation can be contained without weapons of any kind, including those involving armed agressors.

Not to mention killing people isn't something you want to do. Watching your rounds impact a few hundred metres away and then see someone lie still and bleed is no fun. It's been four years and I can still recall the images easily, and those were people who were plenty hateable (Taliban fighters, go figure) who had attacked us first. Imagine what it does up close and personal when it's just some burglar trying to make some money.

Thorenus:
I have gotten a little passionate about this, but I simply cannot understand why one would want to have such a thing in their house. It is completely irrational.

Because they're fun to shoot. I mean, they really are. That's what I use my .22 carbine for. Target shooting.

Also, it's my Constitutional right to own one (Or two, or three, or a hundred). So there's that.

CM156:
Also, it's my Constitutional right to own one (Or two, or three, or a hundred). So there's that.

No, it's your right to be part of an official state militia, without having it disbanded. All the rest is incorrect interpretation.

Meaning pretty much that the National Guard can't be disbanded as a whole, nothing more.

CM156:

Thorenus:
I have gotten a little passionate about this, but I simply cannot understand why one would want to have such a thing in their house. It is completely irrational.

Because they're fun to shoot. I mean, they really are. That's what I use my .22 carbine for. Target shooting.

Also, it's my Constitutional right to own one (Or two, or three, or a hundred). So there's that.

The above post ^

Also, more than 220 years have passed since it was drafted and Americans no longer have to fear a British invasion, hostile natives or wild beasts at the frontier. The constitution isn't perfect.

Thorenus:

CM156:

Thorenus:
I have gotten a little passionate about this, but I simply cannot understand why one would want to have such a thing in their house. It is completely irrational.

Because they're fun to shoot. I mean, they really are. That's what I use my .22 carbine for. Target shooting.

Also, it's my Constitutional right to own one (Or two, or three, or a hundred). So there's that.

Yes, but over three centuries have passed since it was drafted and Americans no longer have to fear a British invasion, hostile natives or wild beasts at the frontier. The constitution isn't perfect.

im pretty sure if it wasn't for the fact that we have tons of civilian gun handlers, the brits would of tried to take us over again. (/sarcasm)

i used to own a hunting rifle but i had to sell it when i started going to college (no guns on campus) so im pro gun. But i wish they would treat rifles and shot guns the same way they treat pistols. you should have to attend a class and get a permit.

I like guns and am glad to own some. They are fun to use and people have a right to defend themselves.

The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding so when I find out that someone owns a gun I don't have negative/prejudiced thoughts about them, i.e "he must be a psycho"

A high rate of gun ownership in America(rural areas) correlates to low rates of gun crime, wheras a high concentration of criminals in some urban areas correlates to a high rate of gun crime/murder.

Gun control advocates favor a(bigotry based) cruel collective punishment of law abiding gun owners which hasn't been proven to be very effective at stopping criminals. Also living in a European country which never had high gun crime/murder rates is not proof that gun control works.

Against them. (against guns)

I'm British.

I think arms should never be introduced into a population in the first place as its bloody fucking atrociously hard to then remove them again.

Would I remove the right to have fire arms in the US? No... because sadly so many people have them that removing the right would result in a short term blood bath. A small war like in Mexico where gangs are eliminated... en masse... by force... with civilian losses in the thousands.

Better to try and slowely reduce them over time... a LONG LONG LONG time.

Blablahb:

CM156:
Also, it's my Constitutional right to own one (Or two, or three, or a hundred). So there's that.

No, it's your right to be part of an official state militia, without having it disbanded. All the rest is incorrect interpretation.

Meaning pretty much that the National Guard can't be disbanded as a whole, nothing more.

Really, that old argument?

Oh you!

In light of Heller and McDonald, that's not the case. You can keep whining about them being "incorrect", but that changes nothing. Go on. Keep saying that. It holds no legal weight at all. And if that's the best argument you can muster, I'm not at ALL worried about my rights being taken away.

Not even gun control supporters try to use that argument much in the states anymore. So I'd recommend you get with the times, skippy.

Thorenus:

CM156:

Thorenus:
I have gotten a little passionate about this, but I simply cannot understand why one would want to have such a thing in their house. It is completely irrational.

Because they're fun to shoot. I mean, they really are. That's what I use my .22 carbine for. Target shooting.

Also, it's my Constitutional right to own one (Or two, or three, or a hundred). So there's that.

The above post ^

Also, more than 220 years have passed since it was drafted and Americans no longer have to fear a British invasion, hostile natives or wild beasts at the frontier. The constitution isn't perfect.

No, no it's not. But if you're suggesting changing the second amendment, I'd like to point out that the majority of Americans don't even favor banning handguns. And gun control is really a lost cause in the states. Even the Democrats don't push for it much, except in Cali, Illinois, NY, and DC.

I'm indifferent about it. Keep guns the way they're meant to be.

Blablahb:

CM156:
Also, it's my Constitutional right to own one (Or two, or three, or a hundred). So there's that.

No, it's your right to be part of an official state militia, without having it disbanded. All the rest is incorrect interpretation.

Meaning pretty much that the National Guard can't be disbanded as a whole, nothing more.

You are completely wrong on multiple accounts there. First of all the Guard is not a militia they are not the same thing. Second the Guard is not at a state level. They are federal personnel not state personnel that ultimately answer to the president not the state governor. Now the governor of a state can use them when needed but they are still federal troops. This is why it's the National Guard and not State Guard. Third it is your interpretation of the Second Amendment that is an incorrect interpretation Even at least one of the dissenting judges opinion was still based of the Second Amendment being an individual right.

Blablahb:

Jedoro:
I'm an unarmed security guard who's saving up to attend the proper classes to get an armed security license and handgun carry permit, so pro-firearms here.

That shirt and your mouth are a bigger weapon than any firearm mate. The moment you take out a gun, whomever you're turning it on has a motive to kill you, and everything escalates out of control. Any situation can be contained without weapons of any kind, including those involving armed agressors.

Not to mention killing people isn't something you want to do. Watching your rounds impact a few hundred metres away and then see someone lie still and bleed is no fun. It's been four years and I can still recall the images easily, and those were people who were plenty hateable (Taliban fighters, go figure) who had attacked us first. Imagine what it does up close and personal when it's just some burglar trying to make some money.

I'm not looking to kill the first guy who breaks in because it's dark and that thing in his hand looks like a gun, I just figure that if the client's paying more for an armed guard, the job will consist more of security duties than things that maintenance or housekeeping should be doing, which is what most of my duties entail.

I think it's pretty damn stupid that I'm security, yet one of my daily duties is to rearrange the fucking tables in the cafeteria.

Before I get to some other stuff-

NRA Life Member
Member of the Texas State Rifle Association
Member of the Civilian Marksmanship Program
Certified Range Safety Officer
Certified Gunsmith (for another few months at least)
Hunter
Competitive Rifle shooter in many forms

What the hell do you think my opinion on firearm ownership is?

Thorenus:
99% of the time it is completely unnecessary to have a gun in your house.

So what about the 99% of the people in my home town that has to deal with wild animals. Or do you want us to go out and kill wild pigs with our bare hands?

Using it as a deterrent is about the stupidest thing you can do when there is a burglar in your house.

How so? I think a .45 slug is a better deterrent than, "the police will be here in about 10 minutes" (25 minutes if you are in Detroit).

It is a device designed for only one thing, i.e. killing living things.

Then want about the firearms I myself have built (gunsmith) that were designed to shoot targets?

It is not a 'tool'.

Yes it is.

I have gotten a little passionate about this, but I simply cannot understand why one would want to have such a thing in their house. It is completely irrational.

How about to kill wild animals? How about to protect yourself and your family? How about because it is fun to shoot targets?

Thorenus:

Also, more than 220 years have passed since it was drafted and Americans no longer have to fear a British invasion, hostile natives or wild beasts at the frontier. The constitution isn't perfect.

Let us see-

Invasion- We are currently being invaded by the Mexican Government (they have sent planes and helicopters over the border without permission) but even more important are the cartels sending drugs over the border. I know several people who live and work on the border. A friend of mine has property on the Arizona/Mexico border. His house has been shot at, people cross into his property regularly and leave drugs, and his house has been broken into numerous times.

Hostile Natives- The US crime rate may be going down but we still have a significant number of crimes.

Wild beasts- Seriously? Even on the east coast we still have wild animal troubles.

Blablahb:
No, it's your right to be part of an official state militia, without having it disbanded.

Militia (as defined by the DoD)- every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Guard.

In other words I am a militiaman. By your logic I can have a firearm but all the women and old men in the US cannot.

Also what about the State Guards? A friend of mine is a part of the Texas State Guard. They are a militia but they are also civilians who provide their own firearms and (most) equipment.

Anyway the full text of the second amendment-
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The well regulated militia part is simply a justification. We need a militia therefore we need the right to keep and bear arms. That justification does NOT refute the part that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

All the rest is incorrect interpretation.

Prove it.

Does the US second amendment actually matter, in this context?

Whether or not USians have a constitutional right to own weapons, there's no interpretation that says they have no right to.

Personally, I'd interpret it to mean they have the right to serve in a military force (and that DADT was unconstitutional), but either way it doesn't particularly matter.

Mind you, if you interpret it to mean private gun ownership, you shouldn't have things like the Assault Weapons Ban (which is stupid for other reasons as well).

I hate guns, simple as that.

They serve a purpose, and that is to kill things. There is no other legitimate reasons to own a gun.

While I have no real problem with licensed weapons being used for hunting, or with their use by law enforcement or military, I see no reason for it not to be regulated and controlled.

Guns are pretty much THE reason I refuse to ever visit the US.

In the context of the U.S., I would rather them keep their gun laws the way they are considering their (almost) fanatical appreciation of firearms and firearms culture. Any stricter gun laws in that country, and I would hate to see the fallout.

In the context of my home country, Canada (you know, America's top hat)? I would rather that firearms culture stays the fuck out of this country, and remains more or less the same as it is now. I feel just fine in the majority of the city I live in without needing to pack "heat" in order to remain safe and secure, even if the seedier parts of downtown may make me stay in constant eye sight of the sufficiently traveled roads and establishments there..

Craorach:
They serve a purpose, and that is to kill things. There is no other legitimate reasons to own a gun.

Again, what about target shooting? That's what I use my gun for.

The only thing I've ever shot is paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport

Try this.

CM156:

Craorach:
They serve a purpose, and that is to kill things. There is no other legitimate reasons to own a gun.

Again, what about target shooting? That's what I use my gun for.

The only thing I've ever shot is paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport

Try this.

I'll grant you that, fair enough, target shooting.

I'm not entirely sure why you'd need the gun in your home or for it to be uncontrolled and not licensed. Or, for example, ensuring that you have passed some kind of safety exam to be allowed to participate.

Craorach:

CM156:

Craorach:
They serve a purpose, and that is to kill things. There is no other legitimate reasons to own a gun.

Again, what about target shooting? That's what I use my gun for.

The only thing I've ever shot is paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport

Try this.

I'll grant you that, fair enough, target shooting.

I'm not entirely sure why you'd need the gun in your home or for it to be uncontrolled and not licensed. Or, for example, ensuring that you have passed some kind of safety exam to be allowed to participate.

Well, what good would licensing it do?

Also, there's the whole idea of home defensive weapons. That's a good reason for some people

In all honesty the only reason I have a Smith & Wesson 410S is to kill someone that decides to break in, have it loaded with Ranger talons. Quite possibly the nastiest round made for a sidearm. Already had to draw it once, surprised the fucker that was trying to pick the lock on my front door... with a knife :P

He was arrested 10 minutes later and this was his 3rd strike so he got a life sentence.

usmarine4160:
In all honesty the only reason I have a Smith & Wesson 410S is to kill someone that decides to break in, have it loaded with Ranger talons. Quite possibly the nastiest round made for a sidearm.

Aren't they just fairly ordinary hollow-points with an exciting name?

I view gun control legislation the same as DRM.

In theory, it's designed with noble intentions to keep a product out of the hands of criminals.
In practice, it's only a nuisance to the people who legally consume the product.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked