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 PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I have guns I like to shoot for fun and they also double as my guns for protection. mind you there arent a lot of them, and the last time someone tried to break into my house it wasnt a gun that stopped them but me kicking the ladder (we live on a rather awkward angle hill).

eh, I think they could be stricter, but its still good to have a wweapon to protect yourself, as long as youre qualified to use it. its not the sane citizens that you hear about in the news, and when it is, theres likely a decent reason behind it.

For me, I don't mind when people have them for target shooting and hunting, but I don't like the idea of having them in the home. In a country such as Australia where gun violence is relatively low, there isn't any need for one. If you really want one, buy it and keep it at the range where it can be tightly controlled.

guns dont kill people do, but the gun helps out with that quite a bit which is why we should either bann fire arms or impose serious restrictions on them
alot of pro gun enthusiasts in america often use the example of other countries with high gun ownership and low gun crime(switzerland for example) as evidence that guns arnt bad. well quite frankly considering the state of gun crime in america, it just shows that America should not be handling firearms

waiting for incoming shit storm

spartandude:
guns dont kill people do, but the gun helps out with that quite a bit which is why we should either bann fire arms or impose serious restrictions on them
alot of pro gun enthusiasts in america often use the example of other countries with high gun ownership and low gun crime(switzerland for example) as evidence that guns arnt bad. well quite frankly considering the state of gun crime in america, it just shows that America should not be handling firearms

waiting for incoming shit storm

Heh, yeah, the US should get rid of USians to stop gun crime.

Of course they'd probably not be able to afford to do it themselves, they should let people do that themselves by allowing them...oh.

I'm glad I live in a country without a gun culture. Do whatever you want, just don't complain when someone gets shot.

spartandude:
guns dont kill people do, but the gun helps out with that quite a bit which is why we should either bann fire arms or impose serious restrictions on them
alot of pro gun enthusiasts in america often use the example of other countries with high gun ownership and low gun crime(switzerland for example) as evidence that guns arnt bad. well quite frankly considering the state of gun crime in america, it just shows that America should not be handling firearms

waiting for incoming shit storm

Not trying to start a shit storm but you realize that the state with the highest gun ownership rate in the US (Idaho with an estimated 64% ownership rate (probably higher)) also has one of the lowest homicide rates in the US and world (1.3 per 100,000 which is on par with the UK). Then you have the fact that the state of Illinois (strict gun control state) has a higher murder rate than the state of Texas (somewhat loose gun control), despite the worse socio-economic conditions. Then you have cities like Kennesaw, Georgia which in 1982 passed an ordinance requiring ALL households to keep and maintain a firearm and ammunition. They have not had a murder in 30 years.

Guns are not the problem. Socio-economic and cultural conditions are the reason for high and low crime rates. Firearms give us the ability to protect ourselves, maintain our property from wild animals (both the 2 and 4 legged variety), and to have fun.

spartandude:
guns dont kill people do, but the gun helps out with that quite a bit which is why we should either bann fire arms or impose serious restrictions on them

Well, banning is out of the question. I do hope you are aware of the legal precedent in the matter?

And you've got as much chance of "serious restrictions" being imposed as you do banning that Catholic church in Mexico, or imposing prohibition in France.

madwarper:
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.

That's actually a very good comparison. A great example of this would be for example in New Jersey any crime involving a gun carries a mandatory prison sentence of at least 7 years with no eligibility for early release of any kind. Now a criminal that actually commits a crime will often reach a plea bargain where they will drop the gun charges. Now a standard law abiding citizen that has a magazine that it turns out you can cram one extra bullet into, will be and has to be sentenced to 7 years in prison. You could literally murder someone and be out of prison (depending on the circumstances of course, but you could be out of prison in 5 years maybe less) before the guy that had a magazine that you could cram one extra bullet in.

I believe the US constitution has a typo in it. They meant to say "the right to arm bears" but the author of the document wasn't really the most literate person and we all know people don't read things before signing them so no one noticed the error.

I for one am in favor of the right to arm bears. It would make hunting much more exciting!

Kendarik:
I believe the US constitution has a typo in it. They meant to say "the right to arm bears" but the author of the document wasn't really the most literate person and we all know people don't read things before signing them so no one noticed the error.

I for one am in favor of the right to arm bears. It would make hunting much more exciting!

PFt, the right to arm bears has nothing to do with hunting, it's clearly to defend the US against a British invasion. Back before the US had a mighty military of its own, they'd rely on arming the native wildlife to repel attacks.

However, this is clearly not teh case nowdays, and only bears serving in a military or police role need to be armed.

Kendarik:
I believe the US constitution has a typo in it. They meant to say "the right to arm bears" but the author of the document wasn't really the most literate person and we all know people don't read things before signing them so no one noticed the error.

I for one am in favor of the right to arm bears. It would make hunting much more exciting!

They say that humans are the most dangerous prey. They've never come up against a grizzly with its own hunting rifle.

I'm against gun control on principle. Guns can provide basic protection in numerous situations, like home invasion for example. Widely available guns also give people the ability to fight against the government if the situation ever calls for it, which it will eventually.

thaluikhain:

Kendarik:
I believe the US constitution has a typo in it. They meant to say "the right to arm bears" but the author of the document wasn't really the most literate person and we all know people don't read things before signing them so no one noticed the error.

I for one am in favor of the right to arm bears. It would make hunting much more exciting!

PFt, the right to arm bears has nothing to do with hunting, it's clearly to defend the US against a British invasion. Back before the US had a mighty military of its own, they'd rely on arming the native wildlife to repel attacks.

However, this is clearly not teh case nowdays, and only bears serving in a military or police role need to be armed.

I had no idea, thanks for educating me on the matter lol

LetalisK:
They say that humans are the most dangerous prey. They've never come up against a grizzly with its own hunting rifle.

My thought exactly.

Maybe a little kevlar vest too. Let's make it a fair fight!

Kendarik:

Maybe a little kevlar vest too. Let's make it a fair fight!

Well yeah, of course the person hunting the bear would need a kevlar vest. Otherwise it'd be unfair since the bear grows his own naturally in fur and fat.

Wait, do you mean for the bear? Well that'd just be silly. If bears got a hold of kevlar, they'd overrun every major human population center within weeks.

I love guns though sadly I don't own any. I want a mauser K98. Guns are just fun to shoot (best way to dispose of rotten fruit) and they actually helped me with my job (computer repair, I had to completely destroy a harddrive, 15 shots from an AR-15 meant no data could be recovered). Criminals are gonna get guns no matter what so gun control ends up hurting innocent people more.

I'm Australian, I like the way our laws are, you can get guns for hunting and sport, but it takes some effort, especially for handguns. I own a firearm and intend to own several in my life, I use them for hunting and hope to take up some sporting shooting (skeet and trap, maybe pistol shooting). In Australia we have a large population of introduced animals that devestate the local fauna and flora, so it's ethically justified to shoot them.

The only thing I'd change is the broad nature of what a handgun license covers (the non security version), there's a lot of difference between a single shot .22 and semi-automatic pistol in .40SW. I'd change it to make getting a single shot pistol or single action revolver easier for farmers and hunters as well sporting shooters and make semi-automatic far more difficult (like stored on ranges or even banned/restricted in number with a grandfather clause to existing owners).

CM156:
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.

Forgive me if I do not understand the interpritations here... Heller and McDonald was the case of states trying to ban an entire firearms. Said firearm being handguns?

Now the Second ammendment does say that the right to have firearms are to those who qualify for a militia. Now I think Blablahb made a different point but around the militia principle. My one is that the person doesn't need to be in a militia, but rather to merely qualify to be in a militia yes? Therefore not everyone can qualify for a firearm but rather those between standard military serving ages. To quote:

able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age

Of course this would now include women who serve in the m ilitary as well but... doesn't that (in theory) mean that if you are 46, then you do not have a right to bear arms as you cannot be part of a militia?

States of course can allow you to have firearms past the age but they could in theory ban all firearms for everyone over the age of 45...

Is this correct? Or just never been tested?

This is part question and part attack on the idea of being legally able to own a gun no matter what in the USA. Obviously it relys on the definition of militia and a state trying to ban based on age as a test.

i might as well post the same thing for the millionth time so it can again be ignored by the gun nuts. owning a gun for self defense is counterintuitive, statistically by having a gun in your home you or a family member are much more likely to be injured or killed.

guns cause escalation in violence, in britain and australia we punch and stab, most victims just get a visit to the hospital. in america they shoot far more regularly simply because of the access to guns, shooting ends in a lot higher percentage of visits to the morgue.

the constitution is not an argument as to why gun ownership should not be heavily regulated or banned, its old and it was made changeable for a reason

I'm against guns. My country functions pretty good with gun control. (it is possible to own a gun for hunting and you can have one for self-defense but it's pretty rare) It makes my country pretty safe. I'm from Belgium by the way.

And before anyone starts yes, we've had some psycho's shoot people in the last few years. 1 or 2 and it was horrible, I am however sure that the amount of psycho's shooting guns at other people will only increase if more people have guns.I think that's a pretty solid argument for even stricter gun control, but then again i'm pretty sure that people will start claiming that we would've been safer if people would've been able to shoot back. I firmly believe that's bullshit because in the end it will just increase the amount of people who will handle firearms in a dangerous way.

The damage done by firearms in America seems unrepairable, one of the few reasons left for loving living in the UK is it's firearm policies. If they ever tried to bring a USA style system over here, I'd get out of this country or die trying.

Personally I'm against guns, but thats partly due to me being against violence in general and the only use of a gun is to effectively damage something at range. However, saying all guns should be banned is very short-sighted so prefer to break it down a bit:

Pistols and other small weapons: Should not be available for sale to the general public. If you want to deter people from attacking you then why do you want it small enough to hide? However, licenced gun clubs will be allowed to sell these weapons to their customers to use on site. Could possibly be convinced to change that to these weapons not being allowed out in public unless in a strongbox of some type to allow people to keep one for home protection.

Automatic/Semi-Automatic weapons: Banned from general use.

Long Barrel guns and shotguns: Allowed, but you must first own a license to use. This would include a test on gun safety a psych evaluation and you must be able to proove you can aim and shoot things. I have to take about 3 months of driving lessons to use a potentially lethal machine, so why shouldn't gun owners?

I think the level of gun control can and should be decided by societal preference. I have no particular interest one way or the other, whatever works and people are happy with.

The poll was kind of vague but I guess I am for firearms for the same reason I am for a monkey wrench, its a tool and I don't see any reason to be against a tool.

As for the Second Amendment, the government CAN regulate the sale of firearms (you need to have a permit to carry one, refusing to sell them to ex-cons or the mentally unstable, limiting the sell of certain types, etc). However the government cannot outright ban everyone from owning a gun. I guess in some ways its like Liquor laws in dry counties, you can ban the sale of alcohol but not the possession of it so people can legally go across the country line to a wet-county, buy alcohol, and then come back and legally consume it. If they are willing to go that far for it then let them drink it, so long as they arent consuming it while driving.

I personally love firearms, everything about them. The noise, the kick of a rifle, the sheer usefulness of it, how it often brings people who are otherwise different together, ect. That being said, there are a lot of people with firearms that really should not have them. Mostly it's people who do utterly irrational things that get people hurt, if only there was a test for that......

But anyway, civilians should be able to have pretty much any non-automatic and non-antivehicle weapons.

I'll say up front I'm Canadian here just in case anyone is interested in views from different parts of the world (not that the label of being Canadian means a whole lot with a country this big).

I'm actually all for gun ownership to an extent. I'm fine with people owning hunting rifles and shotguns. They're tools that serve a very legitimate purpose and see no reason not to allow people to own them. Same goes for handguns. I can see the reasoning behind having one for home or self defense. The only caveat I would add to any of this is that I do think that it is a good idea to have anyone purchasing a gun legally to be trained in it's safe use and operation. Have people looking to purchase a gun present some card or certificate showing they've been trained. Maybe even asking that they provide a recent criminal record check is reasonable as well. They're inexpensive and usually only take about 2 weeks here. I see no problem with requiring handguns be registered either. Hunting rifles and shotguns are a bit different since they're not as easily concealed or as likely to be stolen and used in the commission of a crime.

I can understand that this sort of thing can be considered a nuisance for those purchasing legally, but I don't think any of it is unreasonable since we are talking about weapons here which are potentially very dangerous. Why would we want people not trained in their use, or who may have prior convictions to be able to get them legally? At least forcing them to go to the black market makes it a bit harder to acquire them, and those found in possession of illegally obtained handguns can be charged on that alone.

I am against things like automatic weapons being available to the general public though. Such weapons aren't for self-defense or for hunting. They are made to kill a lot of people pretty effectively and that's about it. There's no reason to have them if you aren't serving over seas or a member of a SWAT team, and I don't see how making them more readily available than they already are is going to be a benefit to anyone.

Comando96:

CM156:
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.

Forgive me if I do not understand the interpritations here... Heller and McDonald was the case of states trying to ban an entire firearms. Said firearm being handguns?

Now the Second ammendment does say that the right to have firearms are to those who qualify for a militia. Now I think Blablahb made a different point but around the militia principle. My one is that the person doesn't need to be in a militia, but rather to merely qualify to be in a militia yes? Therefore not everyone can qualify for a firearm but rather those between standard military serving ages. To quote:

able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age

Of course this would now include women who serve in the m ilitary as well but... doesn't that (in theory) mean that if you are 46, then you do not have a right to bear arms as you cannot be part of a militia?

States of course can allow you to have firearms past the age but they could in theory ban all firearms for everyone over the age of 45...

Is this correct? Or just never been tested?

This is part question and part attack on the idea of being legally able to own a gun no matter what in the USA. Obviously it relys on the definition of militia and a state trying to ban based on age as a test.

Heller and McDonald dealt with handgun bans, and the court decided that people who aren't legally disqualified from doing so (felons, mentally ill, ect) may own weapons. It's rather nuanced. I'd recommend reading the opinion

Basically, you can own a weapon for a lawful purpose. Self defense is a lawful purpose. Therefore, you can own a weapon suited for self defense. Handguns are used for self defense, therefore, you can own a handgun. Something like that.

I think guns, in general, are a bad thing.
They're good for hunting, and ideally that's all they should be used for. Sadly, the world is too fucked up for that kind of idealism.

I definitely think gun control is a good thing. Everyone who wishes to own a gun should be required to be trained in its proper usage and should have an absolutely speck free criminal record. But this is only in countries like the US where the market is already flooded with guns. In European countries, where guns aren't common at all, we should do our very best to not let them get into our countries in the first place.

madwarper:
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.

This sums up my thoughts on the subject perfectly, As a Canadian who happens to own a rifle and shotgun, the long gun registration has been a royal pain in my ass for a long time. Noble intentions, but beurocratic red tape can make a tangled mess out of even the simplest of systems.

And to those saying guns are only meant to kill, here's an example to think about, I have put 7,000 (give or take) rounds a piece through both of my guns over the course of the last decade, but have never killed a single thing with either of them. If guns are "only designed to kill," then how is that possible?

Guns are 'designed' to shoot bullets, nothing more, nothing less. it is purely the intention of the wielder that renders them lethal or not.

Valanthe:

madwarper:
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.

This sums up my thoughts on the subject perfectly, As a Canadian who happens to own a rifle and shotgun, the long gun registration has been a royal pain in my ass for a long time. Noble intentions, but beurocratic red tape can make a tangled mess out of even the simplest of systems.

And to those saying guns are only meant to kill, here's an example to think about, I have put 7,000 (give or take) rounds a piece through both of my guns over the course of the last decade, but have never killed a single thing with either of them. If guns are "only designed to kill," then how is that possible?

Guns are 'designed' to shoot bullets, nothing more, nothing less. it is purely the intention of the wielder that renders them lethal or not.

Well, then. I assume you're happy then that the Tories are looking at scraping the long-gun registry, yes?

Also, I guess your guns must be broken then if you've shot that many without shooting someone. Mine must be as well.

CM156:

Valanthe:

madwarper:
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.

This sums up my thoughts on the subject perfectly, As a Canadian who happens to own a rifle and shotgun, the long gun registration has been a royal pain in my ass for a long time. Noble intentions, but beurocratic red tape can make a tangled mess out of even the simplest of systems.

And to those saying guns are only meant to kill, here's an example to think about, I have put 7,000 (give or take) rounds a piece through both of my guns over the course of the last decade, but have never killed a single thing with either of them. If guns are "only designed to kill," then how is that possible?

Guns are 'designed' to shoot bullets, nothing more, nothing less. it is purely the intention of the wielder that renders them lethal or not.

Well, then. I assume you're happy then that the Tories are looking at scraping the long-gun registry, yes?

Also, I guess your guns must be broken then if you've shot that many without shooting someone. Mine must be as well.

I am very happy, so is everyone I've spoken to about it in my area. I may not like the Tories all the time, but this is a move I can get behind simply because it makes my life that much easier. That said, I understand what the purpose of the registry was, so I'm not opposed to hte idea of it, I just hate how much of a pain it was, and how much it didn't help anyone.

Comando96:

Now the Second ammendment does say that the right to have firearms are to those who qualify for a militia.
..........
Is this correct? Or just never been tested?

Negative. Read the 2nd Amendment, full text-

"A well regulated militia being necessary for 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 the justification. I need a car to get to work, I will own and use a car. In that sentence, does the fact that I need the car to get to work negate its other uses? Of course not. The second amendment quite clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Nowhere does it state that the right to keep and bear arms is relegated solely to the militia.

As long as they keep them out of the hands of people with mental illness. Usually people with mental illness are not dangerous to others, but we should have legislation that helps prevent them from hurting themselves.

Living in a country violent as the "Far West" in movies i'll look to get hold of a gun asap.
Even if it means breaking the law i want to be able to protect my hide if the need arises.
Better have and don't need than to need and don't have. Also i want a Hazmat suit.

Seems relevent:

image

I mean, it always happens anyway.

OT: I am for guns, with some limitations, namely in full auto weapons and expolosives such as RPG's. Considering I live in a rural area, we need guns to protect ourselves from predators, both human and animal. I have had a coyote less than 5 feet from my back door before. It was obviously feral, so my dad had to shoot it with a shotgun. Now what you have happened if we couldnt own guns? In addition, the nearest Sheriff is usually 20 minutes away. What are we supposed to do if a break in happens? Sit there and be nice hoping he doesnt do anything until the Sheriff shows up? Like hell, I will grab the shotgun!

Personally, I wouldnt care if Full autos were legal, just with clip sizes (ie:below 50 rounds). That said, It would be completly OK to keep them at firing ranges for renting or "fun firing".

farson135:
Then you have cities like Kennesaw, Georgia which in 1982 passed an ordinance requiring ALL households to keep and maintain a firearm and ammunition. They have not had a murder in 30 years.

Not that I am questioning the effeciveness of said ordiance, But I would like to know what the size of the town population-wise is?

usmarine4160:
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 :)

Actually, there is one even more red...Kansas. From what I have been told, we are the redist of the red.

BOOM headshot65:

farson135:
Then you have cities like Kennesaw, Georgia which in 1982 passed an ordinance requiring ALL households to keep and maintain a firearm and ammunition. They have not had a murder in 30 years.

Not that I am questioning the effeciveness of said ordiance, But I would like to know what the size of the town population-wise is?

According to wiki the population is about 30,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Personally, I wouldnt care if Full autos were legal

So that you know, full auto firearms are legal in the US if you have a Class III FFL and the firearm was made before 1986 or are non-NFA group (i.e. LEOs, etc)

just with clip sizes (ie:below 50 rounds).

Why? I never understood the need for magazine limits. After all, a magazine is simply a box with a spring in it. If people are building AK47 clones from car parts in third world countries what is the point of banning magazines in a technologically advanced country like the US?

image

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked