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
 

farson135:

According to wiki the population is about 30,000.

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

HOLY CRAP O_O. They may not just stop criminals...they could probly fight off a small army!

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)

I am aware. Where I am (Kansas) we have no ban on "assualt weapons" of any kind, and dispite what the pro-gun control people say would happen, we are not all dead from overflow of assualt rifles in the hands of criminals.

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

Its not so much they should be banned, its more I dont see the point to them (although, I will admit, it did come off wrong). Personally, I really dont see the reason why you would want them. It would be massively expensive to maintain that much ammunition, especially if it is an automatic weapon. Plus, outside of shooting for fun, there would be no practical purpose to it. It would be too heavy to carry around in the wild for hunting, and with that much ammunition for a home defense purpose, you will most definatly get the guy, but you will take out the wall and half the building behind him too. Then again, I am one of those "If you cant do it with one shot, dont do it at all" kind of guys.

I think people should be allowed to own certain guns, for instance hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols are all fine but I don't see any reason for an average citizen to own an assault rifle or any other military grade weapon. Also people who want to own guns should need a license (think like a drivers license you need to take a course and be of a certain age).

I used to be much more anti-gun but upon some reflection I changed my stance a bit. By in part to a post I read on another site where the poster made the point that after the surrender of Japan in the WW2 the American government asked the Japanese generals why they didn't invade after the attack on Pearl Harbor, since the American goverment had come to the conclusion that if they had, the Americans would not have been able to stop them until the mississippi. One of the reasons they gave was that it was their understanding that every single American household has a gun and if they invaded they would have had to fight every single person every step of the way. Now I realize that is not the biggest reason that an invasion didn't happen, but I still found it to be a very interesting point, if every person in your country is armed any invasion of your country is basically impossible.

Orange12345:
One of the reasons they gave was that it was their understanding that every single American household has a gun and if they invaded they would have had to fight every single person every step of the way. Now I realize that is not the biggest reason that an invasion didn't happen, but I still found it to be a very interesting point, if every person in your country is armed any invasion of your country is basically impossible.

There is a quote from Admiral Yamamoto, the guy that the Japanese government interagated before the war because he had been to America before. His quote:

"Invasion would be impossible. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

BOOM headshot65:

HOLY CRAP O_O. They may not just stop criminals...they could probly fight off a small army!

Realize that it is required for every HOUSEHOLD not every person. Although I would not be surprised if many households owned more than one firearm. Your statement reminded me of a quote (misattributed to Admiral Yamamoto)- "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Its not so much they should be banned, its more I dont see the point to them (although, I will admit, it did come off wrong). Personally, I really dont see the reason why you would want them. It would be massively expensive to maintain that much ammunition, especially if it is an automatic weapon. Plus, outside of shooting for fun, there would be no practical purpose to it. It would be too heavy to carry around in the wild for hunting, and with that much ammunition for a home defense purpose, you will most definatly get the guy, but you will take out the wall and half the building behind him too. Then again, I am one of those "If you cant do it with one shot, dont do it at all" kind of guys.

Well if I had a .22 upper for my AR (maybe in a few months) I would not mind taking a drum magazine and going to town on some targets. I have said for years that if a someone would build a 500 round drum magazine for .22lr all the plinkers of the world would fall to their knees, raise their blistered and callused fingers and hail that person as a god.

Anyway you might not realize this but in precision competitions you try and move as little as possible. When you do 3-position rifle competitions, 1000 yard matches, etc you try not to move very much. In fact I had my position down so well that the only thing I moved was my trigger arm. Having a high capacity magazine means that you can stay in position and not move for long periods. That is important for precision rifle shooting. In addition for practical matches it is nice to not have to reload between every single target. My HK is great but the 10 round magazine means that there are some competitions I will never bring it to because I would have to reload too often (plus I would have to buy a lot more magazines and at $50 a piece that is too much money).

Edit- I almost forgot about this but high capacity magazines would also make this kind of art MUCH easier and faster (and yes those pictures are made from shooting a target)-

image

http://www.leenks.com/gallery1072.htm

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 just can't help but try and spread your love and sunshine can you?

The Second Amendment reads as follows:

"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."

Now let's look at this again. I will embolden the important parts for you.

"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."

Note the wording, "The right of the people." I will also point out that a militia is typically a military force composed of paramilitary, or, "Civilian (citizen) soldiers." The people referes to all people; the general civilian population of the U.S. The Supreme Court has upheld this definition, and many state governments are adoptting policies and passing laws to ensure the the emboldened phrase keeps its meaning.

That being said, my stance on gun ownership should be clear. I will keep my M1 Garand thank you very much!

BOOM headshot65:

I am aware. Where I am (Kansas) we have no ban on "assualt weapons" of any kind, and dispite what the pro-gun control people say would happen, we are not all dead from overflow of assualt rifles in the hands of criminals.

From where is Kansas do you hail good sir? No need to be terribly specific seeing as this is the internet, but I am curious since I too am from Kansas.

Fire arms should be allowed with limitations,laws and regulations.

For example you need to get a extra permit to carry around a handgun as opposed to the one permit to carry around a rifle.

Volf99:

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.

You mean the way every man is required to serve in the military and has a fully-automatic assault rifle and 72 rounds of live ammunition to keep in the home? :3

Anyway, I live here in the US, and I really have no problem with the way we do things here. But as many others have stated it all depends on the culture of the area. Putting one blanketed law over the entire world would be disastrous.

Lack of Gun Control is ridiculous. In countries where there are already a vast amount of firearms, from a self-defence point of view a QUESTIONABLE case can perhaps be made for allowing guns, but that does NOT mean that they should not be heavily regulated, registered, limited, and with heavy penalties to any violations of them.

And I say questionable as, being from Canada, where we have much heavier gun control than the States but criminals still have easy access to them through the black market BECAUSE of their legality in the States, looking at the crime rates, the argument that guns should be legal so I can defend myself doesn't stand up.

Shooting paper? Just like guns? These are not justifications for allowing gun ownership. Cost/Benefit. The cost is that people get murdered. The benefit is that you get to shoot a gun at a firing range. Actually, no, because firing ranges can exist in a heavily gun-regulated environment - it's just your convenience to be able to bring your own gun.

Gah. Makes me sick.

BOOM headshot65:

farson135:

According to wiki the population is about 30,000.

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

HOLY CRAP O_O. They may not just stop criminals...they could probly fight off a small army!

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)

I am aware. Where I am (Kansas) we have no ban on "assualt weapons" of any kind, and dispite what the pro-gun control people say would happen, we are not all dead from overflow of assualt rifles in the hands of criminals.

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

Its not so much they should be banned, its more I dont see the point to them (although, I will admit, it did come off wrong). Personally, I really dont see the reason why you would want them. It would be massively expensive to maintain that much ammunition, especially if it is an automatic weapon. Plus, outside of shooting for fun, there would be no practical purpose to it. It would be too heavy to carry around in the wild for hunting, and with that much ammunition for a home defense purpose, you will most definatly get the guy, but you will take out the wall and half the building behind him too. Then again, I am one of those "If you cant do it with one shot, dont do it at all" kind of guys.

Of course, in self defense when the adrenaline is running, even trained police accuracy goes to crap (statistically they average on 30% in such situations). For your average citizen with no training, it will be even worse. When your life depends on it, sometimes you just need one more bullet.

Here in Aus firearm regulation works and I support it whole heartedly but in the US its another matter entirely.
I consider the 2nd amendment of the US constitution a relic of a bygone era but one that would cause huge problems if it was removed or gun laws tightened beyond just assault weapons.

Heh, every time I see "assault weapons" I think of 40k.

The 40k definition of "assualt weapons" being (or as least was last time I checked) much more sensible than the US one.

Lilani:

Volf99:

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.

You mean the way every man is required to serve in the military and has a fully-automatic assault rifle and 72 rounds of live ammunition to keep in the home? :3

Anyway, I live here in the US, and I really have no problem with the way we do things here. But as many others have stated it all depends on the culture of the area. Putting one blanketed law over the entire world would be disastrous.

yep, if everybody has training and a assault rifle, everybody would be a little safer

Evil double post. Ignore.

Not G. Ivingname:
Of course, in self defense when the adrenaline is running, even trained police accuracy goes to crap (statistically they average on 30% in such situations). For your average citizen with no training, it will be even worse. When your life depends on it, sometimes you just need one more bullet.

Well, obviously. The only person who CAN shoot that accurately all the time is Allan Quatermain, the man I got that phrase from. Except, he isnt real, so of course he can have inhuman accuarcy (he once took down a man with a double-barreled rifle from over a mile away using nothing but the iron sights and shooting him in the back of the knee). What I mean for a REAL human being is "strive to be as accuarate as possible when you can help it.

tsb247:

BOOM headshot65:

I am aware. Where I am (Kansas) we have no ban on "assualt weapons" of any kind, and dispite what the pro-gun control people say would happen, we are not all dead from overflow of assualt rifles in the hands of criminals.

From where is Kansas do you hail good sir? No need to be terribly specific seeing as this is the internet, but I am curious since I too am from Kansas.

The Northeastern part of the state kind sir, around the Manhattan area.

Not G. Ivingname:

Of course, in self defense when the adrenaline is running, even trained police accuracy goes to crap (statistically they average on 30% in such situations). For your average citizen with no training, it will be even worse. When your life depends on it, sometimes you just need one more bullet.

You're making the mistake, admittedly an easy one to make, of assuming that police are somehow well-trained marksmen to begin with. That just isn't so, unless the officer in question is a gun enthusiast in his spare time. An average citizen with a firearm will put in more range time than an officer - and, in fact, the chances of an officer accidentally shooting the wrong person in a tense situation is greater than that of a civilian doing the same. Even SWAT cops aren't exactly the best of the best.

Smiley Face:
Lack of Gun Control is ridiculous. In countries where there are already a vast amount of firearms, from a self-defence point of view a QUESTIONABLE case can perhaps be made for allowing guns, but that does NOT mean that they should not be heavily regulated, registered, limited, and with heavy penalties to any violations of them.

And I say questionable as, being from Canada, where we have much heavier gun control than the States but criminals still have easy access to them through the black market BECAUSE of their legality in the States, looking at the crime rates, the argument that guns should be legal so I can defend myself doesn't stand up.

Shooting paper? Just like guns? These are not justifications for allowing gun ownership. Cost/Benefit. The cost is that people get murdered. The benefit is that you get to shoot a gun at a firing range. Actually, no, because firing ranges can exist in a heavily gun-regulated environment - it's just your convenience to be able to bring your own gun.

Gah. Makes me sick.

You see, the problem with this is you're assuming that high rates of gun ownership equals high rates of gun violence. That's not true.

My home state of Kansas requires no permits for ownership of handguns or rifles (and several states are the same way) and has a comparatively higher rate of gun ownership than, say, Washington D.C. Yet D.C. had ~8,000 violent crimes in 2010 (rounding down) and Kansas had ~11,000 (rounding up). In terms of sheer statistics, that's virtually the same amount of violent crime while D.C. has only half a million residents and Kansas nearly 3 million.

That translates to 1,300 violent crimes per 100,000 people in D.C., compared to Kansas' 369.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/kncrime.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Now, I'm not suggesting that higher gun ownership leads Kansas to have less crime - then I'd be making the same mistake you are. Rather, I only mean to point out that high instances of gun restriction don't translate to low instances of violent crime (gun crime included, as well as all other forms of weapons).

For added comparison, California is ranked as having the most sensible gun laws in the US by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/CA), rating an 81 out of a possible 100. Kansas rated a 4 out of 100(http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/KS), what with our loony gun laws, yet California had 440 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in 2010 (for a total of 164,000 for that year) to Kansas' 369 (for a total of 11,000).

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/kncrime.htm

Clearly the prevalence and availability of guns is not the factor behind gun violence trends. The safest states in the union are those with the least restrictive gun laws, while the most violent states have some of the strictest. Now, this could very well devolve into a chicken-or-the-egg argument so I will remind you, and others, that I mean not to suggest that guns necessarily equal safer societies, but rather that the truth is far more complex than "lots of guns means lots of crime".

And this doesn't even touch the prevalence of firearms and violent crime in certain countries that have heavy restrictions or the number of defensive firearm uses per year (which some estimates put in the millions).

StarCecil:

Not G. Ivingname:

Of course, in self defense when the adrenaline is running, even trained police accuracy goes to crap (statistically they average on 30% in such situations). For your average citizen with no training, it will be even worse. When your life depends on it, sometimes you just need one more bullet.

You're making the mistake, admittedly an easy one to make, of assuming that police are somehow well-trained marksmen to begin with. That just isn't so, unless the officer in question is a gun enthusiast in his spare time. An average citizen with a firearm will put in more range time than an officer - and, in fact, the chances of an officer accidentally shooting the wrong person in a tense situation is greater than that of a civilian doing the same. Even SWAT cops aren't exactly the best of the best.

Ok, fair enough, forgot about that.

Still, I rather not be worrying about ammo when my life depends on it, or facing a group with just ten bullets.

More than about 15 rounds for a pistol, or 30 rounds (excluding squad sized machine guns), I will admit, is unwieldy and impractical, but the then it becomes quite pointless to make it illegal because of that.

I would choose to add to the poll, but alas, as with almost all other polls you're only given a very small opinion to voice. I'm sure that if there was an 'other' option, that would be used quite a bit with this poll in particular.

Oh, I think that certain unscrupulous people who are against gun control should stop pretending my nation is a lawless wasteland because we have it.

thaluikhain:
Oh, I think that certain unscrupulous people who are against gun control should stop pretending my nation is a lawless wasteland because we have it.

You know I wish people who are for gun control would stop assuming that my nation is a lawless wasteland simply because we have guns. I have never said that antigun states are lawless (not saying you were talking to me just stating for the record), just that the lawmakers and the people continue to prove the old adage that, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Although sometimes (as is the case with NYC's gun laws) the intentions are less than honorable or well meaning.

farson135:

thaluikhain:
Oh, I think that certain unscrupulous people who are against gun control should stop pretending my nation is a lawless wasteland because we have it.

You know I wish people who are for gun control would stop assuming that my nation is a lawless wasteland simply because we have guns. I have never said that antigun states are lawless (not saying you were talking to me just stating for the record), just that the lawmakers and the people continue to prove the old adage that, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Although sometimes (as is the case with NYC's gun laws) the intentions are less than honorable or well meaning.

Now, Farson, I need to know something really quick, because I seriously cant tell. Are you against ALL gun laws, ie you want complete deregulation, or are you OK with some laws.

BOOM headshot65:
Now, Farson, I need to know something really quick, because I seriously cant tell. Are you against ALL gun laws, ie you want complete deregulation, or are you OK with some laws.

I can live with some laws but overall I find them mostly useless and unnecessary. Many of them are reactionary policies with admittedly good intentions but prohibition also had good intentions and that did not really turn out too well. Most of the rest of the laws are just power grabs and have nothing to do with safety or security (Illinois taxing ammo, etc). The few laws that would actually do something are either ignored or poorly enforced in favor of idiotic laws and regulations. As of yet no one has shown me a particular problem that is or could be completely solved through regulation and no one has shown me a great problem that would occur if regulations were decreased.

If you want to see how idiotic gun laws in D.C. are read this series- http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/?page=2

This is the newest article and I think it sums up the situation quite well- http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/20/transporting-gun-through-dc/

Translation, the US needs to trim the fat off its laws but I would prefer complete deregulation on some levels. Disturbing the peace, inciting public violence, and other secondary regulations (regulations dealing with effects) are perfectly acceptable.

Something to remember when evaluating laws-
1. What is the law meant to do?
2. How will the law accomplish #1?
3. How will the law be enforced?

Keep in mind the first significant firearm regulations in the US (on the federal level) and UK were not meant for safety but were reactions to the October Revolution and governmental fears of similar rebellions in their respective countries. Fears that, in the end, turned out to be groundless and paved the way for far more intrusive and unnecessary laws.

My answer was a little roundabout but this is not a cut and dry issue.

farson135:
snip

OK, fair enough. I was starting to think you were one of those rare people who thinks any and all gun laws are bad, even if they have proven to be helpful and for the most part unintursive. I guess it all comes down to finding a fine line between ownership and regulation. At one end is total lawlessness in terms of guns, which will definately cause problems, but at the other is like other countries where the only ones with guns are the government and criminals. Finding the balance between the two is what we should strive for.

Captcha: however, Booms

How does it know my name O_o?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked