Anti-gun control people, where would you draw the line?

[Saulkar]

My rule of thumb is that under normal circumstances you cannot hit more than one target with a single pull of the trigger (assuming there is not another target behind the first, hellooooooooooo railgun!). That and pretty much what every other person wrote in terms of aggressive background checks, training, and storage.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

Anything large enough to fling peas. Why yes, I am very much anti gun.

 

[Mid Boss]

I'm all for ownership of any manner of weapon. Most of us will live to see a population of 10 billion and the numerous problems that will cause. This is the worst time in human history to take away people's ability to kill each other in large numbers.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

A pistol is good enough for self protection. Anything else is just stupid....or are you worried you will have 50 people robbing your house? Why do Americans live in fear? Although granted if you live in a high crime area then you may have good reason to fear. Or maybe its just that responsible gun owners are aware that there are many irresponsible gunowners to protect themselves from? lol. For me, a civilian owning an assault rifle isn't a weapon for self protection. The lines already been crossed and there is no way of crossing back over it, its to late. Only thing you can do now is make laws that state anyone who wants to buy a gun also has to pass a gun safety course to get the license that can allow them to legally buy a gun. An hopefully you will atleast limit accidental deaths.

 

[MiskWisk]

Assuming you're a law abiding citizen and have the funds for it, I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun loving heart desires.

So you don't mind if a few billionaires stock up on nuclear warheads?

TEXTBOOK strawman fallacy. We're clearly talking about firearms here, not nuclear warheads. And seriously, if you're going to suggest that one person with an automatic weapon can cause anywhere near as much damage as a nuclear weapon, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside.

It's not a strawman fallacy, but a Reductio ad Absurdum [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum] argument. Basically, it is taking the argument to a possible extreme resulting in ridiculous but possible consequences. It isn't the best system, but if people open themselves up for those sorts of attacks, such as your line "I don't see why you can't have any weapon your gun loving heart desires." then it can be used easily.

Also, theoretically, if you had enough ammo, a lazy enough response force and enough time, it is possible to do more damage with a gun than a nuke.

OT: Pistols, double barrel shotguns and specialised hunting rifles. I really can not see how the self defence argument defends anything higher than them. (I know I don't know enough about guns and someone will probably call me out with some gun that fits into those categories but oh well)

 

[an annoyed writer]

I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."

I pretty much agree with this. If you've got the funds for it, can prove you're responsible in storing, maintaining, and using your firearm, and have passed background checks, go for it. I've shot guns for sport and I find that it's good for sharpening your hand-eye coordination and patience, and opening up the range to more shooting styles would be interesting. Keeping things as-is, where there's different tiers of licenses for different capabilities in firearms, is good enough for me.

 

[Saregon]

I probably shouldn't be in this thread since I'm pretty pro gun control, but I think hunting rifles and shotguns serve a use and should be legal. Here you need a hunting licence to purchase such a weapon, but it's not extremely difficult to get one.

The problem when we are discussing gun control is that we are always discussing making it impossible to obtain weapons through legal means and there's always a smartass mentioning how criminals don't care about laws (fallacy since most weapons used in mass shootings are obtained legally). Gun control is about making to more difficult to obtain and carry weapons and to crack down on illegal weapons.

Agreed. I'd also add pistols, as rifles and pistols are used for competition as well. Although I do think the rule we have that limits magazine size is good. If you absolutely want to shoot a fully automatic assault rifle (which is admittedly a lot of fun), there could be a caveat in the rules that licensed businesses could do that on a range for example. This would go a ways in making sure people didn't use them without proper instruction, and when necessary, supervision, but still letting people try it. But in general, the gun laws we have here in Norway are very sensible and work well. Of course, it's also a culture thing, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[piinyouri]

I'm pretty pro-gun-control (so feel free to disregard what I'd say in a thread asking for the opinions of anti-gun-control people), and I feel that civilians should only have access to rifles and shotguns with fairly limited capacities. Handguns, combat rifles and automatic weapons have no business being in civilian hands, as they're designed specifically to commit murder, which is of course, illegal.

Throw me in with Soundwave. I certainly believe people should the right and ability to defend themselves, which I honestly feel a pistol (when the user is properly trained) will do fine. Anything else feels like overkill.
But whatevs, please ignore me.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

As a gun owner, and a fan of shooting sport (sport meaning targets, not animals), I'm of a mind that guns are a net positive in most cases. Maybe it's just upbringing (Texas if you're wondering), but I've always been around guns, been taught the danger of guns, and been taught to respect the weapon.

Of course some choose to use guns for bad purpose. And that is regrettable certainly. I feel horrible for the people who've suffered loss from gun related crimes. My empathy goes into overdrive when the news tells some horrid tale of a person gone over the edge who decided to take innocents with them. It is true tragedy in purest form.

That said though, there are any number of reasons other than paranoia that one would choose to own a gun. Skill of shooting is a thrilling bit of sport. The self defense issue is certainly valid as well. And many people do like to hunt. Personally I don't like hunting because I don't want to make any creature suffer and I can't imagine a worse bit of suffering than having hot lead rip through your flesh then slowly bleeding out while your body turns cold from blood loss. But Venison isn't readily available in stores and there are those who enjoy it's gamy taste (obviously I don't), so whatever. That's up to the individual.

Personally, I'm happy to jump through whatever hoops the lawmakers decide for guns. I will continue to own mine legally regardless. If that means they want me to take a class to renew my Conceal and Carry License, I'll line up and sit at the front of the class. If they want to do background checks, I have a spotless record and intend to stay that way.

And even though I'm an avid pro-gun person, I don't think anyone needs automatic weapons unless they are accompanied by a set of fatigues. There is simply no legal reason why a civilian needs an automatic weapon. Those should be relegated to national defense and video games.

 

[Lieju]

Personally I don't like hunting because I don't want to make any creature suffer and I can't imagine a worse bit of suffering than having hot lead rip through your flesh then slowly bleeding out while your body turns cold from blood loss. But Venison isn't readily available in stores and there are those who enjoy it's gamy taste (obviously I don't), so whatever.

There's also the fact that hunting is needed to regulate the populations of several animals. (Quite often because the predators that would naturally hunt them have become rare.)

For example here in Finland we need hunting to keep the elk-population manageable.
I'm kinda pro-hunting guns, although that needs regulation as well.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Firstly: This is a thread for Religion and Politics

As for the question I'm of the mind that there should be a permit and check for just about anything, much like we do now, and with most weapons such as pistols, semi-auto rifles, and shotguns being fairly easy to attain. I actually think the US system is pretty good in general.

Also, I'd like to point out that there is some serious ignorance in this thread.

I would draw the line at military grade weapons. Assault rifles, no. Assault weapons, sure (for the most part, the term has very broad meaning).

The term "military grade" is absolutely meaningless term when discussing firearms, especially when you consider the only feature that could really be considered such in this country is auto/burst fire. Most people can't even describe the features of so called "military rifles". Just that they're black and scary.

I draw the line at explosives, not firearms.

No one should be able to buy bazookas, or grenades, or RPGs. Other than that, I'm an anything goes kind of guy so long as the person buying the gun can pass a thorough background check and can prove that they can safely and effectively use the gun that they're purchasing. If someone wants to buy a .50 cal Barrett or an M240 they should be free to do so if they can afford the thing.

Now mind you, I do have some stipulations on what I just said, I'm not completely anti-gun control or anything of the sort. I just don't think that there are specific features, or calibers that should be outright banned from being owned, because more often than not the features banned are completely arbitrary, or are banned because they look "scary."

Dude . What about Sniper rifles? Those things are dangerous , and they aren't really used for self defense ( since they are long ranged weapons ). There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have a sniper rifle .

[small] I know little about guns, and have no idea if those are available to the general public[/small]

OT: I, as a non-gun owner , think it should be limited to hunting rifles ( for hunting ) , handguns and shotguns ( for self protection). Anything more is excessive . Hell i think shotguns are excissive , but i think people should be able to own one of they want.

......the difference between a "sniper rifle" and a hunting rifle is small, and fairly insignificant. Both are large caliber most often bolt action rifles that can fling very accurate lead hundreds of meters. Some of the greatest snipers were hunters who put on a uniform. I have a bolt action from the 40s and it has been used by countless people for hunting deer and hunting people.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Personally I don't like hunting because I don't want to make any creature suffer and I can't imagine a worse bit of suffering than having hot lead rip through your flesh then slowly bleeding out while your body turns cold from blood loss. But Venison isn't readily available in stores and there are those who enjoy it's gamy taste (obviously I don't), so whatever.

There's also the fact that hunting is needed to regulate the populations of several animals. (Quite often because the predators that would naturally hunt them have become rare.)

For example here in Finland we need hunting to keep the elk-population manageable.
I'm kinda pro-hunting guns, although that needs regulation as well.

Fair point. And I admit that I didn't really think of that.

Like I said, it's really up to the individual. Just because I don't dig it doesn't make it wrong. Hunting just isn't my thing is all.

I'll blast the hell out of some clay pigeons or some silhouette targets though. If you guys ever get infested with clay pigeons, you give me a call.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The term "military grade" is absolutely meaningless term when discussing firearms, especially when you consider the only feature that could really be considered such in this country is auto/burst fire. Most people can't even describe the features of so called "military rifles". Just that they're black and scary.

Possibly you could simply include anything currently used by a military, though not sure what the point of that would be.

......the difference between a "sniper rifle" and a hunting rifle is small, and fairly insignificant. Both are large caliber most often bolt action rifles that can fling very accurate lead hundreds of meters. Some of the greatest snipers were hunters who put on a uniform. I have a bolt action from the 40s and it has been used by countless people for hunting deer and hunting people.

Additionally, I believe most "snipers" (in the sense of simple murderers that shoot people from long distances) tend to use hunting rifles, not sniper rifles.

But yeah, black and scary, so...hang on, what about selling people whatever guns they want, as long as they are pink and have smiley faces on them? Take away some of the dangerous machismo.

 

[rednose1]

People buy guns not just out of fear, but because they genuinely like shooting, and different guns are different. Currently own a 12 gauge O/U shotgun, AR-10, S&W .22, and S&W M&P. Saving up for an M1 Garand, I don't know what else after that.
Gun collecting can be a hobby. A dangerous, adult hobby, sure. Still a hobby though. If you want to do more thorough background checks/required safety classes I'm all for it. Too many people don't know the basics of handling guns, and we have too many deaths because of it. Straight up banning guns because crazy people are crazy just seems silly. Catch the crazies before they do something dangerous.

 

[shootthebandit]

All the comment here seems to be very pro-gun. I dont think we should be allowed to possess any firearms (unless you are in the military and even then it should stay at work). Knives are slightly different as their sole purpose is not necessarily to be used as a weapon but flick knives and butterfly knives should be illegal as they are intended for combat

America seems a little backward to me because its a right to own a gun but healthcare is a privelage

Im just massively anti-gun. I live in the UK and the only people that have guns are farmers who protect thier land from foxes and rabbits and other pests

 

[Queen Michael]

All the comment here seems to be very pro-gun.

That's probably because I specifically adress pro-gun people with the OP. Don't get me wrong; of course you'r welcome to chime in, I'm just saying that if a thread is directed towards pro-gun people then of course there will be pro-gun replies.