Poll: Guns and you!

[Aurgelmir]

I do not believe anyone need assault rifles or pistols in their home.

I have nothing against people having hunting equipment, as hunting is an important part of the natural ecosystem (Mainly since most predators are so few and far between these days)


assault Rifles and pistols are reserved for Military and Law Enforcement imo.

 

[Jonluw]

And that can happen regardless of the laws. The Columbine boys got their guns illegally.

Exactly, but they were obtained so easily because guns are legal in the US. Guns are not made illegally, they are made legally and sold/stolen.

The Brady Law made it illegal for anyone under age twenty-one to purchase handguns from licensed dealers. The shooters at Columbine bypassed this problem by shopping at gun shows. Others, like Kip Kinkel, acquired guns by stealing them from their own homes or from the homes of others.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12235/Kinkel-Kip-Columbine-Massacre.html

You could say the boys got their weapons "illegally" in that they stole them from their families; but these were still perfectly legal guns. It wasn't like they were purchased on the black-market or anything; like the argument seems to be that criminals do regardless of gun-control laws.
The guns were acquired legally, they just got into the hands of the boys through partially illegal means.

Edit: In other words: All the guns were purchased from legal vendors.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I'm just going to end this now:
Father Time is right.
Educatedfool is not educated at all, but is still a fool. Here's why:
There is NOTHING special about guns, they are just as much of a weapon as a baseball bat or a toaster or a sword. If citizens couldn't get guns the criminals still would, therefore the citizens can't protect themselves. And even if criminals somehow couldn't get guns, do you think that would stop them? I guess I wasn't aware of the fact that there was no such thing as murder or armed robbery until the invention of the gun.
If a bank robber cant get a gun, he'll use something else. Bottom line.
So if criminals can get them, citizens have a right to defend themselves against said criminals in a fair fight, where both sides are armed, and not just one.
And you're right, with the right to bear arms comes the possibility of wierdos having a hundred of them and killing people. But if guns weren't invented yet, that same wierdo would be collecting something else and killing people with those. We can't make laws to restrict things that criminals use because the criminals don't follow laws in the first place.

That is not going to end it. In fact that is one of the worst arguments I have ever seen in favour of guns.
Stop using that over simplified logic that does not make sense in the real world.
I'd like to see how effective the Columbine massacre would have been had they used baseball bats. Wise up. And never post again.

You cannot even include other weapons like swords etc because they are nowhere near as effective as guns.
Can you not understand that if guns are illegal they are very difficult to get. That means only the most determined criminals can obtain them.
The bank robber who uses a knife isn't going to get what he wants, he is going to get mashed by the security guard.

Take an incident that happened not so long ago in the Uk were a guy (or criminal as you like to say) slashed up a couple of police officers with a knife, one policeman was in critical conidtion but survived. If that guy had a gun you can be damned sure there would have been a different out come.

Well there's something we can agree on. Police officers should have guns. I have no idea what the UK was thinking when they took the sidearms away from their police force.
Anyways, the bottom line (for me at least). How it is now: Criminals have guns, citizens have guns. This is as balanced as it can get, because with gun laws it would be: Criminals have guns, citizens don't. Citizens have a right to protect themselves using at least the same weapon that is the most present threat against them. In this case, guns.
Regardless of whether the police have guns or not, gun related crimes will still happen. A lot. And we can't start protecting ourselves until we understand the purpose of the police. The purpose of the police is not to stop crime, it is to apprehend suspects. Now, if someone breaks into my house and starts threatening my family, do you think I'm going to hide in my room and wait for the police to come and save me? Hell no, you can bet the farm that I'll go and get him with one of my guns. Whether its legal for me to have it or not. I have standards, and those include not being a coward and watching someone threaten my family.

 

[GeorgW]

I've never liked the way America handles firearms. We've all heard that the personal use of weapons almost only results in accidents.
I think everybody should be able to carry around a knife, or a broadsword, or a halberd everywhere, but no guns. Guns are boring, waay too easy. Wars would be much more interesting if we were back to using midevil weapons.

 

[iamjonah]

Don't ban guns, but have incresingly strict (and hopefully sensible) restrictions on them.
Gun in home: Background check, license, registration of serial numbers, manditory safety training
Carry in public: All of the above, plus "friend or foe" training
Automatic weapon: All of the above, more robust safety training, psycological evaluation
Explosive weapon: All of the above, plus registered ammunition
Artillary: All of the above, plus be active member of the military or museum curator
Nukes: Um, yeah...not sure about this one.

 

[ApeShapeDeity]

I love shooting.

Target shooting is pretty fuckin' zen. Hunting helps to control feral animals and gives you some good food. People have no problem with fishing, I don't see the difference. Of course, no one ever took out half of their workplace with a fully loaded tackle box. (not to the best of my knowlege)

Having said this, I'm pretty sure I don't need an AK-47 to take down a bunny...

One shot, one kill. That's ethical hunting. (plus, do try to eat your kills)

 

[nofear220]

But you're missing the point. Yes, you might be taking the gun out of a deragned mind, but they would just kill people with something else. Give people the chance to defend themselves against deranged people. They only way to stop them would be to make a law against crazy people. A law like that can't be enforced right? Yeah, well neither can gun laws.

How about this? Look how many people drown in bath tubs every year! We should ban bath tubs. If it saves one life its worth it.

Wait what? That doesn't make senese, people would still have the ability to defend themselves with their guns as long as they aren't crazy & a random shooting/robbery risk. Yeah they might try to kill with other objects, but name one other weapon that you can carry around in your pocket that is JUST AS USEFUL for close, midrange, and longrange murder (no call of duty ballistic knives and tomahawks here... be realistic)

Also your comment about bathtubs is completely irrelevant, people can't walk in to their college with a bathtub and start killing classmates. With guns, yes they can. Would you take someone seriously if they were threatening you with a bathtub they were dragging around? With a gun, I think you would.

 

[pubbing]

Just for an example against those who say criminals won't own guns if they are banned.

It is illegal to buy large weapons of mass destruction. The Oklahoma City Bomber would not be able to buy one yet he still was able to destroy an entire building with a weapon of mass destruction.

Did the ban work? Absolutely not.

 

[thesnipist]

also, banning guns removes guns from the hands of LAW-ABIDING people, which means that the people who hide guns in the event of a ban are willing to break the law, which would suree help me sleep at night without my 870 nearby! D:

 

[thesnipist]

in my little old humble opinion, you have nothing to fear from the people with many guns, its the people with one you should be worried about.

Haha I enjoyed your comment. Most probably won't understand it though

OT. Banning guns does nothing positive and it has been proven time and time again, but for some reason people just can't seem to break past their irrational fears/thoughts about guns, and then we get the calls for bans and increased gun control.

thanks! yeah, probably not, o well, haha! you did though!

 

[Whitenail]

I'd be lying if I didn't say that guns are pretty awesome machines of war and that going to a range for the first time a few months back was one of the safest yet most challenging and invigorating acts of sporting I've ever participated in, and I'd also be lying if I said that I didn't know people who owned guns who abided by every one of Australia's gun-rules down to the tee and only ever used them for target shooting and such.

You raise a good point, if we ban guns then not only will criminals still get their hands on them but back-alley firearm dealers will rake in even more dough because of the damp put on the trade. I know that in the states by the 2nd amendment and such gun laws are a little more lenient than they are here in Aus but unfortuantely crime's pretty much even taking into account our populations, I'd be fearful if police didn't have the kind of long-range protection that only a gun can bring because sometimes tasers (desdpite their efficiency and my support for them being an alternative means of enforcement for less-experienced police officers) just won't cut it.

 

[velcrokidneyz]

I live in an area of the US where we get a day off from school in K-12 to go hunting deer in november at the start of deer hunting season, also we have the michigan militia, take away guns and you will have a lot of pissed off hicks with nothing better to do than drink and get into fights. and the deer population would ruin the ecosystem. that and venison is oh so good

 

[camazotz]

I grew up in rural Arizona and presently live in New Mexico. Between 1995 and 2005 I lived in Seattle, Washington, a fairly large metropolis. The problem with discussions on gun ownership are not just a matter of legal rights and general principles but cultural, as well. Although I grew up in a gun-friendly state and in a county where everyone knew how to shoot by age 13, I was against gun ownership for various reasons on through most of my college years. Over time, however, I have changed my position from "gun control is necessary to the future of society" to a much more libertarian "gun ownership is fundamentally necessary to insure that we maintain our basic human rights." I still consider myself a social liberal--that is, I am in full support of the freedom of thought and one's right to live as one wishes (be you gay, straight, religious or an atheist like me) but that there is a point at which society can become too controlling, and if we let our governing body remove rights of ownership--to weapons or anything else--then we are losing out for ourselves and future generations, permanently. Some day we should hopefully have a society in which we, as people, show the self restraint to not do violence. Forcing the issue through crude attempts at social engineering will not work to this effect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have certain restrictions in place; a guy with a firearm at his side in Arizona, NM or even Montana is not as big an issue as, say, a guy walking in to a 7-11 in Kirkland, WA. When you look around, the vast majority of the time people are gun owners and they are not flaunting it; the exceptions are notable, and we have police and measures already in place that handle them just fine. We do not need more measures, nor do we need arbitrary blanket laws that presume everyone who owns a firearm (or wants to) is guilty until proven otherwise.

Disoclusure: I do not own any firearms, nor will I ever. Um, except for a compound bow--which I target practice with once in a while. My wife does hunt (I married in to a redneck family) and owns multiple weapons though, including a muzzle-loader. They hunt annually for meat, paying some steep entry fees to get in to Elk and Oryx hunts each year.

TLR: Control mechanisms to change social values such as gun control do not work and only force us to surrender more rights, permanently, than we should ever be willing to give up, all in the name of safety coating RL.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

I don't think that guns should be banned, but they should definitely continue to be regulated. Though I'm all for taking away concealed weapons permits, unless it's specifically a part of somebody's job.

 

[elbrandino]

The way I see it, "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." I said don't ban anything because I believe a citizen can have any weapon he or she wants, with the exception of nuclear weapons. There is no need for anyone to have those, including governments.

 

[Gilhelmi]

snip

In Australia we have foxes and rabbits. They are both introduced species and they are pests. The rabbits eat crops, and having them in the wild also means less food for native animals that eat the same things as them, namely bilbies. Foxes damage farmland and also kill native animals. There are people here who are employed just to kill foxes and rabbits. This is wehn a civilian needs a gun, unless you want people to kill literally hundreds of rabbits and foxes a month with a sword.

Dang, That sounds like a great job. Hunting all day long, free rabbit meat (it is safe as long as you get the rabbit flu vaccine), free rabbit skins.

If it was not for the restrictive nature of Australian gun laws I might have moved there.

 

[WolfThomas]

Dang, That sounds like a great job. Hunting all day long, free rabbit meat (it is safe as long as you get the rabbit flu vaccine), free rabbit skins.

If it was not for the restrictive nature of Australian gun laws I might have moved there.

It not too bad, compared to say Britain, with a minimum of effort I obtained my Cat A+B, that allows me bolt/lever/pump action rifles and single/double barrel and lever (for some strange reason) shotguns. If you have a large enough farm or a job culling animals you can get a semi-automatic and/or pump action shotgun. Getting a handgun requires either a security guard job or more commonly being a sporting shooter, it takes a bit of time, but it isn't impossible, I intend to do so as soon as I earn enough money and live static in an area long enough to do the required shoots.

The biggest problem IMHO is that everything here is so darn expensive, I paid probably three times more for my gun than I would have in the US, and ammo is relatively more expensive.

Also there's so much to hunt, rabbits, foxes and pigs. Deer and Kangaroos with appropriate permits. As well as more exotic things like introduced camels and goats in some states.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Dang, That sounds like a great job. Hunting all day long, free rabbit meat (it is safe as long as you get the rabbit flu vaccine), free rabbit skins.

If it was not for the restrictive nature of Australian gun laws I might have moved there.

It not too bad, compared to say Britain, with a minimum of effort I obtained my Cat A+B, that allows me bolt/lever/pump action rifles and single/double barrel and lever (for some strange reason) shotguns. If you have a large enough farm or a job culling animals you can get a semi-automatic and/or pump action shotgun. Getting a handgun requires either a security guard job or more commonly being a sporting shooter, it takes a bit of time, but it isn't impossible, I intend to do so as soon as I earn enough money and live static in an area long enough to do the required shoots.

The biggest problem IMHO is that everything here is so darn expensive, I paid probably three times more for my gun than I would have in the US, and ammo is relatively more expensive.

Also there's so much to hunt, rabbits, foxes and pigs. Deer and Kangaroos with appropriate permits. As well as more exotic things like introduced camels and goats in some states.

That is a lot of work. Here, in Kansas, all I have to do is go to the farm, (let the neighbors know I am there), and let the rounds fly into a dirt bank. I swear, I live in paradise.

 

[Croix Sinistre]

I have a lot of reasons for being an non-advocate for gun control. One of the main reasons is this: simply having a gun, no matter what caliber or size, can vastly increase the chances of someone getting out of a dangerous situation, even if never firing a round. In my personal experience, i grew up on a 'bad' side of town, one night when i was 16 and home alone, I heard someone outside, at first I ignored it, but when I heard the doorknob being fucked with I went straight for my dad's shotgun. He didn't have any ammo for it, but I tell you what, the sound of the a shotgun being cocked is a VERY definitive sound, and slowly the dude just walked off and after a bit I called the police.

I don't know what he wanted, or even if I was in any real danger, and later on, my experience in Iraq and from knowing various people in the military and police told me you can never give someone the benefit of doubt when you feel threatened by them.

I will always be and advocate for use of guns as self defense. Sure, they'll be abused by some, but that doesn't mean they should be outlawed for every law abiding citizen. And plus, people who are determined to commit a crime using a gun, will find another way to perform the crime anyway regardless.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Definitely got another rifle for Christmas! Super excited!