Poll: What is your stance on Guns?

[genericusername64]

We Americans get a lot of flack for allowing guns for self defense,is it deserved? I don't have any children so I'm in no danger of them playing with it, so I could keep one, I don't. I don't want to kill someone, and if someone breaks into my apartment to steal something I'll just hit them in the head with something. The self defense theory is rather contradictory, more crimes are committed with a gun than stopped with a gun, or at least it seems that way to me.

What do you think?

Edit Editing the poll doesn't work, sorry guys
Edit 2: I live in North Carolina and I don't use a gun, and neither does any part of my family so some stereotypes are false

 

[JaceArveduin]

You didn't put an option between small pistols and everything the Military has. You can actually get almost anything the military has if you have the cash to afford it and the... I can't remember exactly what all you need, but I do know it requires an extensive background check. I'm fairly happy with the way it is now myself. If people want to kill each other, they don't need a gun. Guns are noisier than knives, and unless you dig the bullets out of the person, you leave evidence in the person you shot. This makes it slightly easier to track the criminals.

And thus ends the knowledge spewing of the guy who's done little research and is theorycrafting.

 

[Zenode]

Personally I think the Gun Culture is so engrained into American culture I don't think it is leaving anytime soon.

I for one all for gun control and think they should be banned amongst the general public.

 

[Cakes]

Pulling out a gun seems like it would only serve to escalate any situation terribly. At that point it looks pretty likely someone is going to die no matter what.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

From an engineering and aesthetic aspect, I really like guns.

Beautiful

But from a cultural standpoint, I think it's ridiculous that civillians are allowed them outside of firing ranges.

Untrained people are twitchy, and very likely to shoot you if they have a gun at hand even if the situation can be defused some other way.

I think only the police should be armed, and then only the units that are dispatched to highly dangerous situations.

 

[FreakSheet]

I know Americans are all about guns, saying the constitution allows it, but never acknowledge that when the constitution was created, guns fired roughly once every 30 secs, if you were good, and were not that accurate. Now you have sniper rifles, automatics, and even pistols are way more deadly than what they used to have.

 

[Cheery Lunatic]

Every few months we always get a gun control thread. And everyone always goes at each other's necks in it. le sigh.

Anyway, I don't think we (as in Americans) should get all kinds of military guns, that's a bit of an overkill. I don't see why a person ought to own those kinds of guns unless they're a gun connoisseur, but those guns are just too dangerous to give to everyday citizens.
But the poll is a little extreme as there are other guns that people use for everyday life (i.e. hunting rifles) that aren't pistols.

Anyway, I'm fine for pistols and such for protection.
Granted I think every person who owns a gun ought to be taught how to properly handle one.

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

Well, guns cannot be taken from the public, we were given that right in the 2nd Amendment and if the government starts taking away those rights given to us by the founding fathers theres gonna be an uproar and a HUGE backlash.

And, we CAN have just about everything, provided that you arent a felon, live in a state that doesnt have an assault weapons ban, and have a good chunk of change. Most states allow them providing you have the right paperwork filled out with the ATF that essentially registers you for such weapons. Its about three forms, 200 dollars, and a 6 month wait while the paperwork is put through with the atf. That will cover such things as suppressors, short barrel rifles, automatic weapons and so on. However, each individual item requires a seperate transaction. For instance, it IS legal to own an M203 underbarrel grenade launcher for an M16/M4 platform, and even legal to own an HE grenade, however both items are considered Destructive Devices and such are both required to have paperwork. When it comes to such weapons, however, prices are generally very high. A Registered Auto Sear, the item which allows a weapon to fire in automatic, is the expensive part. Generally, a full auto sear runs in the 25,000 dollar range. An M16A1, registered with an autosear will easily run in that range.

Now we come to gun control, Criminals, by law, arent allowed to own, purchase or otherwise use a firearm, so how do they get them? Illegally, so what good will it REALLY do to take them from the hands of the law abiding public? Not too much. Yes, youd probably stop the crazies who have no record but intend to kill people, but honestly, the bigger threat is criminal organizations like Cosa Nostra or the Crips. Taking guns from the public is only going to result in leaving a lot of good people defenseless against those who will continue to get guns illegally.

Im a big gun fan. I own tons of guns, and i carry on a daily basis. I open carry, visably on my hip. My sidearm is always in view of the public, including law enforcement, and ive never had an issue carrying. My theory on carry is that, im willing to defend my life and those around me, should the need arise. I also believe that if i DO have to draw my gun, its to kill. It means that ive exhausted any other possibilities and ive deemed it necessary to kill to protect myself, or those around me.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Where is the option for gun laws are good how they are? Rifles would be better than handguns because handguns can be carried a lot more discreetly. If someone has a rifle, you know it. We don't need full-auto rifles (I want one, but who wouldn't).

 

[orangeban]

I like Britain's way. You can only have shotguns and rifles, and you can only have them for shooting pests (on farms) and hunting (though I don't agree with hunting.) You also can't carry them about town and have to keep them in a safe.

The idea that in America anyone around me could have a gun? Gives me the heebie-jeebies thinking about it.

 

[loc978]

I have a bit of a gun collection myself (and a concealed carry permit), and I'm actually for a form of gun control that requires licensing to own firearms. The second amendment was for an earlier time, when cities the size we have now simply didn't exist... and a vast majority of people back then grew up around firearms.
Now, things are different. Inner-city populations are mostly timid and sheltered, many people are raised with an irrational fear of guns. It would take decades of mandatory firearms education to change that... so I say if you wanna own a firearm, go take a class. Learn how to use it, what you're allowed by law to do with it, and get a nice little laminated license for it... then you can buy it.

I've just seen far too many drunken rednecks with no training waving rifles around and jokingly pointing them at their friends. As someone who was trained by the US Military, I've been sorely tempted to take a number of people's guns away.

**edit**
Also, can't really vote here, I'm not for civilians owning howitzers and attack helicopters... but if you want a Browning M2 .50cal machine gun, go get trained up... and you'd better have a place to store it safely.

 

[Jules57]

Guns are a form of defense,

for thousands of years humans have devised ways to protect them selfs from other humans and animals and such. From spears to broadswords, muskets to rifles.

In a world where only the government has guns, in a world where the people are their *****.
I enjoy guns, shooting them, having them, caring for them. They encompass many human cultural aspects, from defense, to sporting, to artforms.

Mind you I think an m60 over your mantle is a bit much, the people who are a threat to society with guns, could be with cars, and power tools.

So really, guns are a tool amoung other things, and whether or not they are good or bad, is mearly a point of whose using them, and for what application. Hell everyone could have guns, and not be dangerous, its not like bullets are part of the disscusion

Edit, @ the guy above we, that was my first thought,

Cilivilans with ar-15s, alright

civilians with artillery peices, not so much lol

 

[genericusername64]

Edit: Ah Nevermind I got his point now

 

[loc978]

edited out for irrelevance... sorry about that.

 

[manaman]

It's not really guns in society that cause crime. In fact gun ownership levels have no ties whatsoever with historic crime rates, including murder rates. Guns where just as deadly at the turn of the last century, and ownership levels where up (you could order a gun from a magazine and receive it in the mail), and homicide rates where roughly 1/3rd what they are today. In fact the homicide rate in England was half what it is today and guns where highly prevalent.

For sheer numbers more people where murdered in London in 2010 with guns then where murdered in 1900 with guns.

Gun crime is usually played up in media, while defensive uses of guns are downplayed, or vilified. Many more go unreported.

My basic point I always make is crime rates are not tied to gun ownership, but to civil unrest, social and economic strife. Especially telling is that gun ownership is the lowest, but crime is the highest among the poorest of the US population. No, not because they don't have guns, it's because they are poor, and disadvantaged, as well as being fairly diverse in population. It causes conflict.

Education is probably the single best weapon against crime available. Banning weapons of any time is only going to cause people to move onto other weapons. Glass bottle anyone?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I feel the same way about guns as I do about other issues.

It's wrong to punish the people in the vast majority who take responsibility when using a gun for the sake of those that don't. I think civilians should be able to own guns

EDIT:

Spoiler: I also like this image

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I'm for regulation of guns. Owning and using firearms in my country[footnote]Canada[/footnote] is considered a privilege, not a right. You need to know your stuff before you can own one and if anything happens, they can take them away. People kill people but guns are enablers so its better to restrict their numbers.

 

[monfang]

I chose option AB.

Sliding rule of control. Low powered stuff can be easily accessable if you can prove you are mentally sound and have no record. High powered stuff requires a LONG wait time and a deep deep check..

I would put low powered stuff like snub nosed revolvers with low powered bullets as the bottom of the slide. They are less likely to kill on impact and are designed for close range self defence with a licence.

Mid powered are your full sized revolvers, rifles, shotguns ect with basic attachments. Low powered scopes and maybe a silencer. If you buy them out of the blue, I'd ask that the cops be notified and if they see ya, it shouldn't be a problem for them to talk to you a bit and ask about what they are for. But not have them looking for ya.

Now when you get into full auto items, big guns heavy stopping power and way over the top stuff. I think the cops should be allowed to meet you before you take the items, have a little chat and go over why you want the item. And you need to be registered on a database so everyone knows what you got.

BUT no where should people who are of sound mind, body and have no criminal record should not be allowed to buy a gun if they want one.