Poll: What is your stance on Guns?

[Images]

Farmers need guns occasionally to kill foxes and to put down animals. Police units need guns for special circumstances.

THAT'S IT.

Guns are not weapons of self defense. They are tools to be utilized by persons under specific conditions warranted by the needs of professions. The law is not ours to enforce. If a mugger tries to mug you and is ARMED, give them your stuff. No one needs to die. If a burglar is in your house, lock your door and call the cops or take the nearest escape route then call the cops. You may say you are trained, bla bla bla. You may very well be but you do not have the right to choose who lives and dies.

And any of you 2nd Amendment thumpers? Grow up. I think the bearing of arms is pretty obviously in reference to having the tools to form a militia against the oppression of governments seeking to clamp down on the foundling new republic. That time is long over Rambo.

 

[Zack1501]

I think we should have everyone have guns(with some exceptions)I think if everyone knew that everyone had a gun then there would be alot less crime.

 

[ACman]

Limit civilian use to those who need them as tools; cops and farmers.

Limited wildlife usage (Hunting rifles/Whatever you use to shoot a bear who is going to eat you.)

Anybody who thinks they need an AR-15 to go hunting or for protection is nuts. Go to a gun range and leave your AK-47 locked up there.

This is basically the regime we have in Australia (Apart from bears and no assault rifles at the gun club :-( ) and it works pretty well. Problem is in the US you have so many guns that any attempt to control them is realistically futile. Then again you get less serious assault in America. Wonder why?

 

[New Frontiersman]

I don't have a problem with people owning some guns, such as small handguns for self defense and maybe a hunting rifle for hunting, but some people take it to insane, frightening levels. No one needs their own personal armory.

 

[ACman]

And any of you 2nd Amendment thumpers? Grow up. I think the bearing of arms is pretty obviously in reference to having the tools to form a militia against the oppression of governments seeking to clamp down on the foundling new republic. That time is long over Rambo.

Yeh its been almost a week since the last genocide in Libya, give up your guns now. Only my good friends Stalin and Gaddafi shall possess them

Don't both side have lots of guns in Libya? Kind of shooting yourself(natch!) in the foot with that argument bro.

 

[floobie]

I don't support war or general killing of people by people. As such, I find the very existence of guns that are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible pretty terrible. Though, I can understand the "collectors" appeal of these sorts of guns. If you just like shooting them at paper targets in a safe area, or appreciate their aesthetics, I have no problems with that.

Sporting guns... rifles used for hunting and the like, I'm fine with. If you want to kill a deer or something and eat it, go nuts. (I personally don't care for the idea of hunting for a trophy, though). If you're in the wilderness a lot and want some means of defending yourself against a bear or a cougar, I see nothing wrong with carrying a gun for that purpose.

Hand guns... I suppose if you think they will help you defend yourself, I don't really mind. I don't think a gun as self defence is necessarily a great idea. But, I'm willing to be flexible here. And, again, I can understand the hobbyist appeal.

I don't really care about guns myself. I don't hunt at all, and it would take very, very extreme circumstances for me to even consider turning a gun on a living creature, let alone a human. But, I don't think responsible, well-adjusted, mentally sound people should be denied them. Though, I think gun ownership shouldn't be a right. I think it should be HEAVILY regulated. It should be earned. I think you should have to prove yourself extremely competent in terms of safety, judgement, ethics, and mental stability. I don't think that system exists in North America.

I live in Canada. I actually have a firearms license that enables me to buy rifles or shotguns. You know what it took to get that license? Maybe 100 bucks total, and a half day course. I now have a vague understanding of how to handle a gun. I've shot a pistol and a rifle on one occasion in my life (completely separate from the course). I don't think I'm remotely qualified to own a gun. And yet, legally, I can. I think that process was frighteningly easy, considering I can now legally own something that can easily kill loads of people.

 

[newdarkcloud]

I don't mind anyone owning a gun so long as they're willing to submit to a background check and gain the necessary training.

Then again, I'm a suburban white kid who's never really seen violence, so I don't think my opinion is very valuable.

 

[ACman]

Anyway... Who would like to play Godwin's Law?

Don't both side have lots of guns in Libya? Kind of shooting yourself(natch!) in the foot with that argument bro.

Ze dirty rats have guns too??!?! Nien they now have ze standing chance against ze oppressive machine. Not zat i care, cause zey are goodamn lefity commies.

 

[MordinSolus]

My stance on guns? Well, let's see. Left foot in front of right, both hands on the handle, thumb on the hammer, fight index finger on the trigger, pointed at a shooting range target.

 

[Double A]

Pistols are easier to conceal than rifles, which makes them more dangerous in non-combat situations. Just so you know.

I'm from NC, and I like to shoot guns. I know how to use them, which means I'm less likely of accidentally blowing someone's head off.

And from a logical standpoint, it is a very dumb idea to outlaw guns. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, as the old saying goes. I imagine it would result in a "War on Guns" which would be roughly as effective as the current War on Drugs: Not at all.

NYET!! Gun control was very effective in my USSR

US isn't a dictatorship yet, comrade.

 

[Torrasque]

My problem with guns is that too many people think they are entitled to the biggest, best guns, for their "protection"
Hunting rifles are fine and dandy, but the average civilian doesn't need a fully automatic, drum fed, .50 cal machine gun, with FMJ hollow point rounds.
Like all things, I think dealing with absolutes is stupid, so I'll just say that people should be allowed to have any gun they want within reason, but require registration and regulation in place so they can't accidentally go gun-happy when they break up with their girlfriend.

 

[StrixMaxima]

I'll be honest, I find the answer to your question, "How many collateral victims are acceptable for the right to hang that rifle on your wall?", to be "As many as it takes." Fear of potential danger should never dictate your actions. I agree with you, insofar as allowing everyone to own weapons has the potential for danger, but so does walking down the street. If you refuse everything that carries the potential for risk, you'll never do anything.

It especially isn't worth sacrificing the single most important ability and right we as human beings enjoy. Specifically, the ability to choose. By denying everyone the option, you have stripped them of a piece of their humanity. In all honesty, I see potential loss of life as the far more palatable option.

I was wondering if that would be your answer. I am sure that many people feel as you do. However, since I live in a country where extreme violence is quite prevalent and it has touched my life more than once, I'd say your point of view is good in a Philosophy class, but a poor choice when we mix the human factor.

Choice is a common scapegoat in this kind of debate. It creates such a gray zone that it instantly makes any further discussion moot. I believe that there are higher instances than choice, and a human life is one of them.

Also, comparing walking on the street with providing access to lethal weapons to everyone is not exactly the fairest comparison, right? Cars can kill, a flower pot can kill. However, this is not their primary function, and a certain inherent misuse is a given towards pretty much anything. Guns have no other function than killing. And a gun is a terrible deterrent in many situations. If you draw a gun, you must be ready to use it.

I can see this kind of manifestation you are proposing apply for civil rights, basic freedoms, freedom of speech, at al. However, I would never put gun ownership in the same level as them. I think your heart is in the right place, but there must be different values for different concepts.

 

[Ickorus]

I hate guns, I would not like to see them made legal in my country. (England)

My reasoning is that it would be like opening Pandora's box, once it is allowed it can never really be disallowed in future because whilst law-abiding people would hand over their weapons any criminals would not do so and as such it would leave good people defenseless.

My stance is that only people who use the search bar properly should be allowed to own guns or make threads.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.146207-Poll-Fun-control#3329136

You have 22k posts, surely by now you realise how useless the search bar on this website is, I once saw someone make a repost of a thread I had done a year previously with a near identical title and yet when I searched for my original thread it proved impossible to discover.

 

[Poster1234]

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.

Yeah I guess, but the main reason criminals are able to obtain guns illegally is simply because the US are already covered in guns. If it was banned for the "law-abiding citizens" it would also make it that much harder for these organizations to obtain guns and to carry them around.

Also, I firmly believe that, unless you have a good reason to own a gun (such as a hunting rifle or the likes), you should'nt be able to purchase them as if they were candy : the police should be the only ones to have them, maybe even only the special units such as the SWAT.
There is one simple reason for that : escalation. People who see a gun get twichy, and start to act stupid, even in a non-violent situation.
Moreover, on the contrary of, say, a blade, a gun can be used almost exclusively to kill, it is very hard to be sure you'll simply wound someone with a gunshot. And I don't believe that killing someone is something that should be used as anything else that a last resort.

Also, I'm french by the way, maybe that plays in one way or another.

 

[El Danny]

Because letting the general public have access to something that only use is to put chunky holes in things seems like a great idea...

 

[Xan Krieger]

My stance is that guns are fun and I want them legal so I can play with them. Also shooting rotten fruit with a .357 magnum beats just throwing it out.

 

[genericusername64]

I'd rather see Kim jong Il in this thread

 

[kebab4you]

I would restrict it to police only, but seeing how American citizens love there gun I would say you would need a license to carry any kind of gun, a step in the right direction and it would stop fucktards from carrying them.

 

[The Cor]

It would be better if we only used tranquilizers, and with we I mean every human on this planet. Aaah if we could only live in a world where everybody agrees to that.

 

[El Danny]

Because letting the general public have access to something that only use is to put chunky holes in things seems like a great idea...

No! only the communist party shall be allowed firearms! the people serve us! if they disobey we shall exterminate them. Never allow the subject race to possess arms. It is political suicide

Why does every NRA member in the US think that fire arms is all they need to combat a government? Common sense informs me that even if you're all armed with M16s and AKs, you'd still get slaughtered