Poll: Fun control

[Housebroken Lunatic]

While the true intentions of the founding fathers are indeed lost, I believe they included the ammendment to give the people the power to stand up against an oppresive government. [small]Is this getting too serious?[/small]

Well, considering the fact that American citizens didn't use those guns to overthrow the Bush administration when the bastard and his cohorts passed the "patriot act" (which is an oppressive act by default), I'd say that the american people has fallen from deserving the right to bear arms.

If they actually used their guns and started a few revolutions when they found out that their government is using the american military to act like nazis in other countries, then the american people might have been entitled to bear arms. But they don't, so the only natural conclusion is to take the guns away from them. : )

 

[Toaster Hunter]

People should be allowed to own semi-auto and bolt/pump action weapons if they do not have a criminal record. Yes, self-defense is an issue and people may have to protect themselves.

Bring a knife to a gun fight. Stab them when they laugh at you.

 

[Jedoro]

I'd be okay with long rifles being banned and just keeping handguns. As long as I get a nice little 1911 to carry around when I'm 21, I'm happy. Even after deciding to be a cop and looking into the job, I don't trust cops to protect me. They arrive after someone calls them, and that's only if a call even goes out.

I'm tired of all these freedoms being taken away from us Americans. We call it the "land of the free," so let's cut the crap and let natural selection sort out who gets to live to enjoy the freedom.

 

[Red Right Hand]

While the true intentions of the founding fathers are indeed lost, I believe they included the ammendment to give the people the power to stand up against an oppresive government. [small]Is this getting too serious?[/small]

Well, considering the fact that American citizens didn't use those guns to overthrow the Bush administration when the bastard and his cohorts passed the "patriot act" (which is an oppressive act by default), I'd say that the american people has fallen from deserving the right to bear arms.

If they actually used their guns and started a few revolutions when they found out that their government is using the american military to act like nazis in other countries, then the american people might have been entitled to bear arms. But they don't, so the only natural conclusion is to take the guns away from them. : )

Exqueeze me? Thats not what I said.
I said, "Guns aren't cool, fistfights are the way to go my friend."
Sorry, but I don't know where you got that from.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Exqueeze me? Thats not what I said.
I said, "Guns aren't cool, fistfights are the way to go my friend."
Sorry, but I don't know where you got that from.

Fixed it! : )

Meant to quote RavingPenguin, but some left over text was still in the box. My bad...

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Everyone should be allowed to have a semi-automatic handgun in their house, but nothing more. If they're taking it outside, they must first disassemble the pieces until they've reached their destination.

I don't agree that we should own dangerous rifles or machine guns. Those are less for the defence, and more for the fun. And yes, one should be able to have fun with guns, but go to a shooting range then.

 

[Keela]

Even if someone has a criminal record, they'll will still get their hands on guns from runners and gangs. We should just take out the middle man and let every all citezins above 18 buy and own a gun.

The problem there is that most gun violence doesn't come from gangs and random criminals hanging out on the street, but from everyday people who just snap or have some sort of plan that others don't know of. Legal gun owners are often a bigger threat than criminal gun owners. What I would like to see happen (in the U.S. at least) is for people who want to own anything other than a shotgun or hunting rifle to have to join the national guard or another military branch.

Very true, but Even a pistol? I mean, like a 9mm (or smaller), used for receration of self-defense? I'd think it would be easier to defend your self with a pistol than a shot-gun, even more so when they are intruding your home.

2 (or 3, whatever floats your boat if you're American or whatever's your cup of tea if not) words: Sawed-off shotty. The pellets don't penetrate enough to be a serious danger to someone in another room or house, and anything in a narrow hallway had better pray faster than they ever have in their life. I'm pretty sure sawed-offs are legal somewhere, somehow in America, and they are extremely easy to use, carry, and point. Hell, you don't even have to be accurate most of the time!

Ah, I forgot about those. And, another point, you will look bad-ass while doing it!

Warning: third link is a bore contact wound from a shotgun, and contains graphic images that may scar your mind forevarr.

http://www.filmjunk.com/images/weblog/top10sequel_3.jpg

http://api.ning.com/files/eA*FhumF3aVQtQFgoeJPPxy2J0bYIdbw9bgzadgEsmfD*7qCwIka88niD8KljiVvkQYm5jA*kLJPFS2-49koZDeWhUaqxdiv/ash.jpg

http://www.instructables.com/deriv/FZ5/KSNB/F23Z352D/FZ5KSNBF23Z352D.MEDIUM.jpg

Damn. Straight.

 

[AssButt]

No one should have guns but the police, and then they shouldn't use them.

Someone with a criminal record may be a thief, and if a civilian has a gun...

Think about it.

Do you remember when you were a 7 year old kid excited for recess only to be told that it was cancelled because someone in your class smeared shit all over the bathroom mirror and nobody would fess up? Do you remember being angry because you were being punished for something that you didn't do? That's basically gun control.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are not criminals and less than 0.001% of guns will ever be used to commit a crime. Gun owners believe it or not, are typically more educated and have higher incomes than non-gun owners (guns are expensive, after all).

Sure a few of them might commit crimes, but most of them don't and never will.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

No one should have guns but the police, and then they shouldn't use them.

Someone with a criminal record may be a thief, and if a civilian has a gun...

Think about it.

Do you remember when you were a 7 year old kid excited for recess only to be told that it was cancelled because someone in your class smeared shit all over the bathroom mirror and nobody would fess up? Do you remember being angry because you were being punished for something that you didn't do? That's basically gun control.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are not criminals and less than 0.001% of guns will ever be used to commit a crime. Gun owners believe it or not, are typically more educated and have higher incomes than non-gun owners (guns are expensive, after all).

Sure a few of them might commit crimes, but most of them don't and never will.

*hifive* Yes, taking guns away from us is not solving the problem. And even if we did get rid of every legal firearm in the US, then what about the people with the unlicensed illegal guns? I mean they have to committing more gun crime then legal owners right?

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

I believe that every American can and should own an automatic rifle that can fire over 100 rounds before reloading. Every American. Including the cokeheads, the criminals, and the clinically insane (and also the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?). And I believe that bullets should be dirt cheap. But the second any American should leave their country for work/vacation/whatever, they have to leave their guns at home. That would be a perfect solution right there.

How the Fuck would sopciety benifit from everybody owning a fucking machine gun? Its not like they are usefull for hunting, unless your collecting human heads

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

like i ahve no roblem with rifles and handguns but machie guns are over kill

 

[jpoon]

I am all for everyone being able to own and, if trained, carry concealed weapons. Criminals generally will attack a weak spot and what weaker spot do you get then a gang of people afraid to use anything other than floppy dildos as weapons.

For all those people who think you can just magically remove guns from the equation and keep criminals from carrying you should first consider areas that do have gun restriction laws. Areas such as Chicago has seen their gun violence levels go up as soon as they enacted their gun laws some decades ago. Now they are taking this gun ban law back to court and hopefully are about to overturn their laws because they can pretty easily see that it is ineffective and punishes law abiding citizens by not allowing them to save their own asses.

 

[Good morning blues]

I disagree with all of the options in the poll. Gun licenses should never under any circumstances be issued to anyone who has not received formal firearms safety training. People with mental health issues or substantial criminal records should not be able to obtain firearm licenses. Certain extremely dangerous antipersonnel weapons, such as assault rifles, should not be available to civilians. Concealed carry should require a special license that should be issued very, very rarely.

This is in an optimal society, not the United States. Many of the restrictions I list here would cause massive political strife in the States that would cause more damage than these laws would prevent. I think that these laws should be applied in the States, but it should be a gradual process.

 

[AssButt]

I believe that every American can and should own an automatic rifle that can fire over 100 rounds before reloading. Every American. Including the cokeheads, the criminals, and the clinically insane (and also the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?). And I believe that bullets should be dirt cheap. But the second any American should leave their country for work/vacation/whatever, they have to leave their guns at home. That would be a perfect solution right there.

How the Fuck would sopciety benifit from everybody owning a fucking machine gun? Its not like they are usefull for hunting, unless your collecting human heads

Machine guns aren't really useful for collecting human heads either. It takes a lot of training to be able to fire a relatively low recoiling weapon like an M16 on auto with any degree of effectiveness, this is why most soldiers are taught to keep their weapons on semi 99% of the time and the ones that do fire in full auto use machine guns mounted on bipods/tripods/etc.

Ironically the only case of an NFA registered machine gun being used in a crime was when a police officer used a MAC-11 to kill an informant (there was another one but they weren't sure if it was the machine gun that was used).

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

I believe that every American can and should own an automatic rifle that can fire over 100 rounds before reloading. Every American. Including the cokeheads, the criminals, and the clinically insane (and also the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?). And I believe that bullets should be dirt cheap. But the second any American should leave their country for work/vacation/whatever, they have to leave their guns at home. That would be a perfect solution right there.

How the Fuck would sopciety benifit from everybody owning a fucking machine gun? Its not like they are usefull for hunting, unless your collecting human heads

Machine guns aren't really useful for collecting human heads either. It takes a lot of training to be able to fire a relatively low recoiling weapon like an M16 on auto with any degree of effectiveness, this is why most soldiers are taught to keep their weapons on semi 99% of the time and the ones that do fire in full auto use machine guns mounted on bipods/tripods/etc.

Ironically the only case of an NFA registered machine gun being used in a crime was when a police officer used a MAC-11 to kill an informant (there was another one but they weren't sure if it was the machine gun that was used).

Exactly...The OP said he wanted everybody to own a machien gun and for ammo to be dirt cheap. How would that benifit society again?

 

[AssButt]

I believe that every American can and should own an automatic rifle that can fire over 100 rounds before reloading. Every American. Including the cokeheads, the criminals, and the clinically insane (and also the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?). And I believe that bullets should be dirt cheap. But the second any American should leave their country for work/vacation/whatever, they have to leave their guns at home. That would be a perfect solution right there.

How the Fuck would sopciety benifit from everybody owning a fucking machine gun? Its not like they are usefull for hunting, unless your collecting human heads

Machine guns aren't really useful for collecting human heads either. It takes a lot of training to be able to fire a relatively low recoiling weapon like an M16 on auto with any degree of effectiveness, this is why most soldiers are taught to keep their weapons on semi 99% of the time and the ones that do fire in full auto use machine guns mounted on bipods/tripods/etc.

Ironically the only case of an NFA registered machine gun being used in a crime was when a police officer used a MAC-11 to kill an informant (there was another one but they weren't sure if it was the machine gun that was used).

Exactly...The OP said he wanted everybody to own a machien gun and for ammo to be dirt cheap. How would that benifit society again?

In a free society (like the USA, theoretically) it is the burden of the government to prove why we something should be illegal and if they can't, then they can't pass that law.

 

[JRslinger]

I disagree with all of the options in the poll. Gun licenses should never under any circumstances be issued to anyone who has not received formal firearms safety training.

Gun ownership is a right, not a priveledge. Furthermore training costs money. This is unfair to the poorer people.

[/quote] People with mental health issues or substantial criminal records should not be able to obtain firearm licenses.[/quote]
"Mental health issues" is a vague phrase that could be stretched to cover everyone.

Concealed carry should require a special license that should be issued very, very rarely.

This is the case in New York City, Maryland, California and New Jersey. Only the well connected elite have a chance of obtaining a carry license. Criminals frequently carry guns illegally. This arrangement is elitist and anti self defense.

This is in an optimal society, not the United States. Many of the restrictions I list here would cause massive political strife in the States that would cause more damage than these laws would prevent. I think that these laws should be applied in the States, but it should be a gradual process.

Well that seems to be the strategy gun control groups are using.

No one should have guns but the police, and then they shouldn't use them.

Someone with a criminal record may be a thief, and if a civilian has a gun...

Think about it.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are not criminals and less than 0.001% of guns will ever be used to commit a crime. Gun owners believe it or not, are typically more educated and have higher incomes than non-gun owners (guns are expensive, after all).

Sure a few of them might commit crimes, but most of them don't and never will.

Right on

 

[Good morning blues]

Gun ownership is a right, not a priveledge. Furthermore training costs money. This is unfair to the poorer people.

You are talking specifically about the United States, whereas I am talking about a hypothetical well-governed society. While it is true that, due to some judicial interpretive gymnastics that I personally find very suspect, individuals (as opposed to well-regulated militias) in the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. In an optimal society, keeping and bearing arms would be a privilege and not a right - while a civilian who has demonstrated their competence in behaving safely should have the right to use guns for hunting and recreation, firearms are simply too dangerous to allow everyone unrestricted access. See Los Angeles for an example of my point.

The fact that things discriminate against poor people is an argument that enjoys very little currency in the United States. In any case, I hardly see why firearms safety lessons, particularly when they are a requirement for gun ownership, should be beyond the means of anybody who has the time to spend hunting or at a firing range. Furthermore, a militia in which some members do not have firearms safety training can hardly be described as "well-regulated."

"Mental health issues" is a vague phrase that could be stretched to cover everyone.

This is a strawman that you've set up in order to ignore my point, which I should think is very, very clear.

This is the case in New York City, Maryland, California and New Jersey. Only the well connected elite have a chance of obtaining a carry license. Criminals frequently carry guns illegally. This arrangement is elitist and anti self defense.

The only people who should be able to carry a weapon in public are those who carry it in some sort of enforcement capacity and those who need it due to a clear and imminent danger (for instance, threats on their life). Killings of innocent people in public are very, very rare; as a result, the only reason somebody would need to carry a concealed weapon is to charge into a fight in which they were not involved, which just creates the potential for more violence and injury. I would expect that fewer people will be killed as a result of not having concealed weapons than would be as a result of accidents and unnecessary violence involving concealed weapons (although I would want to see some empirical evidence of that before I ever voted for it, to be fair).

 

[AssButt]

Gun ownership is a right, not a priveledge. Furthermore training costs money. This is unfair to the poorer people.

You are talking specifically about the United States, whereas I am talking about a hypothetical well-governed society. While it is true that, due to some judicial interpretive gymnastics that I personally find very suspect, individuals (as opposed to well-regulated militias) in the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. In an optimal society, keeping and bearing arms would be a privilege and not a right - while a civilian who has demonstrated their competence in behaving safely should have the right to use guns for hunting and recreation, firearms are simply too dangerous to allow everyone unrestricted access. See Los Angeles for an example of my point.

The fact that things discriminate against poor people is an argument that enjoys very little currency in the United States. In any case, I hardly see why firearms safety lessons, particularly when they are a requirement for gun ownership, should be beyond the means of anybody who has the time to spend hunting or at a firing range. Furthermore, a militia in which some members do not have firearms safety training can hardly be described as "well-regulated."

"Mental health issues" is a vague phrase that could be stretched to cover everyone.

This is a strawman that you've set up in order to ignore my point, which I should think is very, very clear.

This is the case in New York City, Maryland, California and New Jersey. Only the well connected elite have a chance of obtaining a carry license. Criminals frequently carry guns illegally. This arrangement is elitist and anti self defense.

The only people who should be able to carry a weapon in public are those who carry it in some sort of enforcement capacity and those who need it due to a clear and imminent danger (for instance, threats on their life). Killings of innocent people in public are very, very rare; as a result, the only reason somebody would need to carry a concealed weapon is to charge into a fight in which they were not involved, which just creates the potential for more violence and injury. I would expect that fewer people will be killed as a result of not having concealed weapons than would be as a result of accidents and unnecessary violence involving concealed weapons (although I would want to see some empirical evidence of that before I ever voted for it, to be fair).

Human rights don't vary from country to country, other countries just choose to oppress them.

If guns were completely illegal and they spent hundreds of billions to send JBTs to every house to round them up, I'm pretty sure criminals will have no problem throwing in a few crates of guns from Mexico along with the heroin and meth shipments. It's also worth pointing out that Diane Feinstein, a staunch proponent of gun control is one of the few people in California who has a concealed carry permit.

I agree that it is good for gun owners to know safety, which is why I think it should be taught in school, we already teach safe sex and drug usage.

How many people do you know that carry would rush into a fight? If you went on to a gun forum and advocated that, you would be dog piled by time you hit "refresh".

If you're interested in emperical evidence, it's estimated that between 1-2.5 million people a year have used a gun to protect themself in some manner (that's why the wide range) but the media rarely reports these things. Also, plenty of states that have passed concealed carry laws have dramatically reduced their crime rate. Vermont, where the only requirement to carry concealed is that you can legally own a gun, has always had a low crime rate. England, after their handgun ban has actually seen an increase in handgun crime and the one place gun control should work would be on an island. It still doesn't.