Poll: Guns and you!
- Thread starter CaptainKoala
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Only ban certain guns, or make the process for acquiring high-end weapons like assault rifles or old replica machine guns a thoroughly documented and investigated transaction- since honestly, I really don't understand why anyone would ever NEED an assault rifle or machine gun, ever.
Doesn't stop gun enthusiasts from getting their hands on them, if they really want them, either. It only makes sense to make acquiring wartime firearms a difficult process. Cops have the same processes to go through to qualify themselves to use assault rifles or submachine guns, or if they're going for SWAT detail- why should it be any different for civilians?
Still, when I think about important rights that the Constitution offers (speaking as an American to other Americans- I still think that your First Amendment rights will always be more important than the Second.
Doesn't stop gun enthusiasts from getting their hands on them, if they really want them, either. It only makes sense to make acquiring wartime firearms a difficult process. Cops have the same processes to go through to qualify themselves to use assault rifles or submachine guns, or if they're going for SWAT detail- why should it be any different for civilians?
Still, when I think about important rights that the Constitution offers (speaking as an American to other Americans- I still think that your First Amendment rights will always be more important than the Second.
I think the gun laws in the US are fine as they are for the most part, their a little to restrictive when it comes to "assult" type weapons by counting items such as a bayonet lug as an assult feature which doesn't make sense because most people arguing against "assult" weapons include features that don't make a weapon any more effective such as a barrel shroud that merely prevents you from touching a hot gun barrel. As for gun laws being affective only law abiding citizens are affected by them not criminals they get their weapons illegally and that's wher 95% of gun violence comes from so allow the average citizens not to be armed increases crime look at the UK guns got restricted and crime shot through the rough because the criminals know that their the only ones that are armed. The police can't be everywhere at once so people need to be able to defend themselves it it comes to that.
Don't ban guns, and please let us carry swords in public if we have a license (like we can with pistols)
Shouldn't ban guns under any circumstances. Guns are used to hunt to protect and abolish unjust governments if the people so decide. While some violent crimes are committed with guns I've always stabbed people. Violent people commit violent crimes not guns. Its one of the few rights that can get taken away legally.
Personally I think people who horde guns are kinda nuts. But I also think people who horde dolls and comic books and nerd stuff are kinda nuts. One hobby is potentially able to kill people, but it just doesn't really work out that way so it doesn't matter. The kind of regular citizen who kills someone with a gun would've also use a knife or a bat or their bare hands in the situation.
People who acquire guns legally, follow the rules, register then if necessary, etc, are not the ones committing crimes with them. Its the same as intrusive DRM or those ads saying "Don't pirate this movie!" on authentic copies of movies. The only people seeing this stuff or potentially being bothered by it are the people it is not intended for. If you are planning on robbing or killing people you don't want a gun that can be traced back to you.
And as people said, if you ban them outright, people who were using them for crime before are still going to get them. So even if you don't think the idea of regular citizens needing them to protect themselves these days is valid, its still pointless because it does no good and prevents nothing. If a law does nothing good, then there's no point in taking away a right people used to have. Unless there is a valid reason to take away or limit a right, it should not be done no matter what that right is and what your opinion of it is.
People who acquire guns legally, follow the rules, register then if necessary, etc, are not the ones committing crimes with them. Its the same as intrusive DRM or those ads saying "Don't pirate this movie!" on authentic copies of movies. The only people seeing this stuff or potentially being bothered by it are the people it is not intended for. If you are planning on robbing or killing people you don't want a gun that can be traced back to you.
And as people said, if you ban them outright, people who were using them for crime before are still going to get them. So even if you don't think the idea of regular citizens needing them to protect themselves these days is valid, its still pointless because it does no good and prevents nothing. If a law does nothing good, then there's no point in taking away a right people used to have. Unless there is a valid reason to take away or limit a right, it should not be done no matter what that right is and what your opinion of it is.
I remember watching a show about gangs on the History Channel. One of the founding members of this particular gang (I forget which gang it was) went into a house in broad daylight with a shotgun and killed everyone in the house. When police asked him why he did it he said "because I can". After hearing a story like that I'll be damned if I'm not going to own a gun. I don't care if the chances of something like that happening are 1% it happens. The problem isn't guns, it's poverty and attitude.
If weapons bans work why are there so many crimes in cities with strict gun control laws like Chicago, DC and NYC? I think fighting poverty is a better way to fight crime than banning weapons. I'm still for some regulation such as registration, background checks, some restrictions for felons/mentally unstable, etc. The majority of gun owners are responsible citizens who enjoy target shooting, competitive shooting and hunting. The majority of those who commit crimes with guns are obtaining, owning and carrying those guns illegally. If you can provide some actual evidence that banning weapons actually reduces crime I'll be willing to change my stance but I have yet to be presented with such evidence.
And I'm a liberal.
If weapons bans work why are there so many crimes in cities with strict gun control laws like Chicago, DC and NYC? I think fighting poverty is a better way to fight crime than banning weapons. I'm still for some regulation such as registration, background checks, some restrictions for felons/mentally unstable, etc. The majority of gun owners are responsible citizens who enjoy target shooting, competitive shooting and hunting. The majority of those who commit crimes with guns are obtaining, owning and carrying those guns illegally. If you can provide some actual evidence that banning weapons actually reduces crime I'll be willing to change my stance but I have yet to be presented with such evidence.
And I'm a liberal.
That's funny because most laws target handguns while larger weapons like rifles and shotguns you can purchase and own without a license.kouriichi said:
Aussie here, and personally I love guns, and the skill required to utilise them properly. I have a collection myself (which is dwarfed by my dads) but the issue I always see is people trying to argue for gun ownership, citing personal defense or hunting, both good arguments, to a point.
Down here it's illegal to own automatic or large calibre firearms, either rifles or handguns, and frankly, low calibre weapons are more than fine for both defense and hunting. A .22 will kill a deer or a man just as easily as a .44, and if you need to fire more than once when hunting you are doing something seriously wrong.
And before people start arguing with me over the usefulness of firearms for defense and hunting, let me state that I own a number of rifles and handguns for the singular purpose of target shooting.
Down here it's illegal to own automatic or large calibre firearms, either rifles or handguns, and frankly, low calibre weapons are more than fine for both defense and hunting. A .22 will kill a deer or a man just as easily as a .44, and if you need to fire more than once when hunting you are doing something seriously wrong.
And before people start arguing with me over the usefulness of firearms for defense and hunting, let me state that I own a number of rifles and handguns for the singular purpose of target shooting.
Yeah us over here in the UK get assaulted every day by people who grannies with .357 magnum pistols could take down in a heartbeat.Retal19 said:
As a Libertarian, my initial response was to say yes, allow them. Then I looked at the stats in the US which do not exist in the UK, and the cost is so great that I'd consider the right to own a gun to invite harm to enough to invalidate the common libertarian concept of a right. I'm following the maxim "Anything goes unless the action will inflict harm upon others, to a degree with which they have no choice against". It seems to violate it.
Example: sitting in a coffee shop. We don't allow guns, you guys do. Guy comes in to rob it. The odds of a low level crime (below robbing banks etc) involving guns is actually very low. In the US it's much higher.
Now these people in the restaurant are now being threatened with a gun, not a knife.
And don't buy a glock, get yourself a nice Ruger or something, like a GP-100 or an SP-101. They make a GP-100 in .327 Federal Magnum that holds 7 rounds; "Did I fire five rounds, or six? Eh, who cares, I've still got at least one left!".
My husband has a GP-100 .357 Magnum/.38 Special, I think you could hammer a nail with that thing.
My husband has a GP-100 .357 Magnum/.38 Special, I think you could hammer a nail with that thing.
I miss the days when people just used edged weapons! There is something about guns I don't like compared to the good ol' beat the crap out of your opponent until he can no longer move.
I'm a little confused. Civilians owning weapons causes criminals to carry weapons they were already carrying anyways?voorhees123 said:
I haven't done the research, so I do not have the information necessary to present a well-supported argument.
Nevertheless, I'll venture some reasoning (in other words, part of an argument).
Conclusion: Guns should be banned.
...A gun is a weapon. For all intents and purposes, it is designed to inflict harm, whether it be upon a human or an animal. Even if a gun is being used in self-defense, the fact of the matter is that it's being used to hurt another person. There is scarcely a good reason for permitting gun ownership for those working outside of the executive branch of government. Some may argue that every person has a right to defend his or her life and property. First, burglary does not warrant lethal force. Beyond that, how common is murder? Certainly not commonplace enough to justify placing guns in the hands of untrained civilians. Rather than arming themselves as though they were a self-contained military outfit, families should invest in home security systems. Not only would this serve to deter potential thieves and those looking to commit other heinous acts, but it would also alert trained professionals in the event that such criminals are foolish enough to disregard the precautions. The bottom line is that guns do not belong in the hands of unauthorized persons, even if such people have the best of intentions.
Conclusion: Guns should be permitted with reasonable restrictions in place.
...Prohibition is a tired game. Sure, it works if the product in question is military-grade or otherwise difficult to find, but neither of these stipulations applies to a standard firearm. That being the case, prohibition would do more harm than good with respect to guns. People with the necessary resources would find a way to get their hands on them, while average people looking to protect their families and property would be left vulnerable. It does not stop there, either. There is no doubt that organized crime groups would capitalize on such government restrictions. Such a probability would serve to further fan the flames of violence. At the end of the day, people need to come to terms with the fact that the police are by and large an after-the-fact solution. People need a means to defend themselves when no one else can or will. Concerns about such people being unequipped to handle firearms are misplaced. Few people will advocate gun ownership in the absence of appropriate licensure. Therefore, given licensing necessities and restrictions on what types of firearms can be owned, there is no good reason why citizens should be barred from capable self-defense in the form of gun ownership.
I did my best to argue each side to a reasonable extent. Without doing further research, I cannot say that I necessarily support one side or the other.
Nevertheless, I'll venture some reasoning (in other words, part of an argument).
Conclusion: Guns should be banned.
...A gun is a weapon. For all intents and purposes, it is designed to inflict harm, whether it be upon a human or an animal. Even if a gun is being used in self-defense, the fact of the matter is that it's being used to hurt another person. There is scarcely a good reason for permitting gun ownership for those working outside of the executive branch of government. Some may argue that every person has a right to defend his or her life and property. First, burglary does not warrant lethal force. Beyond that, how common is murder? Certainly not commonplace enough to justify placing guns in the hands of untrained civilians. Rather than arming themselves as though they were a self-contained military outfit, families should invest in home security systems. Not only would this serve to deter potential thieves and those looking to commit other heinous acts, but it would also alert trained professionals in the event that such criminals are foolish enough to disregard the precautions. The bottom line is that guns do not belong in the hands of unauthorized persons, even if such people have the best of intentions.
Conclusion: Guns should be permitted with reasonable restrictions in place.
...Prohibition is a tired game. Sure, it works if the product in question is military-grade or otherwise difficult to find, but neither of these stipulations applies to a standard firearm. That being the case, prohibition would do more harm than good with respect to guns. People with the necessary resources would find a way to get their hands on them, while average people looking to protect their families and property would be left vulnerable. It does not stop there, either. There is no doubt that organized crime groups would capitalize on such government restrictions. Such a probability would serve to further fan the flames of violence. At the end of the day, people need to come to terms with the fact that the police are by and large an after-the-fact solution. People need a means to defend themselves when no one else can or will. Concerns about such people being unequipped to handle firearms are misplaced. Few people will advocate gun ownership in the absence of appropriate licensure. Therefore, given licensing necessities and restrictions on what types of firearms can be owned, there is no good reason why citizens should be barred from capable self-defense in the form of gun ownership.
I did my best to argue each side to a reasonable extent. Without doing further research, I cannot say that I necessarily support one side or the other.