Poll: Guns and you!

[swolf]

You shouldn't be able to walk down the street and have a gun with you. I could accept a handgun or shotgun at home or a small collection at a gun range, but both guns and owners would need to have a complete licensing and screening process, while individuals with a firearm inventory over a certain threshold automatically get put on a special watch list. All this, and it is illegal to carry a loaded gun with you off your property or any other licensed area.

Not to troll but criminals will take their guns whereever they want so only allowing people to carry in certain areas handicaps their ability to defend themselves. If somebody's family got killed in front of them and they would have had a chance to save them if they had carried their gun...how would you justify that to them? I can't think of her name but there is a famous progun woman whose parents were killed in a mall massacare and she could've stopped it if she had brought her gun into the mall but that was illegal.

Not at all. But is it not possible that the total number of gun crimes committed would be lowered because criminals would get caught with possession of guns in public? It's kind of like saying laws enforcing action against crimes are useless because criminals will do whatever they want.

And there are plenty of "what if" situations. What if it was illegal to carry a firearm anywhere in public and the perpetrators of that mall massacre were arrested before they even arrived? What if a proper licensing program found they had a history of violence or mental instability? What if someone in the mall at the time just chucked a bottle at their head, taking action the same way that woman says she would have?

I make guns so I will admit bias but anyways...we should do full background checks on everything then, knives bleach, pipes, any types of controlled substance drugs, ethylene glycol, etc. That' "reasonable" but not practical and many psychos are smart enough to slip through practically any screening process you throw at them. Also, trying to disable a person with a gun while you have a purse is like...well, bringing a knife to a gun fight from a distance. Also, there are more sane people ready and willing to defend then there are psychos so might as well outnumber the psychos with armed people.Also...how are they going to screen for concealed guns? A guy recently got it through in his carryon on a plane.

 

[GodofCider]

I'm not against gun ownership; I like to hunt with my handgun after all.

That said, a weapon is a weapon.

Those crazed enough to actually wield such a weapon in times of peace, offensively against another human, will find a way, whether or not there are laws forbidding their ownership.

 

[LadyRhian]

Let's face it- most of the people hurt with guns by criminals were the owners of the gun- the criminal took it away from them or they kept it in a bedside drawer/under the bed and not in a gunsafe or other means of ensuring that no one but the homeowner had/has access to said gun. That's just careless on the part of the gun owner. What if his young kid finds it and uses it (as has also happened).

I have no problem with people owning guns for the defense of their own home. But... and it's a big BUT, they also have to know how to own and use that gun in a safe and effective manner. Not just one piddly gun course at the local cop shop/firing range. And no full auto, explosive, dum-dum or AP rounds for said gun. A bullet alone can kill someone just fine. You don't need the rest of that to take someone attacking your home out. It's just irrelevant.

Now, I am pretty much as liberal as they come. So I am fine with the gun laws as is for ownership. But I want better policing of owners to prove that they can handle and store those guns in a safe manner, and teach the rest of the family, too, as the primary wielder may not always be there to protect their family. Teach the kids that the gun is not a toy and not something to be wielded in anger or used to pump bullies at school full of lead. That's irresponsible and not the kind of gun ownership I want to see.

I don't own any guns, but I do have a collectible Stargate Ra Dagger (from the movie) and the Hellboy Prince Nuada Sword and Princess Nuala Dagger. So it's not like I am opposed to any weapons at all. I'd love to get a real sword.

 

[Canid117]

You kind of made a jump from one unreasonable end of the scale to the other with that poll of yours. Way to go!

 

[trooperpaul]

I know! Everyone needs government-issued battle-axes. You can't hide a battle-axe in your backpack, you can't sneak it onto a plane, and you can have battle-axe duels to settle disputes.
Problem solved.

Hitler was anti-gun control, he wanted all citizens of the Reich to be able to defend themselves. Hitler was on your side, not mine. Also, he was kind of a jerk. Replace him with someone like. . . FDR! You know, that kindly old man in a wheelchair?

 

[McNinja]

I think there have been too many gun control related topics for this to be all that big.

So, here it goes. People like to feel secure. People shoot each other. People won't shoot each other if they know they will get shot back.

If a dude walks into a bank and whips out a Glock when everyone else in the bank also has one, that guy is not going to be robbing much of anything.

The government is trying way too hard to control firearms when they should be spending their time and money elsewhere.

The U.S. has a good system in place, but unfortunately for it there are people who don't abide by it. I think that if there were more detailed background checks done on prospective gun owners, with strict penalties if these checks are not completed before purchasing a gun, there would be a bit less aggressive gun crime.

So basically this: In order to purchase a weapon (of any kind) you must first allow a background check that checks any police records, views all of your tickets, etc. [I do not know what kind of restrictions should be, like a felony prevents any sort of gun ownership, but that would take up too much space, and I don't feel like writing a legal document right now] Prior to owning the firearm, you must also take a basic comprehensive course in firearms safety and proper usage (by comprehensive I mean it goes through how to use, clean, and safely handle pistols/revolvers, rifles, and shotguns. Assault rifles could be in their own category). This course would be a several day course, not a one day 2 hour class. I mean a legitimate course, much like the kind the NRA or Blackwater offer. After completion of this course, and the check comes back cleared, then you may get your gun (and by get I mean, you pay for it, then it is withheld until completion of the course and clearence of the background check).

At least that's how I'd do it.

 

[L-J-F]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

So next time you say "America has high gun-crime rates and lots of guns" everyone can call bs. America just has a lot of crime.

I find this funny too:

"Furthermore, it must be noted that the act, has in no way impacted the proliferation of illegal firearms to violent criminals. With criminals more frequently committing crimes with R4 and R5 assault rifles (which are not and never has been available to normal citizens) and 9mm police issue pistols. Reports state that The SA Police Service has lost, had stolen or otherwise misplaced 8 286 firearms, including pistols, shotguns, rifles and revolvers, in three years(2006-2009)[5]." (wikipeida - Gun politics in South Africa)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/police-cant-find-up-to-200-firearms/story-e6frf7kx-1225912111461 Sound FAMILIAR at all?

Gee I wonder what happened to them.

http://australia.world-countries.net/archives/185609

Gun control works people, like totally If we banned silencers and submachine guns they wouldn't have ....... oh right, yeah we did.

 

[Master Taffer]

I'm one of those nut jobs that recognizes that the second amendment is there so citizens can take the fight their government if it truly runs amok. So yes, don't ban any weapons.

 

[1trakm1nd]

Lol don't forget to vote republican. Besides guns don't kill people, bullets do. Ban thoes. I'll just pull my sword out and solve the issue like that.

 

[Rubashov]

I can see the logic behind banning certain classes of weapons that cannot be used so as to reliably avoid noncombatant casualties--nukes, for example. Also most bombs, though possibly not grenades. And, yes, probably Howitzers.

However, I am also of the opinion that any weapon that is banned for the citizens of a country should also be banned for the government of said country. Thus avoiding the problem pointed out in that "the experts agree" poster:

: )

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I'm for banning all types of guns unless you have a real reason for needing them. I mean seriously, why on Earth would you even need to own a gun?

 

[Mimssy]

I have never been a fan of guns. It's a lot of reasons I'd rather not talk about.

 

[A.A.K]

I Love Weapons. Like...Loooooove weapons...
Particularly tactical knives, katana's and guns, and im qualified in all 3.
If that's my interest and passion, and i want my assortment and something bigger than a damned .32, i should be able to get it.
and just because it's in my possession doesn't mean I'm about to go head hunting either, so i say dont ban them at all. Just make the price tag proportionate. If people love their weapons or want their weapons, give it to em.

 

[TailsRodrigez]

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right for all american citizens, however, I doubt anyone would need anything beyond a handgun unless they are hunting (in which case you should use a hunting rifle), so only some guns should be legal for civilian use.

 

[L-J-F]

Gah couldn't help myself:

 

[Koroviev]

Gah couldn't help myself:

If your beliefs can fit on a bumper sticker, think harder.

 

[Freshman]

Its a moot point. If you say to the crowd of angry people with lots of firearms that "you can't have those anymore..." well there'll be another civil war going down.

OT: like everybody in the world has already said, banning guns won't take them out of the hands of criminals. Just like banning drugs doesn't stop people from using. And just like banning alcohol didn't work so hot back in the twenties. and just like everything else that has ever been banned, people will get it anyway.

 

[superbatranger]

Place restrictions on the weapons. Depending on the type of weapon(automatic, explosive, rifle, handgun, etc), that will determine who has the clearance to use them. For example, an automatic Heckler & Koch MP5 should be restricted to people in the police and military, but not civilians. Furthermore, ammunition should have restrictions as well. Ammo that is highly destructive should not be in the hands of civilians. Finally, anyone who wants to buy a gun has to go through a mandatory psych evaluation and extensive background check. If they only have things that are considered misdemeanors, such as littering, pickpocketing, speeding tickets and such, that would not affect the process because it's not really indicative of a violent personality. On the other hand, any violent crimes on record will lead to the confiscation of any weapons in their possession.

 

[zehydra]

It's important to never totally ban guns, because citizens need a tool of revolt, should it be necessary.