Poll: Guns, are they good or bad?

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

Guns should not be banned. Nothing should ever be banned. That's retarded. What should happen is ammo should just be harder to obtain, because guns are nothing without ammo. You only buy the gun once, but you keep coming back for the ammo. It's like how Dell sells printers. They practically give away the printer but charge in excess of $100 dollars for four cartridges. I think the gun industry should just do that with ammo. It would make them more money, and gun nuts would still get to keep their guns.

 

[ShadowKatt]

I don't like guns personally. Back in the day of bows and swords, a person was more a danger to themselves when they picked up a weapon to others. Of course it didn't help that thanks to the lack of medicine a simple cut could result in loss of limb, but that's aside the point. Now that we have guns, even a child can pick up a gun and kill someone. Guns have a certain lack of responsability aire about them; if you don't need to be trained, if you don't need to practice, then you don't need to care. Sadly, that's not the case, and guns I believe tend to be more of a hazard than a tool. However, that being said, guns have a large part in this society, and taking them away not only leaves people vulnerable to criminals, but also at risk of a police state that could take over uncontested as a direct result of only the criminals having guns.

 

[Jark212]

When Civilians don't have guns, only the government will. Making up very prone to dictatorships and fascism. Also the first amendment makes us nearly impossible to invade.

As Fleet Admiral Jsoroku Yamamoto(Planed the attack on Pearl Harbor) said: "You cannot invade the mainland United Stated. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

 

[Christemo]

they should be restricted to members of the army, and no one else. ok, maybe obama (he needs to defend himself from those pesky KKK´s). guns should only be available to the army and people who has retired after being in the army.

in short: only to people who can actually handle guns.

 

[Beardon65]

If a burglar breaks into your home it'll take the cops 5-10 minutes depending where the nearest squad car is, plus another 2 minutes to make the call. That gives the intruder 7-12 minutes to steal prized possesions, heirlooms, etc. Whereas keeping my Glock in the dresser saves me more than half the time to gun hi down (It's legal in Texas to shoot a guy at night on your property non or lethal). Irony of this is i got some of the information from a gun magazine.

 

[tsb247]

outlawing pistols and assault rifles, sure there only meant to kill people but hunting rifles are fine with me

Allow me to introduce you to my hunting rifle:

I use it for prairie dogs, cyotes, rabbits, and other small game (whenever I can get a hunting trip put together).

The problem here is how ignorant people try and classify a firearm by, "How deadly," it is. I promise you that the firearm in the image I just posted will make a human no more or less dead than falling down a long set of stairs, getting hit by a car, overdosing on a prescription medication, getting hit by lightning, etc.

The fact is, that a firearm is a tool. It exists only to do the bidding of its master (the person wielding it). It my hands, the only living things that should fear me are the prairie dogs that called the wrong rancher's pastures their home.

 

[ygetoff]

We have mandatory classes on how to properly operate a motor vehicle. I don't see why guns are any different. We have restrictions on who exactly can purchase or sell alcohol. Once again, guns shouldn't be different.

But once that's done with, feel free to carry around your rifle, just please don't point it at me.

 

[tsb247]

People should have a right to have firearms, just not Military grade firearms. If your in a situation were you need anything more then a shotgun, pistol or hunting rifle then it most definitely aint a case of self-defence.

The problem here is that if firearms are banned for the mainstream, the common man will not be able to buy them. Who do you think will be getting their hands on the, "Military grade," weapons then?

Criminals do not care for the laws. If firearms are banned, or a certain type too heavily restricted, all that is being accomplished is that they are being taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

 

[Adam]

The right to bear arms. Nuff said. The problem with making firemearms illegal is that it just takes guns away from the responsible and law abiding...You think criminals obey the law? Bullshit me thinks, they will get a hold of guns and when they come into your house you will have No way to defend yourself. Because I live in England I have no idea how to buy a guy in america, im assuming there is some kind of backgroung check and permit you gotta have first before they let you buy guns.

 

[ace_of_something]

guns are inanimate objects and therefore have no inherent evil or good.

 

[tsb247]

Of course we all know how well banning things works anyway... Just look at what happened when the U.S. banned alcohol.

 

[tsb247]

The right to bear arms. Nuff said. The problem with making firemearms illegal is that it just takes guns away from the responsible and law abiding...You think criminals obey the law? Bullshit me thinks, they will get a hold of guns and when they come into your house you will have No way to defend yourself. Because I live in England I have no idea how to buy a guy in america, im assuming there is some kind of backgroung check and permit you gotta have first before they let you buy guns.

Some states require a permit, and some do more lengthy background check than others. In California, there is a 3 day waiting period, a lengthy background check, and I think a permit is required in certain circumstnaces.

Where I live, all that is required is a background check which is done over the phone. This check covers the following:

-felony convictions
-identity
-citizenship
-residency

 

[LockHeart]

I can only speak for Germany (though I assume it's similar for the other European countries as well as other countries with strict laws), but I'm glad that I can walk down a street at night, not fearing some crazy fucker waving a gun at me hopping out from around a corner.

I'm glad to know that thieves will enter a house, take whatever they want and then fucking leave without hurting anybody.
It's interesting how black-and-white the viewpoint of some of you seems to be.
There aren't criminals and normal people. There are many kinds of criminals. Do you honestly believe that anybody who is willing to nick some stuff is also automatically willing/capable of cold-blooded murder?

Well whenever I walk down a street in most British cities I'm terrified that some crazy fucker is going to jump out brandishing a knife at me, and I'm not kidding. I've already been attacked by someone once and I'd be much happier if I could carry some sort of weapon for self-defence, whether it be a handgun, pepper spray or taser. Unfortunately, the government here seems to think that I can't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a potato peeler (though even that would likely get confiscated if I took it out onto the street).

Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't trust a criminal burgling my house to leave me well alone in any nation on Earth: there's plenty of instances here in Britain of people being attacked and even killed by intruders, especially career criminals. If I had to defend my home, I would most definitely want a firearm.

 

[G1eet]

If you outlaw guns, criminals will still be able to get guns, but regular citizens won't, and therefore, will not be able to defend themselves, provided they live in an area governed by a conceal-n'-carry law.

 

[kawligia]

I have said this countless times before, but I may as well say it again:

The 2nd Amendment's placement as #2 is not accidental. The reason the 1st and 2nd Amendments are where they are is because they protect all our other freedoms. If the government ever goes wrong, the freedom of speech is the first line of defense. People will get the word out and the problem should correct itself before it's too late.

But if that fails and the government is not listening to the people, we have the means to take our country back. The self-defense aspect is very important, but it's only secondary to this which is it's main purpose.

The typical response here is that a revolution would not succeed. The thing is, people said that about every revolution in the history of the world. Some did fail, but others did not. Things seem different because of advanced technology today but the government has always had more advanced technology and more resources. Also, I do not think the loyalist forces would be so quick to run tanks through and drop bombs on their own residential neighborhoods and business squares. Also, consider Vietnam. Even with all the advantages in technology, we were defeated by crude weapons held by people in holes in the ground...and we weren't even trying to spare the locals and the infrastructure back then either.

But really we could speculate about the likelihood of success until we are blue in the face and nobody would change their mind. So I don't see the point. At the very least, there is uncertainty and even mere uncertainty is enough to keep potential tyranny in check. I think both sides understand the opinion of the other even though there is disagreement, but that's probably as far as it will go.

The real point is that the Constitution has already granted the right. No matter how convinced you are that the right is outdated or was never necessary in the first place, the right HAS been granted. It cannot be taken away without an amendment to the Constitution just like the right to free speech cannot be taken away without an amendment to the Constitution.

If you can't understand the danger in allowing the government to ignore ANY provision of the Constitution and how that will lead to ignoring OTHER parts of the Constitution you DO value, then I see no point in debating with you at all. If Obama can ignore this part of the Constitution, what other parts can he ignore? And what parts will the next George Bush be able to ignore???

 

[Skeleon]

I've already been attacked by someone once and I'd be much happier if I could carry some sort of weapon for self-defence, whether it be a handgun, pepper spray or taser. Unfortunately, the government here seems to think that I can't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a potato peeler *though even that would likely get confiscated if I took it out onto the street).

What? You don't get to buy tasers or pepperspray? That's kind of weird...
Officially, in Germany owning a taser is legal. Using it is not.
However, whenever you're in a threatening situation, self-defense applies, meaning that you're allowed to use it anyway (just like you're allowed to use a knife or whatever to protect yourself). It's a bit of a roundabout way but, after all, what matters is that using tasers or pepperspray is allowed in dangerous situations.
I see no problem with using non-lethal means of self-defense. But I'm strictly opposed to firearms.
Not that I ever felt the need for either, but...

 

[Rigs83]

Spoiler: snip

Fact: Countries such as Malta and Japan have a ban on firearms and most lethal weaponry, whereas the USA does not.
Fact: Crime, especially murders, are almost nonexistant in Malta whereas in Japan they tend to be very rare occasions.

When you're raised in a society that believes any kind of problem can be solved with pulling a trigger you're asking for it.

Excuse me Malta is an island of only 400,000 people where as the US is a famous melting pot where over 300,000,000 people of varying ethnicities, religions and social standing must co-exist unlike Japan where the guy next door will almost certainly speak the same language and have a similar upbringing so conflict is rare. Also Japan has the highest suicide rate of any industrialized nation and the lowest birthrate so the fact that people are killing themselves off faster than people are being born to replace them is not a good thing. You should use as an example [http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm] of a nation with a huge and diverse population living in peace without guns like Great Britain [http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm] that last year only had 42 murders involving handguns or shotguns versus 11 using other weapons. Although the fact that they still occur regardless of them being effectively banned since 1997 shoots a tiny little hole in your opinion.

You did not cite extreme examples you cited poor examples. The US is unique in that a compact exist between the Government and the governed. Americans have the right to bear arms so in the event that the state should revoke their rights they have a legal means to resist, violently if need be. Imagine if minorities like the Jews or Roma of Europe had that right in Italy and Germany or if the populace voiced opposition to having three prime ministers assassinated in Japan before World War 2.

You may not like firearms but you have the right to have them or not to have them as you wish in the US and I would rather live with threat of violence from a fellow citizen than knowing the state can choose what other right to take with impunity.

Spoiler: Or in another way

[HEADING=3]I am Chaotic Good.[/HEADING]

Frankly if I go with your opinion you'd rather live in danger than actually feel and be safe when you walk out of your house for prolonged periods of time. Do you really think the governments from those countries banned possession of lethal armaments on a whim? Using your own argument, if it DID give people the right they would be furious and cause an uproar to revert the law back the way it were.

I'm sorry, it is clear we won't agree as we're raised on different notions on the topic for valid yet opposing reasons. Try living in a place where you can comfortably go anywhere in your country unarmed and feel protected all the same. It's one thing you'd really take for granted.

Laws are not a fence restricting the citizen, they're a shield to protect them. I'm sure once Americans start feeling safe they won't mind a ban on guns at all.

So we agree to disagree.
And one final note, safety is a lessening of danger but not the end of it.

 

[LockHeart]

What? You don't get to buy tasers or pepperspray? That's kind of weird...
Officially, in Germany owning a taser is legal. Using it is not.
However, whenever you're in a threatening situation, self-defense applies, meaning that you're allowed to use it anyway (just like you're allowed to use a knife or whatever to protect yourself). It's a bit of a roundabout way but, after all, what matters is that using tasers or pepperspray is allowed in dangerous situations.
I see no problem with using non-lethal means of self-defense. But I'm strictly opposed to firearms.
Not that I ever felt the need for either, but...

Nope, they're classified as Offensive Weapons and are beyond the reach of us lowly plebs (though incidentally it is ridiculously easy to obtain a shotgun license in this country).

Meh, I'd just be much happier if I was allowed to own a handgun. I must have missed the bit when the government decided to overstep its boundaries and duties...

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

However a gun has no function in your every day life.
If you are not hunting every day then you do not need a gun so yes. They should be outlawed.

Self defense? Hello?

This.
You'll want a gun when somebody is going to kill you or your loved ones. You'll want a gun when somebody is breaking into your house and threatening to hurt your family.