Poll: is a gun a good tool to have in a household?
- Thread starter Dom541
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think it is a useful tool within society if properly controlled. Gun laws should be in place to put tight controls on who gets guns, what types of guns they get, and the all together traffic of guns. I also think that you do not need an RPG to defend yourself in your own home, so a small pistol would do.
If there is a child in the house then maybe don't have a gun because of the obvious ramifications of them getting their hands on it. That or hide it incredibly well.
If there is a child in the house then maybe don't have a gun because of the obvious ramifications of them getting their hands on it. That or hide it incredibly well.
Yes, I do believe a firearm is a useful thing to have, for protection.
As for gun control, yes it needs to have a little more constriction placed on the laws that set the requirements to obtain a firearm.
Yet, as for getting a hold of one on the top of my head I have several ways of getting my hands on unmarked gun at the moment. Knowing this I do believe it needs to be tighter ,but in the end the crazy people who want them will get them.
As for gun control, yes it needs to have a little more constriction placed on the laws that set the requirements to obtain a firearm.
Yet, as for getting a hold of one on the top of my head I have several ways of getting my hands on unmarked gun at the moment. Knowing this I do believe it needs to be tighter ,but in the end the crazy people who want them will get them.
That's just showing the level of retardation in the government. It'd be helpful if you can kill anyone breaking in your house. Also, the government should not expect you to think about the laws in a tense situation like that. If someone attacked me, do you think I'd have the time inbetween hits or whatever to assess the situation and consider U.S law? Why don't you ask me to find a cure for aids in between hits while you're at it. You should be expected to do what's natural, fight back with anything you could.
You can have a gun in the home if you have children as long as you keep it away from them, AND teach them about gun saftey. My dad was a cop and kept a .357 Magnum on his hip for my entire childhood and I never once managed to shot myself. He kept it out of reach and taught me NEVER to touch it and, more importantly, WHY I shoud never touch it.hippieshopper said:
It's to bad that law abiding, responsible people must worry about polices that take away our right to self protectiong b/c there are so many irresponsible, moronic f:cktards out there that can't figure out how to be safe.
Well, look, your right to posses a firearm is never going to go away. The problem is, if you start to restrict what is legal and who is allowed, it opens the door to an academic argument that is ultimately going to screw over law abiding citizens. Look at it this way, anyone can get a license to drive a car, but there are plenty of jackasses that abuse that right. Are we supposed to say that you can only drive small compact cars to lessen the odds of you killing someone? Much like obtaining a drivers license, there are safe guards in place for gun ownership, they just need to be enforced.
But I digress, to answer the question as to whether or not a gun is a good tool, sure, it's a great tool, but so is a chainsaw. Like a gun, if you don't respect a chainsaw, you or someone in your vicinity is going to get severely injured or killed. As far as the legality of lethal force to protect your property, every state recognizes your right to defend yourself. What they are not going to recognize is your right to shoot some poor crackhead in the back while they are running down the street with your Wii. Rule of thumb is that if there is no physical threat to you or those around you, even though they may be getting away with your property, you cannot use lethal force. i.e., it's ok to kill to save your life, but it's not ok to kill to save your Wii.
I refuse to vote, as a gun is not a tool. It's a weapon. Weapons are meant for only one thing, and for good or bad, it is to cause harm.
Do I think guns are a good thing to have in the house? Depends. I live in a small N.H. town. I have in my home three shotguns, two muzzleloaders, two .22 rifles, a 30.06, a 30.30, and a .357. myself and my father keep the rifles locked tight in a safe to be used only for hunting and target shooting, and he keeps the handgun hidden under his bed. We have both taken safety courses, and follow all the rules of safe gun-handling when we take them out.
We use all of these weapons, and we use them in a safe and secure way. I don't think that anybody needs to keep twelve types of pistol in their house, or that you should lock and load every time you go outside just in case something "might" happen, but nor do I think that they all need to be thrown in the trash. Hunting rifles are one thing, but a wall full of AK-47's is going just a wee bit too far.
To sum up, I feel that laws need to be a bit more strict about who can own a gun and what for, along with better classes on how to handle them. But after that, it's up to the people that own them.
Do I think guns are a good thing to have in the house? Depends. I live in a small N.H. town. I have in my home three shotguns, two muzzleloaders, two .22 rifles, a 30.06, a 30.30, and a .357. myself and my father keep the rifles locked tight in a safe to be used only for hunting and target shooting, and he keeps the handgun hidden under his bed. We have both taken safety courses, and follow all the rules of safe gun-handling when we take them out.
We use all of these weapons, and we use them in a safe and secure way. I don't think that anybody needs to keep twelve types of pistol in their house, or that you should lock and load every time you go outside just in case something "might" happen, but nor do I think that they all need to be thrown in the trash. Hunting rifles are one thing, but a wall full of AK-47's is going just a wee bit too far.
To sum up, I feel that laws need to be a bit more strict about who can own a gun and what for, along with better classes on how to handle them. But after that, it's up to the people that own them.
DohTrilby said:
I knew that it was carry, just wasnt thinking it straight
Regardless, if you dont fear someone, then you dont care if they are armed or not, so your original statement is flawed
The fact that they can be used by the weak is a point in their favor, not against them. I dont know about your criminals but ours are bullies, they dont attack strapping young fellows capable of defending themselves (at least not without overwhelming numbers, or for gang reasons) they attack the physically helpless. you have effectively legislated every law abiding person in your nation to being exactly what they appear, only your increased police powers and welfare state have prevented your nation from descending into a criminals paradise.
While I also do not hunt with a handgun, mostly because I dont fully trust my aim with one yet, I refuse to prevent others from doing so if they feel they are up to it. Some use it as a challenge, a handgun forces/allows them to sneak closer to the animal.Trilby said:
When I hunt I am only about meat on the table.
Very few handguns can be classified as hunting only, its a blurry line.
We have rattlesnakes here, big suckers and copperheads and more, a shotgun is the best way to deal with them, but its cumbersome on hikes.
Thats not an answer, there is nothing about presenting that theory which prevents finding and solving the real problems, yet the common scapegoat becomes firearm availability.Trilby said:
Without a gun they would be school bombings instead, and possibly kill more.Trilby said:
The problem with testing mental stability is
A: definition, a higher bar creates a backdoor ban
B: Becomes registration, which we oppose as a precursor to confiscation
C: the american theory of rights states that you have a right until due course of law takes it away. Asking someone to prove their sanity before allowing them to exercise a "right" violates that right. There is case law to support this if you are interested.
Our rights system is less fluid that that of the UK (so I have been told) in the US we have innate rights against the state which cannot be taken away, only violated.
We have ranges here in kansas, but they are unmanned rural affairs in general.Trilby said:
Membership gets you the combination to the gate lock and use of the range and targets.
I never joined
Why?
I live on 65 hectares of pastureland, why should I be forced to go to a range when I can safely fire my own personal handgun in my backyard. (I go further than the backyard, just being figurative)
A gun is a device that throws rocks really fast, period, it may be designed to throw them really accurately, or reliably or whatever, but thats it.Trilby said:
My handguns have never killed anyone, nor shot at anyone, perhaps I am using them wrong.
Scalpels are designed to cut human flesh.Trilby said:
dental drills are designed to carve human teeth.
Fortunately we all realize that those are tools, valuable tools with important legal uses even if their design is can be phrased in a sinister manner.
Edit: fixed quote mistake
I am testing a theory, could you help me?qbert4ever said:
Please describe, without searching the internet or contacting any other sources, what gun laws you think are currently in place. or, since your answer was more specific, who you feel currently can buy guns, the process and what you think should be changed about this.
To reiterate, please tell me your perception of current laws or processes before you tell me what you want them to be. This is about perception, there is no wrong answer.
I have seen polls which state that the majority of americans feel gun control should be stricter, but since few americans actually know what current gun control does I find it difficult to take such polls seriously. I think that instead of reality they rely on the perception supplied by the news, which is a skewed one.
In general I consider guns a right, and that it is not up to the people practicing a right to prove that they are capable of doing so responsibly, that is an impossible standard for rights to meet. There is case law to support this.
Mathurin:
Currently, I believe the law, at least in Indiana, is that any citizen is eligible to purchase a firearm. However, there is a mandatory three day (guessing) waiting period, or cooling off period, before you can take ownership of the gun. That does not apply to people that have a concealed weapons permit, which, if you have one, allows you to walk out with the firearm on the day of purchase. If you are caught committing any crime while in possession of a firearm you will lose your concealed weapons permit. It can be DUI, battery, whatever. There are restrictions on fully automatic weapons, but those can still be purchased by obtaining a federal tag, which can get expensive. If i'm not mistaken, the Brady Bill expired, so a lot of restrictions have been dropped. If you have a concealed weapons permit, you are allowed to carry that weapon anywhere you wish, excluding government buildings, schools, banks, and those places that have posted signs not allowing firearms on the property. If you do not have a permit, you are not allowed to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle.
I see nothing wrong with the laws in place now. What our friends across the pond do not understand is that the freedom we enjoy in the U.S. comes with a certain amount of risk. Granted, that risk can sometimes take a heavy toll, however, to sacrifice our freedom to eliminate that risk would be to turn our backs on our Constitution.
To those that think banning guns would eliminate gun crime, google "the Iron River", and you will learn about the ridiculous amount of illegal gun trafficking that travels up from mexico throughout our great states.
Currently, I believe the law, at least in Indiana, is that any citizen is eligible to purchase a firearm. However, there is a mandatory three day (guessing) waiting period, or cooling off period, before you can take ownership of the gun. That does not apply to people that have a concealed weapons permit, which, if you have one, allows you to walk out with the firearm on the day of purchase. If you are caught committing any crime while in possession of a firearm you will lose your concealed weapons permit. It can be DUI, battery, whatever. There are restrictions on fully automatic weapons, but those can still be purchased by obtaining a federal tag, which can get expensive. If i'm not mistaken, the Brady Bill expired, so a lot of restrictions have been dropped. If you have a concealed weapons permit, you are allowed to carry that weapon anywhere you wish, excluding government buildings, schools, banks, and those places that have posted signs not allowing firearms on the property. If you do not have a permit, you are not allowed to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle.
I see nothing wrong with the laws in place now. What our friends across the pond do not understand is that the freedom we enjoy in the U.S. comes with a certain amount of risk. Granted, that risk can sometimes take a heavy toll, however, to sacrifice our freedom to eliminate that risk would be to turn our backs on our Constitution.
To those that think banning guns would eliminate gun crime, google "the Iron River", and you will learn about the ridiculous amount of illegal gun trafficking that travels up from mexico throughout our great states.
Guns are great for responsible citizens to own, not because they kill people, but because they can deter crime by their very presence. If a mugger attempts to attack you with a knife and you pull out a gun, it would be a very stupid mugger who continues his attack. Guns are like small-scale atom bombs in that the mere presence of a gun can deter crime.
Case in point: If you see a cop wearing a gun, you will (probably, at least in America) treat that guy with more respect and healthy fear than you would an off-duty cop who doesn't have one.
Oh, and the two posts above me are awesome. I'd quote them, but why bother? I mean, they're right there...
And giving responsible citizens the right to carry concealed weapons is just smart. Criminals aren't going to obey CC laws, these laws only help the prudent, cautious person. And CC isn't like having a loose gun lying where a child can find it. No, that gun is on your person constantly, and it is ILLEGAL to reveal your firearm in most public places. In other words, that gun's only coming out at a time when breaking the law would be a less-scary choice than the alternative.
Case in point: If you see a cop wearing a gun, you will (probably, at least in America) treat that guy with more respect and healthy fear than you would an off-duty cop who doesn't have one.
Oh, and the two posts above me are awesome. I'd quote them, but why bother? I mean, they're right there...
And giving responsible citizens the right to carry concealed weapons is just smart. Criminals aren't going to obey CC laws, these laws only help the prudent, cautious person. And CC isn't like having a loose gun lying where a child can find it. No, that gun is on your person constantly, and it is ILLEGAL to reveal your firearm in most public places. In other words, that gun's only coming out at a time when breaking the law would be a less-scary choice than the alternative.
There are 3 major problems with Gun control in the United StatesSkinnySlim said:
1) Mexico
2) The United states if BIG, I mean REALLY BIG! 3,717,812.82 sq. mile ( 9,629,091 sq. km. )
Its uncommon, but there are several cases in Urban areas (were most firearms are illegal to most people) where people are killed with AK47s which is in strictly illegal, and banishing a AK47 along with the several federal banned guns will likely have you shot on site by Law Enforcement. Why do people get shot by AK47 which is illegal? Because we have a 1,969 miles (3,169 km) thin strip of land that separates us from a place which doesn't have the regulation to the point where their water isn't drinkable.
Due to its vast size there no way to micromanage traffic illegal goods in the United States. Drugs like Heroine is highly illegal in the United States but it is still easily obtained and is something that does not originate in the Country. If we can't control flow illegal drugs how are we going to control the movement of weapons.
Considering that most people who have a gun for the reason of self defense end up having that weapon hurt someone in the house hold I'd say no, but if said people were properly trained and screened to handle it then I'd say, go for it. As crazy as it sounds the most effective security system is a german shepherd and a firearm. (mostly kidding, mostly)
Voted no, but i mean no but. It all depends upon where you live, if you live like i do, in a relatively urban environment then i see no need, as it's likely to get taken off you by criminals, or you're going to be shot first if they think that every house is going to have a firearm bearing occupant. It's not going to put them off, especially if the reason they're raiding your home is to pay for an addiction.
However, if you're in the wilderness, in a country where large animals like the occasional human to supplement their diet, then it's a very sensible idea to carry around a firearm if you're going into the woods. In fact, i'd consider getting on if i lived out in the sticks of a country with bears.
But not here, in suburban Britian, nor do i see the reason for one in an American city.
However, if you're in the wilderness, in a country where large animals like the occasional human to supplement their diet, then it's a very sensible idea to carry around a firearm if you're going into the woods. In fact, i'd consider getting on if i lived out in the sticks of a country with bears.
But not here, in suburban Britian, nor do i see the reason for one in an American city.
I'm English so this will probably come as no surprise to many that I'm against guns in the house, ironically enough we have many but none of them have been used in months/years (and also some have been sold).
I am writing this just to clarify that in the American Constitution it clearly states that an American citizen has the right to bear arms as part of a town militia. So in my view unless there is an imminent need for a town militia there is no need for a gun in the house. Obviously there are still going to be guns in the household but I would like to either see a huge restriction of guns in the U.S. i.e. in a system like we have in England or something similar.
One last thing, and this is not against anybody in particular, if you feel that to walk to the post office for example, you need a gun by your side at all times then there must be something badly wrong.
I am writing this just to clarify that in the American Constitution it clearly states that an American citizen has the right to bear arms as part of a town militia. So in my view unless there is an imminent need for a town militia there is no need for a gun in the house. Obviously there are still going to be guns in the household but I would like to either see a huge restriction of guns in the U.S. i.e. in a system like we have in England or something similar.
One last thing, and this is not against anybody in particular, if you feel that to walk to the post office for example, you need a gun by your side at all times then there must be something badly wrong.