Poll: is he ignorant or does he have a point

[kickyourass]

While I'm certainly not some anti-fire arms activist, if you're of age you should be able to have as many guns as you want (As long as they're legal of course), but it's their house so I guess there's not much you can do if they say no. I don't see a problem with getting a rifle just for target shooting or something, but some people see things like "Owning a gun makes you more likely to get shot" and think people actively go around and shoot at other people who own guns.

 

[Sam17]

Get an airsoft gun instead, not exactly the same but helluva safer alternative

 

[Bananajoy]

If you want one "just for fun" then it seems kind of pointless to get one. Save up to get more gaems instead. Or an airsoft/paintball gun. If you go with an airsoft gun, then you would be able to play with your friends and stuff and it would be more fun.

 

[bubba145]

the only thing is your a little young to own one. but no i think you should get one.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

Yes, because Barack Obama is such an iron-fisted brute, what with his Health Care and his diplomacy.

Oh, drats. My mistake. I didn't notice I put down "this week" or "this year" in my response. I ask your forgiveness. *reads my response again* Oh wait, I didn't imply that THIS ADMINISTRATION would be the one to step over the line. Well, you know what happens when you assume....you make an idiot outta yerself.

Well, you're assuming that people in a Democratic country would elect a Dictator who has no empathy or sympathy. And you're assuming that civilians with pistols and shotguns could overthrow a Military State. I don't know what fantasy world that is, but it's clearly not this one.

 

[xDarc]

What a bunch of pansies the world is raising today. We grew up with guns in my house, all kinds. Dad even had an uzi. To this day, none of us has been harmed as a result of bad cosmic joojoo.

It's been about 30 years.

The world only changes because you believe all the crap special interest groups shove down your throats.

For me, guns still aren't killing any of my family members in a horrific hypothetical accident. Know why? Because it's all bullshit.

It's ok. All these anti-freedom sentiments that are leftover crap from movements that strengthened with 90's prosperity... anti-guns anti-smoking anti-fun, etc... They're all going to go away with the collapse of the global economy.

Without a prosperous people with nothing to really be afraid of, a people that invented fears and crusades against cancer causing cell phones and other such ridiculousness... their advances will go away with prosperity.

90's babies are the worst. It's like they never had a chance for independent thought. And then watching all the parents freaking out when you're like 10-12 on 9/11. I wonder what that must have been like.

When I was 10-12, the LA Riots were the scariest thing facing the nation.

A generation raised in fear grows up to be afraid of everything. Go figure.

 

[TwiggyDwyer]

I believe he is wrong
If you like shooting guns
For fun and spot there shouldn't be anything wrong with it.

 

[not_the_dm]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

Agreed. If they say no than that's that. Ignorance doesn't come into it.

 

[Mandal0re]

I think if your 16 and want a gun and your mum says no-thats fair enough.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

Yes, because Barack Obama is such an iron-fisted brute, what with his Health Care and his diplomacy.

Oh, drats. My mistake. I didn't notice I put down "this week" or "this year" in my response. I ask your forgiveness. *reads my response again* Oh wait, I didn't imply that THIS ADMINISTRATION would be the one to step over the line. Well, you know what happens when you assume....you make an idiot outta yerself.

Well, you're assuming that people in a Democratic country would elect a Dictator who has no empathy or sympathy. And you're assuming that civilians with pistols and shotguns could overthrow a Military State. I don't know what fantasy world that is, but it's clearly not this one.

Agree with you there. I don't care how many guns civilians have, they are never going to be able to overthrow a well trained military, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

Yes, because Barack Obama is such an iron-fisted brute, what with his Health Care and his diplomacy.

Oh, drats. My mistake. I didn't notice I put down "this week" or "this year" in my response. I ask your forgiveness. *reads my response again* Oh wait, I didn't imply that THIS ADMINISTRATION would be the one to step over the line. Well, you know what happens when you assume....you make an idiot outta yerself.

Well, you're assuming that people in a Democratic country would elect a Dictator who has no empathy or sympathy. And you're assuming that civilians with pistols and shotguns could overthrow a Military State. I don't know what fantasy world that is, but it's clearly not this one.

You don't elect a dictator. You elect a politician and they become a dictator.

And if the vast majority of the American public picked up simple fire arms they would over power the military.

But the point is that we must be willing to stand up to our government IF it gets to the point where our freedoms are being trampled on. IF. Just as many probably thought England would never become so tyrannical.

 

[micky]

"no good would come from that thing"

Okay, let me ask you this, what good came come from it?

its better than being cooped up in the house playing video games and its a way to meet people or bond. it teaches responsibility and is a great stress reliever. after having a rough day shooting some rounds down range can make your day good.

there are other ways to relieve stress and meet other people/bond with them.
It's a bit of a hard situation. on one hand, guns are very dangerous, even with proper care (they're still guns you know). then again, if you ARE a raging psychotic, you could just as well use a big kitchen knife.
can't you like, rent a gun at the shooting range? like renting ice skates on the icecapade. that'd seem like an acceptable solution, you can still shoot targets (in a safer environment if you ask me), and you don't have the gun around at home where it could potentially land in the wrong hands.

think of it this way, why do you think people buy there own bowling balls or ice skates and not just rent them. im not going to be shooting mice in my yard im going to use it only at a range

the reason I'd buy ice skates or bowling balls is because i go skating or bowling a lot. and with a lot i mean more then once a week. not even on average, but more like bare minimum.
i still don't see why you'd need one at home if you only use it at the range though =\
mind you, i'm not even sure if shooting ranges rent guns, but it seems plausible. do you know?

now that i think of it, no you cant rent a gun, it sounds quite crazy actually because the person can just run off. so to all of you telling me to rent a gun its not possible

so you can't rent a gun in the country where some banks give a gun with a backaccount? Oo america will always be a weird place =S

that is weird. where can you do that?

 

[bobknowsall]

Are you a farmer, reservist, or law enforcement officer? If not, you don't need a gun.

Guns are bloody dangerous things, only to be entrusted to people who won't use them foolishly or rashly. Speaking as an older teenager, I'm just going to say this: Teenagers and guns are a bad combination. We lack the necessary responsibility and patience to use them safely, and accidents with guns have a tendency to be rather fatal.

In other words, he's not being ignorant. He's being smart. No good ever comes from civilian gun ownership.

 

[micky]

although i am an American and a good portion of people here probably think because of that i have a basement full of guns, both my arms are bazookas, and my dicks a gatling gun. the truth is i don't own a gun and know little about them other than the obvious, that they project bits of metal at a high velocity and are meant for killing things. still i think you should at least wait until your eighteen. if you just want to have some dangerous stuff around try getting some throwing knives or an untrustworthy friend. hey, i could be your untrustworthy friend.

i got plenty of those, one lit a tree on fire! if i go get a gun im going to keep it away from him.

 

[Deltron]

I don't think anyone who believes people with different opinions are ignorant should have a gun

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

Yes, because Barack Obama is such an iron-fisted brute, what with his Health Care and his diplomacy.

Oh, drats. My mistake. I didn't notice I put down "this week" or "this year" in my response. I ask your forgiveness. *reads my response again* Oh wait, I didn't imply that THIS ADMINISTRATION would be the one to step over the line. Well, you know what happens when you assume....you make an idiot outta yerself.

Well, you're assuming that people in a Democratic country would elect a Dictator who has no empathy or sympathy. And you're assuming that civilians with pistols and shotguns could overthrow a Military State. I don't know what fantasy world that is, but it's clearly not this one.

You don't elect a dictator. You elect a politician and they become a dictator.

And if the vast majority of the American public picked up simple fire arms they would over power the military.

But the point is that we must be willing to stand up to our government IF it gets to the point where our freedoms are being trampled on. IF. Just as many probably thought England would never become so tyrannical.

It just wouldn't be practical to become Dictator of America. They're just so gung-ho on Democracy that you wouldn't be able to establish a proper order. Let alone stop the UN forces from booting you out.

Plus, no they couldn't. The United States military is so well-equipped they would be able to put down any attempted revolution within days. It's pretty damn hard to be Fidel Castro when the other side has air support and you don't.

And furthermore, any Autocracy, regardless of how it is governed, is tyrannical. Tyrant is just another word for a Revolutionary leader. George Washington was a tyrant, as were Kim IlSung and Rhee Seungman . But by modern definition, the British Empire was always Tyrannical, as were all Monarchies.

And anyways, how many lives is your preparedness for a fictitious conflict worth? Do you even know the gun death statistics in America? Your argument is thinner than the line between freedom and irresponsibility.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

Yes, because Barack Obama is such an iron-fisted brute, what with his Health Care and his diplomacy.

Oh, drats. My mistake. I didn't notice I put down "this week" or "this year" in my response. I ask your forgiveness. *reads my response again* Oh wait, I didn't imply that THIS ADMINISTRATION would be the one to step over the line. Well, you know what happens when you assume....you make an idiot outta yerself.

Well, you're assuming that people in a Democratic country would elect a Dictator who has no empathy or sympathy. And you're assuming that civilians with pistols and shotguns could overthrow a Military State. I don't know what fantasy world that is, but it's clearly not this one.

You don't elect a dictator. You elect a politician and they become a dictator.

And if the vast majority of the American public picked up simple fire arms they would over power the military.

But the point is that we must be willing to stand up to our government IF it gets to the point where our freedoms are being trampled on. IF. Just as many probably thought England would never become so tyrannical.

It just wouldn't be practical to become Dictator of America. They're just so gung-ho on Democracy that you wouldn't be able to establish a proper order. Let alone stop the UN forces from booting you out.

Plus, no they couldn't. The United States military is so well-equipped they would be able to put down any attempted revolution within days. It's pretty damn hard to be Fidel Castro when the other side has air support and you don't.

And furthermore, any Autocracy, regardless of how it is governed, is tyrannical. Tyrant is just another word for a Revolutionary leader. George Washington was a tyrant, as were Kim IlSung and Rhee Seungman . But by modern definition, the British Empire was always Tyrannical, as were all Monarchies.

And anyways, how many lives is your preparedness for a fictitious conflict worth? Do you even know the gun death statistics in America? Your argument is thinner than the line between freedom and irresponsibility.

Not if the military joins in with the people. It's hard to convince a man to shoot his own mother. Certainly it wouldn't be practical to be dictator, but it could happen. The main point being that if we don't have guns then we have less of a voice to politicians.

How many lives are worth giving for this fictitious conflict? Well, that's a pointless question. I'd say every consentual life is worth giving for freedom.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

You could compromise and go paintballing every other week...