Poll: What is your stance on Guns?
- Thread starter genericusername64
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Pistols are easier to conceal than rifles, which makes them more dangerous in non-combat situations. Just so you know.
I'm from NC, and I like to shoot guns. I know how to use them, which means I'm less likely of accidentally blowing someone's head off.
And from a logical standpoint, it is a very dumb idea to outlaw guns. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, as the old saying goes. I imagine it would result in a "War on Guns" which would be roughly as effective as the current War on Drugs: Not at all.
I'm from NC, and I like to shoot guns. I know how to use them, which means I'm less likely of accidentally blowing someone's head off.
And from a logical standpoint, it is a very dumb idea to outlaw guns. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, as the old saying goes. I imagine it would result in a "War on Guns" which would be roughly as effective as the current War on Drugs: Not at all.
Farmers need guns occasionally to kill foxes and to put down animals. Police units need guns for special circumstances.
THAT'S IT.
Guns are not weapons of self defense. They are tools to be utilized by persons under specific conditions warranted by the needs of professions. The law is not ours to enforce. If a mugger tries to mug you and is ARMED, give them your stuff. No one needs to die. If a burglar is in your house, lock your door and call the cops or take the nearest escape route then call the cops. You may say you are trained, bla bla bla. You may very well be but you do not have the right to choose who lives and dies.
And any of you 2nd Amendment thumpers? Grow up. I think the bearing of arms is pretty obviously in reference to having the tools to form a militia against the oppression of governments seeking to clamp down on the foundling new republic. That time is long over Rambo.
THAT'S IT.
Guns are not weapons of self defense. They are tools to be utilized by persons under specific conditions warranted by the needs of professions. The law is not ours to enforce. If a mugger tries to mug you and is ARMED, give them your stuff. No one needs to die. If a burglar is in your house, lock your door and call the cops or take the nearest escape route then call the cops. You may say you are trained, bla bla bla. You may very well be but you do not have the right to choose who lives and dies.
And any of you 2nd Amendment thumpers? Grow up. I think the bearing of arms is pretty obviously in reference to having the tools to form a militia against the oppression of governments seeking to clamp down on the foundling new republic. That time is long over Rambo.
Limit civilian use to those who need them as tools; cops and farmers.
Limited wildlife usage (Hunting rifles/Whatever you use to shoot a bear who is going to eat you.)
Anybody who thinks they need an AR-15 to go hunting or for protection is nuts. Go to a gun range and leave your AK-47 locked up there.
This is basically the regime we have in Australia (Apart from bears and no assault rifles at the gun club :-( ) and it works pretty well. Problem is in the US you have so many guns that any attempt to control them is realistically futile. Then again you get less serious assault in America. Wonder why?
Limited wildlife usage (Hunting rifles/Whatever you use to shoot a bear who is going to eat you.)
Anybody who thinks they need an AR-15 to go hunting or for protection is nuts. Go to a gun range and leave your AK-47 locked up there.
This is basically the regime we have in Australia (Apart from bears and no assault rifles at the gun club :-( ) and it works pretty well. Problem is in the US you have so many guns that any attempt to control them is realistically futile. Then again you get less serious assault in America. Wonder why?
I don't have a problem with people owning some guns, such as small handguns for self defense and maybe a hunting rifle for hunting, but some people take it to insane, frightening levels. No one needs their own personal armory.
I don't support war or general killing of people by people. As such, I find the very existence of guns that are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible pretty terrible. Though, I can understand the "collectors" appeal of these sorts of guns. If you just like shooting them at paper targets in a safe area, or appreciate their aesthetics, I have no problems with that.
Sporting guns... rifles used for hunting and the like, I'm fine with. If you want to kill a deer or something and eat it, go nuts. (I personally don't care for the idea of hunting for a trophy, though). If you're in the wilderness a lot and want some means of defending yourself against a bear or a cougar, I see nothing wrong with carrying a gun for that purpose.
Hand guns... I suppose if you think they will help you defend yourself, I don't really mind. I don't think a gun as self defence is necessarily a great idea. But, I'm willing to be flexible here. And, again, I can understand the hobbyist appeal.
I don't really care about guns myself. I don't hunt at all, and it would take very, very extreme circumstances for me to even consider turning a gun on a living creature, let alone a human. But, I don't think responsible, well-adjusted, mentally sound people should be denied them. Though, I think gun ownership shouldn't be a right. I think it should be HEAVILY regulated. It should be earned. I think you should have to prove yourself extremely competent in terms of safety, judgement, ethics, and mental stability. I don't think that system exists in North America.
I live in Canada. I actually have a firearms license that enables me to buy rifles or shotguns. You know what it took to get that license? Maybe 100 bucks total, and a half day course. I now have a vague understanding of how to handle a gun. I've shot a pistol and a rifle on one occasion in my life (completely separate from the course). I don't think I'm remotely qualified to own a gun. And yet, legally, I can. I think that process was frighteningly easy, considering I can now legally own something that can easily kill loads of people.
Sporting guns... rifles used for hunting and the like, I'm fine with. If you want to kill a deer or something and eat it, go nuts. (I personally don't care for the idea of hunting for a trophy, though). If you're in the wilderness a lot and want some means of defending yourself against a bear or a cougar, I see nothing wrong with carrying a gun for that purpose.
Hand guns... I suppose if you think they will help you defend yourself, I don't really mind. I don't think a gun as self defence is necessarily a great idea. But, I'm willing to be flexible here. And, again, I can understand the hobbyist appeal.
I don't really care about guns myself. I don't hunt at all, and it would take very, very extreme circumstances for me to even consider turning a gun on a living creature, let alone a human. But, I don't think responsible, well-adjusted, mentally sound people should be denied them. Though, I think gun ownership shouldn't be a right. I think it should be HEAVILY regulated. It should be earned. I think you should have to prove yourself extremely competent in terms of safety, judgement, ethics, and mental stability. I don't think that system exists in North America.
I live in Canada. I actually have a firearms license that enables me to buy rifles or shotguns. You know what it took to get that license? Maybe 100 bucks total, and a half day course. I now have a vague understanding of how to handle a gun. I've shot a pistol and a rifle on one occasion in my life (completely separate from the course). I don't think I'm remotely qualified to own a gun. And yet, legally, I can. I think that process was frighteningly easy, considering I can now legally own something that can easily kill loads of people.
I don't mind anyone owning a gun so long as they're willing to submit to a background check and gain the necessary training.
Then again, I'm a suburban white kid who's never really seen violence, so I don't think my opinion is very valuable.
Then again, I'm a suburban white kid who's never really seen violence, so I don't think my opinion is very valuable.
My stance on guns? Well, let's see. Left foot in front of right, both hands on the handle, thumb on the hammer, fight index finger on the trigger, pointed at a shooting range target.
My problem with guns is that too many people think they are entitled to the biggest, best guns, for their "protection"
Hunting rifles are fine and dandy, but the average civilian doesn't need a fully automatic, drum fed, .50 cal machine gun, with FMJ hollow point rounds.
Like all things, I think dealing with absolutes is stupid, so I'll just say that people should be allowed to have any gun they want within reason, but require registration and regulation in place so they can't accidentally go gun-happy when they break up with their girlfriend.
Hunting rifles are fine and dandy, but the average civilian doesn't need a fully automatic, drum fed, .50 cal machine gun, with FMJ hollow point rounds.
Like all things, I think dealing with absolutes is stupid, so I'll just say that people should be allowed to have any gun they want within reason, but require registration and regulation in place so they can't accidentally go gun-happy when they break up with their girlfriend.
I was wondering if that would be your answer. I am sure that many people feel as you do. However, since I live in a country where extreme violence is quite prevalent and it has touched my life more than once, I'd say your point of view is good in a Philosophy class, but a poor choice when we mix the human factor.Agayek said:
Choice is a common scapegoat in this kind of debate. It creates such a gray zone that it instantly makes any further discussion moot. I believe that there are higher instances than choice, and a human life is one of them.
Also, comparing walking on the street with providing access to lethal weapons to everyone is not exactly the fairest comparison, right? Cars can kill, a flower pot can kill. However, this is not their primary function, and a certain inherent misuse is a given towards pretty much anything. Guns have no other function than killing. And a gun is a terrible deterrent in many situations. If you draw a gun, you must be ready to use it.
I can see this kind of manifestation you are proposing apply for civil rights, basic freedoms, freedom of speech, at al. However, I would never put gun ownership in the same level as them. I think your heart is in the right place, but there must be different values for different concepts.
I hate guns, I would not like to see them made legal in my country. (England)
My reasoning is that it would be like opening Pandora's box, once it is allowed it can never really be disallowed in future because whilst law-abiding people would hand over their weapons any criminals would not do so and as such it would leave good people defenseless.
My reasoning is that it would be like opening Pandora's box, once it is allowed it can never really be disallowed in future because whilst law-abiding people would hand over their weapons any criminals would not do so and as such it would leave good people defenseless.
You have 22k posts, surely by now you realise how useless the search bar on this website is, I once saw someone make a repost of a thread I had done a year previously with a near identical title and yet when I searched for my original thread it proved impossible to discover.Souplex said: