Poll: What is your stance on Guns?

[Simalacrum]

Britain, really, should be a shining example of why guns really aren't necessary for self-defence, and actually makes situations worse most of the time.

Gun crime here is some of the lowest on the planet. Gangs don't arm themselves with guns, because cops don't. Neither side escalates the 'arms race', so to speak, because both sides are safer that way. Sure, whenever some lone nut decides to pick up an illegally-attained weapon and go crazy, it kinda sucks, but such incidences are ridiculously rare and the police here are very wary of any warnings of a gun. A single weapon even sighted generally results in MP5-armed uber police being called in before so much as a trigger is pulled.

Heck, we're even tight on knife-weilding here, which is a significantly bigger problem than guns.

Point is, while gun culture would be virtually impossible to remove from countries like the US, I do think that country would be better off if people didn't have guns. Best way to stop people killing each other is to remove the tools to kill from both sides.

 

[Yechezkel]

Yeah, I'm for guns and even I don't get this. The US military has stealth fighters, self-propelled artillery, and trucks that shoot pain [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Active_Denial_System]. What exactly does anybody think their made-before-1985 machine pistol is going to do against that?

I know... the idea that a small band of poorly-armed rebels could give our advanced supermilitary trouble is laughable. Can you imagine a group of desert nomads with fifty year old rifles and improvised weapons made out of spare parts against our forces? HAH! We'd tear through them in HOURS!



... oh.

Trillion dollars and counting, eh?


...

Huh.


I'm sure a rebellion within the United States would be different, though. We all know they'd just roll tanks into downtown New York and carpet bomb entire cities to weed out a few rebels. (Civilians be damned... we're at WAR!) And our military would unquestioningly follow orders to fire upon their own countrymen. Because that's what they're trained to do. (Yeah, so they all take an oath to uphold the Constitution... but we all know that just means they're point-and-click troops with heavy weapons.)

How much, precisely, do you know about urban warfare? Mountain survival? Could you even feed yourself for a month without access to your local supermarket? Third world police-action is extremely difficult because important resources such as gasoline and food are largely unregulated and widely available. Further, the lack of infrastructure in areas of these countries makes it difficult for support vehicles upon which modern infantry rely to traverse them while simultaneously allowing informed civilian-fighters to move around with ease. How many times have you heard of civilian-fighters defeating foreign troops within industrialised cities? The answer is never, or very very rarely. It is, perhaps ironically, the lack of modernisation which makes guerrilla operations such as those staged in Afghanistan possible. The first world lacks these qualities and thus suppression therein becomes much, much easier. In fact, it becomes a simple matter of denying the rebels access to key infrastructure points without which the vast majority will have no idea how to subsist. The military wouldn't have to carpet bomb anyone and in all likelihood they wouldn't even have to fire a shot. All they have to do is park an Active Denial System in front of all gas stations and supermarkets, requiring government-issued identification for their use. It would be significantly less difficult than you think to convince soldiers to engage dissidents; this has happened before and will certainly happen again. Certainly the majority of the country would not be both willing and capable of active resistance; dissidents would be a vast minority, thus making it a simple task to propagate sentiment amongst both the military and the people painting them as enemies of the common good.

So yeah. It would be a little different.

 

[Yechezkel]

The kill potential of firearms is assessed under this theory to be so much greater than that of other weapons that the gun-unequipped subjects will be forced into compliance by the simple fact that there is no way they could possibly succeed in resisting police equipped with guns.

Further, criminals will always have guns. Whether you're for or against gun control, you must realise that some criminals will always have the capacity to acquire guns. Thusly, it makes sense for at least some segment of the police force to be equipped with similar force so that the above scenario does not work in reverse.

To extrapolate, you admit that the unarmed party is powerless, that criminals will always find ways to arm themselves regardless, but still perfectly OK with civilians being the ones that could not possibly succeed in resisting against armed criminals?

You wouldn't possibly live in a white, middle-class, gated community surrounded by men with guns and nice uniforms to protect you, would you?

Uh. I'm pro-firearms, for among others the exact reasons you just mentioned. I'm just explaining the theory to you, since you didn't seem to understand it.

 

[Jodah]

You didn't put an option between small pistols and everything the Military has. You can actually get almost anything the military has if you have the cash to afford it and the... I can't remember exactly what all you need, but I do know it requires an extensive background check. I'm fairly happy with the way it is now myself. If people want to kill each other, they don't need a gun. Guns are noisier than knives, and unless you dig the bullets out of the person, you leave evidence in the person you shot. This makes it slightly easier to track the criminals.

And thus ends the knowledge spewing of the guy who's done little research and is theorycrafting.

This. There is a difference between allowing people to own AK47s and bazookas. The first is acceptable, the second...not so much.

 

[Jenitals]

My neighbours would agree to the leading answer to this poll as long as I live next door to them :/

 

[JaceArveduin]

You didn't put an option between small pistols and everything the Military has. You can actually get almost anything the military has if you have the cash to afford it and the... I can't remember exactly what all you need, but I do know it requires an extensive background check. I'm fairly happy with the way it is now myself. If people want to kill each other, they don't need a gun. Guns are noisier than knives, and unless you dig the bullets out of the person, you leave evidence in the person you shot. This makes it slightly easier to track the criminals.

And thus ends the knowledge spewing of the guy who's done little research and is theorycrafting.

This. There is a difference between allowing people to own AK47s and bazookas. The first is acceptable, the second...not so much.

You actually can own a law (rocket launcher) though I'm pretty sure the ammo is limited and expensive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIIw8ZTPJio

 

[Jodah]

You didn't put an option between small pistols and everything the Military has. You can actually get almost anything the military has if you have the cash to afford it and the... I can't remember exactly what all you need, but I do know it requires an extensive background check. I'm fairly happy with the way it is now myself. If people want to kill each other, they don't need a gun. Guns are noisier than knives, and unless you dig the bullets out of the person, you leave evidence in the person you shot. This makes it slightly easier to track the criminals.

And thus ends the knowledge spewing of the guy who's done little research and is theorycrafting.

This. There is a difference between allowing people to own AK47s and bazookas. The first is acceptable, the second...not so much.

You actually can own a law (rocket launcher) though I'm pretty sure the ammo is limited and expensive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIIw8ZTPJio

Ahh, I live in New York State which has some of the worst gun and self defense laws I know of. Its illegal to have a taser, hell until a year ago it was illegal to have mace. And that "Assault rifle" ban that Clinton put in in the 90s? Yeah, it was incorporated into the New York laws. I have to spend four times the money to get a 15 round magazine for my Glock than someone who lives three miles away (in Pennsylvania) because I have to get a "pre-ban" one.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I didn't like the poll making you chose between military grade fireamrs and just pistols. I believe that people should be allowed to own non-military grade firearms (shotguns, handguns, ritles, etc.).

 

[JaceArveduin]

snip

Ouch, that hurts, my homestate is OK, which means almost every family has at least a small collection guns, even if their just 30.30s used for hunting. My mom and stepdad have...
mom (inherited from grandfater)can only describe some, can't remember names) a 12 gauge breach loader, a SKS battle rifle, some other battle rifle that I don't know the name of, a 20 guage pump action, and a 30.30
Stepdad: M4A1 semi auto assault rifle with acog and 3 option ligh/laser (light, laser, light and laser) with the button being on the foregrip, a .308 rifle, and a .45 pistol (don't know the brands, I've only seen the .308 once and the pistol is generally out of sight)

 

[Jodah]

snip

Ouch, that hurts, my homestate is OK, which means almost every family has at least a small collection guns, even if their just 30.30s used for hunting. My mom and stepdad have...
mom (inherited from grandfater)can only describe some, can't remember names) a 12 gauge breach loader, a SKS battle rifle, some other battle rifle that I don't know the name of, a 20 guage pump action, and a 30.30
Stepdad: M4A1 semi auto assault rifle with acog and 3 option ligh/laser (light, laser, light and laser) with the button being on the foregrip, a .308 rifle, and a .45 pistol (don't know the brands, I've only seen the .308 once and the pistol is generally out of sight)

Yeah, I have quite a collection. Couple 30-06, couple SKS, couple twelve gauge shotguns, half a dozen .22s. Even have a single shot 10 gauge...that thing will open a door if I ever need it

Thats just long-guns too. Handguns I have a Kahr CW9 (nice little easily concealed handgun, with a crimson trace laser sight), Glock 22 (.40 cal), Ruger .357 Revolver, and a Ruger .22 (pre-mark I).

Its just a pain for me, a 100% law abiding citizen who is studying to enforce said laws, to have to work around them while the crack dealer down the road just gets what he wants.

I do support some of the New York laws. Requiring a Pistol Permit to legally own a handgun, for example (New York is also a CC only state, they don't want your handguns visible.)

 

[Raregolddragon]

??Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.??
? Mahatma Ghandi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446

??Four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants.??
? Unknown

"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

- Adolf Hitler

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

- Adolf Hitler

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
-Joseph Stalin

History it seems about time for another repeat because humans never seem to remember it.

 

[Zaverexus]

I say no guns. I don't trust the average person to know when it would be necessary, if there is such a time; and even intelligent people could make mistakes. They are much more potential trouble than they are potential solutions.
I would say law enforcement should have firearms, but if so they should be counted and checked back into a secure armory at the end of a shift; and I think this would just increase the risk of someone breaking into police stations for firearms with everyone defenseless. It's probably safer to have everyone on equal footing. Give the cops stunguns if you think they need them, whatever.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I'm sure the official answers should be either weaver or isosceles.

 

[trophykiller]

We Americans get a lot of flack for allowing guns for self defense,is it deserved? I don't have any children so I'm in no danger of them playing with it, so I could keep one, I don't. I don't want to kill someone, and if someone breaks into my apartment to steal something I'll just hit them in the head with something. The self defense theory is rather contradictory, more crimes are committed with a gun than stopped with a gun, or at least it seems that way to me.

What do you think?

Edit Editing the poll doesn't work, sorry guys
Edit 2: I live in North Carolina and I don't use a gun, and neither does any part of my family so some stereotypes are false

You've never been in a fight, have you? Just hit him on the head, ya, because obviously he's not going to put up any kind of a fight. *sigh* So many people believe so many myths about combat, when you try talking some sense into them, a flame war ensues.

So I will leave you with this: switzerland forces it's people to own an assault rifle and atleast 60 rounds of ammo. They haven't had a single gun crime since 2006. If you ask me, the government should give out single shot .22s to everyone but felons. When everyone has a gun, no one is a threat, because nobody, not even criminals, likes getting shot.

Also, think of the economic effect. Right now, guns are a massive market, and always will be. They are one of the few markets that american goods actually dominate in, and yet we're thinking of taking away this huge source of income in these harsh times? Do you want to end up in a post apocalyptic wasteland? Plus, what about farmers? Agriculture is also a big deal here, but it's nearly impossible without weapons. Wild animals will know they can take from you freely, and livestock will turn on you without fear. You just took out two huge american markets, now the people will suffer.

And last but not least, the reaction from the people. If the government tries to take my guns, I will do unto them what I would to any other thief: kill them. Because these guns were passed down through generations in my family, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone take them from me. I don't care if it's the government, stealing is stealing, and I will not allow it, especially not on my most prized possesions.

Let the flame wars commence.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Dear people who feel they need to own guns in case they need to revolt against their government:

Notice a theme among these things? They all have something in common. YOUR FUCKING GUN ISN'T GOING TO DO SHIT. The "I need to defend myself" argument is bullshit on account of our armies being completely capable of curb-stomping you out of existance, whether or not you have your dinky little rifle, and even if you get an assault rifle, guess what? They've been fighting people with more than you'll ever be able to get your hands on for roughly the last century. The only way the "I need to defend myself" argument would be valid is if you were talking about something that stood even the slightest of chance of helping you.

Doesn't that, by extension, argue we should have MORE access to weapons then? I.E., something that could be used in such a manner?

 

[khy]

Yep, I strongly support the right of free people to own firearms. In fact I own several myself. I do believe in responsible ownership though, when my wife and I have our first child one of my first investments will be in locked gun safes and the like. As of now I have two firearms, loaded, within reach of my bed; that will change when the children come around.

As far as the self defense aspect goes, the world can be a pretty tough place, and I think it's better to be prepared for the worst. Just because I have a firearm for home defense doesn't mean I have to use it, or use it without thinking first.

 

[Scabious]

I think we should have more than small pistols, but that was closest to what I would put. I think everyone should have a gun, and know how to use it. I admire Switzerland's gun policy.

 

[khy]

Now that I'm reading some of the last few posts, I do have something I would like to say.

Why do people assume that solder's would be on the side of the government? If something so bad happens that the people of the United States feel they HAVE to revolt against the government, don't you think that the average American soldier would be on your side? When we enlist we don't swear an oath to the United States Government, we swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, from enemies both foreign and domestic...