Guns - Yay or Nay?
Just curious to see what everyone's stance is on gun laws and regulations. Whether you think they should be in public circulation, or just private etc, etc.
Just interpret and answer as you like.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I think guns should belong to cops, the military, and no one else.
this
there are barely any gun issues in the nations where this is the case, no mass shootings, no gun rampage in schools
I think that anyone with no record of violent crime should be allowed to purchase and own as many firearms as they want. If they want to purchase so many that they can insulate their walls with them, more power to that person.
I don't got problem with em' if they're in the hands of a educated person.
Though I do think they need to include some sort of psychological test before selling to anyone.
I can get behind this. I'm someone who firmly believes people should be able to own firearms, but at the same time morons owning guns is a problem. People in the local ghetto are always shooting someone, themselves included, and it would be far nicer if they didn't have firearms. The main issue there is that they acquire them by illegal means, and would therefore not be subjected to any testing or background checks anyways.
Licensed revolvers only.
I would say nay completely, but I also believe that someone living alone in a wheelchair, should have the ability to protect themselves. So I don't know. Unless someone has a better way for that to happen.
Well, personally I believe it is every citizen's right to own a firearm. I live in Canada, and our gun laws are relatively strict, but reasonable. I believe an adult should be legally permitted to own and carry a firearm concealed in public for personal protection, or for recreational use. In most states in The US, children under 18 are legally allowed to handle and own a rifle. This is of course not the greatest of ideas, for obvious reasons. So, to sum it all up, I think citizens have the right to own a firearm, with reasonable restriction.
These days I constantly see Liberals pushing for a ban on all firearms, saying that guns are the cause of the violence. For some reason it seems they want to blame the inanimate object, not the person who pulled the trigger. It's ridiculous, it's like banning gasoline to stop people from setting fires. I obviously don't agree with all that, but I do believe there needs to be more regulations and licencing involved with firearms in the United States.
I mean, we have security systems in our houses for a reason...
I live in Ireland, so I don't really understand the gun issues in America, but personally, I do think someone has the right to a gun. But, at the same time, there should be serious restrictions in place, so no one with a criminal conviction or mental health issues can get a hold of one.
EDIT: Fixed something.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing that seems to be a whole another issue.
Even with strict gun laws.
I'm in between.
Edit: I didn't really like how I explained my answer. I need to work on that skill sadly.
...
Nay. There's no reason for a 24 year old with a history of mental instability to own a military assault rifle.
IMO, there really is no reason to own assault rifles anyway. You can't hunt with a machine gun and you're not a soldier, so what's the point? Stick with a hunting rifle/shotgun, with a psychological evaluation and hunting license. No reason to have three pistols strapped to your belt like you're in the wild west.
That's really interesting! Considering you seem to be a hardcore Trump supporter and a hardcore Hillary hater xD
Did you know that Donald Trump is pro gun ownership whilst Hillary Clinton on the other hand wants to abolish the second amendment, which would result in what you just described?
Well, I guess no one has to agree with everything their favourite candidate says!
Exactly. Overall, I still agree with him on far more matter's than not.
Almost no-one 100% agrees with any candidate they vote for.
The whole thing is kinda mixed. People will say they want guns for protection and for sport. But then you get into, you need an assault rifle to protect yourself?
A gun for personal safety is reasonable, but weapons like the AR-15 and others are just too much. Why the hell do you need 30 rounds or even 15. And bullets that can go through body armor? Hollow points....those fun shredder bullets. How many times have you gone to a gun range and witnessed people who have no business being near a gun?
I think people should be able to purchase and own as many guns as they please without all these bullshit laws and regulations
Mandatory background checks, mandatory safety training definitely. Beyond that I'm rather mixed.
I'm generally against guns for home protection - if that were the case, getting rid of the guns and working to alleviate poverty would be the much more effective method (of course, that requires a whole reworking of society so it might not be feasible.)
One place I heard actually enforcing the 'militia' element, which might not be a bad idea. The only legitimate justification for the 2nd Amendment is the hypothetical protection of the local populace against tyranny (we're not anywhere near that level), and that's exactly why enforcing 'organized, well-regulated militias' would make sense.
That and hunting, but for hunting you can, as a lot of countries do, keep your guns at a locker at the local police station and pick them up when you go to hunt. Or I suppose if you're really in the sticks you can get a separate permit.
Americans are owning guns, yet are one of the most "servile" people toward their government (sorry, couldn't find another word). On the same time, a lot of people from different countries are more "agressive" toward their government, while guns are not authorized. So I don't think it changes the protection of the people against the excesses of the government.
Legalizes guns? It can help private security, for sure. On the same time, there are a lot of accidents (children deaths, children shooting someone else) simply because of an unsafe storage of the weapon. So yes, it raises some questions about the maturity about the owners and why the children could have access to it for example. And there it's simply the question of the storage.
Forbidding guns by laws may prevent the crimes that people didn't really want to do; I'm thinking about the crimes made out of passion. With guns, it's lethal, while with another weapon, the person might have a better chance to survive. Forbidding guns might also prevent some mass shooting but you can be sure you will still be able to find some in the black market - or to buy one in another country. And I guess the changes won't be easy to apply in facts.
So I would say USA shouldn't forbid it since it's their main culture (kinda too obsessed with it sometimes), but probably reduces the number of owners.
Yay & Nay and I will tell you why.
People who love guns, don't need an AR-15 to show they love guns. There are a lot of gun enthusiast out there who openly say it's more enjoyable firing an old black powder rifle than going rat tat tat with a AR15 or other equal to it. Some traded in their Teenage plastic call of duty inspired purchases as they got older for say Matchlock Muskets, Sharps Rifles, Springfield Muzzle loaders, etc etc. Which says it all.
If manufacturers were not pushing the issue so hard, spreading propaganda around that the USA Government wants to take peoples guns away. There wouldn't be problems.
Then at the same time advertise their products in video games. YES they do that. I remember in the 1990s for example game devs would use real gun models but often changed them and then the weapons names as it was a copy right thing. All these games you see using the "REAL" guns with relatively accurate models and the "REAL" names of those guns well are partly sponsored by the companies that make the guns. They use games as advertisement. Then everyone makes semi automatic knock offs of the very popular ones to boot.
Over all it's a giant mess.
Issue is I love everything military, history, weapons, vehicles, aircraft, etc. I think all weapons but bolt action rifles that use 5.56mm or 7.62, .308 etc etc should be banned of those calibers. They're not for sport, they're not for hunting, they're not for home defense. Only an idiot would use such a weapon like that in their own home to defend their family only to accidentally penetrate through 2-3 wood/drywall walls and kill their kids in the other room on accident.
The whole idea that owning such weapons is for defense is a joke, a lie, a miss representation of reality, and practicality. A shotgun would do just fine, and would be considerably safer.
When I see "REAL" gun enthusiast out there and most of them seem to prefer weapons because of their history. Often trading in modern assault weapons for a new Sharps Black Powder rifle instead, because what is more fun to shoot?
Why do you think firearms companies have gone all tactical? Want people to buy these guns? Because they sell more accessories for them than a EA game DLC list that is why. It's all about money. Sell them a gun, then sell them over priced toys to go with the gun, in bulk. Tell them the government is going to take them away when so and so gets elected, then sales sky rocket, then oh look guns are not taken away. Repeat, PROFIT. If these pro gun people got it through their darn heads.... it's so bloody obvious what is going on but they're too blinded by fear to see it.
I care about guns, I love guns, I worship guns. But I know what guns are, I know what they can do. I know what people should be allowed to have and not have. I know the love that firearms can bring at the gun range. But I also know how stupid people are. There are guns that are out there people shouldn't have, and it is as simple as that. They're designed to kill... they've always existed to kill.
I think for people to own specific weapons they need licenses stating they know the dangers of those weapons, they know how to use and properly store them, at the same time they need to be registered, and on paper hold the responsibility by law for owning said weapons. Good example, in the USA it's possible to own a tank, a mini gun, and a rocket launcher, a cannon etc. These weapons are considered military grade equipment. By law people must have paperwork, license, and be registered, as well as have the approval of local law enforcement county sheriff if I recall to be allowed to have such weapons in their county/state. I think AR-15s and other weapons like those should be considered military grade hardware and fall under those very same laws/restrictions.
To put it simply. Even the Nazis despite all the propaganda by the NRA and their Sponsors, didn't take people's guns away either. They took military weapons away. During the chaos that was the Weimar Republic there were many Coup, and uprisings. Heck the Communist Bavarian state existed for almost a month in 1918. There were a lot of stolen rifles, heavy machine guns and other military pieces of hardware locked away in civilian homes and basements, and the Nazis cracked down on that to insure no such thing would happen on their watch, because they were oppressive. But they didn't take hunting rifles, shotguns, sporting rifles, and hand guns away from the people... so even as strict as THEY were, they didn't take everyone's guns away, they just acted responsibly. lol
I think quite frankly that guns are necessary for self-defense. Every human being has the right to defend himself, and by enforcing stricter gun laws, all that's going to do is keep guns out of the average citizens hands. It will not stop criminals from obtaining guns, as they can simply acquire them to the black market.
That argument is invalid because the number of guns available on the black market is directly proportionate to the number of guns available legally (as moderated by capacity for smuggling). What percentage of criminals in Europe or Asia have guns? And if you were going to say Mexico, no, the guns flow from the USA to Mexico, not the other way around.
Unless the reason is that you want to do that. If you're not hurting anyone what does it matter?
Well I want to carry around an AK-47 while i pick up my 7 year old cousin from daycare. Should I?
People can't always do what they want. Especially if it involves a dangerous weapon.
I don't understand your logic.
Instead of proposing the government crack down on guns in the black market, you think it's better that they are available to the public? More readily available to any nut cases who thirst for a shooting spree? That's counter intuitive.
I am a firm believer that guns should be banned in the US, AND, there is a crack down on removing illegally obtained guns from the country, or stopping it altogether.
Nay. If I went into a department store here in Australia and asked for a gun, they'd think I was a nutcase. If Walmart was forced to stop selling them in the US, people would probably riot over denial of their supposed rights. The problem is the US has let this go on for too long for a buy-back or something similar to be a plausible solution. Basically ubiquity has made guns a supposed necessity, which is obviously a vicious circle. There are just too many guns and it's too easy to get your hands on one, so that has become normalised in people's opinions about them.
Nay.
There's already been enough people murdered by people wielding guns, there is no need for there to be more.
I'm cool for guns on shooting ranges, farmers, hunters etc, where they are regulated and each person is thoroughly checked before being allowed, but the public? It just doesn't make sense to me...at all.
Only people who should be able to carry guns are the police. (EDIT: "Oh but police kill so many innocent people, police brutality! etc" Shutup.)
There was a mass shooting in Australia in 1996, as I'm sure you've all heard the example a thousand times, but it serves a good purpose.
The Prime Minister said, "No more guns." Majority of Aussies replied, "Fair enough."
There hasn't been a mass shooting since. Basically sums up my thoughts.
...Brussel, Batclan, Nicea, Monachium? If even few good people had guns there wouldn't be so many victims
Do you have some sort of system that differentiates good and bad people? Please tell.
We both know if guns were readily-available there would be even more victims. It's simply impossible to know who is 'good' and will use a gun simply for self defence, even so, it doesn't always gaurantee it can remain in their hands.
In the past I used to believe that only police officers and soliders should have access to a gun but right now I'm firmly pro-gun since my society have one the lowest idex of guns per 100 people in Europe.
The fact is that police will be always too late if something bad happens and a good person with a gun can save a massive amount of life's.
But that also need to be strictly regulated. So no guns for people with even mininal criminal record and they should be available only for people over 24 years old. Also those should only be a hand guns, there's really no need for people to have assult rifles.
So Yay
...Seriously? No of course there's no such system but a normal person can do a lot of good with a weapon. And kindly tell me do criminals or terrorists get those guns legaly? No they don't so why disarm your own citizens and do not allow them to protect themselves?
In those cases? The numbers of people killed would be lower since someone would kill those bastards. Also I explained that matter and my take on it few posts below. Anyone with even minimal criminal record would be unable to legally purchase a gun.
Definitely yay.
Yay, but ffs make permits a lot more challenging on the brain so people with IQs of <10 don't run around poppin foos in the hood
I oppose gun control from the left, but it isn't a key issue. Honestly both sides of the debate disgust me. On one side, we have the NRA, who do a good talk about rebelling against government tyranny, yet slavishly gush about counter-terror programs and lobby congress incessantly. Conservatives also couldn't care less about minority gun-owners. Where were the "muh liberty" people when the Black Panthers were disarmed?
On the other side, you have Feinstein and the Brady Bunch, who resurrect their moronic "assault weapon" bans after every shooting. Their criteria for bans are based off notoriety and what kind of accessories the gun has. For instance, I own a military style assault weapon, with "evil features" like (gasp!) a pistol grip and flash suppressor. If an assault weapon ban came into effect, all I'd have to do is break down my gun and put it in a plain rifle stock. There's absolutely no functional difference.
If the government was sane, they'd either let the state's make their own policies or handle high capacity weapons the same way Title II weapons are dealt with presently.
yay
For the most part Nay, i thing most guns should be removed with the exception of pistols and revolvers that require a license that needs to be renewed every now and then.
You'd be surprised what you can own in the USA. I think just about everything is legal with the right license/paper work and honestly I think it should stay that way, perhaps not a tactical nuclear device but almost everything else. Military grade hardware for example is legal. You can own anti tank guns, tanks, rocket launchers, mini guns. But local laws, and law enforcement must allow, and know you have said toys in their backyards, and where you keep them. You must have proper credentials/paperwork to prove you're legally liable and hold yourself responsible for anything wrong that might happen.
That isn't the case with say owning an AR-15. Gun companies have thrown a lot of money at Military Officers, the NRA, and Politicians to insure that semi automatic tactical weapons like AR-15s and other semi auto versions of assault weapons do not get classified as military grade hardware. Regardless that the only difference is internal not function.
Weapons like Semi Automatic rifles with large magazines, semi automatic shoguns with large magazines, even semi auto SMGs can be owned without really any extra paper work. Weapons designed for close quarter combat, and given the ability to pump a lot of hurt in a short time are combat weapons and should be considered military grade hardware and require all the same restrictions as say owning a .50cal Browning Heavy Machine Gun. In most respects these weapons should be considered more lethal and be under more restrictions because unlike a Mini gun, or .50cal Browning, a RPG, or a Tank. You can lug an AR, SMG, or combat shotgun easily in your car, let alone a truck or SUV.
gun violence all over the world
America, we have a problem.
Open carrying isn't a necessity of gun ownership. How many people carry around AKs right now in the streets? Not many by my count, at least not in the US, but I know plenty of people that own them.