Gun rights/control/ownership

[Rosedamai]

i believe that anyone over the age of 18 and as long as they are properly trained as in going to the safety courses and having at least 1 year of experience firing said weapon that they should be able to carry a gun on them at all times as long as it isnt concealed from the police. i dont believe that we should have to pay for a 3000 dollar licence to own a gun and then pay anywhere from 200 to 8500 dollars for a gun because then it limits who can carry a gun.

Gun licenses are, I believe, there for a reason. I'd like other people's opinions on this, as I'm not American and we don't allow guns here, but if guns were allowed here, I'd definitely want licenses. I don't want, say, a deranged alcoholic waving around a gun.

[archangelofcreation]

Gun licenses are, I believe, there for a reason. I'd like other people's opinions on this, as I'm not American and we don't allow guns here, but if guns were allowed here, I'd definitely want licenses. I don't want, say, a deranged alcoholic waving around a gun.

if a deranged alchoholic waves a gun around then people with guns can shoot said man waving the gun around problem solved also the guy apparently cant hold his liqor LOL

[Rosedamai]

if a deranged alchoholic waves a gun around then people with guns can shoot said man waving the gun around problem solved also the guy apparently cant hold his liqor LOL

And exactly how many innocent people are going to be killed before that happens? Even it's just one person who's shot before the shooter gets shot down, that's one life too many, imo.

[archangelofcreation]

And exactly how many innocent people are going to be killed before that happens? Even it's just one person who's shot before the shooter gets shot down, that's one life too many, imo.

its true that the loss of that person is regretable but at the same time what if someone threatens your life with a gun and you dont have one to protect yourself with?

 

like what if a mad man gets a gun from say russia and brings it to your country and starts massacring innocent people and keeps killing. the only ones that can stop him are the police who are 30 minutes away and by that time he would have killed many.... many more

Edited September 7, 2012 by archangelofcreation

[Rosedamai]

its true that the loss of that person is regretable but at the same time what if someone threatens your life with a gun and you dont have one to protect yourself with?

 

like what if a mad man gets a gun from say russia and brings it to your country and starts massacring innocent people and keeps killing. the only ones that can stop him are the police who are 30 minutes away and by that time he would have killed many.... many more

With the airplane security these days, I think not Sorry never saw any need for guns in this country, never will.

 

Police doesn't carry guns here.

[archangelofcreation]

nice quip about the airport security let me tell you about airport security. someone mailed himself to the united states in a box and was arrested after he jumped out right after delivery.... not at the airport nor at the checking station. at the house he was being delivered to.

[Rosedamai]

nice quip about the airport security let me tell you about airport security. someone mailed himself to the united states in a box and was arrested after he jumped out right after delivery.... not at the airport nor at the checking station. at the house he was being delivered to.

Where I am isn't the U.S

[archangelofcreation]

Where I am isn't the U.S

i know your in austailia i keep forgetting when i post. O.O sorry about that

[Rosedamai]

i know your in austailia i keep forgetting when i post. O.O sorry about that

I'm not from Australia, where did you get that idea? But let's let it pass.

[archangelofcreation]

I'm not from Australia, where did you get that idea? But let's let it pass.

i agree lets be friends and drink tea LOL

[grammydragon]

I just received this a few days ago, and thought about all the world wide

situations where governments do not allow their citizens to own guns.

So obvious it is to control the people's ability to protest or disagree with

the controlling power.

 

The United Nations' Programme Against Small Arms meeting is in full swing in New York City.

 

And my sources inside the UN report countries such as Mexico continue pushing for a UN Gun Ban by the close of this year.

 

Both the "Small Arms Treaty" and the Programme Against Small Arms provide endless ways to accomplish this goal.

 

As you may remember, heading into the "Small Arms Treaty" Conference last month, anti-gun international bureaucrats were bragging that the conference would craft "the most important initiative ever regarding arms regulation . . ."

 

However, the gun-grabbers are back at it again this week and next, working to put together yet another anti-gun agreement -- and this time, such an agreement WOULD NOT require a vote in the U.S. Senate.

 

Full-scale GLOBAL gun registration followed by confiscation, especially in the U.S.

 

And, as a reminder, to make matters worse, Hillary Clinton has already given this anti-gun nightmare the Obama administration's full blessing.

 

They're working to make it a reality in America.

 

In fact, the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs states, "Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower."

 

And of course, the Obama administration has already labeled Second Amendment supporters as "terrorists" in Janet Napolitano's infamous Homeland Security report.

 

It seems the silent majority gets trampled, so if you value your rights

to own any guns, perhaps you should think about contacting your

Senator and Congressman to let them know your opinions.

Edited September 8, 2012 by grammydragon

[Sir Barton]

I just received this a few days ago, and thought about all the world wide

situations where governments do not allow their citizens to own guns.

So obvious it is to control the people's ability to protest or disagree with

the controlling power.

 

 

 

It seems the silent majority gets trampled, so if you value your rights

to own any guns, perhaps you should think about contacting your

Senator and Congressman to let them know your opinions.

Thank for sharing that, Grammy. Will certain make sure to get in touch with my reps. At this rate I will become a criminal.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Sir Barton

[Kestra15]

if a deranged alchoholic waves a gun around then people with guns can shoot said man waving the gun around problem solved also the guy apparently cant hold his liqor LOL

No-one can 'hold their liquor.' Everyone has a point that is too much.

[Gluria]

I think the right to own and carry guns should be restricted.

 

Here in Germany one needs a license to do so, it's not allowed to keep loaded guns in the house or carry them in public.

My mum has a hunter's license, she keeps her guns in a safe so no one except of her has access to them.

 

I don't think that it shouldn't be allowed for people to own guns - but everyone should have to proof their ability to handle them safely through a test or something. Also, no one except policemen needs to carry a gun in public.

[Alpha1]

Not automatics, because surprise! those are illegal in Fallou-I mean, America

 

http://www.atf.gov/contact/faq/

You can own fully automatic guns, grenade launchers, and anti-tank rifles made before 1986 in most states.

 

Anyone got anything a bit more concrete on this claim? I think three different news articles from different times is a good start, but I would like to see something a bit more. And no, I'm not running off to work in Juarez General - I love my trauma, but much like summiting Everest I'd rather not visit a 'death zone.'

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-573...arming-cartels/

 

“Selling weapons to Mexico - where cartel violence is out of control - is controversial because so many guns fall into the wrong hands due to incompetence and corruption. The Mexican military recently reported nearly 9,000 police weapons "missing."

 

 

I don’t think anyone has solid figures on how much originated from the U.S. Factcheck.org and a few others disputed the 70% claim. The obvious path the U.S. could take to help these countries is to end the War on Drugs.

 

Your entire argument is based on it being 'fun to own, fun to fire, the entire world will collapse at any moment and I need to barter and defend myself.' If that is your idea of 'justifiable' then fine. There is no further point in debating.

 

There are about 12,000 homicides in the U.S. due to firearms each year, and 1,500 deaths due to accidents. The rate varies widely among the states, and many of them could be substituted with another weapon if guns weren’t available.

 

“Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack: reports

(AFP) – Aug 2, 2012

BEIJING — A teenager has been arrested after killing nine people and wounding four others in a knife attack in northeast China, state media reported Thursday.”

 

What do you think of the following?

 

1. A pit bull or pit bull mix (about 50%+ deaths each year 10-20)

2. Large dog breeds

3. Swimming pool (on average, about 3,600 drown each year)

 

[philpot123]

So your main excuse is "for fun." Not a valid reason at all, and no real need. And again, there is no need for any form of automatic/semi-automatic. The one and only reason you need that rate of fire is to cause as much death and harm in the shortest amount of time. If you're hunting for an actual reason you don't want to create such a mess of your kill because you will ruin the carcass. There is no justifiable reason for such rates of fire or amount of ammunition other than 'to kill people quickly.

 

 

Again it is worrying to think you can purchase such a weapon with your weekly shopping.

 

 

 

There are far wiser and less deadly investments to be made. And 'in case of economic collapse?' Please - Fallout 3 all over again.

 

 

Your entire argument is based on it being 'fun to own, fun to fire, the entire world will collapse at any moment and I need to barter and defend myself.' If that is your idea of 'justifiable' then fine. There is no further point in debating.

Main excuse for high capacity magazines would be because anyone who tries to kill me will have them, legal or not, and I'm not going to put myself at a disadvantage. And yes, for fun. Most hunting rifles ARE semi-automatic, because if you miss with your first shot it's necessary to pop off a second quickly.

 

 

 

Hey, economic collapse could happen

 

 

 

My argument is based mostly on self defense. Estimates of firearms used in self defense range from 100,000 to 2.5 million instances every year. That's a good enough reason for me. I never said the world will collapse at any moment, but think post-Katrina New Orleans. It could happen anywhere with any sort of disaster, and I would like to be able to defend myself. Those roving mobs of looters like you saw in New Orleans wouldn't get far around these parts. Home defense with firearms happens regularly, as does a concealed or open carrier defending himself or others. The benefits outweigh the risks to me, especially since there's no effective way to get the illegal guns out of the hands of criminals if you take the legally owned ones away. Gun violence would shoot up, just as it has in DC and Chicago where gun bans have been instituted, and people can be prosecuted for defending themselves with a firearm.

 

http://www.atf.gov/contact/faq/ You can own fully automatic guns, grenade launchers, and anti-tank rifles made before 1986 in most states.

 

Getting a Class 3 license is a pain in the rear, and a ton of money. Not worth it. The only people who bother are collectors or crazy old rich guys.

[TikindiDragon]

As Murder requested we take any discussion on guns here... one small observation. The last (actually, the only to the best of my knowledge) school massacre of any kind in the UK was in 1996. Dunblane. It's a name that's etched into the memory of pretty much anyone that was born before 1990 in this country. We tightened out gun laws after that and.... no more school shootings. No knife massacres or bombings, either.

 

Might it not be time to actually ask yourself how many of these shootings in the US are carried out with legally obtained guns? I suspect that the answer is most if not all of them. Doesn't that tell you something? And doesn't that blow the argument about criminals getting guns anyway mostly out of the water?

[Shienvien]

You can't claim that there would have been more school shootings, either. There are other countries in which the gun laws aren't even remotely as strict, but still no school shootings between 1996 and now.

[TikindiDragon]

You can't claim that there would have been more school shootings, either. There are other countries in which the gun laws aren't even remotely as strict, but still no school shootings between 1996 and now.

Hmmm, I think it's fairly obvious that there's a major problem in the US, and that everything you've tried up to this point isn't working. If everything else to this point has failed surely it's got to be worth considering making it a hell of a lot more difficult for these people to lay their hands on the guns in the first place?

 

Because the US clearly *hasn't* got the same culture as they do in those places where gun ownership is common and shootings are not. If you did, there wouldn't be a problem. But I don't see your culture changing that drastically, so restricting access becomes the solution.

[Shienvien]

I doubt taking guns away from the citizens of the US is going to help any - the school shootings would simply be replaced by school bombings and school knife-massacres (there seems to be an entire epidemic of the latter in China).

 

In terms of general crime, taking guns away would simply make it so that those who are physically strong and fast have a strong advantage, that's all. A petite woman and three large, muscled men? No chance.

 

 

(I myself am not an US citizen, btw. My country has not had a single school shooting to date.)

[PointOfOrigin]

Out of curiosity, what are the requirements for legal ownership of a gun in USA? Do you have to go through some psychological test in order to get a license?

Edited December 15, 2012 by PointOfOrigin

[TikindiDragon]

I doubt taking guns away from the citizens of the US is going to help any - the school shootings would simply be replaced by school bombings and school knife-massacres (there seems to be an entire epidemic of the latter in China).

 

In terms of general crime, taking guns away would simply make it so that those who are physically strong and fast have a strong advantage, that's all. A petite woman and three large, muscled men? No chance.

 

 

(I myself am not an US citizen, btw. My country has not had a single school shooting to date.)

Frankly even if she did have a gun a petite woman against three large, muscled men is still unlikely to come off best.

 

Although I'm quite interested as to why you are so adamant that the US should not impose gun laws if you aren't from there? I'm assuming that the country you are from is one where the culture doesn't engender these sorts of problems with gun violence. I'd really love to know how *you* would suggest reducing the number of people killed in school shootings, if not by making offensive weaponry less available.

 

I will note, here, that the school rampages carried out with knives in China have a significantly lower body count than those carried out with guns in the US. 10 of the 21 Chinese rampages listed here resulted in no deaths. That list also notes only one, single occasion (in China) where more than 10 were killed in a rampage carried out with a melee weapon. Unlike the rampages carried out with guns. Only 3 on that list killed more than 20 people - all carried out with guns, in the US. 5 of the 'top ten' by body count happened in the US. So, yeah... looks like the rampages carried out with guns kill significantly more people than those carried out with knives. So if they're going to do it anyway, I'd rather they tried with a knife and not a gun. Fewer lives to ruin.

[MedievalMystic]

 

And that about sums up my opinion on the matter.

 

I enjoy reading these debates. Imo, it simply comes down to the bottom line, no matter what side you're on in the gun debate. The guns are already out there. There isn't anything our government can do about controlling guns even if they, God forbid, tried to make it illegal tomorrow. As soon as people that have and want guns got word, every single store that sold them would be sold out in a day. People would go underground and get their hands on them that way, too. Make guns illegal, and you'll have 10 times more of them out there in the hands of the good guys and bad guys. The government can't be so stupid as to think they'll ever in this lifetime, or any other, get guns out of the hands of the people. Its absolutely impossible.

 

 

I don't think guns are the issue. When horrors like this newest shooting situation happen, my first thought isn't about the gun, it's about the mentality of the shooter. Yeah, I do think there is something seriously wrong in the US. It didn't surprise me one iota that this shooter is said to have some mental issue. It seems to me that the majority of the US is suffering from one disorder or another if the sheer number of people talking about their own is any indication. If that many people have/get disorders and mental illness, and have the potential to snap, I think we need to get to the root of why that is and address that problem before we start discussing gun control. :/

[Shienvien]

Often enough, just the fact that one is carrying a gun will prevent a fight altogether. Unless we have a suicidal maniac, a potential attacker likely does not want to be severely injured.

 

As to why I am opposing restrictions on guns in the US - I believe it will only make the situation worse. I've got a few friends there, and I've visited the place a good few times, and might want to do so in future.

As for school shootings and the reduction of the death in those - either actually scan every person entering with a metal detector or make sure that there are people present who know how to act in such case. If people had reacted adequately, instead of twenty dead and a few more injured there might have been a few injured and no dead.

 

The generally lower death counts of bladed weapons are mostly the result in those people not having notable training in handling those, though.

 

 

 

[StormWizard212]

I'm very against guns. I understand why they are necessary for some people (farmers in particularly; I don't have a problem with them owning rifles when it's necessary) but that's one of the few exceptions for me. There are others too, of course, but for everyday people like you and me, I'm 100% against them.

 

Yes, a gun itself is not an evil object and the responsibility relies on the person behind the gun, but just having it in one's possession plays a very prominent role in the way it's used.

 

Not everyone does drugs. But if the drugs are available and sitting there before them, then they might well use them. I personally believe the same when it comes to guns. A person might not necessarily plan on hurting anyone and might be a perfectly peaceful person in normal situations, but if given a gun and if scared, there's a very high liklihood that they'll use that gun and end up hurting someone. I think fear plays a big role in the use of guns and in a lot of situations, if the gun wasn't present, there would be less injuries. Obviously not every situation is going to end peacefully, but I think the cases where people carry around guns for "self control" often escalate because of their own fear and people end up getting hurt unnecessarily.

 

Now others might agree, but this is what I personally believe. Unless a gun is used for a job (eg. on cattle for farmers) I don't think people should have them at all. I'd never own one. Ever. While I'd never mean to hurt anyone, I know what the risks are when I'm scared and under pressure. I don't always make decisions well and sometimes I panic - in those cases, if I had a gun, it could end very, very badly, even though I have the best intentions. I think that case is true for a lot of injuries related to guns.

Edited December 15, 2012 by StormWizard212