-If you are at home and need to defend yourself against burglars or something a simple handgun or shotgun (with blanks of course) is good enough, but you need to have permission and can’t use it outside of your home.
-If you are on the street and need to defend yourself a normal stun-gun is good enough, but only for DEfense not OFfense.
-If you want to go hunting and want to own a hunting rifle, you need to get your gun at a police department or something and bring it back when your finished.
That’s how I think it should be! But I’m interested to hear what you people think about it.
orvilleman, Co-Mayor of Belport and Doha, CEO of Spire Gas Co.
I’m not exactly anti-gun. However, I’m anti military grade gun. There is NO reason for anyone to own an assault rifle. Clue’s in the name, it’s not designed to be used for defence, or for hunting. It was designed to kill people. Same for semi-automatics and SMGs. No reason to own one other than because you like them.
IMO, the only guns people should be allowed to own are hand-guns, shotguns, and hunting rifles.
This guy sums my opinion up pretty well:
[youtube]zBOk1SnQ8uU[/youtube]
I believe in the use of personal firearms for self defense. I probably wouldn’t feel the need for a concealed carry but I’d prefer a weapon for home defense. Assault rifles are overkill and unnecessary (Despite being cool. They are cool. Machine-Guns are even cooler. And louder.) Shotguns, Rifles, and Handguns all get the job done. The idea is to deter someone from robbing you. In a country where nobody is armed with a weapon, a criminal with a weapon is in an elevated position of power, the homeowner has no comparable defense. If homeowners are armed, a criminal is far more likely to think twice about breaking and entering a home.
There is the whole 2nd amendment issue in america with being able to bear arms, where it was originally written with the context of overthrowing an oppressive state should our government become tyrannical. I don’t really foresee that as happening nowadays, but i do think that individuals have the right to protect themselves how they see fit.
As for all of those gun safety incidents out there, some people are just fucking idiots. If you have a weapon, you need to know the proper safety procedures. And you need to tell your kids what the hell it is, why it is dangerous, what it is used for, etc. That way children don’t go poking something and ending up in the hospital. Perhaps there should be a weapon’s license, the same way we have a driver’s license. I don’t have a perfect answer for that problem.
But yeah, in general, pro-gun.
Edit: Watched the video under ouhai’s post. Gotta admit he has some good points, and is funny doing so
Jm knows I’m adamantly anti-gun. There is absolutely no need at all for assault rifles to be used outside of the military. I’m pretty sure that George Washington didn’t fathom weapons capable of a mass murder in 30 seconds. A rifle from around the time when the Bill of Rights was adopted took 15 seconds to reload, and approximately 2 out of 10 bullets either misfired or didn’t fire at all. With the immense improvements in armament technology, I see no valid reason why assault rifles should be used in public. This, of course, is with the exception of a) hunting and b) guns as a hobby. I believe that these weapons should be kept at the police station or gun club between uses.
Pro-gun Americans often point towards Switzerland as a model country. There, almost every man legally owns a firearm. They say that this is the best option and keeps everyone safe. This is fine in Switzerland, but there are a number of reasons why the Swiss are able to keep this up with virtually no gun-related deaths: Military enrollment is required. I know this is a bit overreacting, but the majority of gun owners here haven’t taken a single class in firearm usage or pretend they know what to do. In addition, the Swiss, along with the rest of Europe, have a much more advanced mental institution network than in the United States that is able to keep most unstable persons under control. As in the rest of the world (and especially here in the US), there are some mentally ill people who are still on the streets or living with family. I have nothing against that, but the fact that it is much easier for these people to obtain an assault rifle doesn’t make sense to me. For example, Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook perpetrator was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder. I’ve actually worked with people IRL who have Asperger’s, as I was a camp counselor a few years ago, and while perfectly normal at some times, the boy with the condition would often break out into violent streaks, often inveighing his brother and throwing things at him. Why I would give someone with this condition a weapon, I don’t know. In the case of the Aurora, Colorado massacre, James Holmes’ (the shooter) lawyers actually pleaded not guilty as they said he was mentally ill. Why did he get a gun? Where did he get it? If it’s not legally, then the government needs to put more time into figuring out these black markets and online services.
tl:dr There is no need for assault rifles to be kept in the homes of Earthlings.
Seeing as the majority is anti-gun so far, I’d suggest more than a few.
Bouncing off of what meta said. Im all for guns, but should you spend thousands on an assault rifle? No. A rifle, shotgun, or even a handgun should do you good. But for those who want guns abolished, think about this. Would a criminal turn their gun in? Would they get one from a black market? And if they did have one, how could you protect yourself? We (usually) don’t carry large weapons, because theyre impractical, but smaller ones are definitely needed especially in a society like ours.
That’s the problem. Not all of the people here think that spending thousands on an assault rifle is too much. People would gladly do that to tote their second amendment rights around, and to me, it’s kinda some bs ;D
There was a guy with a Bushmaster M4 in Houston (where I live) just walking around, and someone called the police on them. They came, but couldn’t do anything. That’s kind of frightening to me tbh. And this was a month ago!
Australia has and still is anti-gun and has had these laws for a long time. We rarely get gun-related violence other than that of the police and do just fine without. Personally I wish non-lethal self defense weapons such as tasers, maces, pepper spray, sound guns etc were legal for purposes of protecting one’s self.
While tasers and other non lethal devices can be effective, you’re still at a significant disadvantage to someone with a firearm. Half of them require you be closer to them than they need to be to shoot you. In a critical moment, seconds can make the difference.
Also, while many people advocate firearms, not every one of them are radicals who feel the need to tote around mass casualty producing weapons. I don’t really think there is a need for a fully automatic weapon in general for defense. Most are no more effective in a close quarters environment than a shotgun or handgun. Therefore the only time you’d get a real advantage tactically would be if you were fighting in an open area, like outside your house, where the range and rate of fire can make a difference.
Also, it’s just not practical to try to remove guns in America. There are too damn many of them. You’d never confiscate them all. This isn’t even considering the political ramifications.
I’d rather have stricter laws instead of removing every gun because of what you said. Obviously, we couldn’t remove every gun in America (but I do wish that would happen), but I think stricter gun laws would greatly decrease murder rates in our country.
As I said we rarely get gun related violence here because it’s controlled so well, more often than not it’s not a firearm you’re up against in the situation i’m referring to
This is literally the only solid argument against completely abolishing guns in the US, which is why, in the US, it should be keeping guns and their use reasonable rather than getting rid of it straight away.
As for the black market, refer to the video I posted. If you can afford a gun on the black market, you don’t need the gun to be a criminal.
This is… honestly less of a can of worms than I expected it to be.
This. So much this. But failing the banning of lethal weapons, maybe you should just stop selling assault rifles and sub-machine guns and I don’t know, probably tanks, just sell muskets.
Think about it - they take at least half a minute to load up, so if you actually want to shoot someone, you have 30 seconds to think over what you’re actually going to do, and try and empathise with the person, and think about the family members who would be distraught if their loved one died, and all the jail and infamy, and if after 30 seconds you’ve not changed your mind, at least your target has 30 seconds to run away.
Im against guns, but in the event Canada got a 2nd amendment like charter of rights/freedoms, i would own a small 9 mm, not an assault rifle or somethings, that’s stupid to have ALOT
I’m pro-gun.
I believe in a universal human right to defend our home, our loved ones and our lives from any dangers and threats. The fact of the matter is that emergency serves are not always reliable. In certain areas, you may have to wait a long time for an ambulance to arrive.
In Ireland, we have the castle doctrine. “Your home is your castle”. You have the right to use up to lethal force so long as the person believes that their life is in danger. However, it is up to the jury to determine whether or not the defendant actually believed their life was in danger.
Public opinion in Ireland is somewhat anti-gun. There are a few gun owners in rural areas, but it’s extremely rare for someone in a town to own a gun.
I feel that there is an issue with mental health rather than gun control. One way or another, those people would have snapped. Sure, increasing gun control while slow things down, but I believe the core problem must be addressed and confronted.
I’m sorry, I really don’t get this logic. I may have interpreted this in the wrong way, as I really do not understand it.
Is it referring to the socioeconomic aspect of crime, meaning that if someone had the money to afford the gun, they wouldn’t have to as they wouldn’t have to resort to crime? If so, it’s not as if once a criminal makes enough money to afford a gun, it’s not as though they’ll suddenly stop because they can support themselves.
Additionally, crime is not limited to socioeconomic factors.
