Pro-Gun or Anti-Gun

[SeVeR]

I am interested in what people think about the possession of firearms and whether any human being (excluding armed forces and police) should be allowed to own one. From what i can tell from UN surveys firearm-homicides in the USA are at a rate that is 10 times higher that in similar industrialised countries such as the UK and Australia. In the USA it is legal to own a gun and in the UK it is not. Is the cause of the high amount of firearm-homicides in the USA the legality of firearms?

 

In the UK the rate of firearm-homicides is going up despite stricter regulations. Are the stricter rules to blame or is this merely a sign of how society is progressing?

 

What rules do you think there should be regarding the possession of firearms? Should these be the same for every country?

 

I personally think that the USA should keep guns legal because it would cost so much money to confiscate everyones weapons and you can be sure that not all of them would be found, also its debatable if this will actually reduce gun crime. If i lived in the USA i would buy a gun for protection.

 

In countries where guns are illegal i think they should stay illegal because there are too many people who would interpret a new rule that allows possession of guns within the home as saying that they can keep them in their belt and carry them around to point at people they don't like (yes people are stupid). Also there are too many teenagers who would steal their parents guns and take them too school, this can include bullies and people that are being bullied.

 

So in summary i think that any change to general gun rules in the USA and the UK would be damaging. I also think that laws in the USA should be much stricter if you are found to be carrying a gun outside your home. I think the USA should be doing everything it can to ensure that people don't remove their guns from their homes. I don't know if its possible to tag a weapon and a house so that removal of the gun from the house (by maybe 20 metres) will set off an alarm at the police station. It would only require one tag in the gun and a reciever located at the centre of the house that indicates the police when the gun goes outside a certain radius. I feel however that to make an effective and hard to remove tag on a weapon would require the confiscation of all existing weapons and the redistribution of new ones which would be an expensive process.

[MonteZuma]

I'm pro gun control. The need for a 'right to bear arms' died out with the wild west.

 

It would be impossible to have an international rule affecting civilians, but I guess there could be a uniform rule amongst countries with common goals, such as the EU...or Australia and New Zealand, etc.

 

Australia had a gun buy-back. I don't think it was all that expensive, but gun ownership is probably significantly lower. The gun buy-back obviously won't fix the problem. People will still hide guns under their beds or bury them in a box in the garden, but it will make it harder to find one in future. It must be much easier for a criminal in the US to get hold of a gun (especially a hand gun) than it is for a crimiinal in Australia or the UK.

 

I imagine that in the US you'd need to phase in new regulations over a period of many years. The culture is too entrenched.

 

I don't think the idea of owning a gun for personal protection is sensible. It probably results in more innocent gun-related deaths that it does prevent them.

[Aileron]

Yes it does...police can only respond so fast....especially in rural areas. Where I currently live gun ownership is essential...the police response time here is ten minutes for the nearest local police (technically we live out of their juristiction) and 30 for the state. If criminals could count on the house owners not having guns, they would be able to rob anybody in my township and be out of the state before the police showed up.

 

In order for a gun ban to even affect the situation, we would need to stop drug smuggling. If drugs can be smuggled, so can guns...and smuggled guns would not be registered, making it that much harder to track down the owner if any crime was commited.

[Dr.Worthless]

The United States is so saturated with fire-arms at this point that if your removed the right to bear arms, the only people who would have guns would be police officers, and criminals.

 

There's rules against suicide, buttsex, crossing in the middle of the street, and not wearing a shirt in public, in all of these cases the law doesn't prevent people from doing it.

[MonteZuma]

Yes it does...police can only respond so fast....especially in rural areas.  Where I currently live gun ownership is essential...the police response time here is ten minutes for the nearest local police (technically we live out of their juristiction) and 30 for the state.  If criminals could count on the house owners not having guns, they would be able to rob anybody in my township and be out of the state before the police showed up.

I know people that live in areas much more remote than you who do not own a gun and have never felt the need to own a gun. Either you live in a horrible society or you're paranoid.

 

In order for a gun ban to even affect the situation, we would need to stop drug smuggling.  If drugs can be smuggled, so can guns...and smuggled guns would not be registered, making it that much harder to track down the owner if any crime was commited.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most people don't think a ban is necessary. Most people talk about control and regulation. You don't need to remove guns from your society altogether to see a drop in gun related death and crime.

 

If I was a criminal in the US and wanted a 'clean' gun to go out and knock someone off, I'd head over to a place like yours and take it while the owner was out feeding the chickens or whatever. I might even blow the owner's head off with it on the way out.

 

You'd be safer without a gun.

[Manus Celer Dei]

I'd be lucky if the police were able to get to my place in 1/2 an hour. Not only do i not own a gun (i can shoot, but not very well - stormtrooper syndrome), i cannot remember the last time i locked either my house gate or my front door.

 

I'm neither pro nor anti gun control, but I'm completely for gun education.

[Yupa]

I am Pro-:

• Sword
  
• Psychokinesis (moving stuff with yo mind!)
  
• Shape-shifting
  
• Hot, rich, redheaded bisexual asian sorority cheerleader triplets
  

[Dav]

i am very much anti guns, by allowing peiople to carry guns the act of law enforcement is not in control of the police and government. Its also very difficault to crotrol and regulate who can and cannot have a gun, its a case of "your not a crominal you may have one" as apposed to "you have no reason to own a gun you may not have one".

 

It also allowes anyone thatr shouldnt have a gun to get one quite easily and can IMHO amount to a fear of letal wepons amoung the people making people feel they muct have a gun to survive.

 

I have also read somehwre (dorry cannot quote source) that its said in the al quieda handbook that the US can be exploited for its gun laws.

 

I think guns and bombs should be banned in wars, people must be made to fight with swords, bow and arrow and gient caturpules just like in the middle ages, thet shows wh has the most skill.

[Yupa]

SWORDS(pronouncing the "W")!!!

[Greased_Lightning]

I'm definitely pro-gun. I hunt deer, elk, pheasant, grouse, duck, goose, and pests...pests being things like skunk, muskrat, gopher, blackbird, etc. I fully support the regulation of all firearms and requiring all gun owners/purchasers to take safety classes and background checks for purchase. I took gun safety when I was 11 and between that and having grown up in a family that hunts, I learned responsible firearm safety and respect.

I do not support people who think that the 2nd ammendment means that they can have AK-47s or kevlar-piercing rounds or useless stuff like that. There is no reason for a person to need weapons like those. If they claim self-defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is more than enough to repel an intruder.

Those of you who said you were anti-gun, did you mean ALL guns including those used for hunting or just the obviously unnecessary? In the US, hunting is a major thing especially where I live. That is why you'll never see a gun ban in the US because it would never work.

I live in a rural area. I don't worry about crime because everyone knows that almost everyone else has shotguns or rifles in their homes or vehicles. I don't worry that someone is going to break into our house when I'm "feeding chickens" (don't have chickens, have cattle) and steal a gun to use on me because they're all locked in a steel gun cabinet.

This was kind of a rambling post but I think everyone gets my main idea. I'm for sensible guns, responsible use, education on gun safety.

[Dav]

TBH guns for hunting are a diffrent issue. Some may consider it a barbaric sport but the reason and purpose for having a gun in this scence is diffrent.

 

Even for that regulation and background checks are very important.

[Dr.Worthless]

You will never convince anti-gun owners that its necessary to own a gun, nor will you ever convince the pro-gun that they'd be safer without a gun.

 

If I was a criminal in the US and wanted a 'clean' gun to go out and knock someone off, I'd head over to a place like yours and take it while the owner was out feeding the chickens or whatever. I might even blow the owner's head off with it on the way out.

 

Then, if I was that same criminal, I'd go to wherever you live Monte, and blow your head off without any worry that you'd be armed and be able to fight back.

 

If I was a criminal in Britain, I wouldn't worry about a 'clean' gun, nor would one in the United States. Making laws against gun ownership does not punish nor hurt criminals, it only punishes law abiding citizens.

[MonteZuma]

Those of you who said you were anti-gun, did you mean ALL guns including those used for hunting or just the obviously unnecessary?

I'm in favour of strict gun regulation. To me, that means that most people should not have a gun in their home. There are always exceptions, particularly for farmers.

 

In the US, hunting is a major thing especially where I live.  That is why you'll never see a gun ban in the US because it would never work.

Hunting is also popular in parts of Europe and Australia. Hunting can coexist with strict gun control.

 

I live in a rural area.  I don't worry about crime because everyone knows that almost everyone else has shotguns or rifles in their homes or vehicles.  I don't worry that someone is going to break into our house when I'm "feeding chickens" (don't have chickens, have cattle) and steal a gun to use on me because they're all locked in a steel gun cabinet.

I don't think it's that hard to break into most gun cabinets. In my community, I feel safer because I know that very few people own a gun.

 

This was kind of a rambling post but I think everyone gets my main idea.  I'm for sensible guns, responsible use, education on gun safety.

Not rambling at all. I can totally understand your pov. I agree that responsible gun use needs to be encouraged and education is important.

[MonteZuma]

... if I was that same criminal, I'd go to wherever you live Monte, and blow your head off without any worry that you'd be armed and be able to fight back.

You wouldn't come to my place looking for a gun, because you'd know that chances are I won't have one. You probably wouldn't have a gun either, because it would be much harder for you to buy or steal one.

 

In any case, the burglary/break and enter rate is higher in the US (8.3) than it is in Australia (6. and the UK (4.. The stats seem to suggest that gun ownership doesn't prevent break and enters.

 

If I was a criminal in Britain, I wouldn't worry about a 'clean' gun, nor would one in the United States.  Making laws against gun ownership does not punish nor hurt criminals, it only punishes law abiding citizens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A clean gun is needed to make sure that the criminal can't be connected to earlier crimes. I reckon it would be much easier to get a clean gun in the US than in Australia or the UK. I only know one person that owns a gun - a dis!@#$%^&*embled WW2 rifle hidden in a garage that hasn't been fired for decades. And yet nobody I know feels unsafe at home or hurt by gun regulations.

[Greased_Lightning]

I suppose it's just different mindsets. There is very little crime around here cuz everyone knows everyone else and would talk so it would be kinda hard to get away with something lol. If I lived in a big city I would want something in my home but that's cuz that's the way things are in some cities...but then again, I can't understand why a person would want to live in such a crowded place anyways lol.

[Freakman Bob]

For the first time in a LONG time, I'll just post without reading the other ones...

 

I'm 100% pro gun..

 

If you make it illegal to own guns, honest people won't have them, criminals aren't going to give them up because of a politician..

 

Risk free enviroment for crime galore..

 

If you have a gun, you can protect yourself, participate in rioting (JK ), and, in occasional cases (as you might read about once in a while), stop someone from robbing a store.. aid in criminal apprehension..

 

^^^---------------- my spam of the day.

[ZKewl]

Pro-gun here. I'm a long the lines of what greased sayed about safety classes(although I gotta do mine sometime) and background checks for purchase. I also I live a very, very rural area but I pretty much know every one around and most know me so not afaird of anything there. I have guns to shoot at pests(%#**!#@$ prairie dogs) and to protect my cattle if necessary. If I ever get my safety course done I would help hunt *!%#@#$ antelope with other hunters(some very good freinds of mine), since I have an over abundance, mostly on my wheat field. well that's my 2 cents zya

[Confess]

Background checks done to make sure you have not commited a crime WITH a gun are ok, the chances of a criminal returning back to crime are to high.

 

-Drugs are easier to smuggle and more likely to smuggle then guns.

 

Ok, moving that aside.

The 2nd amendment was originally created so the government could not become to strong leaving the citizens defenseless. Today, the government or 'big brother' is getting more and more into our lives, this only leaves us with one form of protection, GUN POWER. While having a gun enables you to protect yourself, it also enables you to govern yourself (see my logic?). Imagine this- The government becomes extrodinarily strong, they become equivelent to communist, what else to protect you? Essentially, one day, if things go on the same track as now, the government will become this strong.

 

Most, if not all, of the amendments where created to protect and better serve us. The forefathers saw a need for these laws, people voted on it, and it was in.

 

It is ok to not like guns, and to not own one, but if you are going to try and say 'All guns should be confiscated' then you need to go somewhere else.

 

A very wise person once said "Guns dont kill people, I do"

[MonteZuma]

Do you really think that US government is gonna suddenly decide to throw away the cons!@#$%^&*ution and oppress the masses? If by some weird turn of events, this actually did happen, a motley crew of ordinary Joes with guns and SUVs (even if the dealer did throw in the driving lights, sunroof and nudgebar package) is not going to stop them.

 

There are better ways to make sure your government remains civil....

 

One way is to make sure you have a free press that is not railroaded into towing the government line. Another way is to make sure that your government never gets away with abusing human rights. Never, ever. Another way is to turn up and vote and not be swayed by jingoistic, war-mongering politicians that think the only way to solve difficult problems is using overwhelming firepower and screw what anybody else thinks.

 

....Erm....Maybe Americans should be worried.

[SeVeR]

Ah yes, the good old "Guns dont kill people, people do"

 

To this i say: "People with guns kill people, people without guns find it alot harder"

[Dr.Worthless]

"In any case, the burglary/break and enter rate is higher in the US (8.3) than it is in Australia (6. and the UK (4.. The stats seem to suggest that gun ownership doesn't prevent break and enters."

 

Does this take into account population differences? How many of the breaking and entering cases were homes owned by a gun owner?

 

 

 

One way is to make sure you have a free press that is not railroaded into towing the government line. Another way is to make sure that your government never gets away with abusing human rights. Never, ever. Another way is to turn up and vote and not be swayed by jingoistic, war-mongering politicians that think the only way to solve difficult problems is using overwhelming firepower and screw what anybody else thinks.

 

....Erm....Maybe Americans should be worried.

 

Where do you live monte? 100 bucks says somewhere in your countries history fits the above description perfectly.

 

... Mabye you should be worried.

[MonteZuma]

"In any case, the burglary/break and enter rate is higher in the US (8.3) than it is in Australia (6. and the UK (4.. The stats seem to suggest that gun ownership doesn't prevent break and enters."

 

Does this take into account population differences?

Yes. Those figures are incidents per 1,000 people.

 

How many of the breaking and entering cases were homes owned by a gun owner?

How many people put a sign on their door saying that the resident has a gun? In any case, most firearms that are stolen are taken during small scale burglaries from private homes and most weapons that are used to commit crimes in the US are stolen weapons. Owning a firearm does not make you immune to burglaries. It can make you a target.

 

From the US Dept of Justice:

For 1987-92 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft.  Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeded the number of incidents.

 

Where do you live monte?  100 bucks says somewhere in your countries history fits the above description perfectly.

It happens in every country, but in some more than others. Looking at history is fine, but we can't change our past Presidents and Prime Ministers. We can do something about the present though.

[Yupa]

Those of you who said you were anti-gun, did you mean ALL guns including those used for hunting or just the obviously unnecessary?

Personally, I would rather have serial killers with guns roaming the streets than you redneck !@#$%^&*holes shooting deer. At least serial killers have a good excuse.

[protoman.exe]

Its good to have a gun for hunting , shooting ranges , etc...

 

But just the simple guns , not assault rifles and smgs. Anyone who has a assault rifle or smg is kinda..whats the word..to into it.

 

I would own a gun if I was somewhere in the country or where I live there was a threat to my personal security.

 

I say , if you have a gun , use it. Not to shoot up any random thing , use it for shooting ranges , hunting , and protecting your house.

[Yupa]

Hunting (95% of the time [in the USA]) is bull!@#$%^&* - anybody that thinks otherwise, come on down to Florida and I'll happily kick your !@#$%^&*.