This is an embarrassing question for me to ask, because I come from a place where it's common for people to own veritable arsenals of guns, but:
Other than "YES, MOAR CONTROL" and "NO, MOAR GUNS," what are the general stances on gun control? For example, I'm sure there are NRA folks who want everything to be legal, but with detailed law-enforced record keeping.
Basically I'm looking for 3-6 multiple choice answers I can attach to the political poll I'm writing.
Less Dakka: either ban semi automatic weapons or at least slow down the rate of fire/drop the magazine capacity. If you need 50 rounds for "hunting" you don't belong out in the woods shooting things.
No pistols/ no concealed pistols: M 16 knockoffs do a lot of the high profile mass shootings, but most gun deaths are from concealable pistols hidden for a crime or whipped out in anger.
3-D printers will knock the profits out of the NRA and allow all legitimate businessmen and upstanding American citizens (like myself) to own an AR-15.
I think anyone shouod own a gun BUT I believe their shoukd be restrictions. Like if u have a mental problem, have a history of violence, etc etc. I think that to get ur gun permit, during thewaiting time I believe u should be forced to take a class on how to treat the gun, handle the gun, store the gun, clean, etc etc. Ud be surprised on how many people own firearms hut ddon't really know how to take care of them or to properly store them or how to use the gun.
And I believe that certain type of guns should not be allowed to sell or be owned by regular civilians (ak47s, etc etc).
Guns are a wonderful thing, yes they are tools for deaths and pain, but they are also for protection and for putting food on the table.
So yes, even though I don't own a gun nor have the desire to because I huy my food at the store and I feel pretty protected in my area without one, I believe people should ha e the right to bear arms as long as they know what they are bearing and are restricted to certain types.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Australia has it right... Good balance of licensing and background checks, and cool off periods. Sure there will be illegal guns, can't stop that but you can lower the risks.
[Mafioso accent]Who said everyone? I said "legitimate businessmen."[/]
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a former member of the military who has handled all kinds of firearm candy.
There is no reason for any of the general public to be running around with semi-automatic weapons.
Their should be a serious background checks and the gun show loopholes should be closed.
I believe that any responsible adult has the right to bear firearms.
I live in a good area but I have a shotgun just in case....and I occasionally enjoy shooting gallon jugs full of red jello.
I'd also like to see certain gun-related incidents be automatic bans/loss of license or gun owning/carrying rights: Accidental discharges, forgetting or dropping and leaving your gun in public, any of these kinds of Gun Fail moments prove you're not responsible enough to handle a gun.
Best Gun Fail evah?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to believe in the restriction of mental disorders, but this thread gives me worries about it. What defines and constitutes as crazy and what if someone uses that to prevent otherwise sane citizens from owning a weapon? The science of mental health is evolving everyday and I'm no longer confident that we can bar people with mental health problems until we can understand the human brain more.
That said, I believe that education is the best answer, and preferably at a younger age (probably the teens). Think of it as drivers ed. A class in a safe, well regulated environment with a qualified profession to teach about gun usage, safety, maintenance, and most importantly, the responsibility and consequences of using a firearm. I feel the latter needs to be taught more here in the states because it is a very important, yet oft ignored topic.
3-D printers will knock the profits out of the NRA and allow all legitimate businessmen and upstanding American citizens (like myself) to own an AR-15.Well, everyone who can afford a 3-D printer.
Or has a friend that can afford it. you won't need to own the printer just show up with a gallon of plastic.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that there should be restrictions on any personal weapons (not explosives) that at one time or another were legal. Yes, that includes FA rifles & machine guns (which technically are not illegal, but regulated so heavily that they are almost impossible to own and only for the rich: around 20k a pop). Same goes for magazine restriction and weapon type restrictions - all of which are design to restrict weapon ownership, intimidate gun owners and serve as steps that infringe/impede our 2nd amendment rights.
- Not an NRA member
- I believe in background checks but not in registration (since that can be used against legal, law-abiding gun owners and in fact has already been used against legal law-abiding gun owners).
- I believe in cool down times to purchase firearms.
- Basic training and security certification should be a requirement (akin to license to operate).
- Criminals who commit violent crimes should not be allowed out of prison. Most gun crimes are committed by repeat offender criminals.
- Guns are not taboo. They are tools. They should not be feared or worshiped, but they should be respected.
The primary function of the 2nd amendment isn't so that people can have weapons to hunt, or to defend their property. I believe that the function of the 2nd is so that a force can be raised to defend the country/state or to kill your own government. All other functions of the 2nd and gun ownership are secondary.
Comrade - it isn't hard or too expensive to build your own AR style weapon piecemeal. You can buy the upper and lower receiver as you can afford them and then put the thing together over time. It's actually a fun hobby, without even taking the weapon to the range.
Or if you want to go real cheap you can pick up a surplus Mosin-Nagant (8mm) for a couple of hundred. Good, cheap Russian/Commie weapon - not really for home defense (more for long range shooting) but they are plentiful and and is overall solid weapon.
IMO, anyone who cares about their rights (left or right on the poli spectrum) should be a gun owner. That also means not being an idiot, rager or revenge fueled moron. Owning a gun and securing it is like any other responsibility (raising a child,driving a car on public streets, etc), use with caution or if you are incapable of doing so then do not absorb the responsibility (i.e.- own a gun).
I don't think the US has a gun problem, I think the US has an infantile, revenge obsessed, macho BS problem. Also a problem on how we treat and commit people with mental problems.
As long as we have this immature disposition there will be people killed by guns, knives, cars, hammers and fists.
I'm all for private gun ownership. It can take half an hour for a cop to arrive at scene. How long does it take for a threat to harm you?
"But the criminal can have a gun, too!" Remind me how well drug laws have prevented illegal drugs from getting into the hands of law breakers.
Hmm...
The news is replete with gun owners who get shot by criminals before they can ever get their guns out to defend themselves. I think that actually answers your question. How long does it take for a threat to harm you? A lot faster than you can get your gun out, in most cases.
I think that this argument of I need a gun to defend myself from someone with a gun works amongst cowboys with holsters on their hips (and even then the wrong guy often ended up in a pine box), but this is not the Wild West.
I am not against gun ownership. But I think the issue is much more complicated than bumper sticker wisdom can cover.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are deeper philosophical questions involved in this question (as with most societal questions) than "should the government allow citizen X to own/do thing Y."
It boils down to an issue of personal responsibility and respect. A society that believes its population can not be trusted with guns already has far deeper problems than guns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the problem with licences - you have to have a licence to drive a car and driving and ownership is a similar responsibility to gun ownership. Why not have on you licence can drive up to X class vehicles and own Z class firearms for example.
Schools used to have firearm clubs. This offered an opportunity to learn gun safety and gun discipline.I used to believe in the restriction of mental disorders, but this thread gives me worries about it. What defines and constitutes as crazy and what if someone uses that to prevent otherwise sane citizens from owning a weapon? The science of mental health is evolving everyday and I'm no longer confident that we can bar people with mental health problems until we can understand the human brain more.
That said, I believe that education is the best answer, and preferably at a younger age (probably the teens). Think of it as drivers ed. A class in a safe, well regulated environment with a qualified profession to teach about gun usage, safety, maintenance, and most importantly, the responsibility and consequences of using a firearm. I feel the latter needs to be taught more here in the states because it is a very important, yet oft ignored topic.
Charles Whitman's father was very involved in teaching his sons to shoot, maintain, and respect firearms from a very early age. Lee Harvey Oswald was trained to shoot by the Marines.
There are a LOT more factors in what causes violence and mass shootings, other than whether a kid is taught to respect, clean, or aim a gun well.
No matter how good a gun instructor a person might have, he still has to contend with all the other factors in his life that create him. Those things make this a very complicated matter. You simply cannot simplify this.
Australian gun ownership is 5% of the population (24 million people you do the math).
We are a very healthy democracy... We borrowed the best bits of the Westminster and Washington systems. Owning a gun is not a priority - it's seen as a tool or sporting equipment.
That said we gained our independence without a war, and we didn't have a civil war, and while the indigenous population resisted colonisation, they were so devistated by disease there were not enough of them to have a major impact. We have never been invaded or been at war with our neighbours. (We do have a highly professional army that has fought in all the major conflicts).... So the collective need to own a gun to protect onesself is not part of our make up.
|
|
IMO, anyone who cares about their rights (left or right on the poli spectrum) should be a gun owner. That also means not being an idiot, rager or revenge fueled moron. Owning a gun and securing it is like any other responsibility (raising a child,driving a car on public streets, etc), use with caution or if you are incapable of doing so then do not absorb the responsibility (i.e.- own a gun).I don't think that gun ownership is a prequisite for being a solid citizen and supporter of a democratic society. You can't win a violence race with the government, Waco proved that. It also isn't neccessary to do that either. Gandhi proved that against one of the most aggressive empires in the history of the planet.
It also doesn't hurt to be able to shoot back when the need arises. Sometimes even if enough just to fight back against tyranny and try to flee or buy some time(think Warsaw Ghetto Uprising).
I am not saying that not wanting to own a gun = bad citizen, I am saying that gun ownership, along with a several other rights (freedom of press, unreasonable search and seizure, etc) ensure all of our freedoms. And they are all under constant attack - the 2nd is just more polarized and pitched as a safety vs. freedom, left/right argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and then Britain engineered Pakistan away from India and the whole area degenerated into communalist slaughter that, according to some, was the single biggest act of ethnic cleansing of the 20th century.
Go, Gandhi, go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are deeper philosophical questions involved in this question (as with most societal questions) than "should the government allow citizen X to own/do thing Y."
It boils down to an issue of personal responsibility and respect. A society that believes its population can not be trusted with guns already has far deeper problems than guns.
Trust, respect, and personal responsibility aren't really the issue. The issue is that human beings have accidents, make poor decisions, have distorted thoughts, become overemotional, act hastily. And that weapons often act as an accelerant. They often potentiate violence (make bad situations worse). I'm not convinced by arguments which are essentially,"If humans would be perfectly rational everything would be OK. Therefore, guns are not the problem."
Jocund, so how far are you willing to take the argument that we have to base public policy on the fundamental concept that human beings are irrational, over emotional and act hastily?
I mean can we talk about how many human beings are killed every year by automobiles? Motorcycles? Bicycles? Ladders? Stairs?
Or is this argument only applicable to guns?
India/Pakistan Partition is highly complex - Jinnah and the Muslim league played a major role in demanding a separate state. I recommend that you take a look.. It's depressing and interesting at the same time.....
The news is replete with gun owners who get shot by criminals before they can ever get their guns out to defend themselves. I think that actually answers your question. How long does it take for a threat to harm you? A lot faster than you can get your gun out, in most cases.I'm not convenced 'replete' is accurate, nor am I convinced 'A lot faster than you can get your gun out, in most cases' is. What's your evidence?
I think that this argument of I need a gun to defend myself from someone with a gun works amongst cowboys with holsters on their hips (and even then the wrong guy often ended up in a pine box), but this is not the Wild West.Your attempt to paint people who save lives with guns as 'cowboys' in the Wild West sounds like you're trying to reduce this to a bumper sticker. Do you think the person who stopped Kiarron Parker was a cowbows in the Wild West?
I am not against gun ownership. But I think the issue is much more complicated than bumper sticker wisdom can cover.I'd like you to familiarize yourself with this.
Point the first: not more than a week after the shootings in Connecticut, while the NRA was screaming about how "guns save lives," there were at least two stories in the news (one on Dateline) about gun owners who were killed with their own guns. It happens all the time.
#2: What are you talking about? Painting people who save lives with guns as cowboys? I'm saying this is NOT about cowboys. That was my whole point. I think you need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths.
#3: That site is pure NRA-sponsored nutjob propaganda, and I have no intention of soiling my mind by "familiarizing" myself with it. In what way did you think a link to some pro-gun site was going to disprove that gun control is a complicated issue? It simply is as complicated as each individual in possession of a weapon. That's a lot of people and not all of them are stable. These things require actual thought.
@Comrade Dwarf--
The Shadow of the Great Game : The Untold Story of Indias Partition by Narendra Singh Sarila
By Montbatten's ADC. Haven't read it myself, but, from some commie propaganda:
Up until World War II the British depended on the strategically situated India as a military base to safeguard their interests—in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and their colonies across the Indian Ocean in east Africa. As India’s independence dawned, the British, fearing that the Hindu nationalists who would rule post-independence India would deny them military cooperation, settled for creating a weak, truncated entity that would serve their imperialist interests, would depend on Britain for its defence and would be ruled by their pliable lackeys of the Muslim League of Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Through their divide-and-rule policy and using religion as a tool, the British drove a wedge between Hindus and Muslims, built close ties with Jinnah, in whom they nourished separatist aspirations, and recognised him as the sole spokesman of the Muslims of India.
Comrade - it isn't hard or too expensive to build your own AR style weapon piecemeal. You can buy the upper and lower receiver as you can afford them and then put the thing together over time. It's actually a fun hobby, without even taking the weapon to the range.
Or if you want to go real cheap you can pick up a surplus Mosin-Nagant (8mm) for a couple of hundred. Good, cheap Russian/Commie weapon - not really for home defense (more for long range shooting) but they are plentiful and and is overall solid weapon.
Ah, I missed this.
Thank you for the advice, but really I was just riffing off of the last gun control thread and my pro-crime avatar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The right to bear arms is guaranteed by an Amendment to the Constitution. If gun control advocates can't work within the system to change that, too bad.
But the idea that the prevalence of guns in our society is unrelated to the prevalence of gun violence is laughably obtuse.
@Comrade Dwarf--
The Shadow of the Great Game : The Untold Story of Indias Partition by Narendra Singh Sarila
By Montbatten's ADC. Haven't read it myself, but, from some commie propaganda:
** spoiler omitted **
Yes and no and most of that mess is that overrated turd Winston Churchill's responsibility.
|
Probably can't make this any more incendiary than it already is, but here's my take:
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution was clearly written to give US citizens a recourse should the government become tyrannical and there was no other option. I believe Jefferson himself said a little revolution every now and again was a good thing to keep the government's integrity intact.
THAT SAID!
The 2nd Amendment's provisions are for the formation of militias, which these days is basically what the National Guard is. I believe that there's no reason for military grade weaponry to get into the hands of ANY civilian. You can defend yourself just fine with the basic stuff, a submachine gun is not something the average US citizen needs for self-defense! Plus there's the caveat that even if gun laws were tougher, that doesn't prevent unstable people "borrowing" firearms from their family members that legitimately purchased them and passed some sort of background check.
And honestly, even with how many people say the government is becoming tyrannical one way or another, I sincerely doubt the US Military would ever accept an order to turn on American citizens. If anything, if they received an order like that, they'd be leading the charge for a coup (at least, that's what my father, a retired Army Ranger, claims).
So...yeah, I think that military grade weaponry and stuff like that rightly should be kept from being used by civilians, and limited to the military and to the National Guard, which is the modern equivalent of the colonial militias that the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote it. As for civilian firearms, a background check and stuff should definitely be implemented, and honestly, I don't see why some people get so riled up about background checks. You get one for your job, why not for your gun?
|
Hm, i think in my country, the law about guns is pretty good. Technically, nobody is allowed to own a gun, unless they are actively serving in the army/police or were once serving in the army/police. Also hunters are allowed to own a shotgun/rifle, but the weapon must be disassembled at all times while in the place that person lives. Same goes for handguns. I think owning a fully automatic weapon gets you some neat jail time.
Also you can own a pistol if you're a civilian but they do a thorough background check and gun licenses are VERY difficult to issue.
Nobody can get a carry permit unless they are in the police.
But the idea that the prevalence of guns in our society is unrelated to the prevalence of gun violence is laughably obtuse.I doubt anyone argues that straw man.
what is often argued is that there is no reason to believe laws against guns will keep guns out of the hands of criminals (see war on drugs for a counter argument).
Actually the NRA and virtually all the GOP make that argument.
Furthermore see Australia. Talk to 8th Dwarf and ask him how well the gun programs have worked there.
It won't be immediate, but if guns are illegal, and their manufacture is likewise illegal, and you have an aggressive gun buyback program, eventually even criminals will find it hard to get hold of one.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've had these threads before, so I'll just drop in my 2cp before the inevitable flame war erupts:
I would much much rather live in a country with no or severely restricted gun ownership. I grew up around guns, my dad was an avid hunter, but I never had a desire to play with them or even go hunting with him. Other kids dads were...less responsible and would shoot in their backyards recreationally. I was the only kid in my grade school class (same kids k-5) who wasn't shot by a relative in some fashion during that period. Sometimes just pellet guns, sometimes a bit of buckshot. Yes, I'm talking about 10 year olds; it was like a rite of passage.
I respect the right for hunters to own rifles or shotguns to hunt with, but I think there's an illusion on the right as to how much respect and responsibility is reflected in the use of your average yokel.
I respect, as a general thing, people wanting handguns to protect their home from invaders, even though the idea of having a gun in my apartment with me seems wackadoo. I also think people tend to be delusional about the level of safety it provides vs. the likelihood of accidents involving those firearms but that is any adult's risk to take.
As far as policy, I don't think we should have assault rifles. I think guns should be registered and licensed, and I think there should be NO scenario in which a violent felon should be able to legally obtain a firearm. We need to license and register the firearms so we can hold people responsible who make their weapons available for violent felons to purchase or use outside the guidelines of a registered gun dealer, and we need to close the gun show loophole.
Of course, I know none of this will ever get done because there is an extremely powerful, vocal minority of wingnuts who think guns=freedom and no guns=tyranny. And because we have a retardedly interpreted amendment that gives people an absolute right to have those guns.
There will be no effective change until that ammendment is repealed, and especially in the current political environment there's no point in even attempting to do so on a federal level.
I'm with Bill Maher: we will forever be the crazy country that lets people have guns, and we'll forever pay the price for that in human lives.
*throws hands in the air in defeat*
I am a firm believer that humans need to keep control of guns.
MOTHERS AGAINST MEGATRONS
Oh yeah, one more for Gandhi:
The Mahatma's advice to the Jews in regards to the Nazis and the use of truth power (whether contemporaneously or in retrospect, I don't recall): Kill yourself.
Go, Gandhi, go.
Yes and no and most of that mess is that overrated turd Winston Churchill's responsibility.
Not sure about the yes and no, but can certainly agree with the "Churchill = poo poo" formula.
|
|
We've had these threads before, so I'll just drop in my 2cp before the inevitable flame war erupts:
I would much much rather live in a country with no or severely restricted gun ownership. I grew up around guns, my dad was an avid hunter, but I never had a desire to play with them or even go hunting with him. Other kids dads were...less responsible and would shoot in their backyards recreationally. I was the only kid in my grade school class (same kids k-5) who wasn't shot by a relative in some fashion during that period. Sometimes just pellet guns, sometimes a bit of buckshot. Yes, I'm talking about 10 year olds; it was like a rite of passage.
I respect the right for hunters to own rifles or shotguns to hunt with, but I think there's an illusion on the right as to how much respect and responsibility is reflected in the use of your average yokel.
I respect, as a general thing, people wanting handguns to protect their home from invaders, even though the idea of having a gun in my apartment with me seems wackadoo. I also think people tend to be delusional about the level of safety it provides vs. the likelihood of accidents involving those firearms but that is any adult's risk to take.
As far as policy, I don't think we should have assault rifles. I think guns should be registered and licensed, and I think there should be NO scenario in which a violent felon should be able to legally obtain a firearm. We need to license and register the firearms so we can hold people responsible who make their weapons available for violent felons to purchase or use outside the guidelines of a registered gun dealer, and we need to close the gun show loophole.
Of course, I know none of this will ever get done because there is an extremely powerful, vocal minority of wingnuts who think guns=freedom and no guns=tyranny. And because we have a retardedly interpreted amendment that gives people an absolute right to have those guns.
There will be no effective change until that ammendment is repealed, and...
I agree with most of your points. I'd just hasten to add that the problem isn't so much the amendment itself so much as the interpretation of it. As it stands, the National Guard is basically what it's referring to. The problem is that the people advocating for less strict gun laws generally aren't in the National Guard...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that gonzo journalism offers a helpful perspective on this issue.
Yes and no and most of that mess is that overrated turd Winston Churchill's responsibility.Not sure about the yes and no, but can certainly agree with the "Churchill = poo poo" formula.
Yes and no because India never existed as a state before the British forced it to become one to make the administration easier. There was all ways a seperatist movement and not just between the Hindus Seikhs and Muslims but between the ethnically different North, central, East , west and south. There are 24 main languages in India - Hindi is the official language but less than half are fluent - most Indians speak English because it is a common language.
The majority of Commonwealth military disasters of WWII were down to Churchill.
Two off topic conversations here 1. The partition of India and 2. Churchill was s+!#! Discuss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the NRA and the GOP argues that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens makes us safer. They've never argued that more guns in the hands of criminals makes us safer.
But then they balk at every mechanism folks can come up with for making the distinction.
The US and Australia are not anywhere near equivalent. Talk to the 8th Dwarf and see if Australia shares a land barrier with a highly corrupt country.
Hey! Thats no way to talk about Texas...