First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply What is your opinion on civilians owning guns?
Posted 1/18/15
The gun lobby has been really good about keep the government from funding independent research on the actual effects of gun ownership.

Nope don't own any, out grew my fascination with things that make a loud noises a long time ago.
41641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/18/15
Its fine if they own guns for hunting or protection, but I personally think allowing the ownership of assault rifles is stupid. People have already proved multiple times that the public can't exactly be trusted with assault rifles, through men who've shot up schools and businesses with them.
7544 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Florida, U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 1/18/15

LadyPsychic wrote:

Hmmmm...... I believe that people should be allowed to own guns, but only after they take gun ownership classes, take a responsibility test, and go through rigorous psychological evaluation (and maybe evaluate anybody who lives with them too). Gun ownership classes will help educate people how to properly handle guns. A responsibility test will help ensure the potential gun owner will be responsible and a have enough common-sense required to own a gun. In other words, someone who thinks it's okay to leave their gun in their purse while their shopping and within reach of their two year old child who might accidently shoot them would automatically fail the test and not be allowed to own a gun (thus preventing the tragic scenario). The psychological evaluations would help prevent potential sociopaths from obtaining guns (and evaluating a potential owner's family members too would be further prevention. After all, the Newton shooter got the guns from his mother. If their was a nationwide mandate that everyone who owns or wants to own a gun has to not only have a psychological evaluation but also have their family members/anyone who lives with them evaluated too, then Newton might've been prevented.) Of course, these classes/tests may not prevent all crime but it may help lower crime rate as well as lower the amount of tragic gun related accidents.


I agree with you 100%.
7544 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Florida, U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 1/18/15

seekerperson7 wrote:

Y'know, in terms of just owning a gun, I don't really have a problem with it. A gun is not something that I would ever want to own, but I can understand that people have an interest in them, and thus want to own them. So to me personally, I'm perfectly all right with civilians owning guns and keeping certain types in their homes for personal defense and whatnot.

I'm not as comfortable with people being able to carry loaded weapons outside of their home - either in their car or on their person. But I think we have laws that deal with this. Basically, I don't think anyone should be able to carry a loaded firearm when not on their personal property or in designated "gun zones" (like a firing range or a hunting area).

But i'm probably more stringent than most on this issue. I actually think that most police officers shouldn't be able to carry guns for routine patrols and certain responses and whatnot. To many, this is pushing things to far - i'm aware. Just voicing my opinions here lol

~ Edit ~

I should also clarify my belief that it should be incredibly difficult to own a gun. I'm fine with civilians owning them - but not just any random joe who wants one obviously. I think the best way to deal with this is to just make the process extremely formal - with lots of red tape, regulations, documentation, logging, re-logging, evaluations, etc.

I said I think it's fine for civilians to own guns - I never said I wanted it to be easy lol. Demonstrate that you're a reasonable person and that your interest goes deeper than "YEA - shootings things is fun!!!"


I actually agree with just about everything you said. Except for the part about police officers, I think they have the right to carry guns on them at all times to ensure the safety of the citizens.

But still, I respect your opinion.
15841 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / L'Étoile du Nord,...
Offline
Posted 1/18/15

Fadaar wrote:

Yes. Also I'm missing one rifle and two handguns from this picture.


Ooo, gimme!
2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 1/18/15

nooneinparticular wrote:

The gun lobby has been really good about keep the government from funding independent research on the actual effects of gun ownership.

Nope don't own any, out grew my fascination with things that make a loud noises a long time ago.



LOL




$33 billion
In September 2013, Forbes reported Bloomberg's wealth as $33 billion and ranked him as the 13th richest person in the world



NRA Net worth of $5,663,756, as of 12/31/11. Cash and short term investments of $8,864,786.


2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 1/18/15
59992 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Alaska
Offline
Posted 1/18/15 , edited 1/18/15

nekroneko wrote:


stoner789 wrote:


Shishiku wrote:


Fletcher2 wrote:

I personally believe that we as civilians deserve the right to bear arms. As stated in the Constitution we do have the right to own weapons, and I also believe that they are needed for us to be able to protect ourselves, our homes and our families. So what do you think? Should we the people be allowed to bear arms?


Don't you know guns kill people? Take all the guns away and crime goes down!....oh wait, these things called criminals exist that don't follow law so we are taking guns out of lawful citizens and criminals go unchanged.


yea its, well to be blunt, someone uses a certain gun to kill a bunch of people, they reduce the clip size of that gun or make it harder to own, yet if someone ran over a bunch of people with a big truck, they wouldn't make the truck illegal.


That's an idiotic argument. A guns main purpose is to kill, a vehicle's main purpose is to commute from A to B. And here in the UK bull bars are illegal due to them being dangerous to pedestrians if they're involved in an accident. Seatbelts are not optional, you will be fined; using your phone is not optional, you will be fined; smoking while you have children in the car is not optional, you will be fined.

I'm sure if every single country outlawed gun ownership by citizens, criminals would have a far harder time acquiring any. Guns are hard to get at all in this country as it is which drives the price of each weapon and munitions up. That alone keeps it out of many would be criminals hands. I'd much rather face a criminal unarmed against a knife other than if we both had a gun.

If you enjoy guns for pleasure, then you should accept them in controlled environments. You should only be allowed to rent a gun or rifle from licensed ranges or hunting posts. I don't agree with hunting either, but that is another topic. Before you are even allowed to use a gun at all outside a range you need to log a number of hours at a range and take a regular psych test to maintain a license. There are many more restrictions I would place on them, but this is just to whet your appetite.


I do hope you realize that your argument can be seen as very idiotic as well. A guns purpose is to kill yes, but it is a tool. Every tool gets abused no matter what they are supposed to be used for. seat belts aren't optional here either, your phone is not optional as well except maybe a few states that I probably don't know about. Smoking in the car with kids in wrong but i'm not sure if they can fine someone for it although it could be considered child abuse.
I hope you do realize though that there are some places in the world where owning a gun and hunting animals is the only way people can live because they live in remote areas, take Alaska for example, there are still plenty of people who live in the sticks and they rely on a guy to keep them alive.
If I want to go hiking it's a good idea to take a gun in case I run into an old an enraged bear that will attack anyone no matter what although you have to know the difference in a good bear and a bad bear and the chances are very slim of running into one that will just kill you for blood.
Anyways there's no point in arguing it will get us no where
I just wanted you to see that viewpoint of some people subsist off the land in areas of the world still and need a gun to live. I may have went a bit overboard in what I said, but I also see what you are saying.

how do you eat btw? do you only eat vegetables and mass produced farm animals?
59992 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Alaska
Offline
Posted 1/18/15

Fadaar wrote:

Yes. Also I'm missing one rifle and two handguns from this picture.



nice collection I like it, I need to build mine up
11532 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 1/18/15


Propaganda or cherrypicking at best ... but of course a picture from a Tea Party website is going to be unbiased and factual.

I actually know for a fact if you have a gun in your house you are statistically more likely to die of a homicide with a gun in your house then you are without. (actual medical study not tea party propaganda)
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

You're more likely to die of suicide with a gun in your house, especially if your male (Males seem to have a significantly larger suicide rate then females)

60% of all homicides and suicides are caused by firearms.

76.3% of firearm related homicide victims knew their attacker.

31.7% of gun related homicides occur from family arguments and only 15% from robbery. So think about it, some people have short tempers ... add guns to the mix and clearly that is a significant amount of deaths you could protect.
2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 1/18/15

JollyClaret wrote:



Propaganda or cherrypicking at best ... but of course a picture from a Tea Party website is going to be unbiased and factual.

I actually know for a fact if you have a gun in your house you are statistically more likely to die of a homicide with a gun in your house then you are without. (actual medical study not tea party propaganda)
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

You're more likely to die of suicide with a gun in your house, especially if your male (Males seem to have a significantly larger suicide rate then females)

60% of all homicides and suicides are caused by firearms.

76.3% of firearm related homicide victims knew their attacker.

31.7% of gun related homicides occur from family arguments and only 15% from robbery. So think about it, some people have short tempers ... add guns to the mix and clearly that is a significant amount of deaths you could protect.





Fun Fact: Everybody dies!






11532 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 1/18/15


http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
You should understand that you define Violent Crime as completely different to what the EU defines Violent crime as.

Actually statistically of Britain's violent crimes only half of them resulted in injury.
US defines violent crime as four specific things: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

Harassment is a violent crime, sending death threats is a violent crime. Can you imagine how much higher the US statistic would be if it counted them?

And the facts you didn't give (because obviously you're cherrypicking everything) 4.8 murders per 100,000 for the US while the UK is 1.2 per 100,000.

We can have a discussion without ad hominem bigotry right?
2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 1/18/15

JollyClaret wrote:



http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
You should understand that you define Violent Crime as completely different to what the EU defines Violent crime as.

Actually statistically of Britain's violent crimes only half of them resulted in injury.
US defines violent crime as four specific things: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

Harassment is a violent crime, sending death threats is a violent crime. Can you imagine how much higher the US statistic would be if it counted them?

And the facts you didn't give (because obviously you're cherrypicking everything) 4.8 murders per 100,000 for the US while the UK is 1.2 per 100,000.

We can have a discussion without ad hominem bigotry right?


UK murder is different from US murder though!



11532 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 1/18/15

jehester wrote:


JollyClaret wrote:



http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
You should understand that you define Violent Crime as completely different to what the EU defines Violent crime as.

Actually statistically of Britain's violent crimes only half of them resulted in injury.
US defines violent crime as four specific things: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

Harassment is a violent crime, sending death threats is a violent crime. Can you imagine how much higher the US statistic would be if it counted them?

And the facts you didn't give (because obviously you're cherrypicking everything) 4.8 murders per 100,000 for the US while the UK is 1.2 per 100,000.

We can have a discussion without ad hominem bigotry right?


UK murder is different from US murder though!





Source?

My source compares the two statistics directly alongside the legal definition of homicide which doesn't change across the pond
22281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Indiana
Offline
Posted 1/18/15
Its everyone's right to own one and I obviously agree with that, but I feel in order to own one you should have to be educated on the subject of firearms. The main reason we have such a huge problem with them and people blame them for everything is because they are uneducated about them so therefore they are scared of them.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.