POLL: Gun Ownership

Remove all ads!

Try using your vote instead. If you think that the current government, which is run largely by the Republican Party, thinks that this is the best situation, then by all means elect more Democrats to office. Personally, I don't think there is a huge conspiracy to deprive citizens of their beloved guns by either party.

However, don't be surprised if they try to take your computer access to the internet. That is where the real action is. The big media companies are having a hard time controling the content of the internet where some real information, and public opnion cannot be easily controled, like it can in the coporate, conservative electronic media. I figure that it is only a matter of time until the ruling party decides to limit your access to information about what the politicians and corporate America are up to.

For all of you people who still don't get it: It's not about guns, but about knowledge and infomation (and access to information) - who has it and who doesn't.

 

UK here and I don't want/need any guns. I am not scared of people trying to kill me every night or mug me on the street.

I do have a collection of swords, round shields and long bows (not those horrible modern ones), but then again I am interested in history and a keen fencer and archer. To me having these things are a wee bit of fun and nothing more. I don't expect that I will have impail a burgler on my long sword anytime soon!

 

Ahh, that's what's been holding me back! I've never owned a gun!

Boy do I feel the fool now!

Please provide some correlation between being informed and gun ownership, or stop spouting completely irrelevant rubbish!

Besides, I think you'll find that the redneck peasants are some of the most well armed cilvilians you have over there.

 

I'm not going to pick on Mordeith nor am I going to support his position. However, his position is not as looney as it sounds. There are many conservatives and 2nd amendment supporters who firmly believe the 2nd amendment was meant to protect the citizenry from outside invasion and from the tyranny of government run amok.

 

It seems like certain people expect their homes to be invaded at any moment by either their fellow countrymen or foreign terrorists. Personally I don't think it would be fun to live in fear of 'The Unknown'.

 

DW, is that a serious comment? I mean really, how many shots could you possibly need? I'd say if you need more than 3 or 4 shots you have got yourself in a HUGE problem, and that having a gun is probably not going to save you. Quite honestly, I cannot see any reasonable senario where having a gun that "only" held 10 rounds of ammunition was inadequate, but having a gun with 20 rounds would have resolved the problem.

 

I can. If you like to use your gun for target shooting being able to reload every 30 shots is a lot more convenient than every 10.

 

Aldeth,

It is a matter of practicality. Most defensive pistols (not concealed carry or backup weapons) are designed to hold between 8 and 18 rounds, depending on the design of the gun, and the caliber of the ammunition. As the magazine is carried in the handle of the gun, it is not practical to make the handle smaller, so why not use the full capacity? If I were in enough trouble that I need 30 rounds of ammo to hold off a BG until the police arrive, I would prefer to do it with one reload instead of two. One extra mag is easier manage and carry, and reloads place you in a disadvantage as many things can go wrong during a reload. There are plenty of recitals of people caught in a defensive shooting situation where 10 rounds of ammo were insufficient to successfully conclude the situation. It is illogical to think that an armed citizen couldn't run into a situation similar to those faced by law enforcement officers, so if a law enforcement officer carries 24 to 54 rounds of ammunition, why should a legally armed citizen not do the same (if practical)?

The agreements against high capacity magazines fall short when examined from a statistical point of view, so what is the point of limiting honest people? Additionally, most 10 round mags are easily modified to hold 2 to 8 more rounds, so again, you only put honest people at a disadvantage with such silly laws.

I am not if favor of rotary drum magazines (50 or 100 round) being legalized. Their sole purpose is to provide sustained ammunition for automatic weapon fire. Even the military does not provide such capacity to the rank and file, and I am unaware of any police issuing automatic weapons to officers (though some Special Weapons teams may have them), as it is not practical, and actually a disadvantage in some cases. Automatic fire is a specialty, normally only used in combat by those who receive special training in the use of it (and when not to use it), and is not appropriate for or against private citizenry. However, many disabled people chose carbines/civilian versions of main battle rifles for their personal defensive weapon. As such, they should have the same magazine size as a pistol owner.

 

I'm against gun ownership. Period. However, I don't think it's as black and white in the U.S. as the general opinion seems to be (in Europe), thanks to the Michael Moores and what not... It seems pretty naive to think that all gun owners are gung-ho patriots. Just my two cents.

 

Don't own a gun, never saw a real need to have one. Having children in the house makes gun ownership a real liability (too many children are hurt and killed by 'playing' with a parents gun). I just think guns cause too much grief to be of any real use for protection. That said, I've been trained to use various firearms and would not hesitate to get one if I felt I needed one. The sound of a shotgun chamber closing is enough to cause criminals to soil themselves.

Good comment (ultimate you are correct), but I'd rather see an assailant weilding a laptop than a 44 magnum. Information doesn't help the dead.

 

@DW

Please tell me a situation where you would need to fire more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and not have time to reload. Burglars usually go solo, at most two in the house at a time. Now, maybe if you're wandering around Harlem at night with a "I hate blacks" T-shirt on, you may need more than 10 rounds, but then I assert that you've got a lot more to worry about than only having 10 rounds in the magazine.

Edit: I did see your example of needing 30 rounds or more to hold off a bad guy, but I assert that unless you are recklessly firing away, there's no way you could possibly need even 10 (nevermind 20 or more) to get the job done. While I don't own a gun, I work with a ton of army guys. They practice precision and control. Even with 2 bad guys and 20% hit rate (which is about right for high pressure situations) would solve the problem.

 

I still think it is nuts to have a gun for 'protection'.

I agree, Cesard. If I lived somewhere that was so dangerous that I thought I needed a gun to keep myself safe - I would move before getting a gun. A gun would make me feel even less safe.

 

Aldeth,

Anytime you are in a rural area, where police may be 20 or 30 minutes away. How about in the middle of the Nevada desert (or any sparsely populated rural area of your choice), where the nearest Highway Patrol Trooper may be an hour and a half away (unless you are off-road, in which case you were on your own, as their interceptors would bog down in the first sand they hit)? When I lived in N. Nevada, any time I was traveling to Las Vegas or off-roading in the desert, I would carry an S&W Model 66 .357 mag loaded with 158 grain Hydrashocks on my belt, and a Mac 90 (semi-auto version of the AK-47) behind the seat with 2 thirty round mags.

By they way, you are way off base, both tactically and statistically. Even police officers do not have a 20% hit ratio in a gun battle. You far underestimate the effects of stress upon your ability to hit what you are aiming at. Additionally, under stress reloads become a risking proposition. There is a good chance that you will make some mistake when reloading, and even a small mistake can cause your gun to jam, which will add even more time of being defenseless. Even worse, when I went though my tactical training (civilian privately offered) one of my fellow student got flustered buy the instructor who was yelling at us to put us under stress and dropped his magazine. The instructor told us after that session that he sees that almost every class. Of course this introduces the chance of damaging the magazine, introducing dirt that can jam the gun, and very rarely, bullet setback, which can result in and over-pressure failure (basically the gun blows up in your hand, you aren't a Seal until you have tasted Italian steel).

Come talk to me after you have completed a tactical training course, and then give me your opinion of what stress does to your dexterity with a handgun.

Now, if you believe that reloading is so easy, and you can't see a reason why a person would need a magazine of more than 10 rounds since they can just quickly reload, what is your justification for limiting magazines to 10 rounds?

HB:

Do you own a hammer, or a kitchen knife? Do they make you feel less safe? A gun is a tool; a tool is only as dangerous as the person operating it. It is irrational to fear an inanimate object. Now if you fear that you do not have the training necessary to properly use a tool such a gun, or the resolve to use it if you were put in a position where you needed to, then your fear is rooted in reality, and I can respect that. As I have stated on many occasions, gun ownership is a responsibility. You should be properly trained, practice regularly, invest in maintenance, and purchase proper protection to make sure your gun doesn't inadvertently be used in a negligent way. I respect those who know themselves well enough to know that they can't or won't do these things and choose not to own a gun. I have no respect for those who purchase a cheap gun, never fire it, load it, and put it in the closet or nightstand unlocked where a bad guy, or worse, a child can find it. All I ask is that my right to own a gun and protect my family and myself is respected.

[ April 20, 2005, 03:41: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Darkwolf - I don't dispute your right to own a gun if you think it makes you feel like your family is more protected. I'm just saying that I would hate to feel like I was in a situation where I believed a gun (and the requisite training etc) was necessary for my protection. I would feel like a prisoner in my own home. If I felt that threatened, I would move before I got a gun.

 

Darkwolf

What exactly were you afraid of in the desert? Has something ever happened there that makes you feel you have to carry guns? I would be very nervous and feel unsafe in a situation were someone in my company was carrying a gun, even if it was Marko Kemppainen (olympic siver medal in skeet-shooting) and it was for 'protection'.

I haven't seen any statistics but I would bet that there are more cases were people have been accidentaly injured/killed with their own guns than situations were they actually protected someone.

 

Hmmm... Ok, so do you really think we can safely dump anything that shoots a bullet in one category? I myself don't own a gun, and I'm not likely to go try to get one in the near future. Still, I can understand people being afraid for their security. However, having a pistol is one thing, having a full-auto weapon or a few SMG's around is way too much. Come on, after all. An AK is not a personal defense weapon, it was designed for army use, after all. Nor is, imo, a shotgun. The very purpose of self-defense is to avoid yourself being killed, not necessarily to make sure the other people end as swiss cheese.

Just one other thing. Darkwolf, I thought that the Saiga hunting rifle was the semi-auto version of the AK, wasn't the MAC-90 a SMG?

 

You just had to put this in didn't you?

Well no offence to anyone but I do think there's something badly wrong with a country where people feel the need of carrying weaponry when going through rural areas. Is the crime situation in the US really that terrible?

In Finland the only place where I could imagine feeling more secure with a gun are during the night in some areas of Helsinki or the other bigger cities.

 

I realise I'm a bit young to vote for this, but thinking about my future I can really see no reason in having a gun here in "merry" old England.

I might buy a few swords and bows, just because these things interest me, but guns have always seemed a bit too dangerous for me...not that I'm saying a sword or bow is any less dangerous...but you don't need to rely on a safety on a sword, you just don't swing it, theres always a chance for a mechanicle failure on a gun, that could cause injury.

Now because I'm a bit of a dreamer, and a guy, I think, yeah, maybe it'd be cool to have a gun, but this doesn't make me want to buy one...and if I'm gonna be robbed, let them, what they steal can be replaced, but my life or theirs, can't...

 

HB,

I am glad that the pioneers that settled the US didn't feel that way, or they would have stayed home in Europe. I guess there are those in life who refuse to allow fear to rule their existence, and those that do. Though many would probably call your stance good sense; it is all a matter of perspective. Diversity is what makes the world and interesting place.

Sticker,

The odds of running into anyone who will cause you a problem are very small, however, if you do, and you aren't prepared...

I actually have never been accosted in the desert (other than the idiot firing his Uzi in my direction, but that was an accident), but I know others who have. A friend of mine was out shooting with another of his buddies, and after they both had emptied their rifles downrange, a guy walks up and points a pistol at them and demands that they hand over their rifles. They were both wearing pistols that were hidden under their jackets, presented them to this young man, and he decided that he didn't want the rifles after all. There are bad people in this world, and they will look for opportunities to take advantage of you when you are most vulnerable, and being in the middle of nowhere makes you pretty vulnerable.

People disappear in the desert all the time, most the time they are just lost, and their bodies are recovered later. Once in a while they are discovered with more than the requisite number of holes in their body.

Shaman:

Mak-90

This doesn't exactly describe my Mak-90, as mine was specifically manufactured in China for exportation to the US, so I do not have any threading or a ground off bayonet lug (as in there never was one to grind off). Additionally, mine has a milled receiver, rather than the normal stamped one. That said, I think that regionally the nomenclatures have different meanings.

 

"I am glad that the pioneers that settled the US didn't feel that way, or they would have stayed home in Europe. I guess there are those in life who refuse to allow fear to rule their existence, and those that do. "

And that's an argument FOR allowing people to keep whatever firearms they want for self protection? The ONLY reason to have firearms for self protection is fear.

Taking a step back in the argument, I see nothing wrong with hunting rifles or sports firearms.

However, to argue for self protection is a myth. The only reason you might need to protect yourself with handguns is conceivably since the other guy might have / has one. Well, newsflash, without such easy access to firearms, the other guy doesn't have one either......

To have assault weapons, semi and fully automatic weapons etc available other than to the police and army is downright lunacy. Fun, yeah, I'm sure it's fun to fire these, but they have no place in civilian hands. They are designed for one reason only: to kill.

Comparable figures for the UK and the US for 2002:

US - 16,200 Homicides, 8,200 with handguns, 2,500 other firearms (BoJ).
UK - 1,045 Homicides, including 172 attributed to Harold Shipman in that year as they had previously been assigned as natural causes. Total committed with firearms: 80. (UK Homeoffice).

It's not the guns that kill poeple, it's the easy access to guns that is the cause.