POLL: Gun Ownership

Remove all ads!

Not sure if I fully understand the point here, but I would have thought that the main reason the pioneers needed to carry weapons was to hunt for food in the wilderness. Which everyone here is saying is OK.

 

@JSBB
1) I don't hunt for sport, I mainly hunt for food. I don't really come from a rich family and a 200 pound buck will keep my family feed for about 3 weeks.
2) Bow hunting of bear or moose regulations in the US state that you are REQUIRED to carry a backup handgun in case of a charging animal.

@ Mordieth
The government has NO way of protecting you from criminals that absolutely want to harm you. The police are all well and good but it takes them an average of 5 minutes to respond unless they are in the immediate area and this is only if somebody happens to call them.

@Darkwolf
I agree with you completely. Gun ownership is a very heavy and important decision to make. There is no right or wrong way to choose. But as they say "Hindsight is 20/20". In my experience people who own guns and teach their children at an early age and continue teaching them until they are old enough to make their own choices almost never have problems with negligence.

@Sticker
Northern Nevada has a several fairly large prison complexs. Personally I never travel without my pistol simply because I'm kind and will actually pick up hichhikers. I've never had to use it but I like to know that if I needed to I'd have it.

 

Guns are well out of order. They should not be in modern day every day society. Simple as. No person should ever have a gun in an easily accesible part of their home. If they even have to have one at all!!!

To try and argue that guns have a place in society is naive and stupid in the extreme. I will hear no more in defence of this issue. Open your eyes and grow the hell up.

 

So you're saying that it's just fine that rural america starves. Thank you but if my family didn't have guns I probably wouldn't be around right now. My parents used guns to feed me is this wrong. It just isn't feasable to say that guns have no place in society because they do. You can say that my parents could have moved to a better area with better paying jobs but that takes money that alot of people don't have; especially my family.

If you truly believe that guns have no place in society then that's your opinion but to tell people to open their eyes and grow up is just plain wrong. Some people have opened their eyes and grown up here. Those people have accepted that guns are a useful part of society and have used them to better themselves and others(feeding their family). In this case I beleive that you need to open your eyes and accept what CANNOT be changed.

Yes there are laws in affect to control guns but the only control that people get is that law abiding citizens will obey the laws. If an international law came out telling everybody to turn in their guns then criminals would have a field day with mass robberies and murders. Also, there would be one person ruling the world after a brutal world war since you can't effectively tell people to give up their guns then allow the military to keep theirs.

 

Was there a point to that post?
Was the point that you need a gun to feed a family? I assume you're talking about hunting and the like here?

Well, I'll give you a brain storm here mate. Just because I'm a nice lad. There are these little places dotted about right, these places are called 'shops'. In shops you can buy food, drink and other such supliments. These 'shops' are cool places as they eliminate the need to hunt for food you see. Clever stuff.

Listen. Guns are bad things, ok. Guns in society create a gun culture. Gun cultures lead to guns being easily accessible. Guns being easily accessible leads to shootings.

And America wonders why so many people get killed by guns. The answer is simple. MAKE GUNS LESS EASY TO GET A HOLD OF! The first step to to that is to make them illegal and get them out of modern day society.

Christ, this is all pretty simple stuff mate, meaning no offence.

Guns don't have a place in civilised society: There is no effective argument against that statement.

 

Yes I'm speaking about hunting. Your little brain storm idea really doesn't work with me. Simply because it takes large quantities of money to feed, house and cloth a family of 5 for a year. With hunting the amount for food is drastically reduced.

One of the reasons that the US has hunting seasons is so that animal populations don't get to high. If people didn't hunt deer they will outgraze cows. Which leads to less food in your shops, and eventually to extinction of several species.

Yes I can agree that having guns in society creates a gun culture which leads to guns being easily accessible and guns being accessible leads to shootings. But that statement is not all true. What leads to shootings is guns being accessible AND people who are uninformed/uneducated(child shooting child mainly).

However if you make guns less easy to get ahold of by making guns illegal then why will people stop with just guns and not just make all projectile weapons illegal. No more archery, blow guns, or flare pistols.

Flare pistols are not catagorized as guns but they can be used to kill a person at a range of about 6 yards.

Also if you make guns illegal then how will government agencies be able to track migration patterns of dangerous endangered species, without the use of a tranquilizer gun?

Guns do have a place in society. What doesn't have a place in society are the people who don't use them the way that they are currently intended for use. IE hunting, tagging, and emergency situations.

 

Bows, blow guns, flare pistols and the like will never be used regularly as deadly weapons, as guns are now. Want to know why? Because they are not glamorous. The attitude you have shown uthere is what I was on abotu when I talked about naivity.

Can you imagine to gang guys stood on a street corner like "yeah man, I got my self a new flare gun, it's the ****, it's quality". Give up. They want guns, end of. The more glamorous the better. I don't think you fully understand.

What is society to do? Have classes in school to tell people guns aren't good? We have that. Hand out pamphlets saying 'Don't do guns'? Christ. The idea is stupid and again, naive. Anyway, even if a educational system could be put into place, you are still going to get unstable individuals. If these kinds of people can get access to guns, this is a bad thing, ok?

Just make guns illegal. Give heavy prison sentences and more importantly, heavy fines on anyone owning a gun. You will see shootings drop by a mile, I guarantee you.

Hunting? No place for it in 2005+. It's barbaric anyway.
Tagging? The groups that do this are usually government run/supplied. These kinds of people could be allowed special licenses. But this isn't what this is about. This is about Mr. Average Joe being easily able to own a gun. Come on, that situation is out of order.
Emergency situations? I think yu musty mean police here. Of course, when handling certain situations, they can have them. They are trained to use them are in a position of responsibility. That's why.

My god.

 

But if you make guns illigal then only let the government have them and allow for special licenses to special groups run by a government that can have unstable people working for it then how can we effectively remove guns from society. Last I checked the government was a part of society.

You said that police officers can have guns when handling certain situations. How are they to go about aquiring them, when the paperwork required to check out a weapon would probably make the need for a gun useless. Also, what about the police officers that retire. These people have been trained to use them responsibly so why would there guns be taken away.

 

I tend to go with Arahar in this case.

First off about hunting. Barmy, you do realize that the populations of some species need to be controlled or they'll provide a danger for humans and what better way to do that than hunting? I would not even want to know how many more traffic accidents involving elks we would have in Finland if we would not control the elk population via hunting. I guess we could start using bows but I think hunting would loose a bit too much of its popularity to be effective then.

The second issue is the self defence which I do find a bit silly and even a little bit scary. However I think that if a person lives in fear that some brute is going to attack him on the street or brake into his home and kill him he can carry a gun as long as he has proven to be able to shoot the thing and be responsible with it. Every man/woman has a right to feel secure and if it takes a gun to get that feeling then be my guest. When that gun is used though he/she should face full responsibility for it.

 

Quote

"One of the reasons that the US has hunting seasons is so that animal populations don't get to high. If people didn't hunt deer they will outgraze cows. Which leads to less food in your shops, and eventually to extinction of several species."

Thank you Morgoroth now I can add Finland to the list of large animal populations.

 

@Barmy

The only flaw I have in your opinions are that law abiding citizens do not commit crimes with their guns. It is people that have guns illegaly that are the problem and all of the laws in the world aren't going to effect someone who has no interest in obeying them.

A "gun" friend of mine sent me this when I told him about this thread. Obviously, the writer is very biased, but I think he makes some good points.

 

Viking,

Really? Ok, so how does a 70 year old, or for that matter a 25 year old woman of slight build, defend themselves against a young male armed with a baseball bat, a piece of pipe or a knife? So should we ban anything that could be used as a weapon? Ooops, that won't work either, because even buck naked the young male has an inherent advantage.

Guns are the ultimate equalizer in a confrontation. If you are strong enough to operate it, you have a fighting chance, and if you take the time to learn to operate is properly you have a better chance of surviving.

Now, your implication is that if guns were harder to come by in the US, murder rates would go down, however, you provide nothing that proves this. If people want to kill someone, a gun is the most effective means to complete the act, however, failing that, they would simply move on to the next most expedient means of dealing out fatal wound.

Statistically, there is evidence that an armed populace lowers overall crime rates, including murder. Blaming the boogey man of private gun ownership for violence is not only wrong, it is a disservice to the public. It ignores the real social issues that drive crime, and instead passes responsibility to an inanimate object, rather than taking responsibility for the violent culture American children are raised in. Little Johnny wouldn't pick up irresponsible daddy's handgun and point it at little Susie and say "BANG" if he didn't see violence glorified in the media and entertainment industry. Of course that isn't the industries' fault, it is the parents fault for allowing little Johnny to watch it, and allowed little Johnny to get a hold of an unlocked gun.

 

I don't have any evidence as to whether gun ownership increases or decreases murder and violence. All I know is my own experience. Which is that, in New Zealand, hardly anyone has a gun, and those that do, mostly use them for hunting pigs and deer. Virtually nobody has one for self defence. I have never met anyone who has one for this purpose or has even contemplated it. I also know that hardly anybody in New Zealand is afraid of being attacked in their home or being confronted by a gun-wielding criminal.

So, the only correlation in my limited experience is that in our particular society we have very low gun ownership and very low gun-related crime rates. Whether one causes the other, I can't say.

All I can say, is that I'd rather live here, where I am safe and don't have a gun, then somewhere else where I would need a gun to feel safe. I would also add that the ONLY place I can think of where I have actually seen a real live gun was during the 6 months I spent living in San Jose, California.

I hope this sums up my views and the basis (and limitations) on which they are formed.

 

Darkwolf I don't think guns will sort out "violent culture American children are raised in". Yes its a great temporary resolution but it does not lower crime overall, so maybe some long term goals need more consideration.

Crime is not too high here (even counting the terrorist situation at its peaks during the 70's and 80's), but cross community centres in large housing areas have had positive affects on crime levels. Much better than suspicious, paranoid and fearful people with guns.

Plus I refuse to believe that everywhere in the US is so uncivillised that you *must* have a gun on your person at all times.

 

And the reason the wild animal populations might get too high? Because people have hunted all the natural preditors to virtual extinction. Hunting becoming justifiable because people have already hunted.

 

Darkwolf, a handgun could be an equilizer if carried by the weaker side. However, to actually make your mind up to have such a weapon requires some resolve, and using it freely requires at least a little callousness. So who is more likely to have firearms at all times: a young female graduate student or a drug dealer? I'd go for the second.
I've heard the story "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." On the other hand though, if guns were perfectly legal, all outlaws would be the first to have guns, and the heavier, the better. Better gun control might not mean total disarmament of the criminal population but will likely at least make sure that arms are not that easy to get.
It's not just the media that are to blame, too. Come on now, two-thirds of the world watches american productions, and have stronger gun control laws, why aren't those countries post-apocalyptic hell-holes?

 

Pepperspray gets my vote. It won't kill the guy and it will most certainly put him out of the action for a few hours, more than enough for you to call the police. It's even unlikely that the guy will manage to run away, most likely he will be on the ground screaming and trying to get the thing out of his eyes. Pepperspray is legal in Finland and in my opinion it's a lot better than guns for self protection on the street.

 

I think its all to do with testosterone

 

Maybe it's because guns are more common in rural than in urban areas and crime is usually higher in cities.

 

Hey Darkwolf, appart from completely ignoring the statistics I provided, then no statistics are to hand showing the difference in homicide rates using firearms in the US compared to the UK.

Handguns are used in 50% of all homicides in the US, because they are there and freely (near as damn it) available.

The point is that easy access to hand guns cause more people to be killed with handguns. There is no doubt about this. The assumption that everyone who was killed with a gun would have been killed by other means had they not had guns is of course a complete fallacy. Guns make it immeasurably easier to kill someone, and shots are easily fired in many cases where there was no original intent to kill.

I think the wild frontier arguments you've put accross are also complete fallacy. I hate to tell you this; The west was won quite some time ago now, and the need for a well armed militia is long gone.