Guns

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Guns

As has been said by others, I don't own a firearm of any kind, I don't see myself coming into possession of a firearm any time soon, but I am not against them in any way. The private ownership of a gun by a member of the general public is perfectly fine, as long as you throw some bit of common sense into it. I get it, a gun can be a multi-purpose tool. Defense, hunting, enjoyment, and as a weapon of war. Those designed for the first three of those are alright in my books to be possessed by your every day joe. Pistols, some rifles, shotguns. Go for it. But there is NO reason for a private citizen to own an assault rifle, rocket launcher, uzi, AK-47, etc. Those items are solely designed for the primary purpose to cause death. Okay, I'm not against killing folks or violence. I'm not going to go around and say that every life is sacred, every life has worth, and that all issues can be settled peacefully. There will always be individuals that simply need a bullet between the eyes, and times where aggression is needed to address the problem.

As for the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", you've got to really think about it and the time in which it was written. There were no standing armies, no specifically designated police forces, and so the defense of self and land and country fell upon the common man and his or her ability to take up arms and fight as needed. Such is no longer the case now. Our taxes and our government provide those services through the usage of specially trained and authorized individuals, thus removing the need for such defenses to be taken up by the general public. Times and situations change.

[Ula]

Re: Guns

As long as I can have a gun or guns to hunt I don't mind hoops or restrictions.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Guns

Question: Are criminals really the people that you want to be in control of your country's firearms?

LOL - I don't want anybody to have something I can't have.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Guns

Question: Are criminals really the people that you want to be in control of your country's firearms?

Criminals will always have weapons.
We have armed response units for the police over here.
And interestingly, the police tend to be very against becoming armed. Firstly because a good copper isn't necessarily a crack shot, and vice versa. Secondly because they worry about ricochets... innocent civilians getting hit when bullets bounce (and let's face it, we don't have as much space here in the UK as you do in Texas )
Thirdly - I kid you not - they worry about their guns being nicked.
Finally - and this is the one I think they really fear, a LOT of criminals commit crimes unarmed in the UK. They do this because they know the average british bobby is not going to be able to shoot them. Once the police are armed, then the criminals will be too.
It's a bit like unilateral disarmament. Nuclear weapons would ensure world peace, we were promised.
No. They didn't. They might have stopped nuclear war, but then so would getting rid of nuclear weapons.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Guns

Oh the British Government are an oppressive lot. It's just that in the US everyone seems to be able to have a firearm while over here it's mostly the criminals who have them!

Question: Are criminals really the people that you want to be in control of your country's firearms?

[habbalah]

Re: Guns

I don't own a gun for personal reasons, but I'm not anti-gun. I think some guns are really not appropriate for a private citizen to own (there's no reason a civilian should have, say, a rocket launcher), but I'm for private gun ownership. However, I do think there should be strict background checking and waiting periods.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Guns

For outside of The United States, what are your governments laws like with permits, open carry, and differing types of rifles?

I'm a citizen of two countries, so here's the lowdown on both:

Germany:

You have to have a permit to own any gun, and to get a permit, you must demonstrate a need for it, such as needing it for your job, hunting, sport shooting, etc. If you do not have a job that requires a gun (which are pretty much limited to some kinds of security officers or maybe farmers), you must join a hunting association to demonstrate that you are actually interested in hunting or join a sport shooting club to show that you actually engage in the sport. There may be a couple of other situations where you can demonstrate that you need a gun, but those are the big ones. Also, you have to show that you know how to use the gun. I'm not sure how this works, but if it's anything like everything else in this country (sailing, fishing, etc), you have to take a course and pass a test.

In addition to the ownership permit, you must have a carry permit to take the gun off of your own property. If you do not have one, you can only use your gun on your own land.

When you transport your gun between your home and where you plan on hunting, you must keep it unloaded. There is an exception here for people who need to keep guns for their jobs.

The kinds and number of guns you can have are pretty restricted, but it depends on the kind of license you have. Some people are allowed to have more kinds of weapons than others. Usually, you can only have hunting rifles. You can also have handguns if you use them for sport shooting, though I think you're pretty limited as to what you can do with those guns (I think you have to keep them at the shooting range). Hunters are allowed to have semi-automatic rifles and they can have as many of them if they want.

You have to keep your guns in a gun locker when you're not using them. You also have to buy insurance for your guns.

Canada:

Not too different from Germany. You need an ownership and carry permit, you cannot transport loaded weapons, and the kinds of guns you can buy are restricted. The big difference is that you don't really need to demonstrate a need for your guns. You can just buy them, as long as you pass the background check (you can't own one if you have a history of mental illness or a criminal record, which is true for Germany as well).


I don't own a gun and don't really feel the need to, but if I ever move to the country, I might buy a hunting rifle. I don't feel like I need one for protection at all. I'd just have one if I went hunting and wanted to do it often enough to justify the expense of taking the gun license course, paying the hunting association fees (and I'm willing to bet there's a course that goes with that as well), and paying for all of the licenses and insurances. I'll probably start with fishing, though. You need to take a course for that as well, but it's a much faster process and the permits are a lot cheaper.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Guns

I like gins. They go BANG! and put holes in paper a long way away.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Guns

Interestingly... it was the oppression of the British government that led the writers of the American Constitution to add the 2nd Amendment. It required the application of armed resistance to get out from under an oppressive regime.

A responsible government has nothing to worry about from an armed citizenry.

Oh the British Government are an oppressive lot. It's just that in the US everyone seems to be able to have a firearm while over here it's mostly the criminals who have them!

[ThorsSon]

Re: Guns

Everyone loves amendment 2 like it's their mamma's teet.
I personally adore Amendment 9 especially for people like me. I mean who expected an Atheist Satanic pro choice pro death penalty animal eater to have been around during olden times? This amendment surely did.

Have I ever told you that I love you?

- - - Updated - - -

In the UK citizens gave up their right to bear arms without any sort of licence or restraint when we had a police force. The majority of our police are still unarmed, apart from the special Armed Response Units.
I really wouldn't like to see that change any time soon.
It's a question of viewpoint. I feel safer unarmed, with the police unarmed than I would armed, with the police armed.
I appreciate though that in other parts of the world people feel differently.

Interestingly... it was the oppression of the British government that led the writers of the American Constitution to add the 2nd Amendment. It required the application of armed resistance to get out from under an oppressive regime.

A responsible government has nothing to worry about from an armed citizenry.

- - - Updated - - -

This too. I just don't understand how having the power to kill someone, or knowing that other people around you have the same power, is comforting in any way. I can certainly respect that others feel differently, but I have to agree with this that I think it does come down to a confliction of viewpoints in regards to safety, purpose of firearms, personal comfort, et cetera.

Firearms are equalizers. I am a fairly large and (if I may say so myself) strong man... I am certain that I could kill a person with my bare hands (I've never tested this theory).

I am incredibly supportive of my fiancee having personal protection (in the form of a firearm)... not so much because I think that something is likely to happen to her... but because I encourage preparedness.

I am incredibly supportive of my country having personal protection (in the form of a firearm)... not so much because I think that something is likely to happen to her... but because I encourage preparedness.

[Medusa]

Re: Guns

Everyone loves amendment 2 like it's their mamma's teet.
I personally adore Amendment 9 especially for people like me. I mean who expected an Atheist Satanic pro choice pro death penalty animal eater to have been around during olden times? This amendment surely did.

[LunarHarvest]

Re: Guns

Mmm.. We can see a lot of differences in culture when we face off Japan vs The United States. Firstly, I'll point out that Chicago attempted to ban handguns. Not only did this lead to more violent shootings by gangs and their affiliates, it left the majority of the populace unprotected.

Here’s the immediate problem with this example: your comparing a national policy with the actions a city took. Have you seen any inspection or customs officials searching people at the entrances to cities? I certainly haven’t, so when a single city bans a weapon then it becomes simple and easy to simply move those weapons to and fro in said area. In contrast, a national policy of gun laws is much more effective, and leads to a much more effective enforcement - especially if search and seizure powers are expanded, consequences for violations are made preventative and enforced universally, and more resources placed into customs inspection and to the enforcement of the law.

Now if I knew both had a gun, it would deter me from robbing either. There are a lot of videos on YouTube of would-be-muggings where the act was stopped by the would-be victim pulling out a firearm.

And there are plenty – without going into the deep and unsinkable hole that is government statistics (give meh a break…is after work and Imma sleepy –v–) I would say a proportional amount – of examples of people who posed no threat to an individual, or who were mistaken for a threat, being shot and killed by firearms. One particular example I am reminded of is of a Japanese exchange student who went to a party and accidently entered the wrong house, didn't understand the person in the house, and ended up with a .44 Magnum through the skull.

In addition, in an ideal world, each person would be perfectly rational and able to be trusted with a firearm, but that is not the case. Human beings often act without consideration of consequence, and expansive ownership of firearms can only serve to add a deadly aspect to these things. Many murders and assaults happen in the heat of the moment after all, which means they aren't planned.

Firearm ownership is really only a legal right in the States. Mexico has a similar clause, but it does not properly follow it, so its essentially null. That being said, It is not a ward against tyranny nor is it an assurance of democracy, as many dictatorships have used an armed populace to establish themselves, and many dictatorships have fallen without the people using weapons of war against them.

On a different topic, no I do not feel comfortable in the fact that there are police with guns. For how many people have been killed this year by police negligence, or abuse of power, no.

It's a question of viewpoint. I feel safer unarmed, with the police unarmed than I would armed, with the police armed.
I appreciate though that in other parts of the world people feel differently.

This too. I just don't understand how having the power to kill someone, or knowing that other people around you have the same power, is comforting in any way. I can certainly respect that others feel differently, but I have to agree with this that I think it does come down to a confliction of viewpoints in regards to safety, purpose of firearms, personal comfort, et cetera. So I hope I didn't offend anyone with my comments. ^-^

Now that being said, I do have my beliefs on the subject, and I will share them and argue for them if prompted to. >v<

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Guns

In the UK citizens gave up their right to bear arms without any sort of licence or restraint when we had a police force. The majority of our police are still unarmed, apart from the special Armed Response Units.
I really wouldn't like to see that change any time soon.
It's a question of viewpoint. I feel safer unarmed, with the police unarmed than I would armed, with the police armed.
I appreciate though that in other parts of the world people feel differently.

[anubisa]

Re: Guns

I own a gun and my parents own guns. My mother owns my Grandpa's old police gun. My father owns some hunting guns. I think it is important that we have the right to own guns. I think though that we are responsible with them. My gun is never loaded, that way I can never hurt anyone. I think we need to have laws on certain guns, but for the most part guns need to be kept a freedom for us.

[Medusa]

Re: Guns

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson