Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

So what do you think about Firearms and the regulation thereof? do you think that Gun Control should be a thing? Do you think that anyone should be allowed to have guns? Do you have enough faith in the Police or crooks not to abuse what ever advantages that arise form having citizens disarmed? Do you think that Gun Control is pointless because crime always finds a way to kill people? Or do you think that a balance can be struck between Gun Control and the right to bear arms?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-5V2ZbX4i4

anyways
people should not be alowed to carry guns with them at all times
If you feel unsafe without carrying a gun into chuck e cheese, then you have problems, and is the last person that should be holding a gun.
Gun training should be mandatory before getting a gun permit
you should have to get a gun permit before being able to purchase a gun.

Its not criminals that i'm worried about when talking about gun control, they can get guns their own way, its trigger happy people that, when they get into an arguement, they just start shooting.

Most criminals get their guns by illegal means anyway, anyone who is committed will have no problem getting a gun. Regulation can only do so much, but banning gun sales only keeps guns away from those who care to follow the law. Yes, it would curve gun related crimes somewhat, but not enough to justify leaving people defenseless against home invaders.

Things like gang violence and premeditated crime, stricter guns laws wouldn't even touch, as these criminals will just get guns off the already booming black market. It would only stop things like spur of the moment shootings of the mentally unstable.

I believe in reasonable gun control, as in restrictions on outrageously unnecessary attachments (you reaaallly don't need a thousand round snail drum mag to protect yourself) and unreasonable weapons (rocket launchers, artillar, extreme caliber weapons, the works).
BUUUUUUT
I am also a firm believer in the right to own a firearm, both for recreation and personal protection.
Contrary to the narrative floating about, school shootings DON'T happen every time we turn our backs and more often then not gun owners are responsible and well adjusted people of all walks of life (though a fringey vocal minority does exist). Criminals will just get guns through illegal means anyway, so handicapping registered owners unnecessarily will add to the problem, not improve it.

To be quite honest. I believe people should be allowed to wield firearms. But a lot of the arguments in its favor tend not to hold when put under huge scrutiny. Especially the fight against corrupt government one.

For curiosity's sake, do you have any examples of these arguments being scrutinized?

One time was when jim jeffries did a stand up on it. The ther counterarguments could be debated. He was right about the anti-government one. An assault rifle isn't gonna do jack shit against a tank or and aircraft. And they can't legalize rockets or artillery, that would be insane.

makes sense, most military grade stuff would have to be bulletproof to a certain extent

Do you have anything for the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" argument?

I often find myself thinking in complete disagreement with my republican conservative family members when they post about god, gays and glory on Facebook. But when they argue about gun laws and talk about how stupid some of them are. I do find myself more in agreement with them sometimes

EG: Things like legal restrictions on magazine sizes for civilians. I see the merit on making guns harder to use, but this comes at a cost to all the legit gun owners and still wont ensure safety for as long as a gun can be fired. Wasn't there a study that showed that most gun violence among civilians involves good old fashioned revolvers? So what good will limiting rifles do?

I can't say too much on the subject because I live in a country that doesn't have a strong gun culture. We have a few gun-nuts despite some heavy gun restrictions, and obtaining firearms is not easy. But nobody really makes a big fuss about this politically because people in this country don't consider guns that important in our lives (funnily enough, gun related incidents are low here)

But that said, I do think that the gun-control debate should focus more on people rather than the technical specs of the guns themselves.

Well, we always have the problem of the hands the gun is in, not the gun itself. A completely level headed person holding anything from a revolver to a rifle wouldn't use the gun trigger happy. The people you always have to look out for are those with fast reflexes and a quick finger. They're the first on a draw and most likely would rather shoot first rather than ask questions. So in a way the fact that you need references to obtain a concealed weapons permit (at least in California) are somewhat reasonable. Hell, as much gun laws as there are here, I still get to go target practice with a few of the ones I own. That doesn't mean I carry them openly. Carrying any weapon openly causes tension and fear to rise, and with that panic. So no, a person shouldn't carry a gun openly. That said, they should still be allowed to carry a weapon on their person after screening and references.

As someone who lives outside the US where there are little to no guns, I'm relatively anti-gun.

But when it comes to America, I think it's far beyond saving when it comes to guns, no amount of control is going to help. They have been able to sell them since the beginning, and the point it's at now where people can just get guns, your trade off to being allowed guns (which it seems pointless to own, because if you aren't going to use it illegally, you're either going to shoot targets or seriously injure and possible kill someone entering your home) is that psychos and criminals are allowed them too, lets just hope you're the better shot. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I've always loved the "second amendment's for the militia" argument considering every able bodied make between the age of 17-45 is part of the 'militia'.

I've also never understood the obsession with assault rifles, considering only 2.6% of total homicides are committed with them.

I don't think people will give up their guns unless they get reimburse for how much they're worth. Many wouldn't like to give up their guns, mainly because of the amount of time and money they put into it. Tends to be an expensive hobby. Onto of that, some of them tend to be heirlooms, some maybe dating all the way back to the civil war. (In context of the US). Other guns would have sentimental value to the owner.

I don't want people to die to fire arms either. I just hope there can be a way for let the gun collectors keep their hobby and no one gets killed. (Maybe making all ammo illegal? People might start making their own ammo instead then, I am unsure how successful that can be though). But then again, people can still find ways to smuggle arms into a country where it's illegal. May not be as often, but people will still find a way.

Spider-Byte wrote:

… which it seems pointless to own, because if you aren’t going to use it illegally, you’re either going to shoot targets…

So? Why shouldn't people be allowed to shoot targets if they so wish? And people use guns for more than just target-practice: many people hunt for both sport and for food.

… or seriously injure and possible kill someone entering your home.

I don't see the issue with this. The logic is simple: if you don't want to get shot, don't break into someone's home. It's called self-defense, and it can save the life of an innocent person who otherwise wouldn't have a reliable means to defend his or herself.

@Ric Tesla: I don't think outlawing ammo would do much to stop criminals. If guns are still legal, then criminals are already halfway there; they've just got to smuggle in illegal ammunition/obtain it from illegal ammo manufacturers. I'm not saying guns should be outlawed; I'm just saying outlawing ammo alone would mainly affect those who actually abide by the law.
-
Personally, I think most (if not all) forms of guns/ammunition should be allowed, but there should be moderate to strict requirements for being able to purchase them (no guns for felons, repeating offenders, and the mentally ill), and gun owners should be required to have permits and maybe even certificates showing that they actually know how to use the thing.

Really the whole idea of militias using guns to fight the government is ridiculous. Militias used to be huge in my state back in the 90's and started making a comeback since Obama was elected. The thing about them is that a bunch of rednecks with semi-automatics aren't gonna be able to take on trained soldiers with assault aircraft, bombs, and tanks. Militias claim that they are necessary because the constitution says that a well regulated militia is necessary to protect freedom, but the thing is that was at a time when there wasn't a standing army, and it clearly states that it should be a well regulated militia, the militias of the revolution answered to the continental congress while today's militias have no restrictions and are lead by paranoid right-wingers.

As for guns for personal protection, I agree with 90% of the country that there should be tighter restrictions on guns, but the thing that gets in the way of this is the NRA. People are so afraid of gun control because of NRA propaganda that they think all regulations will lead to Jack-booted thugs knocking down doors and taking away everyone's penises guns so that a communist dictatorship can be installed with no means of resistance.
With home defense most states have a "castle law" which states that your home is your castle and you have the right to defend it. So in regrads to what Spider=byte said, killing or injuring them is the whole point of having a gun for home defense. But course the person most likely to be hurt with the gun is a member of the household. But really you don't need a gun, swords are perfectly legal and I think most intruders would be scared off if you came out swinging the Master Sword or a katana around.

I see, I have two things to say to that post.

> First off, I have a thread dedicated somewhat the "Communist dictatorship" thing you described (albeit the more extreme version as depicted in 1984) if you haven;t already chimed in I'd like to hear your thoughts on the possibility of that happening in that thread.
>2nd I'd advise investing in body armor if you plan on using swords as a deterrent, just because the intruders are scared doesn't mean that they're less likely to shoot (especialy if they're survivalists or the right-wingers you described).

My personal opinion is somewhat more on the gun control side, but I realize that the issue has very disproportionate salience. It's not a battle that the liberals should try to win, it's not worth it. I would sacrifice gun control legislation for something like environmental protections, education reform, etc. instantly.

I just need a shotgun for the coyotes that might harm my livestock, so I have two. I fall somewhere in the middle. I think thay every state must preform background checks and hold The gun for around 10 days before you can get it.

So? Why shouldn’t people be allowed to shoot targets if they so wish?

I don't see the point in allowing guns at home if you just go somewhere to shoot paper targets. Why don't they just keep the weapons at the ranges, or why not use an alternative like a BB gun. I get the appeal of shooting a gun but does that justify the use of lethal weapons.

And people use guns for more than just target-practice: many people hunt for both sport and for food.

Personally I am against random dickheads with guns shooting deer for fun. I get hunting for food maybe, but what are you gonna hunt in places like a massive city.

I don’t see the issue with this. The logic is simple: if you don’t want to get shot, don’t break into someone’s home. It’s called self-defense, and it can save the life of an innocent person who otherwise wouldn’t have a reliable means to defend his or herself.

Nice. You're gonna murder someone for committing a crime. It's not like there are non-lethal ways to defend yourself or anything. I don't believe that taking a TV warrants using a deadly weapon, it seems actually quite barbaric country if you can just justify murder on principle that at some point they were a "threat" to you. Where I come from, we try prevent the criminals from committing crimes, if that fails we try to stop them, and when that fails, the police capture the felons and arrest them and give an appropriate punishment that isn't murder.

Or if a home intruder a threat to you in the US, lets guess what weapons criminals are going to threat you with. Guns. If there was tight control from the beginning the worst someone is gonna have to attack or threaten you would be a baseball bat or knife, and in that case it's much easier to handle than a weapon that can kill/severely injure you in seconds.

I get the whole argument for people that live in the middle of nowhere to defend themselves to defend themselves against bears and shit, but when you think the only way you'll be safe is to have the power to murder a ton of people in a room, it just seems like really worrying mental state.

I said that in my post already and like I said in my post, I am unsure how successful it can be. What I am trying to get at is to reach a middleground. I like to figure out a way where collectors can keep their guns while others don't feel threaten. I want to figure out this middle ground because the gun culture is too deeply rooted into the country for you not to get any opposition, let alone get through those heads.

@Spiderbyte
My father owns a shotgun for home protection and no, it doesn't use live ammo. Not everything that can be put into a shotgun can be used to kill someone; some can just knock out the criminal. Also what if the criminal gets away? I know we all seen the videos from those terrorist attacks back in Europe so there is a little chance of them doing so (but that depends on how many people are with them and supporting them). Also I would understand if guns weren't allowed in cities. I think it would be a better idea to keep them in the country side to, due to the nearby wooden areas.

Also, what a coicinidence, a britbong wanting to take away guns from the American people. :^)
I'm kidding, but again. All because people don't have access to any actual weapon to go against armored vehicles let alone aircraft I don't think taking away what little defense they have left is any better. I know this was said in a previous post by Starscream about it having to do with paranoia and such. But (I am just saying this as a hypothetical) what if it does such a scenario happen? Something similar tried in the American Revolution, but by the modern day U.S. government? It may sound like a slippery slope but a small chance of it happening does not equate to zero chance.

We also need to take into account that I can't think of many first world countries besides the U.S. that allows guns. If people honestly don't like guys, I don't see why they couldn't find other options for countries to go to. I am not telling anyone to GTFO, I am saying is that there has to be at least one first world country that gun owners can go to.

Ban guns, and only criminals will have them.

Spider-Byte wrote:

I don’t see the point in allowing guns at home if you just go somewhere to shoot paper targets. Why don’t they just keep the weapons at the ranges, or why not use an alternative like a BB gun. I get the appeal of shooting a gun but does that justify the use of lethal weapons.

Personally I am against random dickheads with guns shooting deer for fun. I get hunting for food maybe, but what are you gonna hunt in places like a massive city.

You bring up valid points, especially in regard to hunting; there is certainly much less of it within a city than there would be in the wild. I might be able to see placing more restrictions within city limits, but perhaps this should be left to individual cities to mandate, as opposed to state or federal regulations (speaking, of course, in US governmental terms).

I do, however, believe that there is a much more important aspect to gun ownership, and that is self-defense, which I shall explain forthwith.

Nice. You’re gonna murder someone for committing a crime. It’s not like there are non-lethal ways to defend yourself or anything. I don’t believe that taking a TV warrants using a deadly weapon, it seems actually quite barbaric country if you can just justify murder on principle that at some point they were a “threat” to you. Where I come from, we try prevent the criminals from committing crimes, if that fails we try to stop them, and when that fails, the police capture the felons and arrest them and give an appropriate punishment that isn’t murder.

Perhaps I was a bit blunt in my first response. Allow me to say that I think this is the point where common sense is crucial. When apprehending a home invader, first, you should do your best to ensure that the intruder isn't armed with a gun. If they possess a lethal weapon, but not a gun, then you should try to apprehend them without shooting them. If it's clear that they have a gun, then give them a chance to surrender, but if they turn on you, then you should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure your own safety, not that of the criminal. I don't necessarily think a person should risk his or her life even further by trying to check the intruder's hand, so that's why I say "do your best," not "at all costs." People should try to do their best to make sure the criminal is actually capable of killing them, but it they can't be sure, then they should do as I said, and ensure their own/their family's safety. Keep in mind that not all home invasions are petty thefts either, and even for the ones that are, if a criminal is armed, you should assume that he is there with the intent to kill you, or anyone else that tries to stop him.

I'll agree that there are non-lethal methods of taking down a home invader (if the intruder is armed with a gun, then a taser is the only other weapon besides a gun that I'd trust at that point), but if it comes down to it, I wouldn't stake losing innocent lives if the loss can prevented with a gun, and guns themselves can be powerful deterrents without having to be used. And if it came down to it, I don't see the issue with taking the life of a person who's intent may very well be to kill me, especially if I have a good enough reason to believe that he's armed with lethal weaponry.

As for the police, their response times can take up to several minutes or longer, depending on where you live, and by then, a criminal can already have done away with you and made off with your stuff.

Or if a home intruder a threat to you in the US, lets guess what weapons criminals are going to threat you with. Guns. If there was tight control from the beginning the worst someone is gonna have to attack or threaten you would be a baseball bat or knife, and in that case it’s much easier to handle than a weapon that can kill/severely injure you in seconds.

Well, of course you'd expect them to use guns. It's the most efficient way to ensure their robbery or whatever is successful. By the same token, it's also the best method of self-defense. You can say things like "if there was tight gun control from the beginning…," but the fact is that, like you said in your first post, instituting gun control (at least to the extent of banning all guns) at this point would be useless, since they're already everywhere in the US. However, that's why I think background checks should be instituted to a greater extent (and probably certification as well), to ensure that the people handling the weapons legally aren't psychos and actually know how to use the thing.

I'm not trying to advocate mindless killing. Please believe me when I say that the idea of taking someone else's life frightens me; it's not something I want to do or look forward to doing in the slightest. But if it were to come down to where it has to be either me and my loved ones, or a random criminal, then it's just going to have to be the criminal.

This is an expansive subject so simply asking my opinion on it conclusively is something I cannot do.

Firstly a few points to clear up:

I live in England, the firearms laws here are very restrictive in comparison to other countries such as America and Sweden. Here is a short breakdown.

1. Bolt action rifles are all fine as they are and are perfectly legal.
2. The only semi-automatice rifles you can legally own as a civilian are 22. bullet firearms. Absolutely no fully automatics in any case.
3. Modern conventional firearms are to be built for straight-pull single fire only (bang, cock it, bang, cock it etc etc), they don't have gas rods or tap holes in their barrels. They are made from the factory to conform to our laws.
4. Muzzloadling blackpowder rifles e.g. percussion/flintlock rifles require a explosives license if you intend to use classic blackpowder as their charge otherwise you're fine
5. Absolutely no pistols, after the Dunblane Massarce the government enforced new legislation banning the sale and ownership of all revolvers and pistols, that was 1996.

Obviously you need an Firearms Certificate to own any guns at all and very good reasons for owning them in the first place. If you intend to use your weapons for gallery/target shooting then you need to be a full member of a shooting club (having completed your club probation) and have good references from the club when you apply for your licence.

Shooting vermin or hunting would class your licence as an "open ticket", you require all sorts or land permissions and a place in which you will be shooting which in turn needs to be completely void of public footpaths (or civilisation) for a good couple of miles for backdrop purposes on your fired bullets. Lets not forget that you need a suitable weapon for what you intend to shoot, be it vermin or game. Attempting to apply for an open ticket with something like a 303 Enfield with the intention of shooting rabbits would be turned down faster than you could say "overkill"

On the other hand you have something similar to the traditional Firearms Certificate called a "shotgun ticket" you are able to own a shotgun or two with a maximum capacity of only 4 shots with the sole intention of vermin control. Example shooting birds and what have you.

So an FAC (Firearms Certifcate) and a shotgun ticket, these are the UK laws. You can't own a gun with the main purpose of self defence, it has to be suitable gun for a suitable purpose.

Having stated how things currently are I'll answer the questions.

So what do you think about Firearms and the regulation thereof?

Firearms to me are a sport and something you strive to perfect, that's how I look at them personally.

The regulations are too restrictive and whitewashed, whenever someone goes crazy and has a rampage the legislation is tightened up because they were using a gun. That means that everyone else who legally and responsibly owns and shoots suffers. If someone wanted the aid of a gun in their rampage they would procure one themselves, they aren't that hard to come by in the cities here.

do you think that Gun Control should be a thing?

Without a doubt it should, UK application for a firearms entail you having an interview with the police and a full criminal history check, if you were arrested 25 years or whatever ago they will pick it up and it will go against you receiving your certificate. If they can personally see that you are unhinged you will get nowhere.

Types of firearms should be controlled. I don't believe we should have fully automatic rifles or machine guns, nor do I think that we should have machine pistols, luckily we don't. However the laws are to restrictive. We should at least be able to have semi-automatics for starters

Do you think that anyone should be allowed to have guns?

This isn't the wild west

Do you have enough faith in the Police or crooks not to abuse what ever advantages that arise form having citizens disarmed?

Standard run-of-the-mill UK cops are unarmed, they don't carry any firearms, they have only just started using tazers actually which is causing a shitstorm already.

Obviously "crooks" will exploit this, they always have done throughout history. A gun is an effective bargaining tool after all.

Do you think that Gun Control is pointless because crime always finds a way to kill people?

Not at all. Gun control prevents idiots owning machine guns. Gun Control is there so that responsible people may conform to it so that they may continue their hobby, they are not criminals they are the ones who suffer them.