Guns Guns Guns

I think having a gun is a nice option, but I also think people need to pass a psych test in order to be able to apply for one.

 

I believe in what the OP has said. I have no problem with people owning firearms, including handguns, shotguns, and rifles (even semi-automatic sporting rifles), heck, black powder, too :lol:. However, I do believe in more stringent background checks, perhaps even at gun shows where buyers don't always get an FFL background check. I know people will say that background checks won't deter criminals, but just because we have unlicensed drivers doesn't mean issuing driver licenses is a waste.

I also believe all states should be "shall-issue" because I don't want the right to own guns/CHL should've based on the whims of the chief law enforcement officer of the county/city.

Regarding CHL/open carry, I am all for concealed carry within limits. I could be persuaded to like open carry. Of course, we also need a culture where firearms are respected and not seen as toys.

 

^^ Pretty much

 

Gun control * feels a random guy muscular arms* yeah those weapons are dangerous, put please do not put them away, I want to touch them some more.

People should have access to guns to protection themselves, but it should come with regulations of course and harsh punishments for those that are found in ownership of illegal guns.

 

I believe that you should have to prove necessity as well as having the ordinary background checks done. Necessity ought to be defined quite strictly and proof should require extensive documentation, not just a statement of needing it. Self-defence as a reason is something I'm not too keen on, especially in densely-populated areas. I believe in regular checks and short periods of a licence's validity. Openly carrying firearms is something I'm strongly against. I think even more extensive proof of necessity for carrying a concealed gun in public should be required than for simply owning one. Gun ownership is sometimes necessary, but I consider it more of a privilege than a moral right. I definitely don't think gun ownership should be a legally-enshrined right for anybody and everybody.

My main concern with gun ownership is actually suicide rather than murder, although I'm not ignoring the latter. It's generally the case that a high proportion of guns to people results in a high suicide rate.

 

Living in a place where you're not allowed to own guns, I find it dificult to even comprehend that in some places you can just walk into a store and buy a gun... and then walk into the next school and murder innocent children.

I think that if you allow people to own weapons, they should have to go through repeated intensive psychological testing. But in my opinion those weapons should be banned completely, to be honest.

 

I'll let Ronald Reagan explain my views on gun control:

[youtube]nG4V_6pCLVo[/youtube]

As for me ever owning a gun, as someone who struggles with depression and has had suicidal ideation on many different occasions, just to be safe, I won't own a gun.

 

If you are mentally stable (I think a psych eval yearly would be a good idea for gun owners) then yes if not then no... Sorry not sorry.

 

Mm...

This is a loaded topic. No pun intended.

It boils down to this: people are going to hurt or kill people, with or without guns. You can make it harder to get guns, sure, and that's a nice little thought. But if somebody really wants a gun, until guns cease being manufactured, that somebody can potentially get one.

I can see the need for self-defense, but sometimes that self-defense wouldn't be needed if, well, there was no need for self-defense. I think I'm beginning to confuse myself, LOL. But the point is, self-defense is a worthwhile reason to hear out.

Background checks would be nice, but how would you enforce them? Have annual check ups? What about life between those check ups? Do you monitor the gun owner's home, to make sure they're locking their firearms up properly, and kept out of the teach of non-registered owners?

I'm all for narrowing down any kind of violence, but the measures that would have to be taken to reach absolute success are ridiculous. Let us say, for the sake of example, Daddy Jones always locks up his gun safe -- and he has, for 20 years. Well, one day, life happens, he forgets to lock up and his kid gets into the safe? Obviously, some kind of invasive security would have been a good fail safe, but how many gun-lovers do you know that are okay with "The Man" peeking into their homes?

Not many, but enough to get George W. Bush elected*, and so we're right back in Problem City... but I'm rambling...

I'm a gun owner. How easy it was to get that gun, well, I'll just say this. Kentucky is the leader in gun ownership -- in Americuh**, FUCK YEAH -- for a reason.


* Not everybody who voted for George W. Bush was a gun-lover. But enough of them did elect that guy, so, it's worth saying!

** This is a fact, unfortunately. So, while I guess, if the Communists invade, Kentucky will be safe, it also increases the odds of being shot. Of course, it's kind of like crashing in a plane, it shouldn't happen -- but who knows? LOL.

 

As a feminist, I'm against gun control. The reasons should be extremely obvious.

 

I think everyone should have the right to own a gun as long as they have there permit for it. I mean If someone breaks into my house and I don't know who it is then hell ya I'm gonna shoot them. Who knows what they're gonna do.

 

If they can pass a background check and a psychological exam to prove they're mentally capable, sure. The Second Amendment doesn't give a person the right to unregulated firearms either, even the amendment says well regulated militias. I'd be terrified to live in a country where citizens can acquire military grade/style weapons... oh wait.

 

Under Montana law at least, that attitude would land you in jail. You're allowed to use force in defense of yourself in any place you have a legal right to be, but you're only allowed to use lethal force when you reasonably believe you are at risk for imminent serious injury or death. Someone "just being in your house" does not create the presumption they intend to cause either one to you.

As an example, my father had a mentally ill guy who was on drugs or something come into his house at night. He wasn't making any aggressive movements, nor was he in possession of a weapon. My dad asked him who he was and what he was doing in the house. The man responded defensively, because he thought he was in place he had a right to be (likely because he was on drugs or drunk). He was so out of his mind that he had no idea where he was.

My father, with sword in hand, continued to evaluate the situation and persuade the man to leave, stating that his wife had already called the police, and the polices were within a block of the apartment. (That is, the precinct was literally on the same block.)

Despite the intrusion of another man in his house at a late hour, my father stayed within the boundaries of the law.

To stab and ask questions later might have put my father in prison.

I submit that remarks like yours turn the tide of public opinion unfairly against those of us who support gun ownership, and with the lives of women, LGBT people, and the disabled hanging in the balance, that's not fair.

 

I think only really really responsible and trustworthy people should be able to have guns. I always get really scared when I know someone has a gun. Even, like, police officers worry me sometimes... I am really scared of guns. >.<

 

Well, I'm scared of them too. But I still have one. And I practice the Four Rules... And I'm still here to tell about it.

What I think you captured is important though. When those of us who hate guns are truly honest, what I think it comes down to is that we are more worried about who has the guns than we are about people having guns.

I will admit I share similar worries. Despite the fact that I advocate strongly against gun control, it has not escaped my notice that most of the people who have guns are straight, cisgender white males. In other words, the least likely targets of anyone's violence. SCWMs imagine a lot of threats out there that they need to "defend themselves" against. Meanwhile, people much more likely to be physically, attacked--women, non-whites, and LGBT people--are less likely to be gun owners.

I still don't think it's an argument against gun ownership though. I don't think it's fair to say that mouthbreathing assholes from the South who can't wait to shoot a black man and get away with murder should command the attention of every liberal in the country.

 

We should just have tighter security, we shouldn't ban guns just because of shooters YO