Gun Control (warning: heated arguments could happen)

Since the topic of gun control has been the subject of debate after the Santa Monica Shooting, and the Sandy Hook school shooting, I decided to make a thread to see whether if you guys are pro-gun or anti-gun.

In case if you don't know, being pro-gun means you believe in allowing guns to be in the hands of law-abiding citizens for the sole purpose of defending yourselves. Anti-gun means that you believe that citizens shouldn't have guns and it's the job of the police to protect us.

I kinda predict that most of you guys are anti-gun but I'll wait and see.

 

You need a third option: pro sensible gun regulations.

I'm not anti-gun per se.
I just see no reason for anyone outside law enforcement, army etc. to have guns at home.

 

Definitely pro. I think that saying that guns should only be in the hands of police and military personnel is like saying that you don't need a fire-extinguisher around because we have firemen. One of the most gruesome events in the last year was the maniac in China who injured over 20 children...with a kitchen knife (Man with knife injures 22 kids at school in China). Banning firearms will not reduce criminal activity, all it will do is ensure that law-abiding citizens will be less prepared to defend themselves.

I have been taught from a very young age that you should never be more than 20 feet from something you can defend yourself with, and I was given my first gun when I was 9. This is not to say that I don't think there should be certain regulations in effect. CCW classes make sure that you can safely and effectively handle your weapon, and I wish this were mandatory for any firearm purchase...even hunting rifles.

"When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away.”
~Phillip Van Cleave

 

I'm from Texas, and I'm gay; I'm also pro-gun. District of Columbia v. Heller, for the win.

Guns will always exist and a person should have a right to defend his life and property and private gun ownership is one method. I am for "shall issue" as opposed to "may issue" and, surprisingly, I am for strong background checks. I am also for stand-your-ground statutes and castle doctrines.

 

I'm pro-penis.. oh wait, not that kind of gun /i'm trolley

EDIT:
can we just bring back swords?

 

Anti. I'm opposed to murder. Incidentally, I'm also against the murder of animals.

 

I'm pro-gun but I seriously don't understand why people need assault rifles and shit. In Canada you can't hunt with them legally, so what's the purpose? I feel the same about handguns, but understand people think they need them for "personal protection", because relying on the police to protect you is a really poor backup plan, that's pretty clear.

 

Both. But I tend to think guns should be used mainly for hunting game, and don't like handguns and assault style rifles. I grew up in the wilderness, so my family hunted deer, pheasant, wild turkey and such, and I enjoyed eating game. I would never kill any animal that I wasn't going to eat; it makes me angry to see hunt just for 'sport'. I don't get that. I also think that if most people had to actually hunt animals for meat, they'd be too squeamish to eat meat. So I don't mind basic rifles for hunting, but if you need these fancy style assault rifles just to hunt, you need to be a better aim! As for other uses, I'm not big on guns outside of sport.

 

While I agree that sensible gun regulations are the way to go (restricting access by felons & dangerous mental patients), there are reasons for civilians to have guns.

For one, if criminals illegally obtain guns (which is plenty easy enough that it happens) and know the laws, they'll be able to tell which houses are unarmed should they choose a violent break-in. It doesn't matter if the owner of the house is Batman-- no gun vs. gun is a terribly uneven fight, and when it's literally life-or-death, everyone should have the freedom to preserve their lives with all available force.

And the second arguably more paranoid reason-- if only the cops and government/military have guns, who's to say they can't seize all the power they want from the people? The NRA are of the philosophy that the 2nd Amendment is the only reason all the other rights exist. If we couldn't personally defend our rights from those who would take them (including domestic enemies), all other laws are so much ink on paper.

Reasonable equality in firepower is what ensures both safety and liberty for everyone.

 

It's not a question about necessity, but about the government keeping their nose out of what you can and cannot possess.

 

I voted anti, but the truth is I'm only against the eased purchase of guns like what you see in Texas. It's freaking ridiculous.
Almost every other country thinks you guys are a bit crazy about guns... :lol:

 

I'm for common sense gun regulation. I can't say I'm anti gun because my family OWNS guns, and I can't say I'm pro gun because I don't think everyone needs an AR-15 with a 30 round clip laying around their house.

 

I didn't say shit about the government.
I'm just baffled as to why people think they need assault rifles when they're definitely not ethical for hunting and pretty fucking excessive for personal protection lol.

 

Truth

 

This presumes criminals only enter houses which don't have guns, which is nonsense.

This presumes an even conflict. This is not always the case.
Also a person being in rage or otherwise mentally impaired, will have less means to kill people if he doesn't have acces to a gun. (I'm not talking about mental patients here, but people who become enraged for some reason or another. Or people who been bullied for example to the point they decide take murderous revenge.)
Then there's gun accidents to consider.

Keywords being reasonable eqaulity. When the army has acces to nuclear weapons, tanks and fighter jets, having acces to assault rifles ain't gonna cut it if you have to rise against the government.

---------- Post added 4th Jul 2013 at 08:59 PM ----------

^this ^ 2

 

The AR-15 Platform As A Hunting Rifle | The Shooter's Log

The AR-15 is actually the perfect gun for hunters because of its versatility. It is commonly referred to as a "platform weapon", meaning that it has multiple parts that can be changed and configured for a variety of game. Add on top of this that most configurations involve a flash guard (dampens the visibility of the muzzle flash upon discharge) and it is very obvious to me why people would need one.

Just because some psychopathic jackasses use them for crime does not make them a device intended to do crime.

---------- Post added 4th Jul 2013 at 01:04 PM ----------

When gun control is being discussed, a governmental presence is necessitated.

 

That's still not a reason to have those guns at home. They could be put under lock and key at a storage facility.

 

At a storage facility, are you serious? People get killed with knives, hammers, axes and a whole variety of things found in the home which can also be used for self-defense. Might as well lock everything in your home that could potentially kill someone in a storage facility.

 

Just so we're clear, despite the thread title warning, heated arguments will not happen else the thread will be locked. To be honest, I don't think I can remember a gun thread that hasn't been locked yet because people get out of hand.

Prove me wrong guys; be civil.

You can kill people with nearly anything on the face of the planet. Guns, however, make it infinitely easier to do so because of the physical, social, and psychological distance the gunholder places between their victim.

 

Knives, hammers, axes and a whole variety of things have purposes other than to kill with. Guns don't.