Mostly against although I do understand the appeal of protection.
I just don't see the point if you're not part of law enforcement or someone in the military.
As far as hunting, I think they should be rented year round to people who are planning to hunt all day. After you're done hunting, you bring the gun back to professionals who will keep them stored in a safe location.
I think the access is way too easy and we are way too comfortable with people having weapons just because of this idea of "self defense". Don't give anybody guns and then we won't feel the need to defend ourselves against them. We could also get tasers for things like home invasions. I just think guns should be the last resort.
wrong... there's a black market for everything and getting a gun will still be easy, attainable at the very least, for crazy people looking to get guns.
Support it.
I'm not American, but almost anything you guys do over there, it reflects in other countries. And there's something fishy going on with all those killings.
wrong... there's a black market for everything and getting a gun will still be easy, attainable at the very least, for crazy people looking to get guns.
This argument is so flawed, though. These "crazy people" likely would've never gotten guns if they didn't either legally own them, or have family members who own them. How many tragedies do there have to be with "regular kids" who steal their parents' guns for people to understand this? Yes, people will still be able to get guns on the black market, but they're generally not the type of people who snap one day, then perform mass-shootings before killing themselves. If I were to have a psychotic break tomorrow, I wouldn't even know the first place to look if I wanted an illegally-obtained firearm, and I doubt I'm the only one like that.
And for the record, I've read before that guns have rarely protected people in home invasions. In fact, people are more likely to accidentally shoot family members (since gun owners will sometimes brandish a weapon during an argument and accidentally discharge it). Don't 100% quote me on those facts since it was awhile ago that I read them, but if I can find my sources again I'll link to em
Guns that are owned by civilians should ONLY be used for self defense. But then again, if we can be gun free it'd be A LOT better but again, the world is a dangerous place. See? I'm really unsure but I'm leaning on against since I do not see myself carrying guns at all so that's just from a personal perspective.
I'm against it. I understand that most guns used in public shootings are obtained illegally but if you compare the number of shootings in the US compared to other western countries you'll find it's a lot lower in places like the UK and Australia even when you take size into consideration. Making firearms legal makes them easier to obtain illegally and honestly I just don't think there's any place for guns in 2013 unless there for people such as the police.
This argument is so flawed, though. These "crazy people" likely would've never gotten guns if they didn't either legally own them, or have family members who own them. How many tragedies do there have to be with "regular kids" who steal their parents' guns for people to understand this? Yes, people will still be able to get guns on the black market, but they're generally not the type of people who snap one, then perform mass-shootings before killing themselves. If I were to have a psychotic break tomorrow, I wouldn't even know the first place to look if I wanted an illegally-obtained firearm, and I doubt I'm the only one like that.
And for the record, I've read before that guns have rarely protected people in home invasions. In fact, people are more likely to accidentally shoot family members (since gun owners will sometimes brandish a weapon during an argument and accidentally discharge it). Don't 100% quote me on those facts since it was awhile ago that I read them, but if I can find my sources again I'll link to em
Excellent post. What's the latest number? 11,000 gun deaths a year just in the US? Plus how many injuries, assaults, and robberies?
Against it. I have lived 19 years without a gun in my house, and my parents lived their whole lives without a gun in their houses. A gun was never needed, why would you need a gun?
I could say that old line about about "more guns, less crime" but frankly I don't believe it. It's a gross simplification in any case.
I don't plan to do illegal things with guns, so I think anyone with the same intentions should be able to own whatever types of guns they like. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of others. The US also values personal freedom more than nations like Australia or the UK, who seem to lean more to the "greater good" side of things (would you ever see the Westboro Baptists being allowed in the UK on free speech grounds?)
Anyways, it's in the constitution, the Supreme Court has recently verified it gives the right to own personal firearms for personal defence. Firearms and ammunition sales are at an all time high. More people are legally carrying guns than they have for decades.
So good luck putting any unconstitutional restrictions in place
Against it. I have lived 19 years without a gun in my house, and my parents lived their whole lives without a gun in their houses. A gun was never needed, why would you need a gun?
What does that prove? no one expects the unexpected.
Besides, have you considered maybe people WANT a gun? Or three, or sixteen?
Good luck hunting without a rifle, good luck target shooting without something to shoot targets with. Some people stan Smith & Wesson or Glock instead of stanning the pop girls.
I think there should be super strict regulations... why else would you need one besides a rifle for hunting or a handgun for self-defense in your home? At the same time, I don't want to completely eliminate them in case government workers become too powerful. We can't be defenseless.
This is one of the only issues I am on the fence about rather than having a strong opinion one way or the other.
I think there should be super strict regulations... why else would you need one besides a rifle for hunting or a handgun for self-defense in your home?
Because one of the points of the 2nd Amendment is to allow people to fight a tyrannical government... good luck doing that with a revolver. (most people who actually prepare for this should probably be kept at a distance though)
Anyways people need new firearms, look at the history:
1700s - Army gets muskets - people get muskets
1800s - Army gets rifles - people get rifles
1900s - Army gets bolt-action rifles - people get bolt-action rifles
1920-1940s - Army gets semi-automatic rifles - people get semi-automatic rifles
And all of a sudden politicians are expecting technology to suddenly halt and stagnate? We are progressing in vehicle design, music players, computers, everything... and people want gun owners to use stuff which was designed 150 years ago?
Not gonna happen, high-capacity magazines are [a] more fun! and [b] they are more effective for self-defence.
Most politicians don't even make sensible laws, they ban one thing and leave functionally identical things untouched, or they ban cosmetic features that look scary but don't actually do anything. The president of the Violence Policy Center even wanted any rifle that could kill a man at 100 meters to be banned
I like guns.
no one expects the unexpected.